Sitting of 8 May 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nitrate Railways Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

MERCHANT VESSELS (GERMAN PRISONERS).
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire to present a Petition, signed by upwards of 16,000 of His Majesty's subjects, including many Members of both Houses of Parliament, asking this House to take the necessary steps to direct that a certain number of German prisoners or interned Germans should be carried on all merchant ships, as a protection to seamen and civilians travelling thereon, in view of the submarine policy of our enemies.
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
Copy presented of Actuarial Report on the Financial Effect of the new Provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1st May [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL GALLERY AND NATIONAL GALLERY OF BRITISH ART.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th May; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 55.]
PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Act, entitled the Portsmouth (Shell-fish) Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute XI. for University College, Cork [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (COLONIES).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the several British Self-Governing Dominions, Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates, in each year from 1901 to 1915. Fifty-third number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in the room of Edward Shortt, Esquire, K.C., Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—[Captain Guest.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      MEDICAL SERVICE.
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to alter the Regulations which require a member of the Indian Medical Service to have had twelve years' service before attaining his majority, bearing in mind that this period for combatant officers in the Indian Army has been reduced from eighteen to fifteen years, and, therefore, they attain their majority at a younger age than members in the Indian Medical Service who enter the Service later in life owing to their long and technical training?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Accelerated promotion in the Indian Army during the War was granted in consideration of the general acceleration of promotion in the combatant branches of the British Army. No similar ground exists for a general acceleration of promotion to major in the Indian Medical Service. As a special measure the Secretary of State for

      2123
      India in December last authorised the antedating of the promotion of certain captains of the Indian Medical Service with a view of securing for them a relative equality in seniority with that of corresponding officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps whose promotion had been specially accelerated by war conditions.

      CHAMPARAN AGRARIAN BILL.
      Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Champaran Agrarian Bill, passed on 4th March last by the Legislative Council of Behar and Orissa, has received the sanction of the Governor-General of India; whether he can say what are the changes it effects in the present system of cultivating the indigo plant, and especially as to alteration of the period of validity of existing contracts and future contracts between the planter and the cultivator; and when the new law will come into operation?
      Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): As the previous sanction of the Government of India had been given to the passing of the Act, the assent of the Governor-General may be presumed; but the Secretary of State has not yet received an authentic copy of the Act. Its effect is to abolish the system under which the landlord has, by contract or incident of tenancy, the right to select annually a specific portion of the tenant's holding, and require indigo to be grown thereon and delivered to him at a fixed rate. It makes void conditions in existing contracts between landlords and tenants, which require the tenant to set apart land for the cultivation of a particular crop, and also makes void future contracts under which the tenant undertakes, for a term exceeding three years, to supply his landlord with produce at a fixed price or rate. The Act has validity from the date of publication of the Governor-General's assent.
      Sir J. D. REES: Have the terms of the Report of the Committee gent to investigate this matter been closely followed in. the Bill?
      Mr. PRATT: My hon. Friend must put that question down on the Paper.

      LAND DISPUTES, TANJORE.
      Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can give any
      2124
      information anent the action of landowners in the district of Tanjore as to the ejectment of their panchama tenants and the means taken by the Government of Madras to settle the disputes arising there from; whether the Government intends to purchase house sites and hand them over on some co-operative arrangement to these tenants; what are the conditions of the scheme; and who are the officers that will carry it out?
      Mr. PRATT: The Secretary of State has no detailed information, but he understands that for the better protection of tenants of the panchama or pariah caste, whose claims to the sites of their houses were contested by the landlords, the Madras Government proposes to acquire the sites under the Land Acquisition Act and to hand them over to applicants on payment. In each village the applicants are to be jointly and severally responsible for the sums due. A special officer of the Provincial Service has been deputed to work out the details of a scheme on these lines.

  PRIVATE SHIPBUILDING YARDS.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the losses by marine risk and hostile action of merchant shipping largely exceeds the tonnage built for the first four months of 1918, he can give the assurance that every private shipbuilding yard is supplied with as much labour as can be profitably utilised in the replacing and repair of tonnage?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Pretyman): I cannot yet answer this question definitely in the affirmative, but the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding (Lord Pirrie) is satisfied that all practicable steps are being taken to utilise existing facilities in private shipbuilding yards to the utmost. My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware that considerable extensions of those facilities are now in course of progress, and for the proper utilisation of these further labour will be necessary.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (HANDLING).
  Colonel ROYDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any monthly or other returns are made showing the time and tonnage lost by reason of ships Lying in harbour laden or partly laden, ships

  2125
  making passages only partly laden, ships making one port and having to discharge at another port, and delay in discharging or loading of ships; and, if so, whether he will publish returns from time to time showing the tonnage hours so lost?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The points raised in the question are met in practice by keeping a close watch on the movements of each ship individually. The circumstances are so diverse that this is the only method of dealing with the matter effectively. No return of the kind indicated is, therefore, available. I am glad to be able to add that, apart from necessary delays caused by the exigencies of war, there is exhibited a constantly increasing efficiency in the turn-round and handling of shipping.
  Mr. G. FABER: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether any returns are made locally in Kent?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is indicated in my reply.

  CONCRETE SHIPS.
  Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Italian concrete ships have been built and have been in regular service in the Mediterranean and in the Adriatic some ten years; and whether he will state the tonnage of the largest British-built concrete sea-going vessel afloat, and how many British-built concrete sea-going vessels of over 400 tons gross register are afloat?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is, so I am informed, the fact that the first concrete vessels were built in Italy, but they were of very small dimensions and of no commercial value. In fact, some of them were small rowing boats. The largest concrete vessel actually afloat in English waters is a barge of a little under 400 tons, and this is the only one which has so far been launched
  Mr. HARRISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many reinforced concrete ships have been constructed in the United States; if any have reached this country to serve as a model for ship builders in the United Kingdom; and, it not, whether arrangements can be made for one of these vessels to visit England?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As far as I am aware, the first reinforced concrete ship constructed in the United States was launched at San Francisco some six weeks ago. This vessel has a dead-weight carrying capacity of 5,000 tons, but beyond this vessel no other of the same material has been launched. No vessel built of reinforced concrete has so far reached this country from the United States, and it is unlikely that the vessel which I have already referred to will be sent to the United Kingdom. Should it be found possible to send such a vessel across the Atlantic, my hon. Friend may rest assured that every advantage will be taken of such a voyage in order to submit the vessel to a practical test and to obtain such information as will enable construction of vessels of similar types to proceed as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. HARRIS: Have returns been obtained from America as to the success or otherwise of these particular ships of 5,000 tons?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We have had no experience. It was only six weeks ago that the ship was launched.
  Mr. WILESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received detailed technical information as to the sea-going vessel of 5,000 tons that has been launched in the United States, and of which a number of duplicates are being laid down; whether he will state if any encouragement is being given in this country, either to existing shipbuilders or newly-formed enterprises, to construct similar concrete ships of large tonnage; and why, having regard to the necessity of economising steel, the endeavours of his Department appear limited to the construction of vessels and barges of only 1,000 tons and under?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir; full particulars of the vessel to which my ton. Friend refers have been received in this country, and full advantage is being taken of this information.
  Every encouragement is being given by the Admiralty to this new industry, several newly-formed yards having been laid down specially for constructing concrete craft, while existing shipyards have been encouraged to form branch establishments for the same purpose without interference with the building of steel vessels.

  2127
  Whilst it is true that at present no vessels of more than 1,000 tons are being constructed to the order of the Admiralty, it should not be forgotten that there was a very urgent demand for vessels of small tonnage which could be rapidly constructed. In view of this it was decided to concentrate on the smaller craft until more experience had been obtained as to the construction of such craft and, what is of much more importance, their behaviour when at sea.
  My hon. Friend will realise that in a new method of construction such as this there are very many details of which full knowledge can only be acquired by experience. He may rest assured, however, that the building of vessels of reinforced concrete is receiving the closest attention, and that every advantage will be taken of the knowledge that is being obtained.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    NAVAL PENSIONERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position as regards the new Military Service Act of a man who has twenty-one years' service in the Navy, and, after being retired to pension, was called up at the beginning of the War, but, on being medically examined, rejected as unfit for further service; and will that man be called up again under the extended legislation or will his position be exactly what it was after his first medical examination?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The man's position is not altered by the new Military Service Act.

    VOLUNTEER FORCE OFFICERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the anxiety felt on the subject, he can make a further statement with regard to the position of Volunteer officers and state definitely what is the position of men who have served in the Volunteer regiments who are now over forty-five years of age and under fifty-one; will these men have an opportunity of being sent to Cadet Battalions or will they have to join up as privates, or will they not be called up at all; (2) whether he can say that the limited age of forty-five at which Volunteer officers are to be sent to Cadet
    2128
    Battalions means forty-five at the time they receive a calling-up notice or forty-five when they are actually called up for service; and what is the position of a man who is just upon forty-five when he receives his calling-up notice and just over forty-five when actually called up?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)The age limit of forty-five years, mentioned in my reply on Wednesday last, was only taken provisionally, and the question of the older men will receive further consideration. Any Volunteer officers actually called up will, of course, be eligible for the special course of instruction irrespective of the precise date of their birthday. Non-commissioned officers and men of the Volunteer Force will be treated as all other civilians, and will, on being recommended, be admitted for training for commissioned rank according to the demand for officers.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the military training of a Volunteer officer counts for nothing?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I think it counts for a great deal, because, if there are vacancies, they are sent directly to a Cadet Battalion.
    Sir C.KINLOCH-COOKE: But if there are no vacancies, what happens to the Volunteer officers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: They go to an Officers' Training Corps—either the Inns of Court or the Artists' Rifles.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the hon. Gentleman say that they might or might not be selected, and what becomes of those who are not selected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I said that any Volunteer officer called up will be eligible for the special course of instruction irrespective of the precise date of his birthday.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICERS AND MEN).
    Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause a Return to be issued without delay giving the number of officers and men up to the age of forty years, fit for service overseas, who are employed in the various Departments of the Admiralty, War Office, Royal Air Force, Ministry of Munitions, Ministry of National Service, Food Ministry, and the Civil Service; and whether instructions will be

    2129
    forthwith issued to the majority of these officers and men to proceed abroad and their positions refilled by those who have been wounded or are unfit for general service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of officers and men serving in the Army who are employed in the undermentioned Departments, and who are under the age of forty years and fit for general service overseas, is as follows:

    Department.

    Officers.

    Men.

    Admiralty

    34

    11*

    War Office

    227

    41†

    Air Ministry

    31

    Nil.‡

    Ministry of Munitions

    498

    Nil.

    Ministry of National Service

    5

    Nil. §

    Ministry of Food

    5

    Nil.

    Other Government Departments.

    13

    — ║

    * This includes a civil engineer-in-chief and ten draughtsmen.

    †These are specialists.

    ‡Does not include men of the Royal Air Force.

    §There are four men in Scotland, categories not known, but presumably not Al

    ║ Information not available.

    As regards the last part of the question, no such peremptory Order as suggested could reasonably be given. Each case must be considered on its merits. As far as the War Office is concerned, there is a constant interchange between the War Office and the different theatres of war.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not possible to make some changes with regard to this large number of officers, so that their services could be utilised in other spheres in connection with the War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only speak directly for the War Office, but, with regard to the other Departments, when representation is made to us about individual officers we are assured by Departments asking for the services of an individual officer that he has the personal qualifications and is the very officer they want.
    Sir F. HALL: But is it not the fact that many officers over the age of forty are quite as capable of carrying out the work as these other officers? Is there any special reason why these specific officers should in all these cases be asked for?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In each case it is a question purely of individual capacity.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Have any of these officers and men already been abroad?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Again I can only speak for the War Office. I am quite certain that the great majority of them have been abroad and have been wounded. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a question with regard to any individual Department I will make inquiries.

    IRISHMEN (ENLISTMENT IN FRENCH ARMY).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that some Irishmen are showing a certain disinclination to enlist as soldiers in the service of the. Empire; and if he will arrange so that all Irishmen who may so elect may follow an old Irish custom and enlist under the French flag, and under the conditions obtaining in the French Army, and that the cost thereof should be defrayed to our Ally by this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is. practicable.

    RUSSIANS AND ITALIANS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Minister of National Service how many men of Russian and Italian nationality, respectively, have been called to the Colours in this country under the military conventions; how many of these Russians and Italians, respectively, have applied for exemption as conscientious objectors against military service; how many Russians and Italians, respectively, have received exemption on this ground; and how many have been refused exemption?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The number of men of Russian and Italian nationality posted for service with the British forces under the respective military conventions up to the 31st March last, is 2,822 Russians and 426 Italians. The Ministry of National Service has no record of the grounds upon Which Russians and Italians are granted or refused exemptions.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps have been taken by the Minister of National Service to enlist the thousands of Russian

    2131
    officers who have expressed their willingness to serve in the ranks of the British Army in order to fight the Germans?
    Mr. BECK: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

    EXEMPTED MEN (MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of National Service whether a man who is employed in an occupation which is a certified occupation for men of his age and who has not been called up under the Military Service Acts is obliged to submit himself for medical examination if he receives an official notice calling upon him to do so; and whether, if he responds to such a notice, his position with regard to his conditional exemption will be liable to be prejudiced?
    Mr. BECK: The Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, Section 4 (5) provides that a man can be required to be medically examined or re-examined notwithstanding that he may hold a certificate of exemption. A man summoned for medical examination must, therefore, respond to the summons. If he is placed in a higher grade than previously, that fact will be a material one if his case be again brought before a tribunal.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does that obligation to attend for medical examination apply to those who have obtained exemption on conscientious grounds?
    Mr. BECK: Administratively it does not make any difference; perhaps legally it does. I am not sure. I must have notice, and I will inquire.

    CHAUFFEURS.
    Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Minister of National Service whether chauffeurs employed by medical men who are carrying on large general practices not only of their own, but also of medical men who are serving in the Army, and who are very dependent on their experienced driver, may be exempted from military service?
    Mr. BECK: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the answer that I gave yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities to the effect that the Decertification Order of the 9th April applies to chauffeurs who fulfil the conditions contained therein as to age and medical category, but that a
    2132
    certain discretion is vested in National Service Representatives to be exercised in urgent and exceptional cases until an efficient substitute has been found. It cannot be too strongly urged that all motor drivers fit for military service should be replaced at the earliest moment by either women, unfit men, or men discharged from the forces.

    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES WITHDRAWN.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked 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. BECK: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I understand that John Clifford M'Ellin was originally granted exemption, conditional upon his undertaking work of national importance, on the ground of conscientious objection to military service. When his case came up for review, his certificate of exemption was withdrawn by the local tribunal, and he has lodged an appeal with the North Staffordshire Appeal Tribunal, which is now pending.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Irish are unpopular?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether that is not a matter of notoriety, and is it not a fact that this exemption was withdrawn because the military representative said that the man must be a Sinn Feiner?
    Mr. BECK: My information does not accord with that of my hon. and gallant Friend. In any event this is a matter for the tribunal. The case is now going to the Appeal Tribunal, and I cannot say anything useful.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have these military representatives the right to insult this Irishman or anybody bearing an Irish name?
    Mr. BECK: I do not think they do.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?

    OVERSEAS SERVICE (CHEVRONS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that the chevrons awarded for service overseas by an Army Order of the

    2133
    20th December, 1917, have not yet been issued to all troops; and will he take steps to expedite the issue?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the chevrons, and manufacturers are largely in arrears. All demands for red chevrons have been met. As regards the blue chevrons, only about one-eighth of the total number ordered have been received. These have been issued to the troops at home and abroad, preference being given to demands from abroad. Everything possible is being done to expedite the delivery of supplies from the manufacturers.

    ARMY PAY CORPS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Under secretary of State for War whether the men in the Army Pay Corps under the age of thirty-five, category A I have yet been transferred to fighting units; and, if not, when will the consideration this question is receiving be concluded?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I can name no date. The sudden withdrawal of these men would cause great confusion in the soldiers' accounts, the regularity of which is not without importance to the well-being of the Army. My hon. and learned Friend may rest assured that the matter is not being overlooked.

    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Under secretary of State for War, whether pensioned non-commissioned officers who may be called up under the Military Service Act, 1918, will be entitled to the rank and position they held on discharge to pension?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my replies to questions by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow on Monday last.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Under secretary of State for War whether the Army Orders requiring the employment of qualified dispensers were altered after his attention had been drawn to the fact that an unqualified person of military age was being employed at No. 2 London General Hospital, and in order to enable the authorities to retain this man, though there were a number of qualified women on the waiting list; is he aware that this man's medical category was B 1, and will he say when it was reduced to B3; and
    2134
    whether it was so reduced after an examination by a travelling medical board; and, if not, will he have this man medically examined by such a board, and give the result of such an examination?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. The Regulation regarding the qualifications of dispensers was made during the South African War; it was renewed in September, 1914, and has been in force since then. The suggestion that it was introduced or altered to meet the case of Corporal Heaseman is, therefore, incorrect. This non-commissioned officer was examined by a travelling medical board in August, 1917, and was then placed in category C 3, which under present Regulations is now B 3. He has been re-examined quite recently, when the classification B 3 was confirmed, and the Board directed that it was not necessary for him to be again examined for a period of six months.

    COURTS OF INQUIRY.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many Courts of Inquiry were held last year; in how many cases Reports were presented; and in how many cases the Reports were acted on to the detriment of the soldier concerned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that this information is not available.

  ROYAL NAVY (PAY OF LIEUTENANTS).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether chief officers of coastguards, cruisers, and divisional officers, late of cruisers, ranking lieutenant Royal Navy, are still receiving the same rate of pay, namely, 10s. per day, as they were receiving in 1858; and will he consider the possibility of some advance being made in the remuneration given to these officers?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The pay of commissioned warrant officers, warrrant officers and officers promoted there from, with whom the officers referred to in the question rank, is at present under consideration by a Committee recently appointed by the Admiralty, and pending receipt of that Committee's Report I am unable to make any definite statement. As my hon.

  2135
  Friend is no doubt aware, the conditions of service of these officers have been materially improved since the outbreak of war by the grant of separation allowance or family allowance, and the recently introduced allotment concession or family concession.

  BELGIUM.

    FORCED BOY LABOUR BEHIND GERMAN LINES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information that Belgian boys and youths have recently been forced to labour behind the fighting lines in Belgium and France; and if any protest has been made through neutral countries by the Allies at this action of the German military authorities?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand that the Belgian Government intends to make a protest, which will have the warmest sympathy of His Majesty's Government.

  ROUMANIA.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Peace Treaty between Roumania and the Central Powers has now been formally ratified; if so, whether Roumania has received diplomatic representatives from the Central Powers; and, if so, whether Roumania has now passed from the position of an Allied State in this War to the status of neutrality?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The treaty to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not been formally ratified.
  Mr. KING: Then the information in this morning's papers has not yet been confirmed by the Foreign Office?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Not as yet.

  MR. K. D. NABOKOFF.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount, or amounts, have been recommended by the Foreign Office to be advanced by the
  2136
  Treasury to Mr. K. D. Nabokoff, ex-Russian Chargé d'Affaires, since 12th March, 1917?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No definite amounts were recommended to the Treasury.
  Mr. KING: I should like to know whether they were recommended to the Treasury by the Foreign Office?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No definite amounts were recommended by the Foreign Office to the Treasury.
  Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any applications from Mr. Konstantine Dmitrivitch Nabokoff, formerly Chargé d'Affaires of the Russian Government in London, for financial aid was made in order that he might regularise or adjust his own private liabilities or solely in order that liabilities of the past Russian régime should be met; if private liabilities of Mr. K. D. Nabokoff have been met through British moneys advanced, whether security for or promise of repayment has been given; and what amount has Mr. K. D. Nabokoff received for this purpose?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No payments have been made to Mr. Nabokoff to meet his private liabilities, nor has any application for such payment been received from any quarter. The only sum that has so far been advanced to the Embassy has been an amount of £300 to meet the necessary expenses of upkeep.

  SIBERIA.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foregn Affairs the nature of the report of the British officer, or British mission, who recently returned from Siberia to Volgoda; and whether the telegraphic news of thousands of German prisoners being rearmed and organised to fight against the Allies is confirmed or denied by this officer or mission?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The reports that reach us on this subject are conflicting, and I do not think anything would be gained by selecting for publication one fraction of the evidence.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CADET TRAINING SCHOOLS (RATIONS).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the

    2137
    young cadets, many of whom have just left school, who are being trained for commissions at the various officer cadet training schools, receive during the terms or the holidays rations equal to those who are under training at Woolwich and Sandhurst?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The officer cadets do not get exactly the same rations as the cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich, because the large majority of the former are over nineteen years of age, whereas the opposite is the case at Sandhurst and Woolwich.

    CHAFF AND STRAW.
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received reports from Colonel Peace, commanding the Army Service Corps, North Midland District, as to the chaff and wheat straw supplied to Ashby Mill, Leicestershire, for the horses of the Food Production Department; and what action he is taking?
    Mr. FORSTER: Reports regarding this matter have been received in the War Office, and, in consequence, the Chief Inspector of Forage was sent to make full inquiry yesterday. The result of his investigations has not yet been received.
    Mr. HARRIS: If I submit a sample of the straw supplied to the right hon. Gentleman, will he have it inspected?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; but I am not sure that my judgment will be very valuable. The chief inspector, as I informed my hon. Friend, has been sent down to inquire into the matter on the spot.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railways are being used to send chaff and straw to Leicestershire from Somersetshire, Cardiff, and Cheshire; whether he is aware that such chaff and straw have been condemned as useless at Ashby Mill during April; and whether he will arrange with the appropriate Department to purchase supplies locally, so as to save the use of the railways at a time when there is a shortage of railway transport?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. There has not been time to make inquiries into the particular cases mentioned by the hon. Member. At the present time there is a shortage of forage, and it does happen
    2138
    occasionally that hay, not of a suitable class for shipment overseas, but suitable for civilian requirements and surplus to the needs of the community of the district in which it was grown, has to be moved substantial distances. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that the most careful attention is given to the conservation of railway facilities and mileage. I dealt with the second part of the question earlier, in answer to Question No. 40.

    DOG BISCUITS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister whether, before the discontinuance of the manufacture of dog biscuits and the consequent suffering or premature slaughter of a number of valuable dogs and dogs valued by their owners, he will see that the stores used in feeding the meat gating, grain consuming, the grass, hay, and root feeders at the Zoological Gardens, where animals, birds, etc., are kept in lifelong confinement in narrow limits, shall first be given up?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. The question of releasing a limited amount of flour for the manufacture of dog biscuits has been referred for the decision of the War Cabinet.

    RATIONS FOR CHILDREN.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether children who reached the age of six before 1st March, 1918, are entitled to full meat rations whilst children who reach the age of six after that date are not entitled to full meat rations until reaching the age of ten; what is the purpose of this differentiation of treatment; and, seeing that the physical welfare of all children is so important to the nation, whether he will issue fresh Regulations ensuring that all children on arriving at the age of six are uniformly treated?
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member has been misinformed. It is true that children who had not reached the age of six by 1st March are not entitled to' full adult rations during the currency of the present cards which expire on 13th July, but on the issue of the fresh ration books for the period after that date, any child who has reached the age of six by 1st July will be entitled to an adult book.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: That means that automatically when a child reaches the age he will be able to get it?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes; on the date named.

    SUNFLOWERS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that many per sons desire to know what will be the result if they respond to the appeal to grow sunflowers; and can he give any in formation as to the price which will be paid for the seed in the autumn and the principal objects for which the sunflower seed will be required?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is desired to encourage the growing of sunflowers on ground which is not required for more important crops, and, with this end in view, a price sufficient to allow a reasonable profit to the grower will shortly be fixed for sunflower seed. The seed can be used as a poultry food, or can be crushed for the sake of the valuable oil which it contains.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication to persons who desire to grow sunflowers in response to the demand whether they are to commence growing them largely, and whether there is to be a real demand for the seed in the autumn?
    Mr. CLYNES: They should grow largely consistent with there being land available which is not being used for other purposes.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: These are plots that are available for the purpose.
    Mr. CLYNES: In those cases they can be used for sunflower purposes.

    HORSE RATIONS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his attention has been called to the allegation that the rations allowed to working horses are in many cases in sufficient owing to the lack of proper nutrition in various mixtures or classes of provender sold for feeding horses; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The cereal rations at present allowed to
    2140
    working horses were fixed after full consideration and after taking expert advice. The rations are graded according to the class of horse and the manner in which it is worked, and they are regarded as sufficient to keep horses in proper working condition during the summer months. The only ingredient in the provender mixture that is generally poorer in quality than usual is the hay, and this is not at present rationed.
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention to reduce the rations?
    Mr. CLYNES: Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for the poor condition of the horses we have seen in London to-day—what general reason is there to account for that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.

    TREACLE.
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that, since the price of treacle was fixed at 10d. per lb., many grocers have declined to stock it on the ground that the official price leaves insufficient profit; and if he proposes to take steps to ensure a proper distribution of an article so necessary in face of the limited supply of sugar?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have no information as to any action of this kind on the part of the grocery trade, and there appears to be no foundation for the suggestion that the profit for the retailer will be inadequate. Steps have been taken to secure a proper distribution of this article.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the rationing of treacle, as it is really a substitute for sugar, and fair distribution is as necessary as for sugar?
    Mr. CLYNES: The reason why rationing of treacle has not been adopted is that there are many difficulties in connection with it. We are trying to arrange an equitable distribution.
    Mr. TICKLER: I should be glad to give the hon. Member information—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Lobby is the place for that.

    PORE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how persons are to get pork if they can only be registered at butchers for meat and pork is included in the definition of meat, seeing that few butchers sell pork; and will he make some arrangement whereby a person can register for pork at a pork butcher and for meat at a meat butcher, seeing that unless this is done in the designing of cards the person must go without pork altogether?
    Mr. CLYNES: Customers are not required to register for pork. They may buy pork, on presentation of a meat card and detaching of the appropriate coupons, either from the butcher with whom they are registered for other butcher's meat or from any butcher who sells pork but not butcher's meat. This has always been the system outside London and the Home Counties, and these districts are now being brought into line in this respect.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I to understand that this is a custom in London at this moment?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes.

    HAM.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the price of ham is out of the reach of many people, and that with the reduced ration of butcher's meat nothing remains but fat bacon, which many persons cannot eat; and will he either fix the price of ham so as to bring it within the range of persons with small incomes or make it possible to obtain lean bacon, if it is desired?
    Mr. CLYNES: I should have thought that the cheaper variety of hams and the cheaper cuts of bacon were reasonably within the means of those who were accustomed to make these purchases before the War. The price of prime ham is necessarily fixed in proportion to the cost. Picnic hams are obtainable at about Is. 6d. per 1b.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which refers to lean bacon?
    Mr. CLYNES: I take that to be part of the question stating an opinion not requiring a definite answer.

  GERMAN PRISONERS (RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Undersecretary of State for War why certain of our Army officers, returning from active service at the front, were turned out of a first-class carriage at Folkestone to make room for German prisoners; whether he has seen the German official notice, published in the "North German Gazette" on the 20th April last, which has been set out in some of our newspapers, to the effect that second-class carriages for officer prisoners in Germany can only be permitted if ordinary passengers with second-class tickets are not thereby placed at a disadvantage, in which case officer prisoners must be sent into third-class carriages; and why we do not adopt similar treatment?
  Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that two ladies were recently requested to leave a first-class carriage at Bournemouth in order to make room for German prisoners, and will he give an order that German prisoners are to be treated in exactly the same way as British prisoners are in Germany, putting them in third-class carriages or in an empty luggage van?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As regards-the alleged incident at Folkestone, inquiries have been made, and, so far as can be ascertained, there is no truth in the statement. I am also informed that no prisoners have ever travelled from the Harbour Station by other than special prisoners' trains. The explanation may possibly be that on the 22nd and 23rd April German prisoners were disembarked at the Harbour Station, and the passengers from the mail boat had to pass empty special prisoners' trains to get to the officers' train on another platform. If any officers did get into this train they would have been told that it was a special prisoners' train and have been directed to the London train.
  As regards the incident at Southampton, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply on the 29th April last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch.
  As regards the question of accommodation, I am having instructions issued that enemy officer prisoners of war should be provided with second-class accommoda-

  2143
  tion, and if this be not available they should travel third-class in reserved compartments.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our officers in Germany are not provided with second-class accommodation—are they not now getting third-class or cattle trucks?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know. I must have notice of that question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that up to the present moment these German officers have been in the habit of travelling first-class?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is the case.

  OFFICER CADETS, CROOKHAM.
  Major NEWMANasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether cadets stationed at Crookham are given little leave; whether some of these cadets who are stationed there have not had any leave for over twelve months; and whether he can take any steps to remedy the matter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend is misinformed. Officer cadets stationed at Crookham receive fourteen days' leave before joining, eight days' leave at half-term, and when they pass out, after six months, a further ten days' leave prior to being gazetted as officers. In six or seven months, therefore, cadets receive three periods of leave, and are generously treated in this respect. All cadets also received leave at Christmas. I am afraid I do not understand the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, as cadets are stationed at Crookham for six months only, being the duration of the course of training.

  TIMBER FELLING, PENRITH BEACON, CUMBERLAND.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Canadian Forestry Corps are engaged in felling some 300 acres of Scottish pine trees on Penrith Beacon, Cumberland, and that a portion of the wood near Stag-stones was recently destroyed by fire owing to the corps having burnt the tops
  2144
  and branches of the felled timber; whether, in so doing, the corps was acting on specific instructions; whether pine-weevil has been ascertained to be present in this wood; why this waste of fuel was permitted; and if he will give instructions that no further destruction of tops and branches of trees shall take place on Penrith Beacon'
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. A company of the Canadian Forestry Corps are felling timber at Penrith Beacon. By the purchase agreement they are required to clear up after felling and to burn the brush, as is usual, but wood fit for fuel or other purposes is removed as far as possible before burning. On one occasion the fire spread from the burning brush to part of the standing wood, but was extinguished promptly. No timber was destroyed or damage done. Without further inquiry, I am unable to say to what extent this wood contained pine-weevil.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department, in answer to a question put by me the other day, said that the burning of these tops of branches was entirely due to the necessity of precautions against pine-weevil, while the right hon. Gentleman now says it was necessary in order to clear the ground; is not the real reason for this policy that it has been found that unauthorised persons are apt to come on the ground and take away firewood, and would it not be an advantage that they should do so rather than that this waste should occur?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid I could not give an answer offhand to that particular question. I know that in this particular instance referred to it was a condition of the agreement that this refuse should be destroyed.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that no such agreements are made in future? The right hon. Gentleman now sees that such agreements provide for the waste of a great amount of valuable fuel when it is very scarce and dear.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I agree. I think that is a point that requires consideration, and I will bring it to the attention of the Department.

  VICTORIA CROSS (ANNUAL PAYMENT).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can order that the annual payment due to a man who has been awarded the Victoria Cross shall, in the case of his death either before the award or afterwards, be paid to the mother or widow of the man during their lifetime?
  Mr. FORSTER: The special pension referred to is payable only to the man himself, and I fear I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  HUTMENT CAMPS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WILESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any complaints have been received as to timber buildings in hutment camps in Scotland having become verminous; whether any, and, if so, how many, had for this or similar reasons to be destroyed by fire as they could not be disinfected; whether he will state what the total value of the huts so destroyed has been to 31st March, 1918; on what date the War Office ceased erecting timber huts in Scotland, having regard to the medical and technical opinion as to the hygienic disadvantages and fire dangers of timber hutments; if any endeavour is being made to erect all necessary hutments in non-proprietary concrete slabs or hollow concrete blocks; and, if so, since what date?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that no complaints have been received as to timber buildings in hutment camps in Scotland having become verminous. The other parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

  WHITSUN BANK HOLIDAY.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to allow the usual Bank Holiday on Whitsun Monday this year?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): It is not proposed to interfere this year with the usual Bank Holiday on Whit Monday, but special arrangements may, of course, have to be made in regard to particular establishments in which work is being done for the Government.
  2146
  In addition, the Government have, on earnest representations from the banks, decided that the extra Bank Holiday which was asked for, but which it was not found possible to allow at Easter, should be given on Saturday, the 18th instant. It is not intended that the day should be kept as a general Bank Holiday, and a notice to that effect will be issued to the public accordingly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are the clerks to have a real holiday, or are they to do work in the banks on the Saturday?

  RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister (l) whether the Government or the War Cabinet has considered the proposals to replace the Russian Government Committee by an Anglo-Russian Commission; if so, whether it is proposed that General Hermonius and the other leading members of the Russian Government Committee, established under the Tzarist régime, will be members of the Committee; whether the present de facto Government of Russia is co-operating, or will be represented on, the proposed Anglo-Russian Commission; what are the objects and functions of the newly-proposed organisation; (2) whether the British Government has at any time since 12th March, 1917, advanced money for the purposes or expenses of the Russian Government Committee, whose offices are at Canada and India Houses, Kingsway; whether several hundreds of Russians were employed; that a large staff is still in daily attendance there; and that the salaries paid have been at a very high rate, a second lieutenant receiving £100 a month; and whether he can state that no part of, nor liability for, the extravagance and waste of the Tzarist Government's agents after 12th March, 1917, will fall on the finances of this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question of yesterday, certain sums have been advanced to the Russian Government Committee for necessary expenses in connection with the liquidation of the preexisting position. Up to the present the retention of a certain part of the Russian Government Committee staff has been considered necessary for this purpose, but final arrangements as to the future of the Committee are now under consideration.
  Mr. KING: The point of Question 46 is whether a new organisation or new committee is contemplated on new lines. We have had no answer to that.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This is an answer: the whole basis of the Committee is being reorganised.

  CAPTAIN REDMOND, M.P.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford was present at the meeting of the Irish Parliamentary party held in Dublin on the 19th April, at which resolutions were passed unanimously advocating resistance to the imposition of the Military Service Act in Ireland, as set out in the official report of the meeting handed to the Press; and whether the hon. and gallant Member has, since the publication of that official report of the party of which he is a prominent member, taken up duties on the Staff of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces, in connection with intelligence duties?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
  General CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what action is proposed by the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend may ask me, but I can give him no answer that any action is being taken.

  SOMME BATTLE.

    WITHDRAWAL OF FIFTH ARMY.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken to secure full reports from all corps, divisional, and brigade commanders, and also from all units, of the position they occupied before and during the recent withdrawal of the Fifth Army, and to secure copies of all orders received and issued before and during the withdrawal, the dates and hours of the retirement of each unit and of each headquarters, the reasons for such retirement, whether by order of superior authority, by enemy force, or otherwise, and the action taken by each unit; whether junior officers will be permitted to submit to such Court in writing any account of their actions before and during
    2148
    the withdrawal; whether such junior officers will be given protection for any such evidence they may give; and whether the original or copies of all orders and documents submitted to the Court of Inquiry will be forwarded to the Army Council in full, together with the Report of the Court of Inquiry?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the written answer which I gave on the 1st May to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Hampshire West, to which I have nothing to add.
    Sir I. PHILIPPSasked whether the Army Council will suggest to Sir Douglas Haig that, to satisfy public opinion in this country, it is desirable that two civilian members of standing, of whom one shall be a judge of the High Court of Justice, should be appointed to the Military Court of Inquiry ordered to investigate the circumstances of the withdrawal of the Fifth Army; and whether, to bring these civilian members within the purview of the Army Act and to enable them to sit on such Court of Inquiry, the Army Council will give them temporary commissions in the Army of such rank as may be considered desirable?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the Fifth Army on the Somme had on the 21st March only fourteen Infantry divisions against forty German divisions reinforced by eight or ten more German divisions during the subsequent two days; if so, who was responsible, when the attack was foreseen by the present Chief of the Staff, for compelling the British forces to face such overwhelming odds, resulting in a reverse to the British forces; and whether such person or persons are still engaged in the active direction of the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible for me to answer a question of this kind.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that such persons responsible for the disposition of the British forces there are no longer in the employ of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should think it possible that a question of this kind can be-discussed in the House.

  HORSE-RACING.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister what is the decision of the War Cabinet on the subject of the continuance of horse-racing in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No decision has yet been arrived at in regard to this question.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether exercise for British officers detained in the prisoners of war camp at Saarbrücken is confined to a space about 100 yards by 20 yards; whether officers in this country are treated in a similar manner; and, if not, will he take steps to secure that a communication should reach the German Government intimating that unless these prisoners of war are granted greater freedom, instead of being confined to an exercise yard like criminals, German officer prisoners of war in this country will be treated in a similar manner?
  Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply on 1st May to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
  General CROFTasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the British Government is satisfied with the feeding of the British prisoners at Groningen Camp; whether they are only allowed 2 ozs. of meat weekly; and, if so, what steps he proposes taking to alleviate their condition?
  Mr. J. HOPE: Owing to delay in receipt of mails, His Majesty's Government have only just received reports on this matter from His Majesty's Legation at The Hague, who have already taken it up with the Netherland authorities. His Majesty's Minister is now being instructed by telegram to renew his representations and to press strongly for immediate improvement of conditions under which the British subjects affected are interned. His Majesty's Government had not received information regarding the meat allowance, but inquiry is being made on this point in the telegram.

  PARCELS FOR TROOPS IN FRANCE.
  Sir C. KINLOCH COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that
  2150
  parcels sent by post to the troops in Franc must not exceed in weight 7 lbs., and the parcels sent via the London and South-Western Railway to Southampton, care of the Military Forwarding Officer, will not be accepted unless weighing over 11 lbs., the result being that any parcel between these weights cannot be forwarded unless it is filled with packing to make up the deficiency; and whether, in view of public economy both as regards packing material and shipping space, he will consider the advisability of making some change in these arrangements?
  The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 3rd December last to the hon. Member for Plymouth. There has recently been a noticeable drop in the number of parcels, and I am considering whether the maximum weight limit could now be increased without creating transport difficulties.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member now addressing him is the hon. Member for Devonport, and not for Plymouth?

  CASUALTIES BRANCH (WAR OFFICE).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has recently taken over two blocks of offices in Finsbury Pavement, E. C.; if so, will he state for what Departments they are intended; is he aware that, within a few hundred yards, there stands an empty hotel building in Aldersgate Street and a new block of offices in Finsbury Circus; and will he state why these were not used in preference to buildings in which the usual occupiers are turned out and their established offices and business arrangements all upset?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): A portion only of the offices in Finsbury Pavement has been taken for the casualties branch of the War Office; the hotel referred to is not empty; the pew block of offices in Finsbury Circus is incomplete, but the completed portions were all in occupation when the Finsbury Pavement premises were taken.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Are the officials who carry out the negotiations and inquiries in connection with the commandeering of these buildings thoroughly acquainted with London building conditions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.

  HOME FORCES (COMMAND).
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether Lord French, in accepting the position of Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, relinquishes the command of the Home Forces in Great Britain?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

  HOME RULE AND CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Prime Minister whether he can assure this House that the proposed Home Rule Bill for Ireland will not be carried beyond Second Reading until compulsory military ser vice has been applied to Ireland, according to the law, equally with the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a question by the right hon. Member for Islington West.
  Mr. FABER: Is it intended to press the Home Rule Bill into law, even though compulsory military service in Ireland meanwhile remains ineffective?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The intention of the Government in that matter was clearly stated by the Prime Minister, and it has undergone no change.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Was not the calling up of men up to fifty made contingent on applying Conscription to Ireland?
  Mr. HOGGE: Seeing that Conscription obtains in Scotland, will the Government give us a Home Rule Bill at once?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no reason to believe that Scotland desires it.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the statement of the hon. Member for Galway that the passage of Home Rule will be a permanent guarantee against Conscription in Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, my attention was called to it, but it does not affect in any way the intentions of the Government.

  AMERICAN TROOPS ON WESTERN FRONT.
  Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister how many Americans there were at the beginning of this month actively engaged on the Western Front; and what reinforcements per month we may reasonably expect from the United States in the future?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This also is a question which it would clearly not be right to answer.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the Germans know to a nicety the number of Americans?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To the best of my belief it is not it the least likely. I am sure we would give a good deal to know the number of Germans.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that statements are made daily by American politicians, and are all these statements to be discredited?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I know of no statements conveying the kind of information in question.

  MEMBERS' SALARIES.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that less than one-half its elected Members are able or willing to give this House the benefit of their attendance, and that Members of one political party has decided to withdraw from its sitting altogether; and whether, as Members are now paid a salary to defray the expenses consequent on their attendance, he proposes to recommend that the drawing of salary shall be contingent on the carrying out the duties for which it was voted; (2) whether he is aware of the resentment that is felt by the taxpayers of the country on being called on to pay yearly salaries to Members of this House who, for political reasons, business engagements, or mere lack of interest, decline to attend the sittings of the House for long periods together; and, with a view to the money of the taxpayer

  2153
  being saved, will he consider the advisability of the payment of Members being made not by the year but by the sitting?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth on 1st May.

  FOUR PER CENT. WAR BONDS.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, by legislation or otherwise, make it clear that the 4 per Cent. War Bonds issued at 30s. per cent. premium are eligible for the investment of trust funds?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am advised that 4 per Cent. National War Bonds do not cease to be a trustee investment when issued at a premium.

  CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY.
  Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Co-operative Wholesale Society have purchased in the past two years approximately 30,000 acres of agricultural land for the purpose of co-operative farming; if so, whether the sanction of the Treasury has been obtained for the issue of capital to finance the transaction; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that exemption from income and Excess Profits Taxes is claimed by co-operative societies for the reason that they do not make profits, he has made any inquiry as to the source from which the funds are derived for purchasing, working, and stocking this land?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information with regard to the first part of the question. The answer to the second and last parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, Clause 24, a registered society that does not sell to persons not members thereof is exempt from payment of Income Tax under Schedule D, and as all persons who pay Is. can become members of any co-operative society, whether the Co-operative Wholesale Society will be able to farm the whole of the 30,000 acres recently purchased and pay no Income Tax if they elect to be assessed under
  2154
  Schedule D; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the hardship to farmers of this provision and to prevent the exemption from war taxation of the co-operative societies from being used to-extinguish and destroy all individual agricultural and other industry?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are advised that in the event of election by a co-operative society for assessment in respect of the occupation of lands for the purpose of husbandry under Schedule D instead of Schedule B, it would not be competent to such a society to claim relief from the Schedule D charge made in pursuance of that election by reference to the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893.
  Mr. WING: May we take it that co-operative societies bear the same proportion of taxation as any other order of persons?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

  INCOME TAX (FARMERS).
  Major WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the date in each year up to which it will be open for a farmer to elect to be assessed for Income Tax under Schedule D rather than under Schedule B?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1887, from which it will be seen that the election for assessment under Schedule D is required to be notified within two calendar months after the commencement of the year of assessment. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that the farmer who does not elect for assessment under Schedule D, but remains under Schedule B, if he finds that his actual profits for the you are less than the amount of the assessment, can claim a corresponding reduction of the charge.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Can a farmer who elects to be assessed under Schedule D be assessed for each year separately or on the basis of the three years average?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: He will be assessed, if he makes the election, in the same way as other people, on the three years, average.

  TEXTILE EXPORTS SHIPPING COMMITTEE.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Textile Exports Shipping Committee has been completed; and, if so, will he say who are the members thereof?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The committee has been completed. I will have the names of the members printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following constitute the Committee referred to:

  Members.

  Nominated by

  Edward Rhodes (Chairman)

  The Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

  J. G. Nidd

  T. Walkden

  J. P. Rodier

  F. A. Lander

  R. J. Kerr

  E. H. Langdon

  W. E. Thompson

  E. S. Macpherson

  T. E. Casdagli

  H. M. Gibson

  J. F. N. Graham.

  The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.

  William Anderson

  T. Longbottom

  The Bradford Chamber of Commerce.

  George Booth

  H. J. Kiaer

  The Leeds Chamber of Commerce.

  A. Lorrimer

  The Leicester Chamber of Commerce.

  C. Thomas Smith

  The Nottingham Chamber of Commerce.

  A. B. Ball (Secretary)

  HORSE TRANSPORT (CONTROLLER).
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Controller of Horse Transport has any authority to intervene in cases where horses are underfed, overloaded, or overworked; and, if so, what is the nature of such authority, and to what extent it is being used?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The specific powers of the Board of Trade, exercised through the Controller of Horse Transport, are limited to the use to which horses may be put and to the regulation of their purchase and sale. The Board have, however, issued appeals to owners of horses so to adjust their loads and arrange their work as to prevent any undue strain being placed upon the animals.

  NATIONAL SERVICE MINISTRY.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of National Service whether he has now made further inquiries as to clerks who were transferred from the War Office on the establishment of his Department and, although having to attend in civilian dress, are still receiving the Army rate of pay; and whether he can arrange that, in view of the cost of living, these men shall receive the market rate of pay for their work?
  Mr. BECK: As I informed my hon. Friend, all soldier clerks in the employment of the Ministry of National Service who had been transferred to Class W Reserve are paid at the civilian rates authorised by the Treasury from the date of their transfers.
  I have made the fullest inquiries into the whole position, and I find that there have been delays in obtaining the necessary authority for completing the transfers in certain cases.
  The Ministry of National Service are still pressing for the settlement of these cases to be expedited, and we are endeavouring to obtain the necessary sanction to make up in all such cases the loss (if any) due to the delay in transfer to Class W Reserve.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether National Service Instruction No. 69, issued on the 6th April, is available to the general public; and whether a copy will be placed in the Library of the House?
  Mr. BECK: Directions have been given for copies of National Service Instruction No. 69 to be placed in the Library of the House. As regards the general public, I understand that copies of this Instruction can be obtained from His Majesty's Stationery Office.
  Mr. HARVEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of the general public have asked at the Stationery Office, and have been informed that they are not for sale?
  Mr. BECK: That is wrong information. If there is a difficulty, I will inquire.
  Sir F. HALL: Would it not be better to consult the Postmaster-General and see whether they could be obtained through the Post Office?
  Mr. BECK: I am quite willing to do that; but if I consult my right hon. Friend he will tell me that the Post Office is already worked to death.
  Sir F. HALL: Would it not be better instead of the hon. Member giving his own opinion, if he would inquire from the Postmaster-General himself?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not inquire of the wrong Department, and then complain.

  JUDGE PARRY (SUCCESSOR).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister what arrangements he is making to appoint a successor to Judge Parry?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this matter, which is now under consideration.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOMEN WORKERS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that some of the women munition workers who did not accede to his request to work during the last holiday period have had a reduction of pay imposed upon them in consequence of their absence, and that in some cases where they answered the call for extreme effort to increase their output they are being penalised for their response to the call by having to turn out increased production without extra payment; and whether, having regard to the probability that the policy which has been adopted in these matters and to which reference is here made will lead to a refusal on the part of the workers concerned to respond to similar calls in future, he will take steps to remove the grievances complained of?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No cases of the kind have been brought to my notice. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the instances he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Colonel GRETTONasked if the accounts of the Liquor Control Board for the past year will be submitted to Parliament; if any estimates for the present year will be submitted; and, if so, upon Which Vote will they be carried?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The accounts of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) for the year ended the 31st March, 1918, will be included in the Appropriation Account of the Vote of Credit for the year ended on the same date. A statement showing the approximate net expenditure for the financial year ending 31st March, 1919, has been included in the statement of the estimated cost of service to be provided for in Vote of Credit 1918–19 (Cd. 9031). The net expenditure of the Board is defrayed from the Vote of Credit.

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC (AMENDMENT) ACT.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to cases of the wives of masters and officers of merchant ships who are under notice to quit their houses and who owing to the limit of £26 per annum in the provinces prescribed by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, have no protection; and whether he will at once advise the introduction of legislation to afford them protection during the War?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I understand that there are occasional cases of the kind referred to, but my right hon. Friend is unable to give a promise of further legislation on this subject at the present time.
  Mr. PETO: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the case of the wife of a junior officer on a vessel going from Liverpool, importing munitions of war, with a young baby, who is about to be turned out of her house because her rent is £30 12s. and not £26, and does he think it right to give protection to the wives of the crews of those vessels and not to the wives of officers?
  Mr. WALSH: I think that the question is as to the introduction of legislation. There are specific cases of hardship which everybody feels, but we cannot advise legislation at the present time.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MACHINE, R.E. 8.
    Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air

    2159
    Ministry whether aircraft known as R.E. 8 are still used on the Western Front; and whether this particular type of machine has been condemned as dangerously inadequate when compared to German aircraft now in use?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird):The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the latter in the negative.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that every expert and every pilot are unanimous in condemning this type of machine as a death-trap?
    Major BAIRD: No, Sir.
    Colonel LOWTHER: If I give my hon. and gallant Friend the names of experts who do condemn this type of machine as a death-trap, will he look into the matter?
    Major BAIRD: One or two people condemning it would not be sufficient. This is a matter which has been very carefully gone into. This machine has been used for a very long time with great success. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the name of one expert who does approve of this type of machine?
    Major BAIRD: Certainly — General Trenchard.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have orders been given during the last four months for a further supply of these not altogether satisfactory machines, instead of very much better machines of which my hon. and gallant Friend knows?
    Major BAIRD: This is not a matter for discussion by question and answer. The squadrons have to be kept up to strength, and it is impossible to put in new machines and at the same time to produce the total force.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Are they making more of these particular machines?
    Major BAIRD: They are making machines of this kind to keep up the squadron strength.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Why not make Bristol fighters?

    SKILLED MECHANICS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether skilled mechanics who have enlisted for service in the Royal Air Force in response to advertisements are being at once transferred to the Infantry; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to prevent this and to redress the hardship that has occurred in individual cases?
    Major BAIRD: I am not aware that any such cases have occurred, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I shall be very glad to investigate them.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman look on the Notice Paper and see a question in which the number, name, and regimental particulars of a soldier are given?
    Major BAIRD: If any case is brought to my notice. I will promise to look into it.

  SILVER SHORTAGE (IRELAND).
  Major NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has inquired into the reasons that are causing the shortage of silver money in Ireland, although no shortage exists in Great Britain; and what steps are the Treasury taking to deal with the matter?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. This matter has been engaging my close attention. A large supply of silver coin was sent to Ireland last week.
  Major NEWMAN: What is the cause of the shortage in the south of Ireland which does not exist in the north of Ireland?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think that probably hoarding has a great deal to do with it.
  Major NEWMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear in the south of Ireland that the country is not bankrupt yet, and that paper money has some value?

  ROYAL ENGINEERS (POST OFFICE SERVANTS).
  Mr. DUNCANasked the Postmaster- General whether it has been the practice for many years for members of the postal telegraph service who joined the signal

  2161
  service, Royal Engineers, during war time to receive full civil pay in addition to military pay; whether a promise to continue this practice was given to such men who entered the Army in 1914; whether he is aware that in 1917 a decision was come to to withhold gratuities and other military emoluments from the men who joined for the present War; and whether he will take steps to secure a reconsideration of this matter, in view of the promise given and the fact that the men concerned are away serving on all the Allied fronts and are unable to take any collective action at the moment?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire on the 18th of March. As was then stated, in view of the exceptional treatment in the matter of pay already accorded to Post Office servants serving in the Royal Engineers Signal Service as compared with those serving in other units, it was not considered that they should benefit by the gratuity issued to soldiers serving on the ordinary terms, and the same consideration applies to the additions which have been made to military emoluments since the beginning of 1917.

  HORSES (OVERWORKING).
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Home Secretary if any representations have reached him in regard to the underfeeding, overloading, and overworking of horses; and, if so, whether he will give instructions to the police to report all such cases which come under their notice with a view to prompt action being taken against the guilty parties?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): At the request of the Controller of Horse Transport I asked the police in January last to take every opportunity to call the attention of horse owners to the need for the easier working of horses. Since that time my attention has again been drawn to the question, and having regard to the further reduction recently made by the Food Controller in the amount of cereal foodstuffs which may be given to horses, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has issued fresh instructions to his officers to be on the alert to deal with cases of overwork, and I propose to communicate in the same sense with the county and borough police.
  Colonel BURN: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that much more work can be got out of the horses if the heavy traffic is confined to walking, as it is the pace that kills the horses?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is one of the points to which the attention of the police is drawn.

  ALIENS.

    CERTIFICATES OF NATURALISATION.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Home Secretary when he will introduce the Bill promised on the 17th December last in connection with the review of certificates of naturalisation?
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope to introduce it early next week.

  BRISTOL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War what action it is intended to take in regard to the conduct of E. O. Cole, officer commanding D Company, Bristol Volunteer Reserve, who, on 9th February, wrote to Captain Peake, medical examiner to the 2nd Battalion, Bristol Volunteer Reserve, saying that he enclosed particulars of men for examination, and he would be much obliged if Captain Peake would give special attention to J. Rooke, as some of the tribunal are anxious that he should not escape their order, as he has an evil influence and has been exercising it against the tribunal?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no knowledge of the facts alleged by my hon. Friend in his question, but I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with him as soon as possible.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Would the hon. Gentleman like to see the photograph letter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly!

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility, in the case of medical officers belonging to the

  2163
  Territorial Force, of paying their gratuity annually, as in the case of temporary medical officers, instead of holding it over till the end of their service?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I can add nothing to my reply, on the 18th April last, to my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone East.

  SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING.
  Mr. LEIF JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the Report of the Departmental Committee on Shipping and Shipbuilding; and whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House without delay, so that Members may consider it in conjunction with the final Report of Lord Balfour's Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I have received the Report of the Committee on Shipping and Shipbuilding, and the question of publication is now being considered.

  RAILWAY TRAVELLING RESTRICTIONS.

    SECOND CLASS SEASON TICKETS.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of his promise to make a statement with regard to further restrictions upon railway travelling, and as the Board of Trade Vote will not now be taken to-morrow, he can give any information to the House upon this important subject?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I apologise to the House for the unusual length of the reply.
    I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining to the House the steps which I have felt that it was necessary to take in connection with the question of reducing further the travelling on railways.
    I have had frequent conferences with members of the Railway Executive Committee, and, after a most exhaustive examination, and bearing in view the fact that the steps which I have felt bound to take will impose very severe burdens on large sections of the public, I provided for an addition to be made to the Defence
    2164
    of the Realm Regulation 7B, enabling the Board of Trade to make Orders with a view to meeting the present railway situation. This addition was made on the 27th April, and the House has no doubt seen the terms of it in the Press.
    Under this amended Regulation powers are given to prescribe conditions on which tickets of all kinds may be issued and passengers carried, and enabling the railway companies to refuse to accept goods for carriage where other means of transport exist.
    I should like to explain that in addition to the very heavy demands which have been made upon the railways for locomotives, rolling stock, materials, and men for military purposes, and the fact that, owing to a shortage of labour, and material, it has been impossible for the railway companies to maintain the whole of their remaining rolling stock in efficient order, there is another fact to which I wish to draw special attention, namely, that the mass of traffic, both Government and civilian, and both passenger and goods, with which the railways have had to cope has increased enormously. Further, the recent demands of our Allies have thrown on to the railways a very large amount of goods traffic which is normally carried coastwise. There is also need to economise in the consumption of coal by the railways. I do not wish to trouble the House with a mass of figures, but I may mention that while the 50 per cent. increase in passenger fares which was imposed at the beginning of 1917 had for a time the effect of reducing ordinary passenger traffic, this effect eventually disappeared, and the railways are now carrying more passengers, independent of military traffic on warrants, than at any other time in their history. The traffic on military warrants is, roundly, 3,000,000 passengers a month. As regards goods traffic, from information supplied to me by the Railway Executive Committee, it appears that, if traffic carried on Government account was included, the revenue in 1917 would have been, roundly, £5,000,000, as against £64,000,000 in 1913—the heaviest year in the railway companies' history. This means an increase of more than 48 per cent. Notwithstanding the increased traffic, both passenger and goods, the available rolling stock is very considerably less than prior to the War. To meet the situation, and to provide locomotives for essential goods traffic, it is necessary

    2165
    to reduce the passenger steam train services by 40 per cent. The number of passengers carried must, therefore, be reduced.
    I, therefore, propose to authorise the Railway Executive Committee to take the following steps immediately with the hope that they will secure the desired result:

    (1) To discontinue the issue or renewal of all season tickets which are issued at special reduced rates, except scholars', apprentices', and privilege season tickets issued by the railway companies to their employés. This will cover the issue or renewal of season tickets at specially low rates to members of the family of a season-ticket holder, of which a large number are now in force.

    (2) To discontinue the issue of new season or trader's tickets, which are applied for the first time, between London and places situated outside a radius of twelve miles from Charing Cross, except in cases where it is shown that travelling is necessitated by reasons of national-importance.

    (3) To discontinue the renewal of any season or trader's ticket between London and places situated outside a radius of twelve miles from Charing Cross which were taken out for the first time since the 1st January, 1917, except, again, where travelling is necessitated by reasons of national importance, and generally in cases in which the holder is bonâ fide a resident, although only a recent one.

    (4) To discontinue the issue of season tickets for periods of less than six months in cases in which the tickets cover journeys over twelve miles, and the applicants do not already hold season tickets.

    (5) To discontinue giving refunds in respect of season tickets which have not expired, and which the holder desires to surrender to the company, in return for an allowance for the unexpired period. This proposal will not apply in the case of the death of the holder of the ticket, or in the case of the holder being called up for Government service, and follows on the proposal that season tickets for distances over twelve miles shall not be issued for periods of less than six months.

    2166

    (6) To increase the price of season tickets by 10 per cent. in the case of tickets covering distances up to twelve miles, and 20 per cent. in the case of tickets covering distances of over twelve miles.

    These measures will be seen to apply to season tickets, and I would explain that the number of season tickets which have been taken out since the beginning of 1917 have very largely increased, and is, no doubt, largely attributable to the fact that the 50 per cent. increase in fares did not apply to season tickets. This has made it cheaper in many cases for people to take out season tickets rather than, as formerly, to pay the ordinary fare. Having once taken out the season tickets, they were able to take any number of additional journeys without additional cost. An increase in season-ticket rates is justified not only as a measure to restrict travelling of the kind I have indicated, but also as a financial measure, as calculations show that under present conditions season-ticket traffic is being carried by the railways at a loss.
    I would here mention that the grant of war wages and bonus to railway employés since the War have reached the figure of about £47,000,000 a year. It will be my endeavour to ensure that, however onerous the measures taken may be to the public, they will be applied as evenly and fairly all round as possible, and I am considering the question of arranging for the administration, by a committee, of the measures affecting the issue of season tickets.
    I trust that the House and the public will understand that the steps which I have endeavoured to explain have been taken only under the force of direct necessity.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Are we to understand that the powers which the right hon. Gentleman has taken are to be put into force at once, or is he taking more powers than he intends to enforce immediately? Will there be an opportunity, if the House desires it, to discuss these restrictions?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The railway situation is such that I have no alternative but to authorise the railway companies to give immediate effect to the season-ticket restrictions.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Will a specific exception be made in the case of Members coming up to attend sittings of this House as a matter of national importance?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any other measures besides restrictions on season tickets? Does he estimate that they will effect the reduction of 40 per cent. of which he spoke?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It would be impossible for me or anybody else to forecast with any degree of accuracy what the effect of these restrictions will be, but we feel that these steps must be taken at once. They are taken with the hope that they will secure the desired result. I am sure the public will not expect in the circumstances that they should be able to travel with the same degree of comfort that they enjoyed before the War. We are establishing this restriction with that object in view. It is quite clear for some considerable time the public will have to submit to considerable inconvenience. I can only say I am hopeful that these restrictions will produce the desired effect. It may be necessary to establish other restricted areas besides London, as the need develops, but I will give a guarantee that before any other restrictions of a drastic kind are made I will indicate them to the House.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: As goods delivery in London is now a monopoly for which extortionate prices are charged, and as the new Regulations will strengthen the monopoly, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to fix the rates to be charged in London by those who have the monopoly?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not prepared to indicate at this moment what steps will be taken in regard to charges. If I gave any indication it would be that the charges must take an upward direction.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it clear that the cancelling of the renewal of season tickets will not apply to the large class of business men living more than twelve miles from Charing Cross who have to come to London every day on business?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Not provided they were taken out prior to 1st January, 1917, or if they have established bonâ-fide residence since that date.
    Mr. G. FABER: Considering the large sacrifices the public has now to endure, will the right hon. Gentleman say if railway directors are still to enjoy the privilege of travelling first class on all railways without payment?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I doubt if I have any power to interfere with the travelling of railway directors, and I cannot believe that even if that privilege were withdrawn it would have the slightest effect.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Sense of justice!
    Mr. GILBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman's new rules as regards season tickets apply only to London and twelve miles around or to season tickets issued all over the country?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The restrictions on season tickets apply to those which have been issued in a radius beyond twelve miles of Charing Cross and not within twelve miles of Charing Cross. They are to be confined for the moment to the-London area only, but later, if necessary, we shall have to create other restricted areas as well.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability, in the interests of economy, of abolishing all second-class railway fares?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had, I think, better 'be put down.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Sir Robert Hunt Stapylton Dudley Lydston Newman, Baronet, for Borough of Exeter.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Mr. Eugene Wason reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Land Drainage Bill).
  Mr. Eugene Wason further reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
  That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may be and he is hereby empowered

  2169
  to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity.
  That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel.
  Reports to he upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Twelve Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Land Drainage Bill): Major Brassey, Mr. Broughton, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Carew, General Colvin, Sir George Greenwood, Sir Robert Price, Mr. Prothero, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Arnold Ward, Mr. Dundas "White, and Sir Richard Winfrey.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Workmen's Compensation (Illegal Employment) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Company." [Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Bill [Lord.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    GENERAL MAURICE'S LETTER.
    Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Leader of the House if to-morrow will be given for the discussion of the Motion standing in my name, and if the House will sit on Friday?
    The following is the motion above referred to:
    "That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the allegations of incorrectness in certain Statements of Ministers of the Crown to this House, contained in a letter of Major-General Maurice, late Director of Military Operations, published in the Press on the 7th day of May."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is proposed to take the Motion of my right hon. Friend to-morrow. It is not necessary to ask the House to sit on Friday.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Home Rule Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any likelihood that it will be introduced before Whitsuntide?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we hope so.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee (Second Day).
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  EDUCATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Establishment of Continuation Schools.)
    (1)With a view to continuing the education of young persons and helping them to prepare for the freedom and responsibilities of adult life it shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, either separately or in co operation 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,
    2182
    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.
    Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed (7th May) —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." —[Colonel Wedgwood.]
    Question again proposed, "That the word ' instruction' stand part of the Clause."
    4.0 P.M.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Last night, the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) suggested the words "study and instruction." I have considered that suggestion, and I shall be glad to accept it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand, though I did not hear very clearly what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he is willing to accept the words, "study and instruction," in lieu of "instruction." In that case, although I do not think it rules out vocational instruction, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment in order to raise the question of vocational instruction later on.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the word "of"["courses of instruction"], insert the word "study."— [Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, after the word "instruction," to insert the words "other than military training."
    I do not attach any importance to the particular form in which words are inserted to deal with this matter, if the President of the Board of Education desires to amend the Bill to meet the case which is to be submitted to him, but this appears to be a convenient opportunity for raising the general question of military training under the new Bill. I am very conscious myself that it is extremely difficult to raise this matter, and to consider it strictly from an educational standpoint, and with a view to the educational system we are going to build up in the days of peace to which we look forward, in the middle of the European War. I hope the Committee will not think me unreasonable if I suggest that this is not a war problem,

    2183
    and this is not a question, whatever view we take upon it, which can either be defended or condemned by, for instance, the kind of argument that would be used for or against some of the legislation which has been called forth by the War. If the Committee will allow me to do so, I want to put aside all the controversies and the prejudices and the passions that have been called forth by certain of the legislation due to the War, and to consider the proposals on this question in the Bill strictly from the standpoint of the educational system we desire to build up for all time.
    What is the situation? The Bill, as drafted, is silent upon this question. From beginning to end of the Bill there is no reference whatever to military drill or military training of any description, but, although this silence is observed in the Bill, the Bill does give power to local authorities, under the schemes that they are to carry out, to institute military drill and military training for the young persons who are compulsorily to attend these continuation schools. I am quite sure that the Committee will assent to this, that whether they desire to Bee military training as a normal feature of our educational system, or whether other members of the Committee object to any such permanent feature of our educational system, we shall all agree that at least such a change must be carried out only after the deliberate decision of this House and of Parliament, and must not be introduced by a side wind, or in a way that is not adequately understood. Let us, therefore, be quite clear with regard to the Bill that it does give power to local education authorities, as a part of the schemes to be set up under the Bill, to compel young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to receive at these compulsory continuation schools military drill and military training generally. The matter has already been raised on the floor of this House since the introduction of the Bill. The President of the Board of Education was asked whether this power was indeed within the Bill, and whether local education authorities under his proposal have this power. The right hon. Gentleman, who will correct me if I do not accurately represent his reply, whilst not denying that local education authorities have the power to put schemes for military training in their education schemes, went on
    2184
    to point out that the Board of Education itself would be opposed to any such scheme, and, I understood him to say, such schemes would not receive the sanction of the Board of Education. The President confirms what I now state. I feel quite sure, after that statement by the President, now confirmed, that so long as he remains the President of the Board of Education, any such schemes as these which I mention will not receive his assent.
    But that is no guarantee whatever against the introduction and the carrying out of any such scheme. I hope that the present head of the Board of Education, if he will allow me to say so, will long continue in that office, whatever changes take place. Yet we have no security that that will be so, and the only guarantee, according to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, against such schemes as these is that they should be rejected by the Board of Education, and, as the political character of the Board may change from year to year, there is no permanent guarantee there, and obviously it is a matter which must not be left to the personal opinions of the temporary head of the Board of Education, but must be a matter for the deliberate judgment of this House. Such is the case that, under the Bill, local authorities can suggest schemes for military training, and if they receive the assent of the Board, so far as it is necessary within the Bill for such assent to be given, they can carry out schemes requiring young persons to be compelled to attend continuation schools set up under this Bill, and to undergo as part of that course military training or military drill. The problem, I suggest, is primarily an educational problem. We are not now sitting as a Committee to consider the Army or the Navy Estimates, or to consider how best to recruit the Army or the Navy; we are considering solely the educational needs of this country, and we all realise that the Bill we are now hoping to carry through Parliament will not come into anything like full operation until peace has been re-established. So that the problem we are considering is wholly an educational problem, and is not in any sense a military problem. If it were a military problem a separate Bill should be introduced, a Bill making definite proposals for the establishment of military training for the use of the country.

    2185
    There are many Members of this House who, in the Debates that took place here before the War broke out, were warmly in favour of compulsory military training for the youth of this country, and many, no doubt, hold those views now even more strongly than they held them before. This is not the Bill in which such views can be incorporated, because this is an Education Bill, looking forward to the days of peace, and is not a Bill concerned with military matters or with the future recruiting of the Army. I suggest, therefore, with very great respect, that it is quite impossible to mix up these two questions, and I am trying to submit arguments to show that the problem should be regarded as an educational problem, and should not be prejudiced by references to the abnormal position in which the world stands to-day. The question will probably come up in an acute form by local education authorities, but perhaps I may say this: First, the right hon. Gentleman has said that he himself will refuse schemes submitted to him which attempt to embody military training. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman, if the Bill remains in this vague form, of the kind of pressure that will be put upon him, or upon any other President who succeeds him, from certain sections of the public on the ground of physical training. Great emphasis is laid—and is properly laid—in this Bill upon the question of physical training. It is a special charge to the appropriate authorities to make arrangements for physical training in connection with these continuation schools, and it is in connection with the question of physical training that most pressure would be put upon the Board of Education to authorise military training.
    We are all familiar with the argument for military drill. It is said to be a very good form of exercise and of physical training for the youth of the country. That argument would be placed before the President from many quarters in order to influence him in allowing the duties that fall upon local educational authorities in this connection to be discharged by means of the formation of military cadet corps, and similar institutions. There is a great divergence of view as to what is best in regard to the physical needs of the youth of the country. I venture to say that there is a very great preponderance of opinion that military training is not—taken on
    2186
    its merits—the best form of physical training for adolescent years. I am quite sure the President of the Board could quote from matter before him at this moment the evidence of educational experts, who combine with great knowledge of education a great knowledge of the physical needs of youth; that evidence from experts qualified to speak is almost unanimously against what we understand by military drill as being the best, or in many respects even the most desirable, form of physical training for youth. The way has been pointed in many directions as to how physical training should be developed. Take the secondary schools, especially, which have developed games and playing fields, which have made provision for far greater outdoor life for the children and which have developed general sport, swimming—above all, the whole outdoor life which has been developed by such organisations as the Boy Scouts, combining not only the development of intellect but the development of initiative and personality—combined, I say, with all these virtues is the first-class physical training by reason of an active outdoor life. So, let it not be thought, when this problem is being discussed by the devotees of military training, that even if it were desirable in other ways, military training is the best form of physical training for the youth of the country
    I have quoted, and I could quote, the evidence of innumerable experts which goes to show that military training is a far lower form of physical training for youth than those other forms of training which I have mentioned. We need not argue the case because it has been demonstrated. There is this other aspect of the question. I have spoken of one aspect of it, because I think it is so supremely important, and because the argument in connection with this matter deals generally with this subject of physical training. I want to refer to the general question of the intellectual and moral training of the youth of the nation. I should like to remind the President of the words of one authority. I have no doubt that he knows that authority well. During the War, at a recent meeting of the British Association, the subject of the institution of compulsory military training was considered by one of the bodies of that association. I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember the very remarkable speech that was delivered by

    2187
    a man having unrivalled experience—I do not want to put the case too high, but by a man who stands very high indeed in the educational world, and who has had almost unique educational experience. I refer to the head master of Manchester Grammar School. That gentleman, speaking with the authority of his life's work behind him, referred to the great importance of the influence upon boys of a rigid system of military training whilst they were in their adolescent years. He used arguments which I wish to repeat in this House. He said that the machine-like discipline—I am not quoting his exact words, but the spirit of them—of the German people, and those qualities that we must condemn, had been implanted in the German people, in part, by their system of military training beginning whilst they are yet immature boys. Surely we shall be all agreed upon the moral and intellectual results which have followed, at least in certain modern nations, upon the universal application of military training to the youth of the country. I do not think that we want, in the planning out of our educational system for days of peace, in providing a great basis upon which we can build, and to slowly get to something approaching a perfect educational system—I say I do not think we want to introduce elements which have led to such lamentable results in the case of other nations, and the results of which we are always deploring.
    I think it will be generally accepted that we want in education, above all, to free ourselves from the spirit of the drill sergeant in the schools. We want, above all, to protect the individuality of the boys who are entrusted to the care of our schools. We want to give them the very best advantages we can; to give them every opportunity for development in a physically healthy way. We want also to enable them to develop morally, mentally, intellectually in an equally healthy way I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government to see that words are introduced into the. Bill—I do not mind in what form, or at what point—which will protect the public from reactionary schemes of this kind. By reactionary schemes, I mean schemes which would impose compulsory physical or compulsory military training of any kind upon the youth of the nation. It may be that there is—or will be—a great majority
    2188
    in Parliament, who desire when this War is over to introduce something approaching a form of Conscription.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Universal service!
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Baronet says that he wishes to introduce universal service when the War is over. If that be so, and if the right hon. Gentleman is in a majority, then the matter ought to be introduced in clear terms, and in the form of a Bill. It ought not to be left to local educational authorities to have the power, owing to the vagueness of this Education Bill, to introduce any such schemes. The policy, be it good or bad—and I believe it to be an evil one—is one that ought to receive in an adequate way the assent of Parliament. There should be no attempt to introduce it by a side wind. Let me point out the extraordinary position that would arise if the Bill goes forth in its present form, and local education authorities were able to persuade the President of the Board of Education to sanction schemes of military training for these continuation classes. Under the law as it now stands, no compulsory military training of any kind can be imposed upon children attending the elementary schools or upon children attending the secondary schools. If, therefore, the Bill went through, and the provision of military schemes followed, we should be in the anomalous position of requiring children who were compelled to attend continuation classes from the age of fourteen to eighteen to receive compulsory military drill and military training, whereas the children in the elementary schools, and in the secondary schools, would be entirely protected against any such compulsion. The position then—which is another illustration of allowing such schemes to be introduced because of the vagueness or indefiniteness of this Bill—would be to create a wholly anomalous state of affairs. I need hardly say that I am not urging this Amendment because of any anomaly that would be created. I have endeavoured to set forth the reasons why some change in the wording of the Bill is necessary on the general grounds of principle, and I beg to move.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has observed, with justice, that there is no allusion to military instruction or military training in the text of the Bill. He, of course, divined the reason for its omission. This Bill is an Education Bill,

    2189
    and is not a Bill intended to promote a change or development in the military system of the country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would be entirely inappropriate to take advantage of an Education Bill to introduce such a radical alteration in our scheme of education as the introduction of compulsory military training in the schools. The issue which we are discussing at this point is a comparatively narrow issue. It is the question as to whether or not military training should be, in terms, excluded from the continuation classes which are designed in the Bill. So far as I know the mind of the War Office, there is no desire whatever to see military training included in the continued education given to the young people of this country. The interest of the War Office is that young people, that is boys when they have reached the military age of eighteen, should be in a fit physical condition. It is only after they have reached the age of eighteen that formal military instruction under the War Office begins. Again, there is this difficulty as to the teaching—it is intended for girls as well as for boys. It is only an element in the very small modicum of instruction extending over 320 hours per year, and it would be quite impracticable to introduce anything like formal military training in the small amount of time available. The Board of Education has had by this time a long experience of physical training. We have had physical training in our elementary schools. We have established organisers of physical training to supervise the physical training in different areas, and the Board has a very clear policy with respect to physical training, and a very definite idea of the type which it is most desirable on hygienic and physical grounds to encourage. Consequently the Board has no intention of introducing on Clause 3 compulsory military training into our schools, and that being so I see very little reason why military training should be in terms excluded.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Would the local authorities not be able to enforce it if they are not excluded?
    Mr. FISHER: No military training could be enforced against the view of the Board of Education. There is one very strong reason why a local education authority should not attempt to enforce military training in a continuation class,
    2190
    and that reason is that the local education authority to attempt to embark upon such a course would be confronted with the awkward phenomena of the conscientious objector, and that local education authority would be very brave if it brought upon itself all the numerous difficulties which the presence of that form of conscience involves in its train. I can therefore give my hon. Friend the very satisfactory assurance that there is no desire on the part of the Government to introduce compulsory military training into our continuation classes, and that the policy of the Board of Education will be directed towards the development of physical training on the principles which have governed the action of the Board in this matter in respect of elementary education, and on principles which are very widely adopted in this country both by the naval and military authorities.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of accepting an Amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. Member who has just made this proposal, or on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend and myself in an Amendment further down on the Order Paper. I think the Amendment we propose is better to accomplish the object in view than the one moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse). At the same time, I may point out that the idea and the principle of this Amendment has the wholehearted support of organised Labour in this country. We believe in providing for physical training in this Bill with the purpose in view of developing the physique of the children, and thereby building up a strong, healthy race, which, because of being strong and healthy, will be better able to absorb the education which is provided for them in this Bill. At the same time, we are afraid that this provision in the Bill will be used in the coming days by the militarists for the purpose of giving military training. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has no intention that it should be used in that manner or that the Board of Education has no such intention, or that it is not the policy of the War Office that it should be used in such a manner. Ministers of Education change, and we have no guarantee that future Ministers of Education or future War Ministers may not change their ideas, and consequently we desire that provision should be put in the Bill to prevent them

    2191
    carrying out such a policy. As has already been very well pointed out, this is an Education Bill, and ought to be kept as such. If the question of military training is to be considered in this country in the future, it should be considered in the terms of a Bill which specifically provides for such a thing. I hope this will not be necessary in the future. I hope that as a result of the present struggle in which we are engaged there will be no necessity for such a thing, but if such be the case and we are required to consider questions of military training, it should be done in the terms of a Bill brought in for the specific purpose of dealing with such a change. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to agree to one or other of the Amendments down on the Paper dealing with this matter. Naturally my own preference is for the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend and myself, but I hope one or other of these Amendments will be inserted, because we feel that only by the insertion of such a provision shall we get any guarantee in the future that the militarist party will be prevented from using the Education Bill for the purpose of imposing military training on the youth of the country.
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOOD: This Bill puts a duty on local 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 in physical training are provided without fees." The hon. Member for Lanarkshire moves the insertion of the words "other than military instruction."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have moved my Amendment in a slightly different form, and it now reads "other than military training."
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: I think we can very well debate the whole question on this Amendment. There is no hon. Member of this House who is more entirely opposed to militarism than I am. I am a pacifist—so great a pacifist that I would go on fighting this War until I have obtained a satisfactory and permanent peace. If there is militarism in this country—and I am afraid after four years of war that is militarism—then I hope when peace comes all that will be finally swept away. But really I want to
    2192
    know what the hon. Member means exactly by "military training." Who is to say what is military training? Swedish exercises may be military training. I understood the hon. Member to approve of the Boy Scouts, and that is a distinct form of military training. The hon. Member says that he does not want to see the establishment of a rigid system of military training in the continuation schools.
    None of us want to see a rigid system of military training. What I want to know is whether the hon. Member objects to all drill? Does he object to boys between fourteen and eighteen being taught their drill? To imagine that the teaching of drill to boys between fourteen and eighteen years of age is going to turn them all into little Prussians thirsting for the blood of their fellow-creatures seems to me the most absurd proposition that can be put forward. I maintain that a certain amount of drill—I do not know whether it is military drill—is a very good thing for boys, but if the principle of this Amendment was carried out, you would have to put down all the Volunteers in our great public schools, because that is military drill. When I last went to my old school at Eton, which has done so magnificently and splendidly in this War, I was struck by seeing the number of boys slouching about, and if they had military drill it would cure them of that, and it would be a good thing for them in after life.
    I do not know who is to say what constitutes military drill, or what is the real definition of military instruction. I do not know whether Swedish instruction might not be looked upon as being military. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark said he wanted this question to be discussed not from the point of view of the present War. I am not discussing it from that point of view, and I say that in time of peace it is a very excellent thing that boys between fourteen and eighteen should be taught their drill, and I am very glad to hear that the President of the Board of Education will not accept this Amendment, and I hope he will continue in that frame of mind.
    Colonel GREIG: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has touched the spot. Those who have listened to the last few speeches must have been somewhat surprised at the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Labour party, and one of

    2193
    my colleagues from Scotland. They want a hard and fast rigid rule in this country that nothing in the form of military drill shall be introduced into our schools, and why? Because they are afraid it will be used for the purpose of giving military training. How can it be so used assuming the words are not in? First of all you have to convince the local education authority that such a scheme will be a good thing. That is a scheme comprising extreme military training. I am accepting for the moment the view of hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment that it means military training of an extreme and exaggerated type. The local education authority has first of all to be persuaded that some sort of training of that kind should be inserted in the scheme.
    The attitude which has been taken up by hon. Members who have spoken shows considerable distrust of the local education authorities, and that is hardly consistent with their usual democratic ideas. Not only has a scheme to be passed by the local authority, but it has to be sanctioned by the President of the Board of Education. To what is the Board of Education subject? It is subject to the control of Parliament, and it is showing a considerable distrust of any Parliament in the future to say that you must have in this Statute a rigid rule which cannot be altered except by a fresh Act of Parliament, rather than trusting the Parliaments of the future. Apart from that, what is the actual military training which the hon. Member has in mind? He has never said what he means by it. Anybody connected with the development of military training during the course of this War must know, in the first place, that instead of the training becoming of a rigid military character it is mainly physical training. If you go down to the camps you will find that in the early part of their training the men are taught to play games; they do physical exercises and Swedish drill which is not of a distinctly military type. If these words are put into the Bill you will have hon. Members suggesting that nothing else should be permitted in the schools but what an hon. colleague of mine suggested just now as likely to commend itself to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and his Friends—that is, musical chairs and hunt the-slipper. Would the hon. Members exclude camp life from the training of young people?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Military camp life, certainly.
    Colonel GREIG: The most important part of the training in camp is best exemplified in its effects by what appeared in the papers the other day showing how a young Boy Scout took in charge two German prisoners, and when he handed them over to the authorities stood at the salute. That is the sort of thing we must have if we are to beat our enemies. You must have the really effective thing in training, namely, discipline; and that is what we lack to-day. We must put our feet down and have discipline in a good form; the lack of it will only be encouraged by accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Listening to the very interesting speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig), I was amazed at his innocence. He seems to assume that whatever is done by the Army at the present moment is militant; and if the Army is being trained by Swedish drill methods, therefore those methods must be military, and must be excluded by the Board of Education if my hon. Friend's Amendment be embodied in this Bill. I am quite sure that after a moment's reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will see that that is exceedingly bad logic. One might just as well say when you go down to a military camp and sec the men eating their breakfast that that, too, is militarising physical instruction. A number of people are in favour of what is, strictly speaking, military drill in schools, and the question is, are those who belong to that school of thought right or wrong? So far as drill is concerned, so far as exercises and physical training are concerned, we stand on common ground. It is the type of exercise we are at present using which is being discussed here on my hon. Friend's Amendment. Should military training be a part of education? We say it should not. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend agrees or disagrees with that. He began his speech by saying "no" and he finished by saying "yes."
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Is drill military training?
    Mr. MACDONALD: It is not necessarily so; it is the way in which it is imparted that decides that point. My hon. Friend must be very well acquainted with certain pronouncements made by educationists of this country, and if he has not come

    2195
    across it I would like to commend to him a. book by a director of educational instruction, one of the founders of the Educational League, Mr. Brockington, which has recently been published, and which deals with military drill. There is no doubt in this writer's mind as to what is military drill. The book is in favour of military drill, and it is a perfectly rational proposition for those who are in favour of it.
    Sir E. JONES: Is it?
    Mr. MACDONALD: Does my hon. Friend suggest that that book is not in favour of military drill? It is perfectly plain that it is; it actually includes instruction how to conduct the bayonet exercise. I say that those in favour of military drill have a very rational proposition to defend. There is not the least doubt that there is a difference between the physical drill defended by my hon. Friend opposite and the military drill spoken of by educationists like Mr. Brockington and the school to which he belongs.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: But who is to decide as to the nature of the drill?
    Mr. MACDONALD: That will be the duty of the Board of Education. What is the position? At the present moment the Board of Education have to decide on a vague phrase "physical drill," and that means if my right hon. Friend should leave the Board of Education—may I apologise to him for using this argument—then we shall have to get a guarantee from his successor as to whether he agrees with him or not, because, so far as the law is concerned, my right hon. Friend is empowered to say a certain drill is not military drill, while his successor will be equally empowered to declare that it is military drill. We want, therefore, to insert in the Bill some form of words which will warn the Board of Education that military drill is not to be encouraged. We cannot define exactly what is military drill. The Board of Education will always have to define it, if this Amendment is put into the Bill. The difficulty with the Bill as at present drafted is that the Board of Education will have no guidance from the House of Commons as to what the physical drill is to be, but, if our Amendment is agreed to, then the Board of Education will have the guidance of this House that military drill shall not be included in the curriculum.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: What about physical training?
    Mr. MACDONALD: I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates the difference between the two things. I quite admit that it is not an easy thing to stand up in this House and, in an elaborately detailed way, define what military drill or training is. It is like a great many other things in life; there is a very broad margin, a large piece of No Man's Land. The only effect of this Amendment is to give guidance to the Board of Education that there are certain features of military drill which are not to be adopted. Take the last sentence of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig), in which he spoke of discipline. What did he mean by that?
    Colonel GREIG: Sound, honest discipline.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean military discipline—discipline imposed by orders from the Government, discipline imposed upon a man until it becomes a mechanical response to an order? That is not my conception of discipline
    Colonel GREIG: Nor mine.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Then I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman rather misrepresented himself in what he said. The military conception of discipline is undoubtedly the discipline of the machine; my conception is discipline of the human mind. The military conception of discipline is something imposed, not by an educational authority but by a superior authority, which ultimately rests upon force. My conception of discipline which comes from educational drill is that discipline which is implanted in the mind of the educated individual, so that he himself, in response to his own impulses, does not necessarily deliver his prisoners at the salute but delivers them feeling that he has done his duty to the State and the right thing by himself. If hon. Members will turn to certain curriculum suggested by educationists like Mr. Brockington, they will find that there is a type of syllabus which does impose discipline in this mechanical way. I am opposed, and my Friends around me are opposed, to that type; and if the Board of Education declare that it, too, is opposed to it, we want this Committee to lay down Instructions in this Bill so that the Board may

    2197
    remain opposed to it. We want to make it impossible for the Board of Education, whoever may be at the head of it and whatever his own sentiments may be, to depart from that true educational policy and to adopt a militarising policy instead. There is this other point: Military instruction or military drill—it does not much matter which expression is used—does impose on the physique of children under eighteen a training which is physiologically improper. Take, again, the book to which I have referred. Anyone who understands physiology must come to the conclusion that certain exercises recommended in that book put too great a strain upon the physiology of boys and young persons between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. There is no soldier, no man of intelligence and brain, who wants anybody to interfere with military training until youth has arrived at the age of eighteen years. What is wanted is a well-developed body as a basis for the drill; you want not only a well-developed body, but a well-developed mind.
    5.0 P.M.
    My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the experience of this War. What is that experience? It is that the soldier who simply obeys orders mechanically is not nearly such a good man as the one who has brains and understands the orders given him and who, while acting under orders, can at the same time, with his intelligence fully alive all the time, obey those orders. We have to lay a foundation for this. Supposing it is necessary after the War to accept compulsory military service. The foundation of compulsory military service, if it is to be efficient, is not mechanical obedience, but the discipline of a live mind and sound body; and any educational authority ought to recognise no system of education—no system of educating the mind and training the body—except that. That is a distinct division between the two ideas—the educational method of imposing discipline and the military method of doing so. But that is not all. My hon. and gallant Friend drew a distinction between this country and Germany. Is he aware that it is the German military training which has developed such abominable features as have been revealed during the last three or four years of war? Is he aware that it began necessarily in this kind of style, and that there was in the first instance no question of the open provision of this method of
    2198
    training. It was simply begun in exactly the way that my hon. and gallant Friend ended his speech—discipline, obedience to orders, and so on. The moment you start with that on you have to go to the logical and natural conclusions, and the logical and natural conclusions of the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech is the German discipline, the German mentality, the German Army of today. If he had been a German in 1869 he would have shaken his head at anyone saying that to him and holding this view. To-day, if he were a German, he would have to accept the logical conclusion and say, "It is very sad, but national necessity imposes upon me the result which I so much deplore." Finally, there is a tremendously keen discussion going on in Germany at the present moment on this very point. Every educational journal in Germany, so I am told by one who is following them, is discussing this question. The question of the military training of youths has been brought before various educational authorities in Germany, and the extraordinary result of this is that those authorities are all turning it down. They are not going to have it, and only just the other day I am told that an educational authority at Hamburg discussed the question of the continued military training of German school youths up to seventeen or eighteen, I think, and they were wise enough to turn the whole thing down. What I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do is this. He is with us in intention, he is with us in spirit, and he gives us a pledge that so long as he remains at the Board of Education our intention in moving this Amendment will be carried out as though the Amendment had been embodied in the Bill. What is his objection to embodying the Amendment in the Bill? He must see it is his duty to protect this country against the deterioration of educational ideas. He must see that putting in a prohibition of military training still leaves the application and definition in the hands of the Board of Education, and that the only thing that happens as the result of accepting this Amendment is to give the country some guarantee that its educational system is not going to deteriorate on German lines.
    Sir GEORGE REID: I have listened to this Debate with great interest, because thirty or forty years ago I was Minister of Education in a distant part of His

    2199
    Majesty's Dominions, and had a great deal to do with the question of education and with the subjects and ideas which have been before this Committee to-day. I think the President of the Board has met my hon. Friend opposite in a way which exposes him, perhaps, to very serious complaint in another direction. The phrase "military training" in an Act of Parliament creates endless disputes. It is such a vague expression. Incidentally, every form of education tends to educate the mind for something or other in life, and one of the great defects, if I may say so with great respect, of English education from the elementary schools up to the great universities is that they have not thought sufficiently of the incidental training of the human mind for the serious occupations of life. The President of the Board is making a new departure which has excited my lively admiration, because he sees that the education of this country must be made to bear more on the every-day life and national interests. I can understand a conscientious objector who objects to fighting for his country objecting to anybody else helping to fight for his country, and if I thought any educational system included any sort of training that would bring about the Prussian system, I am sure I should be just as warm as the hon. Members opposite in opposing it. We have had experience in Australia of all these things for the last thirty or forty years. Every boy in every elementary school goes through a large amount of elementary drill. They march into school and engage in exercises in the playground, and it is the most agreeable form of compulsory military training of which one can conceive, because the boys are delighted to be half-an-hour out of school.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Do they have rifles and bayonets?
    Sir G. REID: From the age of fourteen every young man has to learn how to help to defend his country. It has been, I think, one of the causes of this horrible War, to decide whether to end militarism or whether militarism is to end us, that young England suddenly called upon to fight in the trenches never had the slightest glimmering of training in some of the secondary schools of England incidentally to fit them for their duty in defence of the country. The Australian boys have had no more prejudice against
    2200
    drill. They enjoy it, and when the young Australian was called upon to fight for his country and to go to the Dardanelles the fact that from his earliest school-days up to the moment he went out he had obtained incidentally some sort of military drill helped to make him the brilliant success that he was. So far as I am concerned, I think with the President of the Board that on that one point it is impossible to introduce an expression so open to controversy, and that he is absolutely correct in the position he has taken up. My hope, which is just as strong as that of my hon. Friends opposite, is that we will have a perpetual peace, but we will never be sure of a perpetual peace until the youngsters of England, Scotland, and Ireland too, are so trained that they are ready and fit to fight for their country if necessary.
    Sir E. JONES: I think the discussion has gone to an extent that has almost become unreal, and I hope even now that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Macdonald) will see that while his emphasis upon the necessity for avoiding danger is something with which we all sympathise and is not wasted, nevertheless the situation, so far as the practical point of this Bill is concerned, is not so alarming as he seems to think. The position is this. The Board of Education and certain local authorities have made within the last few years in the elementary schools a very great and commendable push in regard to this question of physical training. One of the finest achievements of the Board of Education in its whole history has been the excellent way in which it has succeeded in the last few years in taking physical training up out of the gutter and from being a spasmodic thing and causing it to become a big national thing, linking it up with the medical inspection of schools. The whole thing has been put on a most excellent basis, and I am quite certain that if the two hon. Members opposite who feel so keenly in this matter were to get hold of the Regulation and Instructions of the Board of Education, relating as they do now to girls and boys, to the medical inspectors of schools they would find nothing in them applied to elementary schools to which they could possibly take any exception. I challenge anyone now to get up at this moment and point to any example in any school of this country in which they could take any objection to the physical training being conducted in the

    2201
    elementary schools. I hope I am not causing any offence, but those hon. Members are talking entirely in the abstract so far as the present instructions of the Board of Education in the elementary schools are concerned.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The instructions and the reports which are issued by Dr. Newman are, of course, instructions which are wholly educational and which we desire to see embodied in the educational system, and they expressly and in terms repudiate military training.
    Sir E. JONES: Of course they do; that is what I have said. There is nothing to complain of in the present practice of the Board of Education or the way in which they have carried out physical training in the elementary schools up to the present time, and the hon. Gentleman, by his interjection, confirms that. What are we doing under Clause 3? We are simply saying that the same instructions under the same authorities, the same Board of Education, and the same medical officers shall be continued in the case of boys from fourteen to eighteen years of age. That is all that has been said in this Bill. You are taking the same powers in this Bill regarding the children over fourteen as you are now exercising for children under fourteen, and the opposition, therefore, is, as I say, quite abstract opposition.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Clause, so far from doing what the hon. Gentleman says, imposes on the local education authorities the duty of themselves formulating schemes which are eventually submitted.
    Sir E. JONES: That duty is imposed upon them in regard to every elementary school by the regulations of the Board of Education at the present time, and has been for some few years. There, again, I repeat, you are simply taking powers in this Bill to continue for the boys and girls over fourteen what you are doing now for those up to fourteen. That is all you are doing. The President of the Board of Education will correct me if I am wrong. The crux of this matter is this: It is, after all, a plain, practical point. I agree that to introduce broad words like this is to make the whole thing impossible and farcical. Any stray objector could get up and say that a particular teacher was touching military training. You could not conduct a class at all. If you put this into the Bill any crank, or any fool, can stop at any moment the teachers marshalling their school in the morning. You cannot
    2202
    tell them to "right turn" or to "halt" if you are to give these words a strict interpretation. You may not intend to do it any more than the President by his broad words of "physical training" intends to do any of the alarming things that have been outlined here to-day. In addition, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite whether they are going to forbid fire drill in the schools? They are bound to do so according to the line they are taking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] How can you arrange a fire drill without a word of command and everybody having to answer to it? You cannot marshal them or get them there without asking them to do it. We must really look at the practical side of this question, and not merely at a German bogey. The thing cannot possibly be done. Any teacher with a class going to sleep has suddenly for five or six minutes to get them up and make them move their arms about, or do something of the kind. That is mass discipline—command, dragooning them. That is what is objected to. I venture to submit that it is far too dangerous to put in wide limiting words of this character.
    I will conclude by saying that the guarantee of the hon. Member for Leicester as to the future physical training in the schools of this kind is, after all, in the teachers of the country. There is far too much assumption in this House, and in previous Debates I have made it my business to point it out, that you can guarantee the instruction of your children by introducing limiting words in one direction or the other into an Act of Parliament. The method the teacher in charge of this drill and physical training adopts is—all and everything. It is the beginning and the end, and, after all, we must confide in the teachers of the country. They will see to it that the schools are not converted into military institutions. The teachers are not going to be humbugged by the War Office. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) will agree with me that in this matter we must confide in the teachers, and trust to them more than to anything. When in addition you have the practice which has now been established for several years in our elementary schools, and which is being extended to the continuation schools, I cannot see that all these fears are justified, and I do see that the Amendment is utterly impossible and exceedingly dangerous to the conduct of any school in the country.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I cannot lay claim to the educational experience of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir E. Jones), but I think the extravagance of his speech is its own answer. We are asking the President of the Board of Education to put in words to prevent the prostitution of continuation schools for military objects. We agree entirely with the physical education given in the elementary schools. No objection has been taken to it. It is carefully thought out on scientific methods, with the object of improving the physique of the children. Military drill is surely directed to preparing the minds as well as the bodies of boys between the ages of fourteen and eighteen with the idea of qualifying them as soldiers. We hope that we are on the eve of an era of peace. We are fighting a military nation, and we want to destroy the military spirit. Are we going to allow local authorities, unless overborne by the Board of Education, to accustom children at the age of fourteen to the idea that they can only become efficient if they become efficient killers? Military drill is directed to accustoming boys to the idea of international hatred and to the idea that they must be prepared and must qualify themselves to destroy the lives of their fellows. The age of eighteen is quite early enough for that kind of teaching. The efficiency of military drill has been denounced by educational authorities, but I did not expect to hear from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) such justification for their statements as he gave just now. Unlike some of us, he had the good fortune to pass through Eton. Sometime ago, when he was there, he was saddened by the slouching appearance of a number of the boys. Although they have so brilliantly distinguished themselves in this War, and although they have subjected themselves to this particular form of military drill, yet they slouch.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: It was only a minority who probably had not been in the Volunteers. May I ask my hon. Friend if he is really going to object to any form of drill whatever which can be described as military drill in our schools?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am not going to object to any form of rational drill which is calculated to improve and extend the physical powers of our children.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Forming fours, for instance?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: May I explain why we are taking this stand now? There is an agitation in different parts of the country for the introduction of military drill into our elementary schools. There was a great meeting at the Mansion House, presided over by the Lord Mayor, at which Lord Cheylesmore advocated compulsory military drill, and the meeting voted upon it. In consequence of the War in which we are engaged, people's minds are not now normal—it is quite understandable, though we hope sometime that they will become so—and all kinds of demands for this kind of thing are arising in different parts of the country. Here you have an education authority complaining that some of their teachers refuse to give military instruction. They say that only thirty refuse to co-operate, whereas those who are going to help in giving this military instruction which is to prepare the minds of children with, the idea that they are to become soldiers number hundreds. Something has been said about the nature of this military training. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) referred to a book which has been published dealing with this subject. Here are one or two things which it is suggested should be taught to the boys:
    "Bayonet practice: This may be carried on as physical drill without bayonets fixed."
    Elsewhere the author speaks of the duty of teaching applied science, and says it provides a sure foundation for instruction in the use of machine-guns, bombs, hand grenades, or whatever weapon human ingenuity may conceive. That is the kind of thing that you do not want put in the minds of boys of fourteen. This is published by a Director of Education under a county education authority, and it is widely circulated among other education authorities. Surely it is not the time, when we claim that our aim is to make an end of war and when we say that we hope to secure such a peace as will make a return of war practically impossible, to place in the hands of local authorities the power to impose upon students of fourteen years and upwards in continuation schools this particular form of education. The hours will be short enough in any case, and they might be devoted to much more useful purposes than this. Our only safeguard against it is the character of the present holder of the office of President of the Board of Education. If he were going to be President perpetually, I

    2205
    should not have any desire to put in this Amendment, but he will not always be President. He may not be President next week. Nobody knows when this Government will come to an end, and he may be succeeded by a militarist who would give every sympathetic consideration to any scheme submitted to him by the local education authority. We want to ensure against the militarising of the minds of these boys when they go to these continuation schools, and we say that eighteen is quite early enough at which to take possession of their bodies and instruct them in this particular way. I make no complaint of the attitude of the President on this question, and for his ideas on education I have the greatest possible admiration, but I hope he will respond to our appeal and make provision against the introduction of any military element in the instruction given in these schools, leaving that to a later stage in the life of the boy, in the hope that when this War is over, the necessity will never arise.
    Sir J. YOXALL: It might facilitate the smooth passing of this Bill into law if the right hon. Gentleman, having said that he will not accept the Amendment which expressly precludes military teaching in schools, would also say that he would not accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), which expressly provides for military teaching in schools. If we could balance the one Amendment against the other, the mind of the Committee probably would be set at rest.
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite ready to give that assurance.
    Sir J. YOXALL: It would be quite as awkward to place the words of the first Amendment in the Bill on the one hand as it would be to place the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes on the other hand, and I would submit two or three reasons for leaving the question as it stands without any Amendment on the point at all. If you put in an Amendment expressly saying that there shall be no military instruction in the schools you may invite the opposition of those who are in favour of military instruction; and, on the other hand, if you put in an Amendment expressly saying that there shall be military instruction, you may invite the opposition of those who are opposed to military instruction. In either case you would probably have a
    2206
    stormy passage for the Bill, and you might have it bandied about from one House to the other on this very question. If you make no reference in the Bill to the subject at all, you will probably ensure the passage of the Bill into a safe harbour at the end. I would like to, say one or two words with reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Sir G. Reid), whom we are all glad to see amongst us once more. He did not quite do justice to the spirit of the children in the schools of this country. It is true that in the elementary schools, in particular, and in some of the secondary schools there have been no Cadet Corps in the past; but to that accusation he added that there was no discipline in those schools, and that is a charge which I feel bound, on behalf of the schools, to repudiate. Why was it, when the youth of this country were called upon in 1914 and they went up in their millions, and when they were called up under the Derby scheme and by compulsion, that they quickly obtained the elements of drill and qualified themselves for military service with a rapidity never seen before in the military history of the whole world? It was because there had been this discipline and drill and all those forms of hard drill and playground marching, and so forth, to which my hon. Friend opposite (Sir E. Jones) has referred. But it was flexible, voluntary, happy, acquiescent. The duties of life and the duties of citizenship had been recognised in all these schools, and the result was seen in the gallant bearing of our men in the Armies in every field. Therefore I am bound to repudiate the suggestion which came from the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Scotland that there had been a lack of discipline, and also the suggestion, which came later, that there had been no preparation and that the want of preparation in the schools of this country had been one of the causes of the War.
    This is not the first occasion on which this subject has been discussed. The minds of some of us go back to the time when a Vice-President of the Committee of the Council, Sir John Gorst, because he thought the spirit of the country demanded this kind of thing, brought into the elementary schools a form of training called military training and drill. It was compiled by military men from the Soldiers' Red Book, and it was brought into the schools under happy auspices, with the authority of the Board of Educa-

    2207
    tion. A distinguished officer was placed in charge of the whole concern, and was directed to inspect. It was tried in every school, and it was expelled from the schools, not because of any anti-military wave of opinion—the country was enjoying a prolonged period of peace—but because it was discovered that this military drill did not give the physical training that the children required. It was discovered that methods that might be suitable to men of nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one on the barrack parade ground were totally unfitted to the work in the schools and the age of the children. My hon. Friend (Sir G. Greenwood) referred to what he saw at Eton not long ago. I myself saw marching through the streets of Winchester the other day the whole of the cadets of the officers training corps, who were youths of eighteen and nineteen years of age, tall, upstanding, bearing the burden of their long march and the weight of their equipment very well. My hon. Friend spoke of lads of thirteen and fourteen stooping, bowing, worn out, and breaking down. All lads of from thirteen to sixteen in any of these schools will suffer in that way. The great objection I have to this Amendment and the equally severe objection I have to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) is that neither gives the physical training that is required. It will disgust the children with the whole thing, it will not make them into soldiers later on, and it will not develop in them discipline and those other qualities which these proposals are intended to do.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I desire to support with the utmost heartiness the whole of the argument which has been addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall). I should leave the subject with the arguments of his admirable speech were it not that I wanted, from the point of view of a member of a local education authority, to support what he has said, which comes from one who knows so well the duties and responsibilities of the teaching profession. I quite agree that the only way in which this matter can be left properly is by not having an Amendment put in on either side. We want the authorities and the teachers themselves to direct their minds purely and simply to the one question of what physical training is most appropriate to lads of these ages, and not
    2208
    to be embarrassed or worried by meticulous inquiries as to whether it is the sort or training which will or will not help national defence later on. If you put in on either side a reference to military training, you at once import controversy into every education authority, if not into every school, whereas if there is nothing said about military training in the Bill itself, the onus of trying to get it rests with persons who want to alter and extend the simple term "physical training." I support the Government in putting in "physical training" here. It is of great consequence. The specific experience of the case in which military training was found unwise and unsuitable will not be forgotten by the Board of Education or the local education authorities. The great and terrible problem of national defence which trust arise after the War is one to be settled then according to the way the War ends and according to the international position. Let us do everything we can to help to bring about such a position that there will be the least possible demand for military training.
    Mr. FISHER: May I express the hope that the Committee will come to a decision on this Amendment? This is a very important Bill. There is an immense amount of interest in it in the country, and it would be a great disaster if the passage of the Bill were endangered by excessive delay.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am extremely sorry to differ from the President of the Board of Education. I agree with him in thinking that this is a very important Bill, but this is a most inopportune time to bring in an important Bill like this, and I am not sure it is to our advantage to facilitate its passage into law by unduly curtailing discussion on such an important Clause as this. I am quite aware that we have discussed this question of military training for the last two hours, but there is one feature of it which I do not think has yet been touched upon. It is only right that the people of this country should see the point of view which is becoming increasingly obvious. The discussion has gone on as if we were considering the question of military training for boys of fourteen to eighteen, coupled with Conscription for boys over eighteen. It is a problem which the Board of Education has not previously had to face, how to fit in all education with military training subsequent to the children leaving continuation

    2209
    schools. The point I want to make is that the people who advocate military training in these continuation schools for boys between fourteen and eighteen, and who are particularly vociferous at the present time, are not frankly facing the music. They call for compulsory military training with a view to saving the country from German invasion, although if they ask military advice they will know perfectly well that the military authorities prefer to begin the training at eighteen. What the people, like the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood), who clamour for military instruction in these continuation schools—
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: I must really protest. I have not clamoured for military instruction. I only say that this Amendment is an injudicious one, and that a certain amount of drill in schools is a very good thing for the boys. I entirely dissociate myself from the argument which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to put into my mouth.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to have that disclaimer because I have always regarded my hon. Friend as a good Liberal—
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: It is not a question of being a Liberal.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD—except on the question of contagious diseases. Although he, with his ingrained Liberalism, is not one of the Mansion House orators in favour of military training in continuation schools, at the same time there are many, not so much in this House but outside, who are advocating it not really from a military point of view but instinctively, because they feel that the working classes drilled, disciplined and obedient will be better material for them when they leave schools. Everybody knows that is so. If you are at the private dinner table with manufacturers and others, they all say they want more discipline, that the factories ought to be more disciplined, and that then there would be less of the shop-steward business, fewer strikes and lockouts, and less trouble with the working classes. It is quite natural that they should want to put an end to that trouble as much as possible, but it is not our duty to allow that sort of opinion throughout the country to inflict its ideas upon the young people of this country between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. We want to see that they have the very best physical
    2210
    training. By all means let them have drilling and forming fours. By all means let them have any form of drilling in which the teachers can give them instruction. But the line should be drawn hard and fast between such instruction and physical training as can be given by the teacher and the drill-sergeant coming into the school ground and giving them instruction as if they were Volunteers or Territorial troops. The teacher has, at any rate, the training to know that it is his duty to develop the children both mentally and physically. The drill-sergeant often has the training which inspires him to assert his authority and inspire obedience, rather than to develop the physical and mental side of child-life. What we who support the Amendment want to do is to keep the drill-sergeant out of the continuation schools. I do not see any way of doing it except by carrying this Amendment. It is true that the Board of Education have not bowed the knee to Baal in the past. The physical training given in the elementary, schools, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Sir E. Jones), is an enormous improvement on the old system, under which there was no physical development. But when you get to the older boys, although I agree that physical training should be carried on, yet I contend that the drill-sergeant, with his instigation to swift obedience to discipline, should be kept out of the schools, so that, as I said last night, we should have boys and girls turned out who will be thinking individuals and not merely blindly obedient. I hope the Board of Education will see their way to accept the Amendment as the only means open to this Committee of preventing the infliction of the semi-militaristic idea on these schools.
    Sir J. D. REES: As a private Member, may I say a few words? Without incurring any responsibility for bringing a subject like education before the House at a time like this, and without incurring any responsibility for increasing expenditure at a time when the country is already over-burdened beyond belief, I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Amendment. He is now, with the burning zeal of the educationist, rather impatient, and wants to get on to the other Amendments. The fact is that we should never get beyond this Amendment. We ought not to get further than the military aspect of this Bill. At a moment like this it is beyond everything

    2211
    the chief subject for the House to consider, if the House should, indeed, consider any such question at all as regards children at a time like this, when the country is in the gravest peril. When I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) it occurred to me, what had never occurred to me before, that he resembled the monarchical, absolute, and tyrannical family of the Bourbons, if it be a fact that their chief characteristic was that they never learned anything and never forgot anything. That any hon. Members at a time like this should object to anything like military instruction in any circumstances whatever, that they should forget that the spirit in which the hon. Member spoke is that which rendered the country so unprepared for the present peril, which almost everybody knew was coming, seems to be an amazing thing. That any impatience should be displayed at the discussion of such an Amendment seems equally amazing. I remember that when Lord Haldane brought in his Education Bill and proposed only physical training at that time, the same interests that are now opposing this Amendment opposed that physical training, and actually tradesmen who allowed time to their assistants to pursue military training in any circumstances were gibbeted as being militarists and possessed with the dangerous spirit of militarism. The hon. Member for Haggerston said that young people could learn all this drill easier later on. I do not know whether the hon. Member has spent much of his time in learning to form fours. The fact is that to form fours and do any military drill is a much more difficult thing than anybody would suppose. I beg the Committee to accept the word of a full private in the Volunteers on a subject like this, on which he, as an exceedingly inefficient private, is thoroughly competent to express an opinion. You cannot begin this too early. It is like riding, which no one can learn properly unless he begins young. Why is a hard and fast line to be drawn between physical and military drill? Is there anything unworthy in what is military any more than physical? My hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of Nottingham very properly urged that the Clause might be allowed to go through without any of these qualifications. To that I am prepared to agree, as the Bill is here and one must let it through. But
    2212
    why we should be hurried over the matter, which is the most important of all the aspects, the only one which should be considered at this time, I cannot understand, and to it I will not for a moment subscribe. There is not a Member listening to me who has not seen bent, crooked, unkempt, untidy, unsatisfactory-looking yokels transformed by military drill into fine, upstanding Englishmen, a credit to their country. What is this fear of military instruction? What harm does it do? It is amazing that any such fear should be expressed at the present moment. I utterly repudiate any such feeling, and beg the right hon. Gentleman in the first place, not to be impatient with any discussion of the subject, and, in the second place, to repudiate and renounce the Amendment laid before him, and everything else of the same character proceeding from the same quarter of the House.
    Mr. D. MASON: The hon. Gentleman apparently considers this a War measure. I might remind him that it is an Education Bill, and I do not think I need say anything further as to his remarks. But I wish to say something with regard to the very fair proposal which is made by the hon. Member for Nottingham. He is opposed to any training in the shape of militarism, but ho says that as the Minister for Education had very courteously, in response to him, given a pledge that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) would not be accepted he thought we might allow this Clause to go without the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. That, on the surface, appears to me a very fair proposal, but I do not think it takes much studying of the Bill, even on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself to see that the power to impose militarism is in the Bill, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to prevent that enforcement. Everyone believes, after that very courteous and frank statement, that the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of bringing pressure to bear on local authorities to carry out training with a military bias. We have every confidence in him, but, although we may desire it, he may not continue to adorn his present position, and we have to regard the Bill, not from the point of view of his pledge, but of the possibility of some successor of his who would not carry it out. It is nonsense to say that military training does not tend to give a bias towards militarism. Of course it does. Whether it is

    2213
    a good thing or not is another matter. It may be that it is a very admirable thing to have Officers' Training Corps. I do not regret having had a certain amount of training in a public school, but I think those who have gone through it are bound to confess that it tends to make a boy turn towards soldiering. After this War is over we do not wish to increase the spirit of militarism, and we wish to avoid training with a bias towards militarism. We do not object to field sports or gymnastics or physical drill, but it is to avoid training which has a bias towards militarism that the Amendment is proposed.
    The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Reid) asked whether we had not better be prepared, by having our youth trained for military exercises, to defend our country in the event of invasion or aggression, and I think that is a very fair way of putting the problem. It resolves itself into this: Are we prepared to take the risk of still maintaining an adequate defence, but not, as it were, giving too great a bias towards militarism by introducing it in our schools, or are we prepared to believe that the risk would be too great and therefore that we ought to have it? Let us take even the present War. I do not think hon. Members would wish to see it introduced as any reason to complain of the way in which our youth have acquitted themselves in the field. Distinguished soldiers have said that the men who came to Kitchener's Army acquitted themselves with a valour, a bravery, and a distinction which quite equalled any trained army. The supreme advantage, therefore, of avoiding what unquestionably leads to an extension of the military spirit, and therefore of aggression, seems to me to outweigh the risk, if there is a risk, in not having military defence always available. That seems to me to be the problem, whether you are prepared to go in for becoming a military nation. You cannot contain this spirit within borders. Youngsters get keen on soldiering as the result of training with a military bias, and in the nature of things desire to put their experience into practice, and you are bound to have increased aggression if you have military training. That is a self-evident proposition. You cannot train full-blooded youngsters to the use of arms, either of rifle shooting or the bayonet, without the desire to use those instruments. It seems to me we have to face that problem and we
    2214
    have to consider whether the other is not a much better method, namely, to avoid the encouragement of this spirit. The spirit of militarism unquestionably leads to aggression. We see it in Germany. The German has been trained in this very spirit, and the German mentality is the result of this very training in the school. The youth are trained up from their very youngest years to think in terms of militarism, and the result is this military and aggressive spirit. This country and the free countries of the world have shown, and will continue to show, that they are the masters even of the Prussian military spirit when it comes to a fight. While we may be slower in coming into the field, in the long run the moral effect of your spirit will carry greater weight. I hope my hon. Friend will adhere to his Amendment. His desire to avoid anything likely to lead towards militarism and to prevent another President succeeding this President who may be tempted to enforce it, or to support local authorities in introducing it, is the main reason for moving the Amendment, and I hope he will go to a Division.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: I can assure my hon. Friend that there certainly will toe a Division on this unless it is accepted. I have been about an hour and a half trying to get an opportunity to bring forward some facts and an argument which I think afford a complete answer to the speech of the President of the Board of Education. Now that I have had the good fortune to catch his eye, the President has vanished. I propose, therefore, in the interim before he returns to give some other facts which I should not otherwise have troubled the Committee with at this hour—very important and very apposite facts. In the first place, I wish to call attention to the real educational object of Mr. Brockington's book. Mr. Brockington is the Director of Education for Leicestershire, and those of us who have worked on local education authorities know that in many cases the Director of Education twiddles the whole committee round his thumb, and if there are any people who fear him more than the Education Committee it is the Board of Education. It fears the Directors of Education throughout the country much more than it fears the public or the Press or anyone else. I can give my right hon. Friend an instance of it. Why did he not publish the Report of the inquiry into the Leeds Training

    2215
    College? Because the one man who was blamed was the Director of Leeds Education, and to make an enemy of the Director of Leeds Education was beyond the courage of the President of the Board of Education. Mr. Brockington, having shown the importance of his position and the greatness of his influence, writes a book for cadets, that is, for boys between fifteen and eighteen, which is the very age at which they are to come into the continuation schools. Therefore, anything that he writes for their instruction is applicable to continuation schools. This is what he says:
    "The teaching of geography is definitely improved by attention to military requirements."
    So that he is going to teach geography from the military point of view. It is going to be part of military training.
    "The same applies to applied science—English, mechanics, chemistry, hygiene, mathematics, and handicraft."
    He is going to teach everything from the military point of view, because he thinks it is better educationally. In face of that we really do want some definite words in the Bill to prevent that view being accepted by the Board of Education and the education authorities. I now come to the point which I wish particularly to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Can we trust any assurance given by the Board of Education? I do not think we can. The Board of Education has not proved in the past strong at keeping its promises. I could give many instances. I will give one which is definitely applicable. The whole question of military training was raised after the Boer War fifteen years ago, and I am surprised that nobody has cited what was a Parliamentary occurrence of great importance at the time.
    Sir E. JONES: We are not in the Boer War.
    Mr. KING: We are in a very similar position. We are getting to the finish of another war. After the Boer War we had not a friend in Europe, and there was a great cry for military training and Conscription. The notorious Colonel Repington wrote in the "Times" urging that, though it was impossible to get Conscription and training up to eighteen and twenty, if they could get the two last years of a boy's education, from twelve to
    2216
    fourteen, by military training in school, that would impose an influence and an impression upon them which would last and would be very good. There was a. proposal in the House and in the country to introduce military training into the schools. It was put down by popular pressure, and pressure in this House, when, suddenly, and for the first time in the history of the Board of Education, directions for physical training were brought out by the Board and a whole syllabus of direction as to training and drill in the playground was produced. They only called it physical training, but if you look at it, a people did look at it at once, in relation to the Army drill book, you find that whole paragraphs and passages had been taken bodily from the Army drill book and put into the syllabus of the Board of Education. That was after they had given a definite promise that there should be no military training in the schools. What was the result? On a famous occasion the present right hon. Member for Camberwell, who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) came down to this House and tore the thing to atoms, and the whole of this Instruction for physical training had to be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman was then more representative of the schoolmaster class than the Admiralty. At any rate, he tore the thing to tatters. Does that give us any confidence in the promises or professions of the Board of Education? Not at all. Those were the days of Sir John Gorst, a very clever and very able man, in some ways comparable to the right hon. Gentleman, both very sincere reformers and both men better than their parties. What Sir John Gorst could do one day I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not be forced to do in a year or two. I appeal to him even at the eleventh hour to save us the time of a Division, to save further controversy, to save discussion on the Report stage, and to give confidence to those Members like myself who want to support him and would like to restrain their speeches and dare not do so lest he go wrong, by accepting this Amendment. We shall then get on much more quickly and he will have more support in the days that are before him.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 201

    Division No. 37.]

    AYES.

    [6.6 p.m.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Buxton, Noel

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snowden, Philip

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    King, Joseph

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Tootill, Robert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Finney, Samuel

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Morgan, George Hay

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Armitage, Robert

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

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Astor, Hon. Waldorf

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

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Glimour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

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

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Gretton, John

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fredk. (Dulwich)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hamerslay, Lieut.-Col, Alfred St. George

    Peal, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. (Kens.S.)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hardy, Rt. Hen. Laurence

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

    Bird, Alfred

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Blair, Reginald

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

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

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Haslam, Lewis

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Boyton, Sir James

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Randall, Athelstan

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

    Butcher, John George

    Hills, John Waller

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rutherford, Sir Watson (W., Derby)

    Cator, John

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

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Clynes, John R.

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Somervell, William Henry

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Stanler, Capt. Sir Seville

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

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

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Jacobson, Thomas Owen

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Stoker, R. B.

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Tickler, T. G.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Tillett, B.

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Dalziel, Davidson (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    MacCaw, William G. MacGeagh

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Weston, J. W.

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    2218

    2219

    Whiteley, Sir Herbert J.

    Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Wiles Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

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

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "instruction," to insert the words "military drill."
    This Amendment is the exact opposite to that on which the Committee has just voted. We have heard from the President of the Board of Education that it is not the intention of the Board at present to authorise or approve of any system of physical training which definitely includes military drill. I want by this Amendment definitely to include military drill for boys between the ages of fourteen and eighteen who are attending these continuation schools. Frankly, the Board of Education has not got the complete confidence of those people in the country who believe that it is of the utmost importance to instill into young children who will be our future citizens sentiments of patriotism and, above all, a sense of the duties of citizenship. I have no doubt that the Board of Education and the local authorities and the various schools are doing a great deal to instill a sense of the rights of citizenship, but there is nothing better for these young persons than to have to take part in definite drill with a military purpose, with a view to instilling ideas of discipline and co-ordinated action during part of the time in which they are attending these continuation schools. The President of the Board of Education told us that it was not intended by this Bill to change the military system of the country, and that the military authorities made no demand for military drill before the age of eighteen, and if universal military training is necessary after the War it would begin at eighteen. Though it may not be necessary in an Education Bill to attempt to alter the military system of the country, it is not inappropriate to try to change the average moral physique and outlook of the children of the country and to instill the idea that they have got some definite duties which they owe to the State. Physical training, of course, is part of military training. All these Swedish exercises, and the like, tend to develop the bodies of our present recruits, and are constantly used. The President of the Board of Education approve of all those kinds of exercise which are not essentially military, though they form part of the military training, but if the scholars in a
    2220
    continuation class in order to attend some ocular demonstration had to walk for a mile in a certain direction, it would be quite improper for them to walk in military formation.
    Mr. FISHERdissented.
    Mr. PETO: Then they would be undergoing military training if they were told to walk in a military manner and obey the word of command, and go through any of these exercises which lots of them who are lucky enough to be enrolled in the Boy Scouts go through before they are fourteen.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): The hon. Member must not repeat the arguments that have been advanced already, though he can ask the opinion of the Committee on the Amendment now before us.
    Mr. PETO: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I am not satisfied to leave the matter where it is now. I understand that anything in the nature of military drill will not be approved of by the present Board of Education under this scheme. I think that it ought to be. If young persons are to take a real interest in the physical exercises that are contemplated they should be something real, and should have a purpose, and this cannot be the case unless the young people understand that the training is part of a definite training for the future defence of their country. The President of the Board of Education told us that he could not contemplate this, because the education authorities would not care to deal with the question of conscientious objectors. I am very anxious that our schools should not be manufactories of conscientious objectors. That is why I want this definite military drill to be made part of the scheme which it will be the duty of the local authorities to carry into effect.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I think that he is under some misapprehension as to an observation which I made in an earlier part of the Debate. I said that the Board of

    2221
    Education would not sanction any scheme of military training. I did not mean by that to imply that the Board of Education would be so foolish as to forbid any form of drill which might be carried on in connection with physical exercises in the schools. Of course it is quite obvious that, where you have to march boys and girls from one place to another, they must be marched in some kind of military formation, and obviously this, must occur in various degrees in the physical training which will be provided in the schools. But it does not fall within the province of the Board of Education to supply rifles. That is a matter for the War Office. I wish to draw, therefore, a distinction between the kind of drill which may enter into physical training in our schools and military training of a professional character.
    Mr. PETO: My Amendment says "military drill." It does not ask for military training.
    Mr. FISHER: I was merely addressing myself to an observation which my hon. Friend made with respect to an observation which I made in an earlier part of the Debate. I quite realise his intention. My objection to accepting his Amendment is, briefly, this: As I understand it, his desire is to secure a certain reasonable amount of drill in connection with physical training. This will be secured, and consequently there is no particular object in the Amendment. The Amendment, on the other band, will no doubt excite among very large numbers of people a rather damaging impression as to the type of education which the Bill is proposing. While it is quite true that voluntary organisations of a military character, such as Cadet Corps and Officers' Training Corps, are organised very frequently in our secondary schools, and will continue to exist there, there is a difference between voluntary military training in schools and compulsory military training in schools. It would be unfortunate if the impression got abroad that the Government were taking this opportunity of attempting to introduce anything like compulsory professional military training in schools. For that reason, I should be very much obliged if my hon. Friend would see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. We are dealing here with continuation schools for boys up to the age of eighteen on which we are going to spend a lot of money. What my hon. Friend wants is that some part of the time spent in the continuation school should deal definitely with drill of a military nature. There can be no objection to that. It is certainly good for the individual. Different witnesses who came before the Committee admitted that. Take the case of a young miner who spends some part of his time at physical drill. Undoubtedly it is a good thing for him. It makes him smarter and able to stand up and answer a word of command. Just before the War I pressed the President of the Board of Education in reference to elementary schools, and suggested that drill of a military nature should be allowed, as I think it was in some schools, with dummy rifles. He said with the greatest indignation that nothing of the kind would ever occur in any school with which the Board of Education had anything to do. That was thoroughly behind the times. In another year we were at war, and yet the Board of Education said that it would be a wrong thing for these young persons to be taught to defend themselves and their country. I press the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to accept this Amendment It is a step in the right direction.
    Mr. LEIF JONESdissented.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely there is no objection to boys learning drill between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. It is most useful from the physical and disciplinary point of view. In secondary schools you have got Cadet Corps, and it is only right that in these continuation schools portion of the time should be devoted to military training.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee debated this subject from four o'clock until six, and I suppose that, strictly speaking, all that the Committee is entitled to do now, the subject having been fully discussed, is to give its opinion on this Amendment by way of Division after a very short statement. We are now opening the whole question again, and I do not think I can allow any more general discussion.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am sorry if that is so. I will not proceed further.
    Mr. L. JONES: I was going to say that my hon. and learned Friend was not in the House during the Debate—
    Mr. RAWLINSON: My right hon. Friend is quite wrong. I was here during a very large portion of the Debate, and when I went away it was to look after his interests on the Kitchen Committee.
    Mr. JONES: I am not finding fault with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, as a matter of fact, the President of the Board of Education did deal with the two Amendments together, and practically gave his decision upon both, so that both might be rejected, and the matter left to the Board of Education to decide. It was
    his statement which in part prevented my going into the Division Lobby on the previous Amendment. The whole question has been argued out already, and I think we ought to be allowed to get on with the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This Amendment has been discussed for some time, and if it goes to a Division I attach so much importance to it that, without giving my reasons, I shall support my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 176.

    Division No. 38.]

    AYES.

    [6.32 p.m.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Boland, John Pius

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Stewart, Gershom

    Boyton, Sir James

    Harris, Sir Henry (Paddington, S.)

    Swift, Rigby

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

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

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

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

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr. Peto and Mr. Marriott.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Daniel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Holt, Richard Darning

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Hudson, Walter

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Armitage, Robert

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Arnold, Sidney

    Edwards, Clement, (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Ferone, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Finney, Samuel

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

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

    Jones, Rt. Hon. L. (Rushcliffe)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

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

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Bentham, G. J,

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Gilbert, J. D.

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Bird, Alfred

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Goldstone, Frank

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Macdonald, J Ramsay (Leicester)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Greig, Col. James William

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Buxton, Noel

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Harvey, T. E. Leeds, West)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Clynes, John R.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Morrell, Philip

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

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

    Hinds, John

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Roch, Walter F.

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Rowlands, James

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

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

    Watson, John B. (Stockton)

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sanders, Col, Robert Arthur

    Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Smallwood, Edward

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

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

    Somervell, William Henry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pratt, J. W.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

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

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

    Stoker, R. B.

    Wilton, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Taylor, John W (Durham)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Taylor, Theodora C. (Radcliffe)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

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

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Tickler, T. G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Tootill, Robert

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

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "resident in their area."
    This Amendment hardly tells its own story upon its face. It is merely to omit those words "resident in their area," but it is one of a series of Amendments which raise an extremely important question, namely, the education of boys over the age of fourteen who desire to take up the sea service as their vocation in life. In my view, the Amendment is important even to this extent, that, unless some such scheme as is suggested in this series of Amendments is adopted, or, conversely, if the Bill is left as it stands, the supply of boys for the mercantile marine in this country will be so cut off as to cause grave injury to our mercantile marine. The Committee will perhaps bear with me if I deal for a moment—before I deal with the particular proposal of this series of Amendments—with the position at the present time in regard to the supply of boys to the mercantile marine. In the year 1906 the Merchant Shipping Act of that year for the first time provided that a knowledge of the English language should be essential to the engagement of a seaman in a British ship. Members will remember that at that time there was a great deal of discussion as to the extent to which the mercantile marine was manned by foreign seamen. The House took a strong view that we should do all we could to encourage a higher proportion of British sailors in our ships. Consequently this proposal was inserted in the Merchant Shipping Bill of that year, and the result of it has been gradually, slowly, and surely to diminish the number of foreign sailors in our mercantile marine, and make it more dependent on a supply of British
    2226
    boys from the British Isles. To-day the number that are wanted by the British mercantile marine and sea-fishing fleets varies from year to year between the figures of 5,000 and 9,000 boys coming fresh to the service of the sea. A very large number is wanted. For brevity, I will refer in the course of my remarks to the sea service as including both the mercantile marine and the sea-faring industry. I have a definition Clause, in which I propose to make the words "sea-service" have that meaning in the Bill. One of the first things I want the Committee to realise is that the proposal in the Bill for compulsory continuation schools down to the age of eighteen is absolutely inconsistent with the supply of boys for the mercantile marine that is absolutely essential. Boys elect to go to sea, usually, round about the age of fifteen. If they are kept in continuation schools till the age of eighteen, they will necessarily start a trade of some sort during that time. Once having started a trade, the number who will give up their trade on shore and take to the sea will be infinitely less than it would be if they were in a position to start their sea service with the commencement of their economic life. That is a fundamental reason why some special treatment must be applied to boys who want to take up the sea service as their career.
    The second point I want the Committee to appreciate is this. The proposal put forward on behalf of the shipping industry—owners, masters and men are included altogether in the industry—is not one of those proposals in relation to education that this House, in the course of the last half-century or more, has often heard from particular trades or industry.

    2227
    It is not a case of an industry wanting to have child labour for the purpose of the industry. The shipowners of the country, and their shipmasters and officers prefer men to boys. Boys are no advantage, as such, on board ship. On the other hand, they are a considerable disadvantage. It is only on certain types of ship that it is easy to carry boys. You cannot carry them easily on small ships. It is very difficult to provide suitable accommodation and make suitable arrangements for carrying boys. The shipping industry does not want a large number of boys. It only wants the hoys, not because they are boys, but because unless it gets them as boys, it will not get them at all. Once a boy has started another trade, he will not go back to the sea, in nine cases out of tea. Indeed, so much is it the case that the industry is not asking for boys for the sake of having boys, that the experience of the last few years of the Shipping Federation, which has made serious and persistent endeavours to get boys taken as apprentices by shipowners, has shown how difficult it is to persuade shipowners to take the boys. The Shipping Federation has an income which depends upon a call of so much a ton from its members. There is a large proportion of British tonnage in the Shipping Federation, and the proportion of shipowners that have been willing to take boys has been considerably less than half, and in spite of this, that the Federation has remitted, in respect of any ship, half the call upon the tonnage of that ship which would otherwise have been made, if the owner has been willing to take one or two apprentices according to a certain scale. In spite of that financial inducement to shipowners to take boys, it has been only possible to put some 500 boys a year as apprentices on the ships. The Committee will agree that that is conclusive that there is no great anxiety on the part of the industry to have boys as boys. The Committee is familiar, in a general way, with what the shipping trade means, but hon. Members will bear in mind how difficult it would be to fit in the shipping trade with any system of continuation schools. Some ships are away from this country for as much as four years, and many are away for as much as two years on end. Even the regular liners, coming to this port frequently, are turned round as quickly as they can be and sent off, so that the crew are never in this country for more than a week or two
    2228
    at most between their voyages. That fact is fundamental, and you cannot fit in any system of continuation schools in a trade that has conditions like that. It is a sheer impossibility.
    That being so, I submit that the question of the right method of education for boys who want to take up the sea service has got to be approached by this Committee on the footing that the proposal in the Bill for part-time continuation schools for four years will not do; and, secondly, that the maintenance of the British mercantile marine is a national object of primary importance, and that no system of education must be allowed, by its machinery, to interfere with the maintenance and development of our mercantile marine. On that footing I submit that a conclusive case is made for providing some other system, method, or machinery for giving boys the education which we all want them to have if they desire to take up the sea service. The proposal which I have put before the Committee in the series of Amendments to Clauses 3, 6, 10, and 42 which stand in my name, and in the name of several others interested in the subject is, roughly speaking, based upon this idea, that a shorter period of whole-tune education is as good, from the educational point of view—or nearly so from all the points of view, and perhaps better from some points of view—as a longer period of part-time education. The gist of the proposal is to allow boys who want to take up the sea service to go to a whole-time school for such a period as may be determined, as equivalent to having met all the needs of the case of the four years of eight hours a week, or 320 hours a year.
    The country has a little experience already of whole-time schools, more or less of that character, in some of the sea-training schools that now exist, and I would remind the Committee that since 1913 the Board of Education has made a grant of £10 per annum for each pupil at one of these approved sea-training schools. At these schools the boys learn mostly seamanship and various matters connected with their profession. Although, under the Bill, we contemplate that the work of the continuation schools should be, to a great extent, general education, yet there is no reason why the existing system of sea-training schools should not be fitted in perfectly with the framework of the Bill if you extend it in area and extend the number of schools, and give in those

    2229
    schools the necessary amount of general education combined with special education. One of the best of the sea-training schools is the National Sea Training Institution, at Liscard, on the Mersey. That is a school approved by the Board of Education, where the Board gives £10 a year grant. In addition, local education authorities—and I would ask the Committee especially to mark this—from all over the country, including inland authorities, send boys from their areas to the school with scholarships, taking upon their own shoulders, therefore, the burden of the expense of keeping the boys at the school so far as the Government Grant does not cover the expense. So that you have, in that system, a precedent of a twofold character. Firstly, as it were, the local school at a port in the neighbourhood of the sea service; and, on the other hand, local authorities from, all over the country, having nothing to do with the sea, sending those boys from their area who want to go to sea to that school. If the Committee will permit me, I should just like to read a short testimonal from some dozen leading steamship lines in this country as to the character of the education given at that school to boys between the ages of thirteen and a half and sixteen, or thereabouts. I will give a list of the lines who have expressed their approval, just to show the type of education that has been given. It is as follows: the Atlantic and Ocean Steamship Company. Bibbey Brothers, the Booth Steamship Company, the Canadian Pacific, the Cunard, the Elder Dempster, the White Star, and two or three of the coasting lines—tramps, liners, and coasting lines— all expressing their approval. I need not read the terms in which the approval is expressed, perhaps, but you have it there that the shipowners of the country have found that boys educated in this school between, roughly, the ages of fourteen and sixteen, have turned out admirable sailors, quick, alert, competent, with their mental faculties sharpened and their moral qualities improved. It is that type of system which, I suggest, should be worked into the framework of this Bill. And, because schools of that type are essentially vocational, I do not want the Committee to imagine for a moment that the shipowners desire, by a side wind, to have a system of schools brought in under this Bill—which is primarily intended for general education—for their particular purpose, so as to relieve them from their
    2230
    duties of training their seamen. They say —and I am satisfied this is their opinion— that all they want is educated boys, and that they, are perfectly prepared to see to their technical training themselves, though I should like to express my own view of the matter. It is this: that general education is infinitely better given if combined with some degree of practical education. There are certain things boys ought to learn early—swimming, boat drill, and so on—if they are going to sea, and certain types of practical education connected with seamanship which have a very valuable moral and physical effect on them.
    7.0 P.M.
    So that the basis of the proposal which I put before the Committee is this: that the type and standard of education to be given at these whole-time schools, which, I suggest, should be identical with the half-time education to be given under the Bill in a general way at the continuation schools. It is essential that the Committee should appreciate that I am not asking for any deviation whatever from the type of education that is contemplated. I must say, for my own part, that I do not think the Bill is quite as clear as it might be—perhaps designedly so—as to what is intended to be the character of the education at the continuation schools. Hitherto, before this Bill was introduced, we heard of elementary education, higher elementary education, secondary education, university education, and technical education, but we never heard of continuation education. I hope the President of the Board of Education may see his way to inform the Committee whether he does contemplate a form of what we usually know as higher education being given at these continuation schools. Those are the reasons, and that is the object of this series of Amendments. Now, how to work it into the Bill. Clause 10 of the Bill provides two things—first, continuation education for four years on a part-time basis; secondly, in Sub-section (2) that two years' whole-time education shall be equivalent to four years' part-time education, because it provides that when a boy has reached the age of sixteen, if he has up to then been at a full-time school, he shall be exempt from the obligation to attend a continuation school from sixteen to eighteen, and that is the framework, so to speak, into which we put this scheme All we have to do is to say that a sea

    2231
    training school, where a boy spends his whole time for a given period, it may be up to sixteen or fifteen and a half, shall be deemed to be equivalent to the four years' continuation schooling under the Bill. But there is a difficulty in the framework of this Bill on this particular Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I had better warn the hon. and learned Member that he must not travel too much over Clause 10 and the other Clauses. That point is raised specifically in two or three different ways when we come to that Clause. Really the locus he has on this Clause is confined to residence in that area. There are boys who are rightly sent out of their area for the purpose of continuation education.
    Mr. SCOTT: I anticipated that point of Order, and have almost said all that I wanted to say about Clause 10, and was coming to this particular point of the Amendment. The difficulty of fitting the framework of the scheme I have suggested into this Bill is that under Clause 3 the education to be given in continuation schools by Part II. authorities is limited to young persons resident within their area. The essence of the scheme I propose is not that there should be sea-training schools within the area of every education authority for the purposes of Part II. of the Act of 1902 throughout the country, but only that we should have sea-training schools at certain selected spots round our coasts, mainly at the big ports and the big rivers near the big ports, and, in order to achieve that, I submit it is essential to delete the restriction of Clause 3, which is involved in the words "resident in their area," and allow Part II. authorities under Clause 3 to discharge the duties of Clause 3 by sending boys from within their area to a sea-training school outside their area, and be deemed to be fulfilling their duties under the Act by doing so, and therefore, of course, coming within the financial provisions of the Bill, so that they would defray half the expenses, and they would get from the Government a Grant for the other half of the expenses. It is obvious you cannot put upon the local authority that has the sea-training school within its area, and the obligation of maintaining it, any expense in respect of young persons received from outside its area, and for that reason you have to make this adjustment in the Bill. If that
    2232
    be done, I see no difficulty at all in the general scheme I put forward for carrying that out. All you want is an adequate number of sea-training schools in certain local authorities' areas, a general statutory provision that there shall be a power given to every local education authority to send boys who want to go to the sea to these training schools, and that that shall be a due performance of their statutory duties.
    Now, as to the machinery for carrying it out. I will not, of course, go into any details, because that question arises on Clauses 6 and 10, but I would just remind the Committee, so that they may follow the scheme, that in Clause 6 there is a provision that the Board of Education may make a scheme federating a number of local authorities, and enabling that federation, so to speak, as agents for the individual constituent authorities, to carry out the duties of those particular authorities. There you have the mechanism by which you can do it. All you want to say is that, for the purpose of this sea-training system, you shall make it obligatory on the Board of Education to make such a scheme of all the Part II. education authorities of all the coastal districts of the country—that is to say, all the districts which border upon the sea—and, lest Manchester and Salford should feel left out in the cold, which I do not intend, I include local authorities having a Customs port within their area. I hope Manchester and Salford will not think themselves affronted by the suggestion that they are not yet on the sea. But if you have a federation of all those authorities, you have got then what you call a national sea-training authority. All you want is to call in aid the provisions of Clause 6, which allow representatives of other bodies to be put upon your federation, and I would suggest one-third of the members of the federation should be drawn from the shipping industry in equal and fair proportions from the shipowners, the shipmasters, and the seamen; that there should be representatives of the Chamber of Shipping, the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, for the owners; the Mercantile Marine Association and the Merchant Service Guild, for the shipmasters and officers; and the Firemen's and Seafarers' Union, for the men. You have there an authority which can carry it out, and then all you want to do is to arrange that any boy on approaching the age of fourteen who says, "I want

    2233
    to go to the sea service," wherever he is in the country, if he happens to be in the education area of one of the authorities that has a sea-training school, he goes to that school, and, if outside, he gets sent to that school.
    That is the general scheme, and all I have to say to the Committee in conclusion is this, that some sort of scheme of the kind I submit is essential. If this particular scheme, which is framed for the purpose of utilising the framework of the Bill as much as possible, is found not to fit into the framework of the Bill, then I conceive that the only alternative to an authority composed mainly of local authorities would be a national scheme of some sort run from the Board of Education. One feels 10th not to utilise the local authorities over the country for the purpose, and I, for one, would prefer to see the scheme worked by the local authorities through a federation such as I am suggesting; but, after all, there is a way of finding out whether it can be or cannot be so worked, and what I suggest to the President of the Board of Education is that he should at once—I mean within a few days—convene a conference at his Ministry of representatives of all the Part II. education authorities bordering upon the sea and the Manchester Ship Canal, and also representatives of the trade, the shipowners, the shipmasters, and the seamen, and discuss the thing, and see whether a federation on those lines would be the best method of carrying out these proposals. If it is, then all that has to be done under the Amendments that I am suggesting is to draw up a scheme, working it up in detail within the framework of the Bill, and in my Amendments I have suggested that that scheme should not become operative until it had been laid before, and approved by, Parliament.
    The only other point that I suggest is this, that till a system which will be suitable for boys wanting to go to the sea service, and which will not choke off the supply of boys for that service, has been framed and approved by Parliament, the continuation system proposed by the Bill should not be allowed to come into force in regard to boys who want to go to sea. It is only keeping it back for a short time, but, in order to make sure that we do give a system which will be consistent with the national interests with regard to the sea service, I suggest very strongly that the power conferred by the Bill to appoint a
    2234
    particular day for the Bill, or any part of it, to come into effect for a particular class, should be so exercised that Clause 10 provisions shall not apply to boys wanting to go to sea until a system has been made for continuation schooling on a whole-time basis, which will be really consonant with the needs of the sea service.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it would be impossible to leave out the words "resident in their area," because it is clear that somebody has got to be responsible for young persons resident in a particular area, and that that responsibility must rest with the local education authority for that area. The words "resident in their area," of course, will not preclude a local education authority, if it thinks fit, from sending a particular young person to receive his or her training in a school outside the limits of that area.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I read the Clause from that point of view, and I wondered whether it would mean that, because the Clause says "to establish and maintain or secure the establishment and maintenance under their control and direction." How can it be said, when they send boys out of their area to a school with which they have nothing to do, except the payment possibly of some fees, that it is in any sense under their control and direction?
    Mr. FISHER: They are asked to maintain and secure the establishment and maintenance of a sufficient supply of continuation schools under their control. The schools are to be under that control, but the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division was arguing that it should be within the cognisance of a local education authority to send a young person to a marine school for full-time education in lieu of continuation education. The second point I should like to make is that I think this is not quite the best place for the Amendment. Clause 3 deals with the establishment of continuation schools. They are created for part-time education, whilst the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division was arguing in favour of his plan towards the provision of full-time education. That is not continuation education within the meaning of the Bill, but full-time education for young persons intending to enter the marine service. I therefore submit, with all respect, that this is not perhaps the place to introduce this particular Amendment.
    Mr. SCOTT: May I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, in making his suggestion, has his eye on the later Amendment standing in the name of several hon. Members and myself—to insert the words
    "and who

    (a) are resident in their area; or

    (b) not being resident in their area are received from some other authority," etc.

    Mr. FISHER: Yes; I am.
    Mr. PETO: I am sorry the President has only dealt, by way of somewhat meticulous objection, to the form in which it is proposed to introduce the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, was endeavouring to save the time of the Committee. He made perfectly clear what he desired—I think with extraordinary clearness. The whole basis of his argument was that we must have a scheme definitely in this Bill, fitting in with the general scheme of the Bill, which will make it perfectly clear that boys about the age of fourteen who desire to go to sea, to take up the sea as their career, shall have a suitable form of education provided for them, that form of education to be accepted by the local educational authorities and by the Board of Education as a satisfactory equivalent to the continuation schools which are provided in Clause 3. The Committee will notice that Clause 10—and I think, Mr. Whitley, that that will be the only allusion I shall have to make to Clause 10—Subsection (2) paragraph (b), says:—
    "(b) is shown to the satisfaction to 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."
    What the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do is to widen the Bill; he asks it to be made quite clear that the President of the Board is going to incorporate other Amendments which he is proposing which constitute a complete scheme for sea-service training, or that he has already in his mind some other form which will be put into the Bill. That matter was just touched upon yesterday. The President then told us that several things were possibilities under the Bill. He, however, admitted that possibilities were not good enough. I understand that he has agreed that the sea-service should not be left a matter of chance. If we are going to deal
    2236
    with an education scheme which is to be in any way complete it must include the provision of proper education for the sea. Half the boys that go to our training ships and schools now come from inland, and therefore it is absolutely necessary, if you are going to keep up the supply of boys for the sea, and not to be satisfied with the mere wastage of our youthful population—thinking that anybody is good enough for the sea—if you are going to provide for an adequate supply of boys of the right quality, properly trained for the sea, you must have such a scheme as the hon. and learned Member has proposed to the Committee. You must have a complete system of suitable education which is the accepted equivalent for that which takes place in the continuation schools, which operates only up to a certain age and which enables the education authority in any part of the country to transfer the boys to outside its area—that is the purpose of this Amendment—into the area of another education authority, there to receive a proper training. It must, also go a step further and deal with the financial aspect of the case. All that has been laid before the Committee by my hon. and learned Friend in moving his Amendment. The President has not thought fit to touch upon that matter at all. He has satisfied himself with arguing that it is not possible to accept the omission of the words "resident in their area," although the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to put those words in at the end of the Sub-section with which we are dealing, and in a place which enables him by these paragraphs (a) and (b) to do what is absolutely necessary in regard to the boys who are to be admitted from outside the area.
    Clause (3) contemplates and deals only with the provision of continuation schools inside an area. We say you cannot train boys for the sea, and you cannot get your supply of boys from all over the country for the sea, unless you have a more elastic method by which every education authority will send the boys concerned to the appropriate place for training. May I say just one or two words in support of what I think is really the important matter here, whether the President realises the importance of the proper training of boys for the sea service, whether he realises—as I am sure he must—that the part-time continuation school education up to eighteen on shore is not a pos-

    2237
    sible method of training boys for the sea? The proper training, I suppose, of boys of over fifteen and a Half for sea service is on board ship. From fourteen to fifteen and a half they are very much better trained on shore, or in a training ship, where they learn all sorts of branches of useful knowledge, knowledge of a varied kind as well as special knowledge, specially useful in the career that they have chosen. Above all what the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned: there are two or three most important matters which are very difficult to learn on board ship, and that is sailing a boat, swimming, and the general work of sailing and sailing ships. A seaman is not a seaman without that knowledge, which he cannot possibly acquire elsewhere. He cannot learn it if he is put as a boy with the cook in the galley on board a tramp steamer.
    In the scheme which he has proposed my hon. and learned Friend—and this is, I think, essential—proposes to utilise all the existing admirable institutions for training boys and making them efficient, so as to be easier to put into force the complete scheme of training boys for the sea. I do not think any member of the Committee can think, with our experience in this War, that the training of boys for sea in a country like this can properly be left to haphazard methods and the charitable generosity of a certain number of people interested in the matter, and who help to support these training ships and the like, I agree, Government supports them to a certain extent by making contributions of £10 per head, as referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is quite clear, I think, if it is appropriate at all to deal with national education in the middle of a war, that the one thing we ought to deal with is that part of national education which does something to strengthen our sea service and supply British seamen for our shipping. I want to point out further to the Committee that it is not even confined to that, for we have proved in this War that the mercantile marine is, and must be, the reservoir for the expansion of our Navy in time of stress. Therefore, if this Education Bill has any relation whatever to the War we ought to look specially, I think, to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman as the most important thing which we have yet discussed—that is, the training of boys for the sea.
    2238
    I suggested just now that it must be whole-time training between fourteen and fifteen and a half. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that you cannot leave boys on shore till they are eighteen, and then expect them in any number to take up the sea. The boy will generally express his preference at an earlier age, at the expanding time of youth, somewhere between fourteen and fifteen, or thirteen and sixteen, for what appears to him as the freedom, and even the adventure of the life of the sea. We cannot afford to check that disposition. We must in some way or other encourage it by not making it the application of the bad old rule that we used to read in the stories of the unruly boy who did not like the restraint of home and ran away to sea. We do not want the odds and ends of the population put to sea service. We want to make it accessible to all who desire it, and there ought to be proper educational facilities and all training of the right kind, so as to attract the best boys that we can possibly get. I ask the Committee to look at it from another point of view—the point of view of the parent. The half-time education between fourteen and eighteen contemplated in this Clause leaves to the individual boy a good deal of time in which, frankly, he can earn money. In view of taking the wage-earning capacity from the parents by the whole-time education we contemplate necessary for the sea, it is only right that we should exhibit to the parents of the boy who chooses the sea, the view that it is worth their while making the sacrifice, which must in many cases occur, of the earnings the boy would otherwise get. If it does cost a little more you will get magnificent value for your money.
    I urge the President, therefore, to see that this is put into the Bill. I am particularly anxious for this, because I think it will make the Bill very much less unpopular with those people—and there are a great many in the country—who do not think it is very appropriate at the present time to spend time discussing a matter of this sort. It is very desirable that they should feel that we have, at any rate, a President of the Board of Education who realises that one thing he has to do—if he leaves undone everything else—is to see that our sea service is provided with the best boys we can send to it. By the mercantile sea service we provide for our future naval safety. Therefore this

    2239
    Bill has a very real relation to the War. Let the people see that we have a President of the Board of Education who realises that, so far as education consists in building up our national strength and our national defence, he is not going to leave out that part of the Bill, whatever else he may leave out. I hope, before we leave this subject—which will have to be referred to, I am sure, on several Subsections in detail—that the President will give us some more generally satisfactory answer to this vital question than the answer he has given as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a particular Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: With almost everything that fell from the lips of my hon. Friend I am in entire agreement. I am sorry that he thought I intended or desired to be somewhat less frank than I should be on this subject. I listened to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. Leslie Scott) with the greatest possible interest and sympathy. He has raised a point of very great importance, and if I did not reply at length it was because I had made a very extended statement yesterday upon the whole position of the mercantile marine service to this Bill. My position is briefly this: I acknowledge very fully, after having very carefully considered the question, that it is impossible to apply the provision relating to part-time education to boys who must spend the greater part of their time at sea, and consequently, if these boys are to come within the operation of the Bill, they must receive that form of exemption from attending continuation schools which is provided under Clause 10—that is to say, some form of alternative for full-time instruction—and the problem before us is in what way can that alternative form of full-time instruction be most conveniently supplied to boys intending to take up the sea as a profession. I pointed out yesterday that this Bill does go a long way to help in this matter. I very much dislike quoting my own ill-chosen words, but if I may do so I would remind the hon. Member of what I said yesterday. I said that:
    "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
    2240
    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 kind of education—"
    Then I went on to say:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1918, 2039.]
    Mr. PETO: This is a national Educational Bill, and why not put it in?
    Mr. FISHER: The position of our educational system in this country is this, that it is worked with the co-operation of the Board of Education on the one hand, and the local education authorities on the other. That co-operation may give us a great deal of what we want, but I am not satisfied that it will give us everything. For instance, you cannot compel a local education authority necessarily to provide out of the rates an expensive residential school fully equipped with maintenance and allowances and the necessary accommodation for boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who desire to enter the merchant service. Why should this great burden be placed upon the ratepayers of those particular areas? It would be very difficult to say to these education authorities, "Your ratepayers must bear this charge not only for the boys belonging to your own area, but for the boys drawn from areas in other parts of the country." I think the ratepayers of that particular area might very well object.
    Mr. SCOTT: My proposal does not put upon the authority that has the training school in its area any of the cost of boys coming from outside areas. The boys coming from outside should be fully paid for by the education authority that sends them, and that authority should look to the Government for its proportion of the Grant.
    Mr. FISHER: I think my hon. Friend will admit that it may be very difficult to obtain everything he wants within the normal operation of our local system of education. It may be necessary, therefore, for further steps to be taken, and, as I pointed out yesterday, I am fully alive to

    2241
    the necessity for making adequate provision for boys who desire to enter the mercantile marine. You cannot, however, work a system, of full time in a local boarding school with a system of full time continuation school. A number of authorities can now give opportunities for boys going to training schools, and they can contribute to the cost of that education. If a boy goes to such a school he ceases to be under an obligation to attend the continuation school, and he is outside the system of continuation schools altogether, so long as he stays there. That is my reason for pointing out that this is an inappropriate place for introducing the particular proposals the hon. Member has in view. I hope I have satisfied the Committee that I am not at all blind to the necessity of providing some adequate form of education for this particular class of boy, and that I am, in fact, very earnestly considering the best way of meeting the wishes to which my hon. Friend has given general expression.
    Mr. L. JONES: After what the President has said, it seems to me that the appropriate and effective way to raise this question would be an Amendment to Clause 10, excluding from the operation of that Clause seafaring boys, and making alternative provision for them. I think that would be the best way to do it.
    Mr. SCOTT: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman invites me to withdraw this Amendment because it is inconvenient here, but before I agree to take that course perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance on the point. We have raised the whole question now, and I think the Committee are rather anxious to dispose of it now, so as not to go through it all over again at a later stage. I should be very 10th to withdraw my Amendment unless the President is in a position to say that before we get to Clause 10 he will table Amendments putting in definite form the general statement he has been good enough to make both yesterday and to-day. What the Committee wants is to see exactly what is the Government proposal. It is recognised by the Government that their present proposals are inadequate. We are told that they are going to put further proposals before us, and my submission is that those proposals should come before us quite early in the Committee stage, so that we can consider them in their relation to the rest of the Bill in Committee.
    2242
    We do not want this question postponed to be brought up as a mere new Clause at the end of the discussion, after the rest of the Bill has been dealt with in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an assurance that he will at an early date table Amendments so that we can see them, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. JONES: Those of us who are concerned about the education of boys for the mercantile marine are not so much concerned as to where and in what particular place in the Bill the Amendment is inserted. The President has recognised the importance of making special provision applying to boys who are going to sea. It is certain that unless special provision is made for these boys before they are sixteen it will not be possible to get them for this purpose. Under the scheme of continuation education which is made compulsory the sea service is going to be deprived of the supply of boys unless the Committee makes provision for the special education of boys for the sea. There may be considerable difficulty in fitting a scheme of this kind into the Bill, but I think the set of Amendments moved by the hon. and learned Member opposite is really a water-tight scheme provided the Government will come forward and do its part. This scheme as presented under these Amendments does provide that any boy, not only in seaports but all over the country, who desires to go to sea should have the opportunity, and you have to meet that desire before the boy reaches the age of sixteen.
    You have in some of our seaports—you might easily have more of them—excellent schools dealing specially with boys intended for the sea. I do not think there would be great difficulty in establishing more schools of that kind in seaport towns if it be so desired by the Board of Education. There is the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out just now of the expense of those boys who are to be maintained in those schools for two years away from their own home. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not fair to throw upon the local education authority in those towns the expense of maintaining boys from outside areas at the seaport schools. I agree it is not fair to ask the education authority in that county to pay more than the boy would have cost if he had been

    2243
    educated at home, but it is fair that that local authority should continue to contribute the same amount as he would have cost if the boy had remained in their district. That is the first contribution towards the cost of maintenance of the boy at the seaport town. It is equally not fair that a seaport town which sets up a school to train boys in this special work for the nation should have the burden of educating boys which do not come from their own area. That would be an unreasonable thing to ask for. To whom do we look for providing these boys for the necessary service? We must look to the Government. The Government already recognise this form of education by contributing £10 a year for the boys who go to special schools. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that he would contribute on behalf of the country the difference between the cost of the boy in his own district and the cost at the special school where he would receive the special training, that would meet the difficulty. That is really the scheme presented by the hon. and learned Member opposite, which is a watertight scheme, and I think the whole House will be behind the right hon. Gentleman in providing this special education for those boys.
    This is perhaps the most necessary thing in education that he has to provide, and it is surprising that we have not done more in this direction. Now you are going to interfere with the supply of boys for the mercantile marine unless you modify the Bill as it stands. Under these circumstances I think we are entitled to ask the President before we pass from this Clause that he will formulate a scheme which will secure from the moment this Bill becomes law, and I hope it will be passed before many days are over, that there will be no interference with the supply of boys for the mercantile marine, and that the whole scheme will be in working order along with the rest of the Bill. If the President can give us that assurance there will be no difficulty in dropping this Amendment, but the real wish of the House and the Committee is that alongside the general education of the mass of boys between fourteen and eighteen we should provide that special form of education which is necessary to keep up the supply of boys in the mercantile marine.
    Mr. FISHER: I feel it is difficult to commit myself with respect to the finance
    2244
    of a national scheme of sea training with out some consultation with the Treasury. The whole question is being explored by a Committee of the Admiralty, and, under these circumstances, it is difficult either to table Amendments or to pledge myself to the outline of any scheme. The position is very simple. When Clause 10 comes to be considered we shall have to discuss how far the provisions of that Clause are applicable to boys who intend to take up life at sea, and I think it may be found impossible to ask of them attendance at school for 320 hours a year between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. We shall consequently have to consider whether we can secure for the mercantile marine of the country a sufficient supply of boys who will satisfy the conditions imposed by Clause 10 and will have undergone full-time education up to sixteen. The question, therefore, narrows itself down to this —in what way can we most easily secure a sufficient supply of boys who will satisfy the condition imposed by Clause 10 and will have under gone full-time education up to sixteen. The question, therefore, narrows itself down to this—in what way can we most easily secure a sufficient supply of schools adapted to fit boys for a seafaring life to be attended by them between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. That is a problem which is largely financial. It may involve the provision of residential schools. It is true that under the normal operation of the Bill we may get many of these schools without any further trouble—indeed, in one Clause the Exchequer undertakes to pay half the expenditure on higher elementary education in these cases—that is to say, half of any expenditure which may be incurred by the local authority. Consequently the Board will put pressure on the local education authorities in seaport towns to provide instruction of this kind, part of the cost to be defrayed from the rates and part from the Exchequer.
    Furthermore, if the Committee accept Clause 6 we hope to see a federation of local education authorities established all over the country, and we hope, too, that this federation will fall in with the suggestions made by the Board to contribute to the support of schools giving this special training. It is possible the Committee may not see its way to providing that this federation shall be compulsory. I think there will be a great objection on the part of local education authorities, so far as I have explored their opinion, to

    2245
    any such plan, but no doubt we can call on those local education authorities to supply what is needed. We can rely on them to do that, and that is why I said yesterday that I thought it would be desirable or necessary some very special steps should be taken involving, of course, fresh charges on the Exchequer, to meet the needs of which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: Will the President inform the Committee when hon. Members will be in possession of the proposals of the Government on this point. We have here a watertight scheme which we believe will achieve the object we have in view, and, naturally, we are very 10th to with draw one of our proposals which is an integral part of the scheme until we are aware of what the Government proposals are. Indeed, I feel rather disposed to move the Adjournment of the Debate unless the President is able to tell us here and now about when he will be able to put his proposals on the Amendment Paper. I am a hearty supporter of the Bill. I want to see it carried, but we do want to know where we are before we withdraw an Amendment which is essential to our scheme.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I do not consider that the hon. Member has produced a watertight scheme, and one of my reasons for so thinking is that much of the hon. Member's scheme depends on the existence of a federation of authorities. To that I believe we shall find considerable opposition in Committee from Members who represent local education authorities in this country and who will not be willing to make federation compulsory on those authorities. That is why I do not consider, the scheme to be watertight. The hon. Member has asked me for a pledge as to the time and date at which my Amendments will be tabled—
    Mr. SCOTT: An approximate date !
    Mr. FISHER: An approximate date at which I shall be able to produce an alternative scheme. I will undertake to see that the position of the mercantile marine is not prejudiced by anything under Clause 10—that is to say, if Clause 10 should pass in its present form, and if by that stage it should appear clear that boys entering the mercantile marine cannot satisfy the alternative of full time up to sixteen, then I shall be prepared to consider Amendments which will enable these boys to be trained.
    Mr. L. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we shall not be asked to part with the Bill until the position of these boys has been safeguarded? Will he give a pledge that the position of the boys shall not be prejudiced by the passing of this Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes, as far as I can, consistently with the principles of this Bill.
    Major HILLS: Let us understand where we are. We are now discussing a scheme which was very carefully prepared and which hon. Members who have put their names down to the Amendments think is a watertight scheme. The President does not agree with them that it is watertight. I want to know this: If we are to part with this Amendment, If the Amendment is withdrawn or negatived, do we part with the whole scheme or can we raise the scheme again on a subsequent Amendment? My own belief, after some consideration, is that unless these words are moved out we shall be precluded in the future from raising this particular scheme, and unless this particular scheme is inserted I do not see how you can secure a full-time marine education to fit in with the scheme of this Bill as a substitute for the education it proposes. I want to know exactly where the Committee stand. If we accept the suggestion of the President of the Board and allow this Amendment to be withdrawn, shall we be precluded from raising the question at a subsequent period?
    The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman putting that point to me?
    Major HILLS: Yes. I want to know if we shall be precluded, when a more suitable occasion arises, from again raising this points I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss it now.
    The CHAIRMAN: Some time ago I indicated that the proper place would be on Clause 10, but the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Leslie Scott) preferred to take it on this, the first of the series of Amendments, and my understanding was that it would clear the whole matter away. But I can say this, that if the matter is not pressed further now I will undertake that at least in the form of exempting seafaring boys from the operation of Clause 10 the matter may again be raised, and then, of course, the question would follow of other provision being made for them.
    Mr. L. JONES: That is so far satisfactory, and I hope the President will understand that our object in securing the exemption of these boys from this particular provision is that we may get proper education for them.
    Major HILLS: And on Clause 10 can we insert a provision for the education of these exempted boys in schools outside their own area?
    The CHAIRMAN: Clause 10 is the Clause which contains a provision for attendance at continuation schools, and on that I suggest it would be competent to propose—inasmuch as the Clause itself provides for such a number of hours as the local education authority, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may consider reasonable—if there is no provision for those exempted over the age of sixteen it seems to me it will be quite possible to bring up your point there.
    Mr. DENNISS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to proceed with Clause 10 before Whitsuntide?
    Mr. FISHER: That all depends.
    Mr. SCOTT: May I venture to make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? If I withdraw my Amendment now—and I am anxious to do all in my power to facilitate the business of the Committee—and if I am to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is with us in principle, will he tell me if he will be able to table his Amendments before we come to discuss Clause 10? I think it is very important, especially in view of the fact that Clause 6, which contains the federation proposals, may have a bearing on the matter, and we ought to see, therefore, what the consequences of those proposals may be on Clause 10. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that we shall have the Government proposals with regard to the mercantile marine before we get to Clause 10?
    8.0 P.M.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman spoke just now of the institution of an Admiralty Committee, and I understand there is a possibility of the Admiralty taking over all the training ships. Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange that when Clause 10 comes up for discussion we shall have some guidance from the Admiralty as to their wishes?
    Mr. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I make this suggestion? It has been suggested to me that perhaps we could solve this question by getting an understanding on the lines of such an Amendment as mine to Clause 10, leaving the boys in the sea service out of the scheme altogether, unless the right hon. Gentleman has been able to show us a practical scheme of his own for giving them suitable training. I think it would be possible to put them back on Report if the right hon. Gentleman has not time before Clause 10 to put forward his scheme. So far as I am concerned, as one of the supporters of the Amendment, I should be quite willing to consent to its withdrawal, provided the right hon. Gentleman agrees to accept the Amendment leaving these boys out altogether, because I am quite sure we can do that under Clause 10, but I am not convinced that under Clause 10 alone it will be possible to provide for this scheme.
    Mr. FISHER: The question, as I view it, is largely a question of finance. I have consulted with leading shipowners on this subject, and they all agree that the provisions of the Bill as drafted are applicable to the mercantile marine on one condition, namely, that there should be a sufficient supply of residential schools of a marine character, and that the boys in those schools should be supported between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, and enabled to complete their training in that way. It is, there fore, a question of finance, and we have to consider, in consequence, how these schools can be most conveniently started, most conveniently organised, and most conveniently financed. That is really rather a big proposition. You have to take into consultation the leaders of the shipping industry, the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty. I am in consultation with them, but obviously if you are to have a really effective national scheme for the mercantile marine, you cannot rush it through quickly, and what I have promised is that when we come to Clause 10 I will see, so far as I can, that the Government assents to no Amendments which are inconsistent with the interests of the mercantile marine, as we all understand them to be. I have already told the Committee that I realise to the full that it is impossible to ask all boys who spend the greater part of their time

    2249
    at sea to attend half-time continuation classes. Some alternative form of education must be devised, and the Bill does make provision for that. It exempts from obligation to attend these part-time classes—
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman speak so that we can hear on this side?
    Mr. FISHER: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It exempts from the obligation of attending part-time continuation classes all boys who have attended full-time education up to sixteen. My friends in the shipping industry tell me that they do not want boys before sixteen, and, so far as they are concerned, if we can provide them with schools and finance the schools, and get a sufficient flow of boys into the schools, what would be most satisfactory for them would be that the terms of the Bill should be observed in respect of that industry. Their only apprehension is that there will be an insufficient amount of financial support of these schools, and until such support is forthcoming there will consequently be an insufficient supply of scholars in those schools. As I have said before, therefore, the whole question is a question of finance and organisation. It is really not a question of power under the Bill. Under the Bill there is sufficient power, at any rate, to go some way in the direction which the hon. Member desires. I do not say wholly, because I think it quite impossible to get local authorities to consent to compulsory federation, and, unless you get compulsory federation, I do no think you can get security for an adequate supply of schools for sea-going boys all over the country. Consequently I feel that something extra has to be done.
    Mr. STEWART: Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of what the acceptance of this Amendment would cost? I would like to support what has been said as to its being by no means confined to boys who live on the shore. I should be glad if he could give a figure, because we are all very economical, and, although we do not want to waste money, still this is a very exceptional thing, and I hope he will see his way to accept the proposal.
    Mr. KING: I should like to speak as a simple taxpayer and a simple citizen.
    2250
    This has been conducted too much as a shipowners' or shipping industry question. I think the real solution is that the shipowners and the shipping industry, which has made enormous profits during this War—bigger profits than anybody else—ought to supply the schools. They could do it themselves if they showed a little enterprise, a little co-operation, and a little public spirit. But to ask the President of the Board to put up schools for them is preposterous !
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any answer to my question about the Admiralty taking over these training ships, and as to whether we shall have the guidance of a representative of the Admiralty as to what the views of the Admiralty are?
    Mr. FISHER: I have informed the Committee that I am in consultation with the Admiralty.
    Mr. SCOTT: In view of what the President has said, I think the Committee would desire to have the general discussion of this matter postponed until a later stage, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. King) has blocked his own next Amendment, which has been handed in in manuscript.
    Mr. KING: I am very glad.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is, I think, an Amendment to anticipate Clause 10.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "(2) In all rural areas the continuation schools provided shall afford facilities for teaching practical subjects connected with agriculture, and all scholars who intend to take up any branch of agriculture as a career shall be given instruction in these subjects."
    I have put down this Amendment in order to raise a question which is really somewhat analogous to the one to which we have just been devoting some time. The continuation schools under this Clause 3 have now been admitted by the President of the Board of Education to be incompatible with the sea service. It

    2251
    seems to me and many of my friends who are particularly interested in agriculture that these continuation schools providing for a few hours a week for forty weeks in the year for four years in succession are really quite incompatible with boys who are going to take up agriculture. Looking at it merely from the geographical point of view, in a sparsely populated rural district I hold it will not be possible to get these continuation schools near enough to the boy, involving to a boy a perfectly intolerable waste of time in going backwards and forwards. I noticed in the Debate last night that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) praised very much—
    The CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Member be good enough to tell me what he is moving?
    Mr. PETO: I am moving the new Sub section (2) dealing with rural areas.
    The CHAIRMAN: Quite so. Then will the hon. Member limit his remarks to that Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I do not really know to what remark of mine you were taking objection, Mr. Whitley. I wish to point out that it is absolutely necessary that we should have continuation schools that provide an education not only of a character suitable to agriculture but provided in such a form that the boys can get at it to benefit by it. The education that I am advocating is not strictly and only the vocational education that we heard so much about yesterday, and to a certain extent to-day, but I do hold that the education that ought to be given in these special schools and rural areas should have some relation to the career of agriculture. There are, of course, various subjects which are not mechanical subjects. I am not referring at all to instruction such as the hon. Member for Wilton (Captain Sir C. Bathurst) referred to yesterday, valuable as it is in elementary schools —practical gardening and the like. The sort of subjects I mean are such as a knowledge of veterinary science, a knowledge of the chemistry of the soil, how plant life is affected under different conditions, and what are the real meaning and use of the various agricultural operations that the scholars in the future will have to perform. All this sort of thing will tend to make a rural population more fit to carry out the higher and intenser cultivation that we shall have to have in the future. I do not want to de-
    2252
    pend on myself on an Amendment of this kind, and I find much attention as has been given to this subject by the Farmers' Union, and by such a body as the North-Eastern Agricultural Federation, which is a very large federated body of agricultural associations in the North, they are all agreed that we must have not the continuation schools contemplated under this Clause 3, but continuation schools that will deal specifically with the agricultural problem and the rural population and will provide them with a suitable education to make them more efficient agriculturists. May I read to the Committee the resolution, to one line of which I referred last night, passed by the North-Eastern Agricultural Federation?
    "This meeting is of the opinion that in the new Education Bill the system of continuation schools should be more clearly defined, and that instruction on farms in agricultural subjects should be recognised as coming within the scope of the scheme. …"
    That is the purpose of my Amendment.
    "Also that the period of instruction should be whole time for a definite number of weeks during the winter session and not spread over the whole year, and, further, that the Minister of Education should be requested to receive a. deputation from the Central Chamber of Agriculture."
    I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture has received representations from the Central Chamber of Agriculture and other agricultural bodies. I want specially to call attention to the fact that these continuation schools are left far too vaguely defined. We do not see in the Bill any provision for their being specialised, so to speak, either as to time or as to what they teach, in order that the average scholar in the country district may get some benefit from the education. I notice that Professor Gilchrist, the Professor of Agriculture at the Armstrong College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in. a memorandum which he sends to me, puts this in the forefront of his objections to the Bill
    "There is no indication in the Bill as to how the continuation schools are to be organised and conducted in the rural districts. Young per sons engaged on farms in isolated positions must attend such schools, or receive satisfactory instruction in some other manner. The foundation of such schools must present great difficulties in rural districts, where, unless exceptional provisions are made, it may be practically impossible for farmers to engage young persons who must attend such schools."
    Then he goes on to point out that instruction in agriculture has made considerable progress in the country, especially since

    2253
    the time when so many county councils took the matter in hand, from 1889 onwards:
    "Instruction in scientific subjects has developed to a considerably greater extent than that on the economic and practical side of agriculture."
    He further points out that as long ago as in the Eighteenth Century, 1770-80, a great deal of attention was given to agriculture, and instruction was given in such matters — for instance, as to how the mere simple operation of ploughing really affects the horse that is doing the ploughing, what is exactly the best line of draught, and the like. Such things as that are never taught now. He speaks of a very valuable book by Youatt, published in 1831, on "The Horse," which gave the most useful treatise on draught:
    "Few attempts have been made recently to give systematic instruction on this most important subject."
    He goes on to mention that the President of the Board of Agriculture the other day, speaking at Newcastle, said that we had been drinking to the toast of "God speed the plough" for years in every country but our own, and Professor Gilchrist expresses the hope that we are not going to add the toast "God instruct the plough man in everything but ploughing." That is what I wish to bring home in this Amendment. I want to know what these continuation schools mean, how they are going to be applied to our rural areas, and how they are going to toe made compatible with rural life and the profession of agriculture? I want to know that the education that is going to be provided from the age of fourteen, or whatever age it may be —I have a later Amendment limiting the age and dealing with the question of concentrating the education —is going to be practical to the extent that it is going to widen the minds of the people and give them additional interest, power, and knowledge with reference to the career and the work that they will have to follow in life. I quite agree that general education in all kinds of subjects is very desirable, but the education which is most desirable is the kind which will make people better able not only to earn their living, but to be useful members of society, and, above all, where there is a vital industry like agriculture, to be better agriculturists. That is the sort of education that we want in these continuation schools, and I should like to hear that it is going to be given.
    Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I feel in some small difficulty in regard to this Amendment. I am entirely in sympathy with the general spirit and scope of it, and I rather fear, unless it is made perfectly clear within the four corners of this Bill that the continuation instruction provided in rural areas will be of a definitely practical character, that there will be considerable opposition to the passage of this Bill in its later stages, both in this place and in another place, and that there will be also considerable difficulty in the actual administration of the Act; but I do feel some doubt whether it is quite fair to the local education authorities, who I think must have a considerable measure of discretion in these matters, for the Board of Education to issue a mandate in the form of a Section of an Act of Parliament to the effect, whether they like it or not, that the instruction in the schools within their area shall be of a particular kind. However this Amendment may be worded, I see considerable difficulties about it. I am afraid it will be argued against it that here is something of a compulsorily vocational character being inserted in the Bill with the approval of the Board of Education, and it is not left, as obviously this Bill intends in its general scope to leave these matters, to a scheme prepared and initiated by the local education authority itself. I also feel some difficulty in assessing who are the scholars who intend to take up any branch of agriculture as a career. There will be a considerable number of scholars at these continuation schools who are actually engaged in agriculture and no doubt other industries at the time, and there will be a considerable number of others who, because the occupation of their parents is of an agricultural character, have in mind that they will themselves follow an agricultural career; and yet, if the Government of this country treats agriculture in the future as badly as Governments have to treated it in the past, it may turn out not to be to their best interests in life to adopt so unprofitable a career. In any case, I should not like to see these young people definitely tied, as it were, as a result of their training to an agricultural career if, in fact, their capacity and aptitude and their transference to another sphere of action should enable them to take up a career more profitable or ultimately more suitable.
    With the general idea of the Amendment I am entirely in accord, not so much for

    2255
    the boys as for the girls. From the educational standpoint, I do not know any more helpless individual than the average woman in our country cottages to-day. I say from an educational standpoint, because I do not consider that one out of a hundred of them has been properly prepared for what has proved to be the work of their lives. That is one of the main reasons why our so-called small-holding system has very largely broken down in this country. In all countries where small holdings are a success and where through small holdings the agricultural labourer is able to realise his best self, the practical education of the women is of enormous importance as having a great influence. I refer particularly to Belgium. If we could imitate in this country the Ecole Agricole et Menagere of Belgium, where women between fourteen and eighteen are trained at the same time in their domestic duties and simple womanly agricultural processes, such as milking cows, dairy processes, including cheese making, bee keeping and poultry keeping, the feeding of stock, particularly of pigs. What an awful hash is being made at the present time in this country with the feeding of pigs in consequence of the insufficient supply of feeding-stuffs ! That is the sort of work admirably done in Belgium, thereby fitting these young women to be the wives of small holders and, indeed, wives of large farmers. In fact, they carry on at least 40 per cent. of the most profitable work of their rural industries and thereby are real helpmates to the men they marry. We do not make any such provision in this country. It is only in their interests that I advocate some strong assurance being given, and, if possible, something being incorporated in this Bill in order to provide for the more practical training of our girls as well as our boys in the rural areas of this country. I only saw the Amendment ten minutes ago, and hardly know what is the best way of incorporating this idea in the Bill. I would ask my hon. Friend to realise that in all these matters, as in others, the local education authorities should be given some discretion as to the preparation of their schemes.
    Mr. MOUNT: I agree with a great deal that has fallen from the last speaker, but I think he has read into this Amendment a little more than it is intended to convey. As I read it, all that is proposed is that
    2256
    facilities should be given for such instruction in continuation schools in all rural areas. It is not suggested that the only instruction given in those schools should be agricultural instruction. I feel very strongly that it would be advisable that it should be definitely stated that in rural districts agricultural instruction shall be provided for the children attending them. Personally, I prefer the Amendment with the last part left out. I agree it is difficult to say who are the scholars who in tend to take up any branch of agriculture as a career. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) would be prepared to let the Amendment read,
    "In all rural areas the continuation schools provided shall afford facilities for teaching practical subjects connected with agriculture"—
    I should support him more heartily than I do at present. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give a favourable ear to this proposal. I would remind him that we are now dealing with continuation schools. We have passed a Clause in the Bill which deals with the central schools, and what is called the practical instruction given in these schools. That practical instruction is definitely stated in the Interpretation Clause to include dairy work. Dairy work is part of agricultural education. It is not too much to ask, if you are going to provide in the Bill definitely for dairy work as part of the practical instruction which is to be given in the central school, that in the continuation school also definite agricultural instruction should be given. Perhaps we shall be met with the statement that it is not fair to teach children only agriculture and so confine them to that. It is not proposed, as I read this Amendment, that the children in rural districts should have an opportunity of learning agriculture only. I feel very strongly, especially now, when with the increase of wages, which, personally, I am glad to see is taking place throughout the country, it is quite clear that there is now open to the agricultural labourer a career of far greater promise than any he has had before, that if any thing can be done in this Bill, which is a big national Education Bill, to show that we are supplying the advantages of agricultural instruction to these people, a good work will have been done. The hon. and gallant Member for Wilton (Sir C. Bathurst) referred to the difficulties which are likely to be raised in some rural districts in regard to the proposals of this

    2257
    Bill. You would ease the wheels a little if you made provision for agricultural instruction in these continuation schools. The burden of the rates, which will be increased by the proposals of this Bill, falls with extra severity upon the farming class, who pay rates upon their land as well as upon their houses. For all these reasons I urge that the Parliamentary Secretary should give a favourable consideration to this Amendment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Lewis):I regret, after the appeals which have been made to me to assent to the addition of this Amendment to the Bill, that I feel wholly unable to accede to the request of hon. Members. The Mover complained that the Bill was too vague in certain respects, and that it did not indicate with sufficient precision the kind of education which should be given in these continuation schools. That vagueness is intentional. If we were once to commence to define particular classes of education as being suitable for particular parts of the country, we should never come to an end. For example, if I were to accept this Amendment, I have not the least doubt that we should have hon. Member after hon. Member pressing upon the Board of Education the importance of this or that or the other form of education, and insisting upon having some special reference made to it in the Bill. That would be opening a very wide door indeed, and on that ground alone I think it quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment. But there is the further reason that the Amendment unquestionably insists upon the schools imparting instruction of a directly vocational character to such an extent that they will really become vocational schools. Seventy-five per cent. of the young people who are brought up in the elementary schools of the country go to the towns in course of time, and it is wholly impracticable to force vocational instruction upon the generality of the pupils. That is absolutely out of the question. But, after all, there is really no foundation whatever for any of the apprehensions which have been expressed. There can be no doubt that agriculture will be one of the leading subjects to be taught in the continuation schools. If a scheme including a rural area were to come before the Board of Education with out proper and adequate provision being made for teaching with an agricultural
    2258
    bias it would undoubtedly be returned to the local education authority that sent it in. I am sure I need give no assurance whatever upon a point of that kind. The Board of Education will do all in its power to encourage the provision of agricultural teaching in every part of the country that requires it, but for the reasons I have given it is wholly impossible for us to accept an Amendment which would convert these schools into almost entirely vocational schools and would, moreover, open the door to a large number of Amendments relating to a variety of trades and industries.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I am very disappointed to hear the decision of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think the arguments on which he as grounded his opposition are quite logical. We have been discussing for an hour and a half the provision in the continuation schools of instruction qualifying lads for the mercantile marine. I agree entirely as to the importance of that branch of education, and from the same point of view we are urging the importance in rural areas of encouraging lads and providing an opportunity for girls and young men to become efficient in the science of the cultivation of the soil. The right hon. Gentleman said that if any local education authority neglected to provide suitable instruction on agriculture in a rural area the Board of Education would at once interfere and insist on its being done. That surely shows that he sees that there is a danger in some of these rural areas that suitable provision will not be made for young people who intend to follow the pursuit of agriculture, and therefore we who are helping to frame this Bill feel that it is most important that no mistake should occur, but that it should be stated in the Bill that in rural districts suitable provision should be made to enable those who intend to follow agricultural pursuits to become thoroughly efficient in that line of life. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Bathurst) seemed rather to fear that the wording of the Amendment meant coercion. Nothing of the kind. It merely means that where these young people are desirous of following the pursuit of agriculture they shall be afforded every possible opportunity of becoming efficient in that line of life. Even now I would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to close the door, but to make some provision of the character suggested in the Amendment. Many children attending continuation schools in rural districts will

    2259
    be actually engaged in agricultural pursuits, therefore surely they should be instructed in matters appertaining to soil composition, plant life, the management of agricultural machinery, and the care of stock —and indeed we are anxious, not wishing to put any limit to the ambitions of any boy or girl in rural districts to pursue the line of life they prefer, to inculcate into their minds the importance and the dignity of the cultivation of the soil and the provision of food. Many of these lads will be taken from the farms at convenient times to receive this instruction, and it seems only reasonable that it should be of a character which will afford them the greatest profit.
    We rejoice to think there is a prospect of a brighter and more remunerative career for agricultural people in the rural districts, and it is important that every opportunity should be given to provide them with the means of becoming thoroughly skilful and efficient. There is an idea, too often encouraged, that anyone can be an agricultural labourer. It is a great mistake. It requires as much skill and intelligence to fulfil the duties of the cultivation of the soil as it does to follow any other manual pursuit. I agree that some of these lads are wanted for the mercantile marine, but we want to keep some of them on the soil. It is most important that we should develop rural life. The towns would die out in a few generations if they were not replenished with new blood from the rural districts. Therefore we feel that it is more than a mere question concerning agriculture. It is a matter of national importance that everything should be done to induce lads who wish to remain in the rural districts to be thoroughly fitted for the purpose. In the district in which I lived twenty-five years ago there was a schoolmaster with advanced views who became convinced that he ought to provide plots for the children to cultivate. The county council provided the seeds, and the profits of the crop were shared by the children. He tells me that while he has found lads who were very indifferent scholars and had no interest whatever in book learning, they delighted in the cultivation of their crop, and ultimately became excellent gardeners, thereby fulfilling a purpose in life equally as important and equally as necessary as quill-driving or any other pursuit of that kind. We are not raising this in any sectional sense, but only
    2260
    because, seeing that a good deal of expense will have to be paid by the local ratepayers, it is important that the education of these continuation schools should be of a character that will contribute to the intelligence and advantage of the district. I think the right hon. Gentleman can only make that completely secure by accepting this Amendment. He said that if the local authorities fail to provide such instruction as we have been asking for, the Board of Education will see that they are compelled to do so. We want to avoid that danger and to have it clearly defined in the Bill, so that no education authorities can fail to supply suitable education for the children in the rural districts.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech rather disappointed me. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the farm labourer can no longer be looked upon, as in the past, as an unskilled labourer. Any experience which he has is not only necessary, but almost vital for the purpose of his duties. I think there is also another misapprehension, and that is that the farm labourer has no interest in education and is not very intelligent. I think the farm labourers are very wide awake and have very wide and varied interests. I listened last night to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), and I agree that these schools should give something more than mere teaching to enable a man to do his work in the particular trade or business in which he is engaged, and should give an education which enables him to take a more complete view of life. I am sure that that kind of education would be of advantage and would also appeal to the farm labourer, but there is another and more practical side to be considered, and that is that these men will have to earn their living, and consequently any proper educational scheme should endeavour to fit them for their particular trade or business. There are some figures in connection with agriculture, the significance of which we do not realise. I drew attention some time ago to the fact that the year before last no less than 5,000 small holders had disappeared. The same tale appears in the report for last year. In other words, 10,000 small holders have ceased to farm during the last two years. The old argument against that always was that the land was being taken up for building purposes. That argument no

    2261
    longer applies. For some reason or other these farmers have disappeared, and I submit that it is owing to competition, owing to the lack of scientific knowledge which is necessary to make farming, particularly on a small scale, pay. I appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter, because the schemes which are to be provided for the Education Department will be the schemes of the county council. I am not sure that a farmer, as a rule, is a gentleman who carries very much influence on the county council, and particularly on educational matters.
    Sir R. ADKINS: They do, and some times in the wrong direction.
    Mr. DAVIES: If that be so, then there is all the more reason why the teaching of agriculture should be made compulsory under the Bill, and we should not leave it to a retrograde education authority, such as my hon. Friend seems to suggest. I am quite sure that if the rural districts are to benefit by this Clause and by a scheme which enables children to go to continuation schools between fourteen and eighteen, strong powers must be taken by the Department, and they should be in a position to exercise those powers and compel the local education authority, or whoever is in charge, to pro vide instruction not only in the practical work of a farm but also in the science which is necessary for a successful farmer to obtain.
    Sir E. JONES: I hope the Government is going to stand firm upon this matter, particularly after the warning of the Parliamentary Secretary that this is the beginning of all sorts of things. Claims of this kind will be put up by every industry in the country. There is an Amendment lower down of the right hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) suggesting consultation with persons connected with local industries and crafts, and having general regard to the circum stances. I am sure that those are the lines upon which the hon. Member for Devizes might get a kind of declaratory Amendment in the Bill. If he examines his own Amendment he will see that we cannot press it, because it is impossible in its present form. You are only making this compulsory in rural areas. In that case your county town is outside.
    Mr. E. DAVIES: Oh, no!
    Sir E. JONES: Of course it is. You are not imposing this upon your county town,
    2262
    which is the hub and centre, where the bulk of this instruction will be given and the town in which the continuation schools will be. Therefore, the Amendment cannot possibly achieve its object in that respect. By putting in this, you are inferentially excluding it from other districts and from other areas. The hon. Member for Devizes mentioned some things which he would like taught. He mentioned the chemistry of the soil, and the effect on horses of the drawing of a plough. That is the kind of thing that is going on in most urban schools. Every teacher who is seeking an opportunity of giving object lessons is doing that for two-thirds of the time.
    Mr. PETO: In technical schools.
    Sir E. JONES: And in elementary schools. In will be more so in the elementary schools. They are always seeking opportunities for nature study, and they almost invariably go to the soil or to animals for their illustrations because they are much more interesting. We do not want to exclude anything of that kind. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will agree to take something on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Aston in the shape of a declaratory provision, leaving it to the Board of Education to safeguard the position. I am not afraid that the county council will leave agriculture out of account; on the contrary, I think the Board of Education will find nothing but agriculture, and no general education. They will stuff it cram full with agriculture. That is the danger which we ought to avoid. The boot is on the other leg and not on the one that has been trotting about here for the last hour. I hope we can agree to have something of a declaratory character.
    Sir R. ADKINS: It appears to be a very legitimate desire that practical instruction in agriculture shall be included in suitable areas. But the object of my hon. Friend opposite is sufficiently secured by the words "schools in which suitable courses of study and instruction in physical training are given." Who is to interpret what "suitable" means? The local authority on the one hand, and the Board of Education on the other. The influence of agriculture is great and growing, and one welcomes it, but I am quite certain that there is no danger of this aspect of education not being adequately presented under the wide scope of the word "suit-

    2263
    able." If you put in this particular Amendment it may work by implication the exclusion of other things equally important with limited geographical operations, and what it is intended to help will, in fact, be hindered.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BOOTH: I regret that the Mover of this Amendment did not explain its terms. Every one of the dozen Members who now grace the Chamber by their presence would, I believe, put a different interpretation upon the words "in all rural areas." What the hon. Member means I do not know. There are a great many rural areas which are only mining villages. One of them in the north of England was able lately to turn out 1,600 school children in a school procession, and only 2 or 3 per cent. of these belonged to the agricultural population. The rest were the children of miners. The mere fact that a district is under a rural district council in the north of England does not at all mean that agriculture is a thing that should be taught in its schools. I quite understand that in the south and west of England and in East Anglia they have not this problem, but in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and to a certain extent in Derbyshire, you would find that a very large proportion of the so called rural population is wholly industrial. Take the mining villages which have sprung up around Doncaster. They are in rural areas, under a rural council. Will the hon. Member suggest that these new model villages containing, perhaps, six or eight farms and a thousand houses of miners, and a new coal shaft should be compelled to give agricultural facilities for scholars?
    If the hon. Member had said something about suitable areas, and given an indication that there would be an option for some discretion to be exercised I would have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment, but it would not do to impose it upon districts with which we are familiar in the north of England. My hon. Friend (Sir R. Adkins) who represents a Division of Lancashire has got rural areas in his constituency which are simply teeming with urban districts. Once they were, I dare say, farming districts. Now they are on the watershed, over which comes the water from the Yorkshire hills that supplies the mill dams, and consequently they are a hive of industry, and I am certain that parents there would choose for
    2264
    their children industrial pursuits with higher wages. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear), who holds a distinguished position in local government, has tried to impress upon the Committee that agricultural labourers are skilled artisans. Why do they not get the wages of skilled artisans? It is a new departure which I welcome very much, on the part of the farming and agricultural class, and if proper wages were given to the labourers as well as to the teachers, it might have some steadying effect in the rural areas, but the chief tendency in those areas is to keep down the cost, and that is applied not merely to the labourers but to the teachers in the schools. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said that 75 per cent. of these children went into towns. I do not think that that is a real answer to this Amendment. Why should not those 75 per cent. who go from villages into towns go with a knowledge of agriculture? They should take allotments on the outskirts of the town. A large proportion of them go to the coal mines.
    Mr. LEWIS: I simply mentioned it as a fact.
    Mr. BOOTH: If the right hon. Gentle man does not want to press that point too far I will not make too much of it. It has been a very great blessing in those model colliery towns which are springing up in that way that a number of men from the country who have gone into the coal mines insist on having allotments, and have taught their neighbours, and now we are getting the benefit. Now we find that allotments are springing up, but we have the unfortunate result to which the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire has referred, that rural districts arc being depleted of the small farmers. I am thankful to the hon. Member for giving us the statistics, which are very striking, but that is going on with a marvellous extension of the allotments system. Thousands of allotments are springing up on the outskirts of towns, and the movement is one which is a great encouragement at the present time. But, generally speaking, it would seem that the agricultural interests as represented here think that they will not get value for their money under this Bill. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Devizes, if he were candid with the Committee, would say that he is very much

    2265
    troubled with the idea that while we are imposing large expenditure on the rural districts, particularly on the agricultural classes, they will not get a full return for that expenditure. I am afraid that they will not under this Bill. It is possible that the teachers will get a great step forward, which I do not begrudge them, as I think that it has been too long delayed. It is quite possible that some industries may get better trained service, and there may be an improvement there. But I am not at all convinced that there is under this Bill any proper scheme whereby the agricultural districts will get value for their increased expenditure, and if they do not you will have the trouble indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Wilton. Once farmers through the country get seised with the idea that this Education Bill is not brought in for them, but is intended chiefly for the towns, and that they are not getting a proper return for their money, it will defeat the purpose of the Bill one way or another. They are a very canny class, and always on the spot if the inspector arrives, or the Education Board writes, or a telegram is sent, or a special messenger, and altogether I think that something should be done for the farming class to reconcile them to this Bill, and that would make for its success afterwards.
    It is quite true that this Clause starts upon the large project of vocational instruction. I am not one who rides that hobby, and upon that point I have no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will disagree with me, but I think that a case could be made out for a sympathetic consideration of what should be done for agriculture. There can be no doubt that
    it has been a most neglected interest, and at the present time we are feeling in tensely the result of that neglect. I do not blame anybody in particular. Perhaps it is because the English people of late years have turned more to the commercial point of view than to the agricultural point of view, but whatever may be the cause, whether it be systems or persons, I do think that agricultural districts which are remote from the life and activities of large centres of population and industry should have a little more consideration than they receive from the Education Department. I should be very sorry to appear to be throwing cold water on the Amendment, and I feel sufficiently aware of that to say that I think that I shall vote for it if it goes to a Division, although it does not commend itself to me in the form in which it appears on the Paper. What I want to see is something which will produce definite benefit to the farmers for the money they will have to fork out under this Bill, and if anything of a substantial character is proposed to achieve that object, it will receive my support.
    Mr. PETO: After what has been said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment in order that I may move it in a fresh form, leaving out the latter portion of it and ending at the word "agriculture."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "(2) In all rural areas the continuation schools provided shall afford facilities for teaching practical subjects connected with agriculture."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 31; Noes, 121.

    Division No. 39.]

    AYES.

    [9.9 p.m.

    Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Harvey T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hinds, John

    Weston, J. W.

    Boyton, Sir James

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

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Carew, C. R. S.

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

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Cator, John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Peto and Sir J. Spear.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Dixon, C. H

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Butcher, John George

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Alton Maner)

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clynes, John R.

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Klley, James Daniel

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    King, Joseph

    Somervell, William Henry

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Snowden, Philip

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

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

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Stewart, Gershom

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Stoker, R. B.

    Finney, Samuel

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Swift, Rigby

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    MacVeagh. Jeremiah

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolvechampton)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Tootill, Robert

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Goldstone Frank

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, Aneuria (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S,)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Wing Thomas Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Pratt, J. W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Howard, John Geoffrey

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Hudson, Walter

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. FISHER: There are four Amendments on the Paper—one standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. E. Cecil); another in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood); another in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell); and another in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King)—all dealing with the subject of the obligation of the local education authority to consult persons and interests concerned with education. All these Amendments have reference to Clause 3. Their scope is accordingly con fined to the continuation schools which are to be set up under Clause 3. I think, on the whole, it would be more convenient if some Clause were inserted in the Bill which would deal with the consultation not only in respect of the continuation school, but also of other forms of education comprised within the schemes to be submitted by the local education authorities. Accordingly, I propose to move an Amendment on Clause 4 which will, I hope, meet the views of the four Members concerned, and will, at the same time, give a wider scope to the suggestions in their Amendments.
    In the first instance, in order to pave the way, I beg to move, in Clause 3, Sub-
    2268
    section (2), after the word ''authority" ["local education authority"], to leave out the words "after such consultation with persons or bodies interested as they consider desirable."
    I shall propose later to add, on Clause 4, at the end, the following words,
    "Before submitting a scheme under this Act, a local educational authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents, or other persons or bodies interested, and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable; and the authority shall take such steps to give publicity to their proposals as they consider suitable, or as the Board of Education may require."
    The question of the extent to which this Amendment of Clause 4 will be accepted by the four Members concerned will come up on that Clause.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a little difficult to remember exactly what the Amendment was which the President pro posed to add to the end of Clause 4, but, so far as I recollect it, I think it meets my point of view, in that the parents will be consulted. So far as I am concerned, that meets my point. It is rather difficult to be quite certain until one sees it on the Order Paper, but I think we can safely leave out these words here and consider the new Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman has promised, when we see it to-morrow on the Paper.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I rather wish to echo what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. A Clause of this kind, which deals with the necessary inquiry and consultation, is one of great importance to local education authorities, because, on the one hand, they desire to know the legitimate currents of opinion, and, on the other hand, they do not want to be unduly embarrassed in the none too easy work of preparing schemes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The parents are of much more importance.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If my hon. and gallant Friend will restrain himself for a second or two he will hear in a moment that I thoroughly agree with what he says. I think those of us who, for want of better people, have to speak here on behalf of local autorities for the time being, will be disposed to accept the Amendment adumbrated by my right hon. Friend. It is common knowledge that he has been good enough to discuss certain aspects of the Bill with local authorities. One would like to see these words in print and embodied in the Bill. Possibly, on the Report stage, one might have verbal alterations to suggest, but purely with the desire of improving the Amendment. In the meantime I join with the hon. and gallant Member in supporting this alteration. I hope the Amendment will be embodied in the Bill and if, on Report, any verbal alterations are suggested, that the right hon. Gentleman will quite understand that they are only put forward from the point of view of trying to promote efficiency.
    Sir J. D. REES: I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the importance of this Amendment. As I understand it, the whole of the words "after such consultation with persons or bodies interested as they consider desirable" come out. Is that so?
    Mr. E. CECIL: So far as I can judge, from a cursory consideration of my right hon. Friend's suggestion, I think it meets the object I have in view. My object in putting down my Amendment was to widen the effect of the proposal in order to ensure that the local education authority should consult not merely with persons or bodies interested, as they may consider desirable, but with persons or bodies interested who have a real status in the matter. It was. I think, the general sense of the Committee yesterday that one of the
    2270
    straightest paths to liberal and sound education was to provide a. certain amount of technical instruction. For instance, in gardening, I think, it is very necessary that some technical instruction should be provided as part of the general education, and many other similar instances might be given. From what I gathered when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education read his Amendment, it enlarges upon the text of the present Bill both in a mandatory direction on the local education authority that they shall not merely consult with bodies of persons whom they consider desirable, but that they shall consult with them, if they have a status in the matter, and in another respect my right hon. Friend's Amendment goes a good deal further than the Bill because it ensures publicity for the results of the consultation.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. May I ask whether you are going to take the discussion now on the manuscript Amendment which was read out, or whether you will confine the Committee to what you put, namely, the deletion of these words? I think it would be a little inconvenient if we tried to discuss my right hon. Friend's Amendment, which we have not before us, and unfortunate if we lost our right before seeing it in print. It would be equally unfortunate to have two discussions.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Having two discussions is a misfortune certainly, but I do not quite see how the Committee can come to a decision as to whether those words should be left out without hearing the reasons for it, and I see no occasion, therefore, to stop the right hon. Member who is now addressing the Committee.
    Mr. CECIL: I was merely illustrating the reason why I thought that the Government Amendment would practically cover the ground which I desired to cover, and I have really little else to say except to observe that I think it probably will cover that ground. Therefore, I shall have much pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is well advised to move to delete these words. It would not in any shape or form weaken Clause 3, and I believe, so far as Clause 4 is concerned, it would meet with the approval of a good many people. Therefore I think I am

    2271
    expressing the view of the party with whom I am associated when I say that we very much appreciate the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has moved.
    Mr. BOOTH: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Cecil) that it was not with a view of interrupting his speech, but rather to get it established from the Chair that by listening to him we should not lose our rights later on, that I raised the point of Order. I think we are entitled to ask the Government not to go beyond the point where the suggested Amendment is to be inserted until we have seen it in print. Perhaps I am more anxious than some to push this Bill along, but I would like the Government to report Progress when they come to the point in question, so that we may see the actual text of the Amendment in print and submit it to the parties concerned.
    Mr. E. DAVIS: I do not know whether, in Clause 4, the right hon. Gentleman could not put in some words, not merely to ask the local education authorities to consult the parents, but also to require the Board, if necessary, to enforce schemes, particularly in rural areas, on the authorities. I think it is very important in rural areas that we should realise not only that we want general education, but also that we want teaching of particular industries in particular areas. There is some tendency to ignore the fact that there are other industries besides agriculture in the rural districts. What I desire for one, as representing a rural district with more than one industry, is that whatever scheme is submitted by the local education authority, they should not only be compelled to consult the wishes of the parents, but if there is a demand for teaching, particularly of those boys between fourteen and eighteen, in an industry in a district, power should be taken by the Board of Education to make that teaching compulsory, because I am quite sure if that is not done we shall have education on a wide number of subjects, and I am rather afraid the right hon. Gentleman may be inclined to forget that the real need of a boy between fourteen and eighteen is not to get what he ought to have in the elementary school, but additional knowledge and additional teaching.
    Mr. KING: I congratulate the President of the Board of Education on his Amendment, and on the solution which he has
    2272
    got of the problem of consultation and publicity The Bill, as drafted, contains most inadequate solutions of both those questions; in fact, as the scheme is drafted, there is to be no publicity. I called attention to this on Second Reading, and I thick the very first day after the Second Reading was passed, I put Amendments down and brought the points before the President. At the very last moment, just before we reached those points, the President capitulates, but he capitulates with only a manuscript Amendment. I would like to suggest to him as a very young Parliamentary hand, that if he is going to give way to his critics, let him do so beforehand or not at all. If he had had this on the Paper to-day it would have been much easier. I think this is really a very satisfactory solution. Let me point out the weak points, for there are weak points in this Amendment. I have been favoured with a manuscript copy of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Do you mind reading the Amendment?
    Mr. KING: Not at all.
    "Before submitting a scheme under this Act the local education authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents or other persons or bodies interested."
    That is mandatory. "They must consider representations made." That, I have no doubt, is a very good thing. I observed that it is before submitting schemes not only for continuation schools, but any scheme that may be submitted under the whole Act. The next is:
    "They shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider dėsirable."
    That is more or less permissive, but it implies that they must take some measures to ascertain the views of the parents. The third part of the Amendment is mandatory, and it relates not to consultation but to publicity. There was no publicity at all provided for in the Bill as it stood. A scheme might have been passed by the Education Committee, adopted by the Council, adopted by the Board of Education, and put into force, all in a very few hours, without the public knowing anything about it. Now there is to be publicity:
    "The authorities shall take such steps to give publicity to their proposals as they consider suitable, and as the Board of Education may require."

    2273
    That still leaves a good deal to the Board of Education, but I believe they will more and more consult the general wishes of the public—and their own ultimate convenience—and ascertain those wishes, having given ample publicity to all these schemes, with a certain time for delay for suggestions and for modifications. I hope a wise and generous interpretation will be made by the Board of Education of these powers, and in connection with the drawing up of the Rules necessary under the Clause. I believe we shall get in this way a very satisfactory scheme. I congratulate the President, and I hope we shall now get on quicker.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
    "(3) The buildings, equipment, teaching staff, and conditions of teaching in continuation schools shall be in accordance with Regulations. which shall be part of the Education Code laid before Parliament."
    I daresay this falls in with the views of the President of the Board of Education. I suggest in my Amendment that the things specified shall be part of the code laid before Parliament. That is rather different from laying Regulations. The matter will then be laid before Parliament in such a way that there is still Parliamentary control. I know the Board of Education more and more likes to get its own way, apart from any possibility of control by Parliament, though Parliament is very generous to the Board of Education.
    Mr. FISHER: While I appreciate the motive that underlies the Amendment, I submit that it is not really necessary. It may, too, be inconvenient. The hon. Member for North Somerset has selected four subjects—buildings, equipment, teaching staff, and conditions of teaching. I need not point out to the hon. Member it is impossible for continuation schools to be provided without the assistance of Parliamentary Grants. Clause 38 of the Bill provides for the payment to local authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual Grants in aid of education of such amount, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the Regulations. If the hon. Member will refer to Clause 38 he will see that it is there provided:
    "(6) Any Regulations made by the Board of Education for the payment of grants shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."
    2274
    It is partly a question of convenience, as to whether Regulations relating to the continuation schools shall form a separate document or shall be bound up with Regulations relating to other matters. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be rather undesirable to enumerate the special matters which shall be the subject of Regulations. The result will be that all Regulations will be carefully scrutinised in order to see whether they fall within one of the four corners mentioned in the Amendment. It is quite clear that the Board of Education has the general power to make Regulations as to matters affecting the continuation schools and not Regulations only upon these four points. I hope, therefore, in view of that consideration, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words:
    "(3) The council of any county shall, if practicable, provide for the inclusion of representatives of educational authorities for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act of 1902 in the body of managers of continuation schools within the area of those authorities."
    The effect of the Amendment would be that white the county authority will be the paramount authority controlling continuation education in the small urban areas within their own area there would be provision made for including the representatives of the smaller authorities in directing the organisation of the general scheme of continued education which centred around the smaller urban area contained within the larger county council area. I think it is very desirable—and I said so yesterday on an earlier Clause—that there should not be a large number of authorities for higher and for continued education, but I think also it is very desirable that the authority which will provide a considerable number of young persons for this continued education at what might be called the nucleus of the area of the county council's work, should be directly associated with the county council representative managers in controlling the continued education which shall be given. If the President is prepared to accept this the point need not be elaborated. I think it will generally commend itself.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it does.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Then I will not detain the Committee, and I beg to move.
    Sir R. ADKINS: These areas under Part III. are part of the administrative county. They are represented on the council of that county, and I have never heard yet of any county education committee which does not often have more than one representative of any such area. What is asked here is to make this proposal not quite compulsory, but as near as it possibly can be. It provides that some of the managers of the elementary schools in that area shall be placed on the body of managers of continuation schools in that area. There is already every power of consultation and making representation, not only to the county authority, but to the Board of Education before the scheme is approved. I agree that in a very large number of cases it would be helpful that something of this kind should happen, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that when you are increasing the number of authorities and mixing them up in this way the onus should be on those who seek to do it. I ask my right hon. Friend not to accept this proposal without some further explanation, and the committee should be satisfied with the full powers of making representations.
    Captain A. SMITH: This discussion brings us back to two or three years ago, when so much discontent was exhibited by the smaller authorities at their unfair treatment at the hands of the county council. I recognise that nobody is willing to do more than the hon. Member for Middleton in regard to education, but I think he rather overweighs the authority of the council in this matter. The reason I approve of this Amendment is that it will do away with a great amount of inconsistency which county councils exhibited at certain times by the very subtle method of appointing committees of members of their education committees as they have done hitherto, and the more interest the smaller authorities can take in this matter of education, and particularly of higher education, the better it will be for the people and the country. I heartily support in every degree the words which have been spoken by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone), and I hope that the President of the Board of Education will stick to his promise to accept this Amendment. If anything can give pleasure to the rural areas, it is the facilities they will have under this
    2276
    Amendment to be represented on the authority governing the education of their own children.
    Sir E. JONES: I think this Amendment is a small step in the direction some of us would like to go, and it is one which we were pressing for yesterday in the absence of the President. I hope the President does not think that this concession satisfies the matter so far as the larger districts of over 50,000 population are concerned. I think those large urban authorities must be given the actual running of the continuation schools. I am not going to give again the reasons which I pressed last night, but we cannot regard this Amendment, which is very suitable for the smaller areas, as applicable to the very large urban areas in the country. One word to allay any fears on the part of the representatives of the county councils. This Amendment is sound, and they need not be very much concerned about it for one obvious reason. It is clear that the bulk of the continuation schools will have to be run in the school buildings, which are the property of the local education authority, and that is a thing which must be kept in mind. Really, it is a very small thing for all those local authorities merely to be represented on the local bodies who will be managing the continuation classes. If you are not going to give them that much, the friction and bad feeling, and the occasion for conflict, would hinder the establishment of some continuation schools, and the difficulties would be very much increased in the future. I therefore suggest that this is really a very mild concession, and instead of being in any degree dangerous to the county councils, it is bound to help them to achieve some kind of co-ordination between them and the local authorities using the same buildings.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment at the Committee stage without giving some of us connected with county education committees some opportunity of exploring its effect on the administration of those committees. This Amendment is practically worthless from the point of view of the lesser education committees, or else it is impracticable. Who is going to decide whether it is practicable for a county authority to include these persona upon

    2277
    the management committee? Is it going to be for them to decide or for the Board of Education in the last resort? This does not specify that there shall be an ample and sufficient representation as will meet their own desires and requirements. There might be a dozen members of the management committee and one only under this Amendment would be necessary for the county authority to include amongst the number as representing the lesser education authority. If that is so, it seems to me the Amendment is hardly worth the while of those who propose it. In any case it is a matter which must seriously affect the administration of the authorities who are going to be responsible for this type of education. It is, therefore, only fair that they should have an opportunity of exploring it from their point of view, as they must be responsible for the executive work of the schools. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be in a hurry to accept the Amendment, but rather defer the matter until the Report stage.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I am in entire agreement with the desire that the minor authorities should have every opportunity of contributing assistance in the administration of the continuation schools within their area. It is always difficult to deal with manuscript Amendments, and it may be that I have not fully apprehended the proposal contained in this new Amendment. Is the suggestion that on the county education committee which deals with continuation schools there shall be placed a representative of every minor authority concerned, or is it suggested that the county committee should be bound in any way to have every group represented? If the proposal is entirely limited to the representation of each group, I cannot see any reasonable objection to it. Naturally, with regard to the management of elementary schools, such representation is provided for by Act of Parliament, and if this proposal does not go further than the provision already made in the case of elementary schools, I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Middleton, who is always so very vigilant in the interests of county councils, that he might allow the Amendment to pass to-night on the understanding that if, on further exploration, it is desired to modify it in any way on the Report stage there shall be liberty to make any alteration.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I am perfectly ready to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that the Amendment should be agreed to now, on the clear understanding that it can, if necessary, be brought up again on the Report stage. The Amendment as it stands embodies what, I believe, would be the general practice all over the country. The Clause is one which will give a considerable amount of satisfaction to the authorities, and, from that point of view, I think it is desirable to have something of the kind in the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton who speaks with great experience as chairman of acounty council, and who has done valuable work in that capacity, should have time to examine this. He is one of the people who has to deal with the administration of education in the county, and I should naturally pay great attention to his opinion on a matter of this kind.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I do not want to oppose the suggestion which has been made, but I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which conditions vary in different parts of England, and perhaps it would be desirable to have a different form of words which will satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the districts in the North without making the rule so universally applicable that it might embarrass other parts of the Kingdom where the conditions are quite different. In the light of those observations, I propose to reconsider the matter.
    Captain SMITH: I fear that if any material amendment is made to this proposition it will not be acceptable in all parts of the House. We desire that every area shall be represented on the authority which is responsible for the management of these continuation schools. That is all we require, and I think it is absolutely necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
    "(3) The courses of instruction provided in continuation schools may include lectures and classes given under the supervision of a university of the United Kingdom."
    This is really a small Amendment. I hope it will prove to be entirely uncontroversial. I am sure it will be sympathetically considered by the President of the Board of Education, and I hope it will be accepted by him in substance, if not in actual form. I can explain in a very few words the

    2279
    reasons which impel me to move this Amendment. I want, in a sentence, to give to the continuation schools of the relatively poor the continuation schools which under this Bill you are about to establish the advantages which have for many years been enjoyed by many of the secondary schools that are attended by children of the comparatively well-to-do. That is, in brief, the object which I have in proposing this Amendment. I am very anxious indeed that it should be brought prominently to the notice of the local education authorities, who will have the administration of this Act, that they should make further use—they have made a great deal of use in the past, but I hope they may be induced to make still greater use in the future—of the extra-mural teaching which is provided now by almost all the universities in the United Kingdom. I imagine most members of the Committee are perfectly familiar with the main features of the system of extra-mural teaching which the universities have elaborated during the last thirty or forty years. It is a very complete system; it includes lectures of a university character, class teaching, the tuition of individual students of a similar character to the tuition which is a special feature of university teaching itself, voluntary examinations, and the provision of libraries and books with advice as to the use of them. I imagine that all members of the Committee are more or less familiar with these features, and I do not propose, therefore, to enlarge upon that point. There is, however, one very obvious question which I can imagine members of the Committee should put to themselves before accepting this Amendment, and it is this: Is this system of extra-mural university teaching really suitable for those who will be attending these continuation classes? I want to make it quite clear that, in my opinion, it is not suited for the younger children attending those classes. It is not suitable for the younger children attending our public schools or the boys and girls attending our secondary schools. For them it is not suited, but where it has been found of very great value and advantage has been for the young persons who are approaching but have not yet reached university age, who have attained the age of sixteen or seventeen. On this matter I speak from a very considerable experience of the adaptation of the kind of work to the secondary schools of the country.
    2280
    I want to explain in a sentence or two why these secondary schools have found the assistance valuable for their own purposes, and why I think that it will be found valuable for the young persons of sixteen, and still more of seventeen, years of age—that is to say, who are in their last year, or possibly their last two years, of attendance at continuation schools. I think it will be found valuable because towards the end of their regular school life the pupils are brought under the influence of a type of teacher different from and other than the type with which during their school curriculum they have been accustomed. They are brought under a fresh type of teacher. They are introduced to a new method of teaching, and the teacher brings to their instruction a very new point of view. Therefore it is, to my thinking, of very great importance for the last year or two, while the pupils are actually attending the secondary or the continuation classes.
    I have another and much stronger reason for desiring to bring the pupils of our continuation schools under the influence of the extra-mural university teaching. My reason is this: If you can catch the young person at the age of seventeen and bring him or her at that age within the influence of this new type of teaching you are very likely indeed to carry the pupil on for another ten years, or it may be for another twenty years, in your ordinary and regular courses of extra-mural teaching. You can convert him, if you catch him at the age of seventeen or so, into a lifelong student, and that seems to me a point of very great importance. Finally—and this is the last word I have to say—I may be asked, and, indeed, I think I very likely shall be asked, Why not leave this matter to administrative action; why attempt to insert it on the face of this Bill? Like many others—in fact, I think like most other hon. Members who have spoken in the course of this Debate—I have the greatest possible confidence in my right hon. Friend who now presides over the Board of Education, and the greatest possible confidence in the permanent officials of that Board. I am certain that as long as they are respectively in their present positions this matter will be sympathetically regarded, and that all I have in view will probably be carried out by administrative action. Over and over again, however, we have been reminded in the course of this Debate that neither my right hon.

    2281
    Friend nor even the permanent officials are permanent in anything more than a technical sense, and it is for that reason that I am very anxious indeed to get this upon the face of the Bill. Besides, we have always to remember that the initiative in these matters rests with the local education authority, and what I want is that there shall be some words inserted in the Bill to suggest to the local education authorities the advisability of adopting that system which I am venturing in my Amendment to suggest.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I think anybody in the House who has had any experience of this extra-mural teaching of universities will recognise the great value of such teaching, particularly of young persons between the ages of seventeen and eighteen. If it is possible, therefore, to arrange to include in the curriculum of these continuation classes certain lectures that will be given by the extra-mural teachers belonging to the universities, I cannot help feeling that it would have all the advantages ascribed to it by the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment. I certainly would attach very great value to the fact that at this age, between seventeen and eighteen, say, the pupils of these classes should be brought in some way into connection with the universities, and that the lectures or courses of instruction which they would there receive might be distinctly continuation classes or continuation lectures, preparing for higher instruction such as they might afterwards obtain. Of course, very much would depend on the character of the lectures which would be given. My own experience of the variety of courses of instruction given under the direction of the University Extension movement in my own university even goes to show that there would be no difficulty, so far as I can see, in adapting these particular lectures to the abilities, capacities, and even the requirements of the pupils in the continuation schools.
    I was very glad indeed to find that the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment distinctly stated that he did not expect that such instruction would be valuable or serviceable to the pupils during the ages of fourteen to sixteen I take it myself—so far as one understands what the curriculum in these new continuation classes will be—that there must be a properly organised system of instruction for pupils of the younger age, very similar
    2282
    to the instruction given in the lower classes of the ordinary secondary school, and I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to add to that course of instruction lectures such as the mover of this Amendment has proposed. Having my own views as regard the kind of instruction to be given in these continuation schools, which I have not yet had a full opportunity of expressing, I personally cannot see that there would be any grave difficulty in allowing universities to send their lecturers to continuation schools to give special instruction either in literature, science, or even applied science adapted to the particular industries in which these young persons were engaged. Taken from the higher technological point of view, I do not think that there would be any difficulty in arranging such courses of lectures. I do not think that there would be any difficulty in arranging such courses of lectures, and, therefore, unless the President has any great reason to object, and seeing that it is purely permissive, I shall be glad to support it.
    Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend opposite, in his speech, has rather destroyed the illusion of a lifetime, and has shown that not only distinguished men of the younger universities, but also distinguished men from the sacrosanct atmosphere of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge are in favour of the wholesale popularisation of education. There was one thing to which my hon. Friend did not refer at all. He said nothing about the cost of this proposal. Money, apparently, is no object. This may not cost anything—I really do not know, and it is in order to ask that I rise—but it is for "classes given under the supervision of a university of the United Kingdom." What does it mean? Does any professor supervise, or does it simply mean classes in which instruction is given of a certain character? I do not understand what the supervision means. If it means a supervisor, the super visor, apparently, will cost something. How much of the cost will fall upon the county council—namely, the ratepayer, and how much upon the State—namely, the taxpayers? My hon. Friend, in his eloquent speech, contemplated catching boys of seventeen and going on for ten years—
    Sir J. YOXALL: Or twenty years.
    Sir J. D. REES: He said that in this way we should get a lifelong student. Would we want to create a vast class of

    2283
    lifelong students at the cost of the ratepayers or taxpayers? If that is the proposal, let the Committee clearly understand that is the meaning of the Amendment. It may mean nothing of the sort, but let it be made clear if that really is my hon. Friend's intention. If it is, then I am wholly out of sympathy with him. If he means that you are to catch a youth at seventeen, when, according to my views, he ought to be thinking about starting his career in life, and make of him a lifelong student, I want to know what it will cost in order that he may have this prolonged and pleasant life of exclusive study at the expense of the rates or the taxes?
    Captain SMITH: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken need have no alarm as to the extent of the life of studentship. Every man, from an educational point of view, is a student all his life. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Marriott) did not intend that he should be a student all his life at the public expense, but that he should be given an appetite for education which would last as long as he lived. If we are to set up these continuation classes, then let us have the best teaching that we can get. I do not want us to set up this class of schools and then introduce a form of education which will bring into them an army of teachers of a particular class and a particular kind, who will come in conflict with the teachers brought up and trained for this particular purpose, and thus create a great deal of friction. I do not know whether the, hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) will agree with me, but I foresee some little trouble in that direction. Rather than that we should make any mistake and have a lot of lecturers going from one school to another who are not acceptable to either the teachers or the authorities, we had better leave the matter alone. Again, this instruction is to be under the supervision of the university authority. I am rather afraid that that may cause a little bit of conflict with the education authorities. But if the proposal can be carried out and these lecturers, with special aptitude for giving this instruction to the children can come in, then, I say, let them come. If the President of the Board of Education can see his way to avoid any unnecessary friction and expense in. this connection, I shall be as glad as anybody to see such instruction given.
    Sir J. YOXALL: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Captain A. Smith) can rest assured that on the part of the ordinary teachers in the continuation schools there could be no jealousy whatever of the university lecturers who come into the schools for these special classes. As a matter of fact, the difficulty with regard to the working of this system will consist chiefly in the paucity of teachers. The great difficulty of the Board of Education will be to get together a staff of people which can cope with the work. I assume that when they have obtained teachers who are qualified for this work, they will be employed for children above fourteen, fifteen and sixteen. Nothing better could happen than that children of seventeen and eighteen should come into the schools and hear a course of lectures of the university extension type from men and women who now deliver those lectures on behalf of the universities. I gather that the supervision of the university merely means that they shall be lecturers established under the authority of the university.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Hear, hear!
    Sir J. YOXALL: And that the supervision will be confined to the selection of the lecturers and the type of lectures they deliver. That is how I read the Amendment. If that is so, there could be no friction between the local education authority and the university. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) did not appreciate the full meaning of the proposer of this Amendment. I was at Oxford last year attending the summer meeting of the University Extension Movement. I then saw men and women students of twenty-seven, thirty-seven, and forty-seven, who, year after year, for the last twenty years, and even more than that, entirely at their own expense, and as a way of spending their holiday, and as an interlude to their other occupation—whether they be grocers or clerks, or what not—have pursued, not at the cost of the rates of the taxpayer, the education in which they were initiated first of all by a course of university extension lectures. That, I think, is what my hon. Friend meant by his suggestion that if they were caught at seventeen they would be held for twenty years. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) naturally assumed, from the concise way in which it was stated, that

    2285
    it might be at the cost of the rates and taxes, but, as far as I can see, he need have no fear on that point. I am not sure whether it would be wise to insert these words in the terms of the Act, but perhaps it might alternatively be arranged that they should become part of the Regulations laid down by the Board of Education. As far as I can judge there will be no danger whatever, and I hope the Amendment in one form or other will be adopted.
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend (Mr. Marriott) has drawn attention to a possible supply of teaching for the highest stages of the continuation work and has indicated that a great deal of it might be enriched and developed if we could secure the co-operation of the universities in the work. With his general aim I am in very full sympathy, but I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member (Sir J. Yoxall) that this object will probably best be obtained through the Regulations of the Board. In any case. I feel that the Amendment is a little difficult to accept in its present form, because it would not make ample provision for the control of the local education authorities, and, after all, the basis of our system is the control of the local education authority, and consequently, if the hon. Member will see eye-to-eye with me in the matter, I will suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment, and I will give an undertaking to consider more fully, and at my leisure, whether it would be possible to introduce words which will give a distinctive part to the universities in the work of the continuation schools on the face of the Bill. If I find any difficulties in doing that, I may assure the hon. Member that the very valuable point to which he has drawn attention shall not be lost sight of in the Regulations of the Board.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is there anything in the Bill or in existing legislation at present which would prevent any local authority from doing precisely what is expressed in the terms of the Amendment?
    Mr. FISHER: Nothing whatever.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Then why is it necessary?
    Sir R. ADKINS: Subject to certain words being inserted which would not so much safeguard the rights of local authorities as indicate that their relations to
    2286
    these lectures may be similar to their relations to other teachers, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, between now and Report, to consent to put it on the face of the Bill. We want to indicate to the local education authorities and to the public that we want to bring universities and their extra-mural teaching into ever-closer contact with the continuation schools and with the higher education of as many people as possible. For that reason I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider it, subject to a modification of words, he will be favourably disposed to put it on the face of the Bill.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: I wish to support the plea of my hon. Friend (Sir R. Adkins). I feel that the value of inserting words of this purport in the Bill will be exceedingly great, because they will emphasise the humanistic character which it is desired there should be in all continuation classes. However technical many of them may be, we desire that they should be also humanistic. If this can be inserted on the face of the Bill, it would be of great value to the education authorities. I hope in any words that are inserted the right hon. Gentleman may have in view not merely the classes held in the school, but such courses as are held in connection with the summer meetings at Oxford, Cambridge, and elsewhere. The attendance at such classes in university centres would come as a fitting crown to the course held in the school. I think an indication of this kind on the face of the Bill would be of very great service.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the right hon. Gentleman brings the matter up on the Report stage, will he deal to some extent with the charge involved?
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I should like to associate myself with the desire that these words or something similar should be on the face of the Bill. The most vivid instance in my mind was when, as a boy of sixteen. I came under the influence of a great lecturer like the late Henry Morley, and such impressive lecturers as Professor Ray Lankester and others. The personal influence on my mind at that time was very great, for those men are able to make boys and girls who in their earlier ages regarded their lessons as a task, enthusiastic upon the subjects which they are being taught. I well remember at that time how I became interested in comparative anatomy. The professors and

    2287
    teachers who can give those lectures to people of that age are the teachers whom we desire should teach all classes of the community. I entirely associate myself with the desire that these facilities should be given to rich and poor alike. The speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) brought us down, I will not say from the sublime to the ridiculous, but to the depressing. There is, of course, the question of finance, but I think that can be got over. I think the universities will be so anxious to provide these facilities that the question of finance will as far as possible be put in the background. I think these words should be on the face of the Bill, and I should like it to leave this House almost in the light of an instruction from this House that this mode of teaching at that age should be provided, and that the local authorities should not allow small difficulties to stand in the way, but should place these facilities at the disposal of the children and youths for whose education they are responsible.
    Mr. MACKINDER: It is of extreme importance that these words, or something similar, should be on the face of the Bill. We want these continuation schools to be something more than elementary schools. I feel strongly that if you are simply going to continue—and your local education authority will very likely consider that that is the object of the continuation school—into adolescence the same kind of teaching, carried a little further, that you give in the elementary school, not only will you fail to achieve your object, but you will do absolute harm. You will repel your young students. You must recognise that they have to play their part as citizens. We are committed to a great experiment of democracy. No nation in the world has experimented in the way we are about to experiment, and the only chance you can have of making it successful is that you should make your education humanistic: not merely that they should be able to read tit-bits or anything else that does not carry them far, but that they should understand the things that matter from the citizen point of view. You must give some lead to your local authority and some lead as regards the intention of Parliament, and not merely leave it to the regulations of a Department. There must be some indication that the objects of the continuation school is different from that of the elemen-
    2288
    tary school. For that reason I do press upon the President that he will, between now and the Report stage, find words not merely for Regulations, but to be inserted in the Act of Parliament itself which shall give a lead to the local authorities. I would press this all the more strongly in the conditions which exist at the present time. You are going to have great difficulties in equipping your schools with teachers for half-a-dozen years to come. You have had a shortage of teachers. That shortage will be emphasised. If you are going to have anything like an early effect from these continuation classes you will have to enlist into your teaching strength all the teachers you can get from whatever source you can get them. Therefore, because this Act of Parliament is not in terms of an ordinary Act, because it simply says in general terms that it shall be the duty of the local authorities to do this, and lays down a general principle, for that very reason it seems to me that this kind of wording is pertinent and suitable to this Act, and what we have to do at the present time is not to lay down an ordinary law, but to give a lead to the local authorities who alone can do this thing for us. I most strongly support what has been said by the last three speakers.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I hope that the Committee will feel that the Debate which has taken place at least justifies me in having proposed this Amendment. We have had an extraordinarily interesting, though brief, Debate. The way in which the President of the Board of Education has met us has been exceedingly sympathetic, and in face of what he has said, I shall withdraw the Amendment. I have got the whole substance which I desired to get, only it is understood perfectly clearly that between now and the Report stage the President will himself reconsider the matter very carefully, and that we shall on the Report stage have an opportunity of raising this question again.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before this Amendment is withdrawn I should like to say one or two words. My opposition to this Clause would be very largely modified if I thought that this Amendment could be adopted. This is real education. What the hon. Member for Warwickshire said about the effect on him of these great lecturers must necessarily be ten times as great upon workers who have never had the opportunity of mixing with the same

    2289
    people as we have had. It may make all the difference in the future careers of these children to have contact with great minds on great subjects in this way. I have often on this Bill attacked the Conservative party because I thought that they had ulterior motives, and I still think that many of them may have ulterior motives in connection with this Bill, but so far as hon. Members who have addressed the House on the Amendment are concerned, I withdraw everything of the kind. Honestly, I did not know that the Conservative party had the interests of true liberal education so much at heart. Apart altogether from the interests of the working-class children, I think that we shall all find that the presence of the working-class children at our universities will have a very good effect upon our own children in those universities. This War has been a great rounder off of corners and caste and that sort of thing. We are now entering on a world in which there is no class and no caste, and the mixture at the universities will do nothing but unlimited good to all the people who go there.
    Mr. BOOTH: My great objection to the Amendment is that it is exclusive. To insert this proposal would be tantamount to excluding others. There is no necessity for these words. Everybody knows that university extension lectures are welcomed, but to talk of having professors lecturing in villages all over the country is to dream dreams. Far be it from me to oppose this if it can be done, but why should you exclude other matters of instruction which would not be impracticable, but practicable? Instruction might be given as to insurance principles, and there are other subjects which could be dealt with. The present proposal goes far beyond the education to be given to those who are to be brought into the continuation schools. There is a shortage of teachers now, and there will be a greater shortage after the War, and this might not be put into operation until years after. There has been an hour and a half of fine talk over this Amendment; but, after all, you have to consider what is the character of these continuation schools. They are going to be largely elementary schools, and they will only be established because the elementary school system has proved a costly failure. That is the only reason for this Bill, and these continuation schools will, in fact, only afford education which should have been
    2290
    given in the elementary schools. If we come down to practical considerations I am quite certain that the whole of the speaking to which we have been listening, for the last hour will be found to be immature.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Consultation of Authorities for the Purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902.)
    The council of any county, before submitting a scheme under this Act, shall consult the other authorities within their county (if any) who are authorities for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act. 1902, with reference to the mode in which and the extent to which any such authority will co-operate with the council in carrying out their scheme, and when submitting their scheme shall make a report to the Board of Education as to the co-operation which is to be anticipated from any such authority, and any such authority may, if they so desire, submit to the Board as well as to the council of the county any proposals or representations relating to the provision or organization of education in the area of that authority for consideration in connection with the scheme of the county.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
    "Before submitting schemes under this Act a local education authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents or other persons or bodies of persons interested, and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable, and the authority shall take such steps to give publicity to their proposals as they consider suitable, or as the Board of Education may require."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask that we now adjourn, in order that we can see these words before we discuss them. It is almost impossible to deal with such a very important Amendment as this simply on word of mouth. We know perfectly well that this question of parental consultation is one of the most important things in the Bill. We have only got a quarter of an hour, and we might surely have this Adjournment, so that we can see the Amendment in print, and discuss it properly. May I move to report Progress?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member was out of the House when this was substituted for Amendments to the preceding Clause.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was in the House, and I asked, then, that we might see it in print first.
    The CHAIRMAN: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What strikes me at the first moment, in reading this Amendment, which has just been handed to me by the right hon. Gentleman, is that it depends on the parents making the representations.
    "Before submitting schemes under this Act the local education authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents"—
    Of course, it is not likely that parents will make representations to them before they know that the scheme is to be made. I do not quite know whether the parents are likely to take the initiative—
    "and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable"—
    this is not a proper way of debating.
    "Before submitting schemes under this Act a local education authority—"
    It is not the education authority which makes the scheme, it is the council, I understand—
    "shall consider any reference made to them by parents or other persons or bodies interested—"
    Does "bodies interested" include employers?
    "and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable, and the authority shall take such steps to give publicity to their proposals as they consider suitable or as the Board of Education may require."
    I think, on the whole, that that meets all our points, but it is very difficult to consider it like this. The main thing is that, before any scheme is adopted, there should be an opportunity for consulting with the parents concerned, and that they should be able to say whether the scheme is to be vocational or not. I do not want the influence of the parents to be overridden by the influence of the employers or educational experts. We know these directors. We should be quite certain that no system of compulsory education between the ages of fourteen and eighteen is established which has not got the consent of the parents. Consultation alone, without consent, is not very satisfactory, because the influence of the parents might be entirely overruled. One would like to see what position the Board of Education would take up towards a scheme which had the support of the local education authority, but which had not the support of the parents. I can quite imagine that there might be a considerable amount of conflict between the two. I think, however, on the whole, that the Amendment perhaps meets our point.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what does he exactly mean by the
    "other persons or bodies of persons interested"?
    Of course, we understand that in these matters the parents have a locus standi, no doubt as the guardians of the children, but this may possibly open the door to somewhat vexatious interference on the part of persons who have not really the right to a say in the matter. It is a very vague expression, and I think the Committee is perfectly entitled to know who are
    "the persons or bodies of persons interested."
    Everyone ought to be interested.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Everybody is interested in education.
    Sir C. BATHURST: If that is so, according to the hon. Member's interpretation, everyone in the neighbourhood, whether directly connected with the family of the child or not, is perfectly entitled to have a say in the scheme and in the matter of the child's education. I only desire to know what is the exact meaning of those words, and what are contemplated by their insertion?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. and gallant Member who last spoke has raised a perfectly legitimate question, if I may say so, as to who are the persons to be entitled to be heard in connection with the Amendment, but it appears to me the great advantage of the Amendment is that not only parents, but any other persons or body of persons interested in education, which ought to be an interest common to all people, will have the right to make representations to the local education authority. This is not a question of persons having the right to overrule or block a scheme, but simply giving them the right to make representations to the local education authority, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not object to any persons or body of persons having the right to make representations. These words carry out the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman gave, and I desire to thank him for them.
    Mr. KING: I must protest against the attitude taken up by superior people here and elsewhere, of whom we have an example in the hon. and gallant Member for Wilton (Sir C. Bathurst). He objects to anybody except a superior person such as he is himself, or those like him, having any interest in popular education. Let

    2293
    me remind him what the fact was. From 1870 to 1902 we lived under school boards and under elementary education Acts. Under those Acts any ratepayer had a right at any reasonable time to go into an education office and see any scheme, or proposal, or letter, or book, or order, or directions. Any paper in the office was open to any ratepayer. As a matter of fact, it was soon discovered that rate payers, whenever they wanted gross scandals, especially in connection with voluntary schools—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can make any progress if we digress in this way.
    Mr. KING: I will leave the hon. Member for Wilton, and I come to the President of the Board of Education. Do let us have important Amendments on the Paper. It really is rather trying and it leads people astray not to have them on the Paper. It misled the hon. Member for Wilton, and it has led me perhaps. Do let us have them on the Paper and it will save a good deal of temper, and make progress.
    Sir F. BANBBRY: I do not think the hon. Member's attack on my hon. and gallant Friend opposite was at all justified.
    Mr. KING: I was not allowed to proceed with it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: He described my hon. and gallant Friend as a superior person, which in the correct sense of the word he undoubtedly is, but he was not justified in using the phrase in the way in which he did use it. I think my hon. Friend was absolutely justified in asking who are the persons who are interested in education. Supposing I went before the local authority, and asked several questions, or took up a certain attitude, the local authority might say to me, "Are you a person interested in education?" The hon. Gentleman opposite might say I was not a person interested in education, and might allude to certain speeches I have made here to say he was justified in so saying. However that may be, I think it is necessary that it should be clearly understood as to what is meant by a person interested in education. In my humble opinion there is a distinct body of people who have a right to be represented, and whose right, which should be specified in the Bill, cannot be denied. I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. King) that,
    2294
    if possible, these Amendments should be put on the Paper. Seeing it is so close on eleven o'clock, I think we might adjourn the Debate, so that the Amendment might be on the Paper when we meet again. It is very important that it should be decided who are the people who have the right to appear in this matter.
    Mr. FISHER: I respond at once to the challenge of the right hon. Baronet. The Clause deals with continuation schools and the question of young persons, etc. It is obviously necessary that the local education authority should make inquiry into the suggested scheme, so that there might be the least disturbance with industry. The schemes cannot be worked out without a good deal of consultation with persons interested in the employment of young persons. I apologise for the Amendment not being on the Paper, but I thought it would really suit the convenience of the Committee if, after hearing the four Amendments from different quarters of the House, I attempted to frame an Amendment embodying the ideas.
    Mr. PETO: I commend the framing of one Amendment. But we are at the beginning of a new Clause in the Bill, and seeing it is nearly eleven o'clock, seeing also this is a manuscript Amendment of the Government, would it not be as well to start with it when we next discuss this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment provides for consultation with employers and others engaged in various industries. So far I agree that one of the blots in the Bill is that the whole way through the parent is hardly anywhere considered.
    Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear!
    Mr. PETO: He is the person who is particularly interested in the education of his children. I should like very much to see this Amendment on the Paper. Let us be quite sure that the person interested in education, whoever else may or may not be included, is the parent.
    Mr. FISHER: The Amendment says "parents, or other persons or bodies."
    Mr. PETO: Parents are not other bodies. This shows the difficulty of discussing Amendments read out in this way—especially Government Amendments, Amendments likely to be incorporated in the Bill.

    2295
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES] (No. 2).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, which may become payable under any Act of the present Session, to regulate the use of stallions for stud purposes."—[Sir R. Winfrey.]
  Mr. KING: I do not rise to oppose the proposal, but I believe that I shall be in order in making a few observations with the object of supporting this Motion. We are in a very peculiar position, almost unprecedented, because last Wednesday we were in Committee and a Motion was made to provide money for this Horse-Breeding Bill, but owing to some curious lack of judgment on the part of someone—I am sure that it could not have been on the part of the capable representative of the Board of Agriculture, who is here—the Committee's Resolution was not adequate for the purpose. The hon. Gentleman accepted a limiting proposal which I made limiting the total sum to £10,000. Then it was found that, as Scotland and Ireland were to be provided for, the £10,000, which would have been adequate for England—
  Mr. PETO: As the hon. Member rose for the purpose not of opposing this business, but of supporting it, is it in order for him now to debate a Government Motion made after eleven o'clock? Does this not constitute contentious matter to which there is effective opposition?
  Mr. KING: This business can only be prevented by objection being taken. Nobody has taken objection, and certainly I do not do so. The position is unique so far as I know. A new Money Resolution is
  2296
  being put forward for a Bill for which we in Committee provided the money last week. It raises a point of Order, which I hope this decision will not prejudge. There is a rule in this House that you cannot affirm the same thing on two occasions in one Session. We have affirmed once in a Vote of money for this Bill, and even though the form of words is changed, giving it to different Departments not specified before, I should feel inclined to hold that this was an identical Resolution, but I pass that by. I only wish to observe that it is an unusual circumstance, and I hope the fact that we do not object to this money will not be taken as a precedent for having practically identical Motions made either in Committee or in the House twice in the same Session. With these observations and assuring my hon. Friend of my entire benevolence towards his project and the objects of his Bill, I beg to support it.
  Mr. WATT: I do not intend to oppose this, but to draw attention to the fact, to which my hon. Friend (Mr. King) has already alluded, that this Resolution, or a similar Resolution, was brought in two or three nights ago, but on that occasion the money was allocated to the English Board of Agriculture, and no provision was made for Scotland or Ireland. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary that such an omission was made, and I regret that on that occasion he treated my observations with contempt although all the time I was right. Scotland had to be provided for, and had the money been handed to the English Board of Agriculture it would have been impossible for Scotland thereafter to share it. Now provision is made for Scotland, and in that respect I am satisfied, but I desire to ask the Under-Secretary what proportion of this money is Scotland to get? Has the sum that is to be allocated been apportioned to three countries. Has England and Scotland each got its share? If so, how much is Scotland to get? I want to know that Scotland gets her rights. I am sorry that my hon. Friend (Mr. King) has allowed this to pass without putting in his limiting proviso. On the former occasion he limited it to £10,000, and on this occasion I thought he would limit it to £20,000. I feel that he has been approached by influences which I do not presume to indicate, but I think it would have been an improvement had the Committee kept its control over the sum by

  2297
  naming a figure beyond which it should not go. However, if my hon. Friend will indicate to me how much of this money is to be allocated to Scotland I shall be glad.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): Under the Resolution as it stands there is no limit to the amount, and we desire that it should stand in that position, if hon. Members will agree, because it is very difficult to tell what amount of money exactly will be wanted, say, ten years hence in the administration of this Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: Ten years?
  Sir R. WINFREY: We hope to increase the horse-breeding industry of this country very considerably, and the amount of money that may be required this or next year may be exceeded very considerably ten years hence. We do not desire to limit it unless the Committee really thinks it necessary to do so. If it is desired to limit it, we are prepared to limit it to £20,000 for the three countries.
  Mr. BOOTH: If that is so, I should feel inclined to oppose the Motion, but I do not wish to do so if my hon. Friend will put in a limit himself.
  Mr. KING: I suggest that we should put in a limit on Report.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is offered now—£20,000.
  Mr. PRICE: The hon. Member suggests £20,000. I wonder whether he realises how much Scotland will get of this! It amounts to £275. That is the proportion of the £20,000. That will not keep our stallions going. If my hon. Friend will tell me what limit is going to be
  2298
  placed on this sum, we shall know what we are going to get. As it is, out of the £20,000, all we get is £275.
  Sir R. WINFREY: Where do you get that from?
  Mr. PRICE: Out of the proposal.
  Mr. BOOTH: If the Government does not move the limitation, I beg to move that it be not exceeding the sum of £20,000.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether that means in the sum total, in one year, or in a number of years.
  Mr. KING: I would like to suggest that the Amendment should read "Provided that no more than £20,000 be paid in any one year."
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, at the end of the Resolution, to add the words, "Provided that no more than £20,000 be paid in any one year."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  MILITARY OFFENDERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  MILITARY OFFENDERS (EMPLOYMENT).
BUDGET PROPOSALS.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  IRELAND'S CONTRIBUTION.
  IRELAND'S CONTRIBUTION.
  INCOME TAX (ARMY SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
  INCOME TAX (ARMY SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SUPPLEMENTARY OFFICERS.
  SUPPLEMENTARY OFFICERS.
  NAVAL AUTHORITIES (CIRCULAR).
  NAVAL AUTHORITIES (CIRCULAR).
  INCREASED PAY.
  INCREASED PAY.
  DISCHARGED DOCKYARD EMPLOYE.
  DISCHARGED DOCKYARD EMPLOYE.
  ENLISTED DOCKYARD APPRENTICES (REINSTATEMENT).
  ENLISTED DOCKYARD APPRENTICES (REINSTATEMENT).
  ENEMY SUBMARINES.
  ENEMY SUBMARINES.
  ADMIRALTY AND ADMIRAL VOLKOFF.
  ADMIRALTY AND ADMIRAL VOLKOFF.
  WEST COAST OF IRELAND (PATROL).
  WEST COAST OF IRELAND (PATROL).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  PROTECTION CERTIFICATES.
  PROTECTION CERTIFICATES.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  ARMY MEDICAL RESERVE STORES (WAR BONUS).
  ARMY MEDICAL RESERVE STORES (WAR BONUS).
  ARMY PAY CORPS.
  ARMY PAY CORPS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  T.N.T. POISONING.
  T.N.T. POISONING.
  INDIAN KIPS.
  INDIAN KIPS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill intituled "an Act to dissolve the marriage of Margaret Emma Miles with Thomas Robert Nash Miles, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes"—Presented (on Petition), and a copy of the proceedings in and of the Decree of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division (Matrimonial), delivered on oath: Bill read la, and to be read 2a on Tuesday, June 4; Usual Orders made.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): My Lords, as I understood that the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill—my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie—was anxious to invite an early expression of opinion from his Majesty's Government as to their policy with regard to Bills conferring, as in some cases they do, exceedingly large powers on private companies of this character, I put down the Third Reading of this Bill for to-day. I desire to mention, however, that as it is necessary that a further clause, the language of which has not yet been finally agreed, should be added to the Bill, in order to bring it within the provisions of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act of 1899, I propose later to move the adjournment of the debate to a date after the Whitsuntide recess.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had given notice, on the Motion for the Third Reading, to call attention to the Bill, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have considered the bearing of its provisions upon the public interest. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to this Bill I do not desire in any way to defeat its progress, or to delay it, or to prejudice the proceeding of it when it goes down to the other House. The object of this Bill, which has been through a Committee of your Lordships' House, is to obtain
998
for a private company very large powers for the supply of electricity, over a very wide district corresponding to what is commonly known as the Black Country. In opening the case before the Committee, counsel for the promoters put the matter so high that he said he thought that our decisions might be of great influence upon the whole use of that form of energy. The Committee were not unaware of the recommendations said to be before the Reconstruction Ministry as to the immense advantage both in efficiency and economy which might be expected from a national system of great power stations, and they felt great hesitation as to whether they ought to proceed with a Bill of this scope while so large a matter of policy was actually under the consideration of the Government.
There were four points which decided the Committee to proceed with the Bill. In the first place, there was the fact that it had been read a second time and referred to the Committee, and they felt that it was, of course, a strong order for them simply to hold up the Bill. In the second place, there was the fact that the Bill itself purported to set up a scheme of the very nature that was understood to be foreshadowed by the propositions under the consideration of the Government. Thirdly, there was the fact that the Board of Trade had not opposed the Bill provided that they should be satisfied that nothing would be done in it to prejudice public action when it should be thought necessary to take it. Fourthly, there was the fact that the Committee had before them the express desire of the Ministry of Munitions that nothing should be done to delay the Bill, because they appeared to expect assistance in matters of national import from the operations of the company when it should get the powers that were proposed.
The Committee proceeded with the Bill and reported it to the House with various Amendments and limitations, including a clause with the object of preventing the company from raising the price against the Government, or against any public authority which might within the term, I think it was said in the Bill, of seven years, wish to purchase the undertaking. The Committee did not in any Report to the House direct attention to the Bill, but I thought that, as Chairman of the Committee, I should be doing only what your Lordships would think right in calling attention to a Bill for which the promoters themselves

999
claimed such very high importance, and inviting the Government to express some opinion as to the general policy that ought to be pursued with reference not only to this undertaking but to possible future undertakings, which might step in before the Government had made up their mind as to what was the best course for them to take.
Besides that, my Lords, there was an important though subsidiary matter which came before the Committee, and which they took a great deal of time to consider. It is a point upon which I should rather hope that the Lord Chairman might think it right to express some opinion in the House. It is with regard to the question of nuisance, which, of course, is a very important matter in connection with undertakings of this kind—as to whether or not they are liable to find themselves in difficulties because actions are brought against them for annoyance (things amounting in law to a nuisance), which they find it difficult to avoid if they are really to carry out their operations.
It appears that Committees of this House have not acted on any fixed principle in this matter for many years. There was a Committee which sat upon the subject so long ago as 1898, and presented a Report which inclined to a general view that undertakings of this kind—electric undertakings, in fact—should be relieved from the ordinary liability for nuisance; but the practice appears to have been by no means uniform. There is no evidence, or at any rate there was no evidence before us, to show that any undertaking had ever been hampered because it had not been exempted from this liability. Generally speaking, it seems a high-handed thing that a private undertaking should be allowed to be carried on regardless of the rights and amenities of its neighbours; but, on the other hand, it is undesirable that a great public undertaking should be prevented from carrying on the very objects for which it was constituted because it is liable to attacks from sensitive individuals. In this case the Committee, having taken the view that the new power station which was to be erected under this Bill was in the nature of a public undertaking, did think that the most favourable terms ought to be given that could possible be assigned in such a case. The subject seems to me to be of so much importance that I trust your Lordships will think that I did right in bringing it forward when the House is
1000
asked more or less as a matter of course to pass the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's suggestion I desire, with your Lordships' leave, to say a few words on this question of nuisance; and may I say at once that I think my noble friend was fully justified in bringing it before the House. The Committee on this Bill have decided that the undertakers, who are proposing to erect and carry on a large generating station, are not to be subject to legal proceedings for nuisance unless it can be shown that they have been negligent in carrying out their powers. Your Lordships will no doubt he aware that all gas companies and nearly all electrical companies are subject to the common law of nuisance, which as I understand it, is to say that they must not cause a nuisance and that any person aggrieved has only to prove a nuisance in order to get an injunction.
Railway companies, on the other hand, are not subject to liability in this form. No doubt it is regarded as impossible that a railway can be carried on without causing some annoyance—for instance, by smoke, noise, vibration, and so on. Railway companies, therefore, are liable for nuisance only if it be shown that they have been negligent in their working. So that the question is whether an electrical generating station should properly remain in the same category as are gasworks; whether it can be reasonably expected to be carried on without creating a nuisance; or whether the liability should be modified as in the case of railways. In the one case the party aggrieved has only to prove the nuisance; in the other case, he has to prove not only the nuisance but also negligence on the part of the company.
Now, it is quite true that Lord Cross's Committee in 1898 recommended that where the site of a generating station is acquired under compulsory powers and is specified in the Bill, the undertakers should be in the same position as railway companies—that is to say, liable only in the case of negligence. But it seems important to note that Parliament, in passing the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, of 1899—the year following Lord Cross's Report—imposed on electrical companies the broad liability to which gasworks are subject. Under that Act of 1899 hundreds of electrical undertakings have

1001
been carried on in all parts of the country, and although I have not the statistics before me. I understand that the number of actions successfully brought for nuisance is almost neglibible. If that is so, may I suggest that it may be fairly presumed that nuisance in the case of a generating station is not an inherent necessity, and that the undertaking can be carried on without causing annoyance to neighbours.
My Lords, it is true that Lord Cross's recommendation has been followed by Parliament in the case of some of the large power stations authorised during the years following the Report. It has now been followed by the Committee on this Bill; and though I entertain a good deal of doubt as to the expediency of the concession, I feel sure that the Committee has arrived at its decision on it careful consideration of the evidence, and I desire in this ease, as in all others, to support decisions of Committees of this House. At the same time I venture to think that on some future occasion the question of nuisance, as also other questions relating to electrical undertakings, may usefully be reconsidered by a Parliamentary Committee. Among other reasons which lead me to say this is this one, that electrical companies are now embarking on the working up of residual products, operations which are of the same character as those carried on by gasworks, and it may seem hardly proper that in this matter gasworks should be under one law and generating stations under another.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the two points which have been alluded to are closely inter-connected. The reason why in the case of railway companies the Legislature has not thought fit to impose a condition making them liable for nuisance when they exercised statutory powers—which ipso facto legalise what they do—is that railways are regarded by the Legislature as undertakings in the interests of the public. Generating stations may or may not be in the interests of the public. If they are conducted for private profit, if they are in the position in which gasworks have been held to be, they ought not to be exempted from liability for negligence, any more than any other statutory body which obtains powers for its own purposes.
The question, therefore, which arises is whether these generating stations are in their nature of a public order. That question has entered upon a new phase in
1002
the present year—a phase which brings me to the point which I wish to submit to the House. The Committee over which it was my privilege to preside—and which derived no weight on that account, but derived great weight from the circumstance that some of the first electrical engineers and experts in the country sat upon it—made a Report which wan published some months since upon the whole question of the generation of electricity. The Committee pointed out that at present we waste just two-thirds of the coal which we employ in getting power. In the country there are some 600 generating stations of the most wasteful character, because everything conducted on a mall scale is wasteful. The proportion of steam engine wastage to the result in electricity is very great. What was recommended by the Committee was that the generation of electricity in this country should be concentrated in the hands of about sixteen super-power stations, situate if possible in proximity to pit heads with a sufficient supply of water, and it was calculated that in that way 80,000,000 tons of coal which we use for supplying power for our industrial processes could be replaced by 25,000,000 tons; or, to put it in another way, we could get three times the amount of power by using the present amount of coal.
This conclusion was worked out in considerable detail by the Committee of which I speak, and the recommendation passed to the Ministry of Reconstruction and to the Board of Trade. I understand that the Board of Trade, impressed with the Report, appointed another Committee, an expert Committee also, to work out tine form in which the principle should be applied and the methods which should be adopted to secure the benefit of this great reform if it could be carried out for the public. That Committee, I understand, has reported, or is about to report, and the Board of Trade, or some branch of that Department, is doubtless in possession of the conclusions to which that Committee has come. These conclusions must necessarily involve consideration of tine terms and conditions under which statutory powers should be given to electrical generating stations. This affects the whole of the groups of Bills of which the Bill we are discussing is only one—there are several more down on tine Paper to-day—and it affects them profoundly.
What I submit to your Lordships is that it is not reasonable to ask Parliament to

1003
proceed with these Bills without at least our having the considered view of the Government, expressed by the Board of Trade, as to what attitude the Government are going to assume in the future to these proposals, because naturally when a suggestion of this kind comes before Parliament there is a rush of all the small electrical generating companies to get fresh powers and to call fresh companies into existence; and they will block the way and will be able to claim compensation from the public if the super-power stations come into existence. These super-power stations may be semi-public. They certainly will come within the larger category of which the Lord Chairman spoke. There is no doubt they will be put on the full footing which Parliament accords to institutions which are there for public ends. Here we have a group of Bills and we have absolutely nothing from the Board of Trade to guide us as to what its policy is. It is not enough to put in a sterilisation clause. I dare say the Board of Trade may say that a sterilisation clause should be inserted. I do not know whether they will or will not, but that is not enough. We ought to get from the Board of Trade what its view is as to the future policy with regard to the whole group of Bills of this kind because a very grave public interest is involved.
I need not remind your Lordships that the coal supplies of this country are not unlimited; nor need I tell your Lordships that it is of the utmost importance that we should get everything we can out of the coal which lies still underground in these islands. Fortunately, we are so well situated that if we make the proper use of that coal by generating electrical power under the best conditions we shall be in such a condition that we shall be able more than to compete with those countries with large water power. That is established to the satisfaction of the Committee of which I speak. But all this turns on our making the best use of our opportunities. I should regard it as a serious loss of a great opportunity if the Government did not give us guidance as to what policy is to be adopted, and if they did not say whether these sporadic undertakings should be allowed to spring up either for creating new minor generating stations or for giving new powers that will enable them to continue for a long time in existence.
It is to no purpose that I am told the Ministry of Munitions would like this.
1004
This is not an industry for creating a supply of munitions during the war, but it is an industry for supplying electrical power after the war. I would venture further to say that I should like to be satisfied that the Ministry of Munitions was acquainted with the large question of principle which is under consideration of the Board of Trade, and in which the Board of Trade is the organ of the Government which only can pronounce. I should also like to be satisfied that the Board of Trade had really considered this matter, that it had gone into it. Therefore, welcome what was suggested by the Lord Chairman to the effect, as I understand it, that there should be a little delay for the purpose of looking into the nuisance clause, but still more for the purpose which I had in view, that the Board of Trade should give us a considered view upon this matter, and not merely a sketchy answer. I see sitting opposite the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade, and it is very unlikely that he should have been furnished with materials on the point I am now raising, but if we have a sufficient interval to enable him to go to the Board of Trade and obtain its considered view and the Report of its own new Committee, and at any rate the view of the President of the Board upon this large question of policy, then I for my part would certainly feel happier. I should not have felt that I had done my duty—realising as I do the gravity of the industrial question before the country, the possibility of immense waste continued in the future, and the necessity of taking a step like this which is vital if we are to maintain our own in the industrial struggle which is before us after the war—if I had not brought before your Lordships the point raised in this clean, sharp form in the group of Bills which comes before the House to-clay.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the Question before your Lordships this afternoon is the Third Reading of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill. As your Lordships know, this Bill has been considered by a Select Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie was the experienced chairman. I was not altogether surprised, and I do not think any of your Lordships will be if you have read the minutes of the proceedings which took place before that Select Committee, that my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie raised no objection,

1005
as I understand, to your Lordships giving a Third Reading to this Bill, with the amendments which the Committee of which he was chairman thought proper to insert.
I have here the minutes of the proceedings of April 18 last, in which I see that the noble chairman used these words—
"I will give the decision of the Committee upon the three main points, I think, that have arisen in this discussion upon the proposed Act. The Committee approve of the site as described in the Bill; they are also of opinion that the company should be exempted from the nuisance clause; and thirdly, they have decided that the longer of the two alternative clauses that have been drafted as to the exercise of the company's power should be inserted in the Bill."
With regard to what is called the nuisance clause, the Lord Chairman has mentioned already the history of the procedure of this House of late years in respect to the matter. I think he stated that the action of Parliament has been governed largely by, the Report of the Joint Committee of Parliament on Electrical Energy (Generation Stations and Supply), which sat in the year 1898, and of which the late Lord Cross was chairman. One of the main questions referred to that Joint Committee was—
"whether powers should be given in any cases for acquiring lands compulsorily for generating stations, and, if so, under what conditions as respects liability for nuisance notices to surrounding owners and otherwise."
This Committee, after taking a great deal of evidence from Parliamentary authorities, Government Departments, local authorities, promoters of undertakings, and others, reported in favour of the granting of compulsory power for acquiring sites for generating stations, and with regard to the liability for nuisance said—
"They are of opinion that where the site for a generating station is acquired under compulsory powers and is specified in a Provisional Order or Special Act, the undertakers should not be subjected to any further liability than that which according to Lord Blackburn (Geddis versus Bann Reservoir, 3 App. Case 455) is imposed by the Common Law in the case of persons exercising statutory powers and duties."
In making this recommendation the Committee quoted the opinion of Lord Black-burn, namely—
"It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised if it be done without negligence although it does occasional damage to any one; but an action does lie for doing that which
1006
the Legislature has authorised if it be done negligently. And I think that if, by a reasonable exercise of the power either given by Statute to the promoters or which they have at Common Law, the damage could be prevented, it is within this rule negligence not to make such reasonable use of their powers."
Since the date of the Report of Lord Cross's Committee twenty-six Private Acts have been passed authorising the compulsory acquisition of sites for generating stations without the application of the nuisance clause. It is the fact that during the same period thirty-four similar Acts have been passed in which the nuisance clause has been applied, but in fifteen of these cases the Acts related to combined gas and electricity undertakings, and I think it is fair to assume that in many others the restriction was accepted by the promoters in order to avoid the expense of a Parliamentary opposition. Also since the date of that Report the Standing Orders of Parliament have been altered to provide that, where lands are proposed to be used for generating stations, notices must be given to owners and lessees of dwelling houses within 300 yards of the lands.
By the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, Parliament empowered the Board of Trade to grant powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for generating stations. The Board have not had many applications for that purpose, but as recently as 1913 they granted an Order, which was confirmed by Parliament, by which power for the compulsory acquisition of land for generating stations was given and the nuisance clause excluded. That is in the Rumford Electric Lighting Order, 1913. It is true that in the case of a later Order (Waterford, 1914) the Lord Chairman, after the Order had been made by the Board of Trade, struck out the provision excluding the nuisance clause. The Board of Trade are not aware if there were any special reasons for this action. It has never been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade that the exclusion of the nuisance clause has been found to be detrimental to the interests of owners of property in the neighbourhood of generating stations. After that statement your Lordships will, I hope, consider that Parliament has acquiesced in the question of whether or not the nuisance clause should be inserted inthe Bill being left to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee over which Lord Muir Mackenzie presided thought fit not to impose the nuisance clause in this particular case of

1007
the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill, and it would be, I submit, a strong order, after the Bill has been thoroughly considered by the Committee and after what the noble Lord has said on the point, for your Lordships to refuse it a Third Reading.
With regard to the rather more general objections that were taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, to Parliament proceeding with Bills of this character at this time, I can only inform your Lordships that the Government have appointed a Committee (the Electric Power Supply Committee) to "consider and report what steps should be taken, whether by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that there shall be an adequate and economical supply of electric power for all classes of consumers in the United Kingdom, particularly industries which depend upon a cheap supply of power for their development." That Committee has not yet reported, but the Report is expected daily. Other Committees appointed by the Government (the Coal Conservation sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee, and the Electrical Trades Committee) have made strong recommendations on the same subject. It would be a grave step if the electrical supply industry, a key industry on which other industries depend so much, and on which they will depend to an even greater extent in the future, were at this time, when the Government are endeavouring to ascertain in what way greater facilities may be afforded for the provision of an adequate and economical supply of electric power throughout the country, to be deprived of an important safeguard which had been conferred upon them by Parliament as the result of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of 1898 after very full evidence on the subject had been taken from all sides.
I do not altogether understand the Opposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane. The sub-Committee of which the noble Viscount was chairman recommended the division of the country into a certain number of districts, and one of the courses suggested by them was that where there is a statutory company operating in a district that company should take over the whole of the operations for the whole of the district. The Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staf-fordshire Company are a statutory company operating to a large extent and providing
1008
a considerable amount of electricity for the purposes of the Ministry of Munitions, by whom the Bill is supported, and on behalf of whom evidence, if I am not mistaken, was given before the Select Committee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, may I explain that the noble Lord is under a misapprehension about the Report of the Committee to which he refers. It was only under strict conditions that the local electric supply companies were to be allowed to deal with these matters. We recommended strict conditions. He says that, the Committee of the Board of Trade has just reported or is about to report on this very subject. May we know what the Committee has reported to the Government before we determine under what conditions these things are to go forward?
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, as I mentioned just now, I propose to move the adjournment of the debate in order to allow time to bring the Bill within the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act. 1899. I therefore move that we adjourn the debate until a date after Whitsuntide.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly to June 5.

COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, the next Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Third Reading is the County of London Electric Supply Bill. The main provision of this Bill was to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of the generating station, which expires in August of this year, till three years after the termination of the war, but on the recommendation of the Board of Trade the period has been reduced to one year after the termination of the war, so that when a further application is made for an extension of time the whole situation may be reviewed.
Moved, That the Bill be now road 3a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, this Bill has now become a very modest one. Its provisions, as amended in Committee, are merely to authorise the making of agreements as to the constitution of the Joint Trust, and also the making of agreements with local authorities for the supply of electricity within the area of supply of the company. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

THE WAR—PACIFIST ACTIVITIES.
The EARL of DENBIGH The EARL of DENBIGH rose to call attention to pacifist activities in the country, and the general ignorance regarding German war aims and the causes of the war; and to move a Resolution.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, for several months I have been addressing large meetings in the country, and giving, with the aid of maps, a general and elementary account of the events leading up to the war and the general military situation, more especially that connected with the Near East. I may say that I began quite accidentally through being invited to address a large meeting of working men in my own part of the country. I had some
1010
large maps made specially for the purpose, and in case it should interest your Lordships I may mention that one of the maps is in the Library at the present moment so that any noble Lord may see it if he desires to do so. I find that the audiences are very much impressed on having the situation pointed out to them on the map. I was encouraged to go on by what occurred. Many working man came to me and said that the whole situation was an absolute revelation to them, and that they had never understood it before. These words have been repeated to me many times. The other day at Salford a large number of working men were waiting for me in the street in order to shake hands, and they told me that they Lad never understood the situation in the Eastern part of the world before. I am quite certain that the general holy of the British public—what you might call the "man in the street"—does not understand the situation as it ought to he understood.
I have addressed a large number of members of the House of Commons and also the Chambers of Commerce of London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and large public audiences in those places as well as at Leeds, Sheffield, Salford, Northampton, Hull, and all over the country, including about 2,000 Canadian officers and about 1,000 Americans at Winchester, and, in addition, many military audiences. In all I think I have addressed meetings in about ninety-two towns since I began in November. The general lines that I go upon are very elementary. I remind the audiences of how Germany has been made by war, and has always found war to be a very paying business, and especially that modern Germany has been made by three short wars—those in 1864, 1866, and 1870. The whole outlook and mentality of Germany has been gradually changed since 1870 owing to the infection of the country by the imperious, domineering, arrogant, and intolerant Prussian spirit which culminates in the doctrine that Might is Right. The result, I have pointed out, is that we have come steadily to the conclusion that with the Germans a Treaty is really only an instrument for the purpose of keeping things quiet until it is convenient and possible for Germany to break out.
I have also traced the growth of Germany's ambition to rule the whole world, and I have shown how gradually they have come to the opinion that the only obstacle

1011
to their domination of the whole world was the British Empire and that that Empire could be most successfully threatened and dismembered by attacks in the East. If only Germany could once be installed in a strong position in Asia Minor—I point out this on a rough map—she believes that she could succeed in her ambitions. I have shown how this could be brought about first by means of possession of the Baghdad Railway and by filling the Eastern Mediterranean with submarines. If that occurred she would be able to attack us in the future and take Egypt practically whenever she liked; that is, of course, if the aggressive military party remains in the ascendancy in Germany. If that occurred, naturally we could only get to India and the East by the leave of Germany, which would be in control of Egypt. That accomplished, it would be only one step for Germany towards the domination of the Old World, and ultimately of the New World. That is really the reason for America being in the war.
Germany's desire to acquire the route to the East was the reason for the crushing of Serbia, and practically for the outbreak of this war. I have maintained this very strongly, and I believe that I am supported in this view by everybody who has studied the question. Unfortunately it seems to be almost entirely ignored in the country, and apparently there are far too many people still going about of the opinion that we have practically nothing to consider except the question of the neutrality of Belgium. I have a speech here made by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, not very long ago at a meeting where he was presiding, and he reminded the meeting that the reason of the outbreak of war was the violation of the neutrality of Belgium. That may have been the reason winch rallied united England. But then he went on to say that that was the chief interest of this country. That I entirely dispute, and I maintain that it shows that the noble Earl has paid very little attention to this aspect of the question.
The country does not realise this question, and, reading the White Paper that has been issued ham the Foreign Office, it looks almost as if the Foreign Office at one time did not realise it; otherwise it is hard to understand why the Foreign Secretary should have said that England has no direct interest in Serbia. And when we see from Prince Lichnowsky's revelations how the whole situation appears gradually to have
1012
been given away in handfuls, it looks as if the situation would have become extremely grave if Germany had only been content to exercise a little more patience; if she had been able to keep away from war a little longer it looks as if the whole British Empire would have fallen into her lap like a sort of rotten pear.
I maintain that the whole reason for the country failing to appreciate these large questions has been our parochial and party politics at home. And even now, after three and a-half years of war, in spite of all the propaganda that has been carried on, the public does not realise the situation. The British public, unfortunately, will not read sufficiently. The result is that the ignorance which prevails is one of the chief dangers that we have to face. Unfortunately it has been steadily exploited by the various pacifist agencies which are about, actively helping the enemy. The Hun has to he fought at home as strenuously as in the field, and it is because of this that I have ventured to bring forward this Resolution to-day.
I only wish that noble Lords would come out and help. There is certainly plenty of oratorical talent in the House, and a great many Peers would be rendering very useful service to the country if they would come out and do some of this strenuous work, in endeavouring to bring these matters home to the public, and give them what virtually amounts to an elementary lesson in geography. I think, perhaps, the Episcopal Bench might be doing better work if they were to devote themselves to organising education of this kind in the country villages and towns; it would he of far greater value than the denunciation of reprisals, practically the only policy which the Hun understands at present.
There are various kinds of pacifists going about, and I would recommend the study of a very interesting article which appeared in the Nineteenth Century and After for last April by Sir George Makgill. The particulars which he supplied entirely confirm everything which I have heard elsewhere. What we have to remember is that Germany conducts war in many other fields than that of mere fighting. She pulls many wires political, social, financial and religious; and, as Sir George Makgill states, Germany's best and most efficient agents are those who are unconscious, and the most guileless persons form the most dangerous of all Germany's weapons.
Until the recent German offensive started in France it was well-known that many people in this country were getting what you might call very restive. Far too many people were going about asking how long the war was going to last and what it was we were fighting for. Why did they do that? Simply because after three and a half years of war, owing to their never having been taught the real causes of the war, they began to listen to the suggestions of premature peace which had been cunningly put forward by Germany's agents and then taken up by the guileless individuals to whom I have referred. I would include in that category ex-Ministers of the Crown, ex-Lord Chancellors, Wardens of the Cinque Ports, members of the "Episcopal Bench—all without a suspicion of guile, naturally; all most excellent patriots, and I do not suppose they would be where they were unless they were guileless. These were immediately exploited by the active friends of Germany, whose one object is to misrepresent the war and to bring about a peace which can only serve Germany's ends and be another name for a German victory. Many of those active pacifists may be described as nothing short of pure Bolshevists. The only effect of their activities would be to produce the same disastrous results as were produced in Russia and Rumania as the result of their activities and those of their friends, amply supplied with German gold.
And all these guileless disclaimers against reprisals and the support of conscientious objectors which we have in this House are unconsciously aiding the German machine. Reprisals are the one thing that Germany fears, whether it is in the air or whether it is to produce better treatment of prisoners; and what she most fears is anything in the nature of economic reprisals after the war, which would bring home to the German people in a very forcible way the truth that war does not pay, as it had paid them in the past. I maintain that we cannot fight the Hun with the policy of the Episcopal Bench. I infinitely prefer Havelock Wilson and the Seamen's Union, if I may say so without disrespect.
Meanwhile every organisation of the enemy, both conscious and unconscious, is getting to work. Here is a speech which was made the other day by Mr. Lansbury: I take it from the Herald. He says—
"The present struggle in France and elsewhere will soon spend itself, and once more the world will be talking of peace, and we must be ready
1014
to use all our powers to compel the British Government and its Allies to renounce all Imperialism, to tear up the secret treaties, and join in an effort to establish a peace based on disarmament, freedom of the seas, economic freedom, and a League of Nations."
Another way of climbing down, wiping the British Empire off the earth, and establishing the supremacy of the Hun. And all based upon a total misconception of what the war is about, and all part of a system by which the country at the present moment is being utterly misled as to what it is we are fighting for.
Then you have the religious pacifists. You have a certain number of the Quakers joining hands with the Salvationists and the Socialists, and you have the Seventh Day Adventists allied with the Plymouth Brethren, and the Christadelphians fraternising with the Christian Scientists and the Red Republicians, all combining for the purpose of preaching immediate peace by the simple process of surrender. Then we have the Peace by Negotiation coalition—such strange bedfellows as the guileless party I have mentioned, supported by Messrs. Lansbury, Morel, Macdonald, Snowden, and others; the latter-mentioned exploiting the former and trading on their support; and the whole party seem to ignore the result of peace by negotiation in Russia and Rumania with a Germany that holds the trumps at the time, a Germany whose military party is in the ascendant to get that for which they went to war, and which they have not the smallest intention, if they can avoid it, of giving up by negotiation.
I do not want to be misunderstood. There are plenty of patriotic Quakers, Salvationists, and Socialists, whose last idea is to do anything for the purpose of weakening this country, and who are rendering most valued help at the present moment. But there are others. You have Mr. Morel, a very dubious Frenchman, who dearly loves the Hun, and who I suggest ought to be denaturalised without any delay. His is the hand directing many things, intimately associated with the Union of Democratic Control and the Fellowship of Reconciliation, which, if its policy were successful, would merely prove to the Germans that they could be as brutal in war as they liked with the certainty of being forgiven afterwards, and probably not even mulcted in damages; and they would be more than ever convinced that war was a

1015
very paying business for them. Naturally the Hun laughs at us and at all such ideas as Fellowships of Reconciliation, and he makes use of them to serve his own purposes. I remember a friend of mine telling me how he met some years ago the well-known Prince Hohenlohe in Germany. Prince Holtenlohe said to him, "You people think that we admire you on account of your principles of humanity, and the rest of it. We do not. We look upon you as a lot of damned fools."
Then we have the Workers' Peace Comittee, and the Women's Peace Crusade headed by a few thoughtless and mischievous self-advertising females. I see that there is a procession of theirs advertised in one of the big Lancashire towns, the programme of which procession has been sent to me. Then you have the Independent Labour Party which met not so very long ago under Mr. Snowdon, the Member for Blackburn, who announced his intention of voting against the Government on every issue connected with the prosecution of the war; and a prominent man at this meeting was Mr. Smillie, who figured very conspicuously at the meeting at which the noble Earl below the gangway, Lord Beauchamp, presided On the occasion to which I have previously referred, and Mr. Smillie no doubt went there with the added halo of respectability which he gathered at that meeting. I noticed that they passed many resolutions, but I saw that one newspaper called attention to the fact that they omitted to pass a resolution thanking the British Army for the desperate resistance which it was then putting up against the onslaught of their "German friends." Then you have the No-Conscription Fellowship, whose chief occupation is the manufacture of conscientious objectors, and I believe they give instructions and every possible encouragement to conscientious objectors, whom, I look upon as being a disgrace to the country and of whom the country at large, I am perfectly certain, is sick to death.
Then it is advisable not to lose sight of various alien organisations which are actively at work. When the Anglo-German Friendship Society faded away, the Emergency Committee for the Assistance of Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians in Distress came forward and took its place. About the same time another organisation appeared on the scene, a new body called the Council of Loyal Subjects
1016
of German, Austrian, and Hungarian birth; and it is rather remarkable and interesting to notice that amongst the names figuring in that society—many of them, no doubt, are perfectly genuine British subjects, or loyal British subjects, at the present time—are those of a considerable number who two years previously were subscribing to the Kaiser's Jubilee Fund and professing their abiding loyalty to him in much the same words as they now profess loyalty to King George V. Then we have the Sinn Fein organisation which has done so much mischief across the Irish Channel; and there is not the smallest doubt that the directing powers of that movement—no matter what the dupes of that organisation may be—have been actively and traiterously working with the enemy. He had ample evidence of that when the attempted landing of arms by Sir Roger Casement took place.
Therefore you have these various agencies, and. others, all of them at the present time exploiting the ignorance of the nation as to the real cause of the war; all of them absolutely ignoring any question of Germany's intention to dominate the world. When do you ever hear them refer to the favourite German motto, Weitmacht oder niedergang—world domination or downfall? When do you hear them referring to the speeches of Germans in which they openly state that the one thing they are out for now is the supremacy of the world and for nothing else? The whole intention of Germany with regard to this war is completely ignored by all these agencies, and they never refer to Germany's attempt to manœuvre herself into a position for threatening and for dismembering the British Empire both in the Far East and in the Near East as a preliminary to getting the domination of the world.
Some of these agencies go about saying that this is a capitalist's war. Some will tell you that it is being pursued simply and solely with Imperialistic and annexationist aims. Others will tell you that the poor are being exploited—anything and everything to camouflage the one point at issue. For the failure to bring all this home to the nation, as I maintain it should have been brought home, I consider that the present Government and the late Government and Parliament in general are very much to blame. I am convinced that half the labour troubles and much of the support which is given to pacifists would vanish if

1017
the people were better instructed in the military dangers attaching to the making of peace with an unbeaten Germany in the field.
I have here another article which was written the other day by Mr. Lansbury. It is rather interesting because he actually says—
"However much attached we may be to a peace of reasoned negotiation, if that were finally and utterly out of the question, if we had to choose between beating and being beaten, is there a single Englishman, no matter how pacifist, who would not prefer that we should do the beating? We believe there is not one."
I am very glad indeed to get that admission from him. I believe that does represent the fact, that there is no Englishman who, if he really understood the question, would not much prefer to do the beating instead of being the beaten. There is not much difference between being beaten now and putting yourselves in a position in which you would be absolutely beaten in the near future, when you cannot help it. Therefore I maintain that the one thing wanted is for the British public to be made more conversant with the situation than it is at the present moment. The country must not think that peace can he made on the question of the Western Front alone. I saw a statement in the Daily News the other day, and I think it was repeated once or twice in the same article, that we must take our stand on Belgium. Either that shows deplorable ignorance on the part of those who direct that paper, which I do not believe, as to the real situation, or else there was some extraordinary reason for putting forward that particular article.
Finally, my Lords, we want the country guarded against these mischievous organisations, and I ask, Why should their Press be provided with large supplies of paper in these days of paper shortage when Government propaganda work has to go short? I can assure your Lordships that this gospel meets with very scant sympathy in the Army and the Navy when the men really understand the situation. There has been a certain amount of mischievous and bad spirit caused in some of our camps by pacifists, but it is entirely through misrepresentation of the situation. I have been to a good many camps, and I have heard afterwards of the effect produced by a simple explanation of what we were fighting for. I have heard most encouraging reports not only from military camps
1018
but from munition factories, where a great deal of trouble has been experienced from certain individuals. Only yesterday I had a letter from the managing director of large works where I was speaking not long ago, and he said that since the matter was explained to them the men seemed to regard the war from an entirely different aspect. I can only say that this is very encouraging and it is very satisfactory, because there is no doubt about it that it is what you would call somewhat hard work. I am perfectly certain that when they do understand this question there is really very little sympathy with these pacifists, and that the heart of the country is sound.
I heard a story the other day of one of the parties of labour representatives who were taken to the Front. With the party went a couple of pacifists, who gave the guardian of the party the slip when they got down near the trenches and vanished for a time. When the party reassembled the two pacifists were found to be missing. Search was made for them, and they were presently discovered running for their lives, pursued by a large crowd of angry soldiers, who had not at all appreciated their intentions. All we ask, my Lords, is this, in all seriousness, that men who bear honoured names in this country should realise how much harm is done to the country's cause by heartening the friends of Germany and weakening the morale of our people; no matter how guileless these people may be. We ask also that the country may be properly awakened to the geographical dangers of the war; and I think we may also suggest that His Majesty's Government should do a little more governing, as France is governed by M. Clemenceau and the United States by President Wilson. I do not think democracy loses anything, by an exhibition of strength and determination such as we see there, and I only hope that the Government will do more than it does at present to prevent the Army in the field being let down by the people at home through what I consider is weak government and the dissemination of bad information, thus tending to make the terrible sacrifices which this country has incurred absolutely vain. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, "That this House regrets that stronger measures have not been taken to combat the various agencies in this country who are serving the cause of the enemy."—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
LORD BERESFORD: I desire, my Lords, to second the Resolution that my noble friend has just moved. There is nobody who knows the opinion of the working man more than my noble friend. He has been to countless meetings and has described to them the danger we are in from pacifist work in this country; and I can testify that there is no sentence that can be delivered when speaking to working men that is received with more applause that the one which proposes that pacifist efforts should be curtailed.
I should like to divide the pacifists into two categories. There are first of all the people who are just as honest and patriotic as I hope I am myself, but who regard the war in quite a different way from what many of us do. They regard the war as horrible, and horrible with its carnage, with its terrible effect on humanity, with the general disasters that have occurred to humanity all over the world, and they wish to stop it, and they desire to enter into negotiations with the enemy with a view of stopping it. I do not believe that they know the harm they do. This war has got to end in our life or our death. That is my humble opinion. We have got to go through with it to the very end, and if either ourselves or our Allies show the slightest sign of wavering we are beaten. Therefore I disagree with those of my friends, and they are many, who think that we ought to enter into negotiations with Germany before victory is assured by our arms.
There is a very grave time coming in the near future. That is my humble opinion. I may be wrong, but we shall presently, I think, get into the old trench warfare. It will be long and wearisome, as before. We shall have to wait until the Americans come in effective force to help us to win the war. During that period these pacifists will get to work—I am not talking of the honest and patriotic pacifists, but of the others and they will do their level best to end the war by pointing out to the working man that it is a capitalist war. They will use every method to try and end the war now. That will be a very serious time; and I regard the position as most grave if in the future the pacifists are allowed to continue the propaganda which they have carried on up till now.
There is another class of pacifists. I should like to see a large number of these tried for their lives by Court-
1020
Martial. They associate with spies, traitors, and sedition-mongers. They associate also with aliens and with those conscientious objectors who are shirkers and funkers, and do not want to join the Army. There are a few conscientious objectors, such as the Quakers, for whom I have nothing but admiration. They go out to the Front and do their level best with the ambulances, and so on. But the others represent the lowest class of individual that we have in the country. All these people—the pacifists who want to stop the war and are working for Germany, aliens and conscientious objectors—are all combined together to stop the war in favour of Germany. Why are they doing this when our gallant men in the trenches and on the sea are being killed by thousands in the effort to preserve our safety and honour? In the grave crisis of the war which we are now facing the pacifists are continuing their mischievous activities as far as they can. They never mention the cruel, barbarous, and bestial record of Germany during this war. They forget or ignore that long record of treachery and assassination, and the Government do not take sufficient action in regard to them. The proposed meeting at Finsbury Park would not have been stopped had it not been for outside agitation.
Throughout this war I have complained often enough that the Government do not govern, that they do not take any action at all until the public make them take it. That does not help us to win the war. What pacifist has ever got up and called attention to the atrocities which are being committed on British seamen? Fourteen thousand men, women, and children have been done to death, murdered on the high seas by the Hun. I have never heard a pacifist say a word of reprobation of these inhuman acts. Has any pacifist ever spoken of the eighty-seven vessels that have gone down, leaving no trace? We know perfectly well how these vessels were lost. They were either lost by internal explosion or sunk by the enemy, who murdered the crews with machine guns when they took to the boats. These pacifists talk of peace by negotiation. How can you negotiate with liars and assassins, who have broken every pledge and besmirched every bit of honour to which they ever had claim? How can you think of negotiations with such people as these after looking at Russia and

1021
Rumania? There can be no negotiations with the Germans until after victory, and then they have got to be at the point of the bayonet and the machine gun. The Germans have got to obey the orders which the Allies give them.
I want to know where the pacifists get their money. We know perfectly well where the Sinn Feiners get their money. It has come from Germany. That has been proved. An enormous lot of gold, made up of English sovereigns, that was paid to Germany by France in 1871 has been found in Ireland. Where do the pacifists get their money? I should think from the same source. These pacifists do not represent labour. They do not represent any class in this country. As a matter of fact, they are now putting forward a Large number of their order to fight labour constituencies, where I have been satisfied they will be handsomely beaten. I wish to speak to your Lordships as one of the men of the sea. We shall never forget how Germany has prostituted the chivalry of the sea. Since ships floated on the sea, whether in time of peace or in time of war, the effort of every seaman was to save life. Even when he had sunk a ship lie always sent out his boat to save life. That practice has been deserted by the German seamen, and we shall never forget it. More than that, we are not going to let Germany down lightly after this war. We are going to punish her. We seamen do not think it is a Kaiser's war or a Junkerdom war. We think the whole German nation are concerned in this brutality, and we intend to punish them and make them understand that they cannot murder our seamen as they have been doing up to the present. Have the pacifists ever said a word about this? Not at all. They are working all they know to bring about a German peace to our disadvantage after we have lost all these men ashore and afloat. So far as the seamen go, your Lordships know their pledges. No Government can make seamen go to sea if they say they will not go to sea, and if in that case the Government want to get ships to sea they had better use pacifists, conscientious objectors, and aliens. I have heard no pacifist speak about the 2,000 British seamen who were actually arrested some days before war was declared and put into Ruhleben, where they were treated with the utmost barbarity. There are many of them there now over forty-five years of age, some of them aged sixty.
1022
Then I find fault with the pacifists again. No doubt they tried to foment strikes. They have been in the coal mines and among the miners. I was at one of the mining stations in Wales, where the miners told me themselves that they had had the pacifists there and had driven them out. The pacifists go to the workshops and they go to the shipyards. Of all the industrials in this country the seamen are the only men who as a class have not struck once during the war, whatever the pacifists have tried to make them do. They have always signed on when they came back, no matter how many times they had been torpedoed. The seamen have proved their power. Your Lordships will remember that they would not convey the pacifists, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and others, to Stockholm, although the Government gave permits. They would not go to sea at the Cape when they found some Germans on board. They have got the power and they intend to use it. No Government can do what the seamen intend to do, and no Government can stop the seamen from doing what they intend to do when the war is over.
The pacifists are always holding anti-patriotic meetings. Why are not these meetings stopped? Why are the pacifists allowed to make use of all the disloyal and mischievous agitation which they employ at these meetings? If they go down to the docks I am satisfied they will get very short shrift. What are they working against? They are working against conscription. They are working to stop the war. They are working for Bolshevism and in the aid of Germany, and they are trying to create unrest wherever they go. They have tried in Ireland; they have tried on the Clyde, and at Newcastle-on-Tyne and Barrow-in-Furness; and they were very successful until this last big push of the Germans which commenced on March 21. Many of your Lordships will know that last December and January there was very great unrest in this country, and agitation in the direction of peace. That was principally brought about by pacifists, and what I am afraid of is that when the lull comes which I think will occur in the near future we shall have all their mischievous energies working again for peace.
I consider that the pacifists are a real danger to the State. They are undermining the Government and are treacherous to our

1023
fighting men ashore and afloat. I hope the Minister of Information will use propaganda in every way he can to let the people of this country know the tremendous danger the pacifists are in our midst. The enemy in our midst is really more dangerous than the enemy on our Front. We can meet and attack him, but this is an insidious and wicked propaganda, instituted by Germany for German aims and against this country. I hope the Minister of Information will be able to tell us that he has some scheme for letting our people know the real truth regarding the pacifist influence in this country, and how he intends to defeat it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD BEAVERBROOK): My Lords, with the remarks made by the noble Earl, and also by the noble Lord who has just spoken, I find myself very much in agreement so far as they complain against the pacifist activities in this country. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord when he said that pacifist activities up to March 21, when the offensive began, were assuming very considerable proportions. It is quite true, and it is to he expected, that there will be very considerable pacifist activity in the future, and the Government, of course, must take steps to cope with it. So far the pacifists' activities in this country have been dealt with by the War Aims Committee, and indeed at this time the Minister of Information is not responsible for propaganda in this country. He is responsible only for propaganda in foreign countries, neutral, and allied.
Propaganda in England is under the direction of the War Aims Committee, which is drawn from three political Parties the Unionist Party, the Liberal Party, and the Labour Party. The Chairman of the Committee is the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a member, and Mr. Asquith is a Vice-Chairman. Some time ago the Committee applied to Parliament for a grant, and on that occasion the other House was informed that the objects of the Committee were limited to anti-pacifist propaganda. In the nature of things I believe all political Parties insist that propaganda in England should be limited to anti-pacifist propaganda. The objects of the Committee were defined in the other House as follows—
"First, to assist the country during the ensuing months of strain, and resist insidious influences
1024
of an unpatriotic character. Secondly, to keep the country informed of the war aims of the British Empire and its Allies. Thirdly, to support the Government in its responsible task of carrying on the war."
The Committee has made very considerable efforts to carry out this work. It has prepared and circulated a great many pamphlets, and speakers have been engaged and meetings held throughout the country, in industrial centres and elsewhere.
In particular the objects defined by the noble Earl in his speech to-day have been given considerable attention. A leaflet was prepared some time ago outlining the scheme of the lecture which the noble Earl delivers with such extraordinary effect in various parts of the country. The Committee has taken advantage of the noble Earl's assistance, and meetings have been specially arranged for him which I am glad to say have met with extraordinary success. If he will allow me to say so, the noble Earl is a born propagandist. He carries on his work with extraordinary effect, and although I have never heard him speak until I listened to him in your Lordships' House to-day, I realise that his success is due to the sincerity and earnest effort which he evidently makes in dealing with his subject. The War Aims Committee is now preparing a body of lecturers who will be instructed in the particular objects which the noble Earl brought to the attention of the House. The maps which the noble Earl is in the habit of using in order to illustrate his subjects are being reproduced, and in a short time they will he displayed in public places.
In addition to these activities the Committee has recently published a cheap edition of the Memoirs of Lichnowskv, and the circulation has been perfectly enormous. Already I think the demand exceeds 4,000,000 copies, and it is a remarkable fact that the Memoirs are studied closely by the population in the North and in the industrial centres, without doubt with very considerable effect. The Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Munitions report that at the present time there is very little industrial unrest. To a considerable extent that condition is due to the offensive on the Western Front, but it is believed by the Ministry of Labour that the Lichnowsky Memoirs have also had some effect. The noble Earl referred to the Press, and to the supply of paper to

1025
the Press. Without doubt the Press is most effective in home propaganda. It is not controlled in this respect by the Government, and without any control the Press can be trusted, and has been trusted, to explain our war aims and the objects of our enemies. The Press have been remarkably successful, labouring under considerable difficulties.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Does the noble Lord include the pacifist Press?
LORD BEANERBROOK: I am coming to that. The noble Earl suggested that the Government ought to limit the supply of paper to what he terms the pacifist Press. The supply of paper before the war amounted to as much as 8,000 tons of news print per week. Owing to shipping difficulties the supply of manufactured paper has fallen to 2,000 tons of news print a week, so that there has been an extraordinary restriction in the supply of news print to the Press. Undoubtedly on that account the Press has not been in a position to give as much attention to our war aims as might have been the case if there had not been this limitation. The Minister of Information will never cease to press on the Government the necessity for increasing the supply of paper. Of course, the acquiescence of the Government must depend on the necessities in tonnage, as the noble Lord, Lord Beresford, well knows.
The Ministry of Information has already invited the Government to consider the question of some increase in the supply of paper. If anything can be done in that direction it is hoped that the newspapers will make use of the additional supply for the purpose of bringing to the knowledge of the country our war aims. The noble Earl has pointed out that pacifist papers receive a supply of news print. The terms under which newspapers are supplied amount to an equitable distribution according to the requirements of those papers before the period of the war. The Government can only intervene when newspapers of pacifist tendency have actually broken the law. The Home Office has so far carried out a number of prosecutions. The Home Office, indeed, is charged with all responsibility for intervention against the pacifists when a breach of the law has taken place. I think the noble Earl will agree
1026
with me that any interference with paper supplied can only take place when there is a breach of the law.
Since the beginning of the war the policy followed by the Government has not been to interfere with the freedom of speech and of writing so far as it is compatible with the state of war—that is to say, that there should be no interference with the expression of political opinion so long as it is expressed in a constitutional and legal way. It is no offence against the law for any one to express an opinion as to the origin of the war or the war aims of the Allies or the best methods of securing peace. Such views may be and often are profoundly opposed to the views of the great majority of people in this country, and not unnaturally are bitterly resented. But it has always been held that the best way of countering such views is that the true gospel should be freely disseminated by public speakers and by other forms of propaganda. In that respect we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl for his activities. The right of freedom of speech involves a duty on the part of writers and speakers to take care that their arguments are not bolstered up by false statements, or by statements calculated to cause disaffection or defeat in any way. The Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act prohibit and impose penalties in respect to such statements.
The principal Regulation which the Home Office is concerned to enforce in this connection is No. 27, which provides that no person shall by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication spread false reports or make false statements, or spread reports or make statements intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success of His Majesty's Forces, or of the Forces of any of His Majesty's Allies by land or sea, or to prejudice His Majesty's relations with foreign Powers, or spread reports or make statements intended or likely to prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any of His Majesty's Forces. Under that section a large number of prosecutions have taken place, and persons who have offended against these Regulations in public speeches and in writings have been in some cases prosecuted by the local police and in others by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In many cases substantial terms of imprisonment

1027
have been given, and several well-known pacifist writers have been convicted.
There is another Regulation, No. 42, which provides that if any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection among any of His Majesty's Forces or any of the Forces of any of his Majesty's Allies,oramong the civilian population, or to impede, delay, or restrict the production, repair, or transport of war material, or any other work necessary for the successful prosecution of the war, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations. Another Regulation, No. 27c, made in December last, deals with the printing and distribution of leaflets intended or likely to be used for propaganda purposes in relation to the present war or to the making of peace. This Regulation is no doubt within the recollection of your Lordships' House. Since it was passed energetic action has been taken by the civil authorities, and prosecutions have taken place under it. Special powers are given to the police under Regulation 51 which provides that the competent naval or military authority, or any person duly authorised by him, or any police constable may, if he has reason to suspect that a report or statement in contravention of Regulation 27 has appeared, or is about to appear, in any newspaper or other printed publication, seize the newspaper or publication, and may also seize any type or other plant used or capable of being used for the printing or production of the newspaper. The same procedure applies to leaflets published in contravention of Regulation 27c. This power has been freely used, and whenever the attention of the authorities has been drawn to offences against the Regulation on the part of printers or publishers, leaflets have, been seized and destroyed.
As to the Ministry of Information, in some respects it is able to assist and support propaganda at home, although the care of propaganda in England is entirely in charge of the War Aims Committee. The Ministry has made an agreement with the War Aims Committee providing for the taking over of the kinematographic and photographic exhibitions in licensed places of every sort and character. In consenting to place in charge of the Ministry the photographic and kinematographic exhibitions, I have no doubt that the War Aims Committee determined that kinematography and photography could not be used for purposes of
1028
which the War Aims Committee would not approve. Recently the Ministry arranged an exhibition of photographs at the Grafton Galleries. The exhibition has been visited by a great many persons, and that particular form of propaganda has been made to pay in net return. The net receipts amount to as much as £7,000. I mention this to your Lordships to show that it is really effective propaganda, because the sort of propaganda which the public is willing to pay for is the kind of propaganda which fastens itself upon their minds.
The Ministry has also made arrangements to attach to the semi-weekly notes service of the kinematograph companies a semiweekly addition of 150 feet. This semiweekly publication is actually in effect during the present week, and will be seen by as many as 6,000,000 persons, and in a short time it is expected that the Ministry will be able to reach 12,000,000 persons every week. In addition, the Ministry co-operates with the War Aims Committee to some extent by means of the visits to the Front to which the noble Earl referred. The plan has been in operation only for a very short time, and during the six weeks before the offensive the Ministry, co-operating with the War Office and with the Ministry of Labour, sent out to the Front about 1,000 workmen. The visits were arranged by the Ministry, and facilities were given by the Ministry of Labour and by the War Office. The results were entirely satisfactory, and after the present offensive is over it is hoped that the situation will permit of a resumption of this means of instruction to the populations in the industrial centres. It is the object of the Ministry, so far as possible and so far as is consistent with its authority from Parliament, to develop on every occasion and at every opportunity propaganda in England. The limitations, of course, are defined by the voting in the other House. So far as the Ministry can conform to the instructions of Parliament. I can assure your Lordships that every effort will be made to cope with the situation, and if it is possible for the organisation that has been built up round the Ministry of Information to do something or take steps in the direction of allaying the difficulties which the noble Earl and the noble Lord brought to the attention of your Lordships' House to-day, I can assure you that we will be untiring in our efforts.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned in the course of the debate, I trust your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in answer to what fell from the noble Earl. I confess that until I heard my name mentioned I had no idea that anything of the kind would take place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if what I have to say is not, perhaps, so complete as the noble Earl himself would desire. The noble Earl distributed his criticism with a lavish hand. He blamed His Majesty's present Government for not doing more; he blamed the late Government, and he even blamed the Government before, including my noble friend Viscount Grey, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am proud to find myself in such company, and I am quite sure that I can leave my noble friend to take care of himself.
The noble Earl referred to a meeting which I attended some two or three months ago in London, and he quoted with accuracy what I said on that occasion, and what I repeat here to your Lordships this evening. As a matter of historical fact it was the invasion of Belgium and the tearing up of the "scrap of paper" which rallied so many thousands of our young men to the cause of the Allies at the beginning of the war. That I believe to be a matter of perfectly uncontrovertible, historical fact. It is quite true that since then there has been another meeting to which the noble Earl might also have referred. It was a meeting to which he himself had received an invitation, and on the subject of which there was some correspondence in the Press. It was a private meeting held in Birmingham. I will tell your Lordships why it was a private meeting. It was held in Easter week at the time when the German Armies were advancing. I used all my influence to see that it was a private meeting, because at that moment of crisis it seemed to me that it would be highly unpatriotic to do anything that would give any sign or appearance of disunion in our ranks at home. And those reasons seem to me somewhat to apply to our discussion here this evening. I am most unwilling myself to say anything which would in any way give any appearance of disunion in our ranks at this moment. It is quite true, a discussion on this question may be necessary at a later date. Bigger questions are involved than those which were mentioned by the noble Earl, but the time for that is not in my opinion yet, and I hope to avoid
1030
saying anything which can justly give rise to criticism of that kind.
Two remarks, however, I should like to make. One is with regard to the question of the men who are now fighting in our Army. We have got now, as there has never been before in the history of the world, an Army of educated men, men who can read, who have read the history of the causes which led to the war and who may road in their daily newspaper fur the first time in the history of the world exactly what is going on—what statesmen are doing, what statesmen have been thinking, and what they have been saying to one another. With an educated Army of that kind I do not believe that anything could make them more determined to go on fighting than the knowledge that it is inevitable that they should go on fighting for the honour of their country, and it is an admirable thing to remove from them any impression that the continuance of the war is unnecessary.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am glad to have received some applause from that quarter. May I make one further suggestion? It seems to me that in these days people are unnecessarily pessimistic. We hear talk of Prussian militarism. I venture to say that with hardly any exception in the course of this war, and only with the help of treachery, has Prussian militarism been successful. Your Lordships will almost have forgotten the solitary exception when Prussian militarism was successful at the battle of Tannenberg in East Prussia at the beginning of the war. Let us compare for a moment what were the aims of Prussian militarism when the war broke out with the which it has obtained, and let me ask you whether the disappointment of the Prussian soldier must not be very bitter indeed, and whether he must not know how serious is the gulf which separates his attainments from those which he set out to achieve at the beginning of the war.
Let us briefly review what has been the course of events. In spite of the treachery of the attack through Belgium, Germany failed to reach Paris. In spite of her attempts to surround the Russian Army in the following year and to make it no longer a useful force, the Russians retreated and retreated, and, although the Prussians gained ground, the Russian Army still

1031
remained in front of them as a force. It is true that the Prussians over-ran Rumania, but we know of the treachery which assisted them on that occasion. The same thing happened in their attack upon Italy. Once more they failed to accomplish the objects with which they set out. And as it has been in the past in this war, so I believe it will be in the months before us. Prussian militarism will again fail to attain those objects which it once hoped to attain.
May I say one word to the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to one of his items of propaganda which I think deserves the very highest commendation. It is a translation of Prince Lichnowsky's Memoirs, which is now being circulated, and to which he referred. I have tried more than once to get a copy myself, but it has always been sold out at the places to which I have been, and that is the only complaint I have to make to the noble Lord in this connection. May I suggest to the noble Earl who raised the question this evening whether the existence of these Memoirs does not prove that there is in Germany a class of mind and a set of opinions which are not deserving of the whole of the condemnation which he poured upon the German nation; and may I suggest to the noble Lord who spoke last that I hope he may in the course of his propaganda issue some document which will appeal to them, and which will be calculated to win them over and make them see the justice of the Allies' cause.
Finally, I would say one last word to the noble Earl who raised the question. I am glad to think that I am not alone amongst those over whom he scattered his condemnation. There is yet another person, a very eminent and distinguished person, who has gone much further in that direction than I have, and who has said things which would earn the condemnation of the noble Earl far more than anything I have said. He is a person of great eminence and authority for whom the noble Earl himself has the very highest respect. I could only wish that the noble Earl would study his writings with somewhat more care, and that he could be convinced by what this eminent person has said. The noble Earl no doubt realises that I refer to the Pope and to the Allocution of the Encyclical which he issued in the course of last year. The discussion has turned rather from the point at which it started to the question of what is being done by the Ministry of
1032
Public Information and the Ministry for Propaganda. On that I am sure that your Lordships have heard with the very greatest interest what was said by the noble Lord who is in charge of that Department.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, nobody who knows as well as I do my noble friend who has just spoken can doubt his whole-heartedness in the cause of his country and the sincerity of his utterances; and I think that those utterances have been very much misrepresented and wrongly criticised. There are points on which I have shades of difference from him, and one of them is in the somewhat sanguine attitude which he adopted about Prussian militarism. I think this whole Motion is very unimportant just now, because I am sure that if ever the nation was awakened it is awakened now to the gravity of the situation with which we are confronted. It may be that this is the last and final struggle. It may be that the war has come to the determining point. But of this I feel pretty sure—that if there is conflict, and if a conflict is inevitable down the battle line in France, it will be a conflict the intensity of which and the seriousness of which we have not witnessed before. All the strength, all the power of organisation of Prussian militarism will be thrown into it, and Prussian militarism is a formidable thing. Therefore, while I maintain my faith in the military capacity of ourselves and of our Allies, I do not for a moment disguise from myself that the occasion is perhaps the most critical that we have had to confront in the whole course of the war, and that we must not be misled by the success we have had in the early stages of the conflict into feeling over-confident that the same success must attend us in the later stages.
I refer to this not only to differentiate myself by a shade from the optimism of my noble friend, but for another reason. It seems to me to cast into comparative unimportance the controversies raised by this Motion. No doubt pacifists when they carry their propositions to extreme points are always a source of difficulty and embarrassment to the Government of the day. The Government wants to get the whole fighting force out of the nation when it is engaged in a great conflict, and when there is pacifism in any large quantities it paralyses that activity. But the very gravity of the present crisis has caused

1033
pacifism at the present moment to assume very insignificant proportions. There is something more that I dread very much, and that is the raising of unnecessary controversies either by other people about the Government or by the Government about themselves. Those who wield the weapon of the State must be careful not only lest others wound them but lest they wound themselves. Speaking for myself, I should go a very long way before I would interfere in the least or do anything which would weaken the Government just now, however much I might think they deserve to be weakened for anything they have done. As I say, we are at the most critical point in our history, and it astonishes me in the controversies of which I read in the papers that nobody addresses much attention to the question of what would be the effect upon our Allies and upon the situation as a whole of precipitating the downthrow of the Government. For that reason I should regard it as a public misfortune if the controversies about these matters swell up and become much more serious than any controversies which the pacifists are likely to raise at the present time.
Having said so much I turn to the subject of the Motion, and to the grounds on which the noble and gallant Earl has based that Motion. The noble mid gallant Earl has rendered excellent service in the past in military affairs as I myself can testify from personal experience, and he has taken up recently a great interest in the questions of the Near East and of Middle Europe. It is a very great subject, and I am glad that Lord Denbigh has taken it up. But he has not half taken it up. He has not touched more than a fringe of his subject. I entirely agree with him that far too much attention has been directed to the immediate operations at the commencement of the war, to Belgium and to other matters, which, however serious, are not the whole of that for which we are fighting.
For what are we fighting? For what ought we to have been fighting long before there was any talk of war? I will tell the noble and gallant Earl. If, in addition to taking his maps and studying these questions, he had gone and looked at German peaceful penetration in those parts of the world to which he refers—the parts of the world which lie himself said were threatening us with great danger to our possessions in the East—he would have found this.
1034
He would have found at every turn consular agents and merchants of a capacity which gave them every hope of overtaking our own consular agents and our own merchants by reason of their superior equipment. The German nation trained and equipped them for that work of penetration. You find the Germans in command of every language, you find them possessing an acquaintance with the customs of the country in advance of any other nation. That was in the East. Then at home the noble and gallant Earl has meritoriously taken up a great campaign for awakening his countrymen. But some of us have been trying to awaken our countrymen for more than twenty years on that wider subject of which he spoke. It is a very difficult task. This is a very slow and conservative nation to take up new ideas. What Germany was doing she was doing perfectly legitimately. She was training and organising her people for peaceful penetration. What other nations could do, and ought to have done, was to have made the necessary preparations to meet the attack that was being made upon their own possessions in order to hold their own. However, it was not done. But I am glad to think that this war has brought an awakening in many other things than in military matters. It has brought about an awakening in social and industrial matters; it has brought about an awakening with regard to the necessity of knowledge; it has brought about an awakening in almost very direction. Yet we are only at the beginning; and if the noble Earl will continue his propaganda on an even wider basis and point out the German danger, he will have done a great deal.
The noble Lord opposite made an interesting speech, and one of the most interesting parts of that speech was the way he brought out first of all the limitations of the powers of the Government. It is obvious that the policy of the Government is not to interfere with people who speak and write peacefully, so long as they do not do anything which contravenes the law. What the law says is a very dubious question at present; it is contained in so many Regulations that nobody can be sure whether he is infringing it or not. But in the main I think I see the purpose of the noble Lord, which is to tell us that it is not the policy of the Government to interfere with free speech. I congratulate him on that, because it might raise another controversy which at this crucial moment when use are on the eve of the greatest events of

1035
the war, would embarrass the Government still more than anything that has taken place in the past.
The noble Lord referred to Prince Lichnowsky's Memorandum, a most interesting pamphlet, and to my mind the most interesting part of it is the last page and a half. Prince Lichnowsky tells what was his prediction to the Germans—namely, that if they embarked upon this war they probably would find us more united than they imagined and better prepared, and that if they lost, as they probably would; they would find themselves with an enfeebled Austria as a kind of vassal and nothing left except their science and their commerce. I think a good many Germans would reply, "Leave us our science and our commerce, and even if we are beaten we shall get ahead of these other people." The noble Earl referred to a German statesman who had in strong language expressed his contempt for people over here before the war. A great many Germans did that. There was an article which appeared in the Quarterly Review for October and which was obviously written by a person of great knowledge. At the end of the article the writer quoted a German, obviously a statesman of high authority, as having said to him before the war that Germany did not want war and it was not necessary; that in ten years from 1914 the fruit would have fallen into her lap; and that she was progressing, expanding, and going ahead by peaceful methods, and nothing could have withstood her. Germany was in too great a hurry. I used to think her peace preparations were infinitely more dangerous than her war preparations. I have said that before, and I am glad to have an opportunity of repeating it. I believe it to be true that if they had gone on without war they would have put us in a most difficult position, and I believe now that the one way to meet the future is to combine with our war preparations those preparations in organisation, in knowledge, and in the power of combatting German methods by superior British methods which I believe to be within our compass, but which depend upon our being serious and in earnest. It is because we are not serious and not sufficiently in earnest that I have risen to take part in this debate. I rejoice that the noble and gallant Earl has undertaken propaganda, and if he will listen to me he will enlarge that propaganda.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I have done it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes; but not enough. If the noble Earl will take large maps and show the difference in Universities and technical schools, in general education, in training and industrial organisation, and fifty other matters, for which he can get ample material in the publications of the Education Department and the Ministry of Reconstruction, then he will greatly add to the services which he has already rendered to his country.
I do not myself think that we are in much danger from pacifism at this moment. I agree with my noble friend below the gangway that it is far better there should be difference of opinion and freedom in expressing it. Let us remember above everything the tremendous crisis that is about to occur, probably in the next ten days, and the necessity for concentrating the nation and concentrating the will of the nation, and the necessity for the Government giving its whole and unbroken consideration to measures which will have to be taken to support the Army and possibly the Navy in that struggle. With regard to the immediate subject of the Motion, let us put out of our minds that we are really in any great danger at this moment on account of the agitation which has given rise to the Motion, and let us rather remember that larger and constructive work of which I have spoken—a work which is absolutely essential if we are not only to safeguard our position after the war but recover the ground which we must recover before we can stand on a safe and sound basis.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the House must have noticed that the Motion put upon the Paper by the noble Earl has been considerably altered during the last two days. His original Notice was one to call attention to pacifist activities in this country. He has added to that words calling attention to the great ignorance of the public with regard to these matters, and he addressed a considerable part of his speech to that part of the question. He explained to us that he has been engaged upon an educational movement of very considerable dimensions. He has been enlightening the working men of this country; he has lectured to the Chambers of Commerce;

1037
he has delivered an address to the members of the House of Commons; and this is, as it were, the climax. I do not know whether he regards your Lordships' House as the highest or lowest level, but the climax of his efforts is to be the illumination of your Lordships in regard to this question.
Now I gladly admit that the noble Earl has done excellent service in calling attention throughout rite country to the origin of the war and to German methods and German aims. I have nothing but commendation to offer him in regard to what he has done in that direction. But I think the House will not have failed to observe that the real object of the noble Earl was to censure all those whom he included in his long catalogue of what he described as mischievous organisations, which he said had shown themselves in favour of simple peace by the process of surrender. My Lords, there may be organisations that have used language of that kind. I am not aware of them, but I wish respectfully to press upon the noble Earl that it is scarcely fair to include in an indiscriminate condemnation of that kind all those who in one way or another have spoken or acted throughout the country in favour of what is commonly called peace by negotiation.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I do not want the noble Marquess to misunderstand me. I certainly did not intend to convey that. Some of the organisations certainly advocated peace by surrender, and others peace by negotiation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl gave the House a long enumeration of all these bodies, which certainly seemed to be included in a general and pretty violent condemnation. I do not know whether I am included among the defendants in this action which the noble Earl is bringing. I think I am. I caught one sentence in his speech which I am quite sure was aimed at me. The noble Earl does not contradict me. May I say half a dozen words for the defence.
In the first place, let me clear the ground upon one point. I have had no part in the meetings, or as they have sometimes been called the secret conferences, which have lately taken place in connection with this question. I have not been present at them, I have not helped to convene them, I have not authorised the use of my name in connection with them; but I hope the noble
1038
Earl will not think, because I say this as a matter of fact, that I desire to dissociate myself from what has been said, for example, by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, who has already addressed the House. It seems to me that he and some of those who have been acting with him have shown much common sense and much appreciation of the realities of the case, and I am certainly not going to disavow anything that he has said. I go rather further. I think the noble Earl and his friends deserve very considerable credit in all these matters for the manner in which they have exercised self-restraint over themselves. I am quite sure that it would have been easy for them, if they had desired it, to collect very large audiences, to fill very large buildings and to produce a much greater effect of publicity than they actually did produce; but, my Lords, I think they were perfectly right. I think my noble friend felt, particularly during the last few weeks while this great offensive was in progress, that it would be most unfortunate if anything were done in the way of platform organisation likely to create the impression that the country was divided at this moment and thereby to weaken either our Government here or the Armies who are fighting so gallantly for us at the Front.
Let me then add that my own participation, so far as there has been any, has been strictly limited to the letters which I wrote to the public Press, of which your Lordships are aware. I have nothing to withdraw, nothing to apologise for so far as those letters are concerned, and if the noble Earl chooses to challenge any statement which they contain I should be very glad to meet him here or anywhere else. My creed is to be found in those letters. I ask myself what is the creed of the noble Earl, and I own I am a little bit puzzled with regard to it. The noble Earl, in a letter which he wrote not very long ago to The Times newspaper, said—
"This is still a free country, and I suppose people are allowed to hold and associate themselves with what views they like."
That is a very admirable sentiment, but I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl's idea of freedom of speech is rather a one-sided one. He thinks that he and his friends are to have a monopoly of free speech, that he may talk as loudly and as provocatively as he pleases, but that my noble friend Lord Beauchamp is not to be

1039
even permitted to hold a private meeting with closed doors. That is not quite what seems to me to be fair play.
Then I come back to what appears to be the principal article of the faith which the noble Earl professes. There is to be no "peace by negotiation." That is the catchword in all the documents and speeches which are delivered in this connection. If there is to he no peace by negotiation, how does the noble Earl expect peace ever to come to us? Does he expect it to drop from the clouds? No; the noble Earl does not leave us in the dark. He thinks there is only one way of obtaining peace. It is by the process generally- described as the "knock-out blow." He and his friends never tell us how the "knock-out blow" is to be delivered, when it is to be delivered, how soon it is to he delivered, and at what cost it is to be delivered; and meanwhile the war, which the noble Earl himself has described as a ghastly war which he would not himself prolong for an hour beyond the hour at which it could be honourably ended, goes on taking its toll—
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Honourably and safely ended.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, I think I have the words here. "Safely ended." I agree with him. I accept that unreservedly. Meanwhile, the war goes on taking its toll of the resources of this country, of the manhood of this country, adding to the number of those maimed and pathetic figures whom we meet at very turn of the road, adding to the number of those men and women who, all over the British Empire, have had their hearts broken by the loss of those whom they most love. Not only does the noble Earl disbelieve in peace by negotiation, but he and those who think with him positively go the length of warning negotiators or those who desire to negotiate off the political field. The moment there is any talk of negotiation we are told that this is what is called a "peace offensive" or a "peace trap." The overture is turned down before it is made. I must say that those tactics are to me quite unintelligible. I should have thought that if you were afraid of an insincere overture the best thing to be done was to exhibit its insincerity, and you cannot do that until it has been made and scrutinised.
1040
I find another article of faith in the creed of the noble Earl. He will not have any peace with what he calls an "unchastened Germany." The noble Earl, I am sure, recognises the phrase. I should like to ask the noble Earl what he has in his mind when he talks of an "unchastened Germany." Supposing, for the sake of argument, that a safe peace had been arrived at by negotiation last autumn, what would have been the position of Germany? Her original plan, under which she hoped to get to Paris—was it in six weeks or six months?—would have been ignominiously frustrated. Instead of six months she would have had over three years of war with all its privations, all its sacrifices; she would have found her finances in disorder; and site would probably have been able to count up a little matter of some 5,000,000 casualties. I do not know whether that figure is accurate, but it is one which I have seen given. Belgium and France would have been evacuated, and other outstanding territorial questions would have been referred, in accordance with the proposal which I understand His Majesty's Government favour, to a Peace Conference, intended to ripen gradually into an International Pact for the adjustment of future differences. Would it be possible to say that a peace arrived at under conditions like those, or anything like them, would have been a peace with an unchastened Germany? Let me at any rate assure the noble Earl that I have never said, or thought, or written, anything that could reasonably be interpreted as desiring a peace with an unchastened Germany.
There is one other tenet of the noble Earl which I should like to examine for a moment. He objects to any discussion of these questions because he says such discussion cannot fail to give encouragement to the enemy. He regards any talk of that kind as involving the exhibition of signals of distress. Does the noble Earl suggest for a moment that nothing is ever to be said by any of us, by anybody in this country, which can possibly give encouragement to the enemy? I can recall a great many Ministerial utterances which ought never to have been made if that principle were allowed to prevail. I can recall a statement be a Minister that the Germans were building submarines faster than we could sink them. I do not think it is so now, but the statement was certainly made

1041
a year ago. I can recall a statement that the Germans were sinking our tonnage faster than we could replace it. I remember a statement, made not very long ago, to the effect that the measures which we were taking to make further calls for recruits were going to spell death and disaster to our industries. I remember a statement made by the Prime Minister at Paris, when to every one's consternation he spoke of the incredible blunders of our strategy—a statement which, by the way, he made with his own comment that be spoke at the risk of giving temporary encouragement to the enemy. Now, I think it is perfectly right to say these things. I am entirely in favour of facing the realities of the situation, and speaking quite frankly about them. And one of the realities of the situation I believe it this, that in this country there is a great body of Opinion, an increasing body of opinion, perfectly respectable opinion, which earnestly desires that no effort should be spared to bring about a safe and honourable peace by negotiation.
Just one word more about the question of encouragement. Ought we not to bear in mind that there are other people in the Central Powers whom we have to think of besides those who, whenever anything of this kind is said, welcome it as a signal of distress? Is it not the case, both in Anstria and in Germany, that there is a growing body of people who are sick of the sufferings they are undergoing, weary of the butchery of this war, and who are beginning to discover (I am sure they have discovered it) that they have been grossly misled, both as to the facts and circumstances which led to the outbreak of the war and as to the reasons and objects for which we are prolonging it. That is a body which I frankly say I want to encourage, and I welcome anything that can be said in this country to give them encouragement. It is a body which has been no doubt greatly encouraged by the appearance of the Lichnowsky Memoirs, which I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say were being printed and distributed by millions in this country. I think it is through people of that kind, in Germany and Austria, that we shall in time find our way to the kind of peace which I believe the noble Earl and I alike desire.
May I make one other observation with regard to the question of peace by negotiation? We are very often reminded of the
1042
wise things which are said from time to time by the President of the United States, and on this question of peace by negotiation I should like to quote from his last message a sentence which I think even the noble Earl will not be disposed to brush aside as of no importance. President Wilson discriminates. He discriminates between the statesmen and the civilians and the military party which at this moment is in the ascendancy in Germany. But he says that—
"For myself, I am ready, ready still, ready even now, to discuss a just honest peace at any time that it is sincerely purposed."
Will any one question the soundness and the justice of that intimation? I should like to ask, How are we to discover whether peace terms are honestly and sincerely purposed unless we are able to test them in the usual manner by scrutiny and discussion? There is one reservation. I admit that for the moment, while this titanic struggle is proceeding on the Western Front, it is idle to look for opportunities, or indeed to make any suggestions, for a discussion of peace terms.
I feel, however, impelled to beg the noble Earl to think twice before he attempts to drive the people of this country into what I venture to call a very dangerous mood. If reasonable people are not to be allowed to open their lips without being told that their opinions are revolting, if when Germany talks about peace we are to say "all this is mere squealing," if when people on this side talk about peace we are to be told that they are untrue to our country and ready to sacrifice its honour in order to bring the war to a premature close, and if a hearing is to be denied, as I think the noble Earl would rather like to deny it, to all those who try to look where they are going and to count the cost, then I should indeed despair of this country. I know that there are moments when, stung by a just indignation, our people see red. It is, perhaps, as well that they should sometimes do so, but I hope that they will never see so red as to become blind to the dictates of common prudence, of common humanity, and common sense.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I think that it would be ratter a cowardly thing on my part if I did not say a few words, because the noble Earl referral, to ex-Chancellors, of whom I am one, and some-

1043
what pointedly addressed his observations to those who took part in the meeting over which my noble friend Lord Beauchamp presided. I shall not at any time be afraid of stating my own true opinion. I think that the noble Earl, if he will allow me to say so, has looked at this subject a little in half lights, and has seen only one side of the frame of mind which he distrusts and dislikes.
Will he let me assure him that so far as my knowledge goes there are great multitudes of people in this country who have two particular aims at this time. One of them is to help the young men in the field—whom we who are old men are painfully obliged to require to fight the battle of the country—in every way that we can, and to encourage them by finding money, which is a small thing, and in trying to help also those who belong to them. We are as much attached to the view of helping our country as is the noble Earl, and of trying to help in the frightful struggle into which we have been brought. And we do so with the knowledge, whatever you may say about the prudence or courage or the can-dour of previous proceedings, that every one in this country believes that the Government of 1914 desired to preserve peace if they could. We all know that. A great many men for whom I am afraid the noble Earl does not testify very much respect hold that view, notwithstanding the fact that they have another point of view also, and it is this.
If anybody looks at the past history of humanity and realises what frightful mischiefs are done even by small wars and by their prolongation—by their prolongation almost as much as by their undue commencement—he will at least, I think, understand how men should hold the view that I expressed repeatedly at an early stage of this war, and shall continue to express until the last moment of it. It is the view that I conceived at the first moment that it began. I foretold and foresaw the frightful nature of it, and the disasters that might ensue from it to humanity and to civilisation itself. Civilisation may, indeed, be almost obliterated by it. I have this feeling, and I would be ashamed not to say that as soon as an honourable peace can be obtained I think that every man ought to try his best in order to secure that peace. That is my opinion, and it is what I have said on the very few occasions on which I have had
1044
an opportunity of addressing anybody. An honourable and a lasting peace is the only thing that we ought to want—
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Lasting—yes.
EARL LOREBURN: Yes, a lasting peace. It may be that the noble Earl and I would not agree as to what would constitute a lasting peace, but I do not think we would differ as to what would be an honourable peace. Is it then, if I may say so to him, really worth his while starting a debate at a moment when every one is anxious in the last degree about the condition of affairs on the Western Front for the purpose of stigmatising opinions which I think he hardly appreciates? I do not think the noble Earl knows or has realised the extent of feeling that there is among men who would do anything to serve their country at this moment. If lie will reflect a little upon that he will contribute to another purpose at this moment, and that is to the avoidance of an artificial appearance of a difference of opinion when at heart we all want what we believe is to the interest of our country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, if it had not been for certain observations that fell from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, I do not think that it would have been necessary for me to intervene in this debate. The debate has not been, in any speech to which I have listened—and I have heard them all—in any sense an attack upon the Government. There is nothing which, as representing the Government in this House, I am therefore called upon to answer. It has rather been a series of expressions of individual opinion upon certain aspects of the war, and a vindication on the part of noble Lords, who thought that their attitude or convictions were challenged, of their personal position or conduct. Nevertheless it is, perhaps, open to one who happens to occupy my position to draw together the threads of a discussion which I think on the whole has been a very useful and illuminating one, and which none of your Lordships need regret.
No one had a better right to bring this subject before us than the noble and gallant Earl who put the Motion down on the Paper. We know that, in common with other noble Lords, he has suffered in

1045
his heart and in his home, and no greater proof of the depths of his Own patriotism can he given than the active part, which he lots taken in the propaganda to which he referred this afternoon. In one respect I think the noble Earl is rendering a great service, and that is in the attention which I understand that in his platform propaganda lie continually draws to the designs and ambitions of Germany in the East. That is a matter that has been too frequently minimised, if not ignored, in this country. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, alluded to the Baghdad Railway scheme of Germany before the war, and to the singular skill with which, by the activity of carefully selected agents, she has pushed her policy and propaganda in the Eastern parts of the world. All that is no doubt true. But I cannot help reminding the noble Viscount hat there were persons, of whom I was one, who not infrequently called the attention of your Lordships' House to the matter. I remember on many occasions making speeches about the Baghdad Railway and the menace which it involved, and I cannot recall that I ever received anything but a very chill response from those noble Lords, the colleagues of my noble and learned friend, who at that time were seated upon this bench.
However that may be, let me assure the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, that the matter is one which is under close and constant survey by the present Government. We have a War Cabinet, Committee, of which I happen to be the chairman, which deals exclusively with the question of Eastern policy. Upon that Committee the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for India, and the Chief of the General Staff have seats, and weekly every aspect and ramification of this Eastern question come under survey, and the policy of His Majesty's Government is directed with as close an attention to the facts and as frequent a reference to expert authority as can be managed.
There was one other passage in Lord Denbigh's speech which I thought might have been somewhat differently expressed. I hardly think that he was fair in what he said about the Episcopal Bench. There was only one right rev. Prelate in the House at the moment, and I observed that he did rise at an earlier stage to take up the cudgels for his absent brethren. In his failure to have caught the attention of
1046
the House, may I break a lance on their behalf? I thought that the noble Earl was unfair both on general and on specific grounds. I believe he was alluding more particularly to views which the Bishops expressed, or several of them expressed, some time ago in a debate in this House about reprisals; bit I think that the criticism was unfair because it was made at a moment when many of us were reading, very likely in the paper this morning, the account of the wonderfully successful and patriotic tour of the Archbishop of York in America. There, we are told, he addressed something like 100 audiences, I think many scores of thousands, perhaps even a larger number, of men of all classes, preaching to them the cause of the War, preaching to them the higher moral and spiritual issues involved, and awakening an absolute frenzy of patriotic fervour in that country. That was a great service. Then among the other occupants of the Episcopal Benches surely none of us can forget the service that is being rendered day after day to the country by the Bishop of London. I single him out only because his activities come very frequently under our notice. I am quite certain that the noble Earl, in making the remarks that he did, did not wish to convey any general imputation as to the conduct of the right rev. Prelates to whom I have referred.
Then I pass to the speech of the noble Lord who answered for the Government as the representative of the Ministry of Information. I think I may congratulate my noble friend on having shown successfully to the House the steps that are being taken, partly by the Ministry of which he is in charge, and partly by the War Aims Committee, not merely for the dissemination of sound information in this country, but for the checking of all those hostile agencies, whether they take the form of literature, or meetings, or speeches, or otherwise, which were condemned by the noble Earl. But when the noble Earl condemned in such pointed language the activities of the various associations to which he referred, I thought all the while that there was another side of the picture upon which he might have laid rather greater stress, for it is one which gives very great encouragement to all of us, and that is that although there are these papers—in many cases rags of the most contemptible description—disseminating dangerous and unpatriotic doctrines, and

1047
although there are these speeches made and these clandestine influences at work, yet, broadly speaking, the heart of this country is absolutely sound—
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I said so.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON:—and the vast majority of newspapers of every description are on the right side. We seldom take up a newspaper without reading that if a pacifist meeting of a dangerous or insidious character is attempted to be held it is broken up, and only this morning I was looking in my illustrated paper at a picture of a prominent person being escorted from one of these meetings by a policeman in order to save his skin from the attentions of the crowd. Therefore I think that it is possible to exaggerate the work which is being done and the influence which is being exercised by these pacifist agencies, and that we may take heart from the fact that the spirit of our population, the spirit of the labouring classes, of every class, men and women, is right.
LORD BERESFORD: Pacifism was very bad last December.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am speaking of the position of affairs now.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Since the offensive began there has been a great change.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have no doubt the offensive has had a great deal to do with stimulating the spirit of the people, and I do not think there is much to be complained of at the present moment.
Then I come to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. No one could have listened without deep sympathy to the reference that he made to the losses that have been sustained in the course of this war by many of those for whom he speaks and the terrible impression that is produced upon them and upon the public at large by all the miseries and sorrows that it has entailed. It has, I dare say, coloured his view of the war—I do not mean to say at all unfairly, but at any rate we know how from the depths of the heart the lips speak, and we realise how sincere and deep are the emotions which lie underneath his utterance. I wish I
1048
could feel that there was more ground than he seemed to think there is for the existence of similar feelings as regards the horrors and the butchery of the war in the enemy countries to which he referred. He said, Ought we not continually to be looking to people who are taking the same view of the case as he does in Germany and Austria; ought we not to give them a chance of allowing their voices to be heard? Yes, by all means. But I confess that when those voices ever are heard, if they are heard at all, they are almost drowned in the blare of the military trumpet; and I must say I have seen little or no evidence that that class of opinion to which the noble Marquess referred, even if it exists, as no doubt it does, is sufficiently powerful to make itself seriously felt at the present time. Take, for instance, the famous case of the late German Ambassador here, Prince Lichnowsky. It would seem almost incredible that the divulgation of those reminiscences, obviously true, written for private circulation, instinct with sincerity and genuineness, should be made the subject of prosecution. And yet we are told that that is the case, and, so far as we know, no voice among the classes to which the noble Marquess referred is raised in protest against an indignity of that description.
I am not concerned, of course, on the present occasion with the particular view that is taken by the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) about peace; nor was I at all aware that out of this discussion on pacifism would arise even collaterally an examination of the famous letter of the noble Marquess. As he knows very well, I was not in agreement with that letter, and quite apart from the terms of it—with a great deal of which, no doubt, many noble Lords would be in accord—it was to the moment of its production even more than to the substance that I myself took exception at the time. But that question does not arise this afternoon. The noble Marquess went on to put the question, and it is a very serious one, How are you aide to obtain peace unless peace by negotiation is allowed I In a sense, I think that is a truism. It is clear that for peace there must as a prelude he negotiations; and when the noble Marquess went on to speak of overtures being turned down before they were made, I confess that I do not, in my recollection of the events of the last few years, find any historical founddation for that suggestion. On the contrary,

1049
ever since the war began the Allied Powers have always had in view, as, indeed, any combatant in a great struggle must have in view, the possibility of an honourable and successful termination to the war by negotiation; and at no time has the attitude been taken up by this Government, or by any one of the Allied Governments, of turning down proposals before they have been made. Indeed, it was an understanding among the Allies that if overtures were made at any time to any of them—overtures coming from responsible quarters, overtures which seemed to be of a bona fide character—the Ally concerned would be at liberty to investigate the matter, to pursue the case, always, of course, on the understanding that if anything came Of it the remainder of the Allies should he taken into consultation and common action should ensue. That has been a common and admitted principle of action throughout the war, and, as everybody knows very well, occasions have arisen when there have been movements and overtures of than description; and, as everybody knows very well also, they have broken down only because they were either desisted from by those who put them forward, or because they were found to be insincere, or because they turned out to be of a character which did not admit of their being pursued with due regard to honour and safety.
Those are the broad facts of the case, and I do not think there is anything in the attitude of the Government in that respect to which the noble Marquess has any right to take exception; and as regards the position now, I do not really think that there is any substantial disagreement in any quarter of the House about it. Peace by negotiation is, as everybody admits, in one sense utterly impossible at this moment. This country is confronted with the gravest crisis that has ever occurred in its history. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, was perfectly right when he said that these discussions are at this moment academic. We are Out to save the life of the world, including our own, and any idea at the present moment that out of negotiations of any sort peace would be likely to ensue is, I imagine, almost chimerical. Further, we do not derive any great encouragement from the spectacle of peace by negotiation in so far as it has been exhibited at Brest Litovsk in one case, and with Rumania in the other case. There you have had peace by negotiation—peace imposed by the military arm,
1050
by a victorious enemy, upon an impotent and defeated foe. I do not say that these circumstances are likely to arise—God forbid that they should arise!—in our case, but the situation is this, that until the military spirit of Germany is abated—and it can be abated only in the process of this conflict—I am afraid that the idea of pursuing negotiations with any hope of attaining an honourable and lasting peace, which the noble and. learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, had in view, is at the present moment one which we cannot regard with any very great hopes of success.
I think that I have stated the position fairly accurately as it now exists, and I hope that there is nothing in the circumstances of this debate or in what. I have said that will lead your Lordships to think it necessary to proceed to a Division upon the matter. The noble Earl, it is true, gave notice of the terms of a Resolution which he proposed to move, but I would suggest to him that he should not persist in that attitude for two reasons. In the first place, it seems to me a rather undesirable thing to give encouragement to the practice of putting a Resolution down on the Paper without notice of the terms, and then coming to the House and, at the end of a speech, reading the terms and asking the House to vote upon it. I will not say that this is art innovation, but it is a practice which I, at any rate, should be very reluctant to ask the House to endorse Secondly, the noble Earl in the Motion which he read out, the terms of which I have here, expressed regret that further steps have not been taken in the direction of checking the pacifist tendencies of which he complained. That regret involves necessarily a censure upon somebody. I do not know whom the noble Earl censures, but I think the speech of my noble friend behind me, Lord Beaverbrook, shows that there is nobody deserving of censure in this case. Therefore for the noble Earl to ask the House to pass a Resolution of this description would, quite apart from the precedent it would set up, be unfair. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place upon his most interesting Motion, and that he will not ask your Lordships to divide.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lards, I respond at once to what the noble Earl

1051
has said, and with the leave of the House will withdraw the Resolution which I put down. I was somewhat disappointed, however, to note in. the speeches which have been made such an utter want of appreciation from almost every one who spoke—except the noble Earl, and a reference from Lord Haldane—with regard to the main points which I desired to bring before the House. The noble Earl said that the question in the East was receiving great attention from a Committee of the Cabinet, from the Chief of Staff, and from others. I have not the smallest doubt about that. My complaint is that the country knows and has been told so little about it; that it has not been brought prominently before their notice; with the result that the country is still of the opinion that the main issues before us are the questions of Belgium and the West. That was the main object of my bringing forward this debate.
When the present offensive is over, everybody expects to have a renewal of what is called the peace offensive. Then you will be faced with the country being called upon to give a decision, very likely from the sentimental point of view which was put forward by the noble Marquess, deploring further losses and quite oblivious of the nature of the Germans and of the original objects and aims which they had in view—namely, of securing the domination of the world by getting into a position of predominance over England. The question which the noble Marquess raised with regard to what he said was an article of faith of mine, that I was against any peace by negotiation at any time, was aptly answered by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I have never said anything against peace by negotiation at some time or other; but what I maintain is that it is utterly useless to talk of peace by negotiation so long as the German people have faith in the military party, and that the only way to have a peace by negotiation which could possibly be safe for the future of this country is to teach the German people by a very unpleasant lesson that war is not the paying business that it has been to them in the past.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, this Bill proposes to impose a penalty upon persons who sell goods at prices in excess of those laid down by the Food Controller. At the present moment these penalties take place before a Court of summary jurisdiction, and it is proposed to vary the procedure by means of what is technically called an account. It may be necessary to amend a certain part of this Bill for technical reasons, and I therefore suggest that if the Bill is given a Second Reading it be put down for Committee on Tuesday of next week. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next, May 14.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 7.]
ST. OLAVES CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Special Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 26.)
WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON, AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
HAMILTON ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read la.

HARROD'S STORES BILL. [H.L.] WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at twenty-live minutes before eight o'clock.