Sitting of 7 May 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 Bills, 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:

Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords].

Red Cross and Order of Saint John Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

NATIONAL ART GALLERIES.
Copy ordered, "of Reports of the Director of the National Gallery and National Gallery of British Art for the year 1917."—[Mr. Balduin.]
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 27th April, 1918, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AGENCY AND DISTRIBUTION ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 27th April, 1918, relating to the distribution of Prize Bounty, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
AIR FORCE (CONSTITUTION) ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Final Order in Council, dated 27th April, 1918, entitled the Air Force (Application of Enactments) (No. 1) Order, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Meat Rationing Order, 1918 Directions to Pork Butchers, Meat Rationing Order, 1918 Directions to General Butchers, Meat Rationing Order, 1918 Directions to Retailers of Meat other than Butcher's Meat or Pork, Potatoes Amendment Order, 1918, Oil and Fat Compound (Licensing of Manufacturers and Requisition) Order, 1918, Cocoa Powder Order, 1918 General Licence, Order Amending the Flour and Bread (Registration) Order, 1918, Importers (Returns) Order, 1918, and Meat Rationing Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPLOSIVES.
Copy presented of the Forty-second Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances under the Irish Land Purchase Acts for the months of April, May, June, and July, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute X. of the National University of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rules and Schedule containing the Programme of Examinations for 1919 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (COURT-MARTIAL).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to grant Private A. F. Hall, No. 9895, Royal Army Medical Corps, an opportunity of vindicating himself against the findings of a court-martial held on the 8th August, 1916; and whether he is prepared to order the production of evidence alleged to have been suppressed at the trial?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): If any fresh facts or evidence are produced tending to show that any evidence had been suppressed at the trial, inquiry will be made into the matter.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the hon. Gentleman examined the records of this case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend consulted me about a year ago regarding a case, and, if this is the same case, I did so at that time.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not consult the hon. Gentleman. Will he kindly examine the case now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, I will certainly do that; but meanwhile, if my hon. Friend will give me any further facts or evidence, I shall be glad to receive it.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the certificate of exemption was withdrawn from John Clifford M 'Ellin, of Audley; and, in particular, was it because he was Irish, at a time when Irish are unpopular?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This question should be addressed to the Ministry of National Service.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has it been passed on?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think so.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: asked why Private A. G. Melhuish, No. 2125, 6th Eastern Non- Combatant Corps, Perham Down, is being kept in the Army, seeing that he holds a certificate from the tribunal for work of national importance at the work for which he is qualified, namely, an optician, which decision was supported by the military representative; and will he see that this man is given an opportunity of conforming to the conditions of his exemption?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have on more than one occasion answerd questions put by my hon. Friend with regard to this soldier, and I also wrote to him. This is the first time that it has been suggested that he was not properly enlisted. I will have inquiries made on this point.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS, HAVRE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into the action of the base commandant, Havre, who on the 4th January issued an order to the officer commanding the 11th Labour Group to the effect that the personnel of the Non-Combatant Corps are not soldiers, and he considered they should not be granted privileges as such and further directed that the men of the Non-Combatant Corps should not be granted leave in the same manner as soldiers, but that any application for leave on special grounds should be submitted to the quartermaster-general at Havre; and whether the base commandant has the authority of the War Office for such an order as this?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In January last there were at Havre a number of soldiers who had served in the trenches and had not been granted leave for long periods. The commandant, therefore, ordered that such men should have priority in the matter of leave; but he also arranged that applicants for leave on special grounds from men in the Non-Combatant Corps should be considered. This was a local order issued by the commandant on his own responsibility, and, in the circumstances, I see no ground for intervening.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Did the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that it was distinctly stated that these men were not soldiers, and were not to have leave because they did not regard them as soldiers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given, which is practically a repetition of the telegram which I got from the commandant this morning.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the order, in which it is distinctly stated that they are not soldiers, and that they are deprived of leave because they are not soldiers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly. I am always very glad to receive information of that sort.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of complaints as to the insufficiency of the food supplied to conscientious objectors in prison, and that, in consequence, many of them are suffering severely in health; whether it is the prison custom to allow a prisoner to lose a certain amount of weight before any account is taken of the fact; and, seeing that many of these conscientious objectors have served successive terms of imprisonment, and that the base weight is taken as the weight when the prisoner on each occasion enters prison, and thus no account is taken of weight previously lost, whether, in the circumstances, he will give attention to this matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. As to the third part, the medical officer orders extra food for any prisoner as soon, as he requires it, an important consideration being whether the prisoner is below the standard weight. The matter receives constant attention, and no fresh instructions are required.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that the base weight of these men is taken at the time they enter prison and the fact that they have lost weight in previous periods of imprisonment is not taken into account at all?
    Mr. BRACE: No; I do not think that is so. The standard weight is the normal weight of a healthy man of that age and height and the medical man is guided by that in coming to his conclusion.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In estimating the amount of weight a prisoner has lost is the original weight at the time he first entered
    1966
    prison taken as the base weight or the weight when he entered prison on a subsequent occasion?
    Mr. BRACE: No; I think the standard weight must be taken to mean exactly what I have said. It would be no disadvantage to some of us to lose weight.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman himself like to undergo a course of this treatment?
    Mr. BRACE: I should rather like to.

    TENANT FARMERS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a young man over thirty years of age, tenant of a farm of over £100 a year and doing all the work single-handed, will be called on for military service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Men engaged in agriculture of the age of the man in question are not dealt with by the Royal Proclamation dated the 20th April, 1918. Such a man may hold an exemption from military service from a tribunal or he may be in possession of a voucher granted by an agricultural executive committee. In neither case can he be called up for military service until his protection is withdrawn, either by the tribunal or committee by which it was granted or by a general Proclamation or Order affecting all agriculturists of his age. The question of what men should be called up from agriculture above the ages already made available for recruitment would be a matter for discussion between the Departments concerned.

    ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of National Service if he will postpone for a period of three months the calling up of men over the age of forty-three who are cultivating allotments?
    Mr. BECK: I regret that it is not possible for the Government to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

  POLITICAL MEETINGS (SOLDIERS),
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the Army Council has further considered the right of all soldiers to be allowed to take an

  1967
  interest in political and trade union matters; whether it is intended to continue the Army Council Instruction debarring soldiers from attending political meetings, in view of the fact that all soldiers over nineteen years of age have now the vote; and whether the Army Council have considered that it is essential for the proper exercise of that franchise that the men should be given an opportunity of attending political meetings if they so desire.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on the 22nd January last, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby on the 11th March last, to which I have nothing to add.

  LUNATIC SOLDIERS (TREATMENT ALLOWANCE).
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Pensions Minister why the discharged lunatic soldier classed as a Service patient is differently treated, as regards allowances, from all other discharged men undergoing treatment?
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether of the 27s. 6d. a week treatment allowance payable to a discharged soldier undergoing treatment for his invaliding disability as an in-patient the balance of 15s. 6d., after deducting 7s. a week maintenance charge and 5s. a week pocket-money for the man, is usually paid to the wife of a married man; and, if so, will he say why the same arrangement is not made in the case of a Service patient in a county or borough lunatic asylum?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The ordinary allowances for men undergoing treatment are fixed on a deliberately generous scale in order to induce the men to accept treatment, which they frequently do at the sacrifice of remunerative employment. In the case of lunatics, who may be confined for life, and who are not sacrificing employment, it is considered that the State makes just provision for the families by granting such allowances as, together with any balance of the man's pension not required for his own maintenance and comforts, will secure to the families the full pensions payable to widows and their children.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether a lunatic is not sometimes discharged from an asylum cured?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, that is the case. A Service patient is in the same position as an ordinary private patient, and I understand that if he is not dangerous to himself and others and proper provision can be made for him he can be discharged.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the dependants of a discharged soldier in hospital are 18s. a week better off than the dependants of a lunatic soldier who is classed as a Service patient?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, my hon. Friend is not quite correct. It depends entirely on whether the pensioner who is undergoing treatment has made an allotment of the balance to his wife and family. He may not do it, and in many cases he does not do it, and in that case it stands to his credit and is paid to him afterwards. That is a case where the man is undergoing temporary treatment, but it is quite another proposition where a man may be confined for life, as unfortunately is the case with many of these poor lunatics.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: These men are not necessarily confined for life.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it a tact that in the case that a lunatic Service patient who is regarded as a dead soldier, and his widow and children are entitled therefore to the allowances for a widow and children, the wife and children are entitled to apply for an alternative pension as long as the man is a Service lunatic pensioner?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think the wife could apply for an alternative widow's pension, but I do not see any reason why an alternative disabled man's pension should not be given to the man under those circumstances, and I believe that this case has actually arisen.
  Mr. HOGGE: How can a lunatic Service patient regarded as dead apply for an alternative pension? Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say definitely whether in these circumstances the wife and children can apply for an alternative pension?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have already said that I think they can apply, and that it has taken place in a particular case.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about a lunatic Service soldier making an allotment. How can he do so? Is there some special arrangement by which the difficulty is got over?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My hon. and gallant Friend apparently did not notice my original answer, in which I said that any balance of the pension over and above his keep was paid to the wife.
  Sir C. SEELY: You said they made an allotment.
  Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the number of men who have been discharged from the Navy and the Army on account of mental affliction who have received treatment as Service patients in county or borough lunatic asylums; and how many of these have now been allowed to leave these asylums and return home?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: About 1,900 men have received treatment as Service patients, and of these about fifty have been discharged as recovered.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the percentage of discharges from lunatic asylums of soldiers as great as amongst officers who are otherwise treated as mental cases?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend wants the exact figures he must give me notice.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions whether charges amounting to 3s. 7d. are made by local registrars for issuing a duplicate of a lost birth certificate of soldiers or sailors killed in action; and whether, as these certificates are indispensable to their dependants in claiming pensions, he will arrange for some other course to be adopted to avoid a total charge to the dependants which appears unduly high and which many can ill afford?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As I explained to the hon. Member for Merionethshire on the 2nd instant, a veri-
  1970
  fication statement containing the particulars required can be obtained free of charge on application to the Registrar-General, Somerset House. Applications are similarly entertained by the Registrar-Generals at Edinburgh and Dublin. Although, as I stated, the local registrars cannot be compelled to forego their fees, I believe that the practice of charging a merely nominal fee or of remitting it altogether, as an act of grace, is largely followed.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    PIGS.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the number of pigs in Great Britain at the latest available date, and how it compares with similar dates in 1917, 1916, and 1915?
    Sir RICHARD WINFREY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture): There is no figure showing the number of pigs in Great Britain which is strictly comparable with those collected in the Annual Agricultural Returns of the 4th June, 1915, 1916, and 1917. The nearest approach to it is an estimate of the 4th April, which gives the number at 1,650,000. The figures for the 4th June, 1915, 1916, and 1917 were 2,579,084, 2,314,331, and 2,051,486 respectively. In all these cases cottagers' pigs are excluded.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to enable pig keepers to procure food for even moderately preparing their pigs for market; and whether home-grown barley and oats can be released for that purpose?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The application of the Cattle Feeding Stuffs Priority Supply Order has been extended to breeding sows and store pigs, the ration being 4 lbs. per day to the former and 1½ lbs. per day to the latter class of pig. The whole question of the rationing of animals is now engaging the attention of the Joint Orders Committee of the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, and it is hoped to secure a small supply of dry food for fattening purposes.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the hon. Gentleman say how he distinguishes a store pig from an ordinary pig?
    Mr. PARKER: The hon. Member had better put that conundrum to my colleague.

    POTATO STOCKS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to whom farmers ought to apply in order to get from the Government the price of £7 10s. per ton for their potatoes in stock after the 15th of May?
    Mr. PARKER: The Government have not indicated any intention of taking over stocks of potatoes from growers on 15th May at £7 10s. per ton, but as announced on the 29th March the Food Controller will be prepared on and after 15th May to purchase all sound ware potatoes in lots of 4 tons at £7 per ton, f.o.r., for which the grower cannot otherwise find a market. The Returns of Stocks just received by the Ministry of Food do not suggest that there will be any substantial surplus of ware potatoes in Great Britain which the growers will be unable to dispose of through the usual trade channels during May and June. If, however, after 14th May any grower has stocks on hand which he sees no prospect of being able to sell for delivery during May or June he should send particulars to the Director of Vegetable Supplies, 100, Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7, giving the address of his farm and the nearest railway station, together with the names and addresses of any dealers to whom he has unsuccessfully offered to sell his ware potatoes.
    Mr. WATT: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by selling—selling at the same price as the Governments are prepared to give? You can always find a buyer at a price.

    DOGS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether a Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider the question of the supply of food for dogs and other questions connected with the keeping of dogs; if so, who are the members of this Committee; and whether an opportunity will be afforded to owners of dogs and manufacturers of dogs' food of appearing before this Committee and stating their views?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The question of the possibility of effecting a reduction in the consumption of food by dogs is under the consideration of a Committee of Ministers at the
    1972
    present time. It would not be usual nor, I think, desirable to give the names of a Committee of this kind. The immediate problem created by the present shortage of dog food is an administrative matter under the direction of the Food Controller.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether an opportunity will be afforded to owners of dogs and manufacturers of dogs' food of appearing before the Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is rather a case of appearing before the Food Controller than the Committee?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not the Committee which is considering this question, and should not these people be given an opportunity of appearing before the Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will put my hon. and learned Friend's views before the Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr. RENDALL: Having regard to the great importance of this question and the very strong feeling which persons have about their dogs, would the right hon. Gentleman, before a decision is taken about any reduction in the number of dogs, see that the House of Commons has an opportunity of being consulted on the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would not like to give an absolute pledge on the subject, but I think there is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member has said.

    HOME SERVICE TROOPS (RATIONS).
    Sir J. BARRANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now able to announce any decision taken to reduce the meat rations hitherto issued to troops at home and the extent of such reduction?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Speaking generally, the daily meat ration for troops at home has been reduced by 2 ozs.
    Sir J. BARRAN: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that, while this reduction will be generally welcomed, the disparity between the ration for a sedentary soldier and for a civilian doing similar or harder work still remains very marked, and that some further steps are still required?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question whether or not a further reduction is to be made in the ease of sedentary troops is still under consideration.

    MAYPOLE DAIRY COMPANY.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the published figures of the profits of the Maypole Dairy Company, which show that their profits in 1916 were £462,000, and in 1917 £747,000, and that in the latter year, after placing £10,000 to reserve, a dividend of 225 per cent. was paid on the preferred shares; whether the prices of the food products sold by this company are controlled; and whether he will take steps, by fixing prices for the food products sold or by adjusting the Excess Profits Duty, to limit the distributable profits of this company to a reasonable amount?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The profits of the Maypole Dairy Company for 1916 and 1917 and the dividend paid in the latter year are correctly stated in the question. The prices of the food products sold by this company have been fixed by the Food Controller. I may point out that while the average dividend paid on the Maypole deferred shares for the four years 1914–17 was 112½per cent., the average dividend paid on these shares during the three pre-war years 1911–13 was over 190 per cent.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether, when a company dealing in food products is able to distribute a dividend of 225 per cent., it is not high time that the prices of those food products were further controlled, so as to avoid these extortionate profits being made out of the consumer?
    Mr. LOUGH: Arising out of that supplementary question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, in order to prevent its misleading character to extend, whether these deferred shares at all represent the capital of the company; and whether any dividend like 225 per cent., or even 100 per cent., was paid in any year by the company?
    Mr. PARKER: I can only refer both hon. Members to the reply I have given. The matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) is one for the Food Controller, as it is not for me to reply on a question of policy. I may say that the figures I have given say, not
    1974
    225 per cent., but 112½ per cent. It was 190 per cent. for the three years preceding the War.
    Mr. BUTCHER: As this question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has control over these Departments, may I ask him if he will give a direction or suggestion to the Food Controller that will have the effect of reducing these extravagant profits?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the question was referred by me to the Food Controller I have not looked into it, but I would point out to my hon. Friend, after simply listening to the question and the answer, that it does not follow if one dealer makes a large profit by selling at the same price as another dealer who does not make a similar profit, that the price fixed is unreasonable.

  MUNITIONS.

    NATIONAL FILLING FACTORY, HAYES.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of Munitions (1) whether any orders have been or will be issued to officers in charge of factories or of work under the Ministry, or to controlled establishments, or to contractors engaged in Government work, to use threats of dismissal or other forms of pressure upon employés which would deprive them of their legal rights as citizens, including the right to refuse vaccination or any other form of medical treatment not required by law; (2) whether Mrs. A. Fullum, 52, Hammond Road East, Southall Green, has been employed for nearly two years at the No. 7 National Filling Factory, Hayes, Middlesex; that on 26th April she received a notice calling on her to be vaccinated, and that on refusal she was interviewed by Miss Whitmarsh, the lady superintendent, and, on persisting in her refusal, was summarily dismissed with a week's pay; whether revaccination, which is not legally compulsory on anybody, is being enforced on employés in the national filling-factories; if not, whether this penalising of an employé for exercising her legal right to resist an attempt to compel by order what cannot be compelled by law will be stopped, and employés under Government no longer deprived of the liberty they possess if employed by other individuals; and whether Mrs. Fullum will be re-employed without an illegal enforcement upon her of revaccination?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No general orders have been given by the Minister as suggested in question 26, nor does he contemplate giving any such orders. As regards the case at the filling factory at Hayes, the facts are substantially as stated in the question. The matter has been submitted to the Medical Department of the Ministry for consideration, and I am advised that the situation in regard to small-pox in London does not warrant the measure taken by the filling factory in question, which has been advised accordingly, and steps will be taken to offer re-employment to the worker concerned.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether some eighty or ninety British prisoners of war have already been released by the Turkish Government and sent to Switzerland for internment; and whether the Government will use all possible expedition in commencing to release Turkish prisoners of war in our hands?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): One officer and eighty other ranks have been repatriated as invalids by the Turkish Government under an agreement come to before the ratification of the Berne Agreement. All arrangements had been made to return under the same agreement a corresponding party of about 100 Turkish invalided combatants from Egypt—some of them had, in fact, embarked—when typhus broke out. I am informed that it has been impossible to find transport for these men since all fear of infection ceased, but that every endeavour will be made to send them to Turkey as early as possible.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does that mean that we are taking steps to release Turkish prisoners in exchange for our own prisoners in Turkish hands?
  Mr. HOPE: In this particular instance I we are indebted to Turkey in the matter. We have got our prisoners, and they have not got theirs. Therefore it is for us to send their prisoners back as soon as transports can be found.
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what
  1976
  steps, if any, the Government propose to take with reference to the atrocities committed by the Germans on British prisoners of war behind the firing lines in France and Belgium, as disclosed in the White Paper (Miscellaneous, No. 7, 1918) presented to both Houses of Parliament in April, 1918; and whether he is satisfied that instant and severe reprisals on German prisoners in our hands would not tend to mitigate the privations of our unfortunate men?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid I can add nothing, at present, to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire.

  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  Captain BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of supplies necessary for the producton of war material is at present retarded by the multiplicity of permits required; and, if so, whether steps can be taken to render the Department of Import Restrictions, acting in consultation with other Departments, solely responsible for permits to bring in material, so that the one permit granted by that Department shall, within the limits of available shipping space, constitute a complete authority to buy, ship, and import goods to which it refers?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I am fully alive to the hindrance to trade caused by a multiplicity of permits, and I should welcome any practicable method of simplifying the requirements. Under present conditions, however, I doubt if the particular remedy suggested in the question is feasible. Generally speaking, supplies necessary for the production of war material are not subject to import restrictions, but shipment is necessarily dependent on freight available, and this can be provided only by the Shipping Controller in consultation with the Departments concerned. Supplies which are subject to import restrictions, and all orders placed on private account in the United States of America, require the approval of the Import Restrictions Department. Permission to order carries with it the Department's consent to import, but it has not so far

  1977
  been found possible to guarantee shipping space. The new control over purchases in the United States is being organised with the assistance of a Committee representing Departments responsible for war supplies. So far as possible, the permit system will in this way be centralised and rendered uniform.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education if he can give a summary showing the representations he has received from educational and other bodies in connection with Clause 10 of the Education Bill and stating what support has been expressed for the alternative proposal of full-time education to the age of sixteen?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): Many hundreds of resolutions in favour of the Bill as a whole have been received. Representations having specific reference to Clause 10 have been received from sixty-eight bodies, of which fifty-four are in favour of the proposals in the Bill. Ten bodies, six of which are connected with labour, have expressed a preference for full-time education to the age of sixteen in place of the proposals in the Bill.

  SUMMER TIME (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the loss of hours of sleep on the part of school children which has followed the adoption of Summer Time; whether he has seen the leaflet issued by the London County Council on this subject; and if he will bring the subject under the notice of other education authorities?
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has seen the leaflet, but as it has been widely reproduced or referred to in the Press he does not think it is necessary for him to take any further action.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    DUBLIN AERODROME (ABSENCE OF WORKERS).
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the
    1978
    labourers at the new aerodrome near Dublin who absented themselves without leave from work on the late anti-Conscription holiday demanded the expulsion, on their return, of the few loyal workmen who remained at their post in this time of national danger; and what course the manager took?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part that of the four men who did not join the strikers two went back to work on 29th April, and the other two will be taken on again if they will make application.

    GENERAL TRENCHARD.
    Mr. ASQUITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his promise, any appointment in the Air Service has been offered to General Trenchard; and, if so, what is the nature of such appointment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Secretary of State has made an offer of employment to General Trenchard concerning which they are at present in correspondence. If my right hon. Friend will repeat his question on Thursday, I expect to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

  LICENSED IMPORTS (TRANSPORT).
  Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller what steps are being taken to provide ship space for goods duly licensed and rationed by the Department of Import Restrictions as being necessary for war purposes in cases where such goods have not been specifically ordered by any Government Department, but are of a class urgently required from time to time by various Departments ex merchant stocks?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The provision of ship-space for various classes of commodities is determined in accordance with the programme of importation approved from time to time by the War Cabinet, and in practice it is found that the goods licensed for import are invariably in excess of the available tonnage under the control of the Ministry of Shipping. This is necessarily the case, since there is always a certain

  1979
  amount of tonnage, Allied and neutral, the detailed employment of which is outside the direct control of the Ministry.
  Captain BARNETT: Does my hon. Friend realise that, through want of these transport facilities, goods to the value of some hundreds of thousand pounds, urgently required for war purposes, are congested in the harbours of the United States?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Ministry of Shipping does its best to bring to this country all the commodities for which the shipping available allows.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    LUXURY DUTY.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the cases in the drapery trade of large firms offering for several months to pay the Luxury Taxes instead of calling upon their customers to do so, and in the instances where these drapery establishments pay Excess Profits Tax it will be the Government who will themselves pay the greater portion of the tax, in view of the fact that it will be paid out of excess profits; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member.

  NATIONAL WAR BONDS (SCOTTISH SAVINGS).
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the list of what is described as all the towns in the country that have subscribed over £1,000,000 in National War Bonds was officially handed to the Press by his Department; if so, will he explain why Scottish towns are purposely and continually left out of such comparisons; is he aware that such omission hinders subscriptions to National War Bonds; and will he take any action with the official concerned?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am in communication with the Scottish War Savings Committee on this matter with a view to information being furnished which will enable Scottish towns to appear in the list referred to.
  Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that leaving out the Scottish towns is consistent with a man calling himself a Unionist?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think this distinction arises from the fact that the Scotch are not in the same sense Unionists. They want to act entirely independently of any association.

  DEUTSCHE BANK.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the English branch of the Deutsche Bank have yet vacated the premises owned and occupied by them at the commencement of the War which have recently been sold; whether they have taken other premises and, if so, where and for what period and at what rent and under whose authority; and what is the number of the staff now employed by the English branch of the Deutsche Bank and how many of them are alien enemies and how many are British subjects and neutrals, respectively?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The London agency of the Deutsche Bank vacated on the 30th April, 1918, the premises in George Yard, Lombard Street, E.C., previously occupied by the bank. Other premises at 9, Bishopsgate, E.C., have been taken, with permission of the Treasury. The tenancy of the new premises has been taken at an annual rental of £4,300 plus lighting, cleaning, and other charges. The number of the staff now employed at the bank is sixty-nine, comprising two enemy subjects, sixty-five British subjects, and two allied subjects. It is impossible for the Controller to provide in his own offices for the necessary strong room accommodation and for the housing of the staff.
  Sir E. CARSON: What is the object of moving out of one premises if you take other premises at £4,000 a year?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The object of selling the bank premises, as I understand it, was that we should cease to allow it to have the identity which was involved in the possession of its own premises. The continuation of the bank is due, as has been pointed out often, to the fact that the interests of British and Allied creditors make its continuance necessary.
  Sir C. HENRY: Was —
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Baronet, instead of whispering the question, speak up?
  Sir C. HENRY: Where is the necessity, under existing conditions, for this bank to be located in Bishopsgate Street? Could it not carry on its business just as well if premises were rented in some other thoroughfare?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my hon. Friend knows that a question of that kind is not submitted to me; it is dealt with by the Controller to the best of his judgment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what period these new premises have been taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I see that the question is asked, but I am sorry to say I have not got the answer.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that they are not taken for any period longer than is absolutely necessary for the winding up of the bank in question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and learned Friend and some other hon. Members are, I think, under a misapprehension about this matter. The action which the Treasury has taken already is clearly in the direction of destroying the identity of these banks, and in that we intend to persist.

  GENERAL MAURICE'S LETTER.
    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.

      INQUIRY BY JUDGES.
      Mr. ASQUITH(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether the attention of the Government has been called to a letter in the Press from Major-General Maurice, lately Director of Military Operations, in which the correctness is impugned of several statements of fact made by Ministers to this House and what steps the Government propose to take to enable the House to examine these allegations?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: General Maurice's letter raises two questions—the question of military discipline involved in the writing of such a letter, and the question of the veracity of Ministerial statements.
      As regards the first question, that is being dealt with by the Army Council in the ordinary way.
      1982
      As regards the second question, though it must be obvious to the House that government could not be carried on if an inquiry into the conduct of Ministers should be considered necessary whenever their action is challenged by a servant of the Government who has occupied a position of the highest confidence, yet, inasmuch as these allegations affect the honour of Ministers, the Government propose to invite two of His Majesty's judges to act as a court of honour, to inquire into the charge of misstatements alleged to have been made by Ministers, and to report as quickly as possible.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: As this is a question affecting the House of Commons, would not the right hon. Gentleman substitute for the two judges, three distinguished Members of the House of Commons, to verify these charges against Ministers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government has considered the best method of doing what we consider necessary, and I certainly consider it necessary to satisfy the House that we have not wilfully made misleading statements. In our opinion, that can best be done by the course which I have suggested. I would remind the House that, in order to examine this question, the most secret documents have to be gone into, and it would obviously be a very difficult, and, I think, a very unsuitable tribunal to appoint a Select Committee of the House for that purpose.
      Mr. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this matter should be submitted to two judges. Does he propose to introduce a Bill to enable the judges to take evidence upon oath?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: We did not consider that necessary, because I am sure everybody involved will be only too ready to place all the information at the disposal of the judges, and, if they are not given anything they want, they will certainly let us know that is so.
      Mr. ASQUITH: Will the Government bring forward a Motion upon which the matter can be discussed?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If my right hon. Friend desires that it should be discussed, of course we shall give him an opportunity. Perhaps he might think it better to do so after the judges have reported.
      Sir E. CARSON: Will the proceedings before His Majesty's judges be public, or

      1983
      held in private, and can Cabinet and ex-Cabinet Ministers be examined upon the subject?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It must, I should think, obviously be held in private, for the reason I have given—that it involves examination of the most secret documents. As to who will be examined, I should have thought, if the House has confidence that the judges will properly perform their duty, they should be the best judges as to whom they desire to examine.
      Sir E. CARSON: What I desire to ask is, will Cabinet or ex-Cabinet Ministers be allowed to state before the judges what transpired in the Cabinet?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I should have thought that was a matter to be decided by the judges themselves, but I cannot for a moment believe that any judge would refuse to take the evidence of any Cabinet or ex-Cabinet Minister who desired to give it.
      Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers given by him will be received with the greatest dissatisfaction by the whole of the Army and Navy? They are sick to death of the way things are going on in the House of Commons.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to ask a question, and not to deliver a Hyde Park oration.
      Sir E. CARSON: What I desire to ask my right hon. Friend is how will a Cabinet or an ex-Cabinet Minister be able, unless he be absolved from the position of secrecy which he is bound to observe, without an Act of Parliament to give his testimony before the two judges.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There really ought not to be any feeling in the House that we desire to burke examination of this question, and I think the fact that we propose to submit it to two judges—whom I shall be glad to allow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) to select if he desire it—is a proof of that. As to the point raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson), I do not know what steps are necessary, but any steps which are possible will gladly be taken by the Government in that direction.
      Mr. ASQUITH: It must be clear to my right hon. Friend that this is a matter which, we ought to have an opportunity of
      1984
      discussing on some form of Motion. Will he give us a day for the purpose?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly, should my right hon. Friend desire it. Am I to understand that he would prefer that we should not proceed with setting up our Court until that discussion has taken place?
      Mr. ASQUITH: Certainly…
      Mr. PRINGLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say that all disciplinary proceedings against General Maurice will be suspended, pending any finding of the Court?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall certainly say nothing of the kind. Even if every statement were true, discipline in the Army would be impossible if such letters were permitted to be published.
      Several HON. MEMBERSrose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions should be put on the Paper.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  Mr. ASQUITH(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he will, without delay, give the House an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Proportional Representation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have considered that, and I believe it will suit the convenience of the House that this discussion should take place on Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and Sexual Offences Bill [Lords],— That they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Sir W. Ryland Atkins, Major Astor, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Hicks

  1985
  Beach, Captain Bennett-Goldney, Sir John Bethell, Mr. Bigland, Sir Arthur Black, Mr. Bliss, Mr. William Boyle, Mr. Cator, Sir William Cowan, Major David Davies, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Dawes, Sir Harold Elverston, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Philip Foster, Mr. Grant, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Percy Harris, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Hayden, Major Hay-ward, Sir Norval Helme, Mr. Higham, Major Hills, Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare, Colonel Sir John Hope, Major Hunt, Colonel Jackson, Mr. Ernest Jardine, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Kennedy, Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, Major Lane-Fox, Mr. Lardner, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Morrell, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Roch, Mr. Rowlands, Sir John Spear, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turton, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Watt, Major Wheler, Mr. Patrick White, Mr. Wiles, Mr. John Williams, Colonel Penry Williams, Colonel Willoughby, Captain Stanley Wilson, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Major Wood.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  BILLS PRESENTED.

    WESTGATE-ON-SEA CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL
    CHARITY BILL,—"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel and trust property in the parish of Westgate-on-Sea, in the county of Kent," presented by Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
    TRADE BOARDS BILL,—"to amend the Trade Boards Act, 1909," presented by MR. GEORGE ROBERTS; supported by Dr. Addison, Mr. Bridgeman, and the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. Whitley in the Chair,]

  EDUCATION BILL.

    Clause 1.—(Progressive and Comprehensive Organisation of Education.)
    National System of Public Education.
    With a view to the establishment of a national system of public education available for all persons capable of profiting thereby, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough, so far as their powers extend, to contribute thereto by providing for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education in respect of their area, and with that object any such council from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit to the Board schemes showing the mode in which their duties and powers under the Education Acts are to be performed and exercised, whether separately or in co-operation with other authorities.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset [to leave out the words "National System of "] is not in order. The words in italics are only the heading of the Clause and are not part of the Bill. The second Amendment is in order.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "With a view to the establishment of a national system of public education available for all persons capable of profiting thereby."
    This Bill marks quite a new stage in the history of draftsmanship. Those who have studied the language and methods of Acts of Parliament will be aware that there is a certain amount of verbiage on various points in this Bill of which we ought to have some explanation. The words which I propose to leave out are really in the form of a preamble, and I doubt whether if we leave out the whole of the words it would alter the effect of the Clause in any particular. What are they here for? Are they here for rhetoric? If so, rhetoric ought to be kept out of Acts of Parliament. There may be more or less rhetoric in these times. Certainly there is one kind of rhetoric we all appreciate, and that is the speeches, in the country of the Minister for Education. We all recognise how very much those speeches have helped in the framing of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric ought to be kept for the country and ought not to flow over Acts
    1996
    of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has got a great, exuberance of it. I do not think these words are in for rhetoric. I believe the object is to give some sort of direction to the judges. Supposing a case were to arise in the Courts which would raise the question—how far a scheme ought to go or what should be the general object of a scheme? If the words are in the Bill for that purpose, I object to them, because they are vague and indefinite. There are so many points of grave importance in the Bill that I will not do more than move the Amendment, and ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of the rhetoric or the vague explanatory part of the Clause. He is evidently not very satisfied with these flourishes of a legal or rhetorical character because in the second Clause he alters the preamble or preliminary verbiage. Have the words any legal operative effect, and, if not, what is the object of inserting them?
    Mr. LOUGH: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to devote a sentence or two to explaining the meaning of the words "all persons capable of profiting thereby." These are very curious words.
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): My hon. Friend (Mr. King) is right in pointing out that the words to which he takes exception have no operative effect in the legal sense of that term. The object is to give administrative directions with regard to the policy intended to be carried out by the public bodies administering our education laws all over the country, and I submit that it is not undesirable in these circumstances that some general words expressing the ideal and purpose of the legislation that they may be called upon to administer should be inserted in the form of the measure. That is the sole purpose for which these words are inserted. It is not a matter of first importance and if the sense of the Committee supports my hon. Friend in desiring the elimination of the words I would part with them, but I would part with them reluctantly. I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to relax his frown on this occasion. With respect to the point raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough), we are desirous that in framing schemes for the education of their respective areas the local education authorities should have regard to the desirability of providing different types of education

    1997
    suitable to the needs of the children who are capable of profiting by those classes of education. My right hon. Friend must have realised the extent to which education is being differentiated in this country. At present we provide a great number of types of education for different types of children, and we wish to direct the attention of the local education authorities to the desirability of making such various provision for the varied types of children.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The President has made such a persuasive speech that no one will desire him to accept this Amendment in its fullness. I rise for the purpose of suggesting a compromise which he could accept without losing anything valuable in the Bill. The really offensive words in the rhetorical introduction are "capable of profiting thereby." You are referring to the establishment of a national system of education open to all persons, and it should be left at that. The words "capable of profiting thereby" may have a most limiting and cramping influence upon the work of the education authorities, and might well come out. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accede to that request.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I hope that my right hon. Friend will adhere to the position he has taken up on this question and will not delete the words "national system of education." It seems to me of the greatest possible importance that in the very forefront of this Bill it should be made clear that it is a Bill not for elementary education or secondary education only, but that it is a national system of education which he is about to found.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to know the effect which the passing of these words may have upon some of the Amendments. Am I right in assuming that if we pass these words as they stand it would influence the judgment of the Chairman in regard to some of the other Amendments, and whether he would rule that, having passed the initial words of the Clause in these terms, some of the Amendments are contrary to some of the wording in the Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that would be so. I cannot conceive any Amendment being shut out by passing these words. These words are of a declaratory nature.
    Mr. KING: I regret that I cannot withdraw my Amendment. My point has not been met, as it might have been by some such words as those suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). This is not, as the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. J. A. Marriott) has just said, a national system of education. Where does Oxford University come in? It cannot come in at all. He knows perfectly well that we are only touching certain points of education. It is not intended to affect our university system of education, which is part of our life. The point is, Is this going to be a national system of education? I do not think so. I think that it is going to establish a number of schemes of different kinds in different parts of the country, which are going to do a great deal of good, but a national system is not going to be evolved out of it, and that everyone who is capable of profiting by education is going to benefit by it I very much doubt. I am capable of profiting by education, but I am not going to benefit by it, and, knowing what I do of bodies like the Board of Education, I do not think that all persons capable of profiting by education are going to get a chance under this Bill.
    Mr. PETO: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. Those words, "capable of profiting thereby," are most admirable words. My principal quarrel with the latter parts of this Bill is that they do not carry out that principle of giving opportunities for higher education to those children who are capable of profiting by that higher education; but I am delighted to see that that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, however much he may have fallen away from it in the latter parts of the Bill. I trust that he will keep the words for what they are worth, and as a demonstration of the fact that he did set out with the idea of providing suitable educational facilities for selected children, and not with the idea of having a uniform standard for all children whose heads will all be crammed with the same sort of knowledge, whether they are adapted for it or not, while in many instances it would have been better to train their hands, which could have been done if so much time had not been occupied in following this other system.
    Mr. ALDEN: When this Bill was first drafted undoubtedly it had a more comprehensive form and was more ambitious

    1999
    in its nature. I think that these words fairly represent the ideal of the President of the Board of Education and the ideal of the House of Commons, and might be allowed to stand. I hope that the President will see his way before very long to introduce another Bill, because there is very much left to be done after this Bill is passed into law. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is rather in the nature of a quibble. We want to get to business without delay, and I would suggest that he should withdraw it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot agree with the hon. Member in describing this scheme as national while we leave out the class whom we represent, and omit the House of Commons and the children of the rich. Such a system is a travesty upon a genuine system of national education. We drag the word "national" into every conceivable piece of legislation at the present time. We think that if we call a thing national we shall get all kinds of people to support it. This is not a national scheme, because it does not include the children of the rich. It is rather a scheme for training children to become useful producers of wealth than a scheme for producing a national improvement in the real education of the people of the country. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I will support him in the Lobby against the insertion of a misnomer in the Title of the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: I must appeal to the Committee to pass from this subject now. These words have no very important effect, and if I am pressed to omit them I am quite ready to do so. I was somewhat surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend's references to the word "national" He might as well object to the title "National Gallery" because the gallery does not contain all the pictures of the country, or to the title "Dictionary of National Biography" because as yet that dictionary does not contain his own name. If this line were to be followed I do not know where it would end. It never occurred to me to attach any weighty sense to these words when the Bill was being drafted, but I should have thought that it was a national purpose to establish the system now proposed, by which administrative bodies would consider the requirements of the children in the respective areas of the country and
    2000
    provide proper education for them. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will think over the subject again, and see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the words "capable of profiting thereby."
    This is a point of substance, whereas we were dealing on the general Amendment with a phrase which was probably not vital. These words would probably tend to set up some kind of class judgment as to the kind of education which is suitable for certain ranks of society. I think that education should be left free from those words, and I hope the Government will leave them out as being of a narrowing character.
    Mr. LOUGH: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, I think the words which it is proposed to omit are valuable, and that their meaning has been clearly explained to us. I agree with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Peto) that the words should be left in.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I hope the President of the Board of Education, will consider this Amendment, and I think that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman would be met if he stopped at the word "persons"—"a national system of education available for all persons." That must have some relation to the capacity of the persons for whom the measure is available, and we do not need the words "capable of profiting thereby." There are two objections. First of all, at certain points in elementary education, somebody or other, either the local authority or the school committee, or somebody in charge, will say that John Smith ought to go to the carpenter's bench and that Thomas Brown ought to go to the university. In the due course of experience differentiation will have to take place, but that ought not to be part and parcel of what is taken to be the ideal scheme that my right hon. Friend is proposing in this Bill. That is the first objection. The second objection is that the scheme also suggests the regional idea of education—that a child born in a seaport town should become a sailor boy, or, if born in an agricultural village, should be surrounded straight away, and from the beginning, with an agricultural education only. I am in favour of those

    2001
    influences being brought to bear, but there is a difference between that and dealing with them from the educational point of view—that is to say, that this block of country must produce agriculturists, and that block sailors, and so on. These are both very objectionable ideas, and we want one broad and liberal conception of a national system of education, differentiated undoubtedly, especially in the higher branches, and, with that view, I think that the Amendment proposed should be accepted.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to have read into these words a meaning which the President of the Board of Education never could have intended. I do not think they would have occurred to any other Member of the House except himself. It seems to me that these words in the Clause are necessary and important, having regard to the fact that it may be of no use to give higher education to children who are "incapable of profiting thereby," for it is quite certain that in the course of the education of children from the nursery school to the kindergarten, and up to the secondary stage, it will be found that many of these children will not be capable of taking advantage of the university education which will be given under this Bill. It seems to me that the words proposed to be left out are extremely necessary in order to amplify and explain the real meaning of this measure, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not at this stage accept the Amendment proposed.
    Mr. RENDALL: I am quite certain that both the hon. Member opposite and the hon. Member for Leicester are anxious to have this Bill, and I submit that at this early stage of the measure we should at least try to make progress. The hon. Member for Leicester has read into the words various meanings, and that could be done with regard to almost any form of words if they are studied long enough. I do not think that the meanings which he has put upon them are at all simple meanings, nor at all the meaning which the words convey. I submit that if we start thus early with verbal Amendments we shall be grasping at the shadow and not at the substance, and if we proceed in this way we will get the shadow, and not the substance.
    Mr. ALDEN: I would point out that the words which the Amendment proposes
    2002
    to leave out are of a character which might in a number of cases lead local authorities to grasp at them and not give the necessary education.
    Mr. BOOTH: We cannot disguise from, ourselves that many of these education authorities are ruled by employers of labour, and there is no doubt that the hon. Member, from this point of view, has made an effective intervention in this, Debate. I am very sorry to find that one or two hon. Members are already beginning to bring forward ideas which, in my opinion, are going to do harm. That is not the way to get a Bill through; in fact, it is a real danger. The main point is as that some education authorities may treat these words lightly, and I am quite certain that they are a very dangerous loophole. Some parts of the Bill which we shall have to consider later may be made non-effective if words like this are strewn about the measure. I do not take the same standards as the hon. Member for Leicester; but I say quite candidly that there is substance in this point which has been raised.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester and by the hon. Member for Pontefract, but I think that the proposal to stop at the word "persons" is really rather too hard. We are not constructing a scheme of national education available for persons between the ages of seventy and ninety-five, and we must have some limiting words. I do not think that those which have been introduced ought to arouse any apprehension, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract that the Board of Education will take very good care that ample opportunities are afforded for higher education. In fact, I think, the effect of these words upon the minds of Members will be to enlarge, and not to contract their sense of responsibility. I really feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester will be well advised to allow these words to stand part of the Bill. I cannot say more, that is my opinion
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does my right hon. Friend really understand that the opposition to this Bill comes from one feature, and one feature only, and that is the fear of this vocational education. These words are the first hint of the

    2003
    vocational training of the children of the working classes, and we had better have the question debated frankly and fully, at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that this Amendment is the best opportunity for dealing with this problem of vocational training, but it ought to be recognised that the Radicals in this House are against such a proposal, whether the standard of vocational training is to be set by any local authority, or any manufacturers, or any special ad hoc Committee set up to deal with what the children of the industrial classes have got to learn. I think that these words might almost be allowed to stand over until we have a more suitable opportunity. It is well to know that it is on this question that the Bill is going to stand or fall—if you drop it you will get the Bill through, if you keep it you cannot get the Bill through.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The words proposed to be dropped out of the Bill are really an expression of the very ideals put forward by educationists on behalf of the working classes themselves. They always used these very words when the question of the educational ladder to the universities has been raised. The representatives of the workers, such as the Workers' Educational Association — I think that is the name of it—have always used expressions of this very kind, that there should be an educational ladder for all who are capable. If you do not put those words in you will be committed to an ideal which even the representatives of the workers have never put forward, namely, the sending of everyone to the universities. That may come some day, though, I suppose, none of us will live to see the day. Seeing that the words in the Bill are the very words which have been chosen by the most zealous friends of education for the working classes, we should, I think, be ill-advised in striking them out, and, instead, setting up the opinion that we should have a universal system, which, as my hon. Friends will agree, must include the girls as well as the boys. The idea of an educational ladder for all who can be prepared for it will hardly be realised unless special steps are taken to deal with the girls. If you are going to have a system by which the children of the workers are to be placed in the same position as the most incompetent children of the rich people, and be sent
    2004
    to the universities, whether they are prepared or not for it, you will want an enormous provision of university education, of both sexes, but, for my own part, I think the words represent the ideals of the best educationists.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment at this stage in order that the matter may be raised again, perhaps at a period of the Bill when a fuller education discussion may be possible.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "area," to insert the words
    "including the provision of secondary or higher education in free publicly controlled and publicly managed schools available for all persons desirous of such education."
    I hope the Amendment which I now move will not bring me any lectures from my very kind friends as to the way in which I should bring this forward. If they had honoured me before we came into this Chamber yesterday or a few days ago I would have been happy to consider their suggestions. This is a matter of really vital substance to this Bill, and I hope that the Amendment, if not in these words and in this place, at any rate the object of the Amendment, may be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he will accept my words here, but I believe he will be ready to give a definite instruction that these schemes shall include further powers and opportunity for higher or secondary education than we have at present. The schemes, we understand, are to be comprehensive, as his Preamble which we have just passed to this Clause showed. If so, we ought at least to enact in the first Clause of the Bill that the provision of secondary or higher education should be on the same lines, and, relatively speaking, to the same extent, that is to say, the same required extent according to the needs of the people, as elementary education.
    The Committee is perfectly and fully aware of the fact that though you could compel a local education authority to provide an elementary school for the needs of the population, there is no power to compel a local education authority to provide a secondary school. The only way in which it could be done is by going to the Board of Education and getting the Board of Education, by a long process of rather indefinite and uncertain nature, to

    2005
    use power to press the local education authority into providing a secondary school. But in the case of an elementary school it is quite different; the people of a, locality have the power to compel their local education authority to provide sufficient school places for their own children, while they have no power to compel them to provide school places in a secondary school. That is the simple and clear fact which you are up against, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must really face this question. Is he going to allow the provision of secondary schools to be a matter in which the people of a locality may demand as a right? In the case of elementary schools they can be demanded as a right, but secondary schools cannot be so demanded. I want to give the people of a locality this right, apart from the beneficent influences and good intentions of the President of the Board of Education and his inspectors, who may not be there for ever. This Government may go out very shortly. Where will the right hon. Gentleman be then?
    Sir P. MAGNUS: He will be in the same place.
    Mr. KING: Well, I am not a prophet, and I do not want to see him depart, but he must realise that we are all mortal and that the members of this Government are specially mortal at the present time. I really do press this point, because I could give him many illustrations within my own personal knowledge why it is desirable to accept this Amendment. But I restrain myself. I have collected information and have had experience of the matter, but I will content myself by saying to him most emphatically that this is a point of vital substance: Are you going to give the people an opportunity to say "we want secondary or higher elementary education for this locality," and are you going to give them the power to enforce that demand?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, which I rise to support, raises a question fundamental to the Bill in regard to the reorganisation of our system of national education. The criticism some of us have to offer upon some of the proposals in the Bill on educational grounds is that they do no go far enough and are almost exclusively concerned either with elementary education or with the education that is supposed to be appropriate
    2006
    to children who have passed through the elementary school. The criticism we make is that there is no attempt in the Bill to provide, not the ladder that my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Robertson) referred to, but a broad highway along which all the children of the nation may pass. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment which is proposed, it would be a very vital alteration in the scheme of the Bill and in the machinery with which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to realise the educational objects ho has set forth very often and with very great eloquence, because the adoption of this Amendment would mean that the secondary school was to be regarded as the school appropriate, not to a certain social class, but to all who, having passed through the elementary school, have the necessary brains to go on to the more special institutions of learning. The right hon. Gentleman will see that this is a fundamental change in the machinery which is proposed in order to give us a national system of education.
    If the Bill remains unamended it will mean that, broadly speaking, the education appropriate is in the nature of the technical or some special form of school which is not a secondary school. We desire to see the elementary school linked on to the secondary school. I was surprised a few minutes ago and interested at the same time in hearing the remarks made by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench. He referred, I think not quite accurately, but I am sure his inaccuracy was quite unintentional, to the proposals of the Workers' Educational Association, and he used the words "educational ladder" in that connection. My right hon. Friend will remember that that association repudiates in turn any idea of an educational ladder and appeals for this broad pathway, and we are putting forward an Amendment to the Bill which is urged in the strongest possible terms and unanimously by the Workers' Educational Association which pleads for the provision of free secondary schools, and also for free universities, and for the making of the chain between the elementary school and the secondary school a real and complete chain. It is for these reasons, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I need hardly say that, in common with all educationists, I sympathise with the ideals which have been put before the Committee by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. It is our earnest hope that one of the principal results of the passing of this measure will be very largely to stimulate the flow of children from our elementary schools into our secondary schools, and I think I shall be able largely to meet the point which my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has made. At the present moment, as the hon. Member is aware, we have a large number of secondary schools receiving Grants from the Board of Education, and in virtue of a very valuable provision, which we owe to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Monmouth (Mr. McKenna), there is a stipulation attached to the State Grant that a considerable proportion of free places should be provided, and in virtue of that provision a very large number of children do find their way into our secondary schools from our elementary schools; in fact, I believe no less than from 60 to 70 per cent. of the State-aided secondary scholars in this country have received their education in public elementary schools.
    Mr. McKENNA: Sixty-seven per cent.
    Mr. FISHER: That is a very great testimony to the value of the provision which we owe to my right hon. Friend. The practical question with which we are faced is this: What is the best way of furthering secondary school education in this country? Would it be on the whole a wise policy to insist that all the fees taken in the secondary schools of this country should be forthwith abolished? That would be a loss of revenue to the State of £1,200,000, and if I were given by a munificent Chancellor of the Exchequer that generous sum to expend for the benefit of the children of the democracy of this country, I should prefer to have it expended in some other way. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that the best means of effecting his purpose is to supply every encouragement to the local education authority to build more secondary schools, to apply for Grants in respect of those schools, and, as a natural consequence, to provide free places in those schools. I believe that that is the course which promises the best results, and that is a course which will give the effect desired
    2008
    in the provisions of the Bill, because Clause 1 imposes as a duty upon the county borough and the county council the provision of such forms of secondary education in their respective areas as may be regarded as necessary and expedient by the Board of Education. On the other hand, I think it would be possible, and probably desirable, that something more explicit should be placed in the Bill with a view to impressing upon the minds of local education authorities their responsibility in this respect, and, if my hon. Friend would permit, I should be prepared to insert a new Sub-section in. Clause 4, where I think it would be really most appropriate, to the effect that the local education authorities, in preparing schemes, shall, as far as practicable, provide means that children and young persons shall not be debarred by poverty from the benefits of higher education. I think that would meet the point which was raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. KING: I am sorry to say that it does not meet my point at all. First of all, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathy. It is very much better to get sympathy than lectures, but he has not met the point on which I made special insistence. The parents have the power to demand sufficient elementary places for every child. They have not the power to demand a place for one child for secondary education. That is my point, and he admits it by silence, but he does not face what follows from it—the fact that we are miserably behind in secondary school places. What is the difference between England and Scotland, for instance? In Scotland they have the power to require and provide secondary school places, with the result that, while in England we have in secondary schools forty-five out of every thousand of the population, in Scotland they have 197. They have more than four times as many children in secondary schools for the population than what we have. Scotland is a poorer country. Its geographical, topographical, and economic conditions make it very difficult to have such, education at all. Why, then, is it that they get it? Because the people and the parents, having the power to demand schools, do demand them, and get them. My point is that you are not giving the people any power whatever under this Bill, but you are giving high place to important persons like the local education authorities and persons of intellectual or

    2009
    social position co-opted on education committees, giving them great powers to make schemes, and then to come as deputations to the Board of Education, hobnob with the grand people there, discuss the schemes hugger-mugger, and in secret, and get a concession to pass a scheme. But where do the people come in? Where do the parents come in? There is no provision in this Bill at all for them, even to be consulted, and when I say to my right hon. Friend in the most earnest, and, as I think, very cogent way, to give the parents some right to demand secondary places, he refers me to Clause 4. What does Clause 4 do? I will give the short title of it: "Consultation of authorities for the purposes of Part III of the Education Act, 1902." The Education Act of 1902, Part III., is all with reference to elementary education, and when I say give the people power to have the secondary school, the right hon. Gentleman says, "I will put in a few words at the end of Clause 4," which has to do with elementary education. His good intentions are of no value. They are very pleasant, very comforting, but let me remind him where good intentions lead to. I am going to carry out my intentions by deeds. He is going to give me nothing but good intentions, and a few words in a Clause which has nothing to do with secondary education at all. Certainly, if I am the only member who will go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment, I shall do so. The right hon. Gentleman must give me a little more than he has offered—something more than good intentions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is difficult, without seeing the Amendment foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman, to be certain what the actual effect of it will be, but I should like to ask him this. Apparently it will have a far-reaching effect.
    Mr. KING: No…
    Sir F. BANBURY: Hon. Members below the Gangway say it will not, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say that his Amendment would go a considerable way to meet the suggestions or the desires of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The hon. Gentleman says it will not. As I have not seen the Amendment, I cannot express a definite opinion upon it, but it does seem to me that it is possible it will make a far-reaching change in the Bill. I would
    2010
    like to ask what this new Amendment is, because the last statement we had from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to cost was that it would be about £9,700,000, and that only related to a portion of the Bill. Now if there is to be a considerable enlargement of secondary education, and as I understand it is to be given free to people who cannot afford to pay for it, it stands to reason there will be a very considerable addition to the cost. I think the Committee, in view of the enormous sums that are being spent, certainly should not commit themselves to any extension of the Bill, at any rate at the present moment, which will lead to a great increase in the cost.
    Major EDWARD WOOD: I have considerable sympathy with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, in that neither of the hon. Members who have pressed for this Amendment has given the Committee any information as to what their scheme, if developed, would cost, but to that I will return in one moment. I am one of those Members who always regards the hon. Member for North Somerset, as he described himself, as one of the most cogent orators in this House, and, I have no doubt, in a further speech he will refer to it as even more cogent than the one which preceded it. I thought he rather strained his case too far. He is vexed with my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, because he has declined to meet him on what, to him, is the most important point, namely, that of giving to the people the power to ask for and obtain secondary schools and secondary education. Now I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend is really putting rather an exaggerated ease to the Committee. Is it not the fact that ratepayers or parents, if they are very keen on secondary educataion, can bring pressure to bear now on their elected representatives, and, through their elected representatives, on the Education Committee, and, if they are determined to get it, will get secondary education, just as they can bring pressure to bear on anything else? Therefore, I am not disposed to support the hon. Member for North Somerset on that ground. The fact is—and I think we might as well be frank about it—at the present moment, whatever may be the ideal we want to get in the matter of secondary education, there is no public demand for universal secondary education, and those who press it are not in this matter representing ordinary, normal,

    2011
    everyday lay opinion outside this House. My hon. Friend, besides his other qualities, is an extremely practical politician. He has not described to us what this scheme would cost. He has not said anything about what has always been one of the main difficulties in this matter, namely, the supply of teachers. If he insists to-day on asking the Committee to remodel the whole scheme of this Bill he runs a grave risk of endangering the whole proposal. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is so far in favour, though not quite to his satisfaction, I do hope he will not press this Amendment now, but be prepared to support the Bill in its main lines, as it is drawn, so that we may be enabled to go on with the main question.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I can go quite as far as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon in the tribute he has paid to the hon. Member for North Somerset. I am quite ready to listen to his ripe experience in questions of education. I the more regret that, in this instance, the hon. Member for North Somerset has entirely lost a good deal of his usual far-sightedness. He has told us that the ordinary ratepayers insist on higher education. I wonder if he can point to a single Clause in any of the Scottish Education Bills by which the people have any more power to insist upon higher education than in England? The only means that they have of obtaining higher education is by going to the Scottish educational authorities, and getting those authorities to move—
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can they not in Scotland get a far higher education in the elementary schools than is possible by law in England?
    Sir H. CRAIK: There is just the same education in the elementary schools of this country; the code is not drawn up by the inhabitants of each district. Does the hon. Member for North Somerset think that all provision for higher education should come from the locality? Does he not know that it is far more likely to advance the pressure of higher education when it comes from a central authority? The idea of the hon. Member for North Somerset that there is some big power in Scotland that provides schools: to insist on their being provided by some other means than that provided by the Education Acts is pure imagination.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: So far from being in agreement with what has fallen from the two previous speakers in the matter of the attitude and activities of the hon. Member for North Somerset, I would there were a large number of hon. Members in this House; so well-informed on educational matters as is the hon. Member, and so keen to promote public free education as I have always found him. The hon. Member for Ripon is evidently not informed as to the facts of the public demand for greater facilities for education. If he had attended some of the conferences promoted by that excellent organisation, the Workers' Educational Association, he would have found that there is a volume of public opinion behind the Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education which has surprised many of those who were getting a little doubtful as to the public attitude towards education. It has delighted them. The public expression of opinion which is voiced by the Workers' Educational Association, representing thousands of working-class people, and at least hundreds of people connected with universities—the expression of opinion to which they have given voice, is in favour of something much more advanced than is contained in this Bill. As a matter of fact I have in my hand a series of resolutions adopted by the Workers' Educational Association, one of which deals with the specific points now before the Committee—that of free secondary education. The demand is laid down in set terms by the Workers' Educational Association, entitled, as I believe, to speak for large masses of the working classes of this country, as follows:
    "That the Bill be amended so as to make secondary education accessible, freely and without the payment of fees, to all capable of taking advantage of it."
    Hon. Members may take it that those who have been associated with public meetings, apart from the Workers' Educational Association, have found at the present time a public interest about education and a desire to see advancement in it that is remarkable considering present difficulties. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President that he should go further to meet the point which has been brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. If he does not, if he carries out his own suggestion, he still leaves

    2013
    it to the Board of Education to confer with the local authorities as to whether that 25 per cent. or more of free places in secondary schools shall be accorded.
    I have no doubt at all as to what will happen if my right hon. Friend stays at the Board of Education. There will be a more generous provision of secondary school places, extra, without payment of fees. But there has been on the part of the Board of Education—I am glad to say not now—an attitude, not of hostility, but of not too generous a sympathy with local feeling in the matter of free secondary education. For example, there are authorities which are allowed to vary that 25 per cent. provision of free places, and which give a lower percentage. I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he makes the concession he has now outlined, to see that with that concession there is a stringing up of the administration of his Department, and that there is no freedom granted to local education authorities to depart, in any instance, from that excellent provision of 25 per cent. of free places in the secondary schools. Let me quote an instance in which departure is possible. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably recognise the case. Take the case of a local authority which has more than one secondary school. It keeps one school a little more select than the other one, or two. While it is prepared to give 25 per cent., or a little more, in one or two of its secondary schools, it carefully bars the boys and the girls of the elementary schools from entering, to the extent of 25 per cent. of free places, the other secondary school. This school is kept for those who, in the main, can afford big fees. It is this division on social lines which is at the back of the demand for free secondary education. There is more in that demand than at present seems to have appealed to my right hon. Friend. If he cannot go the whole way, he can at least do something by stringing up the administration, and providing, as the rule, for the 25 per cent. of free places in every secondary school, and not in some; and seeing that there is no easy way out for any local authority which advances specious arguments to him, showing why, in their particular case, the percentage should not be 25 per cent., but 20 per cent., 15 per cent., or 12½per cent., which they may suggest is adequate to meet the case
    2014
    of free places. I do hope my hon. Friend will press this matter. If he goes into the Division Lobby, I shall certainly accompany him.
    Sir W. PEARCE: While I welcome the extension of secondary education, one of the worst ways of helping the Bill is to overload it. To my mind the speech of the Education Minister is quite sympathetic to the demand that every local authority shall establish free secondary education for every child desiring it. The Bill also contains a provision that every education authority shall establish continuation schools. But I should like to ask hon. Members how they expect to get the necessary teachers or the necessary schools? I do feel that the Minister has been most sympathetic. I should not like to accuse the hon. Member for North Somerset of trying by overloading the Bill to kill it, but I do think it is the greatest mistake to push these sort of points too far, because, by so doing, there will be a real danger of killing the Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It does seem to me that this Amendment is somewhat of a test of the intentions of the Government in regard to the Bill. Everybody who believes in real education knows that it is the teaching, in every branch, of the widest forms of knowledge that they want to see increased in the country. Everybody knows that there has been great pressure brought to bear on the President of the Board of Education to develop his educational ideas along the well-known German lines of Professor Kirschensteiner. The working classes of this country, through the Workers' Educational Association, ask for the opportunity to acquire some of the knowledge that they have not got. The Government, inspired by this nefarious example from across the ocean, give not opportunity, but compulsion. We ask for opportunity for getting real, humane knowledge—the reading of books, the knowledge of the natural sciences, and the knowledge of the higher branches of true learning. Instead of that, they give us these continuation schools, of which the hon. Member for Limehouse speaks so warmly—continuation schools where they are taught not to be thinkers, but workers in some trade which will be handy to their employment. We ask for one thing; the Bill gives us another. It gives compulsion, and the wrong form of

    2015
    education. We are accused of trying to overload the Bill. We want to sink the Bill unless this Amendment is carried—without insisting upon these particular words—but the spirit in which this particular Amendment has been urged upon the Government. The Bill is not what the balance of working-class opinion wants, and that is the reason why this Amendment is, as it were, a test Amendment. Do you want real education? To create amongst the workers of this country, men who stand up for their own rights, thinking out their own thoughts, or do you want a Bill to give us continuation schools, and to have this vocational education selected by the education authorities to suit the different trades of the different districts, farmed out, as it were, to the manufacturers and farmers of the country? I, for one, look forward to a decent, true education; therefore I welcome this Amendment. If it is carried we shall get the opportunity for the working classes to let their children go freely and get secondary education. It is not as though you were giving a great boon to the working classes. Every parent who takes advantage of free secondary education is making an enormous sacrifice. He is losing the wages that the child might have earned if sent out into the world. All that we are asking is that there should be opportunity for free secondary education. I say that by acceding to that request and by giving that opportunity you will be doing more for real education, more for uplifting the whole mind of the country, than you will do by any amount of compulsion into continuation schools and vocational education.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Goldstone) has asked for an opportunity for free secondary education, and that opportunity is most fully and abundantly given under the provisions of this Bill; in fact, it is one of the primary purposes of this Bill to offer that opportunity. In what way is it provided? This Bill imposes for the first time an obligation on county councils and county boroughs and upon all authorities having power under Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, to provide a scheme, and the Education Board will see that, as a constituent part of that scheme, there shall be adequate provision for secondary education in the area. That
    2016
    is one of the primary purposes of the Bill, and, as I have already pointed out, in virtue of the Regulations which are laid down, the condition is added that the secondary school shall provide free places. The consequence is that under the ordinary working of the machinery of this Bill you have more free places provided in secondary schools and you have more secondary schools provided as well. I gather the hon. and gallant Member does not wish, by a stroke of the pen, to abolish the existing secondary schools of this country. I, for one, attach very great importance to the education in the same schools of boys and girls belonging to different classes of society. Under the provisions of this Bill that object is achieved. To show the kind of effect which the mere rumour of this Bill has upon enterprises of this kind, may I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the education committee of a great industrial city has already recommended that six additional secondary schools shall be established in its area, in addition to those already existing? I am at the present moment very closely looking into the whole question of scholarships and maintenance, but this is a matter of administrative machinery. This Bill provides a framework within which the object which my hon. Friend is aiming at can be effectively and safely obtained. The more my hon. and gallant Friend looks at the matter, the more sure I am that he will be satisfied that the Bill does realise that part of his aspiration which is concerned with the provision of secondary education.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: We take a very serious view of this Amendment. We are grateful to the President of the Board of Education for the sympathetic words he has used with regard to the educational ideals which we have. To the arguments which we have set before him we have tried to give expression in the form of this Amendment. It is useless to pretend that the suggestion made by the President in any adequate sense realises the object we seek to achieve. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that these educational authorities, coming together, would receive encouragement to adopt schemes which will ensure that no child is, by poverty, prevented taking the advantage of further forms of education. What we desire is to have as part of our national system free secondary schools for all children on passing from the

    2017
    elementary schools. A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has recently returned from America, was listening to this Debate. I have had the pleasure of reading the witty diary of his experiences in America. I am sure he must have seen something of the public schools system in the United States, and I had hoped he would be able to give the Committee the result of his recent observations in that respect. This system which we are advocating has worked in America with entire success. There they have free elementary schools leading by a broad highway to the secondary schools, free alike from any charges for instruction or for the necessary books and apparatus. That is the ideal we are aiming at. We want to get free secondary education for all children, without regarding elementary education as a system complete in itself or as a coping-stone in the system of continuation classes. The President of the Board of Education gave certain statistics just now. I want to ask the Committee to examine them. They really do not meet the point which we have urged upon the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The statistics he gave snow that between 50 and 60 per cent. of the children in secondary schools came from elementary schools, but the right hon. Gentleman omits altogether from those statistics the great private and public schools.
    Mr. FISHER: I expressly stated they were confined to schools receiving State aid.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman's statistics did omit any reference to the great public schools system so far as it receives no public Grant. But these are not the statistics which he should have given us. He should have told the Committee in this connection the percentage of children who leave the elementary schools, who pass into the secondary schools or receive any further form of education. I can give him the figures. It is less than 8 per cent. About 92 per cent. of the children leaving elementary schools each year before the War went straight to their work in life, and not only did not get any secondary school education, but got no further education of any kind whatever. That means, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows—for he has publicly acknowledged it—that our ele-
    2018
    mentary school system is a class system, a system for the children of the poor, and that, there is no real relation between the elementary school and the secondary school. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) referred to the Workers' Educational Association. Let me remind the Committee that that association has frequently been the subject of eulogy in this House, and its recommendations have always received great attention here. There is no subject that association is more earnest upon than this question of providing free secondary schools, and linking up the secondary schools with the elementary schools as the natural avenue for all students to pass along. That association is most critical of the form of this Bill because it fails to make any provision whatever on the scale we wish it made for secondary education, and it is because we believe that this is a matter vitally affecting our educational system and because we can hope to get no really national system unless we eliminate the class system and bring unity into the elementary and secondary systems that we feel compelled to challenge the opinion of the Committee on this fundamental matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend is pressing the President of the Board of Education a little unduly. We all share, I believe, the ideals to which he has given expression, but we do not see how his Amendment is going to give effect to those ideals, nor do we believe that the conditions are such that the President can by any Act of Parliament give effect to the views my hon. Friend desires to see carried out. My hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) observed that the statistics quoted by the President, showing that 67 per cent. of the children in publicly-aided secondary schools came from public elementary schools, did not really touch the question, and he gave us figures showing that only 8 per cent. of the children in public elementary schools pass on to the secondary schools, 92 per cent. failing to do so. If my hon. Friend holds that 92 per cent. fail to go because there is no-room for them, then I think his argument would be to the point.
    Mr. KING: They do not go into the schools at all.
    Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the 92 per cent. who do

    2019
    not go in the secondary schools would have gone if there had been room for them?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman appeals to me with great courtesy, and I will at once say that the 92 per cent. fail to secure any further form of education for two reasons. In the first instance they could not go into the secondary schools if they wished, because there are not sufficient secondary schools. The existing secondary schools are already overcrowded in every part of the country, and particularly in London. Secondly, they do not go on, it may be for social and economic reasons, possibly poverty, but that is a matter which I cannot deal with now.
    Mr. McKENNA: There is a third reason. It is quite possible that a very large proportion of them, or it may be a large proportion of their parents, have no intention that they should go on to secondary schools. We have to deal with facts as we find them. My hon. Friend suggests that a system should be set up in this country by which room will be provided in secondary schools for every child in the country.
    Mr. KING: That is not my Amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman do me the courtesy to read that Amendment? It does not ask for secondary education for all children, but only for those who desire it. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Amendment he will see that his present argument is pointless.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: I quite understand my hon. Friend's Amendment; he very properly uses the word "desires," but I wish to observe that of the 92 per cent. quoted by the last speaker it will be found that a very large proportion were not desirous of secondary education. I am sure the Committee is absolutely unanimous in the desire to provide secondary education—free—for all children in the country who are desirous to have it, but is it realised that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education must build on the existing system? He cannot scrap that system. He would not have the teachers or the buildings or the provision necessary to create an entirely new system such as that suggested. I am inclined to quote a French proverb to illustrate the situation, "Better is the enemy of good." I hope we shall ulti-
    2020
    mately come to the ideals expressed by my hon. Friends, but I am sure they are doing their own case more harm than good by standing in the way of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend who always has in view the highest educational spirit, and who is as earnest as any Member of this House in his desire to give effect to that spirit. While discussions on these topics are most valuable, I do beg of my hon. Friends to give this Bill the hearty reception which it deserves. It is a very fine step forward both in the field of elementary and of secondary education, and I, for my part, would not risk losing it by occupying the attention of this House for five minutes.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I should like to say a word in support of the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKenna). I would certainly ask the Mover of this Amendment to withdraw it and to trust to the proposal that has been made by the President of the Board of Education. The more he thinks of it, the more I am sure he will admit that nearly everything he desires—and I am in much sympathy with what he desires—will be attained under this Bill if that proposal is carried out. Let me further point out that this Amendment could scarcely be carried in the form in which it is presented to the Committee. There are several objections to the Amendment as it stands. It says "including the provision of secondary or higher education." I do not know in the least what the hon. Gentleman means by contrasting secondary with higher education. Secondary education one understands very well, and higher education generally means the education which follows secondary education in the higher institutions or universities. The word "or," therefore, is entirely out of place. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means that provision shall be made for free secondary as well as for free university education. If so, it would be better to state it. The hon. Member has supported by very strong arguments the Amendment which is before the Committee by pointing out that parents cannot possibly in existing circumstances demand free secondary education or demand the establishment of free secondary schools. My experience may not be as large as his, but I must own that I have never known local authorities approached by

    2021
    parents and asked that a secondary school should be established in the district to refuse that request; and, further, I have never known a case in which such a demand has been made to the Board of Education which has been refused by the Board.
    What we want to do is to create a greater enthusiasm for secondary education among all classes in the country, and when that enthusiasm exists and a demand is made for further secondary education I feel quite certain it will be acceded to. I know quite well that there is a tendency amongst a large number of secondary schools to approach the Board of Education with a view to enabling free places to be given in those schools, and I am not certain that it will not be my duty to take a deputation to the Board of Education before long asking whether in certain schools which are not at present Grant-aided the opportunity of providing free places may not be afforded in order that a Grant may be obtained. The demand must come from the parents, and as soon as it does I feel quite certain that there will be no lack of opportunity for secondary education to be afforded. I cannot quite understand what my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) means in opposing so strongly vocational education. I agree with him entirely to the extent that what we require is further secondary education in the first instance, and I do not see that we can read into any of the Clauses of this Bill that strong demand for vocational education which he seems to see in some of its provisions, I hope, therefore, that in order that there may be no division on a point of this kind; on which the whole Committee and country are really agreed—as to the further facilities that should be afforded to all classes in the country for secondary education—the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I am extraordinarily surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus), and I will give the Committee the reason. He said he never knew a case where the parents had asked for secondary education or a school and had not got it. He and I were together members of a local educational authority in the year 1903, and from the county council area which I then represented, Haslemere, a petition came up to our local education authority asking for a
    2022
    secondary school. The local education, authority bought a piece of land, but that piece of land is not built on to the present day, and no secondary school is accessible—
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I suppose the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the reason which prevented that local authority from providing that school, namely, that facilities already existed in the near neighbourhood and were quite sufficient?
    Mr. KING: The nearest facilities are in in the town of Guildford, which is seventeen miles away, and the real reason the school has not been built there is that people who made good professions did not attend, and people who were anxious for democratic ideals in education, like myself, were always turned down. It is not at all the case that facilities are given to places and people when they ask for secondary education, and there is no leverage which the people of the district have in demanding it. There is none. There is in Scotland, and I wish here to reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), who said that there was no power in Scotland which was not enjoyed by the parents and people in England. There is. There is the power to elect the school board, and if a school board which can provide secondary education in. Scotland—a directly-elected authority which has no counterpart whatever in England—does not provide secondary education, all it is necessary to do is to wait three years, turn them out, and elect a body that will provide it. That is the law in Scotland, and for the hon. Member to say that I am wrong in my facts, and to go out of the House and leave me to answer when he is not here, is not quite fair. I am going to press this to a Division if anybody will support me, but before I do so let me say that I do recognise the good intentions and the desire to meet me which the President of the Board of Education has shown. Let me point out, however, that we are not asking that there shall be provision of secondary school accommodation for all children who pass. We are not even saying that there must be secondary schools. We are only saying that in the scheme—because, after all, this Clause is only for making schemes—you must put some provision for secondary education for those children who desire it. I do not think it is a very unreasonable thing. I

    2023
    am perfectly certain that if it were added it would give a real assistance to the very ideas which the President of the Board has. It is not an unreasonable proposal, it is not an extravagant or an expensive one, and therefore I shall certainly go to a Division.
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKE: I should like to ask a question with reference to the next Clause, because I think it has a considerable bearing upon the matter the Committee is discussing at the present moment. Clause 2 says:
    "It shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902,
    (a) to make adequate and suitable provision by means of central schools, central or special classes, or otherwise—"
    and then going on to paragraph (b)
    "—for co-operating with local education authorities for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, in matters of common interest, and particularly in respect of (i) the preparation of children for further education in schools other than elementary and their transference at suitable ages to such schools."
    The question I want to ask is whether such schools other than elementary include secondary schools? If they do, it seems to me such a considerable advance on any thing we have now that it is almost an answer to the case made by the hon. Member (Mr. King). Certainly if what the President of the Board of Education says in reference to this is what I expect, I shall be unable, much as I sympathise with his object, to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. FISHER: It is, of course, true, as the hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Blake) has pointed out, that "schools other than elementary schools" under Sub-section (b) of Clause 2 does mainly refer to secondary schools.
    Sir F. BLAKE: Mainly?
    Mr. FISHER: It does refer to secondary schools.
    Sir F. BLAKE: Mainly?
    Mr. FISHER: And others.
    Sir F. BLAKE: It includes secondary schools?
    Mr. FISHER: It includes secondary schools. I would also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the phrase "Progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education" in
    2024
    Clause 1. I do submit to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. King) that what he desires is already done, and that we are taking power in Clause 1 and in Clause 2 to ensure adequate provision of facilities for secondary education.
    Mr. KING: Free?
    Mr. FISHER: Naturally, because, as I have already pointed out, no secondary school can receive State aid unless it is prepared to make provision for free places, and, as I have already indicated, I am prepared specifically to make reference to the necessity of an adequate provision of free places in secondary schools. I think, therefore, that the points which have been raised by hon. Members who desire free secondary education are substantially met in the Bill as it stands.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I should like to utter a word of warning against the over-enthusiasm of what I may call the extreme education enthusiast, in order that it may not result in the wrecking of this Bill. What with the extreme enthusiast on one side and the education reactionary on the other, I do foresee great trouble with this Bill unless those of us who are really keen to see it carried do our best to support the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge. I have sat on local county education authorities ever since such bodies existed, and the great difficulty I foresee in regard to this Bill is not in satisfying the enthusiasts of education, but in satisfying what I may call the reactionaries—those, in fact, who are very reluctant indeed to spend 1d. more out of the public purse, and particularly out of the public rates, than we are spending at the present time. I cannot, for my own part, see what advantage is to be derived from attempting to force upon local authorities a course of action in advance of local public opinion. After all, local public opinion is quite able to provide what the hon. Member desires through its elected representative, if it is strong enough to do so. The one handicap which exists under the previous Act was removed by Clause 7, by which the absurd limit of a 2d. rate no longer exists. With regard to those who speak for urban areas, and who are prepared to send representatives to the local education authorities, as long as they are anxious to see public money expended upon more advanced education, possibly free of all cost, it is possible for them to effect this with the good will of

    2025
    the locality, which is absolutely essential if you wish to make it a success. I welcome this Bill because, in regard to what we are pleased to call higher education, provision is made for the first time to ensure enthusiasm for the work which is going to appeal to the parents, and for that reason it is going to develop a larger measure of public enthusiasm for education generally. It is only by increasing the larger local enthusiasm for education that you are going to get a real move on, and that you are going to secure for every child in this country a proper secondary education.
    Mr. D. MASON: I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division. The President of the Board of Education says that what we require is already provided for, but I want to know, is it entirely so? I understand that the Amendment which has been promised in Clause 4 will simply mean consultation. We want something that will be a real provision and not merely a consultation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mon-mouth (Mr. McKenna) said there would not be sufficient teachers, and he urged us not to press this Amendment unduly. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) raised the question of finance, and all this seems to indicate that there is a doubt as to whether it is wise to provide for secondary education. We desire that there should be no dubeity about it. It is not a question of finance. I have always been ready to co-operate with my right hon. Friend in regard to matters of economy, but this question of finance in regard to education should not deter us from providing ample educational facilities for every child in the country. The need is so great that I think this Amendment should leave no doubt at all. It should not be a question of the right hon. Gentleman saying that our point is substantially met in the Bill. We should get an undertaking that these facilities will be provided without any doubt. As the Amendment says, it only applies to those desirous of having these facilities, and the parents would be consulted. Unless we get a definite undertaking that some such provision as I have indicated will be made in this Clause, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: Mention has been made of the Workers' Education Association. I do not suppose there is any-
    2026
    body who lives in an industrial centre who is a keen educationalist who has not come across the Workers' Education Association and who has not been ready to support its work. It is a movement with which I have profound sympathy and one which I have tried to consider in every possible way. I am one of those who introduced a deputation of this association to the Minister of Education some months ago, and I thought at the time that their demands, excellent as they were as an ideal, go further than it is possible to secure in actual practical legislation. I would like to ask if the hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment mean to wreck the Bill or are they really trying to do something which they consider will improve it. I am very much afraid that it is the first alternative and not the second.
    Mr. KING: No.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Even if this Amendment is desirable at the moment it is practically impossible, and the only effect of it can be to jeopardise the Bill. There is behind this Bill an educational enthusiasm, which we have never known before. It has been considered and reconsidered, and it embodies various compromises arrived at after careful consultation and private negotiations with all the various forces behind the scenes before the second Bill was introduced. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wire pulling…"] No, it is not wire pulling. When that process has gone en and the second Bill has been introduced embodying adjustments, then a demand is made to practically and radically alter the character of the Bill, and it looks to me that this was being done with the intention, not of improving the Bill, but of destroying it. Those of us who want to see this Bill through do earnestly hope that nothing will be proposed which will have the effect of even delaying the measure, still less of destroying it.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down will have the effect that he desires, for it is the worst method that can be devised to endeavour to rush a Bill of this importance through the House. The President of the Board of Education assured the Mover of this Amendment that the Bill really carried out his purpose, and that the Amendment was unnecessary, and here we have the hon. Member who has just spoken charging

    2027
    the supporters of this Amendment with introducing something to wreck the Bill, although the right hon. Gentleman has just stated that what is being asked for in the Amendment is already provided for. I have been listening carefully to hon. Members who get up and make speeches like this, and I find that they invariably waste time in soft-soaping the President of the Board of Education. There are, however, one or two points which I should like cleared up. The concluding words of this Amendment are, "For all persons desirous of such education," but in his speech the hon. Member referred to the children being desirous of such education.
    There will be no doubt, I suppose, that the girls and boys will be able to express a preference for higher education. If this proposal is interpreted in another sense I cannot support it. Surely the parents should have the right to say whether a child shall go to the higher school. One can easily see the schoolmaster asking the children this question in the last year of their training, and in that case the schoolmaster would treat them differently in the last year if they were going to a higher school than if they were going out to work. If the schoolmaster asked them two years before leaving school, it is quite possible that the best boys would be the keenest to go to work. Cases have very often come before our notice in the North of England of boys who have benefited most by education, but who are very anxious to earn money, and, therefore, I think the parents should be able to say to a boy, "You are not yet ready for work; a higher education will do you good," and they ought to be allowed to make the choice. If the hon. Member means that the desire should be expressed by the parents then I can vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. RAFFAN: My own difficulty is not that of my hon. Friend opposite, who appears to think that the hon. Member for Somerset is pressing secondary and higher education too far. My difficulty is that so far as I can see this Amendment seems to be surplusage, and I should like to have an assurance from the President of the Board of Education that that is so, because that will entirely determine my vote.
    Mr. FISHER: It is so.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The Clause says that the local authorities shall provide schemes "for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education in respect of their area." I presume that a scheme presented, which did not adequately provide for higher and secondary education, would not be considered a satisfactory scheme and would' not be approved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear…"] In view of that fact, I do suggest to my hon. Friend that he will be putting many of us in an entirely false position if he calls for a Division now on this matter. If any point is not clear in the hon. Member's mind, if he consulted with the President between now and the Report stage, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be quite willing to consider any form of words to make the point clear. I think it would be extremely undesirable that a Division should be forced now, because it would put some of us in a position which we do not desire to take up.
    Mr. MASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the Amendment he suggests will contain a provision which will not be dependent on Clause 4, which is merely consultative?
    Mr. FISHER: The first point is the provision of secondary schemes. Under Clause 1 of the Bill the county authorities are required to provide schemes for the progressive and comprehensive organisation and development of education in their area. That includes secondary education, and any scheme submitted by an authority to the Board which did not, in the opinion of the Board, make adequate provision for secondary education in the area, carrying free places, would be condemned. The second point is the adequacy of the free places. I have not gathered from my hon. Friends whether it is part of their proposal to abolish all the fees which are at present charged in secondary schools. At the present moment there is no doubt an inadequate provision of free places, and, as I have already pointed out, the Board is anxiously examining the provision of free places. We are hoping that the provision will be more adequate in the future, and I have already given an undertaking that I will insert words at a later stage of the Bill which will constitute a specific direction to the local education authorities that in making provision for secondary

    2029
    education they should pay special attention to the making of that education accessible to all children desirous of obtaining secondary education, however poor they may be
    Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 172.

    Division No. 35.]

    AYES.

    [533 p.m.

    Adamson, William

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

    Rowlands, James

    Alden, Percy

    Hinds, John

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hudson, Walter

    Snowden, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomas Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Tootill, Robert

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, Llewelyn

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Glanville, Harold James

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Hancock, John George

    Robinson, Sidney

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Agnew, Sir George

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

    Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A.

    Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Otley)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Du Pre, Maj. W. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

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

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

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

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

    Marriott, John A. R.

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Meux, Admiral Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, South)

    Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Nicholson, Sir Chas. N. (Doncaster)

    Bird, Alfred

    Gretten, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Blair, Reginald

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. A. St. George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Parkes, Sir Edward

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S,

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Bryce, John Annan

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Herbert, Hon. Aubrey (Somerset, S.)

    Pratt, John W.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hewins, William Albert S.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Randles, Sir John

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Cator, John

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cheyne, Sir William W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ash mole

    Hunter, Maj. Sir Chat. Rod.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wands worth)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

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

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

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

    Craig, Ernest (Crewe)

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Somervell, William Henry

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Currie, G. W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H,

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald:

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Stoker, R. B.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W)

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff)

    Whitely, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts N. W.)

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Cot. Hon. Claud

    Walker, Col. W. H.

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Weston, John W.

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir HOWELL DAVIES: On a point of Order. I inadvertently voted in the wrong Lobby. I intended to vote for the Government. I do not know whether the matter could be put right?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member, but no doubt what he has said will be noted in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Amendment—to leave out the word "such," and after the word "council" ["such council from time to time "] to insert the words "of a county or county borough in England"—standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire (Major David Davies) is not in order here. It should come as a new Clause. I cannot make the Amendment—after the word "submit" ["submit to the Board schemes"] to insert the words "for the approval of their council, and subsequently, if approved"— standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) read. Will he explain it?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it reads correctly,
    "Providing for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education in respect of their area, and with that object any such council from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit for the approval of their council, and subsequently, if approved, to the Board," etc.
    My object is to make it quite clear that it is not merely the education committee of the borough or county council that has to consider this scheme, but that the scheme before it is put before the Board shall pass the public scrutiny of the whole council. The education committees of this country are not directly elected bodies. One-third are co-opted specialists and the remainder of the education committee are very largely composed of aldermen. It is a much sought after committee, and consequently posts on it are generally given to senior members, many of whom are aldermen.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at his Amendment. As the Bill stands, the Amendment would make it read,
    2032
    "any such council from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit for the approval of their council." The council cannot submit something to itself. Probably the hon. and gallant Member has in view the question of the committee submitting any scheme to the council for their approval before going to the Board of Education.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid he cannot raise that question here. We have gone past that point. He must seek some further opportunity, probably on the Report stage.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It seems to me from the Clause that it is the duty of the council, and not the education committee.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), at the bottom of page 107 of the Amendment Paper, should come as a new Clause, or on Clause 5. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson), at the top of page 108, ought also to come as a new Clause. The Amendment following that, in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset, should not come on this Clause. It should come either on Clause 5 or Clause 38— I do not know which—but it certainly should not come here. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. John), is consequential on the Amendment I called, which appears on the previous page. The following Amendment, in the name of the same hon. Member and others, should come as a new Clause. On page 109 of the Amendment Paper, the first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset, seems to be altogether too vague, and, if moved at all, should be moved on Clause 4. I call on the hon. Member for North Somerset to move the next Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add as a new Subsection:
    "(2) Such scheme shall provide, as far as possible, for the representation on boards of managers and executive committees of parents, teachers, and working class organisations in such a way that public management may be effectively attained."
    May I say, at the outset, that I have tried to make this language fit into the language of the Bill by making it rather vague and somewhat rhetorical?
    Mr. ANDERSON: On a point of Order. Why is the present Amendment in order if the Amendment that I myself desired to move, which appears on page 108 of the Amendment Paper, dealing only with one point in regard to teachers, and excluding all the others, is out of order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I am in doubt about this particular Amendment, and I am waiting to hear what the hon. Member will say before I intervene.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Do you mean on the Amendment now being discussed?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course; it is a matter for me, and I am about to exercise my discretion.
    Mr. KING: I shall not try to get round your ruling, Sir Donald Maclean. I shall state the object and aim of my Amendment as clearly as I possibly can and then, perhaps, you will give your ruling on a point of Order. In order to understand it, let us observe what the position is to-day. Local education authorities and the Board of Education, between them, are directly managing and carrying out the education of the country. The local education authorities, generally speaking, are committees of town councils, county boroughs, and county councils, with certain co-opted persons added to them in each case, who are not directly elected for the purpose of their work by the ratepayers. Some of them have never been through an election, still less a contested election, in their lives. A number of them are very superior persons, such as professors of universities, who are brought in, who have never gone through any contested election in their life. They become very important persons on education authorities. These committees can and do transact their work in secret. If a ratepayer wants to find out what is being
    2034
    done by his authority, he cannot ask to see the minutes, because he has no right of access to the minutes of the local education authority. Some education authorities do admit the Press occasionally to their meetings, but what they generally do is to sit in secret, transact their business in secret, and make reports to their county councils and other councils, which simply pass them as matters of form. [HON. MEMBERS: "No…"] They have when I have been there. Generally, they desire to trouble the Press, the public, the officials and themselves as little as possible with the business. What is the result? A few officials manage the whole affair, and the inspectors of the Board of Education tell them roughly what they have to do. The whole thing is a very happy family party business. What is greatly to the credit of these people is that so much education is being given. When I think how secret, how unapproachable by the common man is the administration of education to-day, I am lost in admiration of the wonderful results which are achieved in spite of these disadvantages. On the other hand, what does result also is that you have a great movement like the Workers' Education—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: After hearing what the hon. Member has said, I have come to the conclusion that this Amendment cannot be moved on this Clause. He should try on Clause 4, or propose it as a new Clause. The next" Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) and others, should come on Clause 2, if at all. The succeeding Amendments should come as new Clauses.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOLT: Before we part with this Clause, I should like to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will give the Committee some information as to the policy he proposes to adopt for the education of persons intending to pursue the sea as a profession. The Bill as it stands has this effect, that if a person ceases his education at the age of fourteen he is obliged to go to continuation schools, a proceeding which is manifestly impossible to a boy engaged in seafaring, through obvious practical difficulties. As regards those going in for the higher class of seafaring, it is obvious that they

    2035
    ought to stop at school until they are sixteen. It would be very much better that they should be compelled to stay at school up to the age of sixteen. Indeed, the same is true of all boys who go to sea. I am not very much impressed by the argument that some boys performing the more menial duties will, if there is no special provision made for them, be unable to go to sea until they are eighteen. That is the only penalty which is imposed upon them by the Bill as it stands. If that is the position, it will not be at all satisfactory. If boys stop at school until the age of sixteen, there ought to be schemes specially prepared for giving the class of education needed by a boy who is going to sea. We all know that there must be education which will be partly of an elementary character and partly of a secondary type which is different from what is necessary for a boy who is going to stay on shore. For instance, not only is a certain form of mathematics necessary to navigation to be taught, but the boy ought to have some opportunity of learning that sort of physical work which is necessary for the sea, such as elementary seamanship, dealing with boats, ropes, and similar things. That becomes very necessary if the boy is not to leave school until he has arrived at the age of sixteen. It is necessary that he should then be a much better trained lad from a technical point of view than the lad who goes to sea now at a much younger age. It will therefore be convenient if we can anticipate the discussion which must arise at a later stage on some of the Amendments which are now on the Paper making it mandatory on the education authorities to provide suitable schemes, and if we can have some statement from the President of the Board of Education as to what he has in his mind to do. I am informed that it is quite possible under the Bill as it stands for the Board of Education and the local authorities, if they are so minded, to do everything that is necessary and suitable, but we should like to know that it is in their minds and that it is their intention to see that the boys who are intended to pursue this special form of activity in later life should have the opportunity of getting the special education which is necessary for that purpose.
    Mr. PETO: I should like to reinforce what has fallen from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). I am entirely in
    2036
    agreement with him that it is desirable that we should know, if possible, at the earliest possible stage what the President of the Board of Education really has in mind with regard to this vital part of education, namely, the education that fits a boy for the sea service. The importance of the sea service in relation to our national life can hardly be exaggerated. That has been burned into everybody's mind recently. Under the Bill as it stands, it is possible that all that may be necessary can perhaps be done, but I do not think that is good enough, because we find in Clause 10, Sub-section (2), paragraph (ii, b), that there is an exemption from this attendance at continuation schools up to the age of eighteen. If enforced in every case, attendance up to that age would practically make it impossible for a boy to go to sea at the proper age. The provision I have referred to says:
    "Is shown to the satisfaction of the local education authority to have been up to the age of sixteen under full-time instruction in a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient or under suitable and efficient full-time instruction in some other manner."
    I not only think that that is much too vague for our purpose, but I am not satisfied to leave the supply of boys for the sea service entirely in the hands of the local education authority, with the over-riding authority of the Board of Education. I should like to see a complete scheme in this Bill for providing the appropriate education at the appropriate age in proper training establishments or schools adapted to the special purpose, for boys for the sea service. Further, I should like it to be quite certain that boys, whatever part of the country they may hail from, will not only have no obstacle placed in their way in choosing the sea as a profession, but also every facility, financial and other, for having a full-time education to a more limited age than eighteen for this special purpose. If the President of the Board of Education will tell us that he is going to regard favourably the series of Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), my own name, and the names of some other hon. Members, which does provide for a definite scheme under which we can work, or whether he has some other scheme in his mind, or whether he is determined to leave it to chance and the good intention of the education authority overlooked by

    2037
    his own Department, it will very much help us as to the course we shall pursue on the further stages of the Bill.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think after the last two speeches the Committee will begin to understand the new enthusiasm for the education movement in this country. We shall have during the course of these Debates employer after employer getting up and insisting that, whatever else happens, there must be special instruction for the young to learn the particular trade which will be useful to him. My hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) thinks the public schools of the country should train up young seamen, and that the Government will be well advised, in the interests of the employers in the shipping industry, to get as large a proportion as possible of the youth of this country trained as merchant seamen. He will then get an increased supply of merchant seamen and the price of the article will go down. The same thing applies to every other trade or profession. I, for instance, from now on, will insist that the Bill should include the largest possible provision for the training of young potters, and then we shall have a larger supply of labour to draw upon and the article will be cheaper. The State is going, under the Bill, or rather under the enthusiasm of the new educationists, to teach the trade which we have previously been teaching to these boys and girls, to go through all the difficulty of collecting our labour for us bringing it up, and supplying it to us ready made at the critical moment just when we want it. And they call that education… To my mind that is a travesty of education. It is the vocational education which Sheffield has imported into this House, but which Germany invented, and against which every true educationist will continue to protest. That has only been called for by the last two speeches.
    I want to speak on this Clause from another point of view. The local councils are to be asked to prepare schemes to submit to the Board. Would it be possible for us to see a sample scheme drawn up by the Board of Education, so that we might have a better acquaintance with the ideas which are to be adopted? Anyone who has read through this Bill will come to the end of it with a sort of feeling that it is an excellent Bill—the Sections of it which you understand—but a great deal of it still left in blank. There is no hint of the scheme. You may look
    2038
    all through it without seeing in any corner of it any mention of the employers who are to have a hand in these educational training establishments. You will not see the word "parents" mentioned, except once in connection with "nursery schools. I want to know whether we cannot have, either as a White Paper or In a speech by the President, his idea of what would be an ideal scheme, say, for a borough such as Stoke-on-Trent, and for a county area, what the hours would be, what the teaching system and the curriculum would be, and what the goal aimed at by the Board of Education is in connection with these continuation classes and the higher education? We are told in Clause 2 in extremely vague terms what that idea is, but we want something much more detailed, more elaborate, and more informing than anything that is in the Bill at present. You cannot have all the county councils of the country starting drafting schemes without any sample upon which to base their draft, and such a sample must be either already drafted or must be required before the Bill can be used. Therefore we might rightly ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know what the scheme is intended to be, and how it is intended to work in detail.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Members (Mr. Holt and Mr. Peto) have raised two points of very great interest and importance. First of all, they raised the question of the provision for young lads intending to take up seafaring as their calling in life. That is a matter which has been engaging my very close attention for the last few weeks. I understand there is a very general desire on the part of those who are interested in the mercantile marine to obtain adequate facilities for education for lads who are entering the mercantile marine, and that there is, moreover, a very great and all-pervading desire that a much larger proportion of the hands in our mercantile marine should be drawn from the towns and villages. There is some division of opinion as to what the best type of school for a lad desiring to enter the sea service should be. There are some who hold that the State should provide training ships for the education of these lads. There are others, equally well qualified to speak, who maintain that the schools should be shore establishments, either on some of our great rivers or on the sea, so that the boys should have opportunities for boat-

    2039
    ing and swimming. I do not profess to have an authoritative opinion on these two alternatives, but my own inclination, as at present advised, is in favour of the shore establishment as against the training ship. But whatever may be the true doctrine on those points, it is clear that endeavour should be made to provide more extended facilities for a professional form of education for boys entering seafaring life. I do not mean that the education should be strictly professional. Far from it. Those boys should have as good a general education as any other boys. It is quite possible to give a good general education with a slight marine bias, and that is all that people interested in shipping want.
    Let us see how far this can be provided within the four corners of the Bill. It will be not only possible, but normal, for the Board of Education to require of certain authorities—those in the great seaports of the country—that they should provide an adequate supply of education suitable to the needs of boys entering the seafaring profession. It is also possible under the provisions of the Bill for authorities to federate together in the execution of some common purpose, and one of those purposes might be the consideration of a scheme for a profession of this kind. It is also possible, under the provisions of the Bill, for boarding operations to be made, so that boys coming from inland towns might be boarded in schools in seaport towns, where they would receive this particular bind of education. But although all these things are possible under the Bill, I am not satisfied that they are adequate, and I believe, if a really adequate form of education is to be given to the lads desiring to enter into the seafaring profession, it should be given on some national plan. I am not prepared at this moment to pledge the Government to a scheme, but I think it is quite possible that if a scheme were to be framed we might expect some help towards it from the shipping industry. These are matters which have to be explored, but, in any case, I will keep my mind open on the subject, and it shall have my close attention. I realise to the full the necessity of providing some form of education such as my hon. Friend describes. The second point which they have raised is the position of the seafaring lad under Clause 10 of the Bill. I recognise that it is impossible, as things go now, to require lads
    2040
    who are spending the greater part of their lives on shipboard to attend continuation schools. I propose, however, to defer special consideration of the position of lads under Clause 10 until we have reached that portion of the Bill, and I think that will be satisfactory to my hon. Friends. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) seemed to assume that it was the purpose of the Bill, and of its architect, the arch-criminal of the plot, to scrap general education, and to introduce some narrow technical form of education. I will ask him to give me credit for some little intuition in the matter of education, and to defer the full force of his censure until we reach that portion of the Bill which excites his animadversion.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Do the right hon. Gentleman's remarks refer to the fishing industry as well as shipping?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I think we are perhaps entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will indicate at what later stage of the Bill he will make a statement in regard to the general finance by which the Bill will be carried on. I should very much like to have an assurance that at some stage he will give us an opportunity of discussing the question.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The President of the Board of Education had better beware of the Chairman before he answers a question of that kind. It is for me to say whether such matters are in order.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to put a question before we leave this Clause as to what is the policy of the Department in regard to striking a balance between book learning and technical training? The right hon. Gentleman made a remark that in regard to certain boys he would give them a general knowledge with a sea bias. That would not satisfy the people who want technical instruction in the North. It seems to me that if you follow the lines of his speech the consequence would be that a collier would have a much better knowledge of poetry than a boy who is to go into the textile trade. If a draftsman or an engineer had to spend a large part of the day studying his own special calling, then does it not naturally follow that an ordinary miner, who could get no knowledge from technical instruction at school, would devote his time to

    2041
    poetry and philosophy? I am putting an extreme case in order to get to know what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and whether he thinks it would be fair that where children are sitting side by side some shall receive a much larger book education and come away with a much greater knowledge of English literature than others who are spending the whole of the day in having their hands trained? I would like to know what is the policy of the Department as regards holding the balance between manual training which is manual and that training which is intellectual?
    Mr. FISHER: The policy of the Department is to give to every child a particular form of education which is most calculated to do good to that child. The hon. Member well knows that children are very varied. Some of them have aptitudes in one direction and some have aptitudes in another. Some children are very clever with their hands, and some children have good ears for music. Other children can do best with books. Every intelligent educational life would give a child the food which is most wholesome for it. That is the whole policy of this Bill.
    Sir F. BAN BURY: I would like to ask a question with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford as to expenditure. Can we not discuss that on Clause 22?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes; that will probably be the right Clause.

    CLAUSE 2—(Development of Education in public Elementary Schools.)
    In order that full benefit may be derived from the system of public elementary schools, it shall be the duty of a local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902,—

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

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

    (ii.) for organising in public elementary schools courses of advanced instruction for the older children in attendance at such schools, including children who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen; and

    (b) to make adequate and suitable arrangements for co-operating with local education authorities for the purposes of Part
    2042
    II. of the Education Act, 1902, in matters of common interest, and particularly in respect of—

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

    (ii.) the supply and training of teachers;

    and any such authority from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit to the Board schemes for the purposes aforesaid.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move to leave out the words "in order that full benefit may be derived from the system of public elementary schools."
    This is one of two Amendments standing in my name which are merely matters of machinery and are introduced to make Clause 2 harmonise with Clause 1. The effect of the Bill as it stands is that the county councils and the county borough councils, which are the authorities for the purposes of both elementary and higher education, when required by the Board of Education, are to submit schemes for the progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education in respect of their area so far as their powers extend. This obligation extends both to higher education and to elementary education, and the scheme must necessarily be for the organisation of elementary education, so far as the powers of those authorities extend to that branch of education in their area. County councils are not authorities for elementary education in boroughs with a population of over 10,000 or in urban districts with a population of over 20,000. In those areas the preparation of the scheme for elementary education is a matter not for the county councils, but for the council of the borough or the urban district council concerned as the local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Act of 1902. The natural result would be that Clause 2 should impose upon these authorities for the purpose of Part III.—that is to say, the authorities which are not the authorities for higher education, but only for elementary education.—the duty of preparing and submitting a scheme for the organisation and the promotion of elementary education in this area. Clause 2 of the Bill as it is drafted docs not go so far as that. It does not impose an obligation to submit a scheme in respect of the organisation and the promotion of elementary education in the area. It only imposes an obligation in respect of certain

    2043
    particular purposes of elementary education, and those purposes comprise the whole school duties of a Part III. authority. The Amendment I propose is intended to remove this anomaly and to make it the duty of a Part III. authority to prepare schemes co-extensive with the duty of providing for elementary education. If the Committee would like an example of something which would be included under the Amendment and would not be included under the original Clause, I would refer to the building programme of a Part III. authority. It is, I think, very desirable that Part III. authorities should be encouraged to take up progressive building schemes in connection with elementary education in their areas. Under the Amendment they will be able to do so, whereas under the Clause as' originally drafted they would be precluded from doing so.
    Mr. KING: I think the President is to be congratulated on this Amendment. It is very desirable that he should be supported. I hope he will not think this Bill is perfect, because he has already proved to himself that his first draft was not perfect. If we welcome his Amendment I hope he will welcome some of ours.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: After "1902" ["Education Act, 1902"], insert the words" to make adequate and suitable provision in order that full benefit may be derived from the system of public elementary schools, and for that purpose amongst other matters."— [Mr. Fisher.]
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Sir M. Barlow)—after the words last inserted to add the words "unless adequate and suitable provision is otherwise made."
    I move the Amendment in order to get information from the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that there is already adequate and suitable provision. There may be some endowed school or there may be a school provided by a religious community, or otherwise. I want to understand that in this injunction made upon the local education authority there is no obligation to disregard such existing provision. I think it is not only a matter of justice, but it is a great advantage to education that regard should be had to such provision. I hope there is nothing
    2044
    in the Clause submitted to the Committee which would check or lessen that wholesome variety of competition which give character to our schools.
    Mr. WING: I would like to support this Amendment because it really does bear on what the right hon. Gentleman has already referred to with respect to training for seamanship. He will find that in a very large number of ports in this country very great preparation has been made to meet that particular aspect of our education. This Amendment would apply to other forms of education, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be very wise to accept it. It in no wise interferes with the object of the Bill. It simply provides that none of the existing machinery should be scrapped if it is equal to its purpose.
    Mr. KING: I must protest against this Amendment. I hope it will not be accepted. It would be perfectly futile to pass a Bill if you are going to accept Amendments of this character. This Amendment says that if there are existing suitable provision, apparently the Section is not to apply. Who is to say what is suitable? I presume the Board of Education. If the Board of Education is to decide every matter of this kind, and it is to decide it entirely its own way, what is the good of putting this in the Bill? It is simply giving an opportunity for rejection, correspondence, delay, red-tape, and the pillar-to-post business. I hope we shall have sensible Amendments strengthening the Bill, and not futile Amendments which weaken it. I look upon this Amendment as a futile, weakening, and useless Amendment, and I hope it will be resisted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I support this Amendment for the reason that I think it is a sensible Amendment and not a futile Amendment. It says that certain things should be done unless suitable accommodation is already provided. Where there is suitable accommodation, the Amendment provides that it should not be scrapped merely for the sake of some particular local authority if they have a fad. It proposes that if there is suitable accommodation, that accommodation shall be used. I cannot conceive any more sensible proposal.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I would ask the Government to support this Amendment. The difficulties which the hon. Member

    2045
    (Mr. King) raised do not exist, because the same words used in this Amendment are used two lines afterwards in the Clause. I should imagine that this Amendment is a most useful one, and ought to be put in. It would do away with one difficulty. There is a fear that this Bill means bringing too much uniformity into education and making too much of a cast-iron scheme. The Amendment would be useful, because it would show that the Government have no desire to injure private enterprise. One hon. Member (Mr. Wing) has mentioned specific instances where in some towns particular schools have already started for the purpose of giving suitable education for those who are going to sea. It is not the intention of the Government to injure these in any way. We all know that quite well, and it is not the intention of the Government to injure schools which have been started by private enterprise. Therefore the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill will be of great advantage and would let people know the intentions of the Government.
    Sir M. BARLOW: In supporting this Amendment I may point out that this is not a secondary school Clause, but that it deals with Part III., elementary education. The great thing which we have in mind is the provision of what is called the central school—the higher elementary school. I do not want to go into any controversial topics, because all through the discussion it has been agreed that on the whole religious subject the concordat, or whatever you choose to call it, as it stands at present, shall be undisturbed. The President has met us very reasonably and adequately in that spirit. There has been a great deal of fear expressed on behalf not only of the Church of England, but also of the Roman Catholic authorities, who have, as we all know, a large interest in the elementary education of this country with regard to the schools, and whether they are going to be prejudiced in any way by the new Bill and particularly by one or two of the earlier Clauses. Clause 2 lays on the local authority the express statutory obligation of providing these various forms of better education, and, among others, the statutory obligation of providing these central schools. It has been said all along that there is no hardship to the Church or the Roman Catholic bodies because they provide their own. If that is so, it must be made clear in the Clause that
    2046
    there is a provision to do so. You must not on the one hand promise to those who do provide now the non-provided schools the right to provide central schools, and on the other hand say that it is the statutory obligation of the local authorities and of nobody else. It is implied by Clause 29 of the Bill that Church schools, or non-provided schools generally may, be combined for the purpose of a central school. All I want to make clear is that when a statutory obligation is laid on a local authority to provide central schools, it shall not be exclusive of the provision of adequate central schools by the Church or the Roman Catholic bodies or any other body who wish to do so, provided, of course, that these schools are adequate to the satisfaction of the Board of Education. I hope in the spirit of the understanding, for which we are to thank the President, that these words may be accepted, so as to-make quite clear what really is his intention, namely, that central schools can be provided by other authorities than the local authority, provided always, of course, that they are efficient in every way.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I never heard an Amendment having such far-reaching consequences moved in this House in such gentle and persuasive terms, but terms which have no reference whatever to the real gravity of the Amendment. My hon. Friend who is responsible for this Amendment unfortunately lives this evening in a glass house. In an earlier speech he suggested that an Amendment moved dealing strictly with the educational point must be a wrecking Amendment if pressed. I did not agree with him then, and I am not going to suggest to him that he is moving this Amendment in a sense hostile to the Bill, and with a desire to wreck the Bill. But I hope that I can show the Committee that if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill it will certainly destroy some of the most valuable proposals in the Bill. The context of the Clause must be remembered. This is a proposal to limit the powers of local education authorities in making provision for the development of the curricula of the elementary schools, because if this Amendment is put into the Bill it would mean that, if a private school or institution exists which is already doing the same work, the local education authority would be debarred by the mere existence of this private institution from

    2047
    themselves setting up a rival school. This revises, I think, in its worst form the whole question of vested interests in education. Educational advance has suffered for several decades from the vested interests in education, and this Amendment, which was moved in such strikingly gentle and non-controversial terms, seeks once more to establish in a very objectionable form vested interests in education. The schools that are contemplated in the Clause which we are discussing are to be publicly managed and free schools. Whatever schools are founded, the parents whose children go to them will have control over the management of the school, and they will be also free schools. If the local authorities are to be prevented from establishing publicly controlled schools and free schools, if there is a private school already in existence which can claim to be doing the same work, the adoption of such an Amendment would give us a new vested interest in education and nullify the very object of the Clause which is to enable the local education authority to have a perfectly free hand in providing a public and national system of education.
    Major WOOD: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member who has just spoken misreads the effect of it, owing to the preconceived notions which he has in his mind of vested interests, which he conceives wrongly it is designed, to serve. I fail to follow what the objection to this Amendment is. To the ordinary plain man, if there is adequate and suitable provision, it would seem that it is not necessary to create other provisions. What I understand by "suitable provision" would be provision of satisfactory education that covers the ground. I quite understand the reluctance of hon. Members to establish a kind of imperium in imperio of unsatisfactory education, but if, by giving the right powers to the education authorities, you can satisfy yourselves that what you are taking over is educationally satisfactory, and covers the ground, it would seem to me to be mere common sense to allow the Amendment to be incorporated.
    Mr. FISHER: I think that it is quite clear that some misapprehension exists as to the scope and intention of Clause 2. The argument so far as it has gone has been based largely upon the facilities to
    2048
    be secured by the provision of schools. The Clause is a Clause dealing with curricula in public elementary schools, whether those elementary schools are provided or non-provided, and the Clause enacts that the local education authority shall make adequate provision for certain forms of curricula in public elementary schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford pointed out that it would be very undesirable for local education authorities, when they are making public provision of this kind, not to take into account existing accommodation. That is the principle which all along has been acknowledged, both in the sphere of elementary education and secondary education. In the sphere of secondary education we had it in Section 2 of Clause 2 of the Act of 1902, which provided that
    "a council, in exercising their powers under this part of this Act, shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges, and to any steps already taken for the purpose of higher education under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891."
    Therefore the Amendment of my hon. Friend is quite in the spirit of our education legislation as it stands at present. On the other hand, I think my hon. Friend's object is already secured by Clause 29 of this Bill, in which it is specifically laid down that
    "except as expressly provided by this Act nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Education Acts relating to public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority."
    That Clause meets the point put by my hon. Friend, and for that reason, and that reason only, I should prefer the Amendment to be withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: While not disagreeing with the substance of my right hon. Friend's contention, I think that it is better for two reasons to put in the words. As, I understand, the Clause deals with more than merely the curricula. It starts by saying that it is to make adequate and suitable provision by means of central schools, which means in itself the building of additional schools. The Amendment says that you ought not to build a new central school when you have got next door a school which is doing the work adequately. Again. Clause 2 (b) does refer to other matters than purely elementary teaching. It refers to secondary schools as well. Therefore to say that this point is met by Section 29 of the Bill is wrong.
    Mr. FISHER: That is covered by the Section of the Act of 1902, which refers to higher education.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think that Section 29 of this Bill covers it. That is a very vague Clause, but if the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Clause 29 does give the relief we want, there cannot be the slightest harm in putting the words in here. People outside do not know what the point of law is, and I am by no means clear that the advisers of my right hon. Friend are right.—I do not say they are wrong.—that this Amendment is covered by the Clause. If they are right, however, then there is not the slightest harm in putting these words in. You would allay a lot of suspicion that exists in non-legal minds by putting definitely in the forefront of this Bill that there is no intention in any way to put up unnecessary schools in opposition to adequate existing schools.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS:I hope the President of the Board of Education will remain firm. I thought the words of the Amendment were quite innocent until I heard the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. I should have been inclined to oppose it, but when the hon. Gentleman explained its purpose I saw, as my hon. Friend said, the cloven hoof behind it. As a. matter of fact, the great difficulty we shall find will not be that education authorities will build too many but rather that they will build too few schools, and we should not provide education authorities with substantial excuses not to do their duty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will resist this Amendment, which, I think, would weaken his Bill.
    Sir M. BARLOW:The President of the Board of Education suggests that, so far as elementary education is concerned, we are protected by Clause 29, but so far as secondary education is concerned it is not mentioned in that Clause. I am not particular about the words I have suggested, but it is a point which, I think, should be covered by some form of words.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I wish to say one word in support of the Amendment, and it seems to me that these words ought to be accepted. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitehouse) suggested that the local education authority might, if these words were inserted, be debarred from setting up a rival school.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Setting up a school.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I think it very desirable that these words should be inserted if they prevent the local authority from setting up a rival school to one already existing. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot pretend to legally interpret the clause of an Act of Parliament, but certainly, if the Act is as interpreted by the hon. Member, it is necessary to make express provision in regard to rival schools. I think that words should be inserted if only to make the Bill quite clear to persons of non-legal mind.
    Mr. FISHER: In spite of what has fallen from my hon. Friend behind me, I still think that his object is met (Clause 29) and by the provision in the Act of 1902. In the first place, there is the guarantee under Clause 29 as regards elementary education. Then Clause 8 of the Act of 1902 says:
    "Where the local education authority, or any other persons propose to provide a new public elementary school they shall give public notice of their intention to do so, and the managers of any existing school or the local education authority (where they are not themselves the persons proposing to provide the school), or any ten ratepayers in the area for which it is proposed to provide the school, may, within three months after the notice is given, appeal to the Board of Education on the ground that the proposed school is not required, or that a school provided by the local education authority, or not so provided, as the case may be, is butter suited to meet the wants of the district than the school proposed to be provided, and any school built in contravention of the decision of the Board of Education on such appeal shall be treated as unnecessary."
    I submit to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that this is a complete guarantee, and I suggest that the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment add nothing to that very substantial guarantee.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope we may be allowed to proceed after the explanation which my right hon. Friend has given. I understand it completely; he has satisfied me, and I should be very glad if hon. Members can see their way to go on.
    Mr. KING: I should like to appeal to the Committee not to waste time on Amendments that can add nothing to the Bill.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: When the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna) are so very satisfied, surely does it not, with all respect to the Com-

    2051
    mittee, look rather dangerous. I submit again that, even if the Amendment be covered, it is always better to put it in black and white in the Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 158.

    Division No. 36.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence

    Rawlinson, John Fredrick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hohler, G. F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Butcher, John George

    Larmor, Sir J,

    Terrell, George (Wilts)

    Carson, Rt. Han. Sir Edward H.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Cator, John

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

    Weston, J. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir M. Barlow and Sir James Boyton.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hancock, John George

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Rea, William Russell

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Haslam, Lewis

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hinds, John

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rowlands, James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hudson, Walter

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Scott. Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

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

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Somervell, William Henry

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stoker, R. B.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sutton, John E.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Swift, Rigby

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    King, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Carew, C.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. Join Herbert

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tootill, Robert

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Maitland. Sir A. D. Steel-

    Watson. John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Finney, Samuel

    Morrell, Philip

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

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

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Palmer,. Godfrey Mark

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Yoxall, Sir James H.

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    7.0 P.M.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "(i) For including in the curriculum of public elementary schools, at appropriate stages, practical instruction suitable to the ages, capacities, and circumstances of the children; and."
    The portion of the Clause which I wish to leave out is that which makes it the duty of the local education authorities to include in the curriculum of public elementary schools, at appropriate stages, practical instruction suitable to the ages, capacities, and circumstances of the pupil. It may seem, at first sight, iniquitous for a person who calls himself an educational reformer to oppose any form of practical instruction, and far be it from me that I should have any desire to limit practical instruction in our schools. The practical instruction that is given in gardening in our elementary schools, at the present time, is perhaps the best education the children get in those elementary schools. It gives them a real interest in their work. But a very hard and fast line must be drawn between practical instruction, such as is given in our elementary schools at the present time, and the form of practical instruction which is devised under this Bill. The practical instruction proposed in this Clause is compulsory instruction for older children, for young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen.
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has lost his place.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, the Amendment is quite clear. It is the duty of the local education authority to make adequate provision, by means of central schools, central or special classes, or otherwise, for including in the curriculum of practical instruction suitable to the ages and capacities of the children. Does that apply only to children under fourteen?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, that is no addition to the powers already possessed by the Board of Education. Is that so?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I have nothing further to say on this question. Under paragraph (a, i) no additional
    2054
    power is given to the Board of Education to compel children to practical handicraft. If that is so, the Clause may pass.
    Mr. FISHER: I should like to make it quite clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because perhaps he misunderstood me. Every local education authority has power to provide forms of practical instruction in handicraft in elementary schools. A large number of local education authorities have not taken action; they have not exercised these powers; and, consequently, there has been a great divergence of practice between one part of the country and another. In some parts of the country gardens have been provided, and in other parts of the country practically nothing has been done. The object of this Clause is to enable the Board of Education to require practical instruction to be provided in these elementary schools.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am thoroughly in agreement with the Clause.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I only wish—
    The CHAIRMAN: I really have no question before the Committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I had better move my Amendment, to permit of this discussion. I beg to move it formally. As I understand it, additional powers are given to the Board of Education to compel local authorities to do what the best local authorities are doing at the present time?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: To that I have no objection whatever. What I want to know is, will this mean an extension of that form of vocational education in the elementary schools which leads to the training of ladies' maids, and people of that sort? I think, in London, they train people for ladies' maids and butlers. I do not want to have any of that sort of training. I should like to have some expression from the Board of Education that any form of vocational training in a parasitic employment will be frowned upon.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: This Clause does not apply to vocational education at all, but only to what if called ordinary practical education. It will apply not only to children under the age of fourteen, but to an advanced age up to sixteen, provided they remain at the elementary school until that age. I think that is so
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I am not quite clear about the scope of these words "capacities and circumstances of the children." I am not quite sure I am right, but I think—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the two words "capacities" and "circumstances," in relation to practical instruction, are new. The practical instruction in gardening is a most admirable thing; it is on the right lines, and it might very well be extended. There is, for instance, a most interesting series of schools which I once saw in Paris, based upon the idea of practical instruction, where the art and science of certain trades are taught along with the practical technique of the trade. It was a very interesting experiment, and was a combination of what one could quite properly call liberal education with technical education and practical education. But these things are very largely psychological, and if the right spirit is not in them one can see at once that the whole genius of the experiment will fall to pieces, and an experiment, which would be most admirable if properly conducted, becomes most improper, and is fraught with very serious consequences, when otherwise conducted. I do not know if it is prejudice, and I hope it is not something more substantial than that, but I do not like, in an Education Bill, powers given to any authority to take a child of under fourteen—my objection is founded on that—and say, "We will give you technical instruction in accordance with your capacity or in accordance with your circumstances." "Circumstances" must mean social circumstances.
    Mr. FISHER: No; the difference between country and town.
    Mr. MACDONALD: But there is a great deal more than that. If that is all, I do not object in the least to that. I think the Committee will see that "circumstances" means much more than that. We have had experience of educational committees, and I am afraid that under this Bill we are going to have still more experience of educational committees. While it is perfectly true that the Education Department has the last word, we have also had experience of the Education Department, and we may have it again. In any event, it is the duty of this Committee to see that Clauses and Sections are not put into the Bill which
    2056
    are very easily capable of being misapplied. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that memoranda have been circulated about this Bill, advocating what is barely and boldly vocational education, which is wrong and has nothing to be said for it, even from the point of view of the good employer. This Clause with this Sub-section has been seized upon as a justification. I am rather sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend says he is only technically moving his Amendment, as I should like to see the intention to base on this a policy of liberal education, which has been lost sight of in the last few years. Anything done in this way must be based on a liberal education, and the Sub-section should be drafted in such a way as to make it clear and mandatory, so that the Board of Education and the local education committees shall have to carry out the much clearer instructions that are given them.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I think the word "circumstances" might be regarded as being susceptible of meanings which we are not inclined to assent to. I am not certain that the word "capacities" is altogether the right word. At the same time, we want this practical instruction, which is not vocational instruction but science, art or handicraft, to be adapted in some way or other to the wants of the children. I venture to suggest that instead of the word 'capacities" we should substitute the word "abilities," and instead of the word "circumstances" we should substitute the word "requirements." The Sub-section would then read "practical instruction suitable to the ages, abilities, and requirements of the children." I do not think there will be any objection to that.
    Mr. HARRIS: I am quite certain the action of this Clause is what the House generally desires. Anyone who knows of these schools knows that the syllabus aims at being varied, and at meeting the capacities of the children educated there. I agree that the word "circumstances" has an objectionable sound which might be liable to wrong interpretation. The President of the Board of Education, with his great knowledge of the English language, will surely be able to suggest a more suitable word which will remove any false impression amongst the children and the bulk of the people, that the children are going to be educated according to their social status.
    Major WOOD: I am also disposed to think that there is considerable force in what the hon. Member for Leicester said. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to leave out the words "ages, capacities, and circumstances," and simply say "instruction as suitable to the children attending the schools"?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE:In supporting that suggestion may I point out that it could well be adopted, because the phrase "practical instruction," which the hon. Member for the London University states does not mean vocational instruction, is defined in Clause 42 of the Bill. In Clause 42 is set forth what is meant by "practical instruction." That Clause does not bear out what the hon. Member for London University states, because, if the Commit tee will turn to it, they will see that "practical instruction," amongst other things mentioned, includes instruction in laundry work and in dairy work, and in other work that is certainly vocational instruction. The fact that this Clause sets forth those subjects—some of them vocational subjects—makes it the more desirable that we should not include in Clause 2 "circumstances of the children."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: "Circumstances" might be left out.
    Mr. FISHER: I am very willing to meet the sense of the Committee on this point, and will suggest the insertion of words, so that it will read "instruction suitable to the ages and requirements of the children.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that would be satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in paragraph (a, i.), after the word "practical," to insert the words" scientific, artistic, or technical."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept these words. I think they enlarge the definition Clause 42 slightly, and, in view of the proposal which I understand my right hon. Friend is willing to consider favourably in regard to the period of elementary education, I think they are well worth consideration.
    Mr. FISHER: I hope the hon. Member will excuse me if I do not accept his sug-
    2058
    gestion. I have, as I think many Members of the Committee have, a very great objection to introducing technical training into our elementary schools. I draw a distinction between technical training on the one hand and practical instruction on the other. Artistic education is already given under the ordinary curriculum in every elementary school, and therefore I do not think there is any necessity for the introduction of these words.
    Mr. KING: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (a, i), after the word "ages," to insert the word "and." Then I should like the paragraph to read "instruction suitable to the ages and capacities of the children."
    Mr. FISHER: "Requirements."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not like the word "requirements." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give something better. I do not want the suspicion to remain in the minds of the local authorities that they are to consider, "Here is the son of a gardener; he had better be brought up as a gardener." Or, "Here is the son of a coachman; he had better be brought up in the stables." I admit, in a country school, you want more gardening and less carpentry, perhaps; and in a town school more engineering and less gardening. So far as those requirements are concerned, I am with the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to avoid some body of supermen deciding what sort of career each boy in an elementary school is to take up and to label him accordingly.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I wonder if my right hon. Friend would adopt the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon, and delete these words altogether, so that the paragraph would read, "Instruction suitable to the children"? The curriculum could then be adapted to the things that are suitable. It does not help to put in the other words, and it would be much less offensive and much less liable to be misread by wrong-minded local education authorities if the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to the expression which is perfectly definite and perfectly workable that the instruction shall be suitable to the children.
    Mr. FISHER (indistinctly heard): The adaptation of the form of training to the age, the ability, and the requirements of the child is not always considered, and we have in a very special way to draw the attention of the local education authorities to these factors in the education.
    Mr. HARRIS: I hope all the definitions will not be left out. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) as to the advisability of leaving out anything that is objectionable, but I think it is necessary that educational authorities should be clear as to the real object of these central schools. The great difficulty is that education authorities take the line of least resistance, and think that any form of scientific education is good enough for the children. The aim of these central schools is to give variety—to work out the best syllabus—so that every child has a chance of finding some form of education which is suitable to his ability and capacity. Therefore I hope the President of the Board of Education will keep in the words "ages and capacities," and leave out the word "circumstances."
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite willing to accept the words "ages, abilities, and requirements," if that find favour with the Committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: "Ages and abilities."
    Mr. FISHER: "Ages, abilities, and requirements"—that is the form, I should say.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I hope the President of the Board of Education will keep to his decision. I am quite certain, although I agree with a great deal that fell from the hon. Member for Leicester, that a definition going into some detail is necessary. If that definition is; lacking, I know from experience over and over again that a slipshod scheme will be made which is not adapted to the circumstances and requirements of the children. If you give them some guidance you will put the local authorities on their mettle, and they will try to give you something more adequate, instead of a slipshod scheme they are too much inclined to make.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his words, especially as regards rural schools, for there is many a lad there who has not capabilities for pursuing book-learning
    2060
    and scientific studies, but he has the ability, equally valuable, of understanding rural life, forestry, and agriculture, and he will have as good a future in that kind of life as in any other. Since he is qualified for that, and fitted for it, it is desirable that his capacities in that direction should be developed in his own interest and in the interest of the country. We do not want to do anything to prevent a lad going anywhere he wishes, but, at the same time, if he is mentally and physically cut out for rural life, and his capacity excels in that direction, surely the education authority ought to have the opportunity of developing that capacity in his own interest and for the welfare of the community.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand it is the desire of the Committee that the words should run "ages, abilities, and requirements."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: My Amendment is to insert the word "and" after the word "ages."
    The CHAIRMAN: I am only trying to help the Committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want you to move the word "ages and abilities of the children."
    The CHAIRMAN: That would debar the Committee from putting in the word "requirements."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must put the Amendment which has been moved.
    Question, "That the word 'and' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (a, i), to leave out the words "capacities and circumstances," and to insert instead thereof the words "abilities and requirements."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in paragraph (a, ii) to leave out the word "instruction" ["courses of advanced instruction"] and to insert instead thereof the word "learning."
    The way the Bill is drafted may be merely a matter of dictation as between "instruction" and "learning," but I think there is a great deal more behind it. I want, in the first place, to get a statement from the President as to the sort of

    2061
    language that is intended in the Subsection. So far as I can make out it is to apply to children in the elementary schools up to the age of fourteen. I do not, however, understand the last line of the Subsection which says: "Who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen." What children is it here intended to deal with? Above all, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "advanced instruction"? I prefer the good old-fashioned word "learning," which has throughout centuries meant the widest of learning, whereas "instruction" certainly may mean vocational instruction, which the opinion of the House is against. I think the mere substitution of these words is of very little importance unless the President and the Board of Education really mean that those who are older, and therefore the more intelligent children in the elementary schools, should have really what you might call public school education in the last years they stay at school. It must be common knowledge to most Members that the older and more intelligent child who has got into the seventh standard at an early age very often spends the whole of the last year at school wasting his or her time entirely, without getting any special instruction, and reading quietly to fill in the time. One of the best things we can do for our education is to provide a decent literary education for those children during the last year or so they are at school.
    If that is what is intended by the paragraph—and it certainly might be—no one could possibly cavil at it, but will welcome that additional pressure upon local authorities to give this decent teaching. But what does "instruction" mean? We have seen those pamphlets circulated as to the intentions of the Bill on the vocational side, and one wants to know what it means; for it makes one a little bit nervous lest the President and the Board of Education may not have at the back of their mind something very different from the literœ humaniores, or humane letters; it may mean instead of that vocational instruction to the child. Therefore, I move to leave out the word "instruction," and to substitute the word "learning." If the President accepts this it will be an indication that so long as he is at the Board of Education the instruction given in these public elementary schools to the older children will be the intelligent instruction which an Oxford don would naturally wish to give to the children of
    2062
    the country. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the word "learning," then I shall be afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is at the moment more of the Sheffield professor than the Oxford don. He assured us earlier in the Debate that he was an Oxford don. Here comes the test of it… Will he accept the alteration? I hope he will. Certainly in the interests of the children, because the hope of the future is the children, of the country. We Liberals have great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Education, in spite of the many hard things we have said about this Bill, for we know perfectly well that he is the one bulwark left against the sweeping tide of the new education backed up by the bureaucrats and the manufacturers.
    Mr. FISHER: There is some difficulty in connecting the phrase "advanced learning" with the idea of the public elementary school. I do not think that even under the pressure of this Bill, beneficent as the Bill may be, we shall be able to obtain that advanced learning desired in our public elementary schools. I think a very much better type of advanced instruction will be available suitable for children in the last two years of their elementary school life. That advanced instruction will be instruction of a general kind. I fully appreciate and share the love of my hon. and gallant Friend for polite letters. The more we can have of literature, the better. I think children between the ages of twelve and fourteen are capable of appreciating the beauties of literature. The desire in the Clause is to provide a better general education for the children of our elementary schools.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that all?
    Mr. FISHER: That is all. We do not want anything like technical or vocational instruction. We want practical, general instruction, but not technical or vocational instruction.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is the meaning of this paragraph at the end, "who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen"? That is one of the points which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered. What is intended by it?
    Mr. FISHER: The explanation, I think, is in Section 22 of the Education Act of 1902—
    "(2) The power to provide instruction under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900 shall, except where those Acts expressly provide

    2063
    to the contrary, be limited to the provision in a public elementary school of instruction given under the Regulations of the Board of Education to scholars who at the close of the school year will not be more than sixteen years of age: provided that the local authority may, with the consent of the Board of Education, extend those limits in the case of any such school, if no suitable hgher education is available within a reasonable distance of the school."
    There will always be a certain number of children who will stay at the public elementary school beyond the stated years. Very often it is girls who stay after they have attained fourteen. Considerable numbers stay. They are not obliged to, but they do so, and it is desirable that instruction suitable should be given.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. There will be more of these older children in the schools, we believe, than there are at the present time. Would it, therefore, not be possible to state that this general education should include the French language? One point should be the better learning of French.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does that point arise on the Amendment to leave out the word "instruction" and insert the word "learning"?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes; certainly… I think anybody would admit that. I do think it is very important at the present time that the children of the elementary schools should be given the opportunity of learning the language of our best Ally. We are going to give better teaching. This is one of the branches of better learning that they should acquire. I hope this point will subsequently be borne in mind by the Board of Education.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "older" ["advanced instruction for the older children"], to insert the words "or more intelligent."
    The younger child who has got into the seventh standard at a very early age is the one of whom most care must be taken to see that they fill up their time at the school intelligently. The clever child may have got to the top, and have been taught everything, all the subjects, and might then be taken home or to earn money. He is allowed to continue at school doing nothing for the year. It should be made clear that the advanced
    2064
    instruction is not of necessity given to the older and more stupid child, but to the older and more intelligent.
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite prepared to accept that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. KING:
    In paragraph (a, ii.), after the word "fourteen" ["beyond the age of fourteen"], insert the words "and those who stay at such schools until the age of sixteen."
    The CHAIRMAN: In regard to this Amendment, I feel in some difficulty. The hon. Member proposes to add "until the age of sixteen." My impression was that the age of sixteen was beyond the age of fourteen.
    Mr. KING: That is so, Sir. But my Amendment is one of substance, and for this reason: We should have in view the subsequent Clauses of the Bill, and there is a Clause making the child liable to attend school up to the age of sixteen. If after the elementary school age, up to sixteen, that child attends the specified time, he will then be free of liability to attend a continuation school from sixteen to eighteen. We, therefore, have a new class of child created. I want these children to be able to stay to get their full-time instruction in the elementary schools, and then in the higher-grade schools, or higher schools, which are to be provided under this Clause. If you do not make provision here for those children, what will you have as the position? This, that a number of children will be attending good higher-grade teaching in elementary schools up to the age of fifteen years and three months. They would be willing to continue under that education up to sixteen, but their term would end owing to the provision of Clause 22 (2) of the Act of 1902, and, while being willing to obtain an education of which they have not had the full benefit, they will be debarred from remaining in the elementary school. I raised this question in October last. It will be found on page 867 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 24th October. In my question I then pointed out that an Amendment of Section 22 (2) of the Act of 1902 was required in order to meet this difficulty. The President of the Board of Education admitted in his reply that it

    2065
    was so, and he said he had the matter under consideration. I understand he is of opinion now that the point ought to be met, and that there ought to be some amendment of the age for elementary education which would meet this point. It can be done by these words. I admit that they put the Clause in a very clumsy and awkward form, but I can suggest other words. I would propose to put in the words "including children who stay at such schools beyond the age of fourteen, and for children liable to attend for other education up to the age of sixteen." That, too, would be very awkward, but the only alternatives to meet my point, the strength of which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, are to make the alteration in this place or to extend the provision as to the elementary education age by amending Clause 22 (2) of the Act of 1902.
    Mr. FISHER: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because I think it is an important one. If he will allow me, I should like to have time to consider it. The question of detaining children at elementary schools beyond the appointed age is one of some delicacy. It is very important not to discourage any form of education. There are, no doubt, children who, through some accident, or perhaps because they are very backward, ought to remain in the elementary school even after they have reached the age of fourteen, because they are not suitable for any other kind of education. The cases of these children require to be carefully considered, and if my hon. Friend will leave it to me I will see what can be done.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not want to delay the proceedings, but this is a very important point. It raises the whole question of the relations between elementary and secondary schools. My point is, perhaps, somewhat different from that put by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment. You are going by an Amendment which is to be proposed at a later stage to give the elementary schools power to arrange a curriculum on the assumption that these children will remain at the elementary school until the age of sixteen. If you are going to encourage children to remain there till they reach that age, you must give such a liberal curriculum in the elementary school as shall secure that the
    2066
    children who stay there will not suffer by so doing as compared with those who have gone to the secondary school.
    Mr. KING: I agree that the President of the Board of Education has met me fairly and that he sees my point. May I remind him that I drew attention to this matter six months ago, and he, therefore, has had plenty of time to come to a decision upon what really is a very big question in connection with the work done in these schools? I want to show shortly how in certain parts of the country, in districts, for instance, where the coal and iron industries prevail, this will operate. The object of these two industries is to get well-educated boys at the age of sixteen and to employ them as full-timers. Therefore what you want in these districts-is a good education up to the age of sixteen. I am referring to districts like the North-East Coast, Durham, and so on, where plenty of boys are wanted at the age of sixteen. A provision such as I offer here will be of the very greatest practical value in carrying out the work of this Act in those districts, and the President of the Board of Education really ought to make up his mind how he is going to do it. While I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment, I would urge that as early as possible, even before we come to the employment Clauses, he should be in a position to announce the decision.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a, ii.), to insert the words,
    "so much of the definition of the term' elementary school in Section three of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as requires that elementary education shall be the principal part of the education there given shall not apply to such courses of advanced instruction for older scholars, and."
    This is an Amendment to which I attach very great importance, and I hope that it will be accepted.
    Mr. FISHER: Yes; I accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN:With regard to the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse), the subject of it was fully debated on Clause 1, but I understand it is raised here rather as a drafting point arising out of that Debate.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes. I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "of" ["particularly in respect of"], to insert the words:
    "(i) the provision of free secondary schools available for all who have satisfactorily completed the elementary school course or who are otherwise qualified for admission."
    I hope there will be no confusion with regard to my object in moving this Amendment. When the general discussion was taken on the question of free secondary education, we debated the whole policy of the relations of elementary and secondary education. In the Clause we are now discussing provision is made that it shall be the duty of the local education authority to do certain things. In Sub-section (b) these authorities may make arrangements for co-operating with local authorities for the purpose of Part II. of the Education Act. There are set out certain special things on which they may co-operate. The Amendment I move will have the effect of suggesting that the local education authority shall co-operate with the authorities for carrying out the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act on the definite point of the provision of free secondary schools available for all who have satisfactorily completed the elementary school course or who are otherwise qualified for admission. This will in terms direct the attention of the local education authority to the desirability of co-operating with the other authority in making provision in the secondary schools for the children who are passing from the elementary school. I need not occupy the time of the Committee by repeating the general arguments which have been raised in the course of this Debate. I will content myself with urging that at least we should not shut out this direction in general terms that the two education authorities should consider in consultation the provision of free secondary schools for the children from elementary schools.
    Mr. FISHER: The Clause now under discussion deals with the authority under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, that is to say, it deals with the authority whose jurisdiction is limited to elementary education. The hon. Member's suggestion is that these authorities should co-operate with the authorities for higher education in the matter of the provision of free secondary schools. I think if we were to accept this Amendment we should be introducing a good deal of confusion into our administrative machinery, and
    2068
    for this reason, quite apart from any other, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment. After all, we have, I think, to accept the administrative machinery as it is left by the Act of 1902. If we part from that principle we may be landed into all kinds of complex and controversial problems. I would suggest to my hon. Friend it would be a little unfortunate if we were to confuse the functions of these two distinct types of authority, and in view of this consideration I hope he will think fit to withdraw his Amendment.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that the bringing together of the authorities under Part II. and Part III. of the original Education Act is done by himself in Sub-section (b) of the Clause, which we are discussing, because he there proposes that the authorities for Part III. of the Education Act should for the first time co-operate with the authorities for Part II. of that Act. They are to cooperate in the preparation of children for secondary schools, for their transfer to such schools, and in the supply and training of teachers—not teachers for elementary schools, but teachers for secondary schools. Therefore, the rigid zones are removed by this proposal which emanates from the President himself. Seeing that the authorities are to consult in regard to the curriculum the transference of children, and the provision of teachers, surely they can also consult as to the provision of adequate secondary schools for the children who are under consideration. My suggestion is, therefore, really the logical development of the President's Bill, and I hope very much that it may receive his further consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. MACKINDER: I want to say a few words on a matter which I have not found it very practicable to raise in the form of an Amendment, because it affects the general tenor of this Clause and also of certain other Clauses. It is a point to which I would very much like to direct the attention of the House with a view to its consideration by the President of the Board before the Report stage is reached.

    2069
    I notice that in this Clause, and in other Clauses, we use the expression common in Acts of Parliament, "It shall be the duty of the local education authority," etc, to do certain things. I take it that the obvious meaning of that is that it shall be the duty of the authority as soon as this Bill becomes law; in other words, that the authority will be expected to use due diligence and do its duty forthwith. I would direct attention to other words in this Clause, "The supply and training of teachers." To my mind, to bring this Act of Parliament into general operation will, under present circumstances, be a matter of quite a number of years. Everything will depend on the supply of teachers, and if there is any premature attempt to set up schemes, or teaching based on schemes, before there is an adequate supply of properly educated teachers the effect will simply be to bring the whole of this beneficent plan into discredit. We are, as the President knows, in a very exceptional state of circumstances at the present time. Even before the War you had difficulty in getting teachers. You will have had left out more than one generation of university teachers and two generations of teachers trained at training colleges.
    When you get the young men this especially, of course, affects the male teachers—back from the War you will then have to carry out a very large amount of instruction before they can be properly" qualified teachers. You are especially emphasising what has been called the advanced side of instruction. You are, even as regards elementary schools, requiring more advanced teaching, and in other portions of the Bill—in regard to continuation classes—you are making immense demands on the supply of teachers in that connection. I want to draw attention to these words "It shall be the duty,'' because it seems to me that it might be well in some way or other, if it could be conveniently done, to indicate that we do not wish to have schemes which may look very well in theory but which cannot be worked for a number of years brought prematurely into existence, because the sole effect of that will be to discredit education in this country. Already in England education is not in too high favour with large numbers of the people, and if you are to gain confidence for education then you must have the greatest care as to how you bring these new proposals into opera-
    2070
    tion. I, for one, am in entire sympathy with what has been said on this Clause in regard to the desirability of general education as opposed to vocational education. It seems to me that if we are to work this great experiment of democracy to which we are committed we must have that general education, but if that general education is to be given to children over fourteen with any adequate results it must be given by properly educated teachers, and in order to have them in sufficient supply to carry out the enormous number of schemes that will come forward under this Bill—in view of the effects of the War and oven of events before the War—you will require several years of preparatory work before anything really adequate can be done to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, while I welcome the proposals, it does seem to me that it might be desirable, if it were possible—and I ask that the matter may be considered between now and Report—in some way to indicate that we are not looking for undue haste, and that we do hope to have even a spell of years before this Bill can be brought into full operation.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Establishment of Continuation Schools.)
    (1) With a view to continuing the education of young persons and helping them to prepare for the freedom and responsibilties of adult life it shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, either separately or in cooperation with other local education authorities, to establish and maintain or secure the establishment and maintenance under their control and direction of a sufficient supply of continuation schools in which suitable courses of instruction and physical training are provided without payment of fees for all young persons resident in their area who are, under this Act, under an obligation to attend such schools.
    (2) For the purposes aforesaid the local education authority, after such consultation with persons or bodies interested as they consider desirable, from time to time may, and shall when required by the Board of Education, submit to the Board schemes for the progressive organisation of a system of continuation schools and for the purpose of securing general and regular attendance thereat.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move my Amendment, and I am rather sorry that it comes at a time when the House obviously cannot be expected to have very much of an attendance, because it is clearly of very great importance that we should consider the question which I now come to raise. Clause 3 is entitled, "Estab-

    2071
    lishment of Continuation Schools." We have come down to the great educational feature of the Bill, the provision of education for the mass of the people who at present get no education at all after they leave the elementary school. The question, therefore, arises which is the best authority, who are the best persons, to take up, organise, provide, maintain, and carry through this new development of education.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which does not arise on the Amendment on the Paper. The hon. Member is only proposing, I imagine, to move the Amendment as it stands to leave out the preparatory words.
    Mr. KING: I beg your pardon, Mr. Whitley, I ought to have said I will not move that Amendment. I will get on to my second Amendment
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the second Amendment, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Part II.," and to insert instead thereof the words "Part III.," I want to ask the hon. Member whether that does not involve an Amendment of the Act of 1902?
    Mr. KING:The Bill will provide for that later on by making these continuation schools part of elementary education, and even if it did mean an Amendment of the Act of 1902, I think it is a point which can be very well met by consequential Amendments later. There is nothing in the Act of 1902, so far as I remember it, which says that Part III. education authorities shall not do anything but elementary education. It simply says that Part III. elementary education authorities shall have certain duties under this Bill, and I imagine that any subsequent legislation which gave to these existing authorities further powers would not be an Amendment but only an extension of their existing powers.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member wishes to make responsible for continuation schools the Part III. education authority instead of the Part II. authority. That is a large Amendment of the Act of 1902.
    Sir E. JONES: Continuation schools do not come into the Act of 1902. They are brought in for the first time. Continuation schools, previous to this Bill, are not
    2072
    classified as to whether they belong to elementary education or to higher education. Therefore, the matter is opened afresh, and I would submit, Mr. Whitley, that you might very well give us an opportunity, as it is rather an important matter, to suggest that continuation schools should be allowed to be administered by the Part III. authorities now that they are starting a new series of schools under this Bill not contemplated in the previous Act, which only dealt with technical schools.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged. I think I see the point. The fact is that the demarcation was done by Regulation, and not by the Act of 1902.
    Mr. KING: As I suppose it is quite clear that this Amendment is in order, I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Part II." ["Part II. of the Education Act, 1902"], in order to insert instead thereof the words "Part III."
    Let me as briefly and clearly as possible point out how important it is in starting these continuation classes that we should put them into the most efficient and sympathetic hands. We are going to bring in literally millions of new continuation scholars all over the country, and who will they be? They will be boys and girls who have just left elementary schools. I believe that the best authority to continue their education—especially as there are such large numbers and in view of the fact that they will not be educated with a new kind of education for full-time but by continuation beyond what they are doing already, and for part of that time—the best people to organise and give them their education are the people who have been giving them their previous elementary education. I believe, from a theoretical and practical point of view, it will be found much better, easier, and more effective to extend the elementary schools upwards in more ways than one rather than to make a new development of the higher education authorities and bring in these hundreds of thousands of new scholars which some education authorities will have. I, therefore, propose that the schemes for the continuation schools shall be given, in the first place, to the elementary school authorities, and I do so largely from a practical point of view. I have thought this matter out, and how would I, if I were in a small town or urban dis-

    2073
    trict which has its Part III. powers, wish to begin these continuation schools and provide for the scholars? I would use as far as possible the existing elementary machinery. I would know the children I had, and I would use all the advice and experience I got through the teachers and managers of the schools, and in using these powers and authorities we have got already I am sure you would build up with much less friction a good system of continuation schools.
    There is one other important point. There must be, and there is, especially in England, more than in Wales and Scotland, a difference between elementary and higher education. There is a distinct difference, and it comes out in the whole organisation, in the Grants, and so on. What are the continuation schools going to be? Are they going to be higher or elementary education? They really are a medium between the two, and by putting them under Part II. authorities you are putting them under higher education, when, I believe, they would be much better under Part III., which is the elementary part. This raises a very big issue indeed, and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Board of Education have consulted Part II. or Part III. authorities before drafting the Bill as it is now. I have no doubt you have consulted county councils and county council associations, but have you consulted Part III. authorities, and are they willing to take on the work of expanding education up to continuation schools? If you would do that you would get your machinery into operation much sooner.
    Sir E. JONES: This question is one of very considerable importance to large education authorities all over the country, and I should have thought it would have been of great interest to a large number of hon. Members. I hope the representative of the Board of Education will take note of what can be said here to-night on this question. I should like to say that the thing is so important in certain areas that I represent and with which I am acquainted, that I shall have to press forward very strong reasons before the Report stage for this Amendment or something approximating it to be made. At present there are perhaps, unfortunately, a large number of urban areas with a considerable population, some over 50,000 and others running up to as many as 120,000, and even 200,000. Those are
    2074
    districts which ought properly to be county boroughs, but they are not, and because of that fact they are not Part II. authorities or secondary education under the parent Act. You may get in a little part with 50,000 population under Part II., and you may get another part with 200,000 population which, because it is not technically a borough, is not allowed, except by consent and benevolence, to have any connection with secondary education, or that part of evening schools which is a part of secondary education. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) asked whether the Board of Education have consulted the Part III. authorities involved and whether they were agreeable to take on this duty. I can tell the hon. Member that Part III. authorities have held many conferences, and have sent several deputations to the President of the Board of Education, and have presented very powerful arguments indeed as to the whole efficiency of continuation schools that this Bill is setting up, but hitherto without success, and it is now up to the House of Commons to see that the matter is considered and given that proper attention which it deserves.
    The difficulty is this: If you have, as unfortunately we have in many parts of the country, big urban authorities which are much more enterprising, progressive, and active than the county councils, you have those urban authorities entirely held up by the retrograde and slow members of a very huge county council, and the result is that nothing has been done. These enterprising urban authorities are willing to spend money, and they cannot do it because the county council is not prepared to do so over its area. Take a county like Glamorganshire, with which I am personally acquainted, and where I know a great deal about the working of the present situation. That county is supposed to delegate its authority to big local areas of this kind for such matters as evening and technical schools under the existing Act, but they do not do it. They appoint local committees, but they will not give them power to spend a 1d. These committees are called together, but they are not allowed to spend a l¼d.; they cannot appoint a teacher, and they cannot exercise any of the real functions that matter in the education which they are supposed to be appointed to administer. The result is that they do not meet and people have no interest in them. There is no public impetus behind the evening

    2075
    school movement in those areas, and consequently they have been a failure and they have been dragging for years, with the result that education has suffered.
    On the top of that state of things you are going to put this continuation business. I shall submit to the Board of Education an account of the awful muddle and complexity that is going to arise in great industrial areas if they carry out the present arrangements. Take Glamorganshire. We have our Part III. authorities doing well with school clinics, the medical inspection of children, and they are doing well in the whole of the sphere over which they have jurisdiction, and there are no more enterprising authorities willing to run up high rates for this purpose than those authorities. They have committees looking after the evening schools. One representative from the Mountain Ash area, for instance, is allowed on the county committee for the whole of the evening schools for a population of 86,000, and there are only two representatives allowed for another area. It took one education authority three years to get the county council to agree to pay for writing paper for evening schools to be carried on, and that sort of thing is going on now. In addition to that you have the board of governors of your local county schools under the Welsh Education Act. They are running technical and evening classes in connection with their county schools. On the top of that by Clause 2 you make it compulsory upon these urban areas
    "to make adequate and suitable arrangements for co-operatng with local education authorities for the purpose of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, in matters of common interest, and particularly in respect of the preparation of children for further education in schools other than elementary, and their transference at suitable ages to such schools."
    I think that is very dangerous. It means that the county council will be in a position to dictate terms to these big authorities as to the age at which they will have to let their children go from their elementary schools and also as to the kind of preparatory education that a child is to be given for the county schools on the one hand and for the municipal secondary schools on the other hand. In addition, under Clause 3, you leave it to the county council simply to consult the local authority, and again you tell them: "You may set up another committee and draw up a scheme which gives you no
    2076
    power or authority or effective control, but simply an academic interest with no energy and go in the thing at all." It is a matter of great importance, particularly for those areas larger than 50,000 population, and it would be very much better to arrange something such as that suggested by the conference of all these education authorities held in Manchester last October. Their proposals are very reasonable and very sound. They want the Part III. authority to be the authority for the continuation schools. They are willing that every year they should submit their proposals for working these higher education schemes, together with an estimate of the cost, for approval by the county authority. They are also prepared to submit proposals and estimates for approval by the county authority for giving effect to the whole of these arrangements, and, if any question arises between them, to leave it to the Board of Education to decide. Instead of these areas being mere children to be dictated to by the county council and to be held back, as they are held back, and instead of confusion being added to the existing confusion, you would then leave it to the local authority that has the local interest, the democratic interest, and the readiness to go forward and to spend money, and that knows its local problem and its local industries, to run the business, subject to the approval of the county council and the final determination of the Board of Education. That is a very reasonable proposal, and I wish strongly to press the Board of Education to again consider this matter in regard to the larger urban districts.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I hope that the Government will accede to the request which has been put forward that the small local authorities should continue to control education after the age of fourteen. It will introduce great complication to allow the county authority to come into the boroughs, and I think it highly undesirable. It would be interfering with the local authorities, who know thoroughly the whole of the educational system of their small boroughs. They know more what is going on than any education committees in the larger boroughs. In my own town, Maidstone, the town council have passed a resolution, I believe unanimously, in favour of the local authority being the authority in these matters.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): In common with my hon. Friends who have raised this question, I regret that it should be brought forward at a time when the House, as is generally the case at this hour, is rather thin, and I regret it more because my right hon. Friend the President of the Board, who in a matter of this kind can speak with so much more authority than I do, is necessarily absent from the House for a few minutes, and is unable to take part in the Debate. My hon. Friend (Sir E. Jones), whose keen interest in education and whose knowledge of educational problems everyone here will recognise, has put forward a very powerful appeal on behalf of the Part III. authorities, and particularly of the authorities with large populations of over 50,000. May I suggest that the best course for them to meet the situation would be to have themselves constituted into county boroughs? Then they will have full power not only for this particular purpose, but for other purposes as well. I have lamented the thinness of the House, but I am not at all sure, if there were a fuller House, that there would not be present a number of representatives of the Part II. authorities who might have something to say on this question. I wish to approach this matter without any bias either in the direction of the Part III. authorities or of the Part II. authorities, and, looking forward to the kind of work which will have to be done in connection with the establishment and the maintenance of continuation classes, to ask myself which is the authority which, under the circumstances, is best capable and is in the best position to carry out this particular work? Having regard to the work which the Part II. authority is carrying on at the present time—I am not speaking so much of its secondary school work as of all the network of agencies that cover the country at the present time—in the way of technical classes and evening classes and arrangements of that character, it will be impossible in practice for the continuation schools to be separated from those classes and to be administered separately from those classes. They would inevitably, and particularly at the commencement, have to use the same buildings and the same staff. Much of the more advanced work of the continuation.
    2078
    schools will, for some time to come, have to be done in the technical schools themselves, whose primary function, of course, is to deal with the more advanced classes. They will have to use premises or buildings of that kind, and I venture to say that the wildest confusion would result in the transition from a voluntary to a compulsory system if both systems were not in the same hands.
    It is quite possible that some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends have made with reference to the relations-that now subsist between Part II. and Part III. authorities may be desirable in some respects, and, I believe, that, in consequence of this Bill itself, those relations will be improved very considerably. My hon. Friend referred, without very much approbation, to the provisions which the Bill contains for consultation. I would remind my hon. Friend that behind all that, after all, is the power of a reinforced Board of Education, and I trust that in the future it may be possible by administration to smooth away many of the difficulties which have been suggested to-night, but as the Amendment stands—I am speaking upon the very best advice that I have been able to obtain on the subject—it would be a great mistake on the part of the Committee if it were to adopt the suggestion that this work should be placed in the hands of the Part III. authority. Many of them are very small authorities. I trust that the considerations I have adduced will lead the Committee to the conclusion that, on the whole, having regard to the work that will have to be done, and particularly having regard to the preparations which must be made in order to bring this Bill when it becomes an Act into force, those preparations should be left in the hands of that authority which can most easily dovetail them into its other work.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "1902" to insert the words "and of every local education authority exercising the powers of section three of that Act."
    I move the Amendment in accordance with the views expressed with regard to the urban areas. There is no doubt that at present many of the non-county boroughs do their work exceedingly well, but there is a limit to the amount they

    2079
    can raise—namely, a limit of 1d. rate. It is principally with a view to removing that limit that I move this Amendment. I submit that where a non-county borough or urban district is efficiently maintaining the provision for higher education, no good ground can be shown why it should not also provide its own continuation schools or why there should be this limit of 1d. rate so as to prevent it doing so. If the Bill passes in its present form the non-county borough or the urban district may be providing technical and secondary schools, schools of science and art and evening schools, but the obligation to provide continuation schools will be upon the county authority, who will have full control over those schools and the supervision of the young people at an age when it is most important that it should have relation to the responsibilities of adult life. When these non-county boroughs are doing their duty thoroughly, when they have already administered the elementary and higher education in a proper method, the spirit of co-ordination, which we all want to see in these matters, will be better carried out if it is left in the position under which these non-county boroughs now carry on their most efficient work. I should like to press upon the President of the Board of Education the fact that the work has been well done. It is more likely to be well done and the county council who carry out their duties far removed from these non-county boroughs cannot appreciate the work and cannot create the ambition with regard to education which these non-county boroughs have. It is much better, where the non-county boroughs are showing the disposition, as they are now doing, to carry out their work well, that they should be left in that position and should not have removed from them the duty of providing proper education for all their inhabitants. In my opinion, in many of the non-county boroughs there is the far better organisation of higher education than will be secured by the proposals which are now contained in Clause 3.
    Mr. LEWIS: Without entering into the Reasons which my hon. Friend has just given for the Amendment, I am bound to point out to him and to the Committee what the exact effect of this Amendment would be. The Clause reads:
    "It shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902"—
    2080
    Then come the words of the Amendment—
    "and of every local education authority exercising the powers of Section 3 of that Act—"
    Then the Clause proceeds—
    "either separately or in co-operation with other local education authorities, to establish and maintain. … a sufficient supply of continuation schools."
    The effect of this Amendment will be to create a dual duty to establish and maintain or secure the establishment and maintenance of a sufficient supply of continuation schools in certain parts of England and Wales, although I am not at all sure how far the Amendment will extend. It is confined to local education authorities exercising the powers of Section 3 of the Education Act, 1902. That means, if there is an authority for the purpose of elementary education which in fact does raise at the present time a rate under Section 3—that is to say, a rate not exceeding 1d. for the purposes of higher education—that authority will have a duty concurrent with the duty of the county council to establish a sufficient supply of continuation schools. That would give rise to an absolutely impossible situation, because both the county council and the elementary authority would have the same duty to perform. They would both have to prepare a scheme for the performance of that duty. If that duty were not adequately performed, it would be very doubtful which authority the Board of Education could call upon to perform it. That, of course, would land us in a perfectly ridiculous position. I do not know that it would be possible to find any precedent whatever in any Act of Parliament requiring two local authorities to perform exactly the same duty, and that I can assure my hon. Friend would be the effect of his Amendment. Therefore I trust he will not press it.
    Sir M. BARLOW: With regard to the last point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, if one looks at Section 3 of the Act of 1902, which is dealt with by reference, he will see that that Section gives to the small boroughs—that is to say, the boroughs of 10,000 and the urban districts of 20,000—the power to do just the very thing which we are told it is impossible to do, namely, to have concurrent powers with the county council. Section 3 of the Act of 1902 says—
    "The council of any non-county borough or urban district shell have power as well as the county council to spend such sums as they think fit—"

    2081
    within a limit on secondary education. The point of that Section was this: The county council was too big an area in certain cases. That is to say, county boroughs of 50,000 and over have full powers, both Part II. and Part III., like a county, but inside the county under the 1902 Act you had certain closely populated areas, and, for the purposes of the Act, you took small boroughs of 10,000 or urban districts of 20,000, and said to them, "We will give you secondary powers with a limitation of 1d." That limitation is to be swept away under this Bill. You are going, unless this Amendment is adopted, in effect to reverse the policy of the Act of 1902, under which you gave to those densely populated units inside the county area concurrent powers over secondary education.
    Mr. FISHER: The main financial responsibility for higher education rests with the Part II. Authority.
    Sir M. BARLOW: That may be, but, at any rate, it is part of the same policy, namely, that where you have got a densely populated area inside the county, although it is not big enough to be a county borough with 50,000 people, still, when you have a population in an urban district of 20,000, or in a borough of 10,000, you must treat them in effect as having secondary education powers I am not pledged to this differentiation between duty and power, and if we can have the assistance of the Board of Education and work out some compromise I am quite willing to accept it, and I think the Mover of the Amendment would too. But I do not believe you will get your continuation schools to work in these areas—small boroughs of 10,000 and urban districts of 20,000—unless you give to the authority which has primâ facie Part III.—elementary—authority in those areas power to work the continuation schools. You may do it after working out a scheme with the county council, or something of that kind, but if you are going to say to the elementary authorities in boroughs of 10,000 and urban districts of 20,000, "You shall have nothing to do with continuation schools," I believe in those areas the continuation schools will not work. It is on that basis, and in that spirit, that we have moved the Amendment. If any form of words can be suggested which will carry the thing more clearly we shall be willing to accept it.
    Mr. BOOTH: As representing a non-county borough, I wish to impress upon
    2082
    the Government the advisability of meeting this, at any rate, in substance. As far as I can gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, he wanted to base his case on a technical objection, and I am afraid it was not quite strong enough. It is quite common for different local authorities to have the same powers. There are powers which the county council has and which the rural district council has, and when the parish council fails the rural district council may take certain matters in hand. It is not altogether new in local government. But the hon. Member (Sir M. Barlow) made an unanswerable point. You cannot hope for these things to succeed unless the non-county borough takes them in hand and works them. After all, I have not much faith in Acts of Parliament. They are simply pieces of paper, and unless you can get live human beings in sympathy with the object to make them a success the mere passing of some paper and ink does not accomplish its purpose. How can you hope, in a thriving, progressive little borough, for your evening continuation schools or your secondary movement to be a success if the local authority does not take it up whole-heartedly? Take my own case. Pontefract might make a success, but they are always prejudiced against anything that comes from Wake-field. It is no use blinking the fact. And that is the case with many other non-county boroughs. Something that is imposed upon them from the centre is looked upon with suspicion, but if they are encouraged to make it a success they go whole-heartedly into it. I am not as keen on this Bill as a good many Members, but at the same time we ought to try to make it successful. Whether this is the right place or the correct technical form I do not know, but I am sure there is a great deal of substance in the argument of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) and the hon. Member (Sir M. Barlow), and if the Government can devise some way in which the non-county borough and the large urban district councils shall co-operate, that might meet the case. I want to put it direct to the representative of the Government. Suppose the two authorities have the same power. They both have to go to his Department. Suppose they represent two alternative schemes. These authorities, when pressed from London, often produce schemes for mere appearance sake, because they do not want someone else to come on the scene. If he con-

    2083
    siders that one authority or the other is the more genuine and the more determined to make it a success, it entirely depends on his Department which scheme is adopted. There cannot be any duplicate expenditure demanded from the ratepayers. It can never result in that. It is inconceivable that the Department would adopt two schemes at the same time, but it might well be, in certain districts which are a little backward, that if they encourage rivalry between the county authority and the non-county borough and see which brings forward the best scheme, we might get something done, but the mere raising of technical objections I do not think advantageous to the cause of education.
    Mr. PETO: I wish to say a word on the question, though I do not represent a non-county borough. I think we ought to have some more valid reason than was given from the Front Bench why it is impossible to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said it was quite impossible to have two authorities doing the same thing. When I look carefully at the Act of 1902 I see that what the hon. Member (Sir M. Barlow) said is perfectly true, that it is the scheme of 1902, and therefore as an ordinary member of this Committee I want, before we scrap the whole of the present machinery and throw on one side that invaluable local asset, the rivalry between one borough and another, and the pride that a locality has in doing a thing better than anyone else when it is done by its own people, some assurance that the present system is not working. The continuation classes and the like have got to be moulded and worked into this scheme of continuation schools, and have got to be made use of in the transition period. If they have been a failure, by all means let us scrap them. We have had fifteen years' experience of Clause 3 of the Act of 1902, and I want to have some better reason for voting with the Government and against the Amendment than that you cannot have two authorities doing the same thing when they have been doing it for fifteen years, and you have not a particle of evidence that the authorities under Clause 3 have not done it a great deal better than under Clause 2. Whatever the result may be, the authorities under Clause 3 are limited to 1d. and under Clause 2 they are limited to a rate which will not exceed the produce of 2d. in the £1. So if the local
    2084
    education authorities have been able to do something in the way of continuation schools which has been effective during these fifteen years when limited to a rate of 1d., is there any reason why when under Clause 7 we are going to sweep away this limitation we should not entrust the public money to those who have been the custodians of the single talent, the 1d. in the £l, which is all they have been entrusted with so far since 1902? I want to hear from the President of the Board of Education or from the Parliamentary Secretary some better reason than we have already had. I want to know if the present system has not worked, and if there has been a practical difficulty, or a complete failure or a breakdown. I am not in favour of change for the mere sake of change or of uniformity, because it is supposed to produce precisely similar results in different localities. I do not believe it will. I do not believe this Bill will mean success unless you enlist the active sympathies of the people who know the people they are dealing with and have a pride in their own towns. Although I am not in favour of small provincial communities setting up as small nationalities, I am against killing or stifling that local rivalry which is the very salt of the communal life of the people of this country.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has expressed the view he has in regard to this Amendment. I think it will be generally admitted that one of the weaknesses of the Act of 1902 has been that we have had a far larger number of authorities for secondary education than for elementary education. That was a curious position. Whereas the number of authorities for secondary education was something like 1,000 we had only 300 authorities exercising power over elementary education. The effect of this was to give powers to small authorities for the exercise of secondary education and, therefore, to weaken that wide view and that opportunity for the organisation of secondary education which requires a larger area for its proper organisation than is required for elementary education. If the children were proceeding from the-elementary school direct to the secondary school it would appear to be the wise thing to have one local authority exercising powers over a wide area with full control over elementary and secondary educations as well, but that is not the case. Hence it seems to me that the con-

    2085
    tinuation schools would appear to merge more into the secondary than into the elementary. In any case the inherent weakness in the Amendment has been already indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary. I think we might add this statement, which I think will not be denied, that it would still leave a far larger number of authorities for secondary or continuation education than for elementary, and there would be the possibility of clashing between the small authority exercising its powers in an area with a population of under 20,000 and an authority which ought to take a view for secondary education and continued education over a far wider area. Therefore I think the Parliamentary Secretary is doing a wise thing in resisting this Amendment and adhering to the terms of the Bill.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir E. JONES: I am sorry the hon. Member has made that speech, because I wish to press upon the Government one very practical point. I agree with the hon. Member that if you make your county council the one authority for elementary schools, evening classes, and secondary education in its area, his argument would be pertinent to the practical point, but I do not see how on earth the Board of Education is going to get out of the business without terrible muddle. You are making your continuation schools compulsory. That means that the bulk of the children in a small locality will pass direct by compulsion from the elementary school to the continuation school. What does that mean in practice? It means that you must use the building, the gas, the water, the apparatus, the paper, and the teachers of that school for your continuation school. How on earth are you going to work it, if the building in the evening is to be the property of the county council, if its gas and its coal and its paper and its chalk and its teachers and everything in the evening are going to be the property of the local county council, whereas in the daytime it is to be the property of the local county borough or the urban district authority? I would ask the Board of Education to concentrate upon that point. In these small county areas or in the big urban areas where the ownership of the schools and the whole machinery and the property and the educational apparatus is in the hands of the local authority, under the Act of 1902, you must leave your compulsory continuation schools in the hands of the
    2086
    small authority. You cannot possibly leave it to the county council by any system that will work without friction and considerable difficulty.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The representative of the Board of Education disapproves of the Amendment, but he has not in any way disproved the arguments. I do hope he will provide some solution for this business. It stands to reason that the arguments just used by the hon. Member are good. If you are going to have a new authority for continuation schools the tendency will be to build separate schools, and the rate will be levied still on the small boroughs, which will be let in for a great deal of expense, with the result that there will be a great deal of discontent over the educational system you are setting up.
    Mr. LEWIS: I think that so far from the course that the hon. Member who has just spoken suggests being the most economical it will be the most expensive, because the area of a Part III. authority is the centre for secondary purposes of a much larger area. If the continuation schools are to be provided economically you must have an authority which has dominion not only over the centre, but over the circumference as a whole. Therefore our proposal is the more economical one. I rose more particularly to reply to those hon. Gentlemen who have quoted Section 3 of the Education Act of 1902. May I remind them that there is an essential difference between that particular Section and the one which is now before us, and it is this, namely, that Section 3 of the Act of 1902 simply gives power to a. Part III. authority to raise a rate not exceeding 1d.? Supposing they want to do something more for education—for example, to aid a secondary school in the area of their own authority. They have that power, and a certain number have exercised the power, to raise a 1d. rate. But what my hon. Friend proposes is that the duty to organise continuation schools should be imposed upon the two authorities, the Part II. authority and the Part III. authority as well. That would give rise to an absolutely impossible position. For example, suppose a Part II. authority were to organise continuation schools in the district of a Part III. authority which had not so far levied a rate, and suppose that the Part III. authority were to change its mind and decide to levy a rate—I presume that the work of the Part II.

    2087
    authority would be scrapped—it would become a duty laid upon both authorities by Act of Parliament to make their preparations, frame their schemes, and submit them to the Board of Education. That is not a mere technical objection. It is an objection that goes to the root of the Amendment itself. I hope sincerely that the Committee will see that this is an Amendment which cannot possibly be accepted.
    Mr. PETO: As a practical matter, if one authority made a scheme, is it likely that another authority would chip in with another scheme?
    Mr. LEWIS: It would have to do so. The duty would be laid on it by an Act of Parliament to make a scheme.
    Mr. PETO: Would not it accept the scheme adopted by the other authority?
    Mr. LEWIS: It might do that, of course, but, having regard to the relations between the two authorities in some cases, I imagine that would not be probable. The effect of the Amendment would be that the duty would be laid on two authorities to make a scheme for the same purpose, and an Amendment of that kind would be quite impracticable.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): I doubt if the next Amendment is in order, but I will hear the hon. Member upon it.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, after the word "of" ["of continuation schools"], to insert the words" secondary schools and."
    This Clause directs education authorities to establish and maintain a sufficient supply of continuation schools, with a view to meeting the needs of young persons from fourteen to sixteen who are, under this Bill, placed under the obligation of attending continuation schools. I desire to widen the scope of the educational facilities that are to be available for these young persons. If the result of the Bill is, as I hope it will be, to give a great impetus to children remaining at school under the age of sixteen, it becomes necessary greatly to increase the number of secondary schools, in order that those children who are going to remain under full time instruction to a later age than heretofore may have suit-
    2088
    able schools to go to. I have already put the case for a greatly extended system of free secondary schools, and will not attempt to put that case again. I base this limited proposal on this argument, that the President of the Board has himself expressed the hope, not once, but many times, that children who now leave school at fourteen and before fourteen will be kept on full time instruction to a far later age. If that result is going to be achieved we must be prepared to meet the needs of the children. We are not meeting the needs of the children simply by providing continuation schools with their necessarily restricted curricula, and founded in order to meet the needs of young persons who are only attending for a few hours weekly. We must, in addition to that, secure a great increase in the secondary schools of this country, and I think that we can reasonably hope, as the result of this legislation, that some encouragement at least will be given to children to remain at school until a later age, so that it will become necessary to have an increase in the facilities.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will assist me. As far as I read this Clause, it refers to the establishment of continuation schools. The Amendment refers to a different class of school—secondary schools—and it seems to me that of you are going to deal with the matter on those lines you ought to bring up a new Clause. The Amendment seems to me to be rather foreign to this Clause.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE:The reason I ask leave to move the Amendment at this stage is because Clause 3 expresses its intentions in rather wider form than that which you have mentioned. At the beginning of Clause 3 it states
    "with a view to continuing the education of young persons and helping them to prepare for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life."
    That being so it is unfortunate that the only method suggested for continuing the education of young persons is the continuation school, with its necessarily limited curriculum and hours of attendance. If my explanation meets the difficulty to which you refer I should like to move this Amendment. I will not occupy the time of the Committee in repeating the arguments which I have offered, I think that the intention is clear and I hope that the President of the Board of Education will meet us in the matter.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am going to allow the Amendment to be moved because, in view of the Preamble to the Clause, I cannot say whether the Amendment comes in or is shut out.
    Mr. PETO: Unexpectedly I find myself supporting an Amendment by the hon. Member on an Education Bill. I am well aware of what is generally meant by a continuation school. It is a school where the scholars do not attend all the time, but collect some scraps of information and education at odd hours, generally at night time after working during the day. But there is nothing inherent in the term "continuation school" to limit it to that kind of education, and in view of the limited character of the continuation schools I think that it would be eminently satisfactory to know whether or not this Clause is intended to include this skeleton of the provision of real secondary schools, such as the hon. Member who moves the Amendment speaks of in his Amendment—I mean schools where children can continue whole-time education for whatever period may be decided upon in view of the career which they are going to take up after the age of fourteen when they leave the elementary schools and when the elementary school has probably nothing more to teach them. I support the Amendment particularly from the point of view of agriculture. I believe that the whole of the machinery of Clause 10 of this Bill is utterly inapplicable to agricultural conditions and rural life in sparsely populated districts. I do not believe it can be made to work, and I am quite sure that it is utterly incompatible with taking up agriculture as a profession, and having agriculture a better taught and a better practised profession than it is to-day. I have an Amendment later on this Clause providing for the attendance at a continuation school during a limited period for all the child's time, and that this shall be taken to be the equivalent of the proposed continuation education of two hours a week for forty weeks in the year, which, as I have already said, I do not believe can be made to work in rural districts at all. Therefore I welcome the hon. Member's Amendment making it perfectly clear that the education of young persons and helping them to prepare for the responsibilities of daily life, if it means anything, means enabling them to prepare for the career they are going to take up to earn their living. For that object it will be the duty of the
    2090
    authority to provide a sufficient supply of continuation schools, if there is ambiguity—perhaps there is no ambiguity—about the continuation schools.
    Other members of the Committee may think that the Clause makes it essential that continuation schools must be attended part-time under this Clause. If that be the intention of the Clause, I welcome this Amendment to provide that it shall be the duty of the local education authority to have a sufficient number of secondary schools. I am quite aware of all that that implies, but I want to see rural education, particularly for agriculture, put upon a basis which will really work, and I believe that a proper secondary school in which every child, who elects to take up agriculture as a career, can attend for a limited number of years, after the age of fourteen, with opportunities and facilities for training in particular subjects that shall be of use to them, simple veterinary science, simple engineering, simple chemistry, and subjects of that kind, as well as general education—I do not want to bar general education at all—but with special direction to what is going to be of practical use. That would be an advance and an improvement. To tell children to take up agriculture, and that they are to attend two hours a week for forty weeks, perhaps having to go seven or eight miles to some centre, occupying more time in travelling than in being taught, is to propose a plan that will never work and is perfectly impossible. Therefore I welcome the Amendment making it quite clear that under Clause 3 it will be the duty, if there is a demand for it, of the authority to have sufficient schools; but, if none is required, then none will be supplied. If a local authority deals with a mainly rural area, however, I am convinced that a number of secondary schools for pupils who advance from the education in the elementary school will be found to be an absolute necessity, if you are going to have a practical education suitable for a business, agricultural, or other career. I agree most heartily with the Amendment, and I hope it will make this Clause do something in the direction of affording practical education.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: On a point of Order. May I ask the President of the Board of Education what his view is of the meaning of the expression "continuation school" in this Bill?
    Mr. BOOTH: On the point of Order, Sir—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman must address his point of Order to the Chair.
    Mr. SCOTT: I will do so, Sir, and with a view to your assisting us, may I very respectfully say that I have read the Bill very carefully and, so far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a whole-time school being formed from any continuation school.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite sufficient for the occupant of the Chair to interpret what hon. Members say, in connection with points of Order, without having, further, to interpret what certain provisions of the Bill may mean. That is a matter that I must leave to the Minister in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member (Mr. Peto), I recognise, is very anxious to promote secondary education, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment for this reason: Clause 3 deals with continuation schools for young persons who are under the obligation to attend such schools; in other words, the Clause deals with a new type of school which provides half-time education for the children. The hon. Member for Devizes does not propose that secondary education should be compulsory upon all the young people of the country.
    Mr. PETO: I have an Amendment on the Paper to make it compulsory on a pupil who wants exemption from part-time education, which is unsuitable to him, and who is taking up an agricultural career. I want machinery for a more practical secondary education which can go on during a limited period.
    Mr. FISHER: The scheme of the Bill is very simple. In Clause 1 we impose a duty upon all authorities who, under Part II. of the Act of 1902, have to provide a comprehensive system of education, and within that general description we propose that the Authority shall satisfy us as to the form of the secondary education. We consider that the provision of secondary education is ensured under the operation of Clause 1. Under the operation of Clause 2 we hope to ensure the provision of higher elementary education. Under Clause 3 we hope to ensure the provision of half-time continuation schools. Though I entirely agree with the hon.
    2092
    Member who moved the Amendment that it is very desirable to increase the opportunities for full-time secondary education, yet I do not think that a full scheme of that kind is possible under this Clause.
    Mr. BOOTH: I understood, when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education referred to Clause 1, that the main parts of that Clause were merely declamatory and a definition of good intentions, and that there was nothing operative about them. Now, when we come to Clause 3, we are given the other view of Clause 1, and we find that we have rather bound ourselves to something very definite. That is different from the tone which the right hon. Gentleman took on on Clause 1, when he tried to get it through the Committee.
    Mr. FISHER: I think the hon. Gentleman has mistaken my meaning. When I said that certain phrases had no operative effect in law I was alluding to the initial phases of the Bill, which the hon. Member for North Somerset desired to omit. But over and over again, in the discussion on Clause 1, I pointed out that Clause I did impose a very definite duty upon local education authorities exercising the power, under Part II. of the Bill, to provide for a comprehensive scheme of education which would include necessarily secondary education.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sure no one could put it more courteously than the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept his explanation. At the same time, I must remind him that Clause 1 only has one sentence, and that he asserted that the latter part of it was really declamatory and explanatory and had no operative effect. It is not as if the Clause were composed of a number of sentences, or sections; there is only one sentence in it from beginning to end. But I pass that by, except that I must remark that after a Clause is passed it very often occurs that a Minister refers to it as of a good deal more importance than he does when he is trying to get it through. The hon. Member for Devizes made out a very pitiful case. I think the idea of agricultural labourers' sons wanting to learn chemistry or engineering, in order to teach themselves how to milk cows and to grow turnips touched the hearts of everyone in the Committee. I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot do something to meet the hon. Gentleman. I had formed a totally different impression of Clause 3

    2093
    from that formed by the hon. Member for Devizes. It might be that I was applying it to urban districts and boroughs. When I read the phrase "freedom and responsibilities of adult life" I thought it meant a study of physiology and fitting them for married life. The last thing in my mind was that it fitted them for growing turnips. But I do not forget that technical instruction is important. I would venture to ask whether a substantial case has been made against this Amendment? I do not adopt entirely, as the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire knows, the same attitude as he does towards this Bill, but when he puts forward a suggestion which—I say it quite frankly—would improve the Bill, I do not see why it should be left out. After all, it is very well to say, as the hon. Member for Sunderland said, that the continuation school is practically an extended form of elementary education. Some people might say it was a continuation of secondary education. As I understand it, the continuation school stands midway between the elementary and the secondary school. I should have thought that the ampler the powers taken by the Government under this Bill the better. I do not know if the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire attaches sufficient importance to the Amendment to go to a Division, but, for what it is worth, I think the Bill would be more complete and more workable with the words in rather than without them.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I make a suggestion to the President, to whose remarks with regard to that Amendment I listened with great interest? I agree with him that this Clause is not a wholly appropriate place on which to raise this question, but the responsibility is entirely with the President, because he is now moving a Clause which begins with the words,
    "With a view to continuing the education of young persons and helping them to prepare for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life, it shall be the duty"
    and so forth. After that preamble, obviously we cannot be satisfied with the mere establishment of continuation schools for an hour or two a week to carry out such a programme as that. I would ask the President to make the concession to me in this matter. These words ought to go out if it is simply a Clause to establish continuation schools to meet that point. If these words, if that purely rhetorical
    2094
    preamble, is not adequately carried out in the Clause, the Clause would simply stand for what it is, a Clause for the establishment of continuation schools. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to consider that, with a view to making that Amendment on the Report sage of the Bill, I will withdraw my Amendment now,
    Mr. PETO: I should like to ask the President one thing. In replying to me, he referred to the scheme of the Bill as it is set out, and he argued from that that we had chosen an inappropriate place to suggest the establishment of secondary schools as part of the duty of the local education authority. He said we ought to have done it on Clause 1.
    Mr. FISHER: It was done.
    Mr. PETO:I accept the correction. The right hon. Gentleman says it was done in Clause 1. I must say I cannot see in Clause 1 any obligation laid on anybody to establish secondary schools available for every child who wishes to take advantage of them. I do not see secondary schools in it at all. But let that pass. It seems to me, looking at Clause 1, and particularly at the marginal note, that the Clause is a sort of general preamble to the Bill in regard to a progressive and comprehensive organisation of education, which certainly does not deal specifically with elementary, or secondary, or continuation education. Clause 2 deals specifically with elementary education.
    Mr. FISHER: Clause 1 deals with the authority which has power to provide higher education—that is to say, the county authority, which has power to provide higher education. Clause 2 deals with the authority exercising that power under Part III. of the Act—that is to say, it is restricted to elementary education.
    Sir E. JONES: On a point of Order. Now that the discussion has gone so far, perhaps our doubts at the beginning may be confirmed. It was moved on Clause 1, by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, that there should be free secondary education, and that was negatived. This is raising the same point, which is free compulsory secondary education, and I submit that this matter was disposed of when the previous Amendment on Clause 1 was negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Probably my first thought with regard to this was more correct, but I do not think I am now

    2095
    justified in withdrawing it from the Committee, especially in view, as I said, of the opening words of this Clause, which make it extremely difficult for the Chair to exercise a judgment in limiting the liberty of the Committee when words like these are used. It is very difficult for me now.
    Mr. PETO: In that case, I may continue my remarks. I have only two things more to say. I had got so far as my view of Clause 2, and with that, at any rate, the President agrees. That Clause is confined to the local authorities for the purpose of Part III. of the principal Act, which is elementary education. Therefore, clearly, no practical suggestion was to the point on Clause 2. Clause 3 deals with the establishment of the continuation schools, and we are still without an answer from the President of the Board of Education, to whom you, Sir Donald, told the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool that his remarks as to what is the real limitation of continuation schools should have been addressed. Various hon. Members have assumed that the continuation school means a school which you can only attend for a few hours a week, and Some hon. Members have put it at as little as an hour or two a week. But is there anything inherent in the phrase" continuation school'' which would prevent it being a whole-time school? I want to be quite clear that it is within the power of the local education authority under Part II.—that is, the part of the Act which deals, as its headline says, with higher education—to provide, if there is a demand for it—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I have finished, except that I wish to press for an answer to a question which was really addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, although it was put to the Chair. I do want to know, because it is absolutely pertinent to this Amendment, whether a secondary school can be a continuation school in the sense in which it' is ordinarily used, or whether this Clause and the whole power to provide secondary education means that it must be part-time education only?
    Mr. RAFFAN: I would have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) if I thought the
    2096
    adoption of his Amendment would result in the provision of a single secondary education school where there are scholars who would not otherwise be provided for; but it seems perfectly clear under Clause 1 of the Bill that a county authority that is called upon to make the provision is required to prepare a scheme to be submitted to the Board of Education, and if, in the opinion of the Board of Education, that does not provide adequate facilities for the provision of secondary schools, it will not be approved, and the Board of Education will insist on proper provision being made in the scheme. Assuming the words proposed by my hon. Friend are put in the Bill, and the complaint is made that some education authority is not carrying, out the intention of Parliament as embodied in the provision ho wishes now to insert, the appeal lies to the Board of Education, who would have no further power by the addition of these words than it already possesses. Therefore, with the-greatest desire to assist in the object my hon. Friend has in view, I do suggest that nothing can conceivably be gained by duplicating a provision of this kind. I am satisfied to allow this Clause to deal with the object with which it seeks to deal.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "instruction" ["suitable courses of instruction and physical training"], and to insert instead thereof the word" education."
    Apart from the question of machinery, there are two questions of principle involved in this Clause for the establishment of continuation schools. By far the most important, or the most revolutionary, is probably the question as to whether these continuation schools are to be compulsory or not. The other point of principle is the advantages of continuation schools in themselves. I wish to raise that question on this Amendment, which, I think, concentrates on one point the debate we have got to have on this vocational education. The idea under this Bill, as will be perceived by turning to Clause 10, is that all young persons, as they are called, between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, will have to go to continuation schools on certain days of the week so as to total 320 hours in the year. It is proposed that

    2097
    there should be on two or three days of the week in some districts whole-time education in these continuation schools; in other places there should be, perhaps, two or three hours a day on more days of the week. The education which is to be given at these schools is something quite new in the history of British education. Hitherto it has always been assumed, from the very derivation of the word "education," that the idea was to draw out the best that is in the child, and build up the child's character so as to make him, in the opening words of this Clause, better prepared "for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life." That means what we call the Scottish system of education—turning out from your educational mill a child who is able to stand up for his own rights, who is able to think for himself, and able to form his own judgment on matters that are brought before him. He is able, in a word, to become an Englishman instead of a German. He will do what he thinks right, because he thinks it is right, and not because he is told by somebody else that it is right. Is not that the true function of education?
    If there were one thing we have all learnt at a public school it was to think for ourselves, to remember that it were better to be dead than to be a slave, and better to do anything rather than submit to injustice or to allow other people to suffer under injustice. I think that was the best lesson we learnt in the public school. That is the best form of education. That is what makes Englishmen. If only we could take the working classes and give them the same education, the same spirit and love of liberty, the same hatred of injustice which all comes from belles-lettres, the liberal education we got, what a revolution we should have in this country… Men would then think for themselves, instead of taking their opinions from the Press. But here in this Bill we have for the first time introduced—I know the President of the Board of Education will say it is only a very small introduction, but still it is an introduction—an entirely different principle, namely, the idea that education is not to turn out the free, independent citizen who will think for himself, but is to turn out a machine tool who will be admirably suited to working for a master. That is a step which, I think, this House ought to hesitate very long before it takes. You have got plenty of examples
    2098
    of this new form of education in the world. You find splendid examples of it in 'Germany. I have been over to German schools in Frankfurt-on-Main about ten years ago, and there I saw this system in full swing. They take children at the age of fourteen, and I think even younger in some cases, and the education authority decides what trade a boy is to follow. If he is to be a chimney sweep, henceforth the education of that child centres round the chimney. Their arithmetic is all based on the qualifications for a chimney sweep. Their sums are connected with the price of soot and the price of sweeping chimneys. All their education centres round this one thing. I do not know whether Members have read a book by that singular prophet of the future, Mr. H. G. Wells, entitled "The First Men in the Moon." There he discovers in the moon the natural descendants of the Germans of to-day. The workers are specially educated for the work they have to do; some with the right hand, some with the left hand; some have enormous brains; some have excellent sight to do the finer work of watch-making and jewellery-making.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as I can see, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member is one which would be very proper on Second Reading or Third Reading of the Bill, but this Clause deals with the establishment of continuation schools, and the Amendment with the substitution of the word "education" for "instruction" in continuation schools. He is founding an argument which is opposed to the whole principle of the Bill. I quite agree there must be some latitude here to the hon. Member in elaborating his point as to why "education" should be there rather than "instruction," but I must ask him not to go into a rather sweeping and general discussion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think, Sir, having given time yourself, you did not discover in the Bill any definition of what a continuation school was. Therefore, I think, perhaps, it is as well that I should explain what final continuation schools are, as I understand it from the President and circulars that I have received, and it would appear that the continuation school is a vocational school.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no…
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Well, we have not had any definition of what a continuation school is. All we know is that we are to have young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen sent to continuation schools, where, according to the speech of my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill—unfortunately I was absent on the Second Beading of this Bill—we are to have vocational schools where the employers are to assist.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no…
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Well, I shall be very glad to have the point settled.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might make a suggestion to the hon. and gallant Member in connection with that point, and that is, that the Minister in charge of the Bill should get up and explain his objection to the use of the word "education" rather than "instruction." The hon. and gallant Gentleman would then have a basis on which to reply, and be able to keep his criticisms rather within the limits of what I conceive to be the correct reading of this Clause.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are both sufficiently old Members of the House to know that if a Minister on the Front Bench indicates that he will accept an Amendment, the mover of the Amendment naturally ceases from talking.
    Mr. FISHER: May I explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the word "education" appears in the first Clause. He must be led to the conclusion when he reads the Clause that the duty of the education authorities is obvious in this matter.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid that explanation is not very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman talks of the camouflage in the first few lines of this Clause. The Chairman himself has pointed out that they are rhetorical. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to point out any better place than this Clause where we can discuss whether these continuation schools are to be really educational establishments or vocational establishments? If he can, I shall be very glad to withdraw my opposition at this point and move it elsewhere. As I see at the present time, and as the right hon. Gentleman himself will see, this is the only possible opportunity of raising a question as to the character of these continuation schools. We are in a little doubt about
    2100
    them. The position seems somewhat grotesque, but there does seem a gleam of hope for the first time that these continuation schools are not connected in any way with employment, or are works schools, and if that is so I shall be—[HON. MEMBERS dissented.] Evidently the whole Committee is in doubt on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman himself will see, if he reads this Bill through, that there is no definition of what a continuation school is. There is merely a hint in one place. Further, it is said that the employers will be consulted in the management of these schools. The point I was elaborating when Sir Donald called me to order was that it is of vital importance that the people of this country should not by accident slip into an erroneous form of education, and should not abandon that system of education which hitherto has made us what we are.
    Education hitherto has been directed to bringing out and building up the best that is in us. Are we going now, Mr. Whitley, on a point which is admittedly obscure, to establish this all over the country without its ulterior effect being understood, to slip into a system whereby education is no longer devoted to the development of the moral and intelligence of the child, but is directed to turning out from our schools at the age of eighteen young men and women, who are indeed better fitted to perform the operations, minute and intricate operations, of modern industry, but who are less fitted to stand up for their own rights than of yore? We have seen this system in Germany. I have told the House, and the Committee, how in Germany trade has developed. I do not want to see that in England. A great many Members in this House, and others, are saying that we should have the training of our young people exactly like that of Germany if, after the War, they are to compete in the world markets successfully with German-trained children. If we have the same as Germany, all is up with the British Empire. I would sooner see all up with the British Empire than submit to see my countrymen a race of mechanics—for it really means that… I do not for one moment believe that by changing our habits and adopting a foreign and alien system of education we shall improve our national fibre or capacity for production. Six years ago in this House Lord Haldane introduced this matter, and because it has got hold of the bureaucratic mind of the Education Department we

    2101
    have it here. It is all the more important, therefore, that we people who do take an interest, not only in education but in what we think is best for our own country, should watch this matter, and check any insidious advance towards altering our principles and adopting foreign principles.
    I may be quite entirely beside the point. It may be that these continuation schools do not involve any vocational training. I cannot help that. Until the Minister in charge of the Bill has spoken we cannot assert what continuation schools mean; but I do warn the Committee that these continuation schools involve this new element. It will be a bad day for England if this Bill is passed into law. The Committee heard not long ago the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), who is connected with the Blue Funnel Line of steamers, and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear) speak on this particular point in the Bill. Both of them urged the need for vocational training; that it should be firmly placed in the Bill, one on behalf of the mercantile marine, and the other on behalf of the needs of agriculture. If once we believe it is right to provide vocational training for the children of the working classes, every employing class in the country will be on our track to force these classes on the children, so that they may be put into their own particular brand of industrial life. It would be lamentable even if this training for industry were voluntary, but that it is to be compulsory on young persons from fourteen to eighteen by the education authorities, with specialising in the particular trades, seems to me, in the words of the old Act of Edward III., to be tied to that profession for life. After their years of compulsory training they will be classified and conscripted to any form of industry for the rest of their existence. It is a German type. It is particularly anti-Scottish. It is a step towards slavery, and it is for these reasons that I object to this form of compulsorily educating the children of the working classes for certain industries. I want to be very certain that the Board of Education is not going to introduce in this way into the British educational system a system which we should always deplore.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: It seems to me that the hon. and gallaat Member has advanced a very important principle indeed, and he has cleverly managed to get in on
    2102
    an Amendment which does not really give expression to it. We all desire, I imagine, that the continuation school shall not be vocational, but shall have as the basis of its foundation the formation of character and the building up of the love of freedom of opinion which the hon. and gallant Member has indicated is the product of our public-school system. That is the kind of education which we wish to extend to every type of school in the United Kingdom and in the Empire. As a matter of fact, in order to get education of the kind which the hon. and gallant Member desires, a course of instruction would have to be laid down. It will lie with the Board of Education to say whether the course of instruction laid down is one which will give effect to our national aspirations in regard to education. Therefore, if the President will frankly say to the Committee that any scheme submitted to the Board will not meet with approval if it is aimed at a purely vocational kind of training, he will meet the point of view to which expression has been so ably given by the hon. and gallant Member. I do not think, therefore, we need quibble over the word "instruction." We only want some avowal from the President that no scheme will be approved which is frankly vocational.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I have the less difficulty in giving the undertaking which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked for, inasmuch as that undertaking is written in those very rhetorical phrases at the beginning of this Clause which provoke the animadversions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood). It seems to me his objection is based on a misconception. We do wish to make it clear to the local educational authorities that will be sponsors for the establishment and working of this new type of education throughout the country that we do not desire it to be a vocational kind of education. We do not desire it to be strictly and exclusively technical, but we want it to be in the fullest sense a humane form of education. I think I may leave it at that. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to attach undue importance to the word "instruction." But that word is used very frequently in our educational law without its referring necessarily to technical or vocational education. May I call attention to the wording of the Education Act of 1902,

    2103
    Clause 22, Sub-section (2), where the word is frequently used, and it is used throughout with reference to elementary education. Elementary education is a broad system of education, artistic and literary, and it is this particular system of education which we desire to have continued during the period of adolescence under the operation of Clause 3.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am sure the Committee are at one with my right hon. Friend, and accept fully his statement as to the intentions of the Department. But I am bound to say I have a little doubt in my own mind whether the word "instruction," in this connection, when it has to be interpreted in the future not by my right hon. Friend, but by others, will always be made to bear the wide interpretation he has given it. I fully accept everything he has said, but I am not at all certain that the effect of the word "instruction," when put with the word "elementary," may not mean "vocational." You cannot, of course, have elementary vocational instruction, but when you come to the continuation schools there will be forces in the country which will be tempted to interpret it predominantly in the direction of vocational. I am not quite certain, therefore, that it would not be better to interpolate some such words as "intellectual and practical" before "instruction," and I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether that should not be done at a later stage. We want to guard against the temptation on the part of a Government Department and of local authorities to go back on what we consider to be a very wise system.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: A course of instruction may be a literary course, a scientific course, an art course, or a manual course. There is only one thing it cannot be. It cannot be a vocational course, because a course of instruction necessarily implies that the instruction may be in any one of these things. It is not the intention here—and wisely so—to define exactly the kind of instruction to be given in these continuation schools. Presumably, the continuation school is intended to continue the instruction of the young person and to help fit him for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life. In view of that, the instruction would depend very largely on the local educational authority
    2104
    who will have to decide what kind of instruction shall be given in these continuation schools. It must be remembered that the object of this Clause is to introduce a new kind of day continuation classes. I may remind the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that technical instruction has been given with the assent of Parliament for twenty or thirty years in evening and other schools, and I am sure he would not wish it to be understood that young persons preparing for adult life are to be deprived of all technical instruction. There is no one who has been more opposed than I have to the system of continuation classes in schools which has been adopted in Germany. There was a time when these schools were all the fashion. Everybody was speaking in praise of them on public platforms. Many hon. Members of this House lauded them up to the skies, but I have always been opposed to them as giving vocational instruction which I consider was utterly inappropriate to the age and requirements of these children. But there is nothing in this Clause indicating that the instruction shall be vocational. On the contrary, I hope that the instruction given in these continuation schools will be preparatory to that higher vocational education which will be given later on in the higher institutions, and for that reason it ought to partake of the character of secondary education. That, however, is not a question on which I am competent to give a definite answer. It must be left very largely to the local authorities to consider what is the best kind of instruction to be given in these schools. By introducing, as has been suggested, such words as "scientific or artistic," you will not meet the case at all. What we want is to give courses of instruction that will raise all those elements of education which are generally included in the instructions given in secondary schools.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I have seen with some alarm the trend of this discussion, because I am quite sure that bearing in mind that you are dealing with young people between fourteen and eighteen if you are merely going to carry on a bookish curriculum from the elementary schools which has no bearing on the future of the children, this Bill, with its important continuation classes, is going

    2105
    to be condemned throughout the whole of our rural areas? I am sorry to say I find myself wholly out of sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and I do so as the result of some considerable experience in a county where we have taken enormous pains to incorporate a certain measure of manual and practical work in the curriculum of both elementary and secondary schools. We have found, and this is confirmed by the whole of the teachers in the county of Wiltshire, that where manual instruction or school gardens have been incorporated into the ordinary literary work of the elementary school it has raised the standard by at least 20 per cent., because it has brought some reality into the education of the child. The child has been able to apply what would otherwise be dull, unmeaning instruction to the actual fact of every day life, and to take a much more intelligent interest in his or her education. I go further and say, that when I hear the hon. and gallant Member talking of chaining the working classes down to vocational instruction in the interests of their employers, in my own experience, not only is manual instruction necessary to complete the education of our young people—it is just as essential for employers as for employed—but no man, however rich he may be, can afford to dispense with the instruction of his hand and his eye as well as his mind if he is going to have a complete education and to justify himself in afterlife. I must say that the most attractive part of this Bill to me is that we are going to incorporate something of a practical character into these continuation classes, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to give way in this regard, but will maintain all these elements which will make for the improvement of the character of our young people and make them more efficient citizens in a country which has most serious competition to face after this War.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree heartily with the hon. Member who has just sat down, and therefore I am in a certain amount of contradiction, I am sorry to say, with the hon. Member who moved this Motion, with whom I agree on so many points. He knows as well as I do that true education is to fit people for the work in life to which they go. At all events, if education or instruction which is given when you are young unfits you for the work afterwards
    2106
    it is not true education. I remember an eminent ecclesiastic making an attack—absolutely uncalled for—upon university education at one time, in which he said we were turning out people who were not fitted to carry on the competition and strain of the individual at the bar, in the church, and so forth." What do they do?" he asked. "They play for safety into Government offices." I think the attack was absolutely unfounded, but if it had been true it would have been a great slur on the university education of that day. In the same way, the system which I believe the right hon. Gentleman means to incorporate is very excellent. It will contain a very large proportion of education which will fit every person for the work he is going to do. Let us take an example which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) held up to derision. Take a boy of fourteen who means to go into the merchant service. It is vitally important that such persons should be available. The merchant shipping service—I have no interest in it in any way—is one of the most important works of any sort or kind. If you keep that boy until he is eighteen years of age on land attending frequently courses which, according to the hon. and gallant Member, are not to be connected in any way with his future profession—the sea—and you bring him up on land and without any knowledge of sea subjects, is he fitted at eighteen to take up a position in the mercantile marine? If he is, I have no objection to the system. I know little enough about the sea, but from what I am told a boy must, before eighteen years of age, hare some kind of mercantile marine knowledge, of ropes and ships, and so forth. If you leave him till eighteen before he goes on board a vessel he is practically lost to the mercantile marine.
    If that is the effect of this Bill it will be thoroughly bad, because it will not provide true education. His bent would lie towards the sea, and he should be encouraged during those years, and, in addition to a varied education, he should be instructed in things which bear on his vocation. Otherwise you have this extraordinary paradox, that your so-called education up to eighteen will have rendered him absolutely unfitted for the work of his life. In the same way a lawyer who knows nothing but law and has no education outside law is a very poor creature; certainly he would not be a very good example of the English system, and would

    2107
    not make a very good lawyer. Be that as it may, an education which absolutely unfitted him to carry on his profession would be an exceedingly bad education. Speaking for myself, the House knows the way in which one has made one's living, and if my education had prevented my taking that on I do not know how I should, for instance, have got into Parliament. I am illustrating here, and I do hope the hon. Member who moved this will reconsider the position and withdraw his opposition to this part of the Bill bearing in mind that, of course, one wants more than vocational training. I hope that he will not press the President to make this Bill not only an Education Bill, as it should be, but something which will prevent a man being fitted for his vocation, for that may be the result if the right hon. Gentleman does not keep some elasticity in such matters as the seafaring profession and other matters which may come up for consideration on Clause 10. I quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, but I venture to hope he will reconsider it and see that the Government are right in saying that vocational education is an essential part of secondary education, but that it ought not to be confined to that alone.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has rendered a national service by raising this question. It is as important a question as will be raised in any of our discussions on this Bill, and certainly of greater importance than the mere questions of machinery on which we have been spending most of our time. The Committee should remember what is the position of the young people who are affected by this particular Clause. They are not young people withdrawn from industry but engaged in it. They are engaged at least half-time, and under the scheme of the Government more than half, in a given employment. The country has to decide whether what you propose to do is to keep these young people employed, say, in the mill, for three-quarters of the day, or if they are being trained as printers for three-quarters of the day, and when you withdraw them from that particular trade and give them what is called education, all you do is to take them up to some other place and set up something to give still further instruction as to the best means of carrying on their work as cotton operatives or printers, and all this with a view to keeping their minds still con-
    2108
    centrated on that particular work. If that system were to be adopted to any great extent, there would be the most widespread dissatisfaction among the workpeople of the country. There will be the most widespread disappointment if this Bill is not the stepping-stone to an educated democracy in this country. There will be disappointment if the intention is not to give to the boys and girls of the working classes opportunities which have hitherto been denied to them and which have only in the past been open to the children of the well-to-do—I refer to opportunities to study literature, science, and art—so that in the years that are to come, however hard the calling may be in which they have to earn their living, they will always be able to have other, higher and better opportunities
    This Bill will fail lamentably if these things are not realised. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not attach undue importance to the exact form of this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir E. Adkins) that it might be well to consider whether in this matter of language it would not be placing the matter beyond doubt if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment which is now proposed or adopted some such words as those which have been suggested by the hon. Member for Middleton. I suggest that the Clause might read at its opening,
    "With a view to helping young people to prepare for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life,"
    dropping the word "education" and substituting the word "instruction." I know that is an alteration which can only be made on the Report stage, but I suggest that it is worthy of consideration, because there can be no doubt that in many districts there will be widespread pressure brought to bear upon many local authorities to make this education vocational, and almost purely vocational, and so deprive these people of the opportunities which it is desired to give them under the Bill. It ought to be made clear beyond all possible doubt that any proposals of that kind will not be tolerated by the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman, after pointing out that the preamble to the Clause expressed the intentions of the Board of Education, said that he was afraid he must leave it there. I do hope one may take it that he does not mean, if any local authority submitted to him a scheme which was purely voca-

    2109
    tional, that he has already made up Mb mind that he would not reject it absolutely and insist upon the local authority taking another mind more in consonance with the suggestions which have been made to-night. I hope that we may have an assurance from him that he would not merely rely upon the local authority construing the Clause in the manner in which he pointed out, but that the Board of Education would insist that the Clause should be so interpreted. If we could have some assurance to that effect, it would be of some assistance. I would venture further to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind upon the desirability, before the Bill finally passes from the House, of indicating in actual words what are the intentions of the Board.
    With reference to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Wilton Division (Captain Sir C. Bathurst) and any difference of views between him and my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood), I think that the last thing to which my hon. and gallant Friend would object would be that children should be taught gardening, unless they live in a district where it would be a mockery to teach them gardening because of the lack of any opportunity of them having any garden upon which to exercise their skill. Of course, nature study is just the kind of thing which my hon. and gallant Friend indicates is desirable, whether in town or country, and, if nature study or any instruction of that kind would be helpful to young persons, it is by no means inconsistent with the view expressed by him. I am quite sure that in every district you would find, if you gave the opportunity for intellectual development on the part of young men and young women, that you would do far more in the long run, not merely to make them better citizens, but to enable them to add to the productive energy of the country, than you would by a purely vocational system of training.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has seized upon the word "instruction" for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to certain very important ideas that centre round continuation schools. Whether his Amendment is one of substance or not, the Committee will excuse him for raising it because the ideas that he has brought before us are of the very greatest import-
    2110
    ance. If we have any complaint with the Education Department and with my right hon. Friend, it is that he has not told us definitely what is his conception of a continuation school. There have been people, perhaps they have been more busy-bodies than authoritative in their pronouncements, who have raised our suspicions about the functions of these continuation schools. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend, while he is at the head of the Education Department, will act as an educationist and not merely as a supplier of labour. The Committee will do well to tell the Education Department what its conception of a continuation school is. Personally, I regard the school to be provided under this Clause as being, perhaps, one of the most important parts of our educational system. They will only be that if they are properly devised and if their idea is fundamentally sound. I am not going to join my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment in saying that in continuation schools there should be no trade instruction. I do not think he means that himself. We must remember that the boys and girls attending a continuation school have already engaged in trade. They are apprentices or they have left the ordinary elementary school, and have gone to earn their own living. The very first conception of a continuation school is that if a boy has gone to be an engineer, or a builder, or a carpenter, he should be taught the science and the art underlying and surrounding his vocation. He should not be taught how to use a plane or a hammer or a chisel—that is not the business of the school—but the school ought to teach him what is the system of knowledge which surrounds the trade in which he is engaged, so that he does not merely become a more efficient producer as a workman, but that his brain may cooperate with his hand in everything that he does in earning his living. In that way his world is widened, and he becomes a free man, carrying out the rhetoric with which the Clause is introduced.
    That is not all. The continuation school must also remember that when a boy or girl goes to a factory mine, or workshop, the world is not closed to them. The great tragedy of our life to-day is that the world is closed to so many of them once they enter the factory doors. But there are all sorts of exits through intellectual doors at the other side of the

    2111
    factory, provided the road is completed between the industrial door by which they enter and the intellectual door through which they may come into a still wider world. Therefore my right hon. Friend ought to give us some sort of guarantee that the instruction—the education, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme prefers to call it-shall be of such a nature that the workman or workwoman starting life in a factory may, through their knowledge as a factory workman or workwoman, emerge into a much wider and, perhaps, a more useful world. There is another aspect one has to dwell upon, which is impressed upon me in the most lively way by the old experience of a Scottish university before it was tampered with and made much less efficient, at any rate for life, than it is at present. It is this: Under our old system of Scottish universities our sons who started work as ploughmen or as masons used to work in the summer at their occupations as masons and so on, and then in the winter went to the university. That was an extraordinarily valuable experience which we ought to try—I know we cannot catch hold of it again—to embody as much as possible in our modern system. The fact is that where you have intelligence to start with, that keen curiosity to acquire knowledge, to know things and to get to the bottom of things, the moment a child goes to work that curiosity ought to be enlivened, more than it can be enlivened at school, by the wider knowledge of life. The old advantage of the Scottish university was that you got, first of all, people with keen intelligences. Those intelligences were enlivened by contact in life and were developed in that way. There you have your continuation school. My right hon. Friend has got his continuation school contained in this Clause, and his curriculum in that continuation school must be largely guided by providing this opportunity to the working boy or girl not merely to become more efficient as a workman, but to use the working-class experience, and to enliven the intelligence, and, therefore, it is not enough that these instructions should be technical. They must also be liberal. I am no believer in the modern theory that there is no education except scientific. It is all nonsense. I remember a phrase in a speech by the hon. Baronet (Sir P. Magnus), a good many years ago, when
    2112
    he asked what use has a ploughman for Latin. A ploughman who can read Latin can enjoy his earnings and is a much better ploughman than the man who has to go to a music hall or a cinematograph theatre. It is only in so far as the heads of our Education Department are going to use these continuation schools for the purpose of giving scientific, artistic, and technical education that your continuation school is going to be that magnificent part of our great educational system that is going to do the benefit that my right hon. Friend asks we should give him a chance of doing.
    Mr. FISHER:I was waiting for the pure milk of the word, and I have got it from the hon. Member. He has defined, in words far more eloquent than any which I could command, the true scope and interest of Clause 3 of the Bill. There has been a good deal of interesting discussions with respect to the comparative value of vocational and liberal educations. The hon. Member has taken us into a region where these two terms become identical. He has shown us that a liberal education can be obtained, and often most easily obtained, when it is brought into immediate contact with the facts of practical life in which the scholar is engaged. I do not suppose any of us enjoying a perfect acquaintance with a young midshipman or lieutenant in the Royal Navy has not been impressed by the extraordinary effect which a technical or vocational training, liberally interpreted, intellectually conceived, and energetically pursued, has in the development of the general intelligence, and no one can fail to recognise that often it is the shortest way to a liberal education to provide some element of technical training. My hon. Friend behind, who has such a great knowledge of education in our rural districts, has said, with great truth, that it is a matter of common experience that school gardening sharpens the general intelligence of the pupils, teaches them to express themselves better, leads them to a better knowledge of arithmetic, and quickens and improves every part of their school work; and what is true of the elementary school is true also of the later stages of education. I hope hon. Members will rid themselves of the impression that there is a necessary antagonism between vocational education and liberal education. I quite admit that there may be a very illiberal form of vocational education, and

    2113
    it must be the business and the duty of the Board of Education to see that no illiberal form of vocational education is practised in our continuation schools; but we should be foolish if we arranged a system which paid no attention at any stage of a four years' course to the occupation in which a boy or a girl is engaged. I do not think that would be a course which would be really worth anything to the working classes of this country. I do not think it would be in the interests of an educated democracy in this country that there should be no relation whatever between the education they receive in the school and the life which they are living. At the same time, I feel very strongly that education should be a great liberating force in life, that it should provide compensation against the sordid monotony which attaches to so much of the industrial life of this country; that it should provide a means of escape to a purer and more lofty atmosphere; and the Board of Education would be failing in its duty, and would betray the purpose for which this Bill has been framed, if it sanctioned a scheme of continuation education in which due regard was not had to those liberal aspects of education to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester attaches so much importance.
    Sir J. YOXALL: I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should adopt the phrase "courses of study and instruction." We feel some fear as to the use of the term "instruction." We do not want boys and girls to pass their four hours in a room of the works, wholely engaged in technical instruction of the kind pursued in the works. Instruction carries that meaning. We in this House are under the charm of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but we have to remember that those who will read this Bill when it becomes an Act will not be under that charm, and they will interpret the terms of the Act according to their own ideas, quite apart from what has been said to-night. Therefore I suggest the use of the term "courses of study and instruction." We want them both. We want some method whereby a young person in a day or evening continuation school can study by himself or herself. We also want some method whereby they can be instructed to some particular purpose. We must also have study. Therefore, I suggest the term "courses of study and instruction."
    Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw this Amendment. It will be a great pity that it should be negatived, because it has provoked a very interesting discussion. It does not really matter very much to this Clause what the words are, because the words are simply that the education authorities are to provide schools in which courses of instruction are to be given. You cannot put in the word "education" in place of "instruction." You cannot have courses of education in that sense, because the course of education begins when a child is young, and finishes when the education of the child is finished. The term "courses of education" is not as good for many purposes as "courses of instruction." After all, we have had a discussion which will be of great value in the country, but it will make no difference in the Bill, because the whole matter of continuation schools is eventually left to the local authority, and if the Board of Education and the local authority do not agree then it goes to Parliament. We do not want to establish a Prussian system of education, under which the Government should lay down what the continuation schools were to be. We rather want it left to the people themselves, each education authority in its own locality to say what the education should be, with the proviso that the Board of Education is not to have the last word but Parliament is to have the last word. Therefore, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw this Amendment, as I think that it would be a great pity to have it negatived in a formal manner.
    Sir W. PEARCE: We should be careful to avoid the mistake which was made on the occasion of the original institution of technical education, when limiting words were put in which occasioned great difficulty in administration. I remember years ago, when I was a member of the Technical Education Board in London, and it became of obvious utility to establish special schools, for instance, in connection with the printing, coach-building, engineering, and building trades, and the limiting words in the original Act presented great difficulty. I am not advocating a complete system of vocational education. I agree entirely with the view put forward by the President and by the Member for Leicester, but unless we are very careful the views expressed in so admirable a

    2115
    manner may be rendered impossible by limiting words inserted in the Bill through the endeavours of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. PETO:The hon. Baronet the Member for Dorset attaches very little importance to the actual words; but I think that the Committee and the President of the Board of Education should know that the Professor of Agriculture at the Armstrong Agricultural College, New-castle-on-Tyne, attaches the very greatest importance to this very question raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and a resolution passed by the North-Eastern Agricultural Federation says
    "This meeting is of opinion that in the new Education Bill the system of continuation classes should be more clearly defined."
    It appears from the Debate, so far as it has proceeded, that there is a certain number of members of the Committee who protest altogether against what they call vocational education. I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Leicester about providing labourers for employers. That is not the view we ought to take of this question. We have to consider the interests of the person to be educated. As the hon. Member for Leicester pointed out, every person should have a well-instructed mind, and should have an intellectual avenue opened before his leaving for the factory door to better and higher position. Apart from the question of erecting another loom at the continuation school, for a child working a great part of his time at the loom, I think that any continuation education should be made more interesting, should deal with the fundamental principles underlying the career which the person chooses, and not the actual spinning, not the hammer and the plane of the carpenter; it should have relation to the different trades and industries of the country. In fact, it should be primarily for young people being educated to be more efficient and better able to make their own way in the world. That is only one side of it, I admit—the substitution of "education" for "instruction." Both words mean pretty much the same thing, and in that respect there is nothing in the Amendment at all. I know that the mover of the Amendment wants to be quite sure that education is not going to mean merely enabling employers to get more efficient labourers
    2116
    and make more money out of the trade. That is at the bottom of the opposition to all these ideas. I beg the Committee to take rather a wider view of the subject Do not let us consider the mere question of more efficient labourers for the employers, but what is of real use to the young persons concerned. If the education is to be of any primary use to them at all, it must have for its aim to make them more intelligent and more efficient for the career chosen and the actual work in which they engage and are to make their living by. If you do that, it will open up that great avenue of which the hon. Member for Leicester spoke. The lad who begins life as a building carpenter later may become an architect or a great building contractor, his technical education having given him knowledge of the fundamental principles of the calling in which he is engaged. That is the type of vocational instruction that I should plead for, not merely occupying so many hours at a school in the evening at the same kind of work on which he has been already employed. The boy who has been doing carpentry work to be given more of that work at the continuation school would be not only an absurdity, but a cruelty to him. It is not a question of providing cheap labour, but of making the persons taught more efficient. Therefore I am glad that we have not had, so far, any assurance or promise from the President of the Board of Education that he is going to limit these continuation classes to nothing but literary, scientific, and linguistic education, and things of that kind. I hope they will give intelligent instruction that will make better citizens, better tradesmen and craftsmen, as well as instruction in the arts and sciences which have no particular relation to their industries. I hope, when we proceed to the more practical parts of the Bill, that the President will be quite firm on this question—that he is going to make this Bill a really useful measure to the people particularly concerned, and is not merely going to fill their heads with a lot of knowledge which they may have no opportunity whatever of utilising.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:I feel that we have listened to a lot of speeches this evening on this beautiful combination of technical, vocational, or real education, but one thing which has slipped the attention of everybody here is that the people

    2117
    who are going to draft these schemes are not people like ourselves, who have no direct interest in the form of education, but are the local educational authorities, who are principally composed of the employing classes. They take a much narrower point of view of it than is ever taken here. These people are faced with a double argument in favour of vocational as opposed to real education. In the first place, they have a direct interest in their own trades. For instance, in the Potteries they would tend naturally to give as much instruction as possible in pottery. However liberal-minded the people maybe, that will be eventually the tendency. It will not only be to the benefit of themselves, but also of the district. They will naturally tend to apply themselves to the vocational side. Then, there will be another argument. The whole of the local Press and everybody will say, "It is not only in the interests of our local trade, but of the Empire, if we are to compete with Germany, that we should teach our young folk to be really good at our local trade. These two things together will inevitably drive the local authority to give more attention to the vocational side of the continuation schools rather than to the purely liberal side. The only influence I can look to for increasing the liberal side of the education is the influence of the teachers themselves. The teachers of this country, fortunately, have a very large influence, and a growing influence, on public opinion, and the teachers are absolutely atone with the hon. Member for Nottingham and myself on this point. They know quite well what real education is. They know what it means to the whole of the future lives of these children, taking them away from the drab surroundings of their normal average existence. They will exercise an influence, strong, but nothing like so strong in the opposite direction to the influence of the local education authority. The only thing we have really to rely on, therefore, in order to give a scheme which will be really liberal in character is the Board of Education itself; and what sort of hope have we from the Board of Education? So long as the right hon. Gentleman is there, I think we shall see a fairly liberal policy carried out, but he is not a permanent fixture at the Board of Education. I understand the Conservative party are running somebody against him in Sheffield—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has had a fairly large experience, and I must ask him not to abuse his privilege.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to know how I have abused any privileges? I have been called to order twice.
    The CHAIRMAN:In several speeches—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How am I out of order now?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member behaves in that way, I cannot hear him.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I point out that the Board of Education is our only hope for keeping these schemes in order? I am sorry I was, in your opinion, led away from the true point of the Amendment before the Committee, but you will agree that, having sat here ever since half-past three on this wretched Bill, and not being able to get out of the House for ten minutes, it is trying to everyone's temper, and may lead to a certain amount of hastiness at three minutes to eleven. The point I wish to make is this: We have heard speeches here, all based upon an ideal solution, in the interests of the child before anything else. I want to point out to the Committee that it will not be influences of that sort which will lay down the exact lines these schemes will take. Therefore it is all the more important that the Board of Education should make it clear to us what sort of schemes they are prepared to adopt, and whether they will put before us a simple scheme. I asked, on an earlier Amendment, that the Board of Education should prepare a sample, so that we might know exactly what the continuation schools should do and what the ideal curriculum should be. We have had no reply from the President of the Board of Education showing in the least what sort of principles the Board of Education wish to apply to these continuation schools. We are justified, before coming to a decision on an important principle such as this, in knowing what principles they intend to apply to these schools. Personally, I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment, as I do not attach any importance to particular words, if the Government will accept the words proposed by the learned Gentleman. If not, I am afraid I shall

    2119
    have to go to a Division, and let the country know that there are a few people who are opposed to this particular new departure.
    Mr. FISHER: May I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this point?
    Mr. BOOTH: I did not catch what the right hon. Gentleman said at all, so that I do not know what the remarks were he addressed to the Committee. I would not intervene except for a point I want to put before the Committee that has not been touched upon. It is all very well to assume that these children are in good health, but when they, become ill it is all important that they have a certain amount of knowledge. I might give an instance why I think this matter is very urgent. In dealing with cases of tuberculosis what do we find? We find that men who have not been informed, but have only been instructed, do not get better when they
    2120
    are under treatment. The women recover because they are accustomed to sewing. The men—that is, boys who have grown older—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (OBJECTORS).
    SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (OBJECTORS).
    RUSSIANS AND ITALIANS EXEMPTED.
    RUSSIANS AND ITALIANS EXEMPTED.
    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES WITHDRAWN.
    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES WITHDRAWN.
    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (REGULATIONS).
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (REGULATIONS).
    HOSPITAL ATTENDANTS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    HOSPITAL ATTENDANTS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    ARMY CHAPLAIN (GRATUITY).
    ARMY CHAPLAIN (GRATUITY).
    MISSING SOLDIER'S EFFECTS.
    MISSING SOLDIER'S EFFECTS.
  MUNITIONS.
    FOREMEN ENGINEERS (BONUS).
    FOREMEN ENGINEERS (BONUS).
    ERITH FACTORY (RESERVISTS' PAY).
    ERITH FACTORY (RESERVISTS' PAY).
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (REGULATIONS).
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (REGULATIONS).
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    MILK TRAIN (SWANSEA DISTRICT).
    MILK TRAIN (SWANSEA DISTRICT).
  LITERATURE (ARMY AND NAVY).
  LITERATURE (ARMY AND NAVY).
  Mr. K. D. NABOKOFF (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. K. D. NABOKOFF (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  CEMENT (EXPORT TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  CEMENT (EXPORT TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELECTRIC POWER BILLS.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, there are two electric lighting Bills—the County of London Electric Supply Bill [H.L.], and the Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]—down for Third Reading to-day, but for to-morrow there is on the Paper a Notice in the name of Lord Muir Mackenzie, who proposes to ask a question as to the policy of the Government with regard to this class of Bill generally, having regard to recent Reports of Committees on the subject. I suggest that it would be convenient to postpone the Third Reading of these two Bills until to-morrow, so that we might consider the whole matter then instead of having two discussions.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount; and as there is a general discussion to he raised to-morrow on the question of granting large powers to private companies for electrical purposes, considering that the Government may have in view proposals of a larger and more general character, I am willing to postpone the Third Reading of these two Bills as suggested.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I was not aware, when I put down the Notice for to-morrow with reference to the Bill—the Shropshire, Worcestershire, amid Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]—which I had had an opportunity of seeing, that there were other Bills of the same character coming before your Lordships' House; otherwise I would have spoken to the Lord Chairman and arranged matters more conveniently. I am glad that he agrees to postpone these two Bills until to-morrow.

LAND DRAINAGE (LOTTING FEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill read 2a.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill read 2a.

CRIMENAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, it is my duty to ask you to give a Second Reading to a Bill to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, 1885 to 1912, and to re-enact with amendments the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, and Section 2 of the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917; and for other matters connected therewith. I do not think that I need detain your Lordships very long on this Bill, particularly having regard to the proposal as to procedure to which I shall presently allude. The Bill of which I am in charge deals with what is known as the social evil. For the main principle of the Bill I think I may say that I am almost sure of enlisting the sympathy of your Lordships. You will remember that last year in the House of Commons a Bill of this kind was introduced by the Home Secretary and passed its Second Reading, and was also considered for several days in Grand Committee, but the subject was full of difficulties and encountered some direct hostility, while even amongst those who were supporters of the Bill there were some whose opinions differed very much. There was in consequence a danger of its taking up so much Parliamentary time and of the proceedings being so protracted that it was unable to be passed through its remaining stages.

953
My noble friend Lord Beauchamp has another Bill dealing with a kindred subject on the Notice Paper to-day. If his Bill is read a second time, he has given notice of his intention to move that it he referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I was unaware that I ought to have put down a Notice for a similar procedure in regard to this Bill, but if I have fallen short of that duty I apologise to your Lordships. If, however, you see well to pass this Bill a second time, I shall ask that both of these Bills be referred to the Joint Select Committee. I think that there are good reasons for that suggestion. These are disagreeable matters to discuss across the floor of the House; though, of course, that should not and would not deter us from discussing this particular Bill in regard to which there has been so much difference of opinion. But in the circumstances it is safe to say that we might have more useful discussions in a Select Committee, that we might gain further opportunities of knowledge from investigation, and also that we might be able to avail ourselves of the experience and evidence of ninny expert and other witnesses, and especially of social workers. I think, therefore, that such a course would help to elucidate one of the most difficult problems that we have to encounter, and also perhaps help us to secure a certain amount of agreement. I might remind your Lordships that the Bill when it emerges from the Joint Committee would then go through the various stages in this House.
In regard to this Bill, I may make the changes proposed in the law more simple and clear if I recall to your Lordships the debate which took place in this House four Years ago on the Motion of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, who then introduced a Criminal Law Amendment Bill. That Bill was read a second time after an interesting discussion, and it went either through Committee or partially through Committee, but the right rev. Prelate eventually withdrew it. His Bill laid down four propositions—(1) to make it an offence to commit an act of indecency with a girl of sixteen whether she consented or not; at present consent is a good defence for an indecent assault if the girl is thirteen or over; (2) to make carnal knowledge of a girl under 18 a criminal offence; this generally is described as raising the age from sixteen to eighteen; (3) to abolish the defence that a man, having defiled a girl under age, had reason
954
to believe that she was of the age or over it; (4) to extend from six months to twelve months the time within which proceedings could be taken against a man charged with an offence.
Those of your Lordships who have had time to peruse this (the Government's) Bill will see that Clause 1 abolishes the plea of defence that a person under sixteen consented to the act complained of. Clause 2 withdraws as a defence the reasonable cause of belief that the age was sixteen or over, and the same clause extends the time to which I have referred just now from six months to twelve months. But the Bill does not carry out the second proposition of the right rev. Prelate to raise the age to eighteen. I merely mention this to make my reference in regard to that Bill complete. The Secretary of State knows very well that there is a certain volume of opinion in favour of raising the age to seventeen. The right rev. Prelate wished to raise it to eighteen. The Home Secretary has given that particular part of the subject the most careful consideration and has taken the best advice at his disposal, but he is unable to include that provision in the Government Bill. If it were inserted you could hardly escape from inserting the defence that a man had reasonable cause to believe that a person was of the age or over the age. Again, there is a great risk of juries not convicting. At any rate, the Home Secretary is advised that in all likelihood a large proportion of juries would not convict; for it is difficult to get convictions where the age is sixteen, to say nothing of seventeen or eighteen. Moreover, as pointed out on a former occasion when the noble Viscount and other noble Lords of legal experience took part in the debate, it might open a fruitful field for blackmailers—those ruffians who live upon the receipts of prostitutes, and who would levy their blackmail on men, young or of mature age, who had been entrapped into going with these girls, and then assert that the girls were under the age.
I come now to a clause which I venture to say is of considerable interest, Clause 3. This clause enacts that where a girl is convicted before any Court of being a common prostitute, of loitering and importuning for purposes of prostitution and solicitation, such a girl under eighteen may, until the age of nineteen, be detained in a home in lieu of punishment. The

955
clause contains provisions that such a course would be pursued only after the most careful and full inquiry and investigation by a probation officer or by a committee, of which two of the members should be women, into all the circumstances concerning the girl's home, her associations, her mode of life, her companions, and any other circumstances that may surround the case.
And I beg your Lordships to note this, that the object of the process which I have just described is not punishment, but protection. At present in such cases a fine can be imposed, or a short term of imprisonment. With great respect, I submit that both these processes fail in their objects. What happens when a girl has paid her fine? The very first thing she does is to rush to the streets to recoup herself for that loss, and if imprisonment is inflicted a girl is not unlikely to leave prison having learnt much more of vice and viciousness in ways, language, and other matters than she knew when she entered. Of course, that may be punishment, but you cannot say that it is improvement. Nor does the punishment act in any way as a deterrent. The downward path is easy; it is begun, and then the descent becomes more rapid, and the result is that utter recklessness ensues in most cases, and hopelessness, and sometimes disease.
If that is true—and I am told that it is so—I think that some other method should be found of treating these young girls who have lately become prostitutes. Perhaps this clause may help. Such homes would be specially approved by the Secretary of State, the necessary machinery for ensuring that the objects are being properly carried out would be set up, and after the careful preliminary inquiries, such as I have just mentioned, the order would be made by a Court of summary jurisdiction, an appeal lying to a Court of Quarter Sessions under the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. I only desire in regard to this particular subject to emphasise what I said just now, that it is not by way of punishment but by way of protection for these young girls from evil men and evil women, and, I am afraid, too often the evil influences of their homes.
Regarding the particular clause which I am explaining, when the Bill was in the House of Commons the Secretary of State received a deputation. It was, as I think
956
any one would say, very representative, and as remarkable a deputation of its kind as ever sought audience of a Minister. It was introduced by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, accompanied by the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Winchester, by representatives of different denominations, including a direct representative of Cardinal Bourne, and also the Chief Rabbi; and another member of the deputation was a General officer who had passed a great deal of time as a young man in London and had also commanded the London District and surrounding area. There were a number of ladies also who represented the large army of social workers, including one who represented the National Union of Women Workers. It was, as I have said, a truly representative deputation. They all favoured the Bill, and they all favoured this clause except one, and that lady suggested that, while it might be a good plan, the voluntary principle would be better. But I submit that if this were to be a purely voluntary effort it would defeat its own object. No doubt an investigation such as we might hope for before a Joint Select Committee might help us because we already know that there are many homes of a voluntary nature which claim a certain measure of success. For example, I believe one is under the Church Army, which organisation supports Clause 3.
I am well aware that there is considerable opposition in some quarters to this clause, but I am inclined to believe—I am advised, indeed—that much of it conies from misconception and misunderstanding. It is suggested, for instance, that if this clause is passed no girl will be safe, and her life will not he worth living—that a girl waiting for an omnibus, or waiting innocently for a friend, or whiling away a short time in peering into the shop windows, would be liable to be seized, taken away, and incarcerated on the word of a single policeman. But, as I have already said, the policeman has to prove that the girl is a prostitute. Of course, as in anything else, certain steps or a certain line of argument may be so pursued and pressed as to make anything ridiculous, and a salutary measure may be so worked as to make it odious and oppressive. But I do not think that with the safeguards I have mentioned there should be any genuine fear on that ground, and I therefore earnestly commend Clause 3 to your Lordships.

957
Clause 4 has to do with brothels and amends the principal Act of 1885. It will be admitted, I think, that the existing penalties, which do not exceed £20 or three months imprisonment for a first offence, and £40 or four months imprisonment for a second offence, are clearly inadequate. The trade is a very lucrative one; small does, if not laughed at, are not heeded, and we have been told that in their organisations provision is made in the accounts to treat these fines as working expenses. In the Bill the penalties proposed are £100 or three months imprisonment for a first offencem, £250 or imprisonment with or without hard labour for six months for a second offence, and, as you see a little further down, line 20, "or in any such case both fine and imprisonment."
In regard to Clauses 5 and 6, which deal with venereal disease, I should like to remind your Lordships that the position is much changed now from what it was when this Bill was drafted and introduced last Year. The Royal Commission, which was so ably and patiently presided over by my noble friend Lord Sydenham, made many recommendations, but those recommendations for the most part came within the responsibilities of the Local Government Board. You will remember that a Bill was passed last year which is now known as the Venereal Diseases Act, and the result was that much was done in the direction of diagnosis, treatment, and the building and organising of institutions institutions which have done admirable work, and, in many cases, much better work than a great many people anticipated. Clause 5 endeavours to cope with the evil by invoking the criminal law, and by making it a criminal offence for a person so suffering from disease in a communicable form to have sexual intercourse with any other person, or to solicit or invite any other person so to act with him or her. As your Lordships know, in the case of certain other diseases a person acting so as to spread infection commits an offence, and in the possible results to the race, to say nothing of the inherent horror of the circumstances, this, I think, should also be made an offence. It may, of course, be difficult to prove a charge, especially where the defence is set up of a plea of ignorance of communicable form. Your Lordships will also see that there may be a remand for a medical examination by the person's own doctor or a prison doctor. This applies to both sexes.
958
By Clause 6 an offence under Clause 5 is added to the list of offences which afford a ground for judicial separation under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women's) Act, 1895. Clause 7 is really for the simplification of arrangement, to consolidate and slightly to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, and the Venereal Diseases Act of last session. With regard to the latter in its dealing with advertisements of bogus remedies, it increases the penalties, extends the scope of the Act by way of advertisement of the matters dealt with, and includes among such persons abortofacients and premises used for immoral purposes. These proposals led to very considerable controversy last Year. Dealing afresh now with the matter, we have to treat it on the lines of the Indecent Advertisements Act and the Venereal Diseases Act. Therefore subsection (1) reproduces all material powers of the Indecent Advertisements Acts, and extends them by including a penalty for the publication of indecent matter for transmission by post. Subsections (2), (3), and (4), reproduce Section 2 of the Venereal Diseases Act, and covers the ground of Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Acts. Penalties are also imposed in respect of abortofacients and premises used for immoral purposes. The long list of exceptions in the Venereal Diseases Act is replaced by a simpler and a more comprehensive formula—"any drug, appliance, substance, or thing."
Looking forward to your Lordships agreeing to my proposal that these two Bills should be refereed to a Joint Select Committee, I think perhaps, having dealt shortly with these clauses, I have said enough to enlist your sympathy for the principle of the Government's Bill and to obtain your support for its Second Reading. I am very sorry that last year the Bill, about which a great deal of trouble was taken and in which a great deal of interest was shown, did not pass through its various stages. I was allowed to attend the meetings of the Grand Committee, and I was very much astonished at the enormous number of differences of opinion—not necessarily very large—and the shoal of Amendments that appeared on the Notice Paper. It has been said over and over again that you cannot make people moral by Acts of Parliament. That is as true to-day, of course, as it is was when somebody first coined that phrase. But other

959
and moral forces must be employed. They have already been long at work, and I believe that they will always play the greater part in the solution of these most difficult problems. I hope that by proceedings in the Joint Select Committee some greater measure of agreement may be reached, and that the Bill may so emerge as to prove of real help to those devoted people who have so disinterestedly and for so long persisted in their labours in distressing circumstances to try and improve the social conditions. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Viscount Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has reminded the House, I had a good deal to do officially with the proceedings upon the former Bill brought in by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London. I remember well that upon that occasion our difficulty in the debate was that the really crucial considerations turned on questions of detail in the clauses. As to the general principle, the House was very much agreed. The difficulties arose on the question of how to express and how to apply them.
I rise now for the purpose of making a suggestion. We have two Bills here. If the House agrees to the broad principle which underlies these Bills—namely, that the Criminal Law requires amendment in this respect, then the noble Viscount proposes on behalf of the Government that both Bills should be read a second time and should go to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. The result of that would be that the Bills will emerge as, I hope, a single Bill, and be put into a form, after consideration, in which we shall not he left straggling at large over details to the extent that is inevitable if we are discussing two Bills which attempt to deal with the principle in different ways. Therefore we shall be in a very much better position—first, because we shall have the Bill in considered form before us, and one Bill instead of two; and, secondly, because we shall be able to discuss the Bill as fully as at the present stage, with the advantage of noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings of the Select Committee to assist us with the knowledge that they have acquired. I would suggest to your Lordships, therefore, that if you think the plan a good one we should not try to discuss
960
these Bills in detail now, but should reserve the discussion until we get the Bill as put into shape by the Joint Committee, when we shall he able to apply our minds to it with better effect than I think is possible if the two Bills are before us as they are to-day.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, very much has been done at the present time on the medical side to combat the grave national danger which arises from venereal disease, but there is a great deal of necessary legislation dealing with that matter which so far has been much too long delayed. As the noble Viscount has said, on July 6, 1917, the most rev. Primate took what was really a very remarkable deputation to meet the Home Secretary. He has described the persons who were present, and I think that no more representative body covering every aspect of these questions has ever been presented to a Minister of State. That deputation came to urge upon His Majesty's Government the speedy passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill as it left the Select Committee of the House of Commons. There was, I think, only one dissentient to one small detail of that Bill. All the rest of that deputation of sixty persons, representing thirty-six different philanthropic societies in London, were agreed. The Home Secretary expressed his complete agreement with the object of the deputation, and he added this—
"I assure you that there is no idea of the withdrawal of the Bill. I am confident that the vast majority of opinion in the House of Commons is favourable to the Bill."
Ten months have elapsed since that deputation went to the Home Secretary, and invaluable time has been meanwhile lost. Measures which would certainly have helped in a great degree to check the increasing spread of venereal disease among the population have been held up during all those months, although by far the greater number of them met with no opposition of any kind.
I welcome the introduction of these two Bills because I think that they are overdue, but I deeply regret the great delay which has occurred in dealing with the matters with which these Bills are concerned. Much has been done meanwhile to enlighten the public generally as to the nature of venereal disease, its consequences, its treatment, and its grave effects upon the national health and

961
efficiency. The Local Government Board, as I think your Lordships all know, with the assistance of the hospital authorities, has set up clinics in every great centre of population, and the principle of free treatment for these diseases has been established in this country, but legislation on certain lines is still most urgently needed, and, though many plain warnings have been given, the means for combating the disease in this country are still inadequate and in some respects unsatisfactory. When peace comes I am afraid that the difficulties with which we shall be confronted will be most formidable, and the necessary legislation therefore seems to the on all grounds to deserve to be placed in a high category and to be treated, as it really is, as an urgent war measure.
I note that the Government Bill has been somewhat changed from that which passed the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and some of the changes, I think, are not quite desirable. I will mention only two points, although afterwhat was said by the noble and learned Viscount I have no desire to go into detail. The questions upon which I wish to say a word are really of importance and of principle. Clause 3 as it originally stood gave power to detain young girls under the age of eighteen when convicted of certain offences under the existing law, and to place them in approved homes, which were never to contain prostitutes over twenty-one years of age. That clause, to my mind, created no new offence, but merely provided that in place of being sent to prison, as now occurs—and I know that many magistrates dislike sending these girls to prison—these girls might be brought under kindly influences, medically treated if necessary, and helped to regain their position as useful citizens.
Unfortunately, a storm of opposition was raised to any form of compulsory detention except that of a prison, and it was raised by quite a small body of voluble objectors. The Home Secretary said with perfect justice that the attack on this clause was "based upon misunderstanding and to some extent upon misrepresentation." He pointed out that a London morning paper had said that he and the President of the Local Government Board—
"solemnly proposed to put it in the power of the police to arrest any girl who paused to look in a shop window, or who dared to wait on the kerb for an omnibus."
962
Misrepresentation could hardly go further than that. No additional powers of any kind were given to the police; the only object of the clause was to prevent young girls from being sent to prison, and to give them a new chance to reclaim their lives. The effect of this organised opposition to the clause was to hold up the Bill for ten months, and a very heavy responsibility rests upon the agitators for the serious results of that long delay. Clause 3 as now altered is improved in many respects, but it now includes common prostitute, as there defined, and makes it very difficult to deal with a large class of girls who are in special need of those ministrations which kindly treatment in homes can best provide.
Clause 5 embodies a most important new principle, because it makes the communication of venereal disease an indictable offence; but there is a very proper proviso that no person shall be convicted if he or she can show reasonable grounds for believing himself or herself free from disease in a communicable form. This clause has been altered by striking out the words "or wilfully communicate such disease in any other manner to any person." The effect of this is to exclude indirect means of communicating disease from the operation of the clause. There is ample evidence of the danger to innocent persons thus caused, and some very bad eases of the infection of children have been recently brought to my notice. I think this alteration is a real defect in the Bill.
If I may say a word about the Bill which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, is about to introduce, I think it is a most valuable and complete compendium of all the measures that can be taken for combating these evils in their several aspects. I do not think all the measures which are proposed are practicable at the present time, but they deserve very careful consideration, and I am sure that they will get it at the hands of the Select Committee, to which, therefore, I hope that both Bills will be referred.
I wish, however, to make one appeal to the Government of which I have given my noble friend notice. There has been, as I have said, far too much delay in dealing with legislation, and that delay has led to harm which I fear is now irremediable. I therefore urge that Cause 1 and Clause 5, or, if the Government prefer, Clause 5 only,

963
of the Bill as it left the Select Committee of the House of Commons may be made into a separate Bill and proceeded with as rapidly as possible. I believe that these clauses will meet with no opposition, and they are very important and might have an immediate effect in the direction in which we feel we must now move.
One result of passing Clause 5 would he to dispose of the strong objection which has been raised to Regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act. The objections to that Regulation were forcibly stated the other day in this House and were brought out in strong words elsewhere. It is contended, and with much force, that this Regulation differentiates unjustly between the sexes, because while sailors, soldiers, and women are penalised, civilians who may infect women escape scot-free. On the other hand, Clause 5 places the two sexes in a position of absolute equality before the law, and if the Government would secure the passing of this clause with the least possible delay I believe the result would be most salutary. As the noble Viscount said, it is quite impossible to make people moral by Act of Parliament, but if the law brands the communication of a loathsome disease as an offence there will be at least a strong deterrent from some forms of immorality.
These matters are vital to the nation now and in respect of the years to come. There has been, unfortunately, a marked increase in the spread of these diseases, and they are, as we must remember, diseases which sap the vigour of the nation, which directly and indirectly check the birthrate, and which cause a terrible sum total of human suffering, combined with immense economic loss. I am afraid there can be no doubt that this increase of infection during the war implies some lowering of the standard of public morality, but I am convinced that public opinion is becoming wide awake to the peril which arises from these most insidious and devastating diseases, and I am sure that the Government will find strong support, especially among the working classes, in pressing forward this necessary legislation as urgent war measures. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept the suggestion which I have made. In doing that, we should save time, which is most valuable at the present critical moment.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill, not that I am going to oppose the Second Reading of it, but because I think the great difficulties of dealing with a matter of this kind have been somewhat underrated; also, with reference to what Lord Haldane said, although no doubt many matters will have to have special inquiry in some form of Committee stage, yet really there are three or four points of principle in the Bill as it stands to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention. It is always a difficult matter when you are going to convert acts of immorality into criminal acts. Speaking for myself, I think you ought to be very careful when you embark on a course of that kind, and above all things you ought to have in your mind not the idea of punishment but the idea of reformation. If you are merely going to bring in the idea of punishment you further degrade persons, already immoral, into the position of criminals, and personally I must say there is no class for whom I have greater sympathy, as regards the need for reform and protection, as against their being made criminals, than I have for the unhappy women who are dealt with largely in this Bill. We have to recollect this—and I may as well state it quite clearly—that neither sexual incontinence nor prostitution is in itself a crime at the present moment, and with some experience of Criminal Law I should strongly oppose its being made a crime.
From that point of view I come to the first point of principle, which I think is a very important matter. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 says—
"Reasonable cause to believe that a girl was of or above the age of sixteen years shall not be a defence to a charge under Sections five or six of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885."
The result of that is to create a new offence altogether. You make a man guilty who has neither guilty knowledge nor guilty desire, and I must say I agree in this respect entirely with what I think is contained in Lord Beauchamp's Bill—the rival Bill—where there is no provision which prevents its being a defence to say there is reasonable cause to believe that a girl is over a fixed age. I protest most strongly against this provision in the Government's Bill, because I think that nothing but harm will result from it.
Let me upon this point refer to what was said by the Home Secretary on the

965
occasion to which the noble Viscount referred, when the deputation came before him. He said this—and I want to deal rather carefully with the Home Secretary on that point
"I knew and I still believe that both to raise the age of consent to seventeen—"
mind you not sixteen, but seventeen—
"and to abolish the defence of reasonable cause would be a grave error."
It appears to me that immediately the Home Secretary has said this, he has practically given up the case for abolishing what has been known as the defence of "reasonable cause." Suppose he says that you have seventeen and then that "reasonable cause" is a sufficient protection to some young person who is not thinking of doing any harm, why should it not be a protection when the age is sixteen? I cannot see any difference in principle between the two cases.
But then the Home Secretary said this as regards the present law. He said the effect of the "reasonable cause" defence is that there have been too many acquittals, and there has been much difficulty in enforcing the law. When a defence of this character is raised, it is a question for the jury whether the "reasonable cause of belief" that the girl is above the standard age has been proved or not. I think the jury a very proper tribunal to determine a common sense business of that kind, and I am totally against Bills of this sort being introduced, not merely as a measure of reform, but a measure which might lead to blackmail on the one hand and undue punishment of a young fellow who has not really committed any crime in the sense of jurisdiction on the other. Therefore as a matter of principle I hope that this proposal that "reasonable cause" shall no longer be a defence will be deleted from the Bill in its final form. You are making a man a criminal who has not guilty knowledge, and I think that ought not to be done in a Bill of this character.
The next matter of principle—there has been no explanation of it—is this. Why is twelve months now put in subsection (2) of Clause 2, whereas the present law says six months? This, again, is an inducement to blackmail. Surely, if an offence of this kind has been committed, one knows from practical experience in trying these cases that a complaint is made at once in a genuine case; it is made practically immediately. I hope that this extension of
966
time will not be granted. I do not believe that it is any protection with regard to the matter with which the Bill is designed to deal, and I think also it is a case in which blackmail may arise.
Clause 3 contains a matter of considerable principle. If this clause carried out what the noble Viscount suggested I should be entirely in favour of it. I think that what we want to have are homes of this character for the purpose of reformation as against imprisonment, which practically leads to greater degradation. But what I want to point out is this—and this, I think was the real reason why Mrs. Bramwell Booth objected to it at the deputation to which the noble Viscount referred—there is no guarantee that there will be any such homes at all. The Home Secretary said to the deputation that he hoped the Government might provide some funds so that these homes might be equipped, but in the Bill as it stands there is no guarantee of these homes. What you are doing is this. You are creating a new offence under the plea that you are going to provide for reformation in these homes, whereas under the Bill itself we have no guarantee that any such homes will ever be provided. What I want to make clear, in the fist place, is that if you are to have a provision of this kind—in my opinion a most important provision—that these poor girls should be sent not to a prison but to a home, you should make it a term of the Bill that such homes should be provided of a proper character to which they can be sent. There is absolutely no guarantee of that kind in the Bill at the present moment.
Secondly, I should like to make it quite clear on Clause 3, which I think is a very important clause, that if you provide these homes, it is only optional that girls who are thought to be under eighteen may be sent to them. I would make it imperative. These girls ought not to be sent to prison. It ought not to be in the power or jurisdiction of any Court or magistrate to send the girls to prison. There is the alternative of reformatory homes to which they could properly be sent. I speak strongly on the point, because I do say we ought to have the greatest sympathy with the poor girls with whom we are dealing in this Bill. If the Bill is looked at, you will see that the whole matter is in the option of the magistrate, who in lieu of awarding punishment may send the girls to a home. Take that option out and say that girls in this un

967
fortunate condition are to be dealt with in properly equipped homes, and then I think some real reformation may be introduced in the terms of this Bill. I want to say one more word as regards Clause 3. The noble Viscount says there is no new offence created under Clause 3. There is certainly a new offence created under Clause 3. If you will excuse me for saying so, 3 (b) is an old offence—that is, being a prostitute and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner—but being a common prostitute and loitering is not an offence at the present time.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I did not say that.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought the noble Viscount did. Clause 3 creates a new offence of a very serious kind against these poor girls. Although you provide a reformatory home you create a new offence and make them have a criminal taint, and they have to go to prison. I do not call that reformation; I call it cruelty. I do not call that improving morality, but increasing crime. There is another matter which requires more careful consideration in Bills of this kind, and that is to see that where they are reformatory in the true sense they carry out the undertakings which have been given. I say without hesitation that the Bill as it stands gives no guarantee for these reformatory homes. I apologise to the noble Viscount. I thought he stated that the Bill created no new offence, but it does create an offence which is not known to the law at the present time. When this matter was before the Borne Secretary, if I recollect aright he said that the question dealt with under Clause 3 ought to be dealt with only by a Quarter Sessions or Court of Appeal. My own view is the other way, and that when these poor girls, under the age of eighteen, are brought up before the magistrates, there ought to be proper homes of a reformatory character provided, and they ought to be bound to send them there. There ought to be no power of sending them in the alternative to the ordinary prisons. I will not trouble your Lordships with all the terms of this Clause, but I think the provisions throughout are most unsatisfactory and do not carry out the purposes which the noble Viscount has in view.
Then as regards Clause 4, which relates to the owners of brothels, my only comment on it is that I think the penalties should be
968
much higher. I can never understand why brothel-owners, who are at the bottom of this abominable traffic, are not more severely dealt with. Even now on the third conviction they have the option of a fine, and the maximum imprisonment is only for a term of one year. Contrast that with the penalties in Clause 5, which deals with a very important subject. I do not want to differ from what Lord Sydenham said that you have a dangerous matter to deal with, but I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment how the Bill proposes to deal with it. As the Bill now stands it is a monstrous proposal. Clause 5, subsection (1), refers to a person who is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form, and who under these conditions solicits or invites any other person to have sexual intercourse with him or her. That is to say, any young fellow or any girl—I do not care about the sexes—who is said to have solicited or invited a person under those conditions to have sexual intercourse is liable to the penalties of the clause. Now what are the penalties? Compare them with the penalties under Clause 4. A person who solicits under these circumstances, and there may be a great doubt about the solicitation, can have two years' imprisonment, whereas the brothel-keeper can have only twelve months.
The noble Viscount will also see that by subsection (4) of the same clause an offence under this clause shall be deemed to be an offence under Section 19 of the Larceny Act, 1916. Now that section contains the highest punishment known to the law—namely, penal servitude for life—and the suggestion is that as regards these new offences which are to be dealt with two young people, one of them soliciting the other, might have either two years imprisonment or penal servitude for life. What do your Lordships think of a proposal of that kind? I want most distinctly to say that I would not leave such discretion as that to His Majesty's Judges, let alone to other tribunals, because it is notorious—I say it without any fear of contradiction—that this is a matter about which an enormous difference of opinion exists as regards the amount of sentence which ought to be given. One Judge will give a month while another will inflict a penalty of ten years penal servitude. It is inconsistent with every notion of our Criminal Law that in dealing with offences of this

969
kind for the first time you should give any one the power of sending any young fellow or girl into penal servitude for life, or imposing the maximum term of imprisonment of two years. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, who said there were provisions against the spread of disease. That is quite true; but what are they? In the case where the man is concerned, £5 is the maximum penalty. There are no cases where the spread of disease can be punished by penal servitude for life, or by two years imprisonment.
I think it is perfectly monstrous to have a punishment of this kind, and if it is included in the Bill I think there will be no prosecution under the clause at all. It is quite clear that the clause will lend itself very easily to the principle of blackmail, because the blackmailer can now say, "You must pay my demands or you are likely to have penal servitude for life." I think there will be new opportunities for blackmail. In proviso (b) it is said there must be corroboration in some material particular. That is a very vague phrase which is known in the administration of law in this country. As regards Clause 7, which deals with advertisements, I have riot a work to say. It is really nothing more than is in force at the present time. I hope on all these points, which it think it is necessary should be brought to your Lordships' attention at an early stage, the Bill may be amended.
I want to say one word with regard to sending the Bill to a Joint Committee. This is a Bill which has started in your Lordships' House and it ought to be kept here. We should have the Committee stage in this House, and for this reason. Your Lordships' House is well equipped to deal with legal questions of this kind, as a considerable number of members have experience either as Judges or as chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and though I should not be prepared to oppose the proposal which I understand the noble Viscount is to make I will ask him to reconsider it. We have ample time in this House to deal with a Bill of this kind in Committee. It is a Bill which raises questions of principle, and I shall be very disappointed if these important matters are not dealt with in this House itself, apart from being sent to a Joint Committee. I do not oppose the Bill, but I hope we shall have Amendment on the points to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, in spite of the able criticism which we have just heard, I hope the Government will not be at all discouraged from proceeding with this Bill. I ought in gratitude to thank them for embodying three out of the four proposals which I brought forward in my own Bill in 1914. I am sorry that the fourth point is left out, but I feel certain that public opinion, especially backed up with the full pressure of 6,000,000 women's votes, will soon raise the age of consent at least to seventeen. Still, I am not going to argue that point to-day, because the Government have not seen fit to put it in the Bill.
I would like to meet the possible criticism of some noble Lords who may ask, Why have any legislation at all? I was twitted by the Leader of the House not long ago with having a child-like belief in legislation. I can assure your Lordships that after thirty years work in London I am not so mistaken as to what the law can and cannot do. We who are in the midst of the practical work know that it is only moral and spiritual influences which can raise any one, and we only come to this House to ask for help when there is some "stone" on the people which prevents us getting at them. Legislation has a very subsidiary part to play. If I may use a scriptural illustration, it cannot raise Lazarus but it can take away the stone. There are five stones proposed to be taken away in this Bill. I represent every Christian denomination, Roman Catholics, and Jews, all of whom sit with me every month over this matter, and I come here as a practical worker speaking for practical men and women to ask your Lordships to give us this help.
The first stone is with regard to the raising of the age of consent for assault upon these children. Lord Parmoor did not criticise that, and I presume that he agreed with it. I think that your Lordships hardly realise the number of children who are injured in this way. I quoted last time Mrs. Bramwell Booth, who spoke of the Salvation Army receiving 316 children under sixteen who had been so assaulted in twelve months. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had during the last six years had an annual average of 400 ewes reported to them, and in the Church of England we have special homes for the same kind of case. We are grateful that this great difficulty,

971
this first stone, is to be taken out of our way, so helping us to deal with these particular cases. Then I must entirely differ from the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, that these changes with regard to reasonable cause of belief and the extension of the age are unnecessary. I can say that all the workers of all denominations who are dealing with this feel convinced that they are necessary. A barrister of great experience gave instances not long ago of a great number of men who had escaped under one particular clause, the reasonable cause of belief clause, and the Association of Poor Law Unions of England and Wales, a body which no one can accuse of taking what may be called a too Churchy view, recently reported as follows—
"The Council and Association in 1912 considered and agreed: that having received into the workhouse lying-in wards several girls under the age of fifteen and sixteen, and being informed in every case that no action could be taken for prosecuting the offenders responsible for their condition, the six months limit having expired before the entry of the girls into the workhouse and consequently before the discovery of the offence by the guardians, the guardians desire to call attention to the absolute necessity for extending the time for proceedings under the Children Act, 1908, in such cases from six months to twelve months, the present limit being adopted to ensure as far as possible the immunity of offenders."
The Council a year after that reaffirmed their former decision and called upon members of the Government to deal with the matter without delay. I am sure that Lord Parmoor is absolutely sincere with regard to this matter, but I am bound to give on the other side the experience of those hundreds of practical workers that this must be changed, otherwise the offender again and again escapes unpunished.
I come to the famous third clause, and I would like, in order that your Lordships may really understand how urgent this is, to picture to you what takes place before a very well-known magistrate. I have no difficulty in mentioning his name, for I believe his speech has been sent to your Lordships. He is Mr. Cecil Chapman, and he recently spoke of what takes places in his Court every morning. He said—
"I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, what am I to do? Girls stand before me one after another, morning after morning. I send for a girl's mother from Northumberland or the North. I have the mother down. I pay for it out of the poor box or from some other source, and so get the parent down. I plead with the girl, and the mother pleads with the girl. The girl says, "No, I
972
prefer to go on with my life." Now am I really to sit down and listen to that? Am I to say there is no power whatever to save that girl from herself? Am I to leave her to go and to have her own way?
I think that when your Lordships picture this happening to hundreds of girls morning after morning you will feel that we must do something for the sake of the girls. We want to help them, to drag them away from this life, and put them into some home where they can be brought up in the kindest possible way, and where they can have a real chance of moral reformation.
I know the three attacks which have been made upon this clause. The first line of attack is that you are only punishing the women, and leaving the men to go unscathed. I personally stand and always have stood for equality of treatment for men and women, and I believe that our laws have been too unjust to the women. But as a matter of fact we find this answer from Sir Reginald Brade, Secretary to the Army Council, with regard to a very similar case—
"In the case of the infected woman she is only liable to a fine of £100 or six months imprisonment, and it is necessary for the soldier concerned to give evidence in open Court against the woman. On the other hand, if the woman has been infected it will only be necessary for her to communicate with the soldier's Commanding Officer either personally or anonymously to secure the immediate medical inspection of the suspected man, who, if found to be suffering from venereal disease, is liable to a penalty of two years imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine."
It is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that the man is being let off. When this question comes up in Committee, I shall be prepared to go into it in more detail. It is not fair to say that we are acquiescing in the guilt of the woman alone, and in her alone being punished, and in the man being let off entirely.
Lord Parmoor has criticised the homes and rather hinted that there would be none forthcoming. But we have already existing and working, I would ask the noble Lord to notice, homes where the detention is compulsory and yet voluntary. Here, for instance, is the account (which I believe has also been put into the hands of your Lordships) of the Queen Elizabeth Home, a rescue reformatory school for girls, carried on under the care of the Church Army—
"One aspect of this voluntary detention is apt to be overlooked. The girl who enters a home is not altogether a free agent. In numberless instances such a girl after being wisely influenced

973
and carefully trained to be a useful member of the community is, against her will, removed from the borne by undesirable relations."
LORD PARMOOR: I quite agree.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: This home has for its leading principles self-government, personal liberty, and progressive freedom.
LORD PARMOOR: I think I pointed out that every one ought to go to a home, and that homes should be provided.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: The noble Lord rather hinted that there were no such homes. I am actually describing one that is in existence. Therefore, I feel that we must not be misled, or led away from the usefulness of such homes, and induced to believe that no such homes have been established. We must realise that some are actually in existence at this moment.
There is another objection to which the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill alluded. He thought that some girls merely loitering and looking into windows might be taken up by mistake. I myself heard the Home Secretary make the assertion which I have in print before me—
"We have inserted, or we propose to insert if the House of Commons agrees, some further safe-guards. We propose to confine the operation of the clause to those who are in fact leading bad lives. And that would have to be proved; so that no one could say that an innocent girl, by some accident of behaviour in the streets, could become subject to this provision. Secondly, we propose that the Order shall be made not at once by the magistrates, but after inquiry by a higher Court, the Court of Quarter Sessions, whose duty it will be to consult the probation officer or a Committee formed for the purpose which would be bound to include women. Thirdly, I quite agree that there must be some provision for the interim detention of a girl so that in the interval between the charge being made, and the Order being made under the section, she shall certainly not require to be dealt with as if she had in fact been committed to a home."
I am sure that we can trust the Home Secretary who made that speech to see that this difficulty will be safeguarded. Having faced the three objections brought against the clause, I am prepared to ask your Lordships to pass it in order to assist us in rescuing and helping the girls whom we seek to help.
I will deal very shortly with the last two difficulties to be removed by the Bill. One
974
has been powerfully backed up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. I wrote a letter to The Times a few months ago calling attention to what I described as a disgraceful fine of only £20 upon a woman who had been proved to be making thousands a year by keeping a brothel. The magistrate quite rightly wrote to me a gentle expostulation privately to say that it was all that he was allowed to give. But when you think of that miserable fine and of the woman who was raking in thousands of pounds by her trade you must all admit that Lord Parmoor is not wrong when he says that, if anything, the Bill errs on the side of leniency to those for whom we can have no pity, however much we may pity the innocent girl.
The last point is one that has hardly been alluded to, although it is contained in this Clause 5, and that, is the great mischief which I think your Lordships would hardly realise unless you have watched what is happening at certain shops in London from the exposure for sale of preventives and other rubber goods which the young watch, laugh over, and buy in thousands. Tremendous fortunes are in these things. We had a shop watched by our Association the other day in a certain street in London. There were hundreds of young people round it. These couples one by one went in, bought some of these means by which they can sin, as they think without any consequences—a most fatal illusion only too often, I may say—and went away. I contend that it is a positive scandal to our civilisation and Christianity to-day that these things should be sold in the open in chemists' shops all over London, and no doubt in other places too. I see both in Lord Beauchamp's Bill and in this Bill provisions which will enable us, I hope, to deal with that scandal and which will enable us to safeguard the life of the young from this most mischievous influence.
I will say no more at this stage on these five points. Those whom I represent and work with every day see great help to our work in this Bill, and they ask you to lift away these stones so that, freed from them, they may go on with their moral and spiritual work.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said very truly that Bills on this sort of subject ought to be looked at very narrowly and approached with great caution. I have

975
looked at this Bill with some narrowness, and I am bound to say that on the whole it seems to me to be a Bill which may very well be supported in all its main provisions. Naturally, your Lordships are not familiar with the details of these subjects, and I therefore took the opportunity of consulting some of my friends who practise at the Central Criminal Court and who come across the kind of evil which this Bill is intended to remedy, and I furnished myself with their opinion upon it.
I should like to begin by dissociating myself from the last words said by the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down. So far as I can see—the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will correct me if I am wrong—in this Bill there is nothing dealing with contra-conceptives, as you might call them, and personally I should be very much opposed to legislation on that subject. The right rev. Prelate said it was in this Bill, but I have not myself been able to see it in the indecent advertisements clauses. Clause 1 raises the age to sixteen, and I think there would be no objection to that. But objection was taken by the noble and learned lord, Lord Parmoor, to Clause 2, and there, I think, there is very definite danger, and almost more than a danger—an injustice—as he says in the administration of the Criminal Law, by removing this defence of reasonable cause. If your Lordships will consider for a moment what the defence is which is put before a Court, it is that the defendant says, and succeeds in satisfying the jury, that he had reasonable cause to believe that the woman was over the age of consent. Well, it seems to me that a roan in that position would have the feeling of the Court against him, and would have a good deal of difficulty in satisfying the jury that he had reasonable cause so to believe, and it seems to me that, if he had good grounds for satisfying the jury that he had such cause, it is a very proper defence for the very reason which Lord Parmoor gave—that he had neither the knowledge that he was committing the crime nor the intention of committing it. I was informed the other day by a very experienced criminal Judge who had tried many of these cases that people are actually entrapped in cases of this sort, that these girls get themselves up to look older than they are, and then come into Court for the prosecution with their hair down their back looking about fifteen, and have to admit in cross-examination that they were not dressed in such clothes nor had so
976
dressed their hair when they enticed the defendant. Probably a serious injustice would be done if this protection were removed, and that is a matter which ought to be very seriously considered. As to the limit of time being twelve months, I am aware that there are technical reasons for that, and I need not go into it.
With what the right rev. Prelate said as to Clause 3 I find myself in almost entire agreement. I think we should all wish, if possible, that girls of this sort, so young, should be, even by some sort of compulsion, given a reasonable opportunity of giving up this life. It will be noted that the clause, as now drawn, applies only to those who have actually become common prostitutes—I think I am right in saying that. It seems to me that the real dangers which lie in Clause 3 are dangers of administration, and lie perhaps at the two ends of the clause, or the two ends—shall I say?—of the proceedings. The first danger is the hastiness or the injudiciousness, or conceivably in some cases the untruthfulness, of the constable who makes the arrest and gives the evidence. That, I am afraid, we shall have to leave to the experience of the magistrates who try the cases and to the evidence which can be produced on behalf of the girl. There is a good deal of protection provided by this system of remand and inquiry from friends and relations, and so on, against accidents of the-nature of the Cass case, which your Lordships will remember. Then it seems to me that the other danger is at the other end of the proceeding, in reference to these homes. First of all it is necessary that there should be these homes, and then I think it is eminently necessary that they should, as far as possible, be not of a penal character; they should be as far as possible homes which are attractive to a girl, which provide her with work that is interesting, and which give her some interest in life, because she will already have lived an irregular sort of life, and will naturally be averse from-any regular life. And therefore, if the home is in itself unattractive and penal, you will go very far towards diminishing any possible chance of reformation, and will merely leave her with a sense of impatience.
The provisions in the clause itself as to the discretion of the magistrate seem to me to be absolutely reasonable. One knows that magistrates do not always exercise their discretion in what one might think the best way, but still the man who is

977
sitting on the Bench, and who sees the defendant before him and hears the actual circumstances, is probably on the whole far better able to judge than anybody else what is the appropriate course to be taken in a particular case, and I should be rather sorry to see that discretion interfered with. I have considerable confidence in the way in which these tribunals administer this kind of justice.
I have nothing to say on Clause 4 except to express my agreement with what was said by Lord Parmoor, but it should perhaps be subject to this proviso, which is worth remembering. Probably the majority of your Lordships when you speak of a place like a brothel think of something on the Continental model, which is run on a system of book-keeping with all sorts of elaborate arrangements, and run for profit; but you must remember that nowadays people are convicted of brothel-keeping on rather slight evidence, not by any means amounting to that—people who allow their room to be used by the women who take men home are very often convicted in London of keeping a brothel; and, of course, the gravity of the offence is very different in the one case from that which it is in the case of the Continental model; and it may be that, for this reason, it has been thought wise not to make the punishment more severe.
Clause 5 is one which it seems to me will in practice present almost insuperable difficulties. In principle, we are all of us, I think, agreed that an offence of the character described in Clause 5 is about as bad an offence as you can imagine, and one which well deserves punishment. But it is a matter for discussion in Committee rather than on Second Reading, although it is well worth calling attention to it now in order that it may be borne in mind. In discussion with my Old Bailey friends we have had a great deal of difficulty in seeing how the legal evidence will be provided that will actually convict a person of the offences which have to be charged. It is to be noticed that the offence is "suffering in a communicable form at the time of the intercourse." Anybody who thinks about that will see that there will be very great difficulty in proving that offence—in many cases an almost insuperable difficulty; and it is not made any easier by the proviso—no doubt a perfectly reasonable proviso in the case of a crime which involves such heavy punishments—
978
that the evidence must be corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused by some third person. I have very great difficulty in seeing what third person will be available and on what particular material he can corroborate so as to constitute that offence. If the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will ask the Home Office to consider this with the able advice they have, they will see that the matter is not so easy as at first sight it appears to be. I have nothing to say on the clause with regard to advertisements, of which I am entirely in favour as it stands, subject to the proviso I have made, that I understand it correctly.
It will be out of order for me to refer in any detail to the other Bill which will be before your Lordships shortly, but as I do not want to make any further observations on that Bill I think it will be convenient to say that on the whole, so far as it goes beyond or differs from the Government Bill, I prefer the Government Bill, with the exception that there are one or two minor or Committee points of which Lord Beauchamp has taken hold in this Bill, which escaped the net in the Government Bill. As to whether this Bill should go to a Joint Select Committee or be discussed in this House it is hardly for me to offer an opinion. There are points of principle involved, and it may be that after it came back from a Joint Select Committee it might be necessary to discuss them on the floor of the House. But I do believe, with a Bill which involves rather minute legal consideration and a great deal of detail, in the points being threshed out in Committee across a table in the first instance. I have no opposition whatever to offer to the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I suppose it is true to say that the course which this debate has taken has brought us to the point that the only question before us is whether or no this Bill should be referred to a Joint Select Committee. Nobody has so far suggested any hesitation as to the Second Reading. I think the question of the reference to a Joint Committee is a difficult one. On the whole I am disposed to believe that we should act rightly in reading both the Bills a second time and then ask a Select Committee to consider them; partly because the very reasons which were brought up against some of the

979
clauses by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, seemed to me so eminently points for a Committee before which evidence could be taken, besides the mere discussion across the floor of this House. Therefore I believe that we should gain a great deal by reference to a Committee.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that reference to a Committee now may involve most harmful delay. The noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, referred to the very long delay that has occurred, and is occurring, since this matter was discussed before. That delay might have been prevented had we been able to get legislation of this kind ten months ago. I feel that the reference of the matter to a Committee now has the disadvantage, although I do not think it is insuperable, of delaying legislation which might be immediately operative, by common consent. Therefore, as Lord Sydenham has suggested with great force, if I understood him rightly, it might be possible for the Committee to suggest the division of the Bill into two parts, one of which might be speedily passed by common consent while the other part was still under consideration. There is a great deal to be said for that; but we want motive power to force through a Bill like this. Remove the parts on which consent is large and you diminish the power of getting things on which consent is less. Arguments may be used either way; and, although they are fairly evenly balanced, I think we shall gain by referring the matter to a Select Committee in the way that has been suggested. There the Committee would have some of these points pressed home, and cross-examination would be possible with respect to them; points about which words have been bandied backwards and forwards to-night.
I think that nearly everybody has ceased to defend that clause which in old Bills used to give the idea of reasonable cause for supposing the age to be different. I know that it is possible to have cases prepared in the way the noble Earl described a little while ago, and that it is possible that men may be misled, even into something which Lord Parmoor described as creating a new offence, through their not knowing that they were acting criminally when they were so acting. I should take a large principle in that matter. I am not very particular to surround with precautions and extreme care a man who is sailing so near the wind as that.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Are we here to try and guard a man who admittedly is sailing very near the wind, who is going in for fornication, and who is doing it with young girls? Are we to say that we must take care lest he has made a mistake and did not know that he was placing himself in a criminal position? Let him realise that he is doing a risky thing, that we will not protect him; and let him take a little more heed to his ways. That is what I feel, and I think it is a principle that we might fairly press. Personally I have no anxiety to safeguard that man with scrupulous care from possible dangers such as those of which we have heard, tonight.
We have been told to-day, as we always are on these occasions, about blackmail. For many years past I have asked details as to the extent of the blackmail peril. I believe the peril to be a reality, but it has, in my opinion, been exaggerated into a monster of difficulty far beyond its true proportions. The danger which is commonly spoken of that people will suffer in that way, that all kinds of efforts will be made to arrange for the blackmailing of innocent men, I believe to be greatly exaggerated. Then we pass to the question of the owners of brothels. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pannoor, supported the Bill, and desired to make it even stronger than it is. But is there no fear of blackmail there? The owner of a brothel might be blackmailed, it seems to me, as well as other people. But I am entirely with the noble and learned Lord in desiring to strengthen the clause, notwithstanding. The owner of a house ought to know about it as well as the occupier; and if we had had our way in this House some ten years ago we should have had means, which many of us at that time wanted and which the Government of the day for the most part wanted, to secure that somebody should be registered as the owner of every house and should be ultimately responsible. We all know that the difficulty now is that nobody can find out who is the owner of the house, and therefore there is fear of bringing the thing up lest it should fall upon somebody at present out of sight. I do not want them to be out of sight. I desire that they should have the responsibility for the use of the places which are theirs, and therefore I should agree even

981
to increasing the limits of the penalties. For all these reasons I believe the questions before us are eminetly suited for discussion in a Select Committee of both Houses, and I hope that these Bills may go to such a Committee, and that the Joint Committee will then consider whether it is desirable to divide them, so as to secure that certain more urgent matters may be speedily dealt with while other matters are being considered.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships with any detailed observations on the Bill, because I think that nearly every possible point has been raised in this discussion, and if the Bill goes, as I hope it will, to a Committee, the points will be more adequately and I think better dealt with in that Committee and brought down for discussion in your Lordships' House on a subsequent occasion, I think there are many points here upon which it will be advantageous to have the opinion of men of experience in all branches of life, so as to enable us to form our opinions whether what we desire will be best attained by the Bill as it stands and what possible danger or cause for objection there exists in any particular provision therein.
With regard to the second clause, the one which may be said mainly to raise a point of principle as distinguished from a point of detail, I do think, with the very greatest respect to the most rev. Primate, that he regards rather more lightly than I should the question as to the propriety of convicting a man who quite innocently—I mean innocently in the sense of supposing he has had anything to do with a woman under age—commits this criminal offence. What he is really in that case convicted of is the act of fornication, because he has neither desire nor knowledge, and would in fact probably shrink from the act if he knew what he was doing; and therefore whether it be morally right or wrong that a man should suffer in that sense, what really he has done so far as his knowledge is concerned is merely to commit what he believes to be a perfectly legal act and one which in the society in which he moves might hardly be considered blameworthy. To make him into a criminal and inflict a penalty, although the reasons for it may be overwhelming, seems to me to be a thing which requires very full consideration before you go to that length. I think there
982
has been a tendency, and there always must be a tendency in seeking to get rid of an evil, to overlook the old principles of protection which have been the essence and spirit of our Criminal Law, and especially in these times when for the purposes of the war one has seen, to an extent which would have startled one in the old days, the shifting of the onus of proof from the prosecution to the defence.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London said there had been numerous acquittals in cases affecting young girls under the Act. The question really is whether those were proper acquittals or not. That is the real question. It may be there was argument either way, but the conclusion to be drawn from what he said was that if the law had been what it was proposed to be, those people would have been convicted. I am not sure that that makes me more in love with the principle embodied in the clause. I do not at the present moment want to go further than to say that I think the subject deserves most careful consideration. With regard to the question of blackmail, which the most rev. Primate said he thought had been greatly exaggerated, I do not wish to contest that, because I do not know, and with great respect to him I do not think he knows, whether it can be so or not, because the essence of blackmail is that you do riot find it out. There can be no record of blackmail, and speaking quite as generally as he did I can only say that after over thirty years close connection with the administration of the Criminal Law I certainly should not call it by any means a "bogey." I think it is a very serious consideration that in dealing with this class of offence you must always bear in mind and never overlook the possibility of blackmail.
There is one point on Clause 1 to which I should have referred. I think when passing a definite Statute like this it would be rather a good thing to put an age limit to the person accused as well as to the accuser. A boy is capax deli at fourteen, and I do not think it is intended that a boy of fourteen should be prosecuted for an offence of this character. On Clause 3 I have really nothing to add to what has been said, or on Clause 4. On Clause 5 I see all the difficulties that were referred to by Lord Russell. I think they are very serious, but what presses on me is that apart from the case where the police or some authority may have evidence, and

983
may bring somebody under their control forcibly in to prosecute, I rather apprehend this may be very nearly a dead letter. A voluntary prosecutor or prosecutrix seems to me to be a very unlikely creation, because think of what that person has to do. He or she has to go into the witness box and swear on oath, first that he or she has been immoral, and, secondly, probably that he or she is diseased. I think very few people will face that ordeal. I, of course, am in sympathy, as everybody else must be, with the desire to punish these appalling offences, for they are appalling, but I see very great difficulties in the carrying out of what is intended by the law, and again I think in these particular cases there are very grave dangers of blackmail. They are very grave indeed, because although I think a decent person would be unwilling to prosecute, I think a professional woman, having obtained the name and address of her paramour, might threaten to charge him with communicating the disease to her. However difficult she might find it to prove that charge if it came into Court, she would so alarm the man that he would be at her mercy for the rest of his life. I recognise that something of this kind must be passed, but I confess I am afraid that it will not go far to carry out the wishes of my noble friend Lord Sydenham, or do much for the suppression of venereal disease.
I have one suggestion to make with regard to the advertisement clause; otherwise, I think it is merely the consolidation of the existing law. I do not think it hits a very grave evil. You will see in certain newspapers advertisements of people who are prepared to treat applicants for female irregularities. What it nearly always means, and what the person who goes to have the irregularity cured nears, is to stop conception or really to produce abortion. I have read this clause very carefully, and I do not think it meets that evil. They advertise no drugs and no appliances. They merely say "Come and consult me." I have made some inquiry into this, and I know that hundreds and hundreds of pounds are obtained from uneducated and ignorant people under a pretence which may he false pretence. They may give the people a harmless thing, calomel or something of that kind. It has been suggested to me that words something like this, "All advertisements likely or calculated to suggest that a medicine or treatment is to secure abortion," or some varia-
984
tion of these words, would meet the evil. I think Lord Sandhurst will find that it is not really covered by anything in the Bill.
There is another question I should like him to consider on Clause 5. Has he contemplated that it shall apply to the relations of husband and wife? I do not ask for an answer now, but I think it is a thing that ought to be considered, because the whole relations in that respect were considered in the case of the Queen versus Clarence in 1888, on the charge of occasioning bodily harm and malicious injury. All the relations of a husband and wife and how they bore on a question of this kind were discussed by a Court of thirteen judges. Whether the intention of the Government in introducing this Bill is that a prosecution for transmitting venereal disease should be extended to people in marital relations I do not quite know. If it is, I think it should be considered whether something should be done about evidence, because all you have done at present in this Bill is to import Section 4 of the Criminal Evidence Act, in which the husband or wife is a competent but not a compellable witness. If you bring husbands and wives into the section it probably would be advisable that they should be in certain cases compellable witnesses. I do not think it is in the least necessary to say more. So far as I can judge everything has been considered from all points of view, and personally I should support reference to a Committee, because I think we should get most valuable assistance and should be able to debate the Bill with greater advantage when it comes downstairs.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I want to speak only for a few minutes, because I hope the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, where, as the most rev. Primate said, evidence can be called. I do hope that we shall not go hastily into legislation of this kind without having taken every means in our power to consult the feeling of the organised body of women in this country, and that Parliament will realise that women have now got the vote and that they intend to make their influence felt. This is a Bill which concerns women very nearly indeed, and, however important legislation may be, it will be most unwise, to put it at its lowest, to blunder into legislation of this kind without having consulted the organised bodies of women in this country. I suppose that this Bill will take the place of

985
the celebrated Defence of the Realm Regulation 40D. Will it apply to soldiers as well as civilians? I suppose it will. We will not ask for an answer now, but that is really germane to this discussion, because, if it does, certain clauses in this Bill will remove a great deal, or at least some, of the opposition which is very widely expressed against Regulation 40D.
Fisrt of all—and I believe another noble Lord is going to refer to this later—the women felt it very keenly that, so soon after they had got the vote, it was attempted to legislate on things which concerned them very nearly by an Order in Council rather than by an Act of Parliament. Rightly or wrongly, they felt that this was arbitrary, and it created a grievance. One thing about Regulation 40D which was resented by women's organisations was that it applied only to women and not to men. In this regard I should like with great respect to submit to the most rev. Primate and those who instructed him in this matter that it really is not very much protection to say that a woman who is infected by venereal disease by a soldier has a remedy by writing to his Commanding Officer. It will not quite do. First of all, in a great many cases of promiscuous sexual intercourse between a member of His Majesty's Forces and a woman, the woman does not know the name of the man, or the name of his regiment, or the headquarters of it, and I submit to your Lordships that, even if she did, whatever type of woman she was—whether she was a common prostitute, or what in the jargon of the day (I do not speak irreverently) is known as a "flapper"—she would be most unlikely to disclose her condition to anybody, and, even if she were a common prostitute, if she knew the name of the man, the last person to whom she would write would be the Commanding Officer of his regiment. These two Bills will remove some of the grievances felt under Regulation 40D.
With regard to the ultimate effect of legislation of this kind upon the opinion of organised bodies of women in this country, it is very difficult to say. That is why it is so highly desirable to refer both these Bills to a Select Committee, where the opinions of women who are qualified to speak for their sex on this very grave subject can he consulted. The other night I went to a largely-attended meeting which was addressed by people, both men and women, who know what they are talking
986
about. One speaker was a Member of Parliament who had thoroughly studied the subject. The meeting was to protest against Regulation 40D, and the whole tone of that meeting—I do not think it was right—was dead against any legislation with regard to prostitution or venereal disease in any shape, form, or description. It was quite evident that this largely-attended meeting based its objection on the old idea that any attempt to legislate, especially if it involved anything like medical examination, was bound sooner or later to revive what a very strong body of people in this country view with great abhorrence—the old Contagious Diseases Act. I do not wish to take sides about this, or with them, because I am one of those who think that legislation of some kind ought to be attempted to cope with this terrible evil, and I should like to warn the noble Viscount that that point of view is largely taken by influential people. I hope he will examine such witnesses before the Select Committee in order that he may be fully seized with their opinions when the proper time comes.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words in reply to some of the observations which have been made. I think the debate has been a very helpful one. Of course, one would naturally not object to any criticism of any kind, but all the criticisms which have been made I accept in the proper spirit. In regard to what was said by my noble friend who spoke last, he knows that Regulation 40D was passed in regard to soldiers and sailors, and I believe it was pressed for by those in authority in the Overseas Forces. At least that is what the Earl of Derby gave us to understand on the last occasion when he addressed us. I have made inquiries and I understand that when this Bill comes into force, in the form in which it now is, it will supersede Regulation 40D and will therefore apply to both sexes.
The speeches to which we have listened this evening prove the extreme difficulties of the case with which we have to deal. A great amount of experienced opinion has been expressed showing the difference of opinion and the difficulties there may be in assimilating opinion, but I am grateful for the support I have received in the suggestion that the two Bills should go to one Joint Select Committee. From what I have been able to observe during the

987
debate, and from many hours observation in another place, I should almost have despaired of getting any agreement without the advantage of more evidence and the consideration before a Joint Select Committee. My noble friend, Lord Sydenham and the right rev. Prelate were afraid that the proceedings on this Bill might be rather protracted as a consequence of sending it to a Select Committee, and, Lord Sydenham inquired whether the Secretary of State in another place, or myself in this House, would not bring in a short Bill of one or two clauses. I believe it is the opinion of my noble friend that there would be very little opposition to a Bill of that character. My noble friend may be right; but, on the other hand, it is the opinion of the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board that there would be considerable discussion on such a Bill at the present time. The Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, considers that the best course would be for Lord Sydenham to make the proposal to the Joint Select Committee when it is set up, and it would be open to the Committee to recommend a. short Bill of the character described. With the backing of the Committee the position of the Bill would be different, and the Government would be anxious to do all they could. As to what was said by Lord Parmoor about the creation of new offences. I should be the last person to suggest that I knew more about such matters than the noble and learned lord, but I am informed that the offences that the Bill creates are offences under the Military Police Act, 1838, and the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847. They are Acts which are not in force over the whole kingdom. When the noble and learned Lord said that under certain circumstances a man could get a sentence of penal servitude for life, I am informed that the reference that was made really had to do with the blackmailer and not with an offence under the Bill. That is how I am instructed. I do not think I need further protract my speech. I can truly say that I am very gratified with the line the debate has taken.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Moved, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I agree with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government, that the debate which has taken place on this subject has been very useful. I hope it will provide a great deal of motive power and assist the Government in dealing with the question. I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go into detail on the subject of the Bill to which I have the honour to ask you to give a Second Reading this evening. I shall content myself with explaining, briefly, the underlying principles which induced me to draw it up.
One misconception I should like to remove at once. One noble Lord described it as being a rival Bill to that of the Government. I can assure your Lordships that this is far from my intention. I introduced it rather as a stimulant than for any other purpose, and in the hope, which I am glad to think has been gratified, that the Government itself would take up the subject and deal with it in a Bill of their own. The Government have introduced their own Bill, and I am sure there are many in your Lordships' House, and outside, who will welcome their action.
The Bill that I am moving deals with problems which are urgent, and which ought to be dealt with without any undue delay. The two principles which were in my mind in dealing with the question were, first, to assist and to protect the young soldier from difficulties and temptations which come not only from within but also from without; and, secondly, to deal as far as possible with both sexes on an equality. I think I may claim, from one or two expressions of opinion which have reached me from women's organisations, to have accomplished those objects with some success. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, I do not wish to commit myself as to the actual clauses whether in principle or in detail. I put it forward as a Bill for discussion by the Joint Select Committee and by your Lordships' House, and from the experience I have had of the admirable work which is done by Joint Select Committees I have very little doubt that they will be able to go into the matter with considerable success. The unfor-

989
tunate thing is that so many people when they go in for social reform are never content unless they can get the whole measure of reform which they themselves especially happen to want. If they cannot get that, then they block everybody else who wants to pass some similar measure of social reform perhaps not going quite so far or perhaps going farther. They are never content unless the measure is exactly what they themselves want. That certainly is not my position in this matter, and I do not think that it would be the attitude of the members of the Select Joint Committee.
There is one matter to which I wish to refer and which I think can be properly mentioned, and that is in regard to the consolidation of the law dealing with this particular subject. Your Lordships know that it is the usual practice in this House for consolidation to be dealt with separate and apart from any amendment of the law, but in preparing this Bill an expert upon these subjects suggested to me that with the amendments I should combine a Consolidating Bill. Having taken advice I did not see my way to do that on the present occasion, but I hope that the Joint Select Committee may take the matter into consideration and express an opinion upon the subject.
The Joint Select Committee, I am sure, would be much strengthened if it had been possible for Lord Parmoor, who has now left the House, to joie, that body. He, I think, was more critical of the provisions of the two Bills than any other member of your Lordships' House, and I could wish that he would have become a member of that Committee, and have helped it with his advice. In any case, your Lordships will no doubt remember that the Bill will come back to this House in another shape, and on that occasion it will be possible for any of your Lordships to criticise it or to deal with it in the way in which we always deal with Bills that come before this House. I will now formally move the Second Reading of the Bill, and say that I shall afterwards move that it be referred to the same Joint Select Committee as that to which the noble Viscount who represents His Majesty's Government has already referred his Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I have had occasion to study both these Bills somewhat carefully, and I was prepared to have made some remarks to your Lordships upon both their principles and their details, but there has been so complete, and if I may say so, so satisfactory a debate this evening upon the first of the Bills that it seems to me I should unnecessarily be wasting your Lordships' time by making any of those remarks.
There is one point on which I should like to say a word, and that is about the question of inspection. The noble Lord opposite mentioned it. It is, of course, a very difficult and complicated question, and I was not surprised a few nights ago to hear a very strong protest raised against a subject of that kind having been dealt with under an Executive Order. The effect of both Bills—it is in the Government Bill as well as in that of the noble Earl—is to put this matter before what everybody will admit is the only competent authority to deal with it—namely, before Parliament. The clause—I think it is Clause 5—which contains a provision with regard to it will, I am glad to hear, go before a Joint Committee and be carefully considered, and then brought back to this House and to the other House of Parliament. It will therefore be settled by the one authority which I venture to say ought to deal with it.
Before I sit down I should like to say one word on the subject of consolidation, to which the noble Earl referred. I was aware that he had been very strongly pressed to bring in a Bill to consolidate and to amend the law. Nothing could have been more unfortunate than if he had done so from the point of view of anybody who wishes business done. It would have been impossible to prevent any one from raising any question upon the whole field of this department of legislation, and I am perfectly certain that your Lordships would never have given a Second Reading to such a Bill. The noble Earl has, therefore, shown a very wise discretion in having declined to embark upon such an undertaking. But as to the future it is quite a practical thing, and if a satisfactory Bill is framed with the aid of a Joint Committee, after hearing evidence, it may be thought that it will be well that the Acts of Parliament with reference to this subject should be combined and crystallised so as to last for some years in the form of one Consolidated Act.

991
I certainly think that we are very fortunate not to have before us such a Bill at this moment.
I hope that your Lordships will read this Bill a second time and refer it to a Joint Committee. The most rev. Primate said that the only objection to referring it to a Committee was the possibility of delay. But your Lordships will observe that if the other House is willing to accede to the proposal of this House and the Bill goes to a Joint Committee of both Houses the Committee Stage in detail will be gone through once and for all, and although, of course, it will afterwards be open to criticism in both Houses of Parliament separately, yet the most substantial and difficult part of the operation will have been carried through in Joint Committee, instead of being gone through twice, as would be the case if the Bill were not so referred.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I have only a word to say. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that I do not recognise his Bill as a competing Bill in any shape or form with my Bill. I would only say, in addition to what I have stated already, that everything in this direction assists and helps us upon the road we are endeavouring to travel. In the noble Earl's Bill there are three clauses which closely resemble three of the clauses in the Government Bill. The only difference I think is that he tries to go what I may call "one better" than the Government Bill. In regard to what has fallen from one or two noble Lords respecting the Joint Select Committee, I may say, as your Lordships know—but some of you appear to have overlooked it—that though the Bill may go to a Select Committee it must go through and run the gauntlet of all the various stages of Bills in the House itself, so that there will be ample opportunity for criticism or Amendments as the Bill passes through its stages.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Moved, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RESTRICTIONS ON RAILWAY TRAVELLING.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fresh restrictions which the Board of Trade are imposing on railway travelling, sleeping coaches should no longer run, so that a more equitable amount of accommodation may be provided for the general public; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that I need enter into an explanation of the Question that I have upon the Paper. It is possible that the Railway Executive may have determined to withdraw the sleeping coaches to which my Question refers. My reason for raising the subject is that for a long time the night trains going North have been so crowded, especially with officers and men coming and going on leave, that there has not been seating accommodation for all those who travel; consequently a number of people have either had to stand, or, if there was room, lie down in the corridors. That is not fair treatment for what I may term the general public, who should not be put to this extremity of discomfort whilst a few—a very few—enjoy all the pre-war luxury of lying down in comfortable sleeping berths. There are fresh restrictions, and presumably there will be fewer trains and fewer coaches, and consequently the overcrowding may be increased.
LORD STANMORE: MY Lords, the number of sleeping cars run on the railways has, of course, been very largely reduced since the beginning of the war, and if further restrictions, such as the noble Lord has alluded to, come into force, it may he necessary to reduce them still further. But the railway companies are of opinion, and the Board of Trade agree with them, that it is very desirable to keep a few sleeping cars running. These are largely used by soldiers and sailors—officers of the Army and Navy—and by other persons doing Government work, and therefore efforts will be made to keep a few running.
LORD LAMINGTON: Then there really ought to be sufficient accommodation provided for other people to sit during their night's journey. If the railway companies are not able to provide that adequate amount of accommodation then they ought to take off the sleepers. I should like to ask whether the noble Lord will get some information as to the number of sleepers

993
that are running. I should like to have a comparison made between the weight of a sleeping coach and of an ordinary railway carriage; and also of the number of people who are accommodated in a sleeping coach, as compared with the number who might be carried either in an ordinary first-class or an ordinary third-class railway carriage. It seems to be grossly unfair that, because people are officials, they should be allowed this great luxury, while a number of people are put to an extreme form of discomfort.
I can speak from personal experience. I take advantage, when I can, of the sleeper, but I was unable, even after three or four days' request, to get a sleeper and I had to lie down and be trampled on all night in the corridor. It is one of the most disagreeable experiences you can have. The noble Lord referred to officials who had to travel on important business, and therefore (I suppose he meant) had to be fresh for the next morning's work. On the other hand, a number of officers who do not even get seats have to go through this form of discomfort—officers and men going back to France, having to take up their responsible duties as soon as they arrive, or officers going up North to the Fleet; and they have a most horrible night's rest. I have no objection to the coaches running, provided everybody gets a seat in the train, but, if the Railway Executive are unable to provide that amount of accommodation, then they ought to take off the sleeping coaches. Therefore I hope we shall get some information on the subject, and that the noble Lord will ask for a Return to be made on the lines I have indicated or on some other lines which I could indicate to him afterwards. Accommodation should be given to the general public to the deprivation of the very few people who get these sleeping coaches.
EARL RUSSELL: I think everybody must sympathise with what the noble Lord has said about the extreme discomfort of travelling at the present time, and it is difficult, no doubt, to resist the suggestion he has made that there is a certain amount of accommodation given to some people by sleeping carriages which to some extent lessens the accommodation available for the general public. In one sense perhaps it is indefensible, but in another sense I believe the true defence is this, that when you have people of very considerable importance who have to
994
make journeys, as unfortunately they have in these days, if you provide a sleeping car for them they can save a day and arrive fresh next morning If you do not, it will mean that they will have to waste a day in travelling.
LORD LAMINGTON: They will have a seat.
EARL RUSSELL: If I may, I will illustrate what I mean with the case of Lord Pirrie, who has been recently appointed Shipping Controller. Suppose he has to take a journey to Scotland, as he very well may, on some important business. It is perfectly obvious that, if he can get a sleeping car and rest for the night, he can save a day's work. A day's work of people in that position may be worth a good deal, and it may be worth while putting people to some inconvenience. That is the real reason and justification of sleeping carriages. I am not for a moment comparing myself to Lord Pirrie, but I did have to go on business to Cornwall the other day, and I found that to the West of England there is only one sleeping car running at night. That is not very much for the whole of the West of England, but it definitely saves a whole day's work to be able to go by night and arrive fresh next morning. I have colleagues who have to travel to Scotland and from Scotland—occasionally they have to do it rather often; and Members of Parliament and members of this House have to do it rather often, and they would have to waste a very great deal of time if they were never able to travel by night. Also people of a certain age are really hardly able to travel at night. They would have to travel by day. Therefore, although on many grounds sleeping carriages in these days cannot be defended, still in that way you are saving a day's time, and in the course of the year a great many days time, of people whose services are of enormous importance to the country, and it is just worth while to keep the very restricted services that we now have.
LORD LAMINGTON: Will the noble Lord grant a Return? I will give him the details.
LORD STANMORE: The Board of Trade are now endeavouring to obtain information on the subject from the railway companies, and I will see that any informa-

995
tion which they suceed in obtaining is given to the noble Lord.

PRIVATE BILLS
[From Minutes of May 2.]
SLIGO CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  NELSON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

  ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at fifteen minutes before seven o'clock.