Sitting of 11 June 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords](Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Early Potatoes (Prices) Order, 1918; British Cheese (Requisition) Order, 1918; British Cheese (Requisition) Order, 1918, General Licence; and Sugar (Restriction) Order, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 959 (Cayman Islands (Jamaica), Report for 1916–17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Memorandum by the Advisory Housing Panel on the Emergency Problem of Housing in England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1918–19 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Sum required to be voted during the year ending 31st March, 1919, for general Navy, Army, and Air Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 73.]
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Somerset (Bridgwater Division), in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Arthur Sanders, Treasurer of His Majesty's Household.— [Lord Edmund Talbot.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MILITARY CONVENTION WITH UNITED STATES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States has now ratified the Military Convention with this country, signed at Washington on 19th February, 1918; if not, what is the cause of the delay; and, failing a speedy ratification, whether he will consider withdrawing from the Convention?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): As the Senate of the United States desired certain amendments to be introduced into the Convention which was signed in February, an amended Convention was signed at Washington on 3rd June. This will be ratified as soon as possible.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RUSSIANS (RECRUITMENT).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any

    2013
    answer has been given to the request of the Russian People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs to stop the compulsory recruiting of Russians in this country; whether any Allied Governments, especially that of the United States, has been consulted on this matter; and, if an answer has been given, what is its purport?
    Lord R. CECIL: The nature of the reply to be returned to the Russian Government on this question is still under consideration. As the issue is one exclusively between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government none of the Allied Governments has been consulted.

    EGYPT (RECRUITMENT).
    Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that there are large numbers of civilians of British and Allied nationality in Egypt and the Sudan of military age; and if steps can be taken, after consultation with the Allies, to impose Conscription upon all such persons with a choice of service in the various Allied or British Armies, subject to the safeguarding of the efficiency of the Egyptian Civil Service and Egyptian industries?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will certainly see that the suggestion of my Noble Friend is immediately considered by the competent Departments here and in Egypt.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the present small per centum quota of native Egyptians conscripted for the Egyptian Army could be largely increased without prejudice to the essential industries of Egypt; and if native Egyptians, whom the ballot for Conscription selects under the present system, can escape Conscription by legal enactment on payment of £20s Egyptian?
    Lord R. CECIL: My Noble Friend will no doubt recollect that by the Proclamation of 6th November, 1914, Great Britain took upon herself the whole burden of the War as far as Egypt was concerned, and His Majesty's Government are advised that it would be undesirable to withdraw or amend this Proclamation at present. Recruitment in Egypt is therefore being left upon a voluntary basis, but a thorough recruiting campaign is in operation and has been attended with creditable results. Notwithstanding the Proclamation, the Egyptian Government have
    2014
    made most generous contributions to the cost of the War.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the Government take into consideration the fact that since this declaration of November, 1914, was made, the situation has radically altered owing to the fact that the King of the Hedjaz and his Arabs are on our side?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will certainly take care that that fact is brought to the notice of the Egyptian authorities.

    FIELD PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, under the new Regulations affecting field punishment No. 1, a soldier sentenced to this punishment is fastened to a stake for two hours each day, but not for mere than twenty-one days in all; and whether in a hot climate any provision is made that the prisoner shall not be unduly exposed to the sun's heat?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The existing rules for field punishment were made in 1907, and provide that a soldier sentenced to field punishment No. 1
    "may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours in any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three out of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all."
    No new rules have been made, but in January, 1917, instructions were issued standardising, within the powers of the existing rules, the method of carrying out the punishment. Copies of these instructions were placed in the Library in June of last year. The last part of my hon. Friend's question is dealt with in paragraph 4 of the Rules, which reads as follows:
    "Every portion of a field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any punishment mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender's health."
    Mr. MORRELL: Can my right hon. Friend tell me, in reference to this sixty days' field punishment, of which there is not more than twenty-one days in all, what happens on the other thirty-nine days? Is it simply a sentence not carried out and cannot be carried out, or is it that the man receives other punishment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think the sentence is one which cannot be carried out. If my hon. Friend reads the answer he will find that it is one which is possible to he carried out.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have any steps been taken to abolish this degrading form of punishment, for certainly it is degrading to a soldier in the eyes of others?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement. The hon. Gentleman should limit himself to questions.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Private Richard Hartley, formerly of Burnley, and now serving in Italy in the Army Service Corps Remounts, was on 22nd April sentenced by a court-martial to sixty days' field punishment No. 1 for having sold cigarettes and tobacco to Italian civilians; whether he is aware that this soldier, who comes of a very respectable family, has hitherto borne an unblemished character; and whether the War Office authorities, since this case was brought to their notice, have done anything to postpone the execution of the sentence pending full inquiries?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This soldier was tried by court-martial for disobeying an Area Order, prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and tobacco purchased in a canteen to Italian civilians, and was sentenced as stated in the question. I am afraid that the sentence could not be legally postponed by the War Office authorities pending inquiries, and I have no information which would justify any interference with the finding or sentence of the Court. My hon. Friend will realise that there are very good reasons for forbidding the sale of duty-free tobacco by soldiers to Italian civilians, and I think the Italian Government would have just cause to complain if such a prohibition was not enforced.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I take it that the hon. Gentleman is going to receive a full report of this case, and, in view of the fact that on the face of it there has been apparently a grave miscarriage of justice —[HON. MEMBEBS: "No!"]—will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider and review the case as regards the man's pay and allowance, if he find that the facts warrant that action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not see what justification my hon. Friend has for saying
    2016
    that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I should have thought it was the other way about, for the reasons I have given, but I have promised, in correspondence to my hon. Friend that I will have this case sent to me and carefully look into it.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chaplain interested himself very much in this case, that this man has hitherto borne a perfectly unblemished character, that he comes from a very respectable family, and that there is considerable reason for thinking that he was not aware of the Order in question?

    OFFICERS ESCAPED FROM GERMANY.
    Colonel FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all officers who have escaped from Germany have recovered their original place in the Army List; and, if not, how many are awaiting promotion, and why?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The conditions under which officers shall be promoted on ceasing to be prisoners of war is at present under consideration. There are several cases awaiting disposal, and I hope a decision will shortly be reached.
    Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Will my right hon. Friend see that the cases of officers interned in Switzerland, which are blocking the promotion of other officers in this country, receive consideration?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Most certainly.

    NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (APPLICATION FOR RELEASE).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Director of Mobilisation to grant the release from military service of Private E. J. Hilton, No. 10960, 6th Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers; and, in view of the fact that his mother is a widow, that at. the outbreak of war she had five sons living at home, of whom one has been killed in France and four are now on active service, including Sergeant J. Hilton, D.C.M., and that, owing to a misunderstanding, Private Hilton, the fifth and last son, had been called up before his claim for exemption came before the Stoke-on-Trent Tribunal, and that the tribunal granted exemption in recognition

    2017
    of the record of the family and requested the military representative to secure his release from the Army, will he take steps to have further consideration given to this case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Private Hilton is in Category A, and, owing to the urgent need for men, it is regretted that his release on compassionate grounds cannot be sanctioned. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service with regard to the last part of the question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tribunal had exempted the man, and that simply an oversight as to appeal prevented the decision of the tribunal from being carried out, and he was taken into the Army before he could appeal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: He was a serving soldier, and his release is a matter entirely for the War Office. This is a very hard case, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not nearly so hard as hundreds of others I have before me.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that this is a case in which the tribunal had exempted the man, and that it was due to an oversight in regard to an appeal that the man was taken into the Army before he could appeal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have said, I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service on that particular point.

    DUBLIN RECRUITS.
    General McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities in Ireland have authorised any statement to be issued as to the number of recruits recently raised in the city and county of Dublin; and, if so, will he state what the figures are?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must ask for the postponement of this question.
    General McCALMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some reason for the postponement, in view of the fact that it has already been twice postponed, and that a statement was made on the matter in the Press last week?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: To be quite frank with my hon. and gallant Friend, I asked
    2018
    my own authority this morning about this particular matter, and he is looking into the point now, and he was then still in communication with Dublin.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 23rd February last an inquiry was held into the conduct of the conscientious objectors at the Knutsford work centre; that as a result sixteen men were heavily fined; and that the charges brought against five others were dismissed because the agent's and sub-agent's evidence was disproved; whether complaints had been made that the language of the agent was mostly of an abusive and disgusting character, and that he was frequently under the influence of drink, also the sub-agent could never be interviewed without getting into a passion and using improper language; and whether the sixteen men who were last February condemned to punishment will now, in view of these facts, be reinstated?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): There has been no such inquiry at Knutsford; but the hon. Member probably refers to an inquiry held, on the date mentioned, at Buxton, concerning the men employed under the Buxton lime firms, and I would refer him to the answer given on the 11th March to a question by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The inquiry was conducted by my colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester, who was satisfied that the men referred to in the question were guilty of serious idleness, and I think the reduction in pay recommended by him was fully justified. The allegations referred to by the hon. Member do not affect his decision. I will, however, make inquiry as to the subsequent industry and conduct of the men, and, if I receive a satisfactory report, will direct that they shall now be restored to full pay.

    CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service if he will state why Mr. Trecher, a Post Office lineman employed at Ludlow general post office, of twenty-eight years of age and single, has not been called up for service, in view of the fact that he is not a conscientious objector and only objects to serve because he does not believe in war?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I have no information on this case, but inquiries are being made, and I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

    AGRICULTURAL WORK.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the serious inconvenience caused to farmers by calling up men under twenty-three, he can see his way to postpone the date of the calling up until the end of June, to enable them to make other arrangements?
    Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to adopt the suggestion made in the question of my hon. Friend. Every effort is being made by the Ministry of National Service and the Board of Agriculture to provide adequate labour for agricultural work. I believe, however, that my hon. Friend and the House generally will agree that this is no moment to postpone the calling up of young men under twenty-four except under the most exceptional circumstances.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: In view of the undoubted misunderstanding in certain parts of the country upon this point, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the decision of the Appeal Tribunals with reference to the calling-up will be respected; and, secondly, whether instructions can be conveyed to military representatives making this point clear?
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Is it not the fact that every man of a lower age who is exempted causes a man of a greater age to take his place?
    Mr. HINDS: How does the Minister's answer given to-day agree with what was said by the Department yesterday to a deputation that they would allow these men up to the 19th or 20th!
    Mr. BECK: In reply to the last question, I understand one of our officials saw some farmers from my hon. Friend's constituency yesterday, and I think the men they were dealing with were the men under thirty-one who come within the county quota who are to be found by the 30th June. As regards the question asked by my hon. Friend the Leader of the Welsh party, provided the quotas are found which have been arranged for by careful negotiation with the Board of Agriculture and the
    2020
    Food Production Department, our officials will take the greatest care to observe any dates which may be fixed up to 30th June by the Appeal Tribunals for the calling up of men, and I will see that instructions to that effect are issued. As regards the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, it is obvious that any young man who is not taken at this crisis must necessarily cast the burden upon an older man.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does not the fact of the Government not putting into force their policy in Ireland mean the calling up of more old men here?

  RUSSIA.

    ROUMANIAN FRONTIERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary, of State for Foreign Affairs whether he possesses information concerning the various States or provinces which were in 1914 parts of the Russian empire but are now independent or conquered by, or ceded to, the enemy; whether he will in a White Paper publish such information, adding maps to illustrate the altered or added frontiers and giving the texts of treaties or other documents which refer to these; and whether similar information concerning the altered frontiers of Roumania can also be given?
    Lord R. CECIL: The only definite information in the possession of His Majesty's Government is that contained in the texts of treaties published in the German and Russian Press. These texts are in process of translation in the Foreign Office, and will be placed shortly in the Library for the information of hon. Members. I cannot, of course, vouch for the authenticity of the texts of treaties of which His Majesty's Government have no official cognisance, and of which they are not prepared to recognise the validity.
    Mr. KING: Are there not commercial arrangements between the various Powers which are known to neutral States, and might be obtained, say, in Stockholm; and has there not been a Proclamation by the German Kaiser affecting the various border provinces of Russia, which would also throw light on present conditions?

    DON GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

    2021
    he has any information to the effect that a new government has made its appearance in the Don country under the dictatorship of General Krasnoff, who led the anti-Soviet forces after the October Revolution, and that he has issued a Proclamation stating that he is fighting in alliance with the Austro-Germans?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the news transmitted through the Russian wireless stations. This substantially corresponds to the report mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does not this indicate that the Soviet Government is the only real anti-German force in Russia now?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We can all draw our own inferences.

  AUSTRIA.

    CZECHO-SLOVAKS AND JUGO-SLAVS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the declaration of sympathy with the nationalistic aspirations of the Czechoslovaks and Jugo-Slavs issued by the Premiers of Great Britain, France, and Italy at Versailles on 3rd June; and whether he can state what steps the British Government proposes to take to secure the liberation of the Czechoslovaks and Jugo-Slavs who, for pursuing nationalistic ambitions, have been imprisoned without trial by the Austrian Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: The British Government have no means of modifying the actions of the Austrian Government in these matters. But these persons are the enemies of our enemies, and as such are entitled to our warmest sympathy.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What is the difference between the Austrian treatment of men with nationalistic ambitions and the treatment by this Government of Irish aspirations
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the declaration of sympathy for the nationalistic aspirations of the Czecho-Slovaks and Jugo-Slavs issued by the Premiers of Great Britain, France,
    2022
    and Italy on 3rd June at Versailles, he will state whether these peoples aspire to set up independent Republican States and will be supported in such aspirations, or whether the sympathy with their nationalistic ambitions is only a matter of transference of over lordship from Austria to Italy in pursuance of the latter's claim to the Adriatic littoral?
    Lord R. CECIL: It will be for the liberated Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav peoples themselves to determine their future status. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the many proofs given by these races of intense national feeling, and cordially acknowledge the assistance which the national troops of the Czechoslovaks and Jugo-Slavs are rendering to the Allied cause.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the Noble Lord take any steps, through the War Aims Committee or otherwise, to inform the British people of the heroism of these people and their general position in Austria? There is complete ignorance on the subject.
    Lord R. CECIL: I should have thought everyone knew where Bohemia was and where the territories inhabited by the Jugo-Slavs are situated.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War in how many cases soldiers have been tried by court-martial on the complaint of a woman that they had infected her with venereal disease?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that I have no information, but if my hon. Friend can direct my attention to any cases where such a complaint has been lodged I will endeavour to find out what punishment, if any, has been inflicted on the soldier. The maximum punishment to which he is liable under Section 11 of the Army Act is two years' hard labour, and not six months, as the case with a woman under Regulation 40 d.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is it not a fact that while the right hon. Gentleman says there is no evidence of any soldier having been punished, there is already evidence of a large number of women having been

    2023
    punished, and that his statement that this Regulation applies equally to women and men breaks down in practice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is making a statement in the form of a question.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is no record of these cases kept?
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will say how many resolutions he has received demanding the withdrawal of Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Acts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Upwards of 300 resolutions to this effect have been received in the War Office. In many cases, however, more than one copy of the same resolution has been received, and I have no doubt that in nearly all cases the same resolutions have been sent to the Home Office.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is there any prospect of the War Office dealing with this matter, in view of the large number of resolutions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The whole question has been most carefully considered, not only by the War Office, but by the War Cabinet.

    YEOMANRY REGIMENTS.
    General COLVINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to reconstitute those Yeomanry regiments which were broken up in order to strengthen Regular Cavalry regiments; and whether, having regard to the conspicuous gallantry that Yeomanry regiments have exhibited on all occasions, and the high state of efficiency they had attained, the Army Council will take steps to ensure the preservation of these historic units?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that it is impossible to give any pledge in this matter until we are in a position to come to a decision as to the composition of the Army which it will be necessary to maintain after the War. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the splendid services rendered by the Yeomanry regiments will not be overlooked when the matter is considered.

  LAND FOR SOLDIERS.

    STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is the declared intention of the Government to give grants of land to young men in Ireland who may join His Majesty's Forces before 1st October, he will state what recognition it is proposed to give to the men over forty-one in Great Britain who are now being called up under the last Military Service Act?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told that when my hon. and gallant Friend hears the statement which is being made on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in reply to questions on this subject to-day, he will realise that his question is based on a misunderstanding.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that young men in Ireland between the ages of eighteen and twenty-seven are being offerd land in order to induce them to join His Majesty's Forces, he will now state whether it has been decided to give the war bounty to time-expired men above the age of forty-one years who have been compelled to serve on and to time-expired men between the ages of forty-one and fifty-one who are now being recalled to the Colours under the Military Service (No. 2) Act of 1918, and who are excluded from the benefits conferred by Army Order 209 of 1916?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The bounty will be given to men retained or recalled under the Act under conditions similar to those for previous Acts. The precise conditions will be published in the course of a few days.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Proclamation of Lord French, dated 3rd June, appealing for voluntary Irish recruits, was made after consultation with the Irish Department of Agriculture, and is to be taken as assuming that no more men can be released from Irish agriculture; whether the offers of land made are in addition to other and previous plans of the Government for settling soldiers on the land after the War; whether land to be

    2025
    offered to Irish volunteers is to be land in Ireland, in the Colonies, or elsewhere; and whether the legislation under consideration refers to the Emigration Bill and the Small Holding Colonies Bill or to other legislation not yet introduced?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister whether the offer of land made to Irish Volunteers in the Proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is confined to Irishmen, or whether the legislation to give effect to the offer is to include the conscripted soldiers of England, Scotland, and Wales?
    General McCALMONTasked the Prime Minister whether, under the Government's proposals for the grant of land to Irish soldiers, the claims of those who enlisted in the early stages of the War will be dealt with first?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister whether the Proclamation just issued in Ireland is intended to convey the idea that men who volunteer in Ireland in 1918, and who only serve for the concluding period of the War, will obtain a preference over men who volunteered in England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales in 1914, 1915, 1916, or 1917, and who have therefore already served for long periods, and have in many cases, been wounded and discharged; if that is not the idea intended to be conveyed by the Proclamation, will he state precisely what is meant by the implied promises in regard to land contained therein! how far the promises also apply to soldiers who have volunteered in the United Kingdom since the outbreak of war; and whether in any case effect can be given to such promises until Parliament has passed the necessary legislation
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government that soldiers enlisted from England, Scotland, and Wales shall receive land on the same terms as those enlisted from Ireland; whether the promises now being made to prospective recruits in Ireland will apply to those who have already served or are serving with the Colours; and if he will state the terms on which it is proposed that land should be given?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. Samuels): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions.
    2026
    The proposed legislation takes the form of an Amendment of the Irish Land Purchase Acts. The general effect of the proposed Amendments will be to secure to men who have served in the present War, but who are not tenants or proprietors of land, the same privileges with regard to the purchase of untenanted land as are already enjoyed by tenants or proprietors of holdings, and to extend the provisions as to the purchase and settlement of land for the relief of congestion to the case of any untenanted land which may be required in order to provide holdings for such men.
    As elaborate machinery already exists in Ireland for the acquisition and distribution of untenanted land, the problem of acquisition in Ireland does not present the same difficulties as in Great Britain.
    It is intended that the proposals should extend to all Irish soldiers who enlisted at any time during the War. Priority of enlistment and length of service will certainly be factors to be considered when applications for land from soldiers are being dealt with.
    As regards the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), I may state that a Report was obtained from the Department of Agriculture in Ireland before the Proclamation was issued, but the hon. Member must not assume more than is set out in the Proclamation, which states that it is not expected that many of the rural population will be available at present for military purposes.
    As to the question of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson), the policy of settling ex-Service men upon the land was initiated by the Small Holdings Colonies Act, 1916. That Act applies to Great Britain only, and the proposed Irish legislation will extend the principle to Ireland, regard being had to the difference in Irish land legislation and tenure. I may add that the introduction of such legislation has been under consideration for a considerable period, and statements to that effect were made in reply to questions addressed to the previous Chief Secretary arid the Minister of Labour by members of different Irish parties.
    Mr. KING: Are we to understand from this that the offers made to voluntary recruits, whom it is now wished to bring in, will be offers which will be dealt with

    2027
    subsequently to all the demands for land from Irish soldiers who have already served?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The hon. Gentleman will understand from the reply which I read that "Priority of enlistment and length of service will certainly be factors to be considered when applications for land from soldiers are being dealt with."
    Mr. KING: Does that not mean that the offer now made to induce men to come in voluntarily is a very vague and nebulous offer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must draw his own conclusions.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does that mean that the men who are to be conscripted under the Government policy shortly to be put into effect will be included or excluded? May I have an answer? It is a very important point.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, or the Leader of the House, whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing this very vague Proclamation? Is he not aware that it has given rise to a great deal of anxiety and commotion in Ireland as to what it really means, and what men are to get it if they enlist?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Of course, if there be any general desire for a discussion, I shall be glad to try to arrange it. The Chief Secretary has not been able to come from Ireland this week. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will put this question again next week?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask for an answer to Question 50, which has practically not been touched by the right hon. and learned Member?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have nothing to add. I think it is quite covered
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I put the question down another day?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the reply mean that Irishmen who fight to save Ireland from German aggression will have to buy land from an Irish landlord who has done nothing?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The hon. Member should study the Irish Land Acts.
    Major E. WOOD: Can the right hon. and learned Member state whether it is proposed to pass this legislation before the House rises?
    Mr. HOLT: Is this Bill going to be introduced before or after the Home Rule Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Some of these questions might be put on the Paper.

    WOOL PRICES.
    Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, before the wool prices for 1918 were fixed, any of the leading agricultural organisations in Scotland were consulted or given an opportunity to express their views; and will he now allow the Highland and Agricultural Society, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland to put their views, by a deputation, before him?
    Mr. FORSTER: Before fixing the price for the 1918 British Wool Clip, the War Office consulted the Boards of Agriculture for England, Scotland, and Ireland, who are in close touch with the agricultural organisations in the country. These organisations were not consulted by the War Office direct. Since the price was fixed my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State was asked to receive a deputation representing British wool growers, but came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to put them to the trouble and expense of coming to see him.
    Colonel STIRLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on this subject?
    Mr. FORSTER: In view of the fact that the purchase has been proceeding for several weeks, I think it is too late to reopen the question of prices.

    INTERNMENT ORDERS (APPEAL).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any changes have been made recently in the personnel of the Advisory Committee which hears interned persons who appeal against internment orders; whether in any cases heard during the past six weeks are vocation or modification of the internment has been recommended; and whether the hon. Member for Newry is still a member of the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. BRACE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the last part in the affirmative. During the last six weeks the Committee have re-examined the cases of two interned persons, and their Reports thereon are now under the consideration of the Secretary of State.

    WINCHESTER CIVIL PRISON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the suffering of prisoners in Winchester Civil Prison caused through insufficiency of food; whether he is aware that men are glad to eat the skins of potatoes, and even diseased, uncooked roots, which they have picked up in the grounds; that soldiers returned from the front to undergo sentences to periods of imprisonment for misdeeds have implored the governor to send them back to the trenches, so that they need not endure the suffering entailed upon them in prison; and whether he can announce a more humane treatment of prisoners?
    Mr. BRACE: I have made inquiry, and find that the food at this prison is sufficient in quantity and good in quality. Nothing has ever been heard of any prisoner eating potato skins or uncooked roots. No soldier from the front has complained of the prison food. I much regret that the hon. Member should attempt to give currency to such baseless allegations.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of certain private facts that I have brought to his notice in this connection, and to which he has not yet given me an answer?
    Mr. BRACE: I am not aware of that.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not a well-known rule of this House that an hon. Member should make himself personally responsible for statements made by him, and should take the greatest care before he brings them forward in this House?
    Mr. KING: On that point, may I state that I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman certain serious allegations more than a week ago, and that I understand he is inquiring into them? I gave him fair warning that I should putdown this question unless I got some answer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that he has inquired into the allegations, and finds there is no foundation for them.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether the effect of discharging soldiers as surplus to military requirements is to debar these men from obtaining either temporary allowances, or gratuities, or pensions from the Pensions Ministry, even although they would have been entitled to them if they had been discharged under some other heading?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me to the similar question which he put to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office yesterday. I may further assure him that no man who has incurred disability or suffered impairment through service can be deprived of his pension rights by the manner of his discharge. Even if he has suffered a disability which does not disclose itself for several months after his discharge he can apply under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant, and if the disablement is found to be due to or aggravated by military service he will be granted the same pension or gratuity as if he had been discharged as medically unfit.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask to what authority the man in question can apply?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: He will apply to his local committee, who will thereupon represent the case to the Ministry.
    MR. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether he will say what allowances are payable to men discharged from the Army as surplus to military requirements or for the purpose of taking up employment in civil life; for how long these allowances are payable, and what arrangements are made for their payment; and whether direct from the regimental paymaster or through the local war pensions committee?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As

    2031
    regards men discharged from the Army as surplus to military requirements who are not eligible for pension, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 30th May last. The final payments are made by the regimental paymaster, but the first advance on leaving the unit by the officer commanding. As regards men so discharged who are eligible for consideration for pension, they are treated in the same manner as all other soldiers so situated—that is, their pay is continued till discharge, from which date they receive either pension or the temporary allowance provided by the Ministry of Pensions.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TRACTORS.
    Mr. DENMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the war executive committees will continue to undertake ploughing and other work for farmers in the coming autumn, or whether farmers will be encouraged to cultivate their own increased arable area by being enabled to buy by auction or otherwise a portion of the committees' tractors and other implements?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The greater number of the tractors purchased by the Food Production Department will continue to be operated under the control of the agricultural executive committees, but it is proposed also to release a certain number of tractors and implements for sale to farmers who otherwise would be unable to obtain delivery of new tractors and implements in time for the autumn cultivation.
    Mr. DENMAN: Can the hon. Member state when those tractors will be available, and by what means the farmers will be selected who are to have them?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The tractors are now ready—now, at once.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Would it not be far better that these tractors should be put under the control of the farmers, so that they might be used under the farmers' own supervision, than that they should be directed from Victoria Street?
    Sir R. WINFREY: These are for sale, and are in the open market for farmers.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Would it not be better for the whole of these matters, as far as possible, to be put under the direct supervision of the farmers rather than operating them from London?
    Major E. WOOD: Can the hon. Member state whether it is proposed to make any statement as to the 1918–19 programme?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Member at the same time consider the desirability of making some of the supplies of horses which now belong to the Food Production Department available for purchase by farmers, a great many of whom would much prefer to buy horses for their work, owing to the present shortage of horses?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I will consider that.

    GRAIN CROPS ON PLOUGHED GRASS LAND.
    Mr. J. MASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that excellent results have been obtained by ploughing grass directly the hay is off it and immediately sowing with rye; and whether, in order that this method should be widely followed, he will take immediate steps to schedule the grass land to be ploughed for 1919 and issue a leaflet on the subject to farmers?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that very favourable reports are now being received on the condition of grain crops sown on grass land which was ploughed up late last summer. Where the soil is suitable for wheat that cereal should be sown, but for many soils the sowing of rye is strongly recommended. A leaflet on the cultivation of rye has already been issued by the Board, and it is proposed also to issue a notice calling attention to the special value of this crop for sowing on newly ploughed grass land.
    Mr. J. MASON: Will my hon. Friend answer the last part of the question, as to the programme for the coming season; and is he aware that a considerable part of the dissatisfaction last season arose simply because farmers were ordered to plough up land at a period too late in the season, and if the Order could be given in the next month or two, it would enable farmers to adopt the system of sowing rye in the summer?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I must ask for notice of that

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (RATE OF INTEREST).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, in view of his reply to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow on the 14th March, 1917, to the effect that the Joint Committee for National Health Insurance was considering a scheme whereby approved societies would receive the benefit of the higher rates of interest now yielded on invested funds, he can say whether anything has been or will be done; whether the Commissioners are still investing about three-sevenths of the societies' funds available for investment; whether they are investing them in National War Bonds or other War Stock; and what method is being employed to credit approved societies with the difference between the prescribed rate of 3¼ per cent. and the 5 per cent. interest yielded on National War Securities?
    Sir E. CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): In reply to the first part of the question, I have been in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the prescribed rate of interest will be increased from 3¼ to 4 per cent. as from 1st January of the present year. This increased rate of interest will apply to all moneys in the investment account, including those invested before the general rise in the rate of interest.
    With regard to the second and third parts, moneys standing to the credit of approved societies in the investment account are still invested, as required by the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, through the National Debt Commissioners, and they are being invested by those Commissioners in national securities issued for the purpose of the present war.
    With regard to the last part of the question, as I have already stated, the prescribed rate will be increased to 4 per cent., as from 1st January last. Any balance of interest earned and not distributed will be applied to make good the depreciation to which, in common with all investments, the securities held on this account have been subject.

    PERMANENT DISABLEMENT.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Presbyterian Health Insurance Society of Belfast, which stated that the burden of permanent disablement was growing, especially amongst the female members; and whether a similar increase of claims has been experienced by approved societies generally?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I have not yet been able to obtain a copy of the report mentioned in the question, but I have no reason to think that either in this society or in societies generally there has been any growth of permanent disablement which has not been provided for in the actuarial basis of the National Insurance Acts.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is it not a fact that this burden is steadily growing week by week in all the large societies?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: It was anticipated at the passing of the National Health Insurance Act that this particular liability would grow.

    NEWSPAPER RETURNS.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representative association of newsagents he interviewed before deciding to issue his Order prohibiting the practice of returning unsold newspapers; and whether, as a result of that interview, these representatives agreed with his intention; (2) whether he has considered the representation of the newsagents that his new Order will seriously affect their living and can only be equitably enforced by a readjustment of the terms upon which publishers supply newspapers to the newsagents; whether he is aware that the newsagents have attempted to procure a conference between themselves, the publishers, and the wholesale agents with a view to agreeing to a new arrangement, but that the publishers have refused to attend; and whether, as his action has created the difficulty, he will call such a conference and appoint someone of influence to preside over it and secure an adequate discussion of the points at issue?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The associations interviewed were the London and Provincial Retail Newsagents' Association and the United Kingdom Federation of Retail Newsagents. Their views were discussed at length and the reasons for the proposed Order were explained to them, but I do not think that they favoured the issue of the Order. Representations of the newsagents as to the probable effect of the Order have been and will continue to be carefully considered, but I doubt if sufficient time has elapsed to enable any definite conclusion to be reached as to how far their apprehensions are well founded. I am aware that there has been difficulty in arranging for a conference with the publishers, but the Paper Controller does not consider that the action suggested in the last part of the question would have any useful result. He will, however, consider any cases of actual hardship brought to his notice.

    COURTS OF REFEREES (ALLOWANCES TO WORKMEN).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the allowance made to workmen who are members of the Court of Referees is in many instances less than the amount of wage lost by the men while attending these Courts; and whether, in view of this, he will increase the amount of the allowance?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The allowances payable to members of Courts of Referees are determined in accordance with a scale laid down by the Treasury. The Minister has recently been in communication with the Treasury in this connection, and sanction has now been given to an improved scale in the case of workmen following their trades who have lost wages by reason of their service on the Courts. I am sending my hon. Friend particulars of the new scale.

  IRELAND.

    INTERNMENT (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has now received any representations from persons interned last month under
    2036
    his Order; whether he appointed an advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 14 b; if so, who is the chairman and who are the members of such committee; and whether it has as yet held any meeting?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Some representations have been received. As regards the Advisory Committee, there is nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary last Thursday.
    Mr. KING: Does that mean that, though those representations were made three or four weeks ago, no committee is yet set up which is to hear them?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have no information that representations were made three or four weeks ago.
    Mr. KING: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that they had to be made within a week of internment—that is part of the Order?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am aware of that.
    Mr. KING: Is it not on the Order that they had to be so made?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Yes. but I do not know that any representations were made.
    Mr. KING: Will he read the Order under which this is all going on?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have read the Order frequently.

    GERMAN BAKERS (EMPLOYMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether interned German bakers are allowed to be taken out of internment, or have been taken out of internment, and put into the places and employment of men called up for military service; and, if so, whether these German bakers are to be allowed to keep their employment and stay in this country after the War?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. A small number of bakers of German nationality were released on licence in the early part of last year. There has been no such release since July last. The men were sent for employment under British master bakers to carry on an essential national industry. In every ease the release was subject to the condition that the employment should be discontinued at

    2037
    the end of the War, or as soon after as British labour was available. Great care was taken to release no one who was open to the slightest suspicion.

    AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Government of the Australian Commonwealth to pay separation allowances to the wives resident in this country of Australian soldiers; whether he is aware that many of these women are the wives of men who shortly before the War emigrated to Australia and were induced by the Australian emigration authorities to leave their families to follow later; and, in view of the fact that these men have returned to fight for the Mother Country, will he take steps to ensure that their wives do not have to seek charity, as is now in many instances the case?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): No such instances of hardship have been brought to my notice, but if the hon. Member will communicate specific details of cases, they will be referred to the Government of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the British Government take no action itself, seeing that the Commonwealth Government has refused to recognise the claims of these men?
    Mr. HEWINS: I should like the hon. Member to give me his specific cases if he docs not mind.

    Housing of Parish Council Inspector (Scotland).
    Mr. W. WATSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by parish councils as regards the housing of their inspectors under existing circumstances owing to their lack of statutory power to provide such housing for their inspectors; and whether he is prepared to take steps to remedy such lack of statutory power?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that only
    2038
    one case has been brought to their notice in which an Inspector of Poor has had difficulty in obtaining a house. I cannot, therefore, say that there is a strong case for legislation on the ground suggested. I am. willing, however, to consider any facts that my hon. and learned Friend may wish to lay before me.

    GAS UNDERTAKINGS (STATUTORY PRICES).
    Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Alexander Richardson, Esquire, for the Borough of Gravesend.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. KING: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he intends to move Order No. 1—[Emigration (Expenses); Report thereupon]? There is sure to be some discussion upon it; and, in view of the defeat of the Government on this Bill in Grand Committee, and Progress having been reported, may we not go on to Order No. 2—[Education Bill; Committee]—and have the full time of the House for the Education Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; it is necessary to get this Resolution. I do not myself intend to move it. I was not aware of the tragic news given by the hon. Member, but I do not attach the same importance to it as he apparently does.
  Mr. KING: Is it not a serious and important matter? Will not the Government possibly resign on it?
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Education Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  EMIGRATION [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority constituted under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment and powers of a Central Emigration Authority, and for other purposes relative thereto."
  Resolution read a second time.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I beg to move, after the word "Expenses" ["all Expenses of the Central Emigration Authority"], to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding in any year fifty thousand pounds."
  When we had this Financial Resolution up on Wednesday last, I promised to consider whether it was possible to meet what was understood to be the general view of the House that a limit of expenditure should be put into it. I have con-
  2042
  sidered the question in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I should like to say at once that the view I expressed to the House on the first occasion this Resolution was before us as to the public expenditure for the first year of the Act was absolutely sound—that is to say, I think the expenditure for the first year will be exceedingly trivial—
  Mr. PRINGLE: Ten thousand pounds?
  Mr. HEWINS: Less than that. But when the Committee asked me to go beyond the first year I found we were launched into the region of considerable doubt, and, of course, any figure given under the circumstances must be more or less arbitrary. After, as I say, discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend, we came to the conclusion that if we asked the House to insert the figure of £50,000 it would provide for the necessary work of the setting up of the scheme, and, at the same time, if there was any large contract or other very large expenditure of money, the Secretary of State would be compelled to come to the House for a new Bill; therefore there would be every guarantee of the control of the House of Commons, with which general principle, as the House knows, I agree altogether. It was only the extreme difficulty in the way of forming an exact estimate that made me unwilling to put a figure into the Resolution. If we have a limit of £50,000 I think it will make it possible for the authority to go on without any undue delay, and at. the same time the House will have the guarantee that if any large schemes are floated, or adumbrated, it will be necessary to come to the House. The figure quoted in the Debates as likely have varied from £2,000 to £1,000,000. Possibly the figure I suggest will meet the view of the House.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am very glad that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has at last agreed, and after much pressure, to meet the general view of the House, and insert a sum limiting the amount of the expenditure of the new authority. But I am a little surprised that he should at all propose this Resolution to-day, after what has happened in the Committee upstairs—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House is not entitled to discuss what happened in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. JONES: I will refrain from going into that; but I think I am entitled to say that, after what has happened to-day, it will be necessary to modify other parts of the Bill in consequence of the important Amendment carried. The House will remember that two views were put before the House. One, the wide view, referred to the scope of the operations, and the character and duties of the new authority; the other view was a comparatively narrow one. It seems to me that the limit of expenditure which the House will put into this Financial Resolution must depend upon what the Committee may determine on Clauses 1 and 2, which are not yet passed. Until the first Clause which sets up the authority is disposed of, and until we know whether the authority is to be an independent Department acting on its own, or a subordinate Department inside the Colonial Office, it is really impossible for the House to say how much money that body should spend during the year.
  To-day the Committee discussed Clause 1, and made some progress with it. The constitution of the new authority is not yet determined. Until that is done I submit that it would be better to postpone this Resolution. Until Clauses 1 and 2 are disposed of there is really no need for the House to proceed with this. Assuming that we are going on, I submit that in proposing £50.000 the hon. Gentleman is taking a very large figure. He said that the House named various figures, but hon. Members were in complete ignorance of what his Department was to do, and the various figures mentioned were in the nature of conjecture. The Under-Secretary's own figure was £10,000.
  Mr. HEWINS: For the first year.
  Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman said that a figure like £50,000 was an altogether unreasonable sum. This is what he said in his speech:
  "One hon. Member has mentioned £50,000 a year as the cost. There is not the slightest intention or expectation or desire to go anywhere near that, and if the expenditure in the first year is £10,000 it will be greatly in excess of what is considered likely."
  If there is not the slightest expectation of going near £50,000 why should we put that sum in the Financial Resolution? The hon. Gentleman's own figure was £10,000, and he might well have been content with proposing that sum to see how matters worked out, and when the proper time comes the hon. Gentleman might come to the House for a larger sum if
  2044
  necessary. I still think that the wise course, after the mysterious matter which occurred upstairs, would be to postpone the Report stage of this Resolution until we have passed Clause 2 of the Bill, when we shall know what the new authority is to be, and what are its duties, and then we shall be able to tell how much will be required. It will be open to the Committee to modify this Resolution, and put in a smaller sum sufficient for the duties of the new authority. It is true that the Committee will have that power, and it seems to me that it would be better for my hon. Friend to recognise the wish of the House not to place an unnecessary sum at the disposal of the new Department and be content with the £10,000 which is his own estimate of what this new authority would require.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Before we decide whether the sum of £50,000 should be put in, I should like the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to be good enough to inform the House what he has got in his mind. He has already received indications that his proposed new authority is strongly objected to on the ground of expense. He is taking a very large sum, and the objection on the ground of expense which has been put pretty strongly to him in Debates in this House and elsewhere has been appreciated by him, and we want to know whether he is going to pay any attention to the indications he has received? I should be extremely obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give us any indication of what the authority is which he is now proposing in this Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the nature of the authority hardly arises now.
  Mr. ROBERTS: Is not the sum now proposed excessive, in view of the changes which have occurred in his own mind. On these grounds I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his proposal at the present time.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate the action of the Under-Secretary in putting in a limit to meet the views so generally expressed on a previous occasion. I think we are entitled to consider, in relation to the Amendment, the question of the reasonableness of the amount the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I do not desire to discuss the merits of any particular scheme or authority for the purpose of carrying out the Bill, but obviously the

  2045
  question of the reasonableness of the amount of the limit depends altogether on the authority which will be set up. Undoubtedly the limit which is now proposed is one which was announced by the Government on the basis of a particular authority, and if another authority is set up that limit will be altogether extravagant, and might tend to promote extravagance rather than economy. If you have too high a limit, the Department will be inclined to say, "The House of Commons has fixed this limit and we are entitled to work up to it." If the ultimate decision of the House is in favour of an authority much smaller, obviously the limit which we are now discussing is one which the House should not accept, and the Government should suggest an alteration. In view of the circumstances which have been brought to the notice of the House, and upon which I do not now wish to dwell, it is not at all unreasonable to ask the Government to postpone the decision upon this Resolution until to-morrow, and then it will be quite possible to go on with the Bill in Committee and no time will be lost. On the other hand, the limitation which is now being fixed by the Government may be placed in the Bill, and you may have rather an encouragement to extravagance. In these circumstances I hope the Government will respond to the view which seems to be prevalent in the House.
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like to point out that the Under-Secretary by this proposal has only brought himself into line with what the Leader of the House said. This is not a new decision of the Government, because on Thursday week the Leader of the House indicated on the Financial Resolution that he would be prepared to put in a limit. That evidently commended itself to the House, and it was on account of that expression of opinion that no Division was taken. I hope we may take it that a limit will always be put into these Financial Resolutions unless it is impracticable.
  Mr. MORRELL: I am sorry that the Leader of the House has not given us any guidance on this occasion. It is impossible for us to keep out of our mind what happened upstairs in Committee. Twenty-one Members of this House gave, I suppose, two hours' study to this Bill this morning, and I think there is not one of those who would not feel, if he were asked to vote now, that he was giving his vote
  2046
  under very unsatisfactory conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] We certainly do not know how we stand or how the Government stand, or what is the intention of the Government. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to ask that the Government should take a little more time to consider the matter, and I do not see that they will be in any way unduly delaying business by so doing. That is a reasonable request, especially having regard to the fact that the Government has absolutely changed its policy since this Resolution was first introduced. When it was first introduced we were told that the expenses in the first year would not amount to more than £10,000 at the outside. Then we were told that no limit would be accepted at all. Now we are told that £50,000 will be required, although that limit is not really to be reached. Altogether there has been a constant change on the part of the Government, and in these circumstances I appeal to the Leader of the House to let this Vote be postponed.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I quite recognise the importance of the principle which was involved, but my hon. Friend has done all that he promised to do when the subject was last discussed. He went out of his way to say that he would endeavour to fix a limit, and, as he has now fixed a limit, I should be disappointed if the House did not feel that he has done what he could to meet it, and did not allow this Resolution to be passed. With regard to the amount, I hope my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is probable the expenses will never reach anything like the figure that he has put down. What I meant by saying that a limit like this should be put in wherever possible was that the House, as far as possible, should have some knowledge of the amount to which it was committed, or the limits within which it was committed, and I am sure the House will agree that nothing could be more foolish than to put the limit so low that possibly a year or two afterwards we had to come and ask for a Resolution to be taken for a purpose with which the House was entirely in agreement. The point of principle about which the House was anxious has now been met, and it would really be rather hard on my hon. Friend not to agree to the proposal which he has made.
  Mr. BIGLAND: As one of the twenty-one Members referred to, I should like to say that this amount, in my opinion, is a very reasonable one, and I sincerely trust that the Government will pass this Resolution to-day. I see no object whatever in leaving it over till to-morrow. The Committee is not to sit again till Thursday, and, if we left the matter over till tomorrow, we should again discuss a matter on which our minds are very well made up. The amount of work to be done by this authority, whatever is the nature of the authority, will be so great that a considerable margin of money must be allowed to cover the expenses. I sincerely trust that the Government will press this Resolution to-day.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Resolution, as amended, agreed to.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 10th June.]
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  EDUCATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 10.—( Compulsory Attendance at Continuation Schools.)
    (1) Subject as hereinafter provided, all young persons shall attend such continuation schools at such times, on such days, as the local education authority of the area in which they reside may require, for three hundred and twenty hours in each year, or, in the case of a period of less than a year, for such number of hours as the local education authority, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable:
    Provided that at any time after the expiration of five years from the appointed day the Board of Education may, after such inquiry as they think fit, and after consulting the local education authority, by Order increase in respect of any area or part of an area or any young persons or clauses of young persons the number of hours of attendance at continuation schools required under this Act, and this Section shall, as respects the area to which, or the young persons to whom, the Order applies, have effect as if the number of hours specified in the Order were substituted for three hundred and twenty; but no such Order shall be made until a draft thereof has lain for not less than thirty days on the Table of each House of Parliament.
    (2) Any young person—

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

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

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

    (b) is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to have been up
    2048
    to the age of sixteen under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner,

    shall be exempt from the obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act unless he has informed the authority in writing of his desire to attend such schools and the authority have prescribed what school he shall attend.
    (3) The obligation to attend continuation schools under this Act shall not apply to any young person—

    (i) who is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to be under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or to be under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner, or

    (ii) who is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to be under suitable and efficient part-time instruction in some other manner for a number of hours in the year (being hours during which if not exempted he might be required to attend a continuation school] equal to the number of hours during which a young person is required under this Act to attend a continuation school.

    (4) If a young person, who is or has been in any school or educational institution, or the parent of any such young person, represents to the Board that the young person is entitled to exemption under the provisions of this Section, or that the obligation imposed by this Section does not apply to him, by reason that he is or has been under suitable and efficient instruction, but that the local education authority have unreasonably refused to accept the instruction as satisfactory, the Board of Education shall consider the representation, and, if satisfied that the representation is well founded, shall make an Order declaring that the young person is exempt from the obligation to attend a continuation school under this Act for such period and subject to such conditions as may be named in the Order:
    Provided that the Board of Education may refuse to consider any such representation unless the local education authority or the Board of Education are enabled to inspect the school or educational institution in which the instruction is or has been given.
    (5) The local education authority may require in the case of any young person who is under an obligation to attend a continuation school that his employment shall be suspended on any day when his attendance is required, not only during the period for which he is required to attend the school, but also for such other specified part of the day, not exceeding two hours, as the authority consider necessary in order to secure that he may be in a fit mental and bodily condition to receive full benefit from attendance at the school: Provided that, if any question arises between the local education authority and the employer of a young person whether a requirement made under this Subsection is reasonable for the purposes aforesaid, that question shall be determined by the Board of Education, and if the Board of Education determine that the requirement is unreasonable they pay substitute such other requirement as they think reasonable.
    (6) The local education authority shall not require any young person to attend a continuation school on a Sunday, or on any day or part of a day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which he belongs, or during any holiday or half-holiday to which by any enactment regulating his employment or by agreement he is entitled, nor so far as practicable during any holiday or half-holiday which in his employment he is accustomed to enjoy, nor between the hours of seven in the evening and eight in the morning: Provided that the local education authority may, with the approval of the Board, vary those hours in the case of young persons employed at night or otherwise employed at abnormal times.
    Amendment moved (10th June):At the end, to add the words,
    "(7) A local education authority shall not, without the consent of a young person, require him to attend any continuation school held at or in connection with the place of his employment. The consent given by a young person for the purpose of this provision may be withdrawn by one month's notice in writing sent to the local education authority.
    Any school attended by a young person at or in connection with the place of his employment shall be open to inspection either by the local education authority or by the Board of Education at the option of the person or person? responsible for the management of the school."—[Mr. Herbert Fisher.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise in order to save the time of the Committee by stating that i do not propose to move the Amendment which I had down earlier on the Paper dealing with this question, and which is in order at this stage of the Bill, because the President of the Board, in the Clause that he is now moving, meets every reasonable objection to the unfettered establishment of works schools. The most important point to secure was that young workers in these factories should not be compelled to go to these works schools if they wished to attend other schools. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment fairly attains that object. Of course, it is impossible by legislation, I suppose, to prevent pressure being put on these young persons by their employers, and I hope the trade unions will always be strong enough to prevent undue pressure being put upon these young persons to attend these schools if they desire to attend another school of their own choice. I therefore desire to thank the President for moving this Amendment. I am sure that no one wishes to discourage the very efficient schools established by one or two very
    2050
    progressive firms, and which may well serve as a model. Therefore, I think the experiment should be watched in this way.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I did not know last night who it was who had instigated this Amendment, and I am bound to say that I listen now to the real instigator of it. There are two parts to this Sub-section. The second part is thoroughly good, that the schools established by firms at their works shall be inspected by the Board of Education or the local education authority, but I fail to see what my hon. Friend desires to see carried out by the rest of the Amendment. There are admittedly a large number of schools, well conducted, well equipped, and thoroughly satisfactory to the Board of Education, run by employers of labour as continuation schools. Of course, those schools cost the employers a certain amount of money, and to that extent they are a saving to the public purse. It is hoped, and the Board of Education has re-echoed the hope, that more employers will provide schools of that kind in different places, and it is well to encourage them to do so. Then we have this Sub-section introduced. The whole scheme of this Bill is compulsory attendance between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. It is practically admitted that, owing to the lack of enthusiasm of young persons of that age it is necessary to compel them to attend school. Yet in this Clause you say it shall not be in the power of the local education authority to require any young person without his consent to attend any continuation school at or in connection with the place of his employment. You therefore handicap a school which you wish, or ought to wish, to encourage by making it the one continuation school at which you cannot compel attendance.
    4.0 P.M.
    What will be the result in practice? You will first have a direct discouragement of employers of labour to provide continuation schools of this kind, some of the best continuation schools which you are likely to get, and, secondly, when you have such a school established one or two may possibly decline to attend it, and the local education authority will have to supply a continuation school for them. I do not say that they would build a fresh school for two or three young persons, but full arrangements would have to be made, at great expense and inconvenience, for those who

    2051
    took advantage of this Clause. If there were anything wrong with the school and it did not pass the inspection by the Board of Education I would not defend it for a moment, but when you have a school which has passed the Board of Education and is admitted to be an efficient and a desirable school which you wish to encourage, why should this treatment be meted out to it? I could not understand last night when the right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment, but I now know that it was the voice of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse). Be that as it may, I see no reason why the Government should make this change, and I hope they will reconsider the matter before they discourage those works' schools, and will also take into account the heavy expense which will be thrown on local education authorities.
    Mr. THOMAS: I hope that the President of the Board of Education will not accede to the request of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). I do not think one ought to criticise the present works' schools, because there will be a very general admission that many of the schools already in operation are schools that were instituted by men genuinely anxious for the success of education—indeed many of us will frankly recognise that they have been a pattern to many other schools. While fully admitting that, the real objection the working classes have is to being unduly tied up to any employer. Primarily these schools are run for the benefit of either the children of the employès or the employès themselves. If the schools are conducted on the lines we all desire, then there will be very little objection, so far as the scholars are concerned, to the continuation schools. On the other hand, if there is something wrong, and if there are objections, surely we have no right, as the President of the Board of Education fully recognises in his Amendment, to unduly press these boys and girls to attend a school which I will not say is repugnant to them, but which they feel unduly ties them to the employer. While there may be general objections to workshop schools, yet, provided they are controlled by the education authority so far as the standard of education and the efficiency of the teachers are concerned, nothing very much can be said against them. I hope the right
    2052
    hon. Gentleman will not alter his Amendment and will recognise that it is a compromise which goes a very long way towards meeting the objections of the working classes to these particular schools.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to have an explanation of the second sentence in the Amendment, to which no reference has been made. It seems to me that when notice is given the employer should have notice. I take it that a pupil must give a month's notice to the local authority before leaving the school, but surely the employer, who is conducting it and finding the money is entitled to notice at the same time! Even if the local authority informed him, it might meet the case. I do not want to make it too cumbrous. An employer conducting a good school would be in an unfortunate position if any number of withdrawals came in and he received no notice of them until a few days "within the end of the term. After what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said, I take it that, if there are any withdrawals, they will be withdrawals in bulk. It will not be the case that one young person will withdraw, but if a trade union or a body of parents get dissatisfied with the school there will be a meeting of the workers or of the parents, and the young persons will probably go all together. If that takes place the employer should be entitled to notice.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): We will make that Amendment.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: In reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), may I make to him and to the Committee one suggestion? I perfectly understand, and to a large extent sympathise with, the views that have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), but is not the position before us this, that for the next seven years there will be no compulsion upon anybody to attend any continuation school at all?
    Mr. FISHER: No!
    HON. MEMBERS: Only after the age of sixteen.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg the Committee's pardon. I meant that after the age of

    2053
    sixteen there will be no compulsory attendance. Therefore would it not be a reasonable compromise that, during what I may describe as the experimental period of the working of this Bill, you should encourage a variety of experiments by giving every possible encouragement to these employers' schools? You will have every opportunity of considering this matter long before it can become of any serious consequence. In the meantime, all the schools will be inspected by the Board of Education, and you will have provided, if I may use the term, a number of laboratory experiments in continuation schools, which may be of great advantage when you come to settle the matter five or six years hence.
    Mr. KING: I have put down some Amendments to this Amendment, but I do not think I will move them now. They embody one or two important questions, but unless the President has considered them and is willing to adopt or make some statement about them, I will not move them. The first, which raises the question whether works schools should not be under the control and direction of the local education authority in some way is very important, and that I shall move on the Report stage if I do not move it now.
    Mr. FISHER: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for not persisting in his Amendments. I can assure him I looked at them very carefully. I should feel some difficulty in accepting his first Amendment for the reasons, firstly, that I feel that an adequate guarantee for the efficiency of the education provided in a works' school can be obtained from inspection by the Board of Education alone; and, secondly, because I have reason to believe that there arc cases in which the founders of works' schools may be very willing, and indeed would be very willing to submit to the inspection of the Board, but might be very reluctant to submit to the inspection of the local education authority, because of various local differences of opinion. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott), I think I can meet him by saying that we have at present in various parts of England interesting and fruitful experiments in the way of works' schools, and in every case in regard to attendance at those schools no compulsion is placed upon the child to attend. Therefore, so far as that goes the situation is not altered by my Amendment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "to" ["one month's notice in writing sent to"], to insert the words "the employer and to."
    I move this in accordance with the promise made by my right hon. Friend to the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth).
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
    The CHAIRMAN: As to the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hackney (Sir A. Spicer), the right hon. Gentleman informed me that he did not propose to move it. The next one—[in the names of Mr. John and Major Davies] —is outside the scope of the Bill, and the following one, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), has already been settled.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert as a new Sub-section:
    "(7) Nothing in this Section shall prevent a young person attending the continuation school of his choice wherever there is more than one continuation school which it is possible for him to attend."
    This Amendment is not controversial. It is to give the young person affected by the Bill the choice of the continuation school that he shall attend when there is a choice open to him. As the Amendment comes from both sides of the Committee, it will be seen that it is moved on educational and no other grounds. Above all, in arranging these continuation classes we want to make them as experimental and diverse as possible, so as to provide for the tastes, inclinations, and aptitudes of the different students affected. This can only be done, and even then only in part be done, by giving the young person affected the choice of school or class or course of instruction in connection with a university or whatever may be arranged that he prefers. I expect that no opposition will be offered to the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I am perfectly ready to accept the general principle contained in this Amendment, but I think the hon. Member's words will require a little

    2055
    alteration. Perhaps he will accept, in place of his own Amendment, the following words:
    "In considering what continuation school a young person shall be required to attend a local education authority shall have regard, so far as practicable, to any preference which the young person may express."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I will accept those words with a little regret, because they are not nearly so emphatic as the words of my own Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the words last added to insert the words,
    "In considering what continuation school a young person shall be required to attend a local education authority shall have regard, so far as practicable, to any preference which the young person may express."
    Sir J. D. REES: Why does the right hon. Gentleman whittle this away by wording it in such a manner as really to effect very little by the concession he makes? If he adheres to the terms of his Amendment, will he insert the words, "or the parent or parents of the young person," because a young person is not always the best judge of what is the best school or continuation class to attend? I prefer the words suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. White-house) because they would allow him that individual choice which I should like to see conceded to everybody everywhere. If that is not possible and the President will only make this concession in terms which will practically leave the young person in the hands of the authorities, which is what I wish to avoid, I would ask him to accept the words "parent, responsible parent or relation," or something to that effect.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not know why the President presses for his words rather than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in the form in which he moves it does not go very far. Could he not on the Report stage give a little more elasticity to the Clause, and give the choice in the first instance to the child unless there is some good reason to the contrary? As it is, the local education authority has to make an order, and it is only to give effect as far as possible to the wish of the child. We know in practice how difficult it is to put before the
    2056
    local education authority the wishes of the child, whereas if it is drawn in another way all the child has to do is to say he wishes to attend a particular school and he has a right to do it unless the local education authority orders to the contrary.
    Sir H. CRAIK: A certain popularity or unpopularity, a certain whim or caprice, may change the view of a large number of people and may lead to a conspiracy of abstention from one school and crowding into another. That has constantly happened in my own experience, and it is necessary for the local authority to lay down rules and say, "While we will allow all people freedom of choice, yet we cannot allow one school to be crowded and another left empty."
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the meaning of the words "as far as practicable"? I think it is the feeling of hon. Members that when you say an education authority shall have regard, and then you put in the words "as far as practicable," it is making it a very small concession. We ought to say that they shall as far as practicable, or they shall have regard. Either would be enough and would really meet the case.
    Mr. FISHER: The words "as far as practicable," so far from diminishing the responsibility of the local education authority, rather emphasise it, and the local education authority is given a very express direction to consider the wishes of the young person. It is quite clear that every education authority will have a very difficult task in arranging for these classes, and it must in the first instance consider what classes are most adopted for the different aptitudes of the pupil. Subject to that they should have regard as far as practicable to the desire of the young person.
    Mr. DENNISS: May I ask whether a youth of fourteen can change his school as often as he likes or is he tied to one when he makes his choice, and is his father or mother not to have any say in the matter?
    Mr. FISHER: The local education authority is entitled to require him to attend a particular school.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the wish of the child is to be consulted in carrying out that obligation, why should not the wish of

    2057
    the parents of the child also be considered? I do not understand it.
    Mr. FISHER: I will accept that.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "person" ["shall prevent a young person"], to insert the words "or his parents."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I must interpose in order to have this matter made clear. Many of us do not want the choice of a young person who may be nearly eighteen years of age overridden by. anyone but himself.
    Mr. RENDALL: I certainly think a child of sixteen ought to have his own way, and not the parents.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better to renew this on the Report stage.
    Sir J. D. REES: I will withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman puts in these words or words to that effect. He has given a pledge to put it in somehow. I do not know why the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) objects to the insertion of the words now. I believe that would meet the wishes of the Committee, and I think it would be better to take this when we can get it than to wait for Report. I attach great importance to the insertion of the words.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I show why it could not be accepted? The Bill applies to young women of the age of eighteen. Some of them would be married women, and you are not going to be content to give effect to the desire of a young woman of nearly eighteen who may be a married woman, but you are going to put in the alternative of her guardian or parents.
    Mr. L. WILLIAMS: After my hon. Friend's remarks, may I suggest that we put words providing that the husband should be consulted?
    Sir J. D. REES: I am reluctant to withdraw. I attach great importance to this, and I attach none to the objection raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse), because we must allow the local authority to be in possession of at least elementary intelligence, which would be entirely wanting in them if they really fell into any such difficulty as he has indicated. It is so very important that I should like to press the Amendment, because if it is
    2058
    moved and the right hon. Gentleman agrees to it the Committee is extremely likely to agree to it. I should like to have the bird in the hand.
    Mr. FRANCE: I hope the Committee will take the advice which has been tendered to it by yourself, Sir, to wait till the Report stage, or we shall get into a very serious tangle, and shall be accused of passing hasty and ill-considered legislation if we seek to put in words which do not have their full significance, and are not fully "understood while we are passing them. I hope the Minister will agree to postpone this matter to the Report stage.
    Sir J. D. REES: In order to suit the convenience of the Committee, and in view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. PETO: I think it would be well for the Committee to spend a short time in making a review of what we really are doing under this Clause, and how it stands now with the Amendments we have passed. My objection to the Clause is one of the principal reasons for my objection to the Bill as a whole. I object to it because it proposes to train 100 per cent. of the children of this country all practically on one uniform pattern. It pretends to give them a literary and scientific education. We have had speech after speech deriding anything in the nature of technical or practical education to fit them for the sphere of life in which they are going to earn their living, and we have always had it sneered at as vocational training. There is no indication in the Clause, or in the way it, is going to be carried out, of the real and proper purpose of education, which, as I understand it, is to fit the person who is educated for the business of life in the widest sense—not only the mere business of earning his living, but to fit him to cope with all the difficulties which he will find in life, either in this country or, if ho emigrates, in any other part of the Empire. Another great objection I have to the Clause is founded upon the uniform character of the education proposed to be given in these continuation schools.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are not entitled, on this question that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill, to review Clauses 3 and onwards. Clause 3 in particular dealt with the schemes of education to be given in continuation schools. The only question arising on Clause 10 is who is to be compelled to attend.
    Mr. PETO: There are certain specific matters in this Clause which I think you will agree I am in order in dealing with, and the first is the one under Sub-section (4), which runs right through the whole Clause, namely, that there is no recognition of the rights of parents and the dependence of the children on their parents. The last Debate we have had illustrates that. We find an hon. Member objecting altogether to the proposal that the parents should have any say in the matter, and wishing to leave it entirely to the young person himself. A parent might desire his child to get to the practical work of life long before the age of eighteen. He might desire to apprentice him to a definite trade in which he thought he would best earn his living, probably the trade by which he earns his own living. There is nothing in the Clause which admits the exemption of children who are apprenticed under the old system, which it is a great pity is not much more widely practised, and as long as it does not recognise apprenticeship to a definite trade the Clause cannot avoid the criticism that it will tend to manufacture pedants and prigs and will not manufacture craftsmen, the masters of their crafts, on whom British industry and the prosperity of the population have depended in the past. It carries education, of course, to a far greater age than anything contemplated before, and far from any relaxation of what I call education tyranny in respect of the parents, I find it still stronger in the Clause than it was in respect of the attendance in elementary schools. It is actually provided that, with some very small exceptions, all the young persons in the country are to attend these particular types of schools. I tried to get exemption in favour of children who are going to follow agriculture, and my Amendment was ruled out of order, because a, compromise in the number of hours had been come to in respect of the great Lancashire industry.
    The continuation education for the present is limited to 280 hours a year. That permits for one day a week of seven
    2060
    hours for forty weeks in a year being sufficient to fulfil the obligation. We have never debated the question whether one day a week for forty weeks in the year is the most suitable way of continuing the education of a young person who wants to take up agriculture as his profession. I think there is an enormous amount to be said for concentrating continuation education upon the winter months only, and for a much shorter space than forty weeks in the year. I am very pleased that the President agrees, and I am only the more sorry that we had no opportunity whatever on the Clause of debating that question. It is the method by which the best class of agriculturists we have in this country, and probably in the whole world, namely, the Scottish people, have been brought up. They worked at a much younger age than anything contemplated in this Bill, and were in the habit of attending parochial schools in the winter and working on the farm in the summer. There I believe you had prepared an education of a practical character almost perfect for the needs of agriculture. We have not settled the question of education for the sea. That has to be settled before we finally leave the Bill, and I hope it will be settled so that it will not shut out any children because their parents cannot afford to give them full-time education for two years. I believe that full-time education for two years is too long in many cases to suit the needs of the sea service. When that question comes up again on the Report stage I hope we shall have Members in the House who are specially connected with the sea service, owners of ships and others, who will be able to tell the President that though sixteen is a very good age for certain classes of vessels, in many cases if boys are going to be made practical seamen they should certainly start at a rather younger age, say, fifteen, subject to some condition as to receiving instruction in navigation and other practical subjects when they are actually on board ship. I am afraid that this Clause, since the proposal was defeated to provide for the maintenance of those children in the case of poor parents—and I agree that it could not be accepted—will impose a crushing burden upon the poorest parents in many parts-of the country. It has been a hard business in many cases to clothe and feed the children while they have had to attend the elementary schools, and if continued

    2061
    education is to be carried on with a considerable loss of earnings to the poorer families, I think it will prove to be a burden which will not only be unpopular but unfair to ask these parents to undertake.
    Generally, in regard to the Clause, I think we are going in advance of the preparations for actually putting it in operation. On the point I have just raised we shall know five or six years after the War whether hon. Members are right who think that there will be a great drop in wages and a return to something like the pre-war standard of wages, or whether hon. Members are right who think that the working classes of this country are now secure in a far higher standard of wage than anything that has ever been known in this country before, and that, therefore, they will be able to bear this burden. In the middle of the War we are arranging this legislation without knowing in the least what will be the conditions so far as the parents of the children are concerned. We are also making this arrangement for continued education without having the least idea what will be the needs of industry and commerce in the period after the War. I am not at all sure that the views held by a great many people are not right that European countries will be so reduced in circumstances by the effect of this War that none of them will be able to do without all the labour of young persons up to the age of eighteen for many years after the War is over. There is no question that it must have thrown back industrial conditions and social conditions in every way. I, therefore, think it would have been far wiser to have left this part of the President's scheme out until we know something of the conditions that we shall have to meet. Instead of that, we are legislating in the dark. I put down a Motion to omit this Clause for that important reason. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily unpracticable proposition, at a time when we cannot possibly know what the conditions will be, to legislate for an appointed day. We do not know when that day will be. We are doing more than that—we are legislating for the continued education of young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, although the President has accepted the principle that until seven years from the appointed day he will not be able to put that part of the Bill into operation. We shall certainly have a
    2062
    different House of Commons then, and a House of Commons that will have been elected when the people will have had an opportunity of considering the provisions of this Bill. That, I think, is not only an advantage, but it is in accordance with the whole principle of our Constitution that the people affected by legislation should have some say in the matter. It is unnecessary to keep the Bill in its present form after the acceptance by the President of the principle that for seven years he cannot put into operation the continued education of young persons beyond the age of sixteen. Therefore on these grounds that it is beyond the path of wisdom to legislate so far ahead, not knowing the circumstances and the conditions, and because it is clearly unwise to legislate for something which it is admitted cannot be put into operation for seven years from the appointed day, possibly eight or nine years from the present time, I move that this Clause be omitted.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am sure the Committee will feel that my hon. Friend has put before us a number of exceedingly important considerations. At the same time, I am very strongly opposed to his conclusion. The whole of the Committee will feel that during these last days we have been discussing what is incomparably the most important Clause in the Bill, and I should regard it as a misfortune if the Clause were not added to the Bill. In view of the line which I took, and very strongly took, on the Second Reading, I should like to be allowed to say a few words on this Clause. The Committee has had before it three alternatives in regard to this Clause—first, the original proposal of the Bill; then the Lancashire Amendment, as it is called, which, in brief, was a proposal to substitute half-time education up to the age of sixteen for quarter-time up to the age of eighteen; and, thirdly, we have had the compromise put forward by the President, namely, retention of the principle of continued education up to the age of eighteen, combined with a partial postponement of the operation of the Clause, in deference partly to the representatives of Lancashire, but still more, I suspect, to the administrative exigencies which were found to exist in the Department itself. On the Second Reading I expressed my own frank preference, after careful consideration, for the method proposed in the Bill. I was

    2063
    led to that preference chiefly by the consideration of the distinction which, as I thought, ought to be drawn between mere instruction and education in the broadest sense; between instruction in the sense of pumping a certain amount of information into the mind or the head of the child, and education, drawing out and improving every faculty of mind, spirit and body which may exist in the child. Looking at it from that broad view of education, I was driven to the conclusion that it is of very great importance—and it is for that reason that I desire that the Committee should reject the proposition of my hon. Friend—to keep your educational hold upon the young persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. Educationally the value of 300 hours for each of four years has always seemed to me to be incomparably greater than 600 hours concentrated into two years. Among other reasons, I strongly venture to impress this, that if yon had adopted the latter alternative you would have created that gap between the secondary and the higher education which I am. particularly anxious to fill up.
    For reasons which I explained on an earlier occasion, reasons that were generally approved by the Committee, I am anxious to bring young persons, at any rate from the age of seventeen and up wards, under the influence of university teaching. The President of the Board of Education met the opinion of the Committee on that point very sympathetically, and we understand that on the Report stage he will propose to give effect to what seemed to be the general sense of the Committee on that matter. I am therefore very grateful to him and very glad that the principle of continued education up to the age of eighteen is affirmed, as it is in the Clause which we are, I hope, going to add to the Bill. I hope that it will be effectively, clearly, and definitely affirmed. Having said that, I think it only honest to add one word. I confess that if I had unhappily been compelled to choose between the Clause as originally drafted and the concession of local option as claimed by Lancashire, I should have voted for the hon. Member for Chorley. I frankly admit that there are very great administrative difficulties inherent in any scheme of local option, or local variation, but on the balance I think that the administrative difficulties would be outweighed by the educational
    2064
    advantages to be expected from a variety of experiments. We have in the Bill as amended a compromise upon the offer and acceptance of which, I think, the Committee, the country, and the President of the Board of Education are alike to be congratulated; but there is one misapprehension which I should like to be permitted to remove. As I understand it, though I do not think it is generally understood outside, there is not to be any general postponement for a period of seven years.
    Perhaps the President would be well advised to make it perfectly clear to the country, because I think some hon. Members are under a misapprehension as to the exact nature of the compromise which he has made. The position is this, that during the next seven years you will have, I hope, a very large number of voluntary experiments in continued education up to the age of eighteen. There is nothing to prevent that. I hope that those experiments, unhampered by any mandatory Clause, as is the case between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, will take—and, I think, the President will agree with me in expressing this hope—a large number of forms. At the end of that experimental period we shall be in a position, fortified and enriched by those experiments, a position which we are not in at the present time, to devise a really satisfactory scheme, or, as I hope, several schemes, of continued education.
    Sir J. D. REES: Owing to the unexpected and inexplicable absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme I seem to have all the parents in Britain on my back this afternoon. However, I do not think, though a more general discussion is permissible on the Motion now before the Committee, that it would be justifiable to attempt to discuss over again anything that has been discussed. My right hon. Friend, whose conciliatory attitude I commend and admire, gave me a satisfactory assurance as regards the parents. I feel sure that he will carry it out fully and that he will endeavour whenever opportunity offers to remember that the parents are the best judges of what the children want. Yet my right hon. Friend, like every other official or departmental head, thinks that his Department knows better than the parents what is good for the children. But that is the attitude of the aristocrat, the autocrat and the bureaucrat, but not of the democrat. If

    2065
    we are really democratic and think that parents, and young persons equally when they are old enough to speak for themselves, should be allowed to decide it is essential that we should observe this principle. With regard to this particular Clause the Committee stands in very much the same position as it did when it was found, in reference to the Luxury Tax, that we were bringing in legislation without knowing where we were going or what we were doing, so that it was found necessary to defer the proposals which are to be embodied in another Bill.
    The Committee does not know what it is doing. It is laying down laws for a new world. It does not know what is going to be the state of affairs on the appointed day. When that day dawns what sort of England will it dawn upon? It appears exceedingly likely that at that time there will be the utmost need for the labour of the artizan, the producer, the maker, and not the thinker and the writer, and that the kind of regulation and restriction contained in a Clause like this would act upon the people as a very serious hindrance to that reconstruction of which we all talk with so much approval. When the appointed day dawns nobody-knows what will be the financial condition, except that it will be infinitely worse than that which has existed during the administration of the Act which preceded the present Bill. Like my hon. Friend opposite I am convinced that a wholesale regulation of this sort is not the way to carry out a policy of continuation classes. I have a most profound admiration for continuation classes, as great an admiration as any hon. Member, but it is voluntary classes that I approve of, such as I attend myself when every day I read a little bit of classic Greek and Latin in the hope of improving my mind. I believe that voluntary action is the soul of continuation education and compulsory education in these conditions, for a certain number of years, sandwiched in between other occupations, and in the conditions which will exist, will be a most difficult and imperfect policy to pursue.
    If such continuation classes were conducted only during the winter we should, perhaps, see something like what we have all seen in Scotland where every gillie in every village has by continuation classes made himself an exceedingly well educated man, a most excellent and instructive companion, one from whom everybody can
    2066
    learn, and to whom it is a privilege to talk. Something like that might happen in this country if we had continuation classes in the winter, but this is a very-different matter. This makes continuation classes like the classes in the ordinary schools, which arc attended by the young children. If at eighteen years young persons are old enough to shoulder a rifle and go to fight for their country, it is an age when they might be engaged fully in industrial pursuits. At a time when so much is said about the investment in this education I am myself rather doubtful, first of all that the country will have the money to invest and, second, whether the trustees, those who are to provide the money for the investment, will not be indulging in too: nebulous a policy on which the return is too doubtful to justify them in investing their money in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman so confidently expects them to invest it. I can only deplore once again the tendency to standardise and reduce to one common measure everything in the country, and I believe that the policy that is being pursued under this Clause is calculated to grind down the children's minds to a pale unanimity.
    Mr. BOOTH: I drafted a number of Amendments to this Clause, a Clause to which I would like to offer the strongest opposition, but in view of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill I did not put them down lest it should appear that my opposition was anything in the nature of obstruction. I think that my right hon. Friend will admit that on this Clause above all there was a great deal of opportunity for annoyance in reference to the Bill. I would like to ask him whether, when the Clause which we are now discussing is passed, he will reprint the Bill in its present form in view of the important changes which have been made. That has been done with previous Bills, and it would be well to have a printed copy of what we have done on this Bill up to the present. I oppose this Clause because it is establishing compulsion for attendance at continuation schools. The country has never asked for it. The country will not relish it. It will be a blow at working class homes, especially in the North of England. One would have hoped that it would have been modified considerably and some improvement made to meet the

    2067
    case. I do not regard the concession to Lancashire as very much. It is not that I do not sympathise with the Lancashire position. I do. Their position exists also very largely in the West Riding. But the original proposal would have broken down. They have not got the schools or the teachers. The Department simply gave way to the Lancashire Amendment feeling that they were not parting with very much. They were avoiding, as the hon. Member for Oxford has hinted, a Departmental collapse. It is quite clear that no Government will attempt to put this Clause into operation for very many years, and not before an amending Bill is passed. The interference by this Clause not only with the home but with industry is so vast that it is quite clear that, when the country gets awake to the actual provisions, demands will come from all sides for amendment, and before any Government has the courage to put it in force an amending Bill, and perhaps two, will have to pass through this House.
    On that ground I think that the Government would have been well advised not to include these proposals for compulsory continuation schools in this Bill. I think that if we had raised the age to fourteen and abolished half-time, as we know it, that would have effected such an enormous change throughout the country that it would have taxed all the energies of the administration to put it into force. If the Bill had confined itself largely to that and to some of the more constructive provisions, I think that it might well have gone through, and that a separate measure for continuation schools brought in at a later date might have something in it. I should have thought that the. hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, who is connected with a Committee for civil liberties, would, during the discussion on this Clause, under which so much liberty is taken away, have helped those of us who wished to make its burdens lighter, but these supporters of liberty, so called, when questions affecting it come before the Committee, invariably urge increased State tyranny, as the hon. Member for Devizes so well said in moving the rejection of this Clause. With the constructive proposals of this Clause, I think that most of us are in hearty accord, and anything which the Board of Education have done to give facilities for continuation schools and for providing money,
    2068
    at any rate, would receive my most hearty support, but to bring in compulsion and the stern hand of the State is now, we are told by the apostle of liberty, necessary, and we are even to compel married persons to attend continuation schools. That point troubled me, and I intended to put a Clause on the Paper providing that no married person should be compelled to attend continuation schools.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member must not give that as a quotation from my speech at all. I believe that the marriage contract would prevent any married person from being obliged to attend continuation schools.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: A young married woman would not go to the magistrate even, and she would not do so for legislation of this kind, which will add to the unrest in the country. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Black-burn (Mr. Snowden), who, being a Lancashire Member, was bound to admit that working people are not prepared for this Bill and arc not prepared to make the enormous sacrifices in wages which its provisions will entail. He therefore proposed on Clause 10 to provide for the payment of maintenance allowances. For about the first time since I have been a Member of this House I, on that proposal, gave a vote for the State maintenance of children. I did so because, in my opinion, this Clause hits the working classes to an extreme degree, and it is impossible to justify these extreme proposals of this Hill without at the same time facing the problem in the way suggested by the Lancashire Members. But no maintenance is provided in this Clause. and I am perfectly certain the Bill in that respect will have to be amended. The married women of the country are coming on the register. They will not thank this Committee for passing Clause 10 to-day. Two or three millions of working women, when they realise that big, strapping young girls of seventeen or eighteen will still be compelled to go to school, even in the poorest homes, will strongly resent it, and will. I am sure, insist on an amendment of the law in that respect when they come into their own. Probably some of the women will a few years hence be found sitting in this House, and we shall get from them a very different account of the views of the working classes from that which is now laid before us. Hon. Members are already

    2069
    beginning to realise that this part of the Bill will be very unpopular. I am not suggesting we should not pass the Clause on that ground. I am only suggesting it will come as a staggering blow to the working classes, and it is our duty to help them to meet it.
    Already political agents who are opposed to this Government are going about suggesting that in the next election the present Government shall be turned out of office because it is always interfering with liberty. Great use will be made of Clause 10 by these people. The agitation has commenced while the Clause is still under discussion, and there are a body of men, acting under the guidance of occupants of the Front Opposition Bench, who are urging that the next election shall be fought against the Government on the ground of their interference with liberty by passing this Clause. I object further to the Clause because of the provision made with reference to university inspection. I very much regret that. I listened to last night's Debate very carefully indeed, and the concession which was made to this idea of university inspection gives me an additional reason for opposing the Clause. Having discussed the matter with some representatives of Labour and also with a number of Liberal working men, I may tell the Committee that their fear is that a new standard of schools will be set up. You will have private schools advertising themselves as inspected by the universities and they will be drawing comparisons between their own scholars and the boys and girls in council schools which are inspected by the Department. I do not know what safeguard can be provided against that, but I hope that those in charge of this Bill will look into the matter very carefully before the Report stage. We know that at the present time it is only with the utmost difficulty that a teacher can get an appointment as an inspector or make progress with the Department unless he comes from a university, and the idea is gaining ground that there is to be a badged class or a cast of teachers who are connected with universities.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Member and of the Committee to the Rule set out in page 323 of "Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice" which deals with the question," That the Clause, or the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill." It is
    2070
    there laid down that it is not competent on that question to make a general review of the Amendments or discussions or Amendments made when the Clause was going through the Committee. The hon. Member seems to be taking the Amendments one by one and going through the arguments advanced upon them. That is not in order.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have only three points down to which I intended to refer, and I have already dealt with two. I am pointing out to the Committee that this Clause has really been made worse by the. Amendments made. I am skipping the bulk of the Amendments. I might have spoken on every one of them when they were before the Committee, but I refrained from doing so because it might have been suggested that I was delaying the passage of the Bill. I have no intention of going through all the Amendments. I hope it will not be thought that I have a catalogue of them in my hand. I wish to point out that the Clause has been worsened by the provision as to university inspection, a provision which I look upon, as the sequel to the Morant circular of a few years ago. I have only one other point. The Committee refused lo put a safeguard into the Clause in the matter of working hours. It was suggested by the Minister in charge that this was a matter which should be dealt with by the Home Office, and he resisted any consideration of the point in connection with this particular Clause. I regret the attitude taken up by the Government on that point. To my mind it is quite clear you cannot limit the hours to be devoted to work or education except on an Education Bill. If the proposal were made as an amendment to the Factory and Workshops Acts, I venture to assert it would be ruled out of order by the Chair. I do not see how it is possible to amend that Act in order to provide for the number of hours a child should attend school. I therefore assert that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill is clearly wrong in his idea that the matter could be dealt with as an amendment to the Factory and Workshops Acts. The omission to put in a safeguard in this matter leaves this Clause in a very lamentable position, and I earnestly hope that before the Report stage the Government will carefully think this question over. The idea that a young person can be kept at work almost all his or her working hours for a very long time is intolerable, and I am afraid the Committee has

    2071
    missed an opportunity of providing safeguards against that. They will have to remedy the omission on the Report stage; otherwise it will necessitate the introduction of an amending Bill a year after this one comes into operation. I do not propose to repeat the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), not because I do not agree with them, but because I think he has put his case sufficiently and they do not need to be repeated. I shall vote against the Clause, because I would prefer a voluntary system of continuation schools generally supported, and because I am not in favour of compulsion.
    Mr. FISHER: Before we part from this important Clause I should like to express my acknowledgment of the co-operation and courtesy which the Committee has extended to me. It has been a Clause of very considerable difficulty and intricacy, and I owe a great deal to the good will of the members of the Committee. In the speeches we have just listened to from opponents of the Clause there has been one underlying error, and that is that the effect of this system of continuation classes will be to establish what an hon. Member has called "pale uniformity." That is the last result which I expect to ensue from the operation of this Clause. The Clause has been drafted on most elastic principles with the express object of providing for the greatest freedom of treatment when the Clause comes into operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has expressed preference for the establishment of classes in agricultural districts mainly to be held in the winter. There is nothing to prevent such classes being held under the operation of this Clause, which simply prescribes that a certain number of hours in the year shall be set apart for education. It will be for the local education authorities, in consultation with the various interests concerned, to make such arrangements as will be likely to produce the most satisfactory results. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) threw out a challenge which I feel it my duty to take up. He suggested that there was some doubt in the minds of members of the Committee, and also in the country at large, as to what the precise intentions of the Government were with respect to the carrying into execution of the terms of this Clause. Let me say at once that our intention is to proceed as rapidly as
    2072
    possible, after the schemes submitted by the local education authorities have been passed by the Board of Education, with continuation education for young persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. They will be brought into the scheme in two successive batches, and the scheme so far as it concerns young persons between those age limits, will be complete in two years' time after the appointed day. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) asked whether it might not be possible to supply the members of the Committee with a reprint of the Bill up to the point which will have been reached with the acceptance of Clause 10. That is a matter, I understand, for the authorities of the House to determine. So far as I am concerned I shall raise no objection to the adoption of that course, if it be deemed desirable.
    Captain ALBERT SMITH: I do not think it would be fair to repeat the arguments which were used in the course of the Debates on this Clause, but I should like to express my deep regret that this Bill should have been produced in a time of war when so many men who are heads of families are away from their homes. Whatever members of the Committee may think, this Clause will inflict very grave hardship on a great number of men. I would not mind that so much if the men were here to take their part in the passing of the Bill. I do not want to be too pessimistic about the future. Personally, I hold rather an optimistic view of the future after this War, and I believe that things will be better than a great many people expect they will be. Still, people have a lingering doubt in their minds is to what will be the exact position of trade and the relation of wages to the cost of living, etc, which is only natural to them now after they have suffered, even at-home, very great privation. A great many of the Committee were rather disappointed at what they considered the too great concession made by the Minister of Education in discussing the early part of this Clause. I think a careful study of what it really meant will show that there could be no other course for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue, because it was quite evident that the arrangements could not possibly be made in the time. With regard to the time up to sixteen years of age in continuation schools, all I want to ask the President is—as I think he has satisfied to a great extent the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) on the question

    2073
    of agriculture—that in other areas in England, in the industrial centres, he will—if he is there, and as I hope he will be, to carry out his work for years to come whatever Government may be in power—take that favourably into consideration when schemes are submitted for fixing the attendance of these people at school in order that as little hardship should be done as it is possible to do in the circumstances.
    I recognise that giving the authorities the option of choosing 280 hours in preference to 320 hours, if carried out in unison with the employers, will be worked at a very small disadvantage to the people concerned. In saying that I do not want the Committee to lose sight of the fact—and I am quite sure it will be so—that a great number of very hard cases will be met with during the first year or two. I want to appeal to the President to see if he can devise some scheme whereby these cases, without any pretence to make it a kind of pauperising thing, can receive some material assistance. If that is done I think the working of sixteen to eighteen will be smooth I think a great deal depends on how the continuation schools do work from fourteen to sixteen as to the success or non-success of this Bill. I understand, Mr. Whitley, that you are not in the mood for permitting a discussion on that particular Amendment relating to university inspection of private schools, but I think one would be in order in expressing their view of the effect that it would have on this Clause. It is rather important and a matter to which I take a very great deal of exception.
    The CHAIRMAN: It may be referred to in a sentence, but not in the form of a resumption of the Debate on a matter which was concluded on the Amendment.
    Captain SMITH: I only want to do that. My view of that concession—and I want the right hon. Gentleman to be very careful what he is doing—is that you arc going to have one set of children set against another. Not only that, but it is going to intensify the feeling with regard to school inspection itself. There are any number of headmasters and second masters in this country of exceptional ability and splendid stamina who have done excellent work in their own particular sphere, but who, because they are not representative or who have not been educated at one or other of the universi-
    2074
    ties, find it extremely difficult to be appointed to an inspectorate of our private schools. That ought not to be so. Again, what it is going to do is to create conflict at some time or another betwixt the Board of Education and the universities themselves, and, strange to say, not a single hon. Member who spoke in favour of this Amendment yesterday, would say that he was speaking for the universities. That raises the whole point. If I had been educated at Oxford or Cambridge, Manchester or Sheffield, or any other of the universities, had been turned out well fitted to face the problems of life, and had succeeded to an extent satisfactory to myself, I should think that university was the best university in the world, and I should do everything I could for the people of that university. What I want is that the Board of Education shall have the right of entry into every one of these private schools, and if that is so I think a great deal of that feeling will pass away. I ought to say that the sentence or two that appealed. to me more than anything else which has been said on the Bill were those uttered by the right hon. Gentleman when he expressed his fervent desire to keep the framework of this Bill. With. that I heartily agree, but I do believe more than anything else that had the country been assured that its young persons would continue their education under this Bill without fear of undue hardship the people would have taken it, and it would have done immeasurable good. Certainly, great deal better results would have come from it than will be the case when you have people living in uncertainty as to how they will meet their weekly bills for food, clothing, and so on. I am not in a mood to do anything to wreck this Bill. I am not in a mood to-challenge a Division on this Clause, but I do not know whether hon. and right hon. members of this Committee realise the position of a Member like myself who, ask said yesterday, has worked hard for education for a long period —
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that if one Member repeats the speeches he made yesterday on his Amendments there may be, what shall I say, a hundred desiring to do the same thing. I cannot allow that.
    Captain SMITH: I should like to avoid that, and I was going to finish in a sentence. Those are my views. I believe

    2075
    there is great good in this Clause, but I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to take seriously into consideration what the position will be of parents when their young children are going to school.
    Mr. DENNISS: As the representative of one of the largest industrial constituencies in the country I cannot refrain from entering my protest and regret at the fact of the Government having made continuation education compulsory in the very teeth of the known opposition of the working classes, and of most of the employers of some of our greatest industries—industries which are vital to the best interests of the United Kingdom. This Clause inflicts great hardship, pecuniary hardship, on the working classes, coming on the top, as it does, of the great hardship that has been put upon them by the abolition of half-time between the ages of twelve and fourteen. How the parents will be able to support their children in the same comfort as they have hitherto done I do not know, but I think before the Government introduced a system of compulsory education it should have taken care that it did not inflict hardship upon the poorer people whose children are compelled to attend these schools. The result must be that compulsory education must oblige the parents to support their children out of the earnings which were barely sufficient before the War, and which after the War may be insufficient, to support themselves, and to cast that burden upon the parents, particularly under Clause 8, and an additional burden under Clause 12. I have some letters on this subject. One of them has just arrived from a woman with nine young children, the eldest of which is a little over fourteen, and, as she says:
    "My husband and I are struggling our very hearts and souls out trying to keep a smiling face. Then up pops a man like Mr. Fisher, who has got his bread and butter for life, wanting poor people to bring a family into the world, to keep them up to school age, and then hand them over to the education authorities till they are old enough to be married and start children themselves. They are not to murmur if at the end of their lives they are asked to go to the workhouse."
    I will not read any more. Hon. Members will understand the position from that. That is the sort of case for which this Bill makes no provision. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to give State assistance—I think rightly, because I am all against State charity. I do not think that
    2076
    would solve the question in the long run at all. The immediate effect, of course, will be that the parents will endeavour to get higher wages, and that will throw the burden on the trade unions of a long struggle with employers to get a sufficient wage to pay the parents in order that they may be able to support their children up to eighteen, when a large number of them have never had to support their children beyond the age of twelve. For six years the extra burden is thrown upon them. Then, when the trade unions are successful, if the industry is injured—whether it be agriculture or cotton, and the particular industry in which I am most interested is cotton—the whole Kingdom must be injured, because the cotton trade is an export trade, and I think nearly one-third of the total exports of this country which enable us to import our food and our necessary raw material is derived from the cotton trade. I do not propose to detain the Committee on this subject, which has been freely thrashed out, but I felt I must rise to make a protest and to say that I think this subject ought to have been submitted to the people of this country at a General Election before it was carried through this House. People's minds are so full of the only thing that matters just now, in facing this War and what is to come afterwards, that they have neither time nor inclination to study this Bill, and neither have any of us really time to give our minds properly to it—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): The hon. and learned Gentleman's observations are not germane to the Clause.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am sorry if what I have just said was not germane to the Clause. I have a good deal more that I could say, but apparently the House is so thoroughly committed to this Clause that the only thing is for me to conclude my observations by entering against it a strong protest.
    Mr. PETO: I wish to withdraw my Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. PETO: I moved the rejection of the Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not an Amendment. Except the Question, "Yes or No," there is nothing before the Committee.
    Mr. PETO: Before the Motion is put I have a word to say with regard to the agricultural question in connection with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education said he thought I should be largely satisfied on the points connected with agriculture, but I am not satisfied, because what is needed is not actually provided for in the Clause, and there is nothing to prevent the cost of continuation schools coming upon the rates in sparsely populated districts, where the burden is heavier upon the parents and upon the ratepayers than is the case in largely populated centres. While I agree that there is nothing to prevent the local authorities from establishing winter continuation schools, unless financial provision is afforded it is quite impossible to bring that into effect, and I regard the case of agriculture in respect of continuation schools as not having been met under Clause 10.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11—(Enforcement of Attendance at Continuation Schools.)
    (1) If a young person fails except by reason of sickness or other unavoidable cause to comply with any requirement imposed upon him under this Act for attendence at a continuation school, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five shillings, or, in the ease of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding one pound.
    (2)If a parent of a young person, by wilful default or by neglecting to exercise due care, has conduced to the commission of an offence under the immediately preceding Sub-section, or has caused or connived at the failure on the part of the young person to attend a continuation school as required under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, whether relating to the same or other person, to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I move this Amendment because my strong conviction and belief is that it really involves a danger to education, and the more the subject of compulsion is studied the more it is to be feared. The right hon. Gentleman, by the Clause which has just been passed, has established the important principle that, in connection with our system of education instruction shall be continued from the age of fourteen until the age of eighteen. By this means it is hoped to make good the waste that goes on between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, when much of
    2078
    what has been gained in the primary school is lost, and all the time, trouble, money and care that has been expended in laying the foundations of a national system of education rendered valueless, or wasted, and lost after the child has left school at the age of fourteen. The President of the Board of Education has built up a new scheme, a wider and larger scheme of education for the young children of this country, and I admit that it is quite natural that he should not desire to leave that scheme suspended in air, with no definite means by which to achieve its object and render it useful to the country. But, in this first Subsection of Clause 11, whichever way we look at it, he introduces a principle which I am convinced will never work practically or smoothly when put into operation. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to enforce compulsory (attendance of boys and girls at these continuation schools? Fines are proposed in this Sub-section, and it seems to me almost barbarous to say that a fine of 5s. shall be inflicted, and in case of a repetition of the offence of non-attendance, the penalty may be increased to £l. Can that, I ask, be associated with an ideal scheme? Is it likely to make education more pleasant, or to prove more grateful in the nostrils of the people? Is compulsion likely to make more acceptable to the people of this country a scheme that is to raise and to enlighten the community, to stimulate and make more active the intelligence of the people? Is it likely that this proposal will give the ideal of the right hon. Gentleman a brighter aspect in the minds of the populace or of the parents, or of the children for whose benefit this great project is intended? Again, how is this fine of 5s. or of £l to be recovered? Boys and girls have not the means of paying it, nor could you get the cash out of them, for they have no property which could be sold in order to realise the fines. Nor will these penalties have the desired effect unless they are ultimately backed by imprisonment in case of default. Does the right hon. Gentleman, if fines are not paid, propose to crowd our gaols with young prisoners? Is that the way in which it is proposed to enlighten the people and give rise to a new era of educational efficiency? In public schools they have effectual methods of ensuring attendance without resort to fines. An hon. Member below the Gangway re-

    2079
    marked that in connection with our public schools we were seeking to draw class distinctions, but I would point out to him that in those schools the method of enforcing attendance, where a boy plays truant, is of a drastic description, and proves a most efficacious method, though I fear that such methods as are adopted in the public schools would be considered somewhat barbarous if applied to State-aided schools, and it is to be assumed the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to use these drastic methods to enforce compulsory attendance at continuation schools between the ages of fourteen and eighteen.
    I do ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks this proposal a desirable one, and whether it is not going to a lower scale to endeavour to get this scheme of continued and higher education with the aid of compulsion. We have had some experience of this question of compulsion in Scotland. Ten years ago an Act was passed by which attendance at continuation classes was made compulsory in that country, and I am quite sure that I am right in saying that not a single case has been tried before the Court since the passing of the Act in 1908, which has practically remained a dead letter, though the continuation schools have been and are now being carried on very efficiently and very satisfactorily. I am quite certain that the attempt to carry out compulsion by fines, or by ultimate resort to imprisonment, in connection with Scottist continuation schools would have led to a breakdown and to a strong protest on the part of the parents. But, as I have said, the legislation of 1908 is practically a dead letter. It may be all very well to have this brutum fulmen, but to make the statement that there is to be compulsory attendance when you are not prepared to carry it into actual effect is to create difficulties, for it makes people become accustomed to thinking that legislation does not mean all that it says, and that its bark is worse than its bite, and compulsion would fail when you came to put it into operation. The right hon. Gentleman has laid down the dictum that education is to go on until eighteen, and I urge him now to get rid of this bugbear of compulsion, which has for so long been an irksome part of our educational machinery. It has alienated a good deal of parental interest. It has stirred up a certain rebellious feeling on the part of the children,
    2080
    and I am convinced, after a long experience of nearly half a century of educational administration, that to force education by penalties is a great mistake. I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman two lines of procedure which he might take rather than the one that he proposes in this Sub-section. Instead of trying to enforce this compulsory attendance by criminal penalties, why not hold out as the first principle you lay down that the lavish expenditure and the lavish care and the great labour that are spent on these young people in their education by the State imply on their part what we have never sufficiently inculcated in them—namely, the obligation of national service, which ought to be reciprocal. Secondly, if they fail to use those lavish opportunities provided for them at enormous cost, is it not better, in order to bring home to them their responsibilities, to refuse to them some of their privileges as citizens?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Might I ask your ruling on this question? "We have in Clause 10 laid down what is called compulsory attendance at these schools, and, under the circumstances, is it in order to raise the question whether or not there should be that compulsion? We have gone beyond the question of moral obligation, and it is a compulsory obligation which must surely be enforced in some way. It may be argued that these penalties are excessive, but surely there ought to be some kind of penalty!
    Sir H. CRAIK: In Clause 11 we are now discussing the means by which the obligation to attend continuation schools shall be enforced, and I think I am in order in suggesting that instead of a fine—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can stop the hon. Baronet, except that I would suggest that he is rather elaborating the argument than dealing with the real point before the Committee.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Surely it is not inopportune that I should have suggested, having found fault with the method which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to employ, in the first place, that he should go to work rather through the sense of responsibility, and, secondly, that this responsibility should be brought home, not by fines and punishments, but by depriving the parents of some of the great privileges which they possess as citizens! On these grounds I move my Amendment,

    2081
    with regret at the interruption of the passage of the Bill; but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of acting from anything but a sincere and earnest desire that the working of the Bill should be as smooth as possible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that the best reason for leaving out Subsection (1) is that it is cryptic. I dislike very strongly the drafting of Acts of Parliament in a fashion to look as though they were innocuous. This Clause, penalising children who play truant to the school, introducing them to the Police Court and the police magistrate, mentions only the fines that can be imposed, in the fend hope that Members will pass the Clause without realising that if the fines are not paid the children will go to prison. Anybody who proposes compulsion had better look the facts in the face and realise that fines mean imprisonment if those fines are not paid, for otherwise they are useless, because unless they are backed by the fear of prison the fines cannot be extracted. I think, therefore, in the first place, that a Clause like this, penalising, as the hon Member who preceded me said, the victims of this Act if they do. not attend school, should be above all things clear and precise. We see now that every child who does not attend school, or who does not send in a reasonable excuse, is liable to be hailed before the bench by an over-active attendance officer, prosecuted, and if he or she fails to find the 5s. and costs, always remembering that the costs are a great deal more than the 5s., that boy or girl will be sent to prison. I suppose there will be the benefit of the First Offenders' Act, but cases of subsequent offence are not uncommon. That is my first objection, that you should state how long the period of imprisonment is as well as the fine.
    My second objection is equally strong. The association of the children of this country between the ages of fourteen and eighteen with the Police Court seems to be utterly undesirable and contrary to all good legislation. The third reason I have for objecting to it is that the youth of this country are imbibing a certain amount of the new spirit which is abroad to-day, and there is good reason for supposing that the very fact that we pass an Act of Parliament to say that any boy or girl who does not go to school should go to prison is enough to put the youth of this country against it. We all
    2082
    know the feeling of boys and girls of public school age about school That there are a lot of elderly Gentlemen in this House who are saying to the children of the working classes, "We think you ought to go to school, and we will send you to prison if you do not," is alone quite enough to put the backs up of a great many of the young people of to-day. I remember, some years ago, that my boy was in danger of being ordered to stop at a particular school, and he said that if the order was made for him to stop there he would immediately pack up his things and run away. He was a chip of the old block. If you try your compulsion on the young people of to-day, you may get more than you look for in the way of opposition. That is what I wish to say on this general question. But I do think oven if compulsion is desirable, and even if that passion for compulsion must be expressed at any cost to the people of this country, we might have the compulsion expressed rather differently than it is in this Bill. No one has been more impressed than I have been with the damage to parental responsibility owing to the State taking over from the parent with regard to the children many of the responsibilities which used to be the parents. The whole tendency of modern legislation is to treat the parent as a person who is necessarily Lad, bound for all time to be bad, and likely to get worse in his or her treatment of the children. We pass continually Acts of Parliament to protect and shepherd off the children from their parents. Under compulsory education we take away from the parent any sort of responsibility for the education of the child, and there is no doubt that if you go about this world you will find much less parental responsibility to-day than you would have found twenty years ago.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a general question, and not to the point of this Clause.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg your pardon, but I think that you will see it is very much to the point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have just intimated that I do not see that it is to the point, and if I do not see it is to the point it is not to the point.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is the new spirit. The point is that if you by this Act put the penalty on the child instead of on the parent you will still further reduce

    2083
    the responsibility of the parent in connection with the education of the child. This Sub-section—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The earlier parts of the hon. and gallant Member's speech were perfectly in order, and he dealt properly from my point of view, the point of view of order, with the Amendment, but he must not launch himself now into general questions.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point of this Amendment, as I understand it, is this, that Sub-clause (1) decides that compulsion is to be obtained by penalties on the child. Obviously if there is to be compulsion there must be compulsion upon somebody, and the point of my argument is that rather than put the compulsion on the child it should still be put upon the parent. Under Sub-section (2) it is put on the parent, and if we leave out Sub-section (1) the compulsion will remain on the parent alone, as it is under the Elementary Education Act, and, therefore, my argument is that it is undesirable to exercise compulsion upon the child. But I have even a better suggestion to make than that. The right hon. Gentleman and I, and I suppose most of us here, have spent amiable Sunday afternoons addressing what is known as Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Societies. We all know what wonderful attendances those meetings have. Certainly in the Midlands you get anything from 800 to 2,000 members together Sunday after Sunday to listen to rather second-rate speeches. How do they get that attendance of grown-up men and women? They get it by giving a penny a week to everybody who attends and then giving prizes at the end of the season in book form paid with the penny a week attendance. In that way they secure regular attendance by a form of bribery, if you like, but there is not really any bribery in it, but merely the fact that regularity of attendance secures a prize.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt again, but compulsion to attend continuation schools is fixed by Clause 10, which says that all young persons shall attend continuation schools, and this Clause deals solely with the method by which that compulsion shall be enforced. This question, therefore, does not arise.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is hopeless, therefore, to suggest a satisfactory volun-
    2084
    tary method now, and the pleasant Sunday afternoon method falls to the ground. But would it not be possible even at this stage to transfer the responsibility from the child to the parent? Why is it necessary to start the child with an acquaintance with the Police Court? Why put the young people of this country dead against the Government and dead against society at this early age? Is it not bad enough that we have made the respectable elements familiar with the prison and the Police Courts without extending thorn to the children of the working classes? One of the great supports of society throughout the world is the fear of the working classes of being sent to prison. Once you get them accustomed to prison find sufficiently contemptuous of all that the State can do to face prison with equanimity. you will then get a state of society which it will be very difficult to render permanent and safe.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I would like to say two things to my right hon. Friend who is in charge of this Bill. The first is, I am sure he is aware that in normal 6.0 P.M. times this Bill is going to create a great deal of friction between the two sides of the House. I cannot follow the President in supporting this Sub-section, largely on the grounds that have already been given in the two interesting speeches to which we have just listened. I cannot bring myself to think it is a good plan for the children of this country to be brought. however occasionally, into the Police Court. The company they would there have to consort with is not the company for children. In the second place, I have always been a great believer in the responsibility of the parents. In the Sub-section which follows I think there is sufficient penalty put upon the parents. I would beg my right hon. Friend to leave it to parental responsibility to see that the child or young person goes to the continuation school. I can really assure him he is pushing many of us very, very far in asking us to support this Subsection. and on this occasion I shall be unable to follow him into the Lobby if he does not give us some satisfaction.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I also put down this Amendment. because I thought it would be distinctly injurious to the objects of the Bill that a Sub-section of this kind should remain. The question of compulsory continuation schools has been before the House for some years, and for my own

    2085
    part I never have believed it possible absolutely to compel young persons between fourteen and eighteen to go to these schools if they are not disposed. I always regarded the compulsion not so much to the young person as to the local authority and the employers. You can compel the employers to make such arrangements that their employés shall attend school a certain number of hours a week, as arranged in the Bill, and the employers can themselves impose some sort of penalties on these young persons if they fail to attend school. They can dismiss them from their employment, for one thing. That is a very strong remedy. You can also put an amount of compulsion upon the local authority. But I never have believed for one moment that you can compel, by a fine or any other means, young people to attend these schools. You. are going to bring them before the magistrates. I sit on a Court where young people are sometimes brought before the! magistrates. I feel certain that numbers of magistrates would refuse to impose a fine, or, if they did, it would be a fine of 6d. or 3d., or some such sum, and this would be no deterrent to these young people absenting themselves from the classes. There is nothing in this Clause as indicating what is to be done with these young people, suppose they refuse to attend these classes. It does not say they shall have three months' or three weeks imprisonment. In these circumstances, I do sincerely hope the President will omit this Sub-section altogether. What we want to do is to make this instruction in these schools so attractive to these young people that they will attend. It is an old saying that you can take a horse to the well but you cannot make him drink, and, as would be done in Germany, you could take these young people between two soldiers and put them in continuation schools, but you could not compel them to learn. You do not want to compel them to go to school, but to induce them to learn, and you can only do that by making the instruction thoroughly attractive. I do hope the President will not insist on this Subsection.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I think it is a practical suggestion, and calculated to save the time of the Committee, if I ask my right hon. Friend, after the three speeches to which we have listened, if he cannot take time to consider this question. This Bill is brought forward at a
    2086
    time when it cannot be properly considered by the country, and it is most essential, in order to give it a chance at all, to make it as little unpopular as possible. I am sure when the people of this country wake up to the fact that their children may suffer from the stigma of being sent to prison, there will be a howl of indignation throughout the country. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the stigma may disappear, in which case it may be a very bad thing for the administration of justice. I hope my right hon. Friend the President will withdraw this Sub-section, and consider whether he cannot adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, and possibly substitute some diminution of civic rights for a limited period.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think the Committee has forgotten the provisions of the Children Act, and the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme would not have been made if he had had those provisions more clearly before his mind, because there are very elaborate provisions in the Children Act in Clauses 94 to 101 for dealing with the case of children and young persons who have been convicted of an offence and fined. In the first place, they arc not sent to prison, but to special places of detention—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: While being charged!
    Mr. ROBERTS—so that they shall not, by the mere fact of being charged, associate with adult criminals.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is before they are tried.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to proceed:
    "Where a child or young person is charged before any Court with any offence for the commission of which a fine, damages, or costs may be imposed, and the Court is of opinion that the case would be best met by the imposition of a fine, damages or costs,"
    in that case, if they think it proper, they can make the fine or the damages or costs payable by the parent or guardian, and I should imagine that is exactly what they would do. Further, in the case of a fine payable by a child or young person, the costs can in no case exceed the amount of the fine. Further:
    "A child shall not be sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude for any offence, or committed to prison in default of payment of a fine, damages, or costs."

    2087
    As regards the young person:
    "A young person shall not be sentenced to imprisonment for an offence, or committed to prison in default of payment of a fine, damages, or costs, unless the Court certifies that the young person is of so unruly a character that he cannot be detained in a place of detention provided under this Part of this Act, or that he is of so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be so detained."
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Has this any reference to attendance at school?
    Mr. ROBERTS: This is perfectly germane. Under these circumstances, the picture which has been drawn by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is one which is very wide of the facts, and the whole of the difficulty has been provided for under the Children Act, so that the difficulty which is apprehended appears to be worthless.
    Sir J. D. REES: As the Committee is engaged to-day in the creation of crimes, and as the learned Attorney-General is here, would it not be far better to learn from him, than from my right hon. Friend opposite, however competent a lawyer he is, what is the state of the case? I understand the law as to these fines, which I regard as cruel and altogether deprecate, to be as my hon. and gallant Friend laid it down, but, as the learned Attorney-General has come here for the purpose of helping us, I suggest it would be convenient for the Committee if he said whether or not these fines are enforceable by imprisonment. The point is whether the young person in being convicted by a criminal Court and being fined is not subject to a penalty which, under the common law of the country, is enforceable by imprisonment if fine is not paid. That is the point. and not whether the young person comes under the very comprehensive Statute to which no one pays any attention. I was here when the Children's Act was passed; it created a crime every five minutes. I submit that if children are to suffer this stigma, and are to be convicted of an offence which, under the common law, is subject to imprisonment, my hon. Friend is perfectly right, and my hon. Friend opposite is as near wrong as he can possibly be. Besides making that suggestion, which I have been burning to make, lest the learned Attorney-General left the House before I spoke, may I ask whether upon the Motion to omit this Sub-
    2088
    section we can also discuss the two following Amendments standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, so as to save time?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
    Sir D. REES: I submit that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) is right, and no action can be taken to enforce fine, then it will be perfectly futile to make continuation classes compulsory, because there will be no penalty and no sanction, and therefore the Clause will be a brutum fulmen, if I may borrow my hon. Friend's (Sir P. Magnus) thunder. We have decided there is to be compulsion, but it may be. permissible to state that if imprisonment is enforceable in default of payment, and if these fines are to be paid by the parent, the utmost cruelty is perpetrated by this Clause, which it is impossible to exaggerate. Even if the present high wages, which are not universal, survive the War, and are in force when the appointed day dawns, the utmost cruelty will be occasioned to children if this Clause, which I utterly abhor, becomes law. It is utterly uncharacteristic of a free State that children up to the age of eighteen, who are now old enough to go and fight for their country, should be driven to school with whips, punished with fines, and their parents' slender means drawn upon to pay these fines; or, if they do not, the children will have to go to prison, or remain under the stigma of the punishment. Besides which, in these days, greatly to our satisfaction, many of the magistrates are working men—perhaps I should say wage-earners, which is an expression I prefer. Many of the justices of the peace, I say, are wage-earners, and you are going to put them in the cruel position of being bound to fine a brother wage-earner for having failed to attend a continuation school, which I feel pretty sure, every hon. Member who hears me, thinks is no other than a venial peccadillo. It is not a criminal offence not to attend school. Why, truancy from school has been the very synonym of a trifling offence since the days of Shakespeare! There is not a man who would do more than gently chide anybody who failed to comply with this Clause. I will finish my remarks by asking the learned Attorney-General to let us know exactly what will be the position of these children if this cruel Clause becomes law.
    Mr. RENDALL: Hon. Members who have just spoken seem to forget that this particular Sub-section is not the first Sub-section rendering children liable to a fine. They forget that children can be fined for a very large number of offences. They can be fined for stealing apples, and for breaking windows.
    An HON. MEMBER: Those are not criminal offences!
    Mr. RENDALL: They can be brought before the magistrates and fined, and those fines, under the Children's Act, fall upon the parents. Are we really, in the one case where, in my opinion, a fine will do good, in the case where we compel the attendance of the child at school to its advantage, to say it is the one occasion where that fine is unjustifiable? It seems to me to be the one case where a fine is justifiable. If you take this Clause out you technically leave no power whatever to the education authority to make the child attend school. The Clause, I think, is a desirable one, and I shall be very much surprised to see any Labour Member get up and say that he wants it taken out.
    Mr. LEWIS: Several legal questions have been addressed to the Attorney-General. Perhaps before he addresses the House by way of reply I may be permitted to lay before hon. Members one or two general considerations. I listened with the deepest interest to my hon. Friends who have suggested alternatives to the penalties which are provided in this Subsection, but, it seems to me, their suggestions fall to pieces by their own weight. The Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member evidently, on his own admission, does not come within the scope of this particular Bill. May I, however, remind the Committee of the deliberate decision at which they already have arrived upon Clause 10. They have decided that "all young persons shall attend such continuation schools at such times and on such days as the local education authority of the area in which they reside may require." There must be some means of enforcing that. So far, I have heard no suggestion whatever of any means by which such attendance can be enforced except the means that have been suggested in this Bill. The hon. Baronet (Sir P. Magnus) said that young people would have no cash in hand for the purpose of paying the fines. Seeing that this provision applies to young people between the ages of fourteen and eighteen I
    2090
    hardly think it can be said of any considerable number of them that they have no cash in hand for the purpose of paying the fine.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Would they bring it to Court?
    Mr. LEWIS: It is absolutely essential to lay some obligation in this matter upon the child as well as upon the parent, because while the parent, under the laws relating to elementary education, is responsible for the attendence of the child at school, we cannot attach the same measure of responsibility to the parent of the young person between fourteen and eighteen years of age. To some extent they escape from parental control, which, in cases of the sort, is a diminishing quantity. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the young person should be responsible. My hon. Friend has conjured up all kinds of horrifying visions of the way in which these young persons will be treated. I venture to say, in connection with matters of this kind, that the law has provided, as my right hon. Friend opposite has just shown, the most elaborate safeguards for the purpose of segregating these young persons from having any connection with adult prisoners, and from preventing them being sent to prison at all. My hon. Friend is under the impression, perhaps, that a boy might be sent to a Borstal institution? The young persons with whom this Sub-section deals cannot possibly be sent to an institution of that kind. Every possible consideration, I feel sure, will be given to them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can they be sent to reformatories?
    Mr. LEWIS: No; they cannot.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Nor to an industrial school?
    Mr. LEWIS: Nor to an industrial school either. But behind it all, behind the compulsion which is exercised under Clause 10, you must have some definite sanction. So far I have heard no suggestion whatever of any sanction that would be effective for the purpose. The right hon. Baronet behind me referred to the case of Scotland. He seemed to be under the impression that in Scotland the young person can be fined, but that the system of imposing penalties upon young persons has failed in practice. That is not the case. Under the Scottish Education Act of 1908 there is

    2091
    no machinery whatever for fining the young person. That is the reason of the failure to compel young persons to attend these continuation schools.
    Sir H. CRAIK: But the schools have been very successful, all the same.
    Mr. LEWIS: Let me point out the measure of success to which my right hon. Friend refers. We have consulted the Scottish Education Department upon this point. They inform us it was found impossible to enforce attendance without imposing a penalty upon the young person. They proceed:
    "In 1915 the Department made an inquiry of the school boards who had adopted compulsory by-laws under Section 10 of the Act of 1908. Several boards said that in the existing state of the law they had found it practically impossible to enforce attendance."
    From the Linlithgow School Board they received a letter, which says:
    "This board attempted to have the young person punished, but failed, and the impounded element at once left the classes."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LEWIS: But, supposing that in England the local education authorities had attempted to carry out the provisions of this Bill and had provided continuation classes, had taken an enormous amount of pains to do all this, and then had found that at any time these schools were liable to be denuded of their pupils, what encouragement would they have to continue?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Change the teachers!
    Mr. LEWIS: May I further say in regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on Scotland, that the Education (Scotland) Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons on 17th December, and which, I believe, will be shortly reintroduced into the House, contains substantially the same provisions as this Bill.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It may be wrong, too!
    Mr. LEWIS: Scotland is acting upon actual experience. Scotland has seen persistent failure and has discovered it is absolutely essential, if the system is to work at all, that there must be some definite sanction at the back of it. I, therefore, sincerely hope that the Committee will support the retention of this Clause. I am convinced that unless we
    2092
    have sanctions of this character it will practically mean the nullification of the work that the Committee have already done upon the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Before the Attorney-General replies may I point out to the Committee an error into which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, has, I am sure in inadvertence, fallen. He began his speech by saying that the Clause referred to young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. He then alluded to the safeguards which are in the Children Act, 1908. If he looks at the definition Clause, which I have just done, of the Children Act, 1908, ho will see that the word "child" means somebody under the age of fourteen, and that the words "young person" mean somebody under the age of sixteen. Therefore, these safeguards do not entirely apply to Clause 10.
    Sir W. ESSEX: May it not be that in drafting this Clause it would have been better had the appeal in the first case as to the absence of the child been made answerable by the parents, and then leave the power in the hands of the education authority to enforce, as against the absentee and truant, some penalty, for in the first instance the parent should be credited with being the proper guardian of the child, and the person to whom the question should first of all be addressed as to why the child has been absent from school on this, that, or the other occasion. You have this further argument. There is many a high-spirited youngster, like the youngster mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Wedgwood), who might be prepared to defy the education authority in a fit of obduracy or whatever else you might call it, but who, when he knows that his absence may affect his father or mother and bring them before the Court, if he has got any stuff or quality whatever in him, or any right regard for his parents, will turn round and say, "All right, father; I will answer the appeal. I will go to school. If he has not that quality of dutiful respect for his parents, then I would like this Clause operative. My respectful suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education is that a great deal of our trouble in this matter may conceivably have arisen owing to the awkward drafting of the Clause. Had we put it the other way about and made the first appeal to show cause for the absence of the child to the parent it would have

    2093
    been better, and then obstinacy on the part of the child or lack of adequate parental control on the part of the parent would allow the application of a penalty Clause, not only in the personal interests of those concerned, but in the national interest.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I want to make quite sure what is the effect of this Subsection. As I understand the matter, it is, that if a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman, between the ages of sixteen and eighteen does not attend one of these continuation classes, whether the woman is married or single, if she fails to attend she is liable to be fined at the Police Court, and if she does not pay the fine she goes to prison. Let us go upon the next point. Supposing a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman, between the ages of fourteen and sixteen fails to go to a continuation class, they will be brought up to the Police Court and fined; and what happens supposing they do not pay the fine? They do not go directly to prison, like those between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, but they go to a place of detention. I hope the Committee understands the difference. That is, shortly, the effect of the Act which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) quoted as being the Act of 1909, but it is the Act of 1908, and it contains a Section after the one which the right hon. Baronet read which explains that, although they do not go to gaol, they have to go to a place of detention. I well remember many speeches that I made while those Clauses were under discussion, but I will not dwell upon that subject now. That is the position. Between the ages of fourteen and sixteen they are fined and sent to a place of detention, but between sixteen and eighteen they are fined and in default they go to gaol.
    The House passed Clause 10, which says that there is to be compulsion upon people to go to continuation classes. My views are perfectly clear upon that matter, and compulsion has been passed. Compulsion means fining people, and going to prison. I do not know what other means are open to the Government. If you wish to enforce a thing you must enforce it by fine or imprisonment. The hon. Member opposite talks about liberty of the subject, but, in regard to what he was saying in his protest against children being sent to prison, I am certain the Committee would not have listened to him even if he had
    2094
    been in order, and least of all the Labour Members to whom he was appealing. The Committee has decided that they cannot possibly adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, to make continuation classes in the case of persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen sufficiently attractive to persuade people to go to them, however much you subsidise them, without there is compulsion. Having decided that it is idle to object to the Government bringing in a Clause saying that if a person is compelled to attend, if they do not do so they must pay a penalty, and be brought up before the Court. If a Division is challenged on this point I shall support the Government. I think this Amendment is somewhat illogical and very unfair.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), in a very amusing speech, announced in language a little paradoxical the reasons which induced him to vote for this proposal. My hon. and learned Friend has given a statement of the law which is in every respect accurate. It is quite true that the Children's Act of 1908 only gives protection between the ages which the hon. and learned Member specified, and therefore the protection given by the Children's Act does not apply to those who have reached the age of seventeen or eighteen under this Bill. Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right when he says that their case is the same as any person who is ordered to pay a fine for other offences. The Mover of the Amendment is in error in supposing that under that law as it now stands children who have committed a breach of this law and are fined could be sent to a reformatory or a Borstal institution. If they are below the age provided for in the Children's Act they go to a place of detention, but if they are above that age, they are in precisely the same position as any other person who fails to pay a fine.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What happens if there is not a place of detention?
    Sir F. SMITH: But there is a place of detention. I have made inquiries, and I am told that there are. I assume that there are places of detention, because they had to be provided under the Childrens' Act, although that may be too sanguine a view. I cannot help thinking that the

    2095
    Committee would be well advised to consider this question a little more seriously, Rightly or wrongly we -are now committed to the principle of compulsion at this stage of the progress of the Bill, and the question is whether it ought to be directed to the parent or to the child, where the child is between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend who says that the best method of dealing with this question is to render the lessons so attractive that you cannot keep people away from the schools. I spent many years as a tutor at Oxford and it may have been individual errors on my part, or individual bad fortune, but I never met a teacher who inspired me with that idea; and I never met a pupil whom I was fortunate enough to inspire with that idea. If we arc to wait for that happy day I cannot help thinking that the cause of education in this country will be somewhat delayed.
    Let me make one final observation. It we were going to impose upon young persons between sixteen and eighteen disabilities and penalties which were wholly novel, then there would be some ground for the apprehensions which have been expressed. What is the distinction between a fine upon a child who refuses to go to school, knowing that he or she is doing an illegal act, and a child of a more responsible age? Supposing a child rides a bicycle without a light and is fined; if that child is under the ago laid down in the Children Act there is a place of detention. But if it is a child between the ages of seventeen or eighteen who commits the same offence, no one will say that after refusing to pay a fine they should not be sent to prison. If those children ride bicycles without lamps, it is only carrying the thing a reasonable stage further to say that they should be fined. Why should a child who has refused to go to school, knowing there is a penalty for not going to school, be placed in a different position from a child who has broken another law less penal? Why is such a child to be placed in a different position? If my hon. and gallant Friend and those who have spoken in support of this Amendment and criticised the proposal of the Government will think out that illustration, they will see that at this period of the day it is a little ridiculous to make it appear that we are committing some great and new invasion of the liberties of these young children. This
    2096
    reflection will be tempered by another, and it is that if the House is serious in insisting that the proposals of this Bill shall be compulsory, the Government have adopted the only machinery which will really successfully secure the carrying out of that policy.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Attorney-General knows very well that the case of a young person riding a bicycle without a lamp and the case of a child refusing to go to school are absolutely different. The reason for inflicting a fine for riding without a lamp is because by doing so there may be some injury done to someone else, but in this case you are proposing a fine and imprisonment for doing something that would not hurt anybody else at all. For the first time you are saying because you do not like your teacher, or you think he is half-German, or teaches badly, or uses the stick too freely, or because you do not like him, that that is no reason at all, and the law says you must go to school and we will fine you if you do not do so. That is the new departure to which we object. I do not think it is advisable even to send children to gaol for riding a bicycle without a lamp, but I am strongly opposed to sending children to gaol for doing something which affects nobody else but themselves. People are now becoming more and more aware that Acts of Parliament do not make things right or wrong, for it is your own conscience which does that. By this measure you are adding another to those Acts of Parliament which will be dead letters, because the people will not obey them.
    Mr. BOOTH: I want to suggest that the years should be split. I can quite see that young men or women of seventeen are not entitled to disobey the law, but many children of fourteen and fifteen would be the wrong people to fine. I do not know why one system should apply to all these years. In the early years the parents have great influence over their children and they can either make them go to school or not, but at the ages of seventeen and eighteen the children will not take any notice of their parents. They will organise strikes and go their own way in a manner which will surprise the teaching profession. I suggest that if the parents were made responsible, at any rate for the first year, and they got the child accustomed to attending the school, the children would know exactly what their duties were under

    2097
    the continuation school system, and then they would know that they would be in fault if in later years they did not keep up their attendance. You propose the first year it comes into operation that the child shall be immediately responsible. I am sure that it will not work, because the Courts will not convict. If the parents were made responsible for the first year, and then, when the children were attending the continuation schools it were their duty to keep on and to comply with the law, it might possibly work. I am not
    asking for an immediate answer, but I suggest that the system outlined will not work. I detest it so much that I shall vote against it, but I do think that the Government might frame a better suggestion by splitting the years.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'five' ["exceeding five shillings"], stand part of the Clause.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [6.46 p.m

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Glanvale, Harold Jams

    Masen, David M. (Coventry)

    Alnsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Coldstone, Frank

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Alden, Percy

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morison, Meclor (Hackney, S.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morton, Sir Alpneus Cleophas

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gretton, John

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Nuttall, Harry

    Ballcur, Sir Rooert (Lanark)

    Haddock, Major George Bahr

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

    Barnett, Captain R. w.

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Parkes, Sir Edward

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

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

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pease, Rt. Hen. Herbert Pike

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bellairs Commander C. W.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

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

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Havelock-Akllan, Sir Henry

    Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Pulley, C. T.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Bird, Alfred

    Herman-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Rawllnson, John Frederick Peel

    Boscawcn, Sir Arthur S. T. Grifflth-

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hinds, John

    Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir G.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. H.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hops, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Robertson. Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hope, Lieut -Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hume-Williams, sir William Ellis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Clough, William

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Smallwood. Edward

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    King, Joseph

    Somervell, William Henry

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Currie, George W.

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Spier, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Stoker, R. B.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sutherland, John E.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    M'Callum Sir John M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McCalmont, Brig-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Tootill, Robert

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

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Fleming, Sir John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Wardle, George J.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

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

    Yexall, sir James Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    Winterton, Captain Earl

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hills, John Walter

    Rowlands, James

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwan)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sutton, John E.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Cator, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wedgwood. Lt.-Commander Josiah

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    O'Grady, James

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Sir

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    H. Craik and Mr. Wilson-Fox.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "five" ["exceeding five shillings"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    My Amendment is to alter the fine which can be inflicted upon these victims from 5s. to 2s. for the first offence, but I only move it formally, not wanting in the least to alter the full efficiency of the Clause either as an Act of Parliament or as an argument for the platform, in order to obtain some sort of statement from the Front Bench as to the number of days' imprisonment which may be imposed as an alternative to a fine of 5s. or 2s.
    Mr. LEWIS: The Committee has decided to impose a penalty.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I only asked a question.
    Mr. LEWIS: You are not moving the Amendment?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I only moved it formally to have that question answered.
    Mr. LEWIS: I am afraid that on the spur of the moment I am unable to give my hon. and gallant Friend the information.
    Sir F. SMITH: My hon. and gallant Friend may take it that the imprisonment in all cases of the 5s. penalty will not exceed seven days.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member is, I am afraid, out of order in its present form—
    2100
    In Sub-section (1) at the end to insert the words,
    "Provided nevertheless that young persons convicted under this Section shall not in default of paying any fine be sent to any reformatory or Borstal institution or into such parts of any prison where they will be liable to associate with adult prisoners."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it out of order on these grounds? Under the Bill, as I understand it, it is possible to send persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen to places of detention. We know that over the greater part of the country there are no places of detention other than the prison. I am afraid, where there is no place of detention, that the reformatory or the Borstal institution may be taken instead. I want to know, if I can without intending to press the Amendment to a Division. whether, where there is no place of detention, there is any risk whatever of the magistrate using one of these reformatories or Borstal institutions instead?
    The CHAIRMAN: The reason the Amendment is out of order is because there is nothing in the Bill which can possibly empower one of these young persons to be sent to a reformatory or a Borstal institution.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not for recurrent truancy?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. The Amendment —In Sub-section (2), after the word "person" ["if a parent of a young person"], to insert the words "or the employer of a young person"—standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) is out of place. It is a matter for Clause 16.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words,
    "by wilful default, or by neglecting to exercise due care, has conduced to the commission of an offence under the immediately preceding Subsection, or."
    Leave out the word "caused" ["or has caused or connived at"], and insert instead thereof the words "conduced to." — [Mr. Fisher.]
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "or connived at."
    I hope this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. It seems to me to be either supererogatory or much too vague. The Clause now reads:
    "If a parent has conduced to the failure on the part of the young person to attend a continuation school."
    7.0 P.M.
    That seems to read all right, but I do not understand why if you say "conduced to" you need to add the unnecessary words "or connived at" as well. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment and to make the Clause read simpler. The only question which induces me to go on with this Amendment is that the phrase "connived at" is a very vague term. It is almost impossible for a parent to avoid conniving at a child's truancy. It might be some silly word said some months before the truancy occurred. It would be far better to have the definite term "conduced to," which is understood by the magistrates and not to have the very doubtful word "connived" as well.
    Sir F. SMITH: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the words "conduced to or connived at" are very old partners, and this is by no means the first time they have been associated. I believe that one can, although I am not quite sure about it, draw some fine distinction of meaning between the two, but I am not quite sure that if that were done it would carry my hon. and gallant Friend in the direction he wants to go. I have not in my mind the earlier Statutes from which the words are taken—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Statutes of treason and felony.
    Sir F. SMITH: I think not, but I am thinking rather of Acts passed in recent years. I will, however, look at these words, and if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks it worth while to raise the point on. Report, I will consider the whole question.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am very glad to hear that statement from the Government, because this matter applies to the mother rather than to the father. When we look at these things we only think of the male parent, but there is no doubt that the mother, as a rule, has sympathy with her boy who is a truant, and perhaps desires to hide it or put the best construction on it. The phrase "connived at" will hit most mothers in most cases taken up under the Bill. I should prefer that the words were left out entirely. It is not desirable in legislation of this kind, which is so obnoxious to all the people concerned, that we should use provocative language.
    Sir J. D. REES: I confess I do not quite know what is the meaning of the words "connived at." Almost every parent has connived at some crime of this character on the part of children, and will continue to do so as long as they have any bowels of compassion or any sympathy with youthful indiscretion. The Attorney-General says the words "connived at" and "conduced to" are old friends. Everybody knows what it is to cause the failure of a child to attend school, but if it is a case of conniving at such failure, it is a horse of a very different colour. These cases will come before Courts which are not well posted in legal decisions, and although the Attorney-General says that these words have been partners for a long time, I hope the partnership is not so close that it cannot now be dissolved.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. PETO: I do not want to bring any legal arguments before either the Committee or the Attorney-General, but to register my views and say why I object to this Clause. From a common-sense point of view one is particularly glad to have the Attorney-General here, because there is no man in this House of whose common sense I have a greater opinion than of his. What will be the real operation of this Clause? Let us consider what responsibility in respect of these young persons the Board of Education has undertaken. They have taken away, for the greater part of most of the days of the year, from their parents children from the age of five to fourteen. They now propose this continuation education.

    2103
    Therefore they have, to a large extent, taken the parental position, and have necessarily, by the elaborate system of compulsory education which has been in force for a long time in this country, weakened parental control. They now propose, in the first instance, to fine a child who does not go to school, and, in the second instance, to fine a parent if he connives at or does anything to cause the absence of the child from school. What will be the effect of that? Take, for instance, a young person, who, so to speak, has kicked over the traces. Perhaps he is a very troublesome boy in many directions who has disagreed with his father, and perhaps with his mother too That is exactly the sort of child who will absolutely refuse the allurements of these continuation classes, and will not want to have anything to do with them. The best chance that he can have of getting even with his father over some other grievance is to get him fined as often as possible, knowing perfectly well that the fine will ultimately fall upon the father. The hon. Member for Stafford drew a beautiful picture of the parent appeal-ling to the better sense of the child, and he told us that as soon as the child admitted that the money would come from the father he would promise to he-come a good child and would go to school. That reminded me of the pretty endings to the moral stories on which we were brought up in early youth. It will not really happen.
    This is a monstrously unjust provision, because the Board of Education, first of all, places the child and the parent in such a relationship that they have essentially weakened the stout, old, sturdy discipline of the parent which was common in the old days. The parent has not got the same authority over a child up to sixteen if the Board of Education has taken him away from home from the age of five to fourteen. Now to throw this onus upon the parent of seeing that right up to the age of eighteen this young person attends a continuation class on proper clays is throwing the burden back, when they have already deprived the parent of the real effective power of being able to say that he is law so far as his own child is concerned. We have heard in the course of these Debates that this is going to apply, as soon as Clause 10 reaches its full fruition, to young women who, possibly, have been married. Surely
    2104
    in cases of that kind it is quite impossible to say that a parent can use any compulsion, and it will be impossible to bring the husband in at all. I do not want to stretch the point, but that is an illustration to show how far removed is the control over these young persons with regard to whose conduct you are throwing the whole onus and expense upon the parent. On Clause 10 it was appropriate to point out, as several hon. Members did, that the whole principle of continuation education was throwing a great burden upon the poorer parents. Now a greater burden, in the first place up to £2 and afterwards up to £5, is going to be imposed upon these poor parents whose inclinations and interest would be to see that the children should not attend. They have now to sec that they do attend, and are to be fined up to £5 if they have a truant boy who is determined not to attend continuation classes. When these parents understand what the Government are doing, I am quite convinced that this Bill would become more unpopular even than it is where it is getting to be understood now. The Debate which has taken place on the Amendment to omit Subsection (1) shows that a very large number of the Members of the Committee are already repentant of their consent to the rasing of the age to eighteen, and have grave misgivings when they see all that is involved in the way of penalties, Police Courts, possibly imprisonment, and the like, in order to carry out the compulsory system. I therefore oppose the Clause.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am not very much concerned whether or not this Clause goes into the Bill in one sense. It will not be put into operation. I undertake to say that justices cannot be found to do the horrible things intended by this Clause. In a great measure it will be a dead letter. We had a Black List brought in by a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench with regard to children. Where is it now? Yet we nearly lost an election on it. That will happen with regard to this Clause. I doubt whether Sub-section (2), as drawn, will be operative; it will be very easy to get through it. The bulk of these cases will be nauseous to all the magistrates before whom they are brought. There will be a general feeling amongst the people that this is a Bill brought up not in due season. The words in Sub-

    2105
    section (2) are sufficiently wide to enable the magistrates and the people concerned to give the benefit of the doubt to the parents, and I think that will be done. The words are
    "By wilful default or by neglecting to exercise due care."
    They will be interpreted by common-sense men, and the result will be that the friends of liberty in this House will secure what they want owing to the wideness of the words. I hope that on Report nothing will be done to strengthen them, and that the House will pass them as they are
    Sir J. D. REES: The Clause also says in Sub-section (2) that if a parent
    "by wilful default or neglecting to exercise due care … or has caused or connived at."
    An HON. MEMBER: The words "or has caused" have been struck out.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then there will not be so many crimes created this fine afternoon as I thought. As the Committee has decided that continuation schools shall be compulsory, I fail to see the use of opposing this Clause.
    Clause 12 (Administrative Provisions) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13.—( Amendment of 3 Edw.7 c. 45 &4 Edw. 7. c. 15.)
    (1) The Employment of Children Act, 1903, so far as it relates to England and Wales shall be amended as follows:

    (i) For Sub section (I) of Section three the following Subsection shall be substituted:

    A child under the age of twelve shall not be employed, and a child of the age of twelve or upwards shall not be employed on any day on which he is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening:

    (ii) In Sub-section (2) of Section three, which prohibits the employment of a child under the age of eleven years in street trading, the words "under the age of eleven years" shall be repealed:

    (iii) For Section twelve the following Section shall be substituted:

    The powers and duties of a local authority under this Act shall be deemed to be powers and duties under Part III. of the Education Act. 1902. and the provisions of the Education Acts for the time being in force with regard to those powers and duties and as to the manner in which the expenses of an authority under that Part of that Act shall be paid shall apply accordingly.

    2106

    (iv) For the definition of the expression "local authority" there shall be substituted the following definition:

    The expression "local authority" means the local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902.

    (2) The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, so far as it relates to England and Wales, shall be amended as follows:

    (i) In paragraph (b) of Section two, which restricts the employment of boys under the age of fourteen years and of girls under the age of sixteen years for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale between nine p.m. and six a.m., "eight p.m." shall be substituted for "nine p.m." so far as relates to children under fourteen years of age:

    (ii) In paragraph (c) of Section two, which restricts the employment of children tinder eleven years for the purpose of singing, playing or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale, twelve years shall be substituted for eleven years:

    (iii) In Section three, which relates to licences for the employment of children exceeding ten years of age, the age of twelve years shall be substituted for the age of tea years:

    (iv) References to the Employment of Children Act, 1903, shall be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act.

    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment to this Clause, standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. Davies), is not in the right form, and raises too many separate points iii one Amendment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i), to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
    My only object, and the object of those hon. Members with whom I have the privilege to be associated in this Amendment, is to safeguard the best educational interests of the children and to strengthen the proposals which the President makes. I am dealing now with Sub-section (1) of Clause 13, which repeals Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, which provides that they shall not be employed between the hours of nine in the evening and six in the morning, provided that local authorities can vary those hours. The proposal in the Bill is a very great advance upon existing legislation, because it provides that a child under the age of twelve shall not be employed. My Amendment is that a child under the age of fourteen shall not be employed. It is a little difficult to consider this as an

    2107
    isolated Amendment, because there are consequential Amendments on the Paper and there are other Amendments which are not consequential but which may be used to qualify the effect of raising the age to fourteen at this point of the Clause, and it will be for the Committee to decide, if it raises the age to fourteen now, whether they shall forbid employment under the age of fourteen or whether they shall go on to qualify the Amendment in some such way as is suggested on the Order Paper. If some of the subsequent Amendments are adopted, the Clause may read that a child under the age of fourteen shall not be employed and a child of the age of fourteen or upward shall not be employed on any day on which it is required to attend school.
    The CHAIRMAN: I can save the hon. Member some trouble about that, because a child over the age of fourteen is not a child.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I call your attention to the Definition Clause, and I think you will see on this occasion, the only occasion upon which you have ever been wrong, that that is not so, because the Definition Clause states that the expression "child" means any child up to the age when his parents cease to be under an obligation to cause him to receive elementary education, and an early Clause of the Bill gives power to increase the age to fifteen up to which a child may be required to attend for elementary instruction?
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not apply to fourteen and upwards. The hon. Member wants to bring into this Clause, by what he says, a child of forty as well as fourteen.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The only point I am making is that if a local authority raises the school-leaving age to fifteen, as it has power to do, a person up to the age of fifteen would be a child in accordance with this Definition Clause, and in that sense you may say children of fourteen and upwards. But that, after all, is a question of interpretation and is of no importance to my argument. I wish to put the case for protecting the school child up to the age of fourteen from the undue demands of industrial work. If the Bill is not modified it will be possible still for all children above the age of twelve who have to attend full-time day school to be employed in industrial work. Every day
    2108
    upon which a boy or girl has to go to school it may at the close of the school day be employed in various industrial occupations. Every day these children of the age of twelve and upwards go to school they may in the evening be worked in the world of industry. In addition to that, they may be worked on Saturdays and Sundays, and the only limitation that is placed upon their labour is that they must not be employed on any day before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening. Whatever may be said as to interference with industry, I think, if we were considering this matter solely from the point of view of the educational and other interests of the children, we should agree that it was most undesirable for children of the age of twelve, after attending school all day, to be employed each evening up to eight o'clock.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really must ask the hon. Member which Amendment he is moving. There are two quite distinct things in this first paragraph of Subsection (1). One deals with the child under the age of twelve, and is what may be called the clean cut. The second is where the child is over the age of twelve. The hon. Member is now taking the second proposition. Am I to pass over his first Amendment? I think we had better take them one by one.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I will deal only with one point. I am now dealing with what you have described as the clean-cut Amendment. Whereas the Sub-section prohibits the employment of children under the age of twelve, the effect of my Amendment is to prohibit the employment of children under the age of fourteen. This will prevent children who are under a statutory requirement to attend school full time from being employed in the evening of their school days, on Saturdays or on Sundays. I am moving the Amendment in the interests of the children. It is entirely in the spirit of the many recommendations which have been made from time to time in the reports of almost innumerable Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, and if the Committee accepts the Amendment it would carry out an improvement in the law which has been pressed upon the House by every independent inquiry undertaken by experts.
    Mr. FISHER: It may expedite the course of business if I explain the general principles which have guided us in the

    2109
    construction of this Clause. I do so because we are met with Amendments coming from opposite quarters. On the one hand, we are pressed still further to restrict juvenile labour, and on the other hand, we are pressed to give additional concessions to juvenile labour. The point of view from which this Clause is framed is strictly educational. It is not the object of the Clause or of the Bill to insert general provisions restricting the employment of children on merely economic or social grounds. The object of the Clause is to secure the limited object that those children who are under statutory obligation to attend public elementary schools shall come to these schools in a condition in which they are fit to profit by their instruction. We feel that there are certain anomalies in spending £30,000,000 a year upon elementary education if, at the same time, we permit industrial conditions to survive which prevent children from deriving any profit from that education. On the other hand, although we fully recognise that there may be very good ground for, such further restrictions on child labour as the hon. Member suggests, and although we have Amendments on the Paper suggesting that there should be a further regulation of child labour on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, we feel that that is somewhat outside the purview of the Education Department. We are simply attempting to safeguard the efficiency of elementary education, and I appeal to the Committee to assist me in the prosecution of this limited object. I feel that if we were to wander into the wide field of a general demand to regulate the conditions of juvenile industry, we should never get to the end of our task. Furthermore, I am quite unable to arrive at a conclusion upon so complicated and difficult a scheme. Neither I nor the Board of Education have the information which will entitle us to recommend the proper course for the Committee to pursue.
    I trust, therefore, that the Committee, having in view our very limited object, will, so far as possible, find itself able to adhere to the compromise which is suggested in the terms of the Bill. We desire in the first place to make it clear that children under twelve should not be employed at all. We hold that children of so tender an age should be allowed to spend their days and nights in play and sleep apart from the elements of learning.
    2110
    Between twelve and fourteen we are anxious to safeguard the school hours. We do not think a little employment on schooldays is necessarily mimical to the efficiency of the school life, but we have a very great body of evidence to the effect that employment before school hours is very injurious to the efficiency of our elementary school life. Consequently, while the Bill prohibits employment before school hours and during the dinner-hour, it does admit of a limited amount of employment between the close of the school and 8 p.m. That is the limit which we have set, and I must appeal to hon. Members, who may desire either to restrict the operation of the Clause or to enlarge it, to accommodate themselves to the general purposes of the Bill, and, as far as possible, to give me their support in carrying it.
    Mr. KING: I do not think that the tone which the President of the Board of Education has adopted suits him very well. He says, "I am not here as a social reformer. I am here as an educationist. Hours of employment for children is a question of social reform. I am only looking at it from the educational point of view." You are dealing with one great problem, the welfare of the people, educational, social, and industrial. The whole thing hangs together. Therefore the argument that this is only an educational question cannot be made good. I do not wish to prevent this Bill going on or I should say more than I do now. I do urge upon the President not to take up this line of argument of a sort of pious educational Pharisaism, if I may use that word. It does not suit him, and he only adopts it in order to get on with the Bill, but I am not sure that it will have that effect.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I cannot go as far as the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, but at the same time I cannot help feeling a certain sense of disappointment at the non-possumus attitude which the President has taken up on this question. He says very truly that his object is to see that the children who go to school are in a fit condition to profit by their education, but if he will look at the Regulations in regard to child labour he will see that it will still be possible for a child to work fifty hours a week. A child can work from 4.30 to 8 every evening and during the dinner-hour as well.

    2111
    [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It will be possible to work the child fourteen hours on Saturday and also fourteen hours on Sunday. I can quote against the President the opinion of his own chief medical officer, who says that long hours of work on Saturday and Sunday are often more inimical to the child than to work thirty hours during the week. Of course it would be ridiculous to ask the President to consent to the forbidding of work for children of school age, but he might make some concession to those who feel that the hours which he allows are still, to a very large extent, prejudicial to the interests of the children.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am quite as anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book as the President himself. I quite recognise that it is purely an educational Bill, but you cannot segregate education from social reform. Does he think that a child who on leaving school in the afternoon is put to work and kept at work until eight o'clock in the evening is likely to be fit next morning to go to school and to receive education as efficiently as he desires? On purely educational grounds, I wish he could have listened to our appeal to make the age fourteen instead of twelve. We do not want to be bringing in another Education Bill in a few years' time. Why not make this great reform in the country now?
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "employed" ["shall not be employed"], to insert the words,
    "except by the child's parents or guardians, with the written consent of the local education authority, but not for financial remuneration."
    Everybody would be against a child of this tender age working for wages, but I submit that there are little offices which a boy or girl under twelve could perform at the behest of their parents which would not unfit them for school life and at the same time would be of considerable value to the parents. Under this Clause, as it stands, a girl or a boy under twelve would not be able to fetch the doctor in case of illness or would not be able to fetch medicine or do any household work, such as fetching milk from the dairyman or a pound of sugar from the grocer. I cannot help thinking that that is an interferance with the liberty of the parent which is most unjustifiable.
    Mr. ALDEN: I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member is wrong. There is no limitation whatever in regard to domestic work.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is this the right place to put in this Amendment? Should it not come on the definition Clause? This Clause alludes only to employment for profit. Would not this Amendment be more properly dealt with on the definition Clause?.
    The CHAIRMANThat is a new point. Perhaps the hon. Member will put his Amendment in the form of a query and get an answer, and if it not satisfactory he can pursue it.>
    Sir J. SPEAR: I base my Amendment on the wording of this Clause, which says that a child under the age of twelve cannot be employed. I want to make it clear that a child can be employed in these little domestic offices. Even in the case of a small holder, during the holidays, a child would be delighted to help a little in making the hay and in fetching the cows. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that this Clause does not prevent a child from being so employed I shall be satisfied.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will put the Amendment formally, so that the hon. Member can get an answer.
    Mr. FISHER: I am very glad to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that employment under this Clause means employment for profit, and that the domestic tasks to which he alludes will still be open to boys and girls under twelve.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Would helping to make hay during the holidays, but not for wages, be allowable under this Clause?
    HON. MEMBERS: That would be for profit.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Not for wages. If there is any doubt, I must press my Amendment, because what I want is that a child of that age may be able to perform those little offices, may be able to take the cows into the field on its way to school, may be able to take a can of milk to a neighbour on its way to school, by the performances of which little offices it would not be injured one iota. The child of a small holder ought to be allowed to help. When that small holder is struggling to get his

    2113
    position, he ought to be able to have the help of his wife and children in doing light things. I want that child to be able during the holidays to help its father in making the hay; it would be much happier in doing that than in loafing about the lanes. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that under this Clause these little light things can be done by a child at the request of its parents, without remuneration, I must press the Amendment. Some parents may be unreasonable, though I am bound to say that my experience, and it is a long one, shows that the average parent is more solicitous for his child than are Members of Parliament. The cases in which a child would be ill-used by having to work would be very few and far between, but I have safeguarded against that by providing that the work shall be sanctioned by the local education authority. Coming from the rural districts, I know that this Education Bill is most unpopular, and it will be made more unpopular and difficult to work if tyrannical Clauses like this interfere with the simple performances of these offices, which in a family contribute to the goodwill of the family and its prosperity. I worked on a farm long before I was twelve years of age, and was all the better for it. I tilled my father's garden for many years before I was fourteen, and I was at home working regularly on the farm at fourteen and a half. Of course, things have altered since then, but do not let education interfere more than is necessary with the liberty of the subject and the liberty of the parent. If this Bill disregards the feelings of the parent to the extent that this Clause provides there will be much opposition to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of it as an Educational Bill only, but you cannot educate people except somewhat on lines that the people think are reasonable and just, and unless this Clause is so amended I am sure it will be regarded as inflicting education by a Prussianised system. Take the case of a woman with five or six children. Is she not to be allowed to have her girl, who is eleven and three-quarters years of age, to be able to help her to lay the table or to wash out the kitchen? In the interests of education and in the interests of getting a great deal out of the Bill, I hope that it will be made quite clear that boys and girls will not be prohibited from helping their parents in the little domestic offices that devolve upon them.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I think this is a matter of some consequence, and that there are three distinct points raised by it. There is the point of the little details of domestic life in the case of a child leaving something at a house on the way to school, which is strictly incidental on the child carrying out its educational duty of going to school. There is quite a different case as to what a child under twelve should or should not be allowed to do even on a holiday. You have to be very careful on the one hand that you are not using a child of tender age to do certain things during the holidays when it ought to be resting and reinvigorating itself; but on the other hand it is perfectly obvious that a child between the ages of twelve and fourteen can do things in the holidays which it would be very absurd to try to do when children are giving their strength at school. There is a third point as to what is meant by employment for profit or other gain. I think my right hon. Friend, if he looks at the definition Clause, will possibly agree that that Clause will want some modification. It is rather difficult to define employment in such a way as to admit occupation incidental to domestic life and yet carefully to exclude temptation to employ a child for gain when his attention and strength ought to be given to education and health. Therefore I would ask my right hon. Friend if he would be prepared to consider the redrafting of a definition Clause, and, whether in connection with such possible redrafting, this matter does not arise more appropriately than it does at this point of the Bill? I quite agree that we have here a golden opportunity of protecting children from overwork and unsuitable work and of getting their faculties clear and fresh for the great duty of education. On the other hand, we are discussing this great Bill in the middle of a great war at a time when we have to proceed by the method of the greatest common measure of consent rather than by the method of carrying out ideals and principles which are matters rightly or wrongly of controversy. Therefore I am extremely anxious that this Bill should be carried in the very best form consistent with having behind it a majority of the country and the consent of all classes of the community. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these matters could not be more appropriately discussed in connection with the definition Clause and whether he would, in some

    2115
    form and in some part of the Bill, consider a definition which would deal with the three cases—the incidental use of the child on his way to school, the use of the child on holidays, and the definition of what is employment for profit?
    Sir F. FLANNERY: I hope that my right hon. Friend will make the position much more clear than he made it a few moments ago, or that, in the alternative, he will accept this Amendment. In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, may I point out that the construction of the words in a Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament is not necessarily in conformity with the statements made by the Minister in charge of the Bill in the course of the Debate, unless those words have actually the meaning which the Minister believes that they have? I suggest that the words in the Bill have not a meaning which would enable a child to be used for the purpose of assisting in making hay or in driving in the cows, because those clearly would be employment for profit. Therefore, as far as I can understand the words, these would be excluded, although my right hon. Friend did suggest that they would be included in the possibilities of the child's occupation before and after school. If I am in right in that view, and the Bill be passed with the words as they stand, so that the children would be excluded from these occupations in country districts, then I venture very humbly and earnestly to suggest to my hon. Friend that he ought to reconsider his position. I assure him that, with the shortage of labour, and the difficulties of farming at the present time, it would be monstrous, cruel, and against the best public policy, if children who were approaching the age of twelve years should be excluded from performing such simple tasks as have been suggested simply on the ground that the hay or the milk would ultimately be sold for profit. The Amendment is a moderate Amendment. I can see no evil in it, and no abuse that could arise from it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he does not accept it, will himself move some Amendment to meet the difficulty which would arise in the agricultural districts.
    Mr. FISHER: I quite appreciate the fact that it would be a great anomaly if little children were not allowed to help their parents in the hayfield on their holidays, and I believe that technically such help would be regarded as employ-
    2116
    ment for profit, and consequently that my hon. Friend is right in suggesting that if boys and girls under twelve were so helping their parents in these simple tasks an offence might be committed under the Clause as it stands. That, I think, would be unfortunate. Probably the simplest way of meeting my hon. Friend's difficulty is to devise a definition of employment, and if my hon. Friend will agree to this course I will turn that over in my mind and bring up a definition on the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that there may be some difficulty? Clause 13 says, "That the Employment of Children Act, 1903, so far as it relates to England and Wales, shall be amended as follows." Then the Definition Clause begins, "In the Education Acts the expression 'employment' means" so-and-so. It may land us in difficulty if we amend the Employment of Children Act, and then in Clause 42 put in a definition which is confined to the Education Acts. The point is one which, I think, deserves consideration.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: On this question of definition it is only necessary to amend the definition of children in the Employment of Children Act of 1903, which is in terms identical with the definition in the Bill. But we should be careful how far we go in this direction. It is all very well to have in mind the child who, while on holidays, is employed on the parent's farm for the parent's profit doing haymaking and such work, but the alteration may be so wide as to take in children employed at home in the sweated industries making match-boxes or doing other work equally for the profit of the parent, but under conditions not nearly so agreeable and far more detrimental to the child's health and prospects.
    Major WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman in referring to the Amendment of my hon. Friend says that it is proposed to reconsider the definition with a view to getting over the difficulties of the odd jobs done by children on their holidays. But that is not the case which my hon. Friend put, and it would not meet those difficulties if the President confined his attention to the point of the holidays. I do not think that he intended that, and I only wish to make clear that he did use that phrase.
    Mr. DENNISS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on one class

    2117
    of case which comes in between the haymaking illustration and the sweated industry illustration. Take the case of a child whose mother is a widow with a little shop, and who would be able to give the mother some relief occasionally by serving in the shop. That is a matter which might be taken into consideration. The weak point of this Bill is that whereas you are providing everything for education you are providing nothing for the supervision of the children out of school, and inasmuch as they are only about five hours in school, excluding playtime, it is far better that they should be employed in some occupation which does not injure them, or prevent them learning their lessons properly, than that they should be thrown into the streets to loaf about.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think that Section 13 has been considered by the Committee. The reading of this Section has come rather as a surprise to them. I do not think the Committee know how far they agree with the Amendment of my hon. Friend or not. I have always thought this particular Clause a blot on the Bill. Children under twelve you cannot employ at all. They cannot go out to make hay. They cannot go out ferreting with the keeper. Over twelve they can do nothing on the days on which they go to school. That is the effect. How far is that meant? What does the President mean to do with those who are under twelve? Does he mean to allow them to do the haymaking of which my hon. Friend spoke? He says—yes; he will allow the parents. I suppose that will include relations with whom the boy may be living. Does he mean that the boy shall be allowed to do whatever the parent or the relation is doing? If he is living with a blacksmith, will he be allowed to help in the forge? Is he to learn his father's trade? I should have thought it reasonable that he should. As regards other matters in towns, is he to be allowed to help in the shop or relieve the father and mother, the uncle or guardian with whom he lives? As the Bill stands, the boy under twelve is to do nothing in the shop or on the farm, and over twelve he is to do nothing except during the specified time. If his father is a carrier, is he to be allowed to go into his father's cart, to hold the horse, which I know is a subject of frequent complaint? It seems to me that that is dealt with here, and I do not see how you are going to
    2118
    deal with it by a mere alteration of definition. Directly we know from the President what he means, then there will be no difficulty in incorporating it by way of Amendment, but I cannot imagine any definition of the word "employment" which includes the things that he wants to include and excludes the things that he wants to exclude. When we come up against a Clause of this kind we do not realise that the country will feel it when they understand it. I think that the House of Commons very often, when it gives its assent to a Bill, does not think about a difficulty like this. This is a genuine difficulty, and will certainly be felt in the country, if it is not felt in this House, and we cannot get out of it by altering the Definition Clause at the end of the Bill.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I understand the President is in a position to say how far he proposes to go with the Bill to-night, the Eleven o'Clock Rule having been suspended? It would no doubt be for the convenience of the Committee to be informed on this point.
    Mr. FISHER: If I am enabled to take Clause 13, I shall not ask the Committee to sit any longer.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir N. HELME: I think for the reasons which have been so ably stated it would be wise to press upon the Government to keep an open mind on this Amendment. This is a very carefully drawn up provision against misemployment and that provision is to be secured by having the written sanction of the local authority for the employment Rather than risk the uncertainty of a new definition in regard to education, I think the President would be well advised to accept this Amendment, and if he cannot accept it at the moment perhaps he will allow it to be clearly understood that the hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir J. Spear) will be able to bring it up again for consideration later on.
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be very glad to consider this matter later on, if the hon. Member will bring it up again.
    Major HILLS: The speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge has shown the real danger of this Amendment. It is quite clear it cannot be accepted as it stands, because it would mean that a child under twelve could be employed to a greater extent than a child over twelve. A child under twelve could be employed

    2119
    before the hour of six in the morning, and after the hour of eight at night, because the protection which is inserted in the interests of the child over twelve is not applied to the child of more tender years in this Amendment. I venture to suggest that the Amendment is based upon a false principle. It will enable a child to be employed where the child does not work for personal profit. I do not think that that is the true educational distinction. The distinction should be as to how far the work that the child does disqualifies it from receiving education. It is, therefore, not at all safe, as pointed out by the right hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel), to say that all work which is not to personal profit is permissible. I do not believe it is possible to find a form of words that will admit of the employment of children for the profit of their parents or guardians without at the same time creating a very great evil. I, therefore, hope that the President of the Board will think very carefully before he accepts an Amendment which, although defended on perfectly reasonable grounds, must have a much wider bearing in practice.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think hon. Members should bear in mind that idleness is a vice and a disgrace. It is quite important, if children are to be useful and industrious, they should be taught these qualities in their early days. In the discussion which we have had hon. Members appear to have ignored the fact that the salvation of this country has been in the action of parents in insisting on their children being useful. The sooner a boy or girl is taught to be useful, the better. Children should be taught that it is their duty to help older people, to be kind to them, and to minister to a certain extent to the wants of the family. Unless they get that idea into their heads, and unless it is instilled into them fairly early in life, no amount of teaching in mathematics will compensate for the losses of it. I am sure I am not putting forward the views of the minority of the population. I am quite confident that this Committee does not represent the feeling of outside people. We are, as has been suggested, "busying ourselves with education," and this is simply an invitation to laziness. When laziness gets into the bones of young people, it is a very hard disease to eradicate. I have heard it said in the North that you can convert a man from drunkenness and wife-beating, but not from laziness. Once a child learns
    2120
    to lead an idle life, no amount of book-learning will atone for the loss to the community. Surely one thing we must teach our girls to do is to help their mothers. No mother wants her children to grow up sluts, but there is a danger here of opening the door to that misfortune. While we are anxious to ensure that the child gets a good education, we ought not to prohibit it from doing anything but twiddling its thumbs, or going to picture palaces, or spending money, or becoming a disgrace at home. There is nothing more deplorable than to see an anxious mother trying to keep her house clean, and for it to be suggested that in teaching her children how to do that she is doing something which is antagonistic to education. This Section, unless it is amended, will simply result in a waste of time, and it will tend to the training of boys and girls to become members of the idle community.
    Sir J. SPEAR: The hon. Member for Durham (Major Hills) surely need not feel the anxiety he has expressed that parents will prove so neglectful of the interests of their children as to overwork them. May I call his attention to the fact that my Amendment provides that any work done by the children shall be with the sanction of the local education authority. That body has its doctor, who will see that the children are not injured by the work they are doing. There is, therefore, no ground for the apprehension expressed by the hon. and gallant Member. I will again make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President to be a little more definite as to what will be his attitude on this question. I am very loth to divide the Committee on it, but I feel it to be a matter of supreme importance to nine families out of every ten in the country. If the Government hold that any child under twelve, by doing little light duties, will commit a breach of the law, and that the parents will become liable to a fine, then there will be such an outcry as will make it extremely difficult for this Bill to be worked at all Therefore, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some definite promise that if he cannot accept my Amendment, safeguarded as it is and moderate as it is in its terms, he will, at any rate, give a plain undertaking that the effect of it will be incorporated in the Bill.
    Mr. PETO: I should like to give the Committee the view of one local education authority—that of the County of Huntingdon—in regard to this particular

    2121
    Clause. In the petition which that authority has submitted to the right hon. Gentleman I find these words:
    "Your petitioners respectfully submit that it is not expedient in this sparsely populated rural district to absolutely prohibit any child being employed either before 6 or after 8 o'clock in the evening, but that such employment should be permitted by the local education authority in accordance with by-laws approved by them."
    That is the view of the local education authority, and it is embodied in the Amendment before the Committee. As a solution of this rather serious difficulty, may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an Amendment which I have later on to this Clause, which embodies precisely what the local education authority for the county of Huntingdon proposes. I propose to invite the Committee to insert the words "except with the consent of the local education authority in accordance with by-laws approved by them." I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge that it is almost a hopeless task to attempt to define what employment is covered, or is intended to be covered in the definition Clause, and if the words I have suggested are put in, based as they are on the views of a local education authority for a rural district, I think they will provide a solution of the difficulty.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) about the risk of leaving a child idle. The whole question is a very difficult one, and this is a point which much be kept in mind. If a child out of school is not to be allowed to do anything on a Saturday or a Sunday or on any other day—
    Mr. DENMAN: For profit.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: I was coming to that. I do not think the giving of a 6d. for doing a job has anything to do with the matter, but I do hold it is desirable to bear in mind that a child should be allowed to do something, while taking care, of course, that it does not interfere with the hours devoted to education. We have to consider this point from two aspects, the aspect of the child in the town and that of the child in the country. The child in the town, when out of school, will be running about the slums, acquiring bad habits of idleness. Something must be done for these children, and if you are not going to employ them you must provide games for them, make them Boy Scouts,
    2122
    or do something of that kind. You must not leave them to run about the slums. In the country, of course, it is quite different. A boy enjoys running about, and will willingly do anything to help. He only finds pleasure in so doing. I am thinking really of when I go for my own holiday. It is in Scotland, and I go to an island where the post-office is a mile and a-half away from my house. There are very few adults in the island. The inhabitants are mostly children, and if I want a message taken I cannot get a man. These children are playing about on the beach, and I call to one of them and ask them if they will run with this telegram to the post-office. I give them sixpence. Why should they not do that? It would not hurt them in any way; indeed, it is good for them. At the same time I am thinking more of another point. Up there the peats have to be carried down from the hill, and it is the little boys and girls who bring them home.
    Sir J. D. REES: Absurd protests have been made here against it.
    Sir W. CHEYNE: It would be very wrong. School holidays are so arranged that they will fall in the peat season, so that the children can be employed in bringing the peats home. There is nothing they enjoy so much, and I do not see how you could get the peats home without them. The only people I can get to bring them home are the children, and am not going to ask them to do it for nothing. I can get round it by asking the parent to get the peats home, and he will get his boys to do it. It does them no harm; it is a splendid holiday. When I was a boy I was delighted if I could only get permission to go to the hill and bring the peats home. I was not allowed to do it, but I liked it. You are going to stop that. I think the whole thing wants thinking over, and that these matters must be taken into consideration.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: I should like to ask a question which has hitherto escaped the notice of the Committee in this Debate, and that is as to the position in the hop-picking season of children under twelve years of age whom, under the law as it stands at present, it is customary to employ to pick hops in school holidays. I do not think it is contemplated, if this Clause is passed as it stands, that children should not be

    2123
    allowed to pick hops, and I do venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman might make a concession on this point, "as it really is a very important matter in the country districts in which hops are grown that all available labour should be used for the purpose. I do not think it could be suggested by anybody that the week or ten days in which the hop picking takes place in most country districts could possibly do any harm to the children or their educational future. I must, as a member of an agricultural constituency, protest most strongly against the statement that has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills), when he said, in the course of his remarks, that one wished to avoid doing anything which could injure the education of the child. May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that in the whole of this country there is no education more technical than that which teaches the child how to learn about agriculture. My hon. and gallant Friend may shake his head. It is the fact that there is no education more technical, and although I should be travelling outside the scope of this Amendment if I referred to it at any length, if we take the agricultural countries and that of our Ally France we shall find that children begin their lessons in agriculture not at twelve or fourteen, but at five and six. I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend, having just come through France, that I have seen children of five and six working in the field and helping to save the crops. This is not merely in war time, but at all times.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do you approve of it?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not say whether I approve or disapprove of it, but I do say that after this War, unless you are going to have such a tariff wall round this country as the. greatest protectionist has never contemplated, the smallholder in this country will be competing with the smallholder in France, who has always had, used, and will always use, child labour, and has no intention of altering that because of legislation in this country. The same applies to Belgium and to every other European country. You have to bear that in mind when my hon. and gallant Friend talks of affecting their educational facilities. I only want to ask what steps can be taken to deal with this question of the hop fields, which
    2124
    is very important and affects vitally the South-Eastern counties, and Kent and Sussex in particular.
    Captain Viscount WOLMER: I should like to enforce what my hon. and gallant Friend (Earl Winterton) has said. It is not merely the necessity of getting in the hop harvest, but this particular thing is of vital importance to the Southern Counties and to a large population in London. Hop-picking is one of the most healthy things children can do. If you go in September into Hampshire or Kent you will find every house in every village shut up. The father and mother go out all day into the hop gardens and take their children, from one year upwards, with them. They spend a week or ten days in the hop gardens, and if we do anything to make that illegal we shall be creating a situation in these counties which I am sure the Government do not want to create at all.
    Mr. FISHER: We have listened to a very interesting Debate on this subject of the employment of children under the age of twelve. It is clearly, I think, generally desirable that such employment for profit, if permitted, should be permitted only within very narrow limits, and I am prepared to consider between now and Report whether I can, without prejudicing the general principles on which the Clause is based, offer some solution which may be acceptable to the hon. Members who have urged some concession upon this point it is possible that I may be able to meet them by some alteration of the definition of employment in the Definition Clause, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel) has reminded us, that may be a very difficult task. If I fail to find a definition which will cover the legitimate exceptions and will not carry us too far, then I will consider in what other way I may best meet the desire which has been expressed from the benches opposite.
    Sir J. SPEAR: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i), to leave out the words "and a child of the age of twelve or upwards shall not be employed."

    2125
    The effect of this Amendment would be to leave the law as it stands; I am not quite sure, but I think that is so. The Amendment deals with children over twelve years of age, and the Amendment which we have just discussed dealt with children under twelve years of age. The paragraph (i) of Sub-section (1) refers first to children over twelve, and provides that they shall never be employed on any day on which they are required to attend school, nor any day before six in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening. By omitting the words which I propose to leave out a child may be employed before the close of the school hours on any day on which there is no school, but not before six in the morning or after eight in the evening. The Amendment, therefore, leaves the law as it stands at the present time. This Clause goes a very long way, and it says that no child on any ordinary day, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of the week, shall be employed before four o'clock in the afternoon. That is a. very long step in advance, especially when you remember how wide is the employment of children at the present time. We know that a very large number of boys before the school hour in the morning deliver newspapers or assist in the delivery of milk, going round with the milk cart. A boy may assist his father, who is a milkman, and the effect of my Amendment would be to allow that state of affairs to continue.
    This Sub-section not only applies to children in the general sense of the word, but it gives an entirely new definition of the word "children," and this provision might extend to a boy of fifteen years of age. A strong boy of fourteen years of ago can take the newspapers round in the morning, or, as I have said, assist in the, milk round at any time before the school hour, or before four o'clock in the afternoon. This Sub-section seems to me an unnecessary interference with the labour of that class of children. A child that comes out of school in the afternoon cannot be employed after eight o'clock in the evening in any case, according to this Sub-section, so that in haymaking or in harvest time a boy of fourteen would not be allowed to harvest after eight o'clock in the evening or before six o'clock in the morning. In holiday times the boy of fourteen could not be in the harvest field after eight in the evening, though his parents and relatives are all employed
    2126
    there, nor could he do that work before six o'clock in the morning. I repeat that this is going a very long way, and my only fear is that the House does not quite appreciate it. There happens to be a war going on at the present time, and people outside the House do not know what we are doing. The Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended, and it cannot be said that there is a very large number of Members present to deal with this question. The country is said to want the Bill, and the House of Commons wants it, but I think that the Committee should consider this Clause very much more closely before they finally deal with it. Hon. Members, before they pass the Clause in is entirety, should give it very careful consideration, and, if necessary, should allow something to be struck out, and the matter dealt with on the Report stage in a manner better calculated to meet the difficulties of the case.
    Major HILLS: The hon. and learned Gentleman by this Amendment in effect asks the Committee to allow the law as it stands to apply to children of twelve years and over. He asks that children should be employed as they are at present The existing law, as I understand it, is that a child shall not be employed between the hours of nine in the evening and six in the morning, provided that the local authority may, by by-law, vary this pro vision. The general law is that the child shall not be employed between nine and six, and the local authority has power to change these hours in any direction. Therefore, if you strike out the words as proposed by the Amendment, the only difference that you make is that the child could not be employed for one hour in the day between the hours of eight and nine—
    Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Gentleman has not correctly interpreted the effect of the Amendment. Its effect, so far from leaving the law as it is now, is to entirely remove the present limit on the hours of children between twelve and fourteen. At the present time they may not work between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman removes that limitation, and allows them to work all night.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If that is so, it is not the intention of the Amendment.
    Major HILLS: I think that is the effect of the Amendment, although I am quite

    2127
    sure it was not the intention of my hon. and learned Friend. But even on the narrower ground on which he moved the Amendment I hope the Committee will reject it. The great evil of the present law has been that certain local authorities have varied the hours within which it is legal to employ children, and the scale of the Bill really represents the minimum amount of freedom from employment that a child ought to have. It is impossible to think you can spend money usefully on educating a child who is employed between the hours of nine at night and six in the morning. The only effect of relaxing those hours is that a child is sent out at three or Four in the morning to sell newspapers, with the result that he goes to school too tired to do any work.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: As the Bill stands now a boy of fourteen cannot be employed between six and nine in the morning, and that takes in the case of the boy who goes round with newspapers at about eight in the morning. To prevent that is the principal effect of my Amendment.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do you want him to work before he goes to school in the morning?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That is the effect of the Amendment, subject, of course, to proper safeguard, and secondly there is the definition of employment, which I think the hon. Member will find is slightly different in the old Acts from what it is in the present Bill.
    Major HILLS: My hon. and learned Friend is rarely wrong in the form in which he moves an Amendment, but I think he would be the first to admit that the effect of his Amendment is very different from what the intention is
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the effect of the Amendment is what the hon. and learned Member does not intend, are we not rather wasting time in discussing it?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If you think that is so, Sir, and that it would be fairer to discuss the point on the Question "That the Clause stand part," I will ask leave to withdraw it, because, technically, I quite agree that the Amendment does not literally carry out what is intended.
    Mr. BOOTH: I cannot agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment, because I
    2128
    wanted an opportunity to say that if any alterations are made I would rather the words were strengthened. I was hoping that something would come out of this Debate more than the withdrawal of the Amendment which would meet a growing evil. It is quite illegal for anyone to send a child to get food from the London restaurants early in the morning if the child is paid to go, but several times on leaving the House very late I have seen dozens of little mites at three, four, and five in the morning walking over Lambeth Bridge and going to the restaurants near Victoria Station with little bags, intending to get some food given them. It seems that the present law at any rate has a gap in it and that nobody can do anything under those circumstances, but if a neighbour sends a child and gives it a, copper to go and fetch food in this way, it cannot be done according to these words. If the Government are considering this, I think they should do something to prevent little children being turned out at three in the morning on a long tramp in order to get crusts at a restaurant, and if some hon. Members, instead of theorising, would take the trouble to realise what actually occurs I would give them a little more support.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i), after the word "employed" ["shall not be employed on any day"], to insert the words "on Sunday or."
    I want to raise the whole question of the employment of children on Sunday in connection with this Bill. I think the tendency of the Bill by preventing the employment of children during school hours in the week will be to concentrate a good deal of extra work on them on Saturday and Sunday. It is highly probable that, being unable to get wages from their work during the week, many parents will make up as far as they can for lost time during the week-end, and the result of that will be probably a considerable increase in the employment of children on Sundays. They can under the Bill be employed from six in the morning till eight at night. Fourteen hours' labour is now given by the boys in the streets of London in various ways, and it is quite impossible that after a long day's work boys can be fit on the Monday morning to receive the education for which we are

    2129
    going to pay so much. On educational grounds, therefore, solely and exclusively, I hope that some protection will be given to these boys so that they shall not be worked on Sunday and unfitted for the education of the week.
    Mr. BOOTH: How would you deal with the problem of the East End?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: That is not the only thing. Sunday ought to be a very important element in the educational life of the child. Undoubtedly the. Sunday schools in the country are not so crowded as they ought to be, and that is especially true of London. In the North of England, I believe, they are very largely filled, and I have visited many Sunday schools there and found that nearly all the children seemed to go to them. But I am afraid the tendency of this Bill will be to keep them away from the Sunday school, and I think everything should be done to encourage them on that day to get religious instruction. Some of us do strongly object to sectarian teaching in the day schools, but none can object to the religious instruction which the children would get in the Sunday schools. If something is not put in the Bill to protect children against the liability to work long hours on Sunday, I am afraid the educational benefits they will get out of the Sunday will be greatly limited. I am not entirely alone in that opinion. I have a quotation from the "Times" educational supplement of some time ago, in which they say that the Birmingham Education Committee suggested a month ago that the law should be altered so as to provide that employment on Sundays of children under fourteen years of age be totally prohibited, that on Saturday and school holidays the employment of any child liable to attend school should not exceed five hours, and that the regulations should apply also to children doing industrial work. The Birmingham Education Committee, of course, is a very large and important education authority, and has been a pioneer in educational reform for many years past, and I do not think they would have come to a conclusion of that kind if not based on wide and long experience, and if they had not seen the great value of prohibiting industrial work for pay on Sunday, and ensuring to the children, so far as possible, Sunday as a day of rest and recuperation, with the opportunities
    2130
    it affords of religious instruction, which attendance at Sunday school makes possible.
    Mr. LEWIS: I have listened with great sympathy to many of the views of my hon. Friend in support of this Amendment. I hardly think there is a Member of the House who would not be glad if Sunday labour were reduced. But my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education has stated very clearly in the House what are the special objects and what is the general purpose of the Clause under discussion. There is a great deal to be said on general social grounds for regulating employment on a Sunday. But the whole policy is to confine this Clause rigidly to employment which has a detrimental effect on education. My hon. Friend argues that in some respects Sunday labour has a detrimental effect on education, but I venture to say the question is far too large a one to enter upon in the course of an Education Bill, even though in some respects education may be affected. Sunday employment can be, and is at the present time, regulated by by-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and if any particular forms of Sunday employment are regarded as having an injurious effect on education, it is far more likely in the future that by-laws will be passed respecting them, because my hon. Friend will probably have observed that we propose in this Bill to transfer the power of making by-laws from the existing authority to the local education authority. My hon. Friend alluded to a resolution from the Birmingham Local Education Authority. If this Bill is passed in its present form the Birmingham Local Education Authority will in future have it in its own power to make by-laws dealing with Sunday labour.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Prohibiting it?
    Mr. LEWIS: It will be able to restrict it, at any rate.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is that under the Employment of Children Act?
    Mr. LEWIS: Yes; but as I have pointed out, the power to make by-laws will in future be exercised by the local education authority. It is likely, therefore, that far more authorities will make bylaws than is at present the case, and those by-laws will be in the interests of education. Incidentally, I think I ought

    2131
    to point out that it will not be possible to prohibit Sunday employment without giving consideration to the special case of Jews and to the Factories and Workshops Act. Later on an Amendment by an hon. Member proposes to exempt choir boys. His proposal shows what might happen if too great restriction were adopted in this respect. The by-laws, I am given to understand, have already been made in a very large number of instances, and Sunday employment has been restricted very largely. It is, as I pointed out, within the power of local education authorities in future in the interests of education to restrict it still further.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his sympathy, and I should have liked him to have gone a little bit further and brought the Bill more into line with what my hon. Friend has proposed. There is, I think, as my hon. Friend has said, a real danger with regard to Sunday labour, especially in regard to children and young people. We have seen the injurious effects resulting from the employment of young people seven days a week during the last two years, and I hope my right hon. Friend may be able to see his way to strengthen the law so as to avoid as much as possible the employment, except where absolutely necessary, of children on Sunday. The employment of choir boys may be technically an employment, but it is different from selling newspapers in the street, or something of that kind. I hope that local education authorities will have the power to restrict or even prohibit Sunday labour by children up to the age of fourteen. If there is any chance of that coming about, it may gradually affect the matter, and so bring the proposed law, by regulation, to what we wish it to be to-day. I suppose there is not much use in pressing the matter. The Board of Education will give nothing but sympathy. Possibly after the Act has passed they may do something else. I am quite sure that if my right hon. Friend is in office he will, at any rate, do his best to call the attention of the education authorities to it, and press them to improve conditions so that we may have the least possible labour on Sunday.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I share the regret which has been expressed by the last speaker that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary is not able to
    2132
    accept this Amendment. I acknowledge the sympathy in his speech for the object of this Amendment. I am only sorry he did not carry his sympathy further and give it practical expression. It is very desirable that the references which the right hon. Gentleman made to the Employment of Children Act, 1903, should receive some consideration, because, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Gentleman quite unintentionally, but wholly because of his very optimistic temperament, took a higher view of the possibilities of that Act than experience has shown to be warranted. Although it has been in operation fifteen years, no local authority has made any by-laws under that Act prohibiting the Sunday employment of children.
    Mr. LEWIS: Perhaps I was in error in that respect, but there have been by-laws restricting labour on (Sundays.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not think there is any difference between us as to the matter of restricting it, but the right hon. Gentleman has only to turn to the Act of 1903 itself to find that the local authorities may make by-laws restricting Sunday labour—that is to say, prescribing the hours between which it may be carried on, limiting the number of hours, and, I think, putting in certain age limits. But you will find no power in the Act enabling a local authority arbitrarily to decide that there shall be no employment of children on Sunday.
    Mr. LEWIS: I am informed that there are authorities who have really done that.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Up to what age?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am afraid I am unable to say.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that if one, two, or, at the maximum, three authorities have done what he says, over the greater part of the country there has been no substantial interference with the Sunday employment of children as a principle.
    Mr. BOOTH: Why should there be?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am endeavouring to show the reason why there should be, and if the hon. Member for Pontefract will be so good as to listen to my arguments, I am quite sure that at the end he will be entirely satisfied, and will support the Amendment, as I am doing. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary

    2133
    Secretary must further remember in this connection that a Departmental Committee recently sat to consider the way in which the Employment of Children Act, 1903, had worked. The right hon. Gentleman has only to refer to the Report of that Committee, set up by the Home Office, to find out how wholly inadequate are the powers of that Act to control this general question of the employment of children. As I listened to those who spoke in opposition to this Amendment, I wondered whether the Committee realise what the Amendment proposes! It simply proposes that children below the age of fourteen shall not be employed in industry on Sundays after spending the week at work.
    Sir E. JONES: Industrial employment.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: That covers it all. I will deal with the question of church choirs in a little while, for it seems to exercise considerably my hon. Friend opposite from Wales (Mr. T. Davies). I say this Amendment is designed to prevent these young children below the age of fourteen, after having been in full-time attendance during the week, after having possibly worked during the evenings of each day, and on Saturday, on being again employed on Sunday. I sometimes think, therefore, that the very object and meaning of the Amendment is overlooked, because it is an Amendment designed to give protection to the children who are most urgently in need of it. After all, how are these children employed? Why, at this very moment, until this Bill becomes law, in these days, and before the War, school-children below the age of fourteen are employed helping shopkeepers in the morning before breakfast. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sundays!"] In the evenings of school days they are employed, and on Saturdays for a long day's work, and then again on Sundays. The Bill as it is drawn leaves it a possibility, and it will be the practice, for these school children to be employed every evening, and on Saturday, and again on Sunday. We are simply asking that, at least, after working these children on the evenings of each day, possibly on the whole of Saturday between the hours of six and eight, that they shall have holiday on Sunday. I think this is a very moderate Amendment
    I want to remind the Committee how great has been the extension of the
    2134
    labour of these school children on Sundays. Notwithstanding the Employment of Children Act, they are increasingly used in the distribution trades on Sunday, in the Sunday newspaper trade, in the delivery of trades people's goods from door to door, in the milk trade, and so forth. Also with giving help in the transport services and in connection with certain places of amusement. There have been a steadily growing encroachment on the hours of these young children during recent years. We say that this labour should be done, at least, not by children under the age of fourteen. There is not a single member of this Committee listening to me who would tolerate the idea that his own child between the age of twelve and fourteen should be sent out to work on Sunday after having worked every evening of the week and all day on Saturday. The protection that we secure for our own children we ought to be proud to secure for the children of the poor. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Davies) said something about church choirs. Really, it is somewhat distressing to find how we stand in considering an Amendment of this far-reaching importance and urgency, with which every educationist agrees—or, to meet my hon. Friend opposite (Sir E. Jones), let me say the great majority of educationists—though I am afraid that will make little difference in the result here. I say without fear of contradiction that the great preponderance of opinion in the educational world, and amongst all social reformers who have practical knowledge of the problem and of the conditions of life amongst the poor is in favour of this, for they know that this reform is urgently necessary. My hon. Friend had a word about the boys who sing in church choirs. Surely if the Committee agrees to the Amendment to a law like this it will be a perfectly easy matter subsequently to safeguard the boys who sing in church choirs. A point like that is not really, if I may say so, relevant to the argument. That is my point—that this Amendment, if carried, will not prevent the Committee giving protection to the boys who sing in church choirs. There will be no reason, if the Amendment is accepted, why provision should not be made so that the work of church choirs should continue to be carried on. I attach great importance to this Amendment. Those with whom I have

    2135
    the privilege to act attach great importance to it also. For this reason, if need be, we shall divide the Committee.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I felt some little sympathy with this Amendment until I heard the speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. Considering the view taken by the Mover of this Amendment, I doubt whether it is to the educational advantage of a child to disallow certain Sunday employment. I have no doubt that it is to the spiritual advantage of the child, which is quite a different matter. This is an Education Bill, and it is only from that point of view that we are entitled to insist upon the discontinuance of child labour, even on a Sunday.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the hon. and gallant Member think that the spiritual development of the child has nothing to do with his education?
    Sir C. BATHURST: I never said so, and that is an entirely different subject of controversy, about which I am prepared to enter into discussion with the hon. Member. It is not necessarily for the educational advantage of a child who during weekdays will be in school that he should be deprived of such employment as he may still be able to undertake on a Sunday. For my part I deprecate the employment of children on Sunday, but I do not for the life of me see how this proposal can properly come within the scope of the Bill. Why I object in to to the attitude of the hon. Member who has just addressed us, is because he nearly always asks this House to force upon localities and local authorities powers which they can adopt if they like under existing Acts, and they are not prepared to take that course. I strongly object to these attempts to tyrannise self-governing localities. It is a fact that this Act which it is sought to extend by this Section under the employment of Children Act is already put into operation by three different localities at the present time, namely, Oldham, Chester, and Chesterfield, where they prohibit the employment on Sunday of children of school age. Surely if this can be done by those authorities it is open to other education authorities interested in the educational progress and welfare of the children to follow that example and decree that children shall not be employed at all on Sunday! Surely that is
    2136
    quite sufficient for this purpose, without pressing this House to adopt a course entirely contrary to the views of local self-government.
    Sir N. HELME: Seeing that I have an Amendment on the Paper in respect of Sunday labour, I think it would be an advantage at this stage if I were permitted to refer to it. In regard to the question of Sunday labour, it is recognised that there is without a doubt a tendency throughout the country to increase the amount of the occupations in which children are from time to time employed, and it is in order to prevent that that the Amendment now before us is being pressed upon the consideration of the Committee. If, however, it is clearly understood, as the Parliamentary Secretary has informed us, that under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, certain Clauses still stand and are really governing Clauses, and, in addition to that, the education authorities will have the power to pass by-laws, there will, of course, be less reason for us to press the Amendment now before the House against the desire of the Government.
    But there is a further reason. The Sunday school interests throughout the country are worthy of the greatest possible support of this House. Hundreds of thousands of children—I believe the number runs into millions—have been accustomed to attend the Sunday schools of the country, and it certainly will not be disputed that education in Biblical truth is not inimical to the general development of the mental faculties of the child, to say nothing of the moral and higher interests of life. Therefore, on the ground of these higher considerations, I think the Government would have been well advised to have adopted the Amendment before the House. However, if the Government decline to do that, we certainly cannot hope to carry our point, and we must fall back on the declaration that has been so clearly put that the local authorities, and in future the education authorities, will have greater opportunities, and there will be a stronger force of public opinion in order to suggest that course to the authorities than hitherto. In the hope that this may be the case, while supporting the Amendment very strongly, at the same time I do not look without hope to the future for support of the cause that we have at heart.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I feel that there would be a tendency in some parts of the country,

    2137
    if proper restrictions are not placed upon child labour, to try and extend the labour for children on Sunday. I would have been glad to have some provision in this Bill to check that tendency. If it be the case that the intention is not only to prolong education from twelve to fourteen, but to increase the quality of education, it becomes more than ever desirable that the children at school all the week should have as much rest as possible on Sunday. That does not in the least include those engaged in choir practice or things of that kind, but it is a reason for urging upon the Government to strengthen the law so that these risks may be avoided. An Amendment of this very comprehensive and universal character, without some qualification or modification, is not an Amendment that 1, for one, can support. One thoroughly appreciates the inexpensive glory which is sought by hon. Members who are in the habit of moving Amendments of the widest possible scope in the most indiscriminate manner and then accusing those who refuse to support their proposals of being opponents of real progress. That is an artifice which I am sorry to say shows no signs of wearing out. Whenever a Bill like this is before the House there is an opportunity afforded of considering Sunday labour for children, and while I cannot vote for this particular Amendment, I hope that something may be done by the Government before this Bill becomes an Act to strengthen what I venture to call the good influences of this matter, and to weaken the tendency, which I think will increase, to try and evade the provisions of the Act in order to increase child labour.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I must confess, removes some of the objects which I have to this Clause as it stands, but the fact still remains that it will be possible to work a child of school age fourteen hours on a Sunday.
    Mr. LEWIS: The local Education authorities will have power to restrict Sunday labour.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The hon. Gentleman did not convey to the Committee how it was that a child who had worked fourteen hours on a Sunday could benefit by the education given to it on the Monday. After all, I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal of unnecessary sympathy with parents who work their children of school
    2138
    age, and sometimes this House loses sight of the fact that the more we give employment to children of school age the more we promote the unemployment of young people of over school age. There is undoubtedly an increasing tendency to employ children of school age, and the only reason is that they are cheaper than young people of over school age. I have here an interesting extract from the report of a juvenile advisory committee, and it says:
    "There is a growing tendency to use this class of labour, because it is cheap. Many of these boys are in competition with those who have left school. It is a common thing at the present" time for a boy of fourteen years of age to be unable to get a place as an errand boy, because the employer profers to employ a school boy. The boys on leaving school are not having such a good time as is generally supposed. There is the growing competition of girls. They are more or less ousted from the munition factories and many other factories by the employment of girls, and their chances of obtaining employment are also restricted by the closing down of businesses. There are at present more boys between the ages of fourteen and seventeen out of work than in normal times."
    That confirms my opinion. It is very easy to be too tender to parents who wish to employ their children of school age, and I do think, if there is work to be done on a Sunday, that it ought to be done, not by children, but by adults.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not know where Members get this knowledge about children working fourteen hours on a Sunday. I do not know where these children are. One hears these things said from time to time, but when one asks for particulars they are never forthcoming. I would submit that a resolution to forbid all work by children on a Sunday is absurd, Would you not allow them to feed chicken, or milk cows, or help their mothers in housework or their fathers in his market garden or on his allotment It is all very well to talk as if this were a Sunday school subject. It pains me to hear medical Members asking for the State patronage of Sunday schools.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the hon. Member refer to me?
    Mr. BOOTH: No, I do not; but there is a suggestion that this House should consider the Sunday schools, and that in its legislation it should do something or other, I do not know what, to try and make them a success. They have been a success in spite of the State. I should not have expected a sentiment of that

    2139
    kind to have been used by Welsh disestablishers. It is beyond all question that men who want to Disestablish the Church should suggest that the State should still want to promote spiritual education and institutions. It only shows how far one can get in a very simple matter. It will not be possible, if you pass this Amendment, to carry it into effect. It has been mentioned that three towns have by-laws prohibiting all child labour on a Sunday. In two of those towns I have seen the bylaw broken repeatedly. You cannot force it. You cannot possibly say that all boys up to fourteen shall be idle on a Sunday, but that is what you propose to do. You mean that they should be idle, except that you are graciously going to make the exception that some of them may sing in the choir. I regard this Amendment as one of those obstructing Amendments. I do not mean consciously obstructing, but hon. Members know that they cannot pass it and that it is really not germane to the Bill. The hon. Member, in answer to my interjection, ignored the point on which London always fixes, namely, how we are to treat the East End. You never say what you are to do in the East End of London, and because at the critical moment up comes the opposition of the Jewish fraternity, who say that they observe the Sabbath on another day, Bill after Bill goes down. That has happened again and again, and I cannot think that any hon. Member would press this Amendment to a Division.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I challenged a Division.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): I have expressed my opinion that the "Noes" have it. I now call upon the hon. Member to move his next Amendment—[In Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), to leave out the words "before the close of school hours on that day."]
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not propose to move that Amendment. May I ask you, on a point of Order, how a Division can be taken?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When, in the opinion of the Chair, it is necessary so to do.
    Major HILLS: I have no sympathy with the Amendment, but I certainly heard it challenged.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A challenge of that kind is given time and time again, and it is in the discretion of the Chair to decide whether the agreement of the Committee as a whole is really given or whether that challenge shall be followed by a Division. That has been the continual practice of the House ever since I have known it.
    Major HILLS: With great respect, I think the procedure in that case is to ask the Members to stand up in their places.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i.), to leave out the word "before," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "for more than two hours, such period of two hours being either wholly before the opening or wholly after."
    This Amendment specifically raises the question of the hours during which children may be employed, and it is put forward as a matter of fact by those who are interested in the sale of morning newspapers. It covers, no doubt, other kinds of employment, and, in recommending it to the Committee, I would point out that it covers a good deal of the ground that has been traversed in the recent discussion on the larger Amendment with regard to the employment of children by their parents in such small agricultural matters as milking, feeding stock, making hay, and the like. I want to confine my remarks in the main to the question of newspaper delivery. It is a very curious thing, but the way that this Clause is drawn—I am sure it has not been the intention of the right hon. Gentleman—it confers a privilege, and a very great privilege, upon the proprietors and retailers of evening newspapers. It enables children to be employed in the streets for four hours after school hours, say, from four to eight o'clock, in selling evening newspapers to any passer-by, but it absolutely prohibits the much more regular employment of children by regular newsagents, working from their shops in the delivery of morning newspapers to specific customers, who are probably named on a little list or learned by rote, who are regular customers. I do not think that can be desired. This is not an Amendment asking for more employment of children, but one which specifically reduces the amount of employment on any school day permitted by the Bill, because it says they may not be

    2141
    employed for more than two hours, such period of two hours being either wholly before the opening or wholly after the close of school hours. The employment of young children for four hours, say, from four to eight, after a long day in school is a considerable strain upon them— probably too much of a strain. It is not a desirable kind of employment to be four hours in a wet evening selling evening newspapers in the street. My Amendment would limit that to two hours, and would place morning newspapers in a not less advantageous position than evening newspapers.
    The President has often said—he said it on the Second Reading—that one of the main reasons for this part of the Bill was that children were found in considerable numbers to be so tired when they came to school that they were not capable of benefiting by the instruction. That can be brought about in various ways. It does not necessarily follow that it is not brought about by long employment after school hours, because after the employment ceases the children have to get home, and it means a pretty long day and going to bed late even under the provisions of the Bill. I do not profess to give any scientific opinion on the subject, and I should like the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir W. Cheyne), who is much more capable of speaking on these medical questions, to give us his opinion. I am told, however, that moderate morning employment for children, say, for two hours, is not an unhealthy but a healthy thing. At any rate, it is much more healthy than employment till late in the evening. Certainly, as regards morals, there can be no possible comparison between working for a regular newsagent, delivering newspapers at private houses, and merely collecting a bundle of evening papers, and the children yelling themselves hoarse trying to get rid of them to passers-by in the streets. Morning delivery is not sale in the streets at all. On Saturday and Sunday and on holidays at present children can be employed for very long hours. The Act of 1903 leaves it to the local authorities to make their own regulations. In a circular issued by the President he pointed out that that was not a satisfactory check, and he quoted the case of a child under twelve years of age being employed for forty-three hours a week for a wage of 4s. If that is so, the local authorities were very much to blame,
    2142
    because they have power under the Children Act to make such by-laws as they think fit. The President also told us that three-fourths of the children were too tired to benefit from their lessons. If there is anything like that proportion of children who, under present conditions, are too tired to benefit from lessons at school, it cannot possibly be brought about by employment in the morning.
    The general tendency of the speeches to which we have listened and the evidence brought forward is to put the boot on the wrong foot. The Corporation of Bradford, for instance, made a by-law twelve years ago, which has worked perfectly satisfactorily all this time, and which is exactly consonant with this Amendment. My main object in putting it forward is that the Clause as it stands is not only not impartial, but is grossly unfair. I am quite sure that that cannot be the intention. It cannot be meant to practically abolish or so greatly penalise the business of newsagents and terribly cripple the sale of the morning newspaper, which is a substantial paper conveying information to the country, while leaving the evening newspapers practically free. In many places the effect would be that it would be quite impossible to get a morning newspaper at all, and people would have to depend upon such information as they could get in the evening newspapers, when they could get them. The character of the readers of the morning newspapers and the question of the waste of paper are certainly matters to which the President might give his attention. It is rather an unwholesome scene the buying of evening papers, which have often nothing in them, and which are read for a minute or two and thrown away, regardless of the cost of paper or the value of the coin that is paid for them.
    I would, therefore, ask the President either to accept the exact words I am moving or to give us some words that will limit the employment, as I propose, to two hours a day, and allow that two hours to be either before or after school. I notice an Amendment on the Paper in exactly the same form in the name of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member (Mr. Chancellor), who has just moved an Amendment with regard to Sunday labour, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull). The only difference between my Amendment and theirs is that they insert the

    2143
    words, "without the consent of the local education authority." In all our Debates on the employment of children hon. Members seems to have quite omitted to bear in mind Clause 15, which is a very complete protection against any employment of children which the local authority considers to be prejudicial to their health or physical development, or likely to render them unfit to obtain the proper benefit from their education at school. So long as that Clause is in the Bill when it becomes an Act, it provides an admirable safeguard and avoids the necessity of putting in the words, "without the consent of the local education authorities" all over the Bill in other Clauses. If that Clause stands, the local education authorities will have complete control, and be able to place a check on any improper employment or any employment which they think excessive or in any way prejudicial to the children. Therefore, I move with confidence this Amendment, without which the Clause will impose a great grievance and public harm, while it will not increase the employment of children, but diminish the number of hours during which they may be employed.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I think this is a reasonable Amendment which is well worth the consideration of the Government, though I do not know that as it stands it would work entirely well. It seems to me that it would be much better for the children and much fairer for the newsagents who employ children if they are still to be allowed to employ them at all, if you said that they should be allowed to employ them for one hour before school and only one hour after. The objection has been stated that there is a danger of their going to school in bad weather, none the better for their hour—
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK:Without any breakfast.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If the Noble Lord bears in mind the further Clause that the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) referred to, I think that can be adequately guarded against. I think the possibility of children working for four hours in the afternoon far worse for them, morally and in every way, than the possibility of their working for one hour before going to school. I think there is force in the hon. Member's argument. In practice we know what this will mean. There will be large
    2144
    numbers of children in the streets selling evening newspapers, and the morning newspapers will have much greater difficulty. That is no reason for doing anything which is educationally harmful to children, but limited in this way, and still more limited in the way I would suggest, one hour only before school and the other hour after, it would be better for the children. There is really no valid objection to it.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by saying that evening work is morally more objectionable than work in the morning. I should have thought it depended entirely on what was done in the evening whether ox not it was morally objectionable. But, however that may be, I submit that morning is the best time in which children could be employed on any outdoor work. They are then fresh, having presumably slept at night as young people do, they rise in the morning, and that is the time at which they may usefully be occupied, as this Amendment means to allow them to be occupied, in delivering newspapers. At all times the delivery of newspapers is a matter of urgent importance, but at no time is it so important as now, and never was there a time when the services of these children are so much required as at present in the delivery of newspapers. There is no man or woman now, whatever he or she may do at other times, who does not want the morning newspaper at the earliest possible moment to see how we are progressing elsewhere, where our progress has an importance which does not attach to anything we are doing here. If the right hon. Gentleman should refuse this Amendment I should feel that he was laying himself open in effect to the charge that he thought the children ought to be fitted to the hours more than the hours to the children. I cannot conceive what answer there is to the argument that it is less competent to do what this Amendment allows children to do than to do that which, under the Clause as it stands, they not only may, but probably will, do. I was immensely relieved when the right hon. Gentleman was goaded, as he was bombarded with one social reform Amendment after another, to hear him say this was not a social reform Bill but an Education Bill. Bearing that in mind, I have good hope that he will accept this Amendment. I have been urged by friends to support it. I should have supported it without any

    2145
    urging. I believe it to be good in itself, and it required no whipping or canvassing. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that the reasonable employment of children was not detrimental. Of course, it is not. Is this or is it not reasonable? Could children be better employed? Early rising is a good thing for everybody. It prolongs youth and promotes cheerfulness and good habits of all description. I must refer to a memorandum on child labour put forward by the Education Department. That Memorandum was founded upon evidence which employers had no opportunity of rebutting, and the material in it was collected by inspectors of schools in areas in which the Employment of Children Act was not enforced. Here are two circumstances which deprive it of any value which might otherwise attach to it. I would rather proceed from that discredited Memorandum to the general evidence that early rising and occupation in the morning is good for men and women of all ages and, therefore, for children of this age. I earnestly hope the President of the Board of Education will give it his most favourable consideration.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I share in the hope which has been expressed that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment. As it stands, the Bill absolutely prohibits any child doing so much as five minutes' work before he goes to school in the morning. That is a very strong even a startling restriction upon the personal liberty of the child and of the parents, unless overwhelming reasons can be shown to prove that it is in the interests of the child that those restrictions should be imposed. Can any such reason be shown? If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to tell me that he has evidence behind him of a perfectly cogent character, whether medical evidence, or that of experts, or indeed the evidence of men of common sense, which will satisfy the Committee that the child who is employed, say, for an hour or a little over in the morning in distributing newspapers is going to be prejudiced either in his physical health or in his mind and rendered incapable of learning, there is a foundation laid for a restrictive provision such as this. But I should be very much surprised if any evidence of that sort could be produced. I know that evidence can be produced to prove anything, but can the right hon. Gentleman really say that he has evidence behind him which is convincing to any
    2146
    man of ordinary common-sense that an hour's employment of a child before breakfast is going to prevent him from getting the benefit of his school work or is going to injure his health? Speaking from my own experience, an hour's exercise in the morning for a child or an adult is, so far from being prejudicial to health, extremely beneficial and desirable. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the busy men in this country, professional or otherwise, deliberately and of set purpose, take an hour's exercise in the morning, whether riding or walking, in order to prepare themselves for the labours of the day. Are we to believe that that which is desirable for an adult up to sixty or seventy years of age is so wholly undesirable for a child that a little exercise in the morning in selling papers will unfit him to benefit by his education? I cannot believe it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter in the interests of the children themselves, for that is the main interest to be considered, and in the interest of the parents, who do not desire to see their children unduly hampered by legislation which is ill-thought out. Therefore I urge him to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: Whatever may be the correct solution of this question, I am convinced that it is not contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member and for this simple reason, that if you lay it down that a child is to be employed for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening, without specifying the particular hour during which employment is lawful, it will be quite impossible to administer the provision. I have, looked into this matter very carefully in connection with some by-laws, and I am assured on all hands that if you propose to limit the employment of children, either before school or after school, you must lay down the particular hours within which employment is lawful. Otherwise the executive cannot discover whether the child is being lawfully employed or not. That is a practical difficulty. My hon. Friend has asked me what harm is there in a little light employment in the morning? If he puts it in that way, a little light employment in the morning, which is limited to a short period, may not be harmful, but the Clause in the Bill which prohibits the employment of children before school hours was not drafted lightly. It was

    2147
    drafted in response to an overwhelming mass of evidence, coming from all quarters in the country, to the effect that a very large number of children come to school in the early morning so tired out by work, breakfast-less, and very often wet, that some relief must be given. I remember at a gathering of our leading inspectors at the Board of Education some months ago, when this Bill was being considered, I put the question, "Of all the reforms which have been promulgated in this country, at public meetings or elsewhere, which do you consider would be most beneficial?" They replied, unanimously, "The prohibition of employment during school hours." In view of that fact I submit that there is a very substantial case for the Clause in the Bill as it stands. In any case I should feel reluctant to part with it in view of the character of the Amendment before us. The question has been argued from the point of view of the distribution of newspapers. In many cases newspapers are distributed by little boys who have short rounds, and whose employment is very light, and who suffer no injury, but we have to consider not this one type of employment but all the various forms of employment which are imposed upon these little children before they come to school. Taking one thing with the other, I feel that the Committee would be well advised in adhering to the terms of the Bill.
    Mr. JACOBSEN: My friends and myself put our names down to the next Amendment on the Paper with a view to having the question considered by the Board of Education. I think after what we have heard from the President we shall not move our Amendment.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I should like to know whether the evils to which the right hon. Gentleman refers as resulting from over-employment of children before they go to school could not be adequately met and entirely got rid of by restriction rather than total prohibition of the employment of children before they go to school. I grant that some restriction is necessary, but would not that meet the case in the interests of the children, instead of the very drastic method of total prohibition of employment before school hours?
    Sir R. ADKINS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could say whether that restric-
    2148
    tion could not be allowed to be placed in the hands of the local education authority. I can well understand the local education authority prohibiting, and rightly prohibiting, certain forms of even the most brief employment in the morning, but other forms of employment which my right hon. Friend has said do not do harm might be permitted by the local education authority under the circumstances.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way one inch. It is all very well for hon. Members to make these speeches, but the fact remains that the employment of children before school hours is one of the greatest of our social injustices, and it would be a monstrous thing to give way on this question.
    Mr. PETO: I should like to know whether the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman has before him, which makes him so unyielding in this matter, definitely lays it down that four hours' employment after school does a child no harm, and alternatively that it is less harmful than a maximum of two hours' employment which may be before or after school? It seems to me that he has not met that point at all. In my own personal case in the country I give a boy a shilling a week to bring my papers. He does not have to come more than 200 yards out of his way to come from the village he lives in to my village. That will be absolutely prohibited under this Bill, and if I give the boy a shilling to bring my newspapers I suppose I shall be guilty of an offence?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Give a bigger boy two shillings.
    Mr. PETO: You cannot meet the argument by saying that employment before school hours will be prejudicial to children, but that excessive employment after school hours will not be prejudicial and can be allowed. Therefore, I must press my Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The ordinary hour for beginning school I believe is nine o'clock. Now, consider the position of children of the agricultural labourer who goes to work at seven o'clock. In all probability they are up and had their breakfast at that hour. What are they to do between seven and nine? As far as I know they have no tasks to prepare. It would be very much better for them to

    2149
    have some useful employment between seven and eight, which would give them ample time to go to school. That would be much better than to have them wandering about the fields doing mischief. Only last Saturday I found two boys in one of my fields throwing stones at cattle. I asked what they were doing, and they said that there was no school on Saturday. They had nothing to do, and so they were doing mischief. That is what does happen. I sometimes think that it is not realised that these children are left to a very great extent to their own devices. It is not good for them that it should be so. It takes just as much out of them to run about chasing cattle in the fields as to do some useful work. There is a great deal of sentimental nonsense talked about this question of employment of children. In many cases it would keep them out of mischief and do a great deal of good, and I will certainly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do not think we can consider it a satisfactory solution of this question that children are to be prohibited from doing as much as a half-hour's work before school and allowed to do four hours' work after school. I hope before we get done with this Bill that the President will consider whether some more logical solution can be arrived at. I would like him to satisfy himself as to what percentage of the children going to school are employed before school hours. I should say that it is a small percentage. I very much doubt whether anything like the whole of those who are employed are injuriously employed. I think that this whole question of the employment of children for short periods outside school hours docs need much more careful consideration than it appears to have had.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gen-Gentleman says that he has a very large number of reports as to children coming in an unfit state to school and without breakfast. Are those the children who have been employed before school? I have very little experience, but that has not been my experience. The children em-
    ployed before going to school were generally sent in a very good condition, and those who come from bad homes or who have a long way to come and may get wet, or have not had proper food, are those who come in an unfit state. That makes all the difference in the world to the Amendment. I agree that it is an unsatisfactory way to leave this very difficult question, and I cannot help differing from the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham. To suggest that a healthy boy of fourteen can do no work before 9 o'clock in the morning is to go back to a view which I might have held in my very young days. I do not think there is any particular harm in a strong healthy boy of fourteen being compelled to do some work before 9 o'clock. I certainly did a, very large amount of work, to the extent of cooking, which is one of the things I learned to do in school, before 9 o'clock in the morning. I do not think that this Clause is being sufficiently considered either by the Government or by the Committee.
    Colonel GRETTON: We really appear to have arrived at a very extraordinary position. It is wholly illogical and quite unsatisfactory. Take one case of employment which is quite common in the country and not uncommon in the town. Old people constantly have a child going in for half an hour or an hour before going to school to tidy up the house and do various little things about the house. Old people living on old age pensions cannot afford to pay a servant of an expensive character and a child is certainly doing no harm in ministering to old age. Nor is that a case of unreasonably working the child. The matter requires further consideration. The Clause as it stands would inflict a great deal of hardship and do a very problematical amount of good, and the President should reconsider it in view of the facts of the situation.
    Question put, "That the word 'before' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 24.

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES.

    [10.4 p.m.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Clough, William

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Beale, Sir William Phlpson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, Joseph

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Fisher, Rt. Han. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Galbralth, Samuel

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Stoker, R. B.

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Maitland, Sir A. G. Steel.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hambro, Angus valdemar

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Tootill, Robert

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Western, J. W.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pease, Rt Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hume-Williams, Sir William Ellls

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

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

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Yoxall, sir James Henry

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pulley, C. T.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    NOES

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Sutton, John E.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Bull, Rt. Hon Sir William James

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Winterton, Captain Earl

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

    Jenes, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Gretton and Mr. Wing.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division, I would ask whether the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the discussion which took place on his previous Amendment?
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, i), after the word "day" ["school hours on that day"], to insert the words,
    "except in—

    (1) driving cattle to or from pasture or taking horses to the farrier on the way to or from school;

    (2) carrying small quantities of milk and farm produce for delivery on the way to school;

    (3) performing domestic errands;

    (4) carrying water for domestic use;

    (5) carrying meals to any person or persons on the way to school."

    My former Amendment alluded to children under twelve. This deals with children between twelve and fourteen, and, while the arguments were incontrovertible in the first case, they are even stronger in this case, which simply provides not for an increase of working hours for children between twelve and fourteen,
    2152
    but that they may be allowed, in going to school, to drive cattle to the field, to carry small quantities of milk and farm produce for delivery on their way to school, and to carry meals to any person or persons in the same way. Some of these boys and girls will be the children of labourers who go early to their morning work, and the boy or girl brings their breakfast to them on the way to school. I cannot help thinking it would be most unreasonable to prevent this sort of employment. As the right hon. Gentleman has promised to incorporate the principle of my first Amendment in the Clause on the Report stage, if he will undertake further to consider whether exception may not be made in the direction of allowing children between twelve and fourteen to do these little employments on their way to school —and no one can argue, I imagine, that such employment would interfere with their ability for taking their lessons, while at the same time it would be a considerable convenience to the parents, and not only harmless but advantageous to the children, by inducing them to take an interest in the little business of home life—if the right

    2153
    hon. Gentleman will promise, on Report, to try and meet this case of reasonable employment by parents of their children without financial reward, and with the sanction of the local education authority, I will not press my Amendment; otherwise I must do so.
    Mr. FISHER: Most of the occupations alluded to in this Schedule would come under the category of domestic occupations which would be permissible under the terms of the Clause. Two of the occupations, I take it, might conceivably by a court of law be held to be not permissible under the terms of the Clause, although I think it very unlikely that any action will be taken in respect of them. In any case, the Committee realises that it would be generally desirable, if possible, to provide for rural occupations of the simple and harmless character described in the Amendment of the hon. Member if it is possible to do so without opening the door to other cases where it might be difficult or dangerous to grant a concession. I will promise the hon. Member that I will keep my mind open upon this subject, and if I can find a way of meeting him on the Report stage without giving away general principles I shall be glad to do so. I am afraid I cannot give him any more solid assurance than that at this stage.
    Sir J. SPEAR: In view of the President's statement, and reserving the right, if I think that what he has done on Report is not adequate, to move the Amendment again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: With regard to my Amendment, in Sub-section(l, i.), after the word "day," to insert the words "nor on Sunday or school holidays for more than four hours," I see that lower down an hon. Gentleman has an Amendment to add words to the paragraph which will rather more than cover the same ground, and unless you think otherwise, Mr. Whitley, I will not now move my Amendment.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, i.), to leave out the words "before six o'clock in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening," in order to insert instead thereof the words "for more than eight hours."
    As the Bill stands at present a boy may be required to work on Saturday for fourteen hours. That, I think, is excessive
    2154
    labour and unreasonable, and I wish to avert that injustice by eliminating the possibility of employment for such a child to eight hours. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept that limitation. It does seem unreasonable that a child cannot do a little to help his parents during the week but must be expected to work fourteen hours on the Saturday. It is unreasonable and cannot but out rage the feelings of people who on the one hand are anxious for the welfare of their children and on the other are anxious to promote their education. I venture to press the Amendment. Certainly on Saturdays eight hours is quite enough time for a boy to work, either on a small holding or in the shop, but the Bill at present permits his being employed for fourteen hours. That is unreasonable, and I do hope the Committee will see fit to limit it to eight hours.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it is probably perfectly true, as the hon. Member suggests, that it would be desirable that no child bound to attend an elementary school should have to work more than eight hours on a Saturday, but the reason why I think it difficult to accept his Amendment is that I think it is an Amendment which it is practically impossible to enforce. It is perfectly easy to say that a child shall not be employed between certain definite hours, because if a child is employed outside those hours an offence has been committed. It is very difficult to make certain that a child has not been employed for more than eight hours a day, unless the child is watched through the whole period. I think, therefore, that the Amendment would be very unworkable.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said I would like to ask whether he would not accept the words of my hon. Friend, not in lieu of the words in the Bill, but in addition to them? It seems to me that would entirely cover the point of the right hon. Gentleman, and would also protect the children against the possibility of being worked fourteen hours. The provision would then read, "that they shall not be employed on any day before six in the morning or after eight o'clock in the evening, nor for more than eight hours."
    Sir C. SEELY: It seems to me that eight hours' work is quite long enough for any child of twelve years of age.
    Mr. FISHER: As I have already pointed out, it probably would in most cases be quite reasonable, but I am not prepared to say quite reasonable in all of them. My difficulty in accepting this proposal is that I think it would be impossible to enforce it.
    Sir R. ADKINS: It would be quite impossible to watch every child all day or every Saturday, but if by law he is not to be employed more than eight hours, then the onus would be on the parents or the persons who employed him to keep the law, and if it were broken frequently, or to a large extent, I think that the collection of evidence would not be impossible, and that this provision in the Act would have a deterrent effect. I cannot see the difficulty of accepting this Amendment.
    Sir J. SPEAR: The right hon. Gentleman's Bill bristles with provisions for checking the infringement of the law, mornings and evenings, during six days of the week. Surely there would be no greater difficulty in detecting an infringement of the law in this instance! Besides, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman provides for between six and eight hours, which means fourteen hours, and, therefore, he would be obliged to exercise a check on that. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept this Amendment limiting the work of a child on a Saturday to eight hours, instead of leaving it open to unreasonable parents—I grant that they are in the minority, but there are some unreasonable parents—to work a child fourteen hours on the Saturday. I want to prevent that. I want to give liberty to the parents during the week, and also to restrict the number of hours on the Saturday, in order to meet the case of any parents who would take advantage of a child being away from school to make it work longer hours than he ought. I cannot help thinking that the President ought to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: If it is the general wish of the Committee that something of this kind should be inserted in the Clause, I will undertake to consider it. I cannot at this moment pledge myself to accept the limitations suggested by the hon. Member, nor can I pledge myself to a limit, for the reason that this is a question which has received very careful consideration. I am making recommendations to the Committee with a view to safeguarding the interests of children in schools,
    2156
    and I have been acting upon evidence which has come to me in my character as President of the Board of Education. I feel, therefore, that, even if the course which I have suggested does not commend itself to every hon. Member, it is a course which I am prepared to justify on strictly educational grounds. But when you ask me to prescribe a general limitation of hours for young persons I am travelling outside my own proper domain. I feel, consequently, that I must step very cautiously; but if it is the general desire of the Committee that the question should be considered, I shall be very glad to give it my best consideration, with a view to offering the Committee some advice on the Report stage.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I did not feel that I could support this Amendment, because it has nothing to do with the Education Bill at all. It only applies to a day upon which the child is not supposed to go to school at ail, and once you begin amending the Bill on matters which do not directly touch education, and more especially if you do it at 10.30 in the evening on a day when you have suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule, I think you will be asking for trouble and affecting a large number of interests who have had no notice of what is proposed to be done. There is a difficulty in enforcing the law. Take the ordinary case of a boy going out with his father in some harvest field. Who is to say which hours he is working and which hours he is not working? Is the law-abiding father to send the child home punctually at two o'clock, say, and to tell him to sit indoors because he may otherwise be summoned for working in the fields beyond the proper time?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: In opposition to the view which has been put forward by the hon. and learned Member, I hope the President will take rather a stronger view of his powers in connection with the children to whom reference is now made. We are dealing with children between twelve and fourteen, and clearly they come more within the province of the Board of Education than in the province of the Home Office. Their employment on the Saturday will have an effect on their general health, and the condition of their health does affect the possibility of the improvement of their education, and therefore I think the President will be well within his duty in dealing with this question.

    2157
    I welcomed his suggestion that he will consider this matter, and may I call his attention to the Amendment next on the Paper, 'in the name of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. White-house), the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan), and myself? There he has a way out of his difficulty by limiting the hours in the direction that his Bill already does it. It will give that kind of limitation which he desires by reducing the number of hours during which a child may be employed, and thereby, without stating exactly the maximum number of hours per day during which a child may be employed, it obviates the difficulty which we all realise of a statement of the number of hours, and offers us an alternative, an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening before which in the morning and after which in the evening the child shall be employed.
    I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that along that line he should look for his solution when he brings up his alternative proposal on the Report stage.
    Sir C. SEELY: As an old Cambridge man, I must enter a protest against the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University that at half-past ten in the evening a man is not capable of dealing with important questions. It is many years since I was there, but I think in the old days we thought ourselves quite capable of dealing with any important question and doing a great deal of work at that time of the evening. I think the opinion of the Committee is quite clear that there should be a limitation on the amount of work done by children, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should insert this limitation, and then, if he finds it necessary to make any alteration in the hours, he should make it on the Report stage, but that we should insert now in the Bill the fact that we do not consider a child under the age of fourteen should work more than eight hours.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I would suggest to the Committee that we do not press the President to go further than he has at the present time. Eight hours for any child of fourteen or fifteen sounds a good deal, but take the case of a child of fourteen or fifteen in the hayfield or the harvest field during holidays. I am quite sure boys of that age do work longer than eight hours in the holidays, and I do
    2158
    think it is going pretty far to insist that it should be a punishable offence, because we know in a case of that kind the law would not be carried out, and it does not seem a good thing to put this in on the off-chance. To tell the truth, it seems to me, although it is a great temptation to indulge in the luxury of suggesting a number of very progressive and philanthropic proposals, that the extent to which that is being indulged in is putting the Bill in grave danger of not passing at all, and, personally, I think all friends of the Bill are getting very alarmed at the very slow progress we are making, and I should be quite content if we could get the cargo home which the President has got on board at the present time.
    Sir J. SPEAR: In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman and the promise that he will consider all these questions on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, i), to leave out the word "six" ["before six o'clock"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
    I move this only to invite the President to state that, in the spirit of his recent remarks, he will consider this solution with the other. I am not asking him to give any pledge whatever, but to consider the point. These children are now to begin work on Saturdays and Sundays at such an early hour as six o'clock. The Amendment suggests eight o'clock. I do not attach any particular importance to the exact hour, except that we want to reduce the hours of labour to something that is reasonable. Perhaps, therefore, the President will consider this constructive suggestion when he is dealing with the whole matter on Report?
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment to this Subsection, which is intended to provide that children shall not lose the benefit of education owing to excessive employment. It cannot be suggested that the child necessarily suffers because on its holidays it has to get up at six o'clock.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name, but will await what the President has to say when he brings up his suggestion on the Report stage.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (i), to insert the words,
    "Provided this Sub-section shall not apply to children who are duly licensed to perform on the stage."
    The CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not think this Amendment will more properly come on Sub-section (2) of the Clause which deals with the question of licensing children for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: No, Sir, I do not think so. The reason I move this here is that I think it the better place. There has always been special legislation for children who worked upon the stage. There are many reasons for this legislation.
    Mr. DENMAN: Is not this Amendment unnecessary at this stage? The licensing under the provisions of the Cruelty to Children Act, overrides those of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and will probably eventually override this. It is therefore unnecessary.
    The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member addressing me, or addressing the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite?
    Mr. DENMAN: I am addressing the Chair. I suggest it is not necessary for my hon. and learned Friend to safeguard the position under Sub-section (2), because he will find, when he comes to that point of the Bill, that it is adequately safeguarded.
    The CHAIRMAN: I thought he rose to a point of Order? The hon. Member is discussing the thing on its merits.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I point out on the merits of the case that even if I am wrong no harm will be done by inserting this. I do not want to enter into a legal argument with my hon. Friend, but I do not think that it will be safe to leave the matter to the licensing Clause. There has always been different treatment of the children on the stage to other children. The school inspector will, I think, tell you that, speaking generally of the children who go on the stage, that they are well looked after, well educated, and well treated in every other way. If the Amendment is not carried in this Clause, it will leave us in the extraordinary position that children will be unable to be employed on the stage at all under the age of twelve— at holidays or any other time—in any kind
    2160
    of work. After the age of twelve, and possibly up to the age of fifteen, you will only be able to employ a child at that age when the school is going on until eight o'clock in the evening. This is an important matter to those connected with the theatrical profession, and they attach great weight to the Amendment. I think many hon. Members have had representations on this point, although that fact would not bear so strongly with me if I felt that any harm was likely to come to the children. Representations have been made as to the hardship upon the parents and the profession in making this fresh alteration restricting them in the way indicated after the age of twelve. I hope the Government will consider this matter, and agree that this Clause shall not apply to children engaged in the theatrical profession.
    Mr. DENNISS: I would like to support this Amendment, in the interest of the child, the parents, and the theatrical profession. We often have children on the stage, and it is admitted that their earnings have helped to make their homes more comfortable. Under this Clause no child can appear on the stage up to fourteen years of age. As these children are nearly all employed after eight o'clock in the evening, I shall support this Amendment.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I think this Amendment is quite unnecessary, and I hope these children will not be exempted from the Clauses of the Act. Should they require it, they should have the same privileges for being educated as other children. The difficulty can be got over by special licences on similar lines to those issued by the London County Council.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it would be very difficult for the Committee, after having provided that children shall not be employed in general before they have reached the age of twelve, to proceed to make an exception in favour of a class of children who are employed on the stage. It would be difficult to lay down a proposition that children should not be permitted to contribute to the sterner necessities of life, whilst at the same time you give special facilities to theatrical children. What the Bill proposes to do is to place all children under twelve in the same condition, that is to prevent from being employed. We continue the existing licensing law in respect of theatrical

    2161
    children above the age of twelve, so that, so far as those children are concerned, no change is contemplated. I submit that there would be no great misfortune to the stage if theatrical children were over the age of twelve instead of under the age of twelve.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will leave the law as it stands as at present, so far as children over the age of twelve are concerned. I do not think this is so. Clause 13 says, "A child of the age of twelve or upwards." That means going up to fifteen, so that a child up to fifteen may not be employed on any day before six in the morning or after eight in the evening. That does not leave the law as it is at present. The licensing law, to which he refers, is that they may work up to 9 p.m. It is proposed that up to the age of fourteen 8 p.m. shall be substituted for 9 p.m. Therefore, under this Clause a child up to the age of twelve will not be able to be employed with or without a licence, and up to fourteen he will only be able to be employed up to 8 p.m. The complication arises from the use of the word "child" in two senses. Upon the main point, the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. P. A. Harris) did not really do justice to the Amendment. I do not say a word against the county council schools for training these children. Excellent work is done by them, and these children are as well educated as, and probably better educated, than other children. My point is that you are for the first time prohibiting children under twelve from performing on the stage at all, which is not only a good way of earning money but is a good education in itself, and certainly does not affect their school work. I think most inspectors will tell you that. With regard to children over twelve, you have made a complicated alteration in the law which certainly does restrict the position I agree comparatively slightly—over the age of twelve and certainly between the ages of fourteen and fifteen. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to make an exception in this exceptional trade, which is itself educational and in which the children are well looked after owing to a complicated system of licences.
    Mr. PETO: I have an Amendment later on dealing with the same question, and perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt
    2162
    with it now. I want Members, and particularly Members below the Gangway, to realise that stage employment is not in any sense half-time employment or part-time education. The children engaged on the stage are probably given the very best educational training received by any children in the country. It is necessary that they should be, because if they are children who are not born of rich parents who are able to pay large fees for special training in elocution, singing, and all the matters which naturally have to be learned thoroughly by children if they are to grow up to play great parts in tragedy and high comedy, their education must be of a good class. We want children to be trained from an age which is absolutely essential, not merely for the production of some of the most important plays on the stage but also, if we are to have great actors and actresses, for great parts in future.
    I want the President to realise that there are various kinds of children. There is one large group who are always dying to do something real and to get to real work at once. There are others who are always what I might term "make-believe" children, who form the class from which actors, poets, and artists of all kinds are-produced. There are also the children who, although they are mainly catered for in this Bill, really form the minority, who are always desiring to acquire knowledge, the children who ask why everything is and how it does it. The children we want to deal with are the super-normal children of the "make-believe" type, those who are born play actors and actresses even at the age of four. May I put before the Committee what has been very ably put forward by Mr. Henry Arthur Jones and by all the leading actors in a memorial sent to hon. Members of this House. It is signed by Mr. H. B. Irving, Sir Wm. Forbes-Robertson, Mr. Ben Asche, Mr. Dion Boucicault, Mr. Henry Arthur Jones, and others. All our principal actors are convinced that we must commence training young children for the stage at ten years of age if they are going to achieve great results. One of the main reasons—I think it is unanswerable —is that at the age of twelve a boy's voice is beginning to break and a girl is also developing out of the stage of childhood, and that children of both sexes are beginning to become self-conscious. If I may give a few examples of our great actresses who have commenced their stage training at the earliest age, I would

    2163
    name Mrs. Siddons, Miss Ellen Terry, Mrs. Kendal, Lady Bancroft, and Sarah Bernhardt. The last-named is acting now at an age when most women have given up doing any work at all, so that it cannot be said that early training is deleterious to health.
    I would add one more argument in favour of the Amendment, namely, that if we are to have a class of play that is going to elevate the stage and bring about a great improvement which will mean a return to the better conditions of the past, there must be a considerable amount of employment of children on the stage in actual theatrical performances. At least five of Shakespeare's plays cannot be acted without quite small children at all, and, of course, most of the comedies we used to have and many of the dramas had children as an absolute essential in working out the story. There are a great many children in other callings whose real career in life obviously if it is to be properly developed is the career of actors and actresses. They must, unless their parents are quite rich, be able to get a complete stage training at a very early age, they must be allowed to perform, because it is in that way that they can not only pay for their stage training, but for a great deal more.
    I have been given two cases, and I will only quote one of a little boy who was taken charge of by the people who give the very best stage training at the age of ten, only about nine years ago. He had lost his father at five years of age. He was the poor child of poor parents. His mother was an imbecile and he had a grandmother without means. You would think that would be the worst start in life a boy could possibly have, but he had exceptional gifts which were recognised, and the result was that he not only had a most successful career as a child actor, mainly because he was able to take real child parts before his voice broke between the ages of ten and twelve, but was able to pay for his own Army coach when war came, and was able to get a commission in the Royal Air Force, and he has already, at the age of nineteen, gained the Military Cross; and if he gets through this War and comes back to his old career he is absolutely sure of a great career and lucrative employment. That is perfectly impossible if you carry out this Clause as it is, because it practically shuts off from a stage career all
    2164
    children of poor parents. I do not say for a moment that in some elementary schools recitation and things of that sort are not quite well taught, but children or poor parents have disabilities from the point of view of stage performances of a high class. If they live in London they have to get rid of their Cockney accent and to learn to speak and deliver the fine passages of our great authors, Shakespeare in particular, in a way which can only be learned by constant training and association with people who are speaking pure English and have not any accent, and it cannot possibly be learnt in the ordinary elementary school. Therefore, I press the President of the Board either to accept the Amendment now or to recognise that in the hurry of carrying the Bill through it has been impossible—we have had several meetings; we had one late last night while the House was sitting, to work out a full scheme of licensing children for theatrical performances in such a way as to satisfy the education authorities and make the acting of the finer forms of drama not only a possibility but a certainty in the future. Either the President must give us something of the French system of a conservatoire for teaching and training children, supported and aided by the State, or else make it possible for people who have the highest interests of the stage at heart to train these small children from the earliest age and allow them not only to perform but to be trained. In this matter there is no hard and fast distinction between the employment and the education. Training is incomplete if it does not allow of performances. It is contrary to the interest of the child, in all the exacting work which is to be got through, not to give him some opportunity of showing on the stage how it is getting on and what it is capable of doing.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (ii.).
    This deals with Sub-section (2) of Section 3, of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and it is proposed to leave out the words "under the age of eleven years." The effect of that would be that no child will be able to engage in street trading so long as he or she is under the age of fifteen. In the year 1903 we had a very animated discussion upon this Clause, and the result was that we came

    2165
    to the conclusion that the proper age was eleven years. I do not see why, if we are making alterations in the Education Bill, we should make this alteration in regard to street trading. The argument used was that it was very necessary that widows and people who were not well-off should be allowed to employ their children to earn something for the maintenance of the home. As the hour is late I will not elaborate my point, but I will content myself by moving the Amendment, and expressing the hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment he will give an undertaking that he will not make such a drastic change as is proposed by raising the age from eleven to fifteen.
    Mr. LEWIS: I am unable to accept the Amendment. Section 3 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, at present prohibits the employment of children under eleven in street trading. The Bill proposes that no child under the age of fourteen shall be employed in street trading. The object of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment is to retain the present age. I should like to give the reasons which have induced my right hon. Friend to incorporate this provision in the Bill. I need only quote from the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Employment of School Children in 1901. This is what it said:
    "In the case of street trading very strong powers of regulation are required. These children are exposed to the worst influences. They are kept out late at night, and exposed to inclement weather, and the precarious nature of their trade disinclines them for steady work and encourages them to dissipate their earnings in gambling."
    One result of that Report was the Employment of Children Act, 1903, which, to a certain extent, restricted street trading. In 1909 a Home Office Committee, presided over by the right hon. Member for Walthamstow, reported on the working of the Act, and their recommendation was that street trading by boys should be wholly prohibited by Statute up to the age of seventeen, and street trading by girls up to an age not later than eighteen. These recommendations were signed by a majority of seven. The Minority Report was signed by four Members, three of them Members of this House. They concurred with the prohibition of street trading by girls under eighteen, subject to special reservations for certain girls. The Amendment now before the Committee makes no distinction between boys
    2166
    and girls, and would enable girls between twelve and fourteen to hawk newspapers for profit. I am sure that no hon. Member of this House would desire that liberty to be given. With regard to boys, the minority only differed from the majority in thinking that the prohibition ought to be local and not general. The minority were just as strong as the majority in regard to the undesirability of street trading. I need not quote any more from the Report of so authoritative an inquiry which gives ample reason for an advance towards the ideal laid down by the Commission.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment. I am certain that this provision of the Bill is approved by fathers and mothers, and I am quite satisfied that none of the working classes want to see the children trading under the ages provided by the Bill and selling things out in the street.
    Mr. BOOTH: If my hon. Friend is right there does not need to be any legislation upon this, because I do not think that he could find children engaged in street trading who could not be stopped by the parents.
    Mr. WILSON: Yes.
    Mr. BOOTH: If the parents are unanimous against the children street trading, we can leave it to them. I always understood that this legislation was wanted because this House distrusted parents. I have done my best on previous occasions to oppose certain raw and ill-conceived projects to interfere with street trading, because they were always destructive proposals. There was nothing constructive in them to take the place of the street trading. This is a constructive proposal, providing for continuation schools and an advanced education system generally in the country, and I quite agree that it is fitting that the legislation in regard to street trading should come into line with it. I do not believe all the fancy stories that I have heard as to street trading, but if you pass a Bill like this there could not be any reason for making an exception and continuing street trading to allow children to do street trading when you do not allow them to do anything else.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary

    2167
    has alluded to the Report of the Commission of 1901. May I point out that this House, which, after all, is a greater authority than any Commission, dealt with that Report in 1903, and enacted that no child under eleven should be allowed to trade in the street, but any child after that should be allowed to do so? The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a later Commission in 1909 which went even further than the Commission of 1901. But in the year 1909 there was an energetic and progressive Radical Government in power and it did not apparently attach much importance to the Report of the Commission, as it introduced no legislation to carry it out. On the question of age, although perhaps I was in error in saying it would be fifteen in all cases, I think I was justified in saying that the practical effect is to raise the age from eleven to fifteen. I do not agree in what has been said as to the evils that arc going to result from street trading. You are not going to keep children out of the streets. They will be there whether they trade or not, and they are less likely to imbibe bad habits while they are trading than if they are loafing about doing nothing. I cannot agree to withdraw my Amendment, but I will not divide the Committee if it chooses to negative it.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: One important point arising out of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board should be cleared up. It is relevant to this discussion, but has a wider scope. My right hon. Friend says the age for this provision, and consequently for all provisions under this Clause may be raised to fifteen if the local education authority makes a by-law requiring school attendance up to fifteen. The Secretary to the Board admits that that may be so and that in exceptional cases the age may be fifteen for the purposes of employment. I should be obliged if some representative of the Government would give the Committee a considered opinion as to that. As I read it the Clause we are now discussing substitutes words in the Employment of Children Act, 1903, for the words of the Elementary Education Act The Employment of Children Act has its own definition of the word "child "—i.e., "a person under the age of fourteen years." Consequently, if I am right, the definition in
    2168
    this Bill which defines a child as a "person of the age of fourteen years or such other age as may apply in the particular locality to school attendance" does not take effect. I think it is right it should be so. It is logical if you raise the age for school attendance that you ought to raise the employment provision also to fifteen because your ground for these provisions is that they are necessary for educational reasons. On the other hand, there is this point to be taken into account. You want to persuade your local authorities to make by-laws raising the age to fifteen. If the effect of doing so is to restrict employment generally for the whole population between the ages of fourteen and fifteen then there will be much more opposition to any voluntary raising of the school age. I hope the Government, for the reasons I have given, will adhere to the situation, which I hope I have rightly described. Is that so?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: As I read paragraph (ii.) the effect will be that nobody can employ a child in street trading under the age certainly of fourteen, and I should have thought fifteen, though I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board said on that point as right. We then turn over the page, dealing with another Act of Parliament, and there the Clause says:
    "In paragraph (c) of Section two, which restricts the employment of children under eleven years for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale, twelve years shall be substituted for eleven years."
    Thus, the whole Clause would read
    "Any person who causes or procures any child under the age of eleven years "—
    That is to be amended by this Bill to twelve years—
    "or having the custody, charge, or care of that child, allows that child at any time to be in any street"—
    Then a number of words—
    "for the purpose of offering anything for sale —"
    shall be guilty, and so forth. As I read this Bill, and under this paragraph, you prohibit a person from employing a person in the street under the age of fourteen, and in the next Sub-clause of the same Clause you make it an offence to employ a child in the street under the age of twelve. I venture to submit that I am right in that, and if that is so I think it should be cleared

    2169
    up. May I deprecate very strongly this legislation by reference. I have done it so often before. It is difficult enough when dealing with one Department, but when the Education Department makes alterations in Bills introduced by other Departments it would surely be advisable to draw a fresh Clause altogether to make up our minds what we want to do, and put it into plain English without people having to look up these Sections. It is merely a matter of drafting.
    Mr. LEWIS: May I explain that paragraph (ii.) of Sub-section (2) is purely consequential on paragraph (i.) of Sub-section (I)? No change is made in the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, except so far as it is absolutely necessary in order to make it agree with the Employment of Children Act, 1903; and, as paragraph (i.) of Sub-section (1) provides that a child under the age of twelve shall not be employed, it was necessary in paragraph (ii.) of Sub-section (2), to make that agree with Sub-section (1). It is purely consequential.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Really; does anybody consider that explanation satisfactory? If any hon. Member will say that he does, I will sit down at once. You have it laid down by reference to Subsection (2) that a child shall not be employed under the age of fourteen or fifteen —we do not seem to know clearly which it is—in street trading. Then on the next page you make it an offence to do it under twelve. What do you mean? Do you mean that a person employing a child of thirteen is to be convicted for street trading? Would it not be better for us all to go to bed now and later to put what we mean into plain English?
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the beginning of paragraph (iii.), to insert the words "As regards the City of London."
    Under Section 3 it is provided that the powers under this Act shall be deemed to be powers and duties of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902. Under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, which this Clause seeks to amend, the City of London are the authority. They are not the authority under the Education Act, and the City desire that these words shall be included.
    Mr. FISHER: I accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "definition:—" ["definition:—The expression 'local authority,' "], insert the words "Except as regards the City of London."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (ii.).
    I want to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will meet those who are really interested and concerned in. this question relating to the employment of children singing, playing, or performing, or being exhibited for profit at the age of twelve years. I have a further Amendment to leave out paragraph (iii.) relating to licences for the employment of children exceeding the age of twelve years of age, and I wish to ask him whether he will consider this Amendment between now and the Report stage. As the right hon. Gentleman knows licences are granted all over the country and there are endless difficulties which involve attendance at Police Courts. The effect of the Clause is to place this matter in the hands of the President in regard to the education of these children, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the subject between now and the Report stage, possibly some satisfactory conclusion might be reached. A form of words was put before the President's Department, but it was not considered precisely satisfactory, but with certain modifications it might, from the educational point of view, be made of immense advantage.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Here we have this Sub-clause which alters the existing law in the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act and makes it an offence now for anybody to cause or procure a child under the age of twelve years to be at any time in any street for the purpose of offering anything for sale. I asked some time ago whether it was intended under this Act to make it an offence for a child to be sent to trade in the streets at thirteen, and before this Section goes through I want an answer definitely on that point or else I shall ask leave to move to report Progress.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. and learned Member asked me whether, under the provisions of the Clause as settled in Subsection (2) of Section 1 and Sub-section (2) of Section 2, a boy or a girl could engage in street trading at the age of thirteen. I think the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Then I shall certainly ask leave to move to report Progress, because we are amending the Act in the beginning part of this Clause 13 (2), where we make it an offence for any child—that is, under fourteen or fifteen years of age—to trade in the streets, and in the very same Section we have thus produced an amendment of a Bill which makes it an offence for the same thing to be done under the age of twelve I think there should be a redrafting of this Clause in a way which people can readily understand.
    Mr. DENMAN: I do not know if the hon. and learned Member will let a layman endeavour to throw a little light on this point, which is not really so absurd as he suggests. The two Clauses do not really deal with the same thing. The words we have passed make it an offence to employ a child in street trading under the age of fourteen, and the penalties for such employment are as laid down in the Act of 1903. The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act is much more stringent, and, as amended by the Sub-section to which the hon. and learned Member has objected, it will run to the effect that up to the age of twelve years certain things must not be done to a child. It says, "if any person causes or procures any child under twelve" to do these various things, then that person "shall, on summary conviction, be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding £25, or," amongst other things, "to imprisonment with or without hard labour." Surely the hon. and learned Member will see the extreme difference of these two cases. Street trading, under the age of fourteen, may be a comparatively mild offence, but the procuring of a child under twelve to do these certain things is deemed to be so much worse than a far higher penalty is imposed.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What is the penalty under the first Act?
    Mr. DENMAN:
    "He shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very glad that the layman sees no difficulty in the Act at all, but in the same Section the thing is
    2172
    prohibited twice, one under twelve and one under fourteen, without an indication in the Section as to what the penalty is in either ease, except by reference. I do not think it is the way to draw up an Act of Parliament. You have two different things in the same Clause, and I still think there is a difficulty in the Subsection. I submit it would be far better if the Clause were redrafted in such a way that people could understand perfectly well what is meant, with the penalties also put in.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. "—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. BOOTH: On this question, can we not ask when the Government propose to resume consideration of the Bill?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member at an earlier stage to-day made a suggestion to the Government which would probably be convenient. There will have to be at some time a reprint of Clause 13. I hope the Government, when they fix another day for this Bill, will not suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. At this time of night no one has the courage to raise a point and discuss it in the way it ought to be done on a question involving the liberty of the subject. It is not a. satisfactory way to carry through a difficult and complicated measure.
    Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It is not at all likely to be taken next week.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the standing order.
    Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'colck

WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  DISTINGUISHED SERVICE ORDER (BARS).
  DISTINGUISHED SERVICE ORDER (BARS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  NATURALISATION (CAROLINE HANEMAN).
  NATURALISATION (CAROLINE HANEMAN).
BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this Bill is of a character with which your Lordships are quite familiar. It is introduced under an Act passed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, when Lord Chancellor, to simplify procedure, the necessary steps being taken by Provisional Order instead of by a Bill in each case, and the Provisional Order has afterwards to be substantiated by Parliament. Your Lordships have passed many such Bills. The usual consultations have been held, the customary notices issued, and the draft Order published, and no objection has been raised. No petition was presented in the House of Commons, and no amendment to the Bill was there moved; and if your Lordships pass the Second Reading, the Bill will go to the Unopposed Bills Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Mill read 2a.

LAW AGENTS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill is exactly analogous to the Bill which your Lordships passed recently, by a large majority, to open the profession of solicitor to women. It proposes to do the same for law agents in Scotland. It does not touch solicitors before the Supreme Court, or Writers to the Signet. The Bill as it stands merely deals with the broad principle which your Lordships dealt with in the recent Bill. I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HORSE BREEDING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I am presenting a measure the provisions of which for some time past have received considerable support, and I am asking your Lordships to make obligatory a system the voluntary application of which has proved both useful and popular. This is a Bill for regulating the use of stallions travelling for service or exhibiting themselves on premises not belonging to the owner with a view to service. This country has won a great reputation for horse breeding, and I am sure you will agree with me that this has been greatly owing to the enterprise and generosity of private owners and the zeal and enthusiasm with which horse breeding societies have endeavoured to obtain improvement and soundness in the horses which they have bred. The refusal of these societies to give prizes or premiums to unsound stallions has not only achieved great practical results, but has paved the way to an acknowledgment of the need for further steps in this direction by way of legislation.
This Bill is net the first suggestion of legislation in this direction. A Committee of your Lordships' House in 1873 reported that compulsory registration of stallions was advisable, but they regretted that there was no machinery by which the administration could be carried out. In 1896, a Committee inquiring into horse breeding also reported in favour of compulsory registration; and in 1912 Lord Saltoun introduced a Bill into this House, but that measure dealt only with light horses, and did not go as far as this measure does. The latest Report that we have is that of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in 1915, which was appointed to consider what steps should be taken to secure an adequate supply of suitable horses for military purposes. The Committee strongly recommended compulsory registration of stallions.
Since the first inquiry conditions have considerably changed, and the suggestion that there is no machinery by which such administration could be carried out no longer holds good. We have had the experience of collecting and supplying

163
horses during two wars, and this has demonstrated how small a number of horses are really suitable for military purposes Lord Middleton's Committee received several letters which the War Office had written to the Board of Agriculture urging the need of improvement in the system of horse breeding. In one of those letters they say that they are appalled by the number of horses which are unsuitable for hard work; and in 1915 they write that—
"the experience of the recent mobilisation has shown that though this country produces many super-excellent horses, the number of unsound and utterly worthless horses which ought never to have been bred is deplorably large."
So that the question is really one of urgent national and military importance.
The Board of Agriculture consider that the first thing to be done is to eliminate the unsound stallion. The machinery is at hand, because when in 1911 the Development Commissioners gave a grant for the improvement of horse breeding the Board then instituted a system of voluntary registration. Under this system pedigree stallions were registered after veterinary examination, and I think the commercial value of such registration is shown by the number of stallions on those lists. At the present moment the number is 2,020, and I believe that the names of the large majority of pedigree stallions will be found entered on those lists. The object of the present Bill is to make registration compulsory for all stallions which travel for service or are exhibited for service on premises not belonging to their owners. It is introduced in order to protect the owners of mares against unsound stallions, of the condition of which they have, and can have, no knowledge. These stallions are got up to catch the eye; they are travelled up to the very doors of the farmers, and the owners of the mares are tempted to avail themselves of the services of such stallions, not knowing the loss which will accrue both to themselves and to the country.
This measure has received the support of most of the principal breeding societies, of the Royal Agricultural Society and the Farmers' Union, and I think I may say that there is a consensus of opinion in favour of it among all those who are interested in horse breeding. The same steps that I am now asking your Lordships to take have been taken by France, by
164
Germany, by Austria, by many of our Dominions, and by a great many of the Federal States of the United States. Your Lordships will see that under the Bill we do not entirely do away with the unsound stallion. The owner of a mare, if he desires the services of an unsound stallion, knowing that it is unsound but perhaps preferring the strain, may obtain the services of that stallion in its own stables, but such a stallion must not travel about the country or be exhibited in premises which do not belong to its owner.
The gist of the Bill appears in the first clause; the rest of the clauses chiefly carry out the purpose which is contained there. The Bill applies to Scotland and to Ireland, but the Irish Board of Agriculture has a different clause which will be found at the end of the Bill. Clause 2 proceeds to license a stallion for a fee not exceeding one guinea, provided it is not affected in the way mentioned in the paragraphs in subsection (2). In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) it is intended to put into the Regulations the diseases which are specified in the Regulations of the Board under the present voluntary system which have been accepted by most of the breeding societies. Clause 3 deals with the duration, transfer, production, and renewal of the licences; it also provides that for a stallion which has attained a prescribed age—and by that is meant an age which will be prescribed under the Regulations—and for which a licence has been previously granted for a prescribed number of years, the examination for wind only may be waived. This was a clause to which considerable importance was attached in the other House.
Clause 4 provides for an appeal. The appeal is to be to a veterinary officer or other person in the first instance, and from that person to the Board of Agriculture, with whom is to rest the final decision. The Horse Breeding Societies will be consulted as to the names of the veterinary surgeons and other persons to be appointed on the panel of referees. Clauses 5 to 9, inclusive, deal with the administration of the Bill. Clause 10 deals with stallions in the New Forest or on other commons. These commons have their own Regulations and by-laws, but by Clause 10 it is left to them to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill and to come under them if they should wish to do so. Clause 11 deals with

165
the expenses of the Bill in so far as they are not met, and we do not expect that the charge on the Treasury will be very great. Clause 12 is a defining clause and fixes the appointed day, which shall be not earlier than the first day of January, 1920. Clause 13 applies the Act to Scotland; and Clause 14 is the clause dealing with Ireland, which has received the approval of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
I have endeavoured to prove that the Bill is of urgent necessity, and I hope that this fact, together with my assurance that its provisions have received the support of all those interested in the subject, will commend the measure to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
WESTGATE-ON-SEA CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Defence of the Realm Regulations have been applied impartially as between Great Britain and Ireland particularly in regard to fox hunting, horse racing, price of cattle, food control, the price of railway fares, and the consumption of petrol; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not suppose that your Lordships will be surprised at any reference to Ireland, considering the condition of that country. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, is going in the course of the next few days to refer to the more serious aspects of Ireland. I will, there-
166
fore content myself by calling your Lordships' attention, with regard to the general position of Ireland, to the fact that since Parliament has abandoned the principle of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland and has pandered to separatist Opinion, we have had an increasing volume of sedition, of privy conspiracy, and of revolution in that country. But the curious thing about Ireland is that, in spite of all this, people have been coming back from Ireland ever since the beginning of the war and telling their friends that it is really the only fit place in which a gentleman can live. They appear, as I think I shall show, to have privileges which are not accorded to the inhabitants in the other parts of these islands.
I allude first of all in my Question on the Paper to fox hunting. I desire, with your Lordships' permission, not to lay stress on that aspect of the subject; in fact, I wish to withdraw it, because it is well known to your Lordships that all masters of fox hounds constitute a patriotic class of the very highest degree, and I have not the slightest doubt that this characteristic applies equally to the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association as it does to the Masters of Foxhounds Associations of England, Scotland, and Wales, whose conduct will go down to posterity as a fine example of how bodies ought to behave in a national struggle such as that through which we are passing at this moment. I shall not press that part of the Question, because I am informed that the Masters of Foxhounds in Ireland have taken note of the national exigencies and reduced their hunting accordingly.
With regard to horse racing, however, there is a different story to tell. If I am correctly informed, horse racing has received a boom in Ireland the like of which it has never had before; and as a consequence of racing being discontinued to some extent in this country, several patrons of the turf, including the bookmakers and all those other accessories, have crowded over to Ireland where they have been having a remarkably good time. They have had better horses there than they have had before; they have had better racing; they have had English horses there which would otherwise have been running in England; and altogether the sport of racing has been at a very high level. I am not putting this forward as far as I am concerned in a spirit of jealousy between

167
ourselves and Ireland, but, if the noble Earl has read the Sportsman of this morning, as I have—I understand he may have done so—he will see that there is a very well-founded belief among the horse racing fraternity in England that there is too much racing in Ireland proportionately to what there is in this country.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I will read one or two figures to show that this is not without some truth. Until about eight weeks ago forty-nine meetings had been arranged in Ireland from June 1 until October. The number was only cut down at the request of the Irish Railway Executive. It has been cut down in this way. There are now arranged in Ireland twenty-two meetings from June to October, meaning thirty-eight days' racing, while in England there will be only eight race meetings, all at Newmarket, which will occupy only thirty days. I submit to the noble Earl that horse racing is either desirable from the national point of view or it is not. If it is not desirable—I think it is—to carry it on from the point of view of our breed of horses, then do away with it. But if it is desirable, I suggest that you should regulate it, if you can, in Ireland on the same scale as it is regulated in this country, having regard to keeping racing alive sufficiently to preserve our breed of horses, which I submit is the only real reason for keeping it on at all at the present moment.
But in addition to horse racing there are other forms of sport which I understand have come to an end in this country but which are being enjoyed in Ireland, such as coursing, whippet racing, and the good old Gallic sport of cock fighting, which is going on merrily over there. In fact, it is quite possible to paint a picture of Ireland which could shown that in spite of their own behaviour, and in spite of the war, junketing is going on as if the war were not a war at all.
As to food control, I understand that there is practically no article of food in Ireland that has been rationed, with the exception of sugar. Sugar has only recently been rationed, so much so that a friend of mine who came over from Ireland the other day—he has been over in this country for some weeks—came over literally stuffed with sugar, and I believe has subsisted in this country on the sugar that he brought over from Ireland. I understand, however, that sugar has since
168
been rationed there. I would like to ask the noble Earl whether any other forms of food are rationed in Ireland at the present moment. It is well known that the beautiful pastures of that country produce-milk and butter in great quantities, and one of the advantages of being a member of the Convention was that whenever you attended the Convention you could come back with your portmanteau full of butter. It is quite true that there has been some attempt at putting the Public Meals Order in force in certain towns in Ireland—to wit, I am told, Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Belfast, and Londonderry—but this has probably been done not so much through pressure by the Government or from a patriotic desire to help the national food supplies, but because it happens to suit the restaurateurs to supply a smaller meal at the same price as was charged before the Public Meals Regulation was brought into force.
I am informed by a friend of mine in Ireland that the difficulty of putting any sort of food control in force there would be extremely grave, and I suppose the Government know this just as well as I do, If you attempted to get any sort of food control there with the present organisations—they are mostly manned by separatists, Nationalists, or Sinn Feiners, and those whose main concern is not to help England in the time of difficulty—I understand that it would be extremely difficult for any Government to get its orders carried out. It is, however, important, and I hope that in this matter of food control the Government will at least try to treat Ireland in the same way as England, because this different treatment is creating a natural feeling of discontent in this country.
I pass to the question of railway fares, to which I believe the Government have a complete answer. Within the last few days it is true that the price of railway travelling has been raised by 50 per cent., but this does not alter the fact that since the beginning of the war there has been no previous increase in the price of railway fares in Ireland, whereas in England fares have been rising on a constantly increasing scale.
Then we have restriction of the price of cattle. This is a very curious state of things, and I put this question to the noble Earl quite as much from the desire to get some information as from any wish to

169
establish a case, against the Government. It appears, if my figures are correct, that the whole thing has really been an utter farce. Nobody has paid the slightest attention to it. Although the maximum price in England has been 75s. per cwt., in Ireland fat cattle have been making over 100 s. per cwt. in Dublin market, up till a month ago. There has now been a big drop. Fat cattle have been sold at 95 s. per cwt. live weight in the stalls; they were bought by a dealer for immediate shipment to England. Allowing for loss of weight on transit and expenses, this would put the price up to nearly 1108. per cwt. in England. As they must be sold in England at the regulation price, it would be interesting to know how the dealers work it. They obviously do not lose money, and it would be interesting to know who pays the difference upon this transaction. This is merely one instance, I am informed, of what has been going on all over the country during last season.
There is one little matter, my Lords, which I have not stated in my Question, but to which I would like to call attention in passing—namely, the number of horse shows which it is proposed to hold in Ireland; and horse shows which will involve railway travelling and also at which jumping competitions are going to be held. There is nothing in the world more purely luxurious and unnecessary from the national point of view than a jumping competition at a horse show. It is only brought in to attract people who do not know a horse's head from its tail, and so to get a gate for inefficient management who do not know how to run a horse show. I am not going to say anything against horse shows because I propose running one of my own in the autumn, but it will be run on proper lines and in the national interest; because it will be purely local and will involve no railway travelling. They will be principally shire horses shown there, and there will be no jumping competition. But that does not alter the fact that arrangements have been made for no fewer than twenty-six horse shows to be held at different places in Ireland between now and September 19.
Now I come to the extremely interesting question of petrol. Everybody says—and I have material here to prove that there is a certain foundation for what everybody says—that unless you happen to be a Sinn Feiner it is extremely difficult to get petrol
170
at all. If you belong to the disloyal portion of Ireland, somehow or other the petrol is forthcoming. Just listen to this, my Lords. This is at the Ballycastle Petty Sessions, and it is reported in the Irish News, a Nationalist paper, of May 28, 1918. There were several prosecutions there for the illegal use of petrol, and several gentlemen were proceeded against for using motors to bring speakers and others to an anti-conscription meeting at Cushendall on some date in April which I cannot read. The report saws—
Mr. Walsh, who defended, said they had a perfectly good defence in this, as they were entitled to use petrol on matters of public duty, and they could hardly have discharged a more important public duty at the time than to try and save their country from the horrors that conscription would have entailed. It was war work of the most urgent importance to prevent the creation of a new from in Ireland."
On the very day on which they had been prosecuted, Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C., M.P., Mr. John Dillon, M.P. and Mr. de Valera, M.P., had motored down from Dublin to Maynooth on exactly the same business, and the authorities had evidently considered that they had done nothing illegal. Now we also know that petrol must have been used for the highly patriotic purpose of rifling the Duke of Abercorn's house to see if there were any arms that would be available at some future time. I do not suppose the noble Earl knows any more than I do where the petrol came from which these bandits used when they went to the Duke of Abercorn's to take down the swords of his ancestors from the gallery with a view to cutting somebody's head off when they got an opportunity of doing so. But I do commend to the Government the fact that some of us over here consider it a very grave injustice that petrol should be forthcoming for rebellious subjects on the other side of the water while we cannot obtain any ourselves.
I have tried to show your Lordships that here there is at least some foundation for the idea that Ireland, so far as personal comfort goes—so far as being able to enjoy those amenities of life which we all used to enjoy before, the war—has been placed in a privileged position. I hope the Government will be able to refute every single thing I have said. I do not believe they will; but I hope seriously that His Majesty's Government will tell us to-day that they are going to take some steps at any rate—

171
all the steps in their power—to reduce the balance of comfort and discomfort as between England and Ireland. The present Prime Minister is the one man of all others whose speeches entitle us to hope that he will use his influence to do this. He is always talking about democracy. I do not myself know what "democracy" means. The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, said the other day that we were all democrats. I certainly am not. The only definition of "democracy" that ever appealed to me in the slightest was a definition which, I believe, was given by Mr. H. G. Wells in one of his extremely interesting books, when he said that democracy was the means of making everybody else suffer equally with yourself. So far as we are concerned in regard to Ireland, a great many of us are beginning to be democratic. The Prime Minister, however, gave another definition of "democracy." He said that it was the negation of privilege. Well, there is a very great deal to be said from that point of view. If it is the negation of privilege, will he see to it that the one point in the whole of his Government which is a glaring example of privilege shall be redressed at the earliest possible moment?
Before I sit down there is one other point which, in running over in my mind what I had intended to say, I find I have forgotten, and that is that all these amusements which I have indicated can be enjoyed in Ireland and can also be washed down at any hour of the day or night, afternoon or morning, with whatever alcoholic stimulant is available. While the Englishman has to wait for a drink, the Irishman can get one whenever he wants one. This sort of thing will not do, and I tell the Government that unless some attempt is made to establish something like firmness over in Ireland we shall hear a great deal of it in the near future.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Your Lordships are aware that my noble friend Lord Rhondda is indisposed, and I am therefore charged with the duty of stating the reply for the Food Minister's Department. I will also reply for the Board of Trade, and for the officers who deal with horse racing and the price of cattle and petrol. It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government to apply the Defence of the Realm Regulations impartially in all parts of the United Kingdom having regard to the varying
172
conditions of different localities. Conditions in Ireland make it inexpedient or impracticable to apply precisely the same Regulations as may be suitable or desirable in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am not speaking only of political conditions, but of economic and general considerations which are permanent factors in Irish life, and which it would be imprudent to ignore in making Regulations with regard to Ireland. The application of these general principles may be traced in the particular matters to which my noble friend more particularly refers.
In the case of food control, in order to allow full weight to local needs considerable discretionary powers were given to the Food Control Committees set up by him in Great Britain. In Ireland he set up a Food Control Committee for the whole country to administer his Orders and to advise him on general questions arising out of those Orders. This Committee, in tendering advice to the Food Controller, has doubtless been influenced by practical considerations and by their intimate acquaintance with the local, political and economic situation in Ireland. The Food Controller has been guided by their views and those of the Irish Department with regard to the desirability of applying particular Orders to Ireland. Generally speaking, the great majority of the Orders made by the Food Controller apply to Ireland equally with Great Britain.
I will deal seriatim with certain articles of food to which my noble friend referred. In the first place I will take sugar. The only article of food on which the consumer in Ireland is rationed at present is sugar—as Lord Willoughby pointed out—the ration in this respect being the same as in Great Britain, namely 8 ozs. per head of the population per week. This system is based upon sugar cards similar to those used in this country. My noble friend's acquaintance who returned to these shores stuffed with sugar—I do not know how he looked after the process—clearly brought away by improper means sugar that should have gone to some consumer less fortunate than himself.
With regard to tea, the amount imported into Ireland is fixed on the same basis as that distributed in Great Britain. The amount imported is known to and controlled by the Food Ministry, and it may be stated that the quantity available for

173
consumption is equivalent per head of the population to the amount of tea released in Great Britain. Ireland, of course, is a country which takes more tea, and apparently also more beer, than England. With regard to meat, the fortnightly returns from butchers received by the Food Control Committee for Ireland demonstrate that, notwithstanding the large amount of beef production in the country, the average consumption is very considerably less than in England. It is therefore considered unnecessary to apply a system of card rationing to the public. The provisions of the Public Meals Order are applied throughout Ireland, though I do not doubt that there certain places in Ireland, as in this country, where the provisions of that Order are not completely carried into effect.
As to bacon, the intention of the Ministry of Food is to make Ireland self-supporting, with an exportable surplus to England; and with this end in view pigs coming into the market are apportioned between the Irish bacon factors and the British importers. Up to the present the Irish bacon factors have produced not only sufficient for Irish needs but a surplus, which has been regularly exported to Great Britain in addition to the live pigs above-mentioned. No definite statistics are available as to the amount of bacon consumed per head of the population in Ireland, inasmuch as a considerable quantity of American bacon has until recently been imported into Ireland, a stock of which is still on hand. Making due allowance for this, it is estimated that the consumption of bacon per head in Ireland is actually below the amount at present allowed under rations in England.
It is very difficult to estimate the quantity of butter and margarine consumed, inasmuch as small producers, who consume the butter they themselves make, do not send in any Returns. As far as can be estimated from the Returns available, and making an allowance for the quantity consumed by producers, the consumption of butter and margarine does not exceed six ounces per head per week; and as a set off against this, the consumption of other fats in Ireland is much less than the English allowance, lard and dripping being sparingly used by the agricultural population, who number two-thirds of the entire Irish inhabitants. By arrangement with
174
the Ministry of Food, a considerable amount of butter is being exported under licence, only such quantities being kept in Ireland as are required for home consumption. This export is estimated at 820,168 cwts. for the present year. I would remind your Lordships that in normal years Ireland has been a considerable importer of butter and margarine.
May I just mention the question of the prices of cattle before I deal with the subject of horse racing. In making Orders governing the price of cattle, the special circumstances of Ireland as a producing and exporting country have been taken into account, and it was not considered desirable or practicable to set up a method of local grading and distribution of cattle and meat, which was suited to the different conditions ruling in Great Britain. But the maximum prices fixed for dead meat are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain. The prices of live cattle in Ireland have been above those ruling in Great Britain. These prices have recently fallen. Arrangements have now been made whereby Irish cattle sent to this country for slaughter will be graded on arrival, and their prices fixed at the same rate as that applicable to Great Britain. They will then be subject to the same control as cattle produced in Great Britain, and this will remove the danger of abuse to which Lord Willoughby de Broke has referred.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Can the noble Earl tell us how the previous transactions were financed?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have not the remotest idea. Perhaps Lord Willoughby de Broke will send me a copy of the facts for investigation, and no doubt the officers of the Food Control Department, whose duty it is to watch questions of prices, will be able to investigate the subject.
As to the series of incidental interests in Irish life to which Lord Willoughby de Broke referred—whippet racing, cock fighting, and horse shows—I offer no comment on them except to point out that every one of your Lordships knows perfectly well that for years past Ireland has in certain respects occupied a privileged position, and, in spite of the war, continues to enjoy the doubtful privilege of some of these things which they consider to be the

175
amenities of life. Lord Willoughby de Broke is mistaken in his view about railway fares and the restrictions on travelling. These Regulations are exercised by the Ministry of Munitions, and that Department could forbid any race meeting which was likely to impede or delay the production, repair, or transport of war material, or any work necessary for the successful prosecution of the war.
In regard to horse racing, the position in Great Britain and that in Ireland is different. In Great Britain the position of the railways render restrictions in regard to racing necessary where it did not appear that similar restrictions were necessary in Ireland. Local meetings in this country have been prohibited on the ground that they were likely to impede or delay the production, repair, or transport of war material, or any work necessary for the successfu1 prosecution of the war, and it has been arranged that racing under the rules of the Jockey Club shall not be allowed except at Newmarket. These considerations do not apply to the same extent in Ireland, but the number of meetings under the control of the Irish Turf Club has been restricted by that body, and the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland is now being directed to the general position of horse racing in Ireland.
With regard to the bearing of this upon the railways themselves, I am informed that towards the end of 1916 the position of the British railway companies in regard to the conveyance of ordinary traffic became very difficult owing to the increase in the volume of traffic, to the fact that hundreds of locomotives and thousands of wagons were sent abroad for use in connection with the war, and owing to the release of large numbers of men for military service. It was accordingly necessary to take steps to restrict traffic as far as possible, and an Order was made under the Defence of the Realm Regulation 7 authorising the railway companies to raise their fares 50 per cent. This increase came into force on January 1, 1917. Since then the railway position has become more acute, and it was arranged last month that the season ticket rates should be increased by 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. according to whether they covered distances up to or over 12 miles. The Irish railways only came under Government control in January, 1917, and for some time after that—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What date did the noble Lord say for the Irish railways?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: January 1, 1917.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why not before?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will find out from the Board of Trade and inform the noble Marquess. I am answering for five different Departments, and I am afraid that I shall not be able to reply to cross-examination with very much original knowledge of my own. For some time after that date—that is January 1, 1917—control existed, but it did not appear that it was necessary to increase railway fares in Ireland. Conditions have now arisen, however, especially in regard to the necessity of reducing the consumption of coal by the Irish railways, which have altered the position, and steps are being taken to apply in Ireland practically the same conditions as regards railway fares and season tickets as are applied in England. It should be borne in mind that rolling stock has not been withdrawn from the Irish railways for use overseas as has been done here, the gauge on the Irish railways being different from that on the Continental railways.
The use of petrol is controlled by the Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918. This Order applies to Ireland as well as to Great Britain, and is administered by the Police. In reply to a Question put in the House of Commons on June 5 last as to "whether the Regulations as to the use of petrol for purposes other than Government work are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain, and whether the Police in Ireland have the same strict instructions to prevent motoring for private purposes as are applied throughout the country districts of England, Scotland and Wales," the Chief Secretary for Ireland replied that "the answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative." As to petrol licences, no distinction is made between Great Britain and Ireland in so far as the allotments of petrol to consumers are concerned. Petrol licences are issued under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1916, and under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and, in the case of persons and firms in Ireland, are issued by the Petrol Control Department only on the

177
recommendation of the Petrol Committee (Ireland). The enforcement of the Petrol Regulations, as I stated, is entrusted to the Police, and I do not doubt that evasions exist, but the Police are doing their utmost to see that the Order is properly enforced.
From the foregoing statement it will be clear that His Majesty's Government have not applied to Ireland precisely the same Regulations as to Great Britain. Such action would be neither judicious nor impartial, but it has been their object, and it remains their intention, to secure as far as may be that the restrictions imposed by the war shall be equally shared by all parts of the United Kingdom, although the methods adopted may, and indeed must, be differentiated to meet varying conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Earl opposite for the manner in which he has carried out his highly multifarious task in replying for I really do not know how many Departments, all no doubt represented by Ministers or quasi- Ministers in this House—at least I suppose they are—who might have taken my noble friend's place. But in spite of the care which he evidently gave to his reply, I am not quite sure that its contents will entirely satisfy the House.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Regarding it as an answer to the Question put by the noble Lord above the gangway, the reply, if the noble Earl will forgive my saving so, was of the most official kind. It was obviously the outcome of purely official care, and while it contained a certain number of admirable sentiments, yet I confess that I wish myself it had had more of the independent judgment of the noble Earl, who is so well qualified to examine any question of this kind from his own stores of knowledge and experience of affairs.
I have not much to say in comment, but on the one question of rationing it appears to me that the reply especially errs by its extremely official character. It seems to be assumed that if the consumption per head of a particular article of food in Ireland does not exceed or at any rate largely exceed the consumption of that same article in England there is no need to ration that article of food. Take, for
178
instance, the case of meat. As we all know in the South and West of Ireland there is a large proportion of the population who in ordinary times are not consumers of meat except on rare occasions. More meat, I hope, is eaten than used to be in the days when the meal of potatoes and "point," of which many of us have heard, formed the ordinary diet of a Connemara peasant; still the consumption among large numbers of the population is infinitely less than among those of a similar grade of life in this country. What is the use, therefore, of estimating the consumption per head? It is very useful, I dare say, from the point of view of the Food Controller's Office, but it does not touch the point, of which the noble Earl is quite as well aware as any of us here, that the object of rationing is not merely to bring down the consumption per head merely the whole nation, but to prevent a certain number of persons from consuming an undue proportion of the particular article; and it it be the case, as might be concluded, I think, from the arguments of the noble Lord above the gangway, that those who are in the habit in ordinary times of consuming meat in Ireland are now able to consume as much as they please, then I submit that the noble Earl has no answer to the Question put by the noble Lord, of a kind which will, I venture to think, satisfy the House.
The same argument applies to the consumption of butter. It is quite true that margarine has been imported into Ireland in the past, and that the whole production of butter there was by no means consumed in Ireland itself. We know very well that Ireland has been one of the principal sources of supply for this country, and I admit that a considerable amount of butter is exported from the Smith of Ireland now. But there, again, the fact is not touched that unless some limitation is put upon the consumption of those who desire to consume too largely for these times, people are allowed to perform the anti-social act of excessive consumption from which they are debarred in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Food Control Regulations.
As regards the grading of cattle, I was glad to hear the noble Earl ask Lord Willoughby de Broke to supply him with a statement on which he founded the remarkable picture which was drawn of Irish dealers apparently buying animals at enormous prices in Ireland and shipping theta at an obvious loss to England, where

179
they would have to be sold at a very much lower figure. We shall all be very much interested to hear what the explanation of that mystery is. But I am glad to know that the grading of Irish stores is now arranged for. I venture to think that it ought to have been done two years ago at least, if not sooner, and I know no conceivable reason why it was not done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid I must have misled the noble Marquess. The words I used were that arrangements have now been made whereby Irish cattle sent to this country for slaughter would be graded on arrival.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Store cattle are not to be graded; only fat or semi-fat cattle are to be graded. Well, I am very sorry that all Irish cattle are not to be graded.
As regards the question of railway restrictions, it is no doubt quite true—and it is a point for which sufficient allowance ought certainly to be made—that where the conditions, whether of the making of munitions or of other necessary manufactures, do not interfere with railway traffic in the same way that they do in most parts of England, there is not the same reason for applying the same iron restrictions for railway traffic as have to be applied here. This we should all admit. On the other hand it has to be remembered that indiscriminate railway travelling, supposing that it exists, whether for race meetings or for any other purpose, does mean an increased consumption and waste of coal, and that there may be in some instances in Ireland a case for regulation and restriction.
I do not speak with any particular information as to the Regulations which are now applied at any rate in some of the principal cities of Ireland to the restriction of the drink traffic, but it is worth while, I think, to call attention to the very remarkable facts and figures in the Return supplied by Lord D'Abernon's Department here—facts and figures which would be confirmed not only by the Metropolitan Police, but, I am sure, by the Police all over England and Scotland—namely, as to the beneficial effects, from the point of view of the prevention of crime of all kinds, of the drastic restrictions which have been imposed upon the consumption of liquor in this country. It might be fairly assumed that similar results would follow some parallel application all through Ireland.
180
But without dwelling on that, I merely wish to say, in conclusion, that the noble Earl does not seem to have apprehended what I conceive to be one of the principal arguments employed by Lord Willoughby de Broke—namely, that what is resented in this country by a great many people is not the fact that in certain directions Ireland may be more fortunately situated than this country is—for instance, in the fact of its not being necessary in all cases to comply with restrictions—but there do seem to be causeless and unexplained differences between the conditions in the two countries. It is important that the good will of this country towards Ireland, which we all desire to see developed, but which, as we know, has many difficulties to encounter in the matter of military service in Ireland, should not be more hampered and interfered with than is necessary, by a sense among the working people of this country that they are being more rigorously treated than those of the same class in Ireland. I wish that the noble Earl had been able to do a little more to dispel that sentiment, which, I am afraid, is becoming rather widely spread, and which may have somewhat disastrous results when we have to consider, as we soon shall, the future relations between the two countries.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, it is a very curious thing that there is always something comic or something tragic whenever the British Government attempt to handle affairs in Ireland. On this occasion, in my opinion, the comic element is uppermost. I have seldom heard anything more amusing, than the remarks of Lord Crawford. What he said really was that the government of Ireland was a question of expediency. That is true. I remember the Leader of the House telling us a short time ago that they left the state of affairs in Clare until the people should see that something must be done; it was to get so bad that really something must be done. I remember expostulating with him afterwards, and he said "You may say it is a bad policy, but it is a policy." I say it is a very bad policy.
What did the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal say in reply to Lord Willoughby de Broke? He spoke about sending Orders to Ireland. Who is going to obey them? Nobody. You may send what Orders

181
you like to Ireland, they will not obey them. He spoke about the Regulations to be applied to racing. Yes, those Regulations have all been sent over, but they have never been enforced, and there is no intention of enforcing any of the Orders that have been sent over to Ireland. He said the Minister of Munitions is the person who can stop racing. You do not suppose for one moment that the Minister of Munitions or anybody else is going to stop racing and make the racing in Ireland the same thing as it is in England. The whole thing is totally different. The whole legislation with regard to Ireland since the war began is absolutely different from that of England, because the Government are in a fright about Ireland and do not like to enact any law for fear that sedition may get strong again.
Then the noble Earl said, "Authority is being directed to call attention to racing." "Authority is being directed"; they will call attention to it, but nothing whatever will be done. Everything that my noble friend said is absolutely true. The circumstances are totally different. And I warn the Government that the working men of this country are getting very irritated about this, more particularly the men up to fifty-one who are being conscripted. They were promised that Ireland should be brought in, too; but they know that there is no intention, now or hereafter, as long as this Government is in power, to conscript Ireland; otherwise the Government would not have brought in the two Bills together. They know that the Home Rule Bill must pass first, because there is no registration or other machinery which is necessary, and which would take months to organise, before you can have conscription. The whole thing is comic; and it is much better that the country should know the truth about it.
A few weeks ago I called attention to the fact that nearly every Bill that has been brought in since the war has had placed on the outside, "This Bill does not apply to Ireland." The Government had much better put that with regard to the whole of the questions raised by my noble friend; because, although Lord Crawford gave an answer and spoke about Orders, and about authority, and about being empowered, he knows perfectly well that not one of these things will be enforced. If that is so, then why not say so? I do not know how long the Government are
182
going on with this policy in regard to Ireland, but it is very unfair not only to the loyalists but to the disloyalists. You are going to bring in a Home Rule Bill which you well know the Irish will not accept. It is to be brought in by two Unionist Members; and as sure as I stand here the Irish will say, "You are bringing in a Bill which you know we will not accept." It is better for us, at any rate in this House, to recognise the true state of Ireland. The British Government is afraid to enforce law and order there. The whole position will go back to where it was before in the old days; you may have to go back to coercion; but one thing is certain—namely, that the working men of this country, of America, and of the Dominions, will never support any suggestion of Home Rule for Ireland under present conditions.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I think we have much reason to be indebted to Lord Willoughby de Broke for having brought this subject before us; all the more so in view of the fact that we live in days when Irish grievances and Irish disabilities have ceased to be purely Irish questions—they are no longer even British questions or United Kingdom questions alone—they are not only even Imperial questions; they have become international and world questions. So also have Irish privileges, exemptions, preferences, advantages, and monopolies, fair and unfair; and so also have Irish failures of duty.
I think it was on a recent occasion that there was a speech to a German-Irish Society in Germany by a German nobleman—who, I believe, is an Under-Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office—who said that "a free Ireland would mean the freedom of the seas," and he amplified and elaborated that statement by saying that "a German alliance with a free Ireland would permanently secure the connection between Germany and her colonial possessions in Africa." Why do I bring in that statement? Because the foundation of the tactical reply which was given by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government—I say the "tactical" reply because, although much sympathy is due to the noble Earl in the difficulty he has in giving an answer, it remains nevertheless the fact that the Government gain great tactical advantages by saying, "Oh, this concerns so many Departments that in no single answer can

183
a full responsible reply be given to a Question"—the foundation of the noble Earl's answer really was that you must from practical and economic considerations practically give independence to Ireland in all these questions; and he said that the whole question had been handed over to an independent Irish Committee, on which he was not in a position to say that anybody had seen to it that there should be a majority of people who wanted to win the war. Who can wonder in these circumstances if the administration of all these questions by that Committee proceeds entirely from the point of view that Irish considerations, Irish comfort, and Irish convenience should alone be considered?
I think your Lordships must see that in the answers given by the noble Earl with regard to every one of the particulars put forward in Lord Willoughby de Broke's Question, attention has been paid to Irish comfort and not to the interests of the Empire or the interests of the Allies. Let us take the question of railway travelling. Railway travelling in Great Britain has been drastically restricted. It has not been restricted as regards race trains alone; it has not been restricted for the sole purpose of preventing interference with the manufacture of munitions; it has been restricted upon the equally important ground that the consumption of coal must be economised as much as possible. And when you come to the case of Ireland, I suppose that country subsists to a considerable extent upon coal brought over sea from Scotland and possibly from Wales; so that in Ireland it is a very serious tonnage question as well as a question of munitions and coal supply.
Let us take the question of petrol. Here we are told that there "may have been evasions," but that "the administration is in the hands of the Police, who see to it," etc., etc., that there shall be no more than an unavoidable number of evasions. Now this is one respect in which the Government cannot say they are hampered in Ireland. In Ireland Police administration is not, as it is in this country, municipal. There at least they have a centralised authority, and ought to be able to see to it that no petrol gets into the hands of people who cannot show a public ground for using petrol, and that still less should it get into the hands of people who are going to use it for unlawful and criminal purposes. Let us think of
184
the importance of the question of the misuse or excessive use of petrol in Ireland, not only as regards provoking discontent in Great Britain. Petrol is a world question of the very greatest imprtance. I have little doubt that in the United States of America, in the territories of our Allies, and in our Dominons, people are being asked at this moment to undergo restrictions in the use of petrol; and this is a time when the civilised world is asked to look on while there is this unrestricted excessive indulgence in joy-riding and criminal riding in petrol-driven cars in Ireland. So much for railway travelling and petrol.
In respect to horse racing we are told that the same Regulations have been—what? Have been applied to Ireland. But there is a judicious reticence as to whether the applied Regulations have also been enforced. So it seems always to be. Here you have a country which asks for Home Rule. Since 1898 the Nationalist and Home Rule Party in Ireland has had ascendancy in municipal affairs, and it has known how to use it; since 1906, with the advent of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Ministry to power, it has had practical ascendancy in Ireland in Imperial affairs; it has all the practical advantages (if there by any) of Home Rule, and it has also had the advantage, of being able to govern Great Britain as well. I submit that these are not times in which to present this dismal spectacle to our Allies who are fighting with us in this terrible struggle, and that some greater effort should be made to demonstrate to them that Ireland is herself equal to showing a little of the spirit of sacrifice which is being asked in so large a measure from communities at least as entitled to consideration as Ireland.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend opposite will understand that we do not hold him responsible for what has been done in Ireland in connection with these matters. He is the mouthpiece of the Government on this occasion, and has told us quite frankly that he is speaking only from a brief supplied to him, I think, by six different Departments. As my noble friend who has just sat down has rightly said, that really is a great tactical advantage to the Government, and I think this House is very for bearing in the way in which it allows the Government quite constantly to deal with very important, matters like this without

185
any adequate knowledge behind the speaker who is put up by the Government.
I think my noble friend who has just sat down was also quite right in drawing attention to the key note of the apologia of my noble friend opposite (Lord Crawford), only that my noble friend behind me (Lord Stuart of Wortley) left out the most important word. He quoted my noble friend opposite as saying that these matters had been regulated by practical and economic considerations. I think, unless I am mistaken, he also said "political" considerations, and political considerations really are the foundation stone of the whole situation. I will come back to that presently. I want to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Crewe said as to the inadequate nature of the defence offered by the Department which my noble friend opposite quoted—that the consumption of these various articles that are rationed in Great Britain was not greater per head in Ireland than in England. Lord Crewe entirely disproved that argument. He pointed out that a very large proportion of the Irish population never ate these things in normal times, and the question is not whether Ireland is not eating a greater proportion of meat per head of the population than Great Britain, but whether Mr. de Valera and his chosen friends are living without restriction and at perfect ease while my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government, like all of us here, are strictly rationed. I believe that to be the case, and also that Unionists are naturally taking advantage of the same facilities, and, if they are well-to-do persons accustomed to eat meat and enjoy better living than the Connemara peasants, are enjoying at the present moment much better conditions than anybody in Scotland or England is allowed to enjoy.
Then I come to the question of the cattle, about which my noble friend no doubt quite accurately professed ignorance. I hope before I have finished to interest him in the matter. I am not in a position of my own knowledge to say that what I am going to mention is the case. I have not the means of proving it, but I want him to find out whether my information is well or badly founded. He admits that there has been no such restriction of the price of store cattle in Ireland as there is in Scotland, Wales, and England. What has resulted from this is that when the military authorities went in to buy store cattle and treat
186
them as being fit for the market and kill them and put them into store for future use, they paid a much higher price to the Irish farmer than to the English or Scottish farmer. That is not all. Lord Crewe and Lord Willoughby de Broke both alluded to the remarkable case of store cattle bought in Ireland at a much higher price than they would fetch in England, and then being shipped to England and sold on the English scale at a loss. Who bore that loss? That is what I want my noble friend to explain. I am told that the loss is concealed in the Vote of Credit, and that the Vote of Credit is actually being used at one and the same time to keep down prices in England and to see that the Irish farmer who sells the cattle does not suffer. In fact, the Irish farmer is treated in this matter with an indulgence and a privilege for which I can find no justification.
Next I come to the question of petrol. I will relate to the House a story which was told to me by an officer who has just returned from Ireland, and who. I believe, is a perfectly credible person. He had his own private motor car in Ireland, and had considerable difficulty in getting petrol until he was advised by a friend "in the know" that the place he could get petrol from was the Sinn Fein office, and he did. The fact is that in the régime of the late Chief Secretary not only was the whole Government in Ireland allowed to fail into the hands of the most disloyal and rebel section of the people in Ireland, not only did the King's Writ not run in the ordinary acceptance of the term, but with a view—to me it always seemed an insane view—of creating an atmosphere in which something perfectly incomprehensible was to occur, the Irish were treated on the whole question of war conditions as pampered and privileged persons. The very part of the United Kingdom which has done least for the Empire and liberty and has caused the most anxiety is the very portion of the Empire singled out for particular favoritism.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have very little further to say, but I should like in the first place to reply to Lord Stuart of Wortley, who asked about the Irish Food Committee and indicated that no pains had been taken to ascertain whether these gentlemen were even in favour of winning the war. Unfortunately I cannot at the moment get the list of that Committee, but I am reminded that the

187
Chairman is Mr. Wrench, who is very well known to many of your Lordships. Sir Thomas Stafford is a member of the Committee, and Lord Granard takes an important part. The liaison officer is Mr. Sanderson, the son of another very old friend of many of your Lordships, Colonel E. Sanderson, and I have no doubt that this Committee is composed of gentlemen of perfectly unimpeachable patriotism. I very much regret if anything in my reply gave an impression that it was a Committee in which Lord Rhondda, who appointed it, did not retain the fullest confidence.
I personally entirely disagree with the view of the noble Marquess opposite that meat ought to be rationed in Ireland. Prima facie I had thought that it ought to be, but in view of the fact that the consumption of meat in Ireland per head of the population is so much smaller than in this country, I think the case for meat rationing goes. Meat rationing was not introduced into this country, nor sugar rationing either, in order to give an intellectual or patriotic stimulus to the artizan of this country. Card rationing was introduced in order to save food, and for no other reason. What is going to be the result of introducing meat rationing into Ireland? You are going to increase consumption at once. At the present moment everybody in this country is entitled to his quota, and I am glad to say that the meat card represents a quota that has always been honoured. The meat ticket is always honoured. We cannot introduce the meat ticket into Ireland on a lower scale of consumption than applies to Scotland or England. The result is that if you introduce it into Ireland on a higher scale than present consumption there would be a net increase in consumption. That equally applies to any other articles—butter, for instance—of which the consumption in Ireland is smaller than in this country. Therefore, I oppose it; and, what is more, I do not think that any case has been oracle out to place upon Ireland the enormous worry and burden and the expenditure of time, energy, and money which would be involved in applying a meat rationing system to a country of which only a very small proportion is urban in its character. That is why I think the answer about rationing is complete. Whether it is necessary to make Ireland share our hardships or not is a question of high policy on which I offer no opinion, but about which perhaps to-morrow or the
188
day after a relevant debate might occur. Solely from the point of view of food conservation—and that is the problem with which the Food Minister here is closely concerned—I am quite certain it would be unwise to apply meat or butter rationing to Ireland, in view of the fact that consumption is so low.

STATE CONTROL OF MILK.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to call attention to the statement of Mr. Clynes that the Ministry of Food have accepted the recommendations of the Astor Committee (State Control of Milk), and to move to resolve "That this House disapproves of such control."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to draw the attention of the Government to a statement which has been made by the Secretary of the Ministry of Food. Speaking the other day Mr. Clynes said—
"In order to avoid unnecessary transport and overlapping in distribution, I have accepted the recommendation of the Committee so ably presided over by Major Astor."
That Committee up to the present moment has published two Reports, and I have been given to understand that another Report has already been presented, although it has not been printed and circulated to members of either House. All we have to go by is what the Committee have already recommended. In some places the Reports are rather contradictory, but, so far as one is able to gather, it would appear that the principal recommendation is that milk depôts should be established throughout the length and breadth of the country; and the Committee say that if these depôts were established, if the milk were sent from the farm to properly-equipped depôts, the exact quantities wanted by retailers could be despatched, and the surplus disposed of without worry or loss by the producer or distributor.
It would seem that the suggestion is that the Government should take over the wholesale supply of milk to the retailers in the different parts of the country—that the farmers no longer should be allowed to send their milk direct to the great town or direct to any large wholesale business. Instead of that, it is suggested that the milk should be collected from the farmers by a Government Department, the Ministry of Food. The Committee go on to explain what they mean as regards these depôts,

189
showing they mean depots established by Government Departments, because they say the Committee are convinced that nothing approaching the minimum of depots required could be established in time to affect the situation this winter or even next summer. I should have thought that if these depots were to be established, there is time even now to establish then before next winter. There is also the suggestion that the depots might be established by subsidised societies such as the Agricultural Organisation Society, and also that the Board of Agriculture might set up these depots. If that were done the suggestion is that there would be better and more milk, more cheese, and more butter.
Apparently, these depots are not merely to be large collecting stations, but are also to be large manufactories where milk will be turned into butter and into cheese. The Government, on these conditions, would be going in for very large trading indeed. That seems to be the decision which Mr. Clynes says the Government, or rather the Ministry of Food, have accepted in the Report of the Astor Committee. If, of course, the Committee had only said "We mean to have supervision, but not control," that would be a very different matter, because I am the last one to say that in present conditions it might not be necessary to have supervision. That, however, is a very different thing from taking over, as seems to be the desire of the Astor Committee whose recommendation has been approved by Mr. Clynes. He also goes further and says—
"This decision has been accepted unanimously by the Consumers Council after full discussion. It is agreed, therefore, that the Minister must become responsible for the wholesale collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk."
I think this is a very large order indeed. If the Government is to be responsible for wholesale collection, it means collecting the milk from the producers throughout the length and breadth of the country. Apparently, it would go to the depots which the Committee recommend should be established; but Mr. Clynes seems to go further, because he speaks of utilisation. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Crawford—who according to the communiqué in The Times this morning is going to reply—will explain not only what wholesale collection means but also the meaning of "utilisation." Apparently, utilisation would take the form of great Government factories to make butter and cheese, and also to reduce milk
190
into that powder which has been found so very useful in order that milk may be stored and kept where there is too large an amount for use in the winter. That, no doubt, is a very valuable utilisation of milk.
Then as regards distribution. It would seem that the idea is that from these depots milk should be distributed not to wholesale people but to the retailer in every large district—and in every village, I suppose. I venture to ask the noble Earl if he will say how it is that the Ministry of Food apparently never consulted the Consumers Council in this matter. Surely some attention should be given to the producers in this question. At the present moment there is actually, I understand, an Agricultural Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Food, which was set up some little while ago. I was given to understand that Mr. Prothero had put on the Advisory Committee members from the Board of Agriculture. Certainly it was stated at the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, as an inducement to them to depart from a long-standing rule that they would never go on any Committee or join a deputation—they preferred to act independently—that on this particular Committee the Board of Agriculture would be represented. Whether it was represented or not, how is t that Mr. Clynes did not take the trouble to consult that Committee in this matter? I have been told that when he made this statement the question had never come before them at all, so that they had no opportunity to make any pronouncement upon the matter. Surely it seems a great neglect on the part of the Ministry of Food not to wait until a report was made to them.
I think that some attention might have been paid by Mr. Clynes to a resolution that he must have had in his hand before he made his speech announcing that the Government were going to take over the control and distribution of the milk supply in this country. My noble friend Lord Selborne is Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and only last Tuesday that body passed the following resolution—
"That the Government be requested to come to no decision for placing milk distribution in the hands of a Government Department without informing the agricultural community and hearing their views."
Surely that is a very moderate request to make. Yet the Ministry of Food have, apparently, treated it with absolute con-

191
tempt, and have not endeavoured to find out what are the views of the agricultural community as represented by the Central Chamber of Agriculture in this matter, or consulted the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Food.
I think that some explanation is required from the Ministry of Food with regard to what Mr. Clynes said about retain distribution. He said—
"With regard to the point raised about retail distribution, I can only for the moment say that I think we must look more and more to our municipal authorities to accept greater responsibility in this matter than they have yet done. … Retail distribution of milk from street to street, and from house to house, is an urgent and important matter."
That evidently seems to be what is in Mr. Clynes's mind, but whether it is in the mind of Lord Rhondda I very much doubt. We all regret that Lord Rhondda is unable to be here and give his own explanation in this matter; and unable to control what is going on at the Ministry of Food. If the statement means anything, it means that Mr. Clynes is looking forward not only to the wholesale collection and distribution of milk but to retailing milk as well, if not by a Government Department, then by municipalities. If it is "an urgent and important matter" I suppose Mr. Clynes, if he is allowed to do so, will proceed to set up not only wholesale depots but retail depots throughout the country, or get municipalities to set them up. It may be right or wrong to eliminate the small man and the trader entirely. We have often heard that the middleman should be eliminated, but up to now we have never heard a Minister say that the retailer should be eliminated by the Government or the municipality. I suppose the fact is that we have a Labour Member, a distinguished and able man, who has an opportunity of advocating the views which he held before he was a Minister, and is trying to induce the Government to adopt those views and accept the municipalisation of milk, wholesale and retail.
I should also like to refer to the question as to how this matter affects those large combinations of farmers set up all over the country, many of them in connection with the Agricultural Organisation Society, of which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is President. The other day, at a meeting immediately following the speech of Mr. Clynes, the Dairy Committee of the
192
Agricultural Organisation passed the following resolution—
"The Dairy Committee of the A.O.S. anxiously awaits an assurance from the Ministry of Food that their intention is not to take over, but to supervise the wholesale collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk. They would strongly urge that the taking over of the wholesale trade in milk will deal a serious blow to the organisation of agriculture and to the present co-operative dairy societies."
I think that goes without saying, under the proposal as outlined by Mr. Clynes. What would be the position of such societies under the proposal? At the present moment in the case of a sale of milk by the farmer direct to the retailer, the retailer paying the producer's price to the fanner retains for himself both the wholesaler's and retailer's profits. There are also the cases where a combination of farmers, who are affiliated with the Agricultural Organisation Society or the co-operative dairy societies, get their milk disposed of and sent either to the wholesaler or retailer as the case may be. Some of these societies, owing to the economical methods of business have been able to sell at such prices that the retailer in Leicestershire, Wiltshire, and Hampshire, has been able to sell milk under the Government's maximum price. That, of course, is a great advantage to the consumer.
Should the State become the controller of all milk supplies there will be a great danger that the predominating interest of the consumer will dictate a policy of low prices and insist on the farmer selling at a price which he would not think remunerative. The farmer would reply by decreasing the amount of milk he produced, and there would be no advantage gained in the long run. It would be a great pity if anything were done by the Government to discourage private enterprise in this matter, or to discourage farmers from combining together in great co-operative associations not only for the distribution of milk but for making cheese and butter, which apparently Major Astor's Committee proposes to undertake.
There are, of course, further objections to this—objections which I have heard in this House, namely, the danger of creating a great bureaucracy and a larger number of staffs. I notice that Mr. Clynes boasted, apparently with the greatest pleasure, that the Food Ministry, which only a year ago numbered about 400, had now risen to 4,350. That was simply the central staff

193
in London, and he added that the provincial staff now amounted to 2,339, of whom 1,305 may be described as higher officials. All these gentlemen are not doing work for nothing, and the meaning is that there is a large expenditure. I do not know whether there has been any report of the Public Accounts Committee in connection with the Ministry of Food, but we have lately been horrified to see that when the Auditor-General examined the accounts of the munitions and aircraft factories there were large discrepancies and gross expenditure of every kind. One fears that when these enormous Government Departments are set up we shall have the same things going on in the Ministry of Food which have apparently gone on in the Ministry of Munitions. The effect of this State control will be that there will be a combination of political and bureaucratic influences; gigantic Government offices filled with persons mostly without training but securely drawing their salaries; details left to officials who would suffer no pecuniary penalty in the case of financial loss, and prices raised or reduced according to the political requirements of the Government of the day.
In a communication this morning from the Ministry of Food I notice it was stated—
"Lord Crawford will reply for the Ministry of Food, which has not only considered the question of control but also of purchasing the milk supply—policy which has been recommended by a sub-committee of the Ministry. We understand that it is very unlikely that purchase will be decided upon, but that a far-reaching system of control will be created, as in the case of other essential foods. The dearth of supply during the coming winter is regarded as inevitable and equitable distribution is a national necessity."
There may be a dearth of milk in the coming winter if the Ministry of Food treats this question as it has treated every other. Whenever the Government has interfered in the question of prices, at once there has been a dearth or a total stoppage of the supply, as in the case of butter. Lord Rhondda himself told me that he had deliberately fixed the price of butter at such a figure that it should not be worth while making it. In consequence, in certain districts where they could only make butter and there were no facilities for transportation the butter was thrown back absolutely upon the producers because it could not be sold.
As regards the question of milk supply prices, what an extraordinary position the Ministry of Food have taken up! No one
194
who understands anything of dairying in this country will contradict me when I say that May is one of the most difficult months in which to produce milk; yet for May the Ministry fixed the price at 1s. a gallon, while in June, when it is much easier to get a supply of milk, they raised it to 1s. 4d. a gallon, a price for which the farmers themselves did not ask. You really cannot tell what is to be the policy which will guide this Ministry. At one time they say they will put a price on milk so that it will not be worth while for a farmer to have a supply of milk, and at another time they put on a price which, of course, the farmer is delighted to have, but which he has never asked for. It was much more necessary to have the price of 1s. 4d. a gallon in May than it was in June. All I am asking the noble Earl, who is, I see, to reply to me, is whether he means by "control" merely supervision. If he means only supervision, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have no objection to it. I quite admit it to be necessary. If, on the other hand, the Government mean what Mr. Clynes said the Government intended to do—namely, that they were to be responsible for the wholesale collection and distribution of milk—I think that is going a very long way on the road to State Socialism, which no doubt is quite approved by Mr. Clynes and other Labour Members. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think it may be convenient, before the noble Earl opposite replies, if I say what I have to say. I will allude first of all to a point which my noble friend raised at the beginning of his remarks when he said that he thought it was very unfortunate that the Food Control Department consulted the Consumers Council on this matter and then came to a decision without consulting anybody connected with the producers, although there was actually in existence an Advisory Agriculture Committee of the Food Control Department. I came a couple of hours ago from a meeting of that Advisory Committee, of which I happen to be a member, at which this matter was being discussed. I desire to speak with the greatest respect of Mr. Clynes, for whose devotion and ability we are all grateful, but I think that it was a very unfortunate think that he should have announced to Parliament that the Government had decided to take certain action on the

195
Report of Major Astor's Committee and sub-Committee after consulting the Consumers Council and before any consultation had taken place with the representatives of agriculture. I think that was a tactical blunder which I hope will not be repeated. The agriculturists have been consulted today, and no doubt the Food Controller might modify his policy, if he thought fit, in accordance with the advice that he has received. But surely the only right course is for the Food Controller to consult both the producers and the consumers and then to announce his policy. We do not expect him always to take our advice, but it certainly will tend to friction and to results which we all deplore if the producers are only consulted after a policy has been announced to the House of Commons. I hope very much that will never occur again.
I want to ask my noble friend to make it quite clear to the House how much of the Report of Major Astor's Committee and sub-Committee it is contemplated to adopt. I ask that question after hearing the discussion this afternoon. The Report is a very long one, and it is not quite clear—at least it was not quite clear to me—where the policy of His Majesty's Government ended and the recommendations of the Astor Committee began; or, to put it the other way, where the recommendations of the Committee ended and the policy to be adopted by the Government began.
There are three main matters involved in the Report of the Astor Committee and sub-Committee. The first is that it is absolutely necessary for the Government to supervise the distribution of milk in the coming winter in order that, in the first place, every locality may have its fair share; and, secondly, to avoid a direct waste of railway service in sending milk criss-cross about the country. The second point is that the milk combine is a public danger, and that the Government must intervene to prevent it dominating the whole of the milk trade. The third suggestion is that the proper people to step into the shoes of the milk combine, not only now but permanently after the war, is a Government Department, to be solely and exclusively responsible for the wholesale and retail distribution of milk throughout Great Britain—I suppose not Ireland. I hope that it will be made quite clear by my noble friend opposite that the Government do not
196
ask us, and will not ask us now, to give our assent to that particular proposition. It is not unreasonable to ask us to admit that the Government must for the benefit of the population control the distribution of milk during the progress of the war, and it is also quite a reasonable proposition to say that the Government must take steps to prevent the whole milk trade getting into the hands of a great combine—I do not think it will be found that producers any more than consumers will be wishful to do otherwise than help the Government in dealing with these two matters—but if we are to be asked now to take a step which is deliberately intended to make a Department of His Majesty's Government the only permanent agency for the distribution of milk wholesale or retail in this country we certainly are not at present prepared to give our assent to any such proposition.
I will not go into all the large questions involved in such an idea. I only want to allude to one argument which I understood Mr. Clynes to use as persuasive to the adoption of such a policy. I understood Mr. Clynes to lay stress on the amount of loss of power and waste of money that there was at present in the competition of a great number of small businesses, and in the circumstance that more than one cart went into the same street, and that milk was sent from Gloucester to London and from Hertfordshire to Bristol, and that kind of thing. I do not doubt that all this is true. But allowing for the amount of waste—and make that allowance as much as you like—after our present experience it would be a matter of absolute incredibility to any member of this House that a Government Department is ever going to do this business cheaper or more economically than the private trader. That is the one thing, after our experiences in this war, that we are not prepared to believe.
I wish to say one thing more, and that is about the co-operative societies, in regard to which my noble friend spoke. Many of us think that the spread of co-operative societies is going to be a great gain not only to the English farmer of every grade, but also to the consumer, because with the proper organisation of agriculture the goods ought to be delivered on the average in better quality, under better conditions, and at a cheaper rate than the average individual farmer can do it. All that is true of nothing more than the milk societies

197
and creameries, and if anything the Government did now tended to discourage the co-operative movement, much more if it tended to destroy any of the co-operative societies already in existence, the result would, I believe, be a lamentable one, and not one, I am quite sure, which my noble friend opposite or any member of the Government would wish to bring about. Therefore I hope he will tell us that in any action which the Food Control Department think it necessary to take in this matter, they will be very tender of the welfare of the Agricultural Organisation Society and the co-operative societies.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think it may be for your convenience if I make a rather general statement leading up to the Report to which Lord Selborne has just referred, and summarising in a brief manner the considerations which have actuated the Food Controller. Before dealing with the points raised by Lord Strachie, I should like to state that this Committee to which reference has been made was appointed in April, 1917, on the instruction of the Cabinet, by the President of the Board of Agriculture with the concurrence of the Food Controller. The terms of reference were—
To report on the production and distribution of milk, including the consideration of the steps which should be taken (1) to stimulate production; (2) to conserve milk supplies during any period of excess; (3) to provide for the special needs of children in urban centres; (4) to effect economies in the cost of production and distribution; (5) to organise supplies by administrative action so as to reach all sections of the community; and (6) other kindred subjects.
The reference clearly was very wide, and in June of last year the Committee issued a first interim Report, in which they dealt, in the main, with the disposal of surplus summer milk; with the utilisation of milk so as to preserve to the nation the maximum amount of food constituents obtainable; with the relation that the retail price of milk ought to bear to the prices of milk products, beef, and feeding-stuffs, and with farm labour.
In November the Committee issued a further interim Report dealing with the causes of possible milk shortage, the supply and distribution of feeding-stuffs, the price of milk, preferential distribution, the loss of
198
milk through souring, the preservation of milk by Pasteurisation, and the establishment of county milk depots. On February 20 of this year, Major Astor, the Chairman of this Committee, wrote to Lord Rhondda as follows—
"With regard to the control of the wholesale distribution of milk, the Committee venture to forward certain resolutions bearing on this point for the consideration of the Ministry.
"The Committee feel that, as staple articles of food are rationed, people will tend to fall back on non-rationed foods to mike up for deficiencies or reductions in their accustomed diet. When meat, butter, and possibly bread are rationed, adults are likely to take more milk. This may not make much difference in the summer, but may have serious consequences next winter when milk is scarce.
"In view of the perishable nature of milk, the Committee suggest that the feasibility of rationing it on some basis of priority be considered carefully by that section of the Ministry which is specially experienced in rationing and its organisation.
"The Committee desire, however, to urge that even if milk is not rationed it is essential before next winter to have the milk that is available more evenly distributed between districts than is possible under existing conditions under which the trade is carried on; and therefore whether rationed or not its distribution should, in the opinion of the Committee, be controlled. The Committee consider the application of such control a matter of immediate urgency."
The Resolutions mentioned in this letter were as follows:—

"(1) That with a view to the establishment of depots on such a scale as would materially increase the available supply of milk and milk products next autumn and winter, the Government be urged to take over the entire responsibility for them.

"(2) That the Government should through the Milk Section of the Ministry of Food take over the direct control of the wholesale collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk.

"(3) That Local Food Control Committees should continue to be responsible for the control of the retail distribution, provided that where it was thought desirable or necessary in England and Wales the county borough council (or in London the London County Council) should be empowered to undertake the retail distribution or to give a renewable licence, subject to the Ministry's approval, to a private company for the monopoly of such retail distribution within their areas.

"(4) That, as regards areas in England and Wales which are neither county borough councils, nor the London County Council, the Committee are not yet prepared to make recommendations for meeting the proposals contained in the latter part of the foregoing resolution. Nor are they in a position to make recommendations as to what authorities should deal with the matter in Scotland and Ireland. The Committee desire, to suggest that action on the recommendations contained in Resolutions (1) and (2) should not be delayed.

"(5) That at initiation the Ministry of Food should authorise, by licensing the direct sale by certain producers to retailers or consumers."

199
To this a reply was sent stating that Lord Rhondda would be glad if the Committee would take into more detailed consideration the putting into operation of their general proposals, and would make such recommendations as they might consider advisable. They were asked to direct their special attention to the following points: (1) the need for establishing new depots and the geographical allocation of such depots; (2) the immediate steps necessary for the control of the collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk sold wholesale.
Accordingly, after consultation with the Ministry of Food, a sub-Committee of the Astor Committee was appointed to investigate these matters. It has recently reported to the Main Committee, and, in forwarding their resolutions, Major Astor states—
"We trust that the Government may now be prepared to give effect to the recommendations made by us in February to control the wholesale distribution of milk as a temporary measure in view of the further information which we are now able to offer them as to the methods by which these recommendations may be carried out."
Major Astor continued—
"On the evidence now before us we are not prepared to agree to the desirability of purchases recommended in paragraph 8 of the Report of the sub-Committee—"
that is, the purchase of milk businesses—
We believe that before coming to any decision as to the desirability of such a step more evidence is required."
Major Astor also says that in the opinion of his Committee the Government should examine the possibility and advisability and also the conditions of compensating the interests concerned for any damage clone to them by control without actually purchasing such interests.
Mr. Clynes agrees with the views expressed by Major Astor's Committee, and the precise machinery for effecting the control of the wholesale milk trade is now being considered. It may be taken for granted that it will include the establishment of a Milk Clearing House at headquarters similar to the Margarine Clearing House which has been set up with satisfactory results; and that there will be divisional milk inspectors such as have been appointed by other Departments. The scheme has been submitted to the Consumers Council, who favour it, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee are being consulted about it. I understand that that Committee has
200
unanimously approved the principle of control of the wholesale trade. It may, however, be assumed that what the producer most requires is an attractive price. There is no reason why the recommendations of the Astor Committee to the Food Controller should not be laid before Parliament. But it will probably be better to defer doing this until some definite indication can be given of the lines on which control will proceed.
The reasons which have led to this decision may be stated briefly as follows:—(a) The wasteful competition in the collection and handling of milk by superfluous depots or factories situated in the same area; (b) the diversion from areas that geographically should feed large towns; (c) the difficulty in properly adjusting the amounts of milk that are required (1) for the manufacture of milk products, (2) for human consumption; (d) the need for a proper organisation to balance supplies and to convert surplus milk, whether by the action of farmers' co-operative societies or by wholesalers such as the United Dairies or by the wholesale organisation attached to a federation of retailers; (e) the fact that large organisations, if uncontrolled, will result in a single seller and thereby place consumers in the hands of that seller to the possible detriment of quality, price, hours of delivery, etc.; (f) the need of educating the farmers in the production of cleaner milk, thereby making a more wholesome supply and preventing waste; (g) the damage to and loss of milk caused by delays in railways; insufficient treatment prior to transit, such as lack of cooling facilities; and general lack of organisation.
On the point about which Lord Strachie particularly asked, whether State control will continue after the war, it is very difficult to offer a prediction, but due consideration is certainly now being given to the question how in the enhanced value (if any) resulting from control the State should become beneficiary. For the moment the immediate problem before the Ministry of Food is the maintenance of the supply and the prevention of waste in transport and overlapping in distribution which prevail at present. The grant of an additional sum of 4d. per gallon to the producer during the summer months is a most important step towards securing production. There is no doubt that control of the wholesale trade will lead to

201
very large economies, in handling, and in transport. It is acknowledged that the present retail distribution is in many cases wasteful and inefficient; but this is a local matter the remedy for which lies in the accordance by the municipalities of a greater share of responsibility. It is hoped that an extension of municipal activity in this direction will be developed.
I may add that it is proposed to publish this Report by Major Astor's Committee. It is already in proof, and I understand that it will be in your Lordships' hands very shortly, after which it will be much easier for you to realise the complexity of the subject of which I have been able to give only the barest outline.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the reply which the noble Earl has given to my noble friend behind me. This subject, as he realises and as the House will realise, is one not merely of great importance but of considerable difficulty and complexity; because among all the subjects for control which the Food Controller's Department has felt itself obliged to undertake during the course of the war, there is none, I am certain, more delicate in its machinery than that of dairy farming with which my noble friend's Question is concerned. It is exceedingly easy, as I have no doubt the Department recognises, by taking a false step to discourage the production of milk; and it is one of the declared objects of the Committee which was appointed at the instance of the Board of Agriculture to stimulate that production.
But all the steps that have been taken in the past have, I think, not completely carried out that object. For instance, the Regulation of prices for milk—fixed, I have no doubt, after inquiry and with care—has not in all cases proved uniformly successful. There were one or two very abrupt changes made in the price of milk which in certain localities, by causing too rapid a fall from the winter price to the summer price, began locally to have a disastrous effect. The noble Earl mentioned the rise which has recently been granted in the summer prices of 4d. a gallon, very welcome because the prices as fixed did not appear in all cases to be adequate. Some of us assumed that the object of fixing a price for the six months from April to September on so low a scale as it was fixed, was a direct stimulus to the manufacture of cheese,
202
because it was evident by a very simple sum, taking the average of the six months prices for milk and the controlled price of cheese, that a farmer could make 3d. a gallon more by turning his milk into cheese, allowing a quite moderate value for the by-product.
Now take the case of butter. There is a dead loss in the manufacture of butter as compared with that of selling milk, even allowing nothing for the cost of making the butter; and it has appeared to me for some time that it is an inevitable result of our general situation, and of our fanning situation in particular, that the making of butter is likely to become as purely a luxury of the well-to-do as the growing of fruit under glass. I think it may be assumed that no farmer or small holder who desires to make the most of his product, as a sensibly man does, will ever make butter again even at such a price as half-a-crown per lb.—which is, I fancy, the price of butter now—if he can possibly obtain a market for the raw product of milk, or if he can turn his milk into cheese.
It is to be noted that the noble Earl spoke of these proposed measures as being of a temporary character, and also that if was not recommended by the Committee that there should be any purchasing of milk businesses—that is to say, a direct taking over, as I understand, of the larger scale, or, indeed, the smaller scale, of distribution to the public. But it is proposed that there should be a Milk Clearing House—a clearing house of information, as I assume; the creation of an organisation by which the supplies of particular districts will be directed to those places to which the product can be most cheaply and conveniently sent. And it is proposed to set up an organisation of divisional inspectors, who, I take it, will exercise something of a control which will be more than advisory over the private organisations and societies within their districts. We shall await with interest details of these powers, because on them I venture to think a great deal of the success of the new scheme must necessarily depend.
I also heard with satisfaction that it was not proposed to discourage local co-operative societies. There is to be no attempt, as I understand, to take over locally the collection of supplies or to start local Government factories. It is desired, I understand, to work through existing organisations and to encourage the forma-

203
tion of new societies. That is all to the good. What the noble Earl stated about the necessity for cleaner milk will naturally meet with the sympathies of your Lordships. As a matter of fact, I venture to think a great deal has already been done through the different milk-producing societies and various dairy associations in different districts to bring about a great improvement in this respect, and also in the practice of refrigerating and of generally fitting milk for the market. It is impossible to overrate the importance of the supply of a healthy sound article, particularly when that article is so largely used, as we know it is, in the bringing up of small children; but I hope that the Department will not allow the sanitary side of the proposals, important though they are, so to swamp the whole subject as to cause the more purely business considerations to be excluded. A trade is a very delicate plant, and there is, I venture to think, a real danger that if excessive alarm is created production may fall off instead of being stimulated as is desired. After all, it is an old saying that you can issue a mandamus to a person or a public authority to pull down a wall, but you cannot issue one to make them build a wall; in the same way you can make Regulations which will cause the supply of milk to be improved in quality, but you cannot by any Regulations that you can make, or any kind of encouragement that you can offer—except, as the noble Earl said, in the matter of price—absolutely compel the supply of this necessary product to be increased.
I was not altogether surprised, although we should have been glad had it been otherwise, that the noble Earl was not able to give a definite answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Strachie regarding the probable permanency of these Regulations. I am bound to say that if it was supposed that a somewhat rigid system of public control was going to be applied to the dairy industry all over the kingdom, I am afraid the result of that belief would be unfortunate. I think it would tend on the whole to make people go out of the industry rather than increase their liabilities in it. As my noble friend so truly said, and as has been said on many other occasions, for the purposes of the war people will stand almost anything, but they would I think, as Lord Selborne asserted, be unwilling to agree to a great revolution in a matter of this kind being now introduced in a form and
204
with machinery which would make it impossible to turn to a freer system when peace is declared. Of course, when we speak in this matter and other matters of "the end of the war" it is quite evident it cannot be supposed that any Regulations of this kind can stop automatically whenever peace happens to come. The process is clearly bound to be gradual, but I have no doubt that the Government will be pressed to express formally some definite intention as to what their hopes and desires are in this matter of the dairy supply of the country.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I do not want further to press this matter, and I am quite ready to withdraw my Motion, for though I must say I wish the noble Earl could give me fuller information I quite recognise that his position in this matter is similar to his position when answering the previous question—he is speaking from his brief and has not personal knowledge of this matter at all. Perhaps, however, he would clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding. I understood Lord Crewe to say that he thought the noble Earl said that the Government were not going to establish any milk depots, but the Astor Committee, whose recommendation was accepted by the Government, contemplate the establishment of milk depots on the ground which I quoted—namely, that private effort could not supply them. I think this is a matter that ought to be cleared up.
Then the noble Earl said that he could not give a reply as to State control after the war. As the noble Marquess said, this is a matter of great importance, because unless you make some definite pronouncement it will be very hard upon the small traders as well as the wholesale people, and it will have the effect of decreasing instead of increasing the supply of milk if you introduce unrest into the question. I had hoped that the noble Earl would say "Certainly there is not going to be State control after the war," all the more as I noticed that Mr. Clynes, who is, of course, in favour of State control for everything, said he was not certain how far he could speak for the Ministry of Food or for the Government. They were, he said, dealing with an urgent war necessity, and in his view should these great milk depots and the control of milk be well handled—and "State control of a most precious article of food seemed to be a very great advantage and benefit"—a public demand would

205
grow up to maintain something like State control after the war. This shows that what evidently was in his mind, and what he was concerned over, was setting up control at these large depots and so stimulating the public, perhaps by low prices, so that they would clamour for State control in the future. I think it ought to be made clear, now or later on, whether or not the Government as a whole approve of these views of Mr. Clynes.
The noble Earl says there is to be compulsory collection. I would ask him, Will that mean that the farmer will be bound to send his milk to the depots controlled by the State, or will he be allowed, as at present, to sell his milk to the retailer? Of course, he will not be allowed to sell wholesale, because I imagine that the Government mean to abolish the wholesale man in future. The point is, Will he be allowed to sell direct to the retailer, large or small, in the town, and get the larger profit than he would get if he sends the milk to the depot?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the last point alluded to is precisely one of those matters about which the Food Ministry is in communication, or will shortly be in communication, with the representatives of the producers. It is impossible for me to give any answer to his question except to say it is clearly a matter that cannot be ignored, and on which we may be quite certain the producers will have their full say. It is surely obviously to the interests both of the central authority responsible for the distribution of milk and of the producer that an amicable arrangement should be come to between the two parties.
I do not propose to criticise the technical observations of Lord Crewe. With regard to the question, again repeated by Lord Strachie, as to whether this projected control will end with the advent of peace, Lord Strachie put that inquiry before, and I said it really was impossible for me to give an answer. If you say it is going to end with peace, it means that the moment peace comes control must vanish and the public would starve for lack of milk. The change has to be gradually adjusted. Therefore it is perfectly impossible to say that control of milk, or of coal, or of wheat, or, indeed, of any other commodity, can automatically end with the war.
206
So far from thinking that such a statement is bound to discourage the producers, I really differ from Lord Strachie. The producer and the consumer also, as Lord Crewe says, will stand almost anything during the war, and I do not think that the price which has recently been increased by the authorities is now such as to justify any producer of milk in being discouraged. Uncertainty he has to face. He realises the importance of his product for public health, and for my part I believe he is doing his utmost to stimulate, certainly to maintain, it; but it would be very imprudent to give any pledge as to the exact date on which compulsory control will terminate. I really do not think we need be so apprehensive as the noble Lord suggests.
LORD STRACHIE: What about milk depots?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The statement I made was that a Milk Clearing House was to be established.
LORD STRACIHE: By the Government?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: By the Ministry of Food—a clearing house similar to the Margarine Clearing House that already exists. Some milk depots have already been established, I understand, and it is presumably probable that more may have to be established.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I understand it will be to the general convenience of your Lordships, there being no business on the Paper for to-morrow—the proposed debate on Ireland having been postponed to another day—that the House should adjourn until Thursday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of June 6.]

SMITH'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received; Bill presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.