Sitting of 29 May 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Gravesend, in the room of the Right Hon. Sir Gilbert Parker, Baronet, Manor of Northstead.—[Lord Edmund Talbot]
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT ACT, 1913.
Copy presented of Fourth Report of the Medical Service Board for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copies presented of Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under the Act requiring the discharge of certain Duties by District Agricultural Wages Committees and the Central Agricultural Wages Committee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
Copy presented of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year 1916_17 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 67 (Edinburgh, No. 25), Amendment of Ordinance No. 22 (Edinburgh, No. 11), University Court Ordinance, No. 68 (Edinburgh, No. 26) (Institution of a Degree with Honours in Pure Science and relative Regulations), and University Court Ordinance, No. 69 (Edinburgh, No. 27) (Regulations as to the Finances of the University) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 67.]}
TEXTILE TRADES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the position of the Textile Trades after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRON AND STEEL TRADES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the position of the Iron and Steel Trades after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ELECTRICAL TRADES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the position of the Electrical Trades after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ENGINEERING TRADES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the position of the Engineering Trades after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HARWICH HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Live Stock (Sales) Order, 1918, and Potatoes (Base Price) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command];to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONVENTION WITH ITALY.
      Mr. KINGasked (1) the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that under the Military Convention with Italy only 426 Italians have joined the British Army, and that the Italian authorities have given exemptions to 3,089 persons whether he will inquire of the Italian Ambassador in London on what principles, if any, these exemptions have been given; (2) the Minister of National Service at what date the Military Convention with Italy was signed; when did it become operative; how many Italians of military age were in Great Britain at the beginning of this year; how many were estimated as likely to join the British Army; how many Italians had joined up on or before 25th May; and how many had been exempted by the Italian authorities at that date?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck):My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to question No. 3. The Convention with Italy was signed on the 11th December, 1917. It became operative on the 15th February, 1918. At the beginning of this year, the names of approximately 12,900 Italians were on the military registers. I am not aware of any estimate as to how many were likely to join the British Army. On 25th May, 700 were serving in the British Army; 1805 were serving with the Italian Army; 3,063 had been exempted by the Italian Consular authorities; 791 have been granted protection or exemption certificates on occupational or personal grounds, or have applications pending; and 308 were on examination found unfit for service or of so low a medical grade as not to be required at present. Of the remainder, some are under call and others are under investigation at the present time by the British and Italian authorities. It is probable that, though their names were still on the military registers, a number of these men have returned to Italy for the purpose of serving with the Italian forces.

      BRITISH SUBJECTS IN JAPAN.
      Mr. KINGasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that there are over 800 British subjects of military age in Japan, that many firms continue their businesses there with male staffs unreduced in numbers, and that the Consular authorities have freely given certificates of exemption, especially on grounds of indispensability; and whether, in view of the expressed anxiety of these men to serve in the War, he can arrange for discharged and unfit men and women to proceed to Japan and take the places of these men, who will then join our fighting forces?
      Mr. BECK: I am not in possession of information as to the number of British subjects of military age in Japan or of the number of exemptions granted by His Majesty's Consuls. British subjects of military age resident in Jap an were invited to register their names as available for military service, and those who registered their names are now being called upon to return to Europe, but it is only proposed to bring from Japan British subjects who are fit for active military service. Inquiry is being made into the general position of British subjects in Japan in relation to military service, but the suggestion in the latter part of this question is not considered practicable.

      POST OFFICE EMPLOYES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of National Service whether he can state that in the exemption lists which he has al ready published of men under the new Military Service Act Post Office employès will include temporary men who have been engaged during the War on Post Office work?
      Mr. BECK: I assume that the list to which my hon. Friend refers is that which appeared in the Press some time since, based upon a Departmental Instruction issued on the 4th May. That Instruction did not relate to exemption, but only provided that in the calling up for medical examination of men born in the years 1874 and 1875 certain classes of men should be excluded for the time being. The Instruction did not draw any distinction between permanent and temporary Post Office employès. Since some misapprehension appears to have been caused by the accounts of it which were given in a number of newspapers, I am glad to take this

      795
      opportunity of pointing out that the Instruction was of a purely provisional nature, and is already in course of revision. The Instruction was issued solely as a guide to the officials of the Ministry of National Service, in order to help them in starting their work in connection with the recruiting of the older men who were made liable by the Military Service Act (No. 2), 1918.

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOT.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to state whether Brigadier-General Elliot has been reinstated, or whether the Government have been able to take any steps to make use of his services?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I understand that use will shortly be made of his services.
    Mr. HOUSTON: In promising to carry out this act of tardy justice, can my hon. Friend go further, and promise to make good the financial loss to General Elliot?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:I cannot answer that question. I think my hon. Friend had better put that question to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.

    EAST AFRICA (NATIVE CARRIERS).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what is the sickness casualty rate among native carriers according to the latest information available; whether he can take any immediate steps to inquire into and ameliorate the conditions under which these men continue to perish in large numbers in East Africa; (2) whether he is aware of the allegations made in regard to the treatment of native carriers in East Africa, who are said to be dying in large numbers of dysentery, pneumonia, and enteric; whether he is aware that there is the gravest deficiency of blankets, clothing, and medical stores; that in one spot the carriers are, in consequence, dying at the rate of 20 per diem; that in another a hospital with 600 patients has no medical officer available; that in another camp of 9,000 no medical officer was attached; and whether he can
    796
    state what steps have been taken to make good the promises made of improved medical attention and supplies for these men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The weekly admission to hospital rate among the native carriers is 1.4 per cent. of the total strength, and an average of 7.1 per cent. are constantly in hospital. The average number of deaths per week is 118. Of these, 27 per cent. are due to pneumonia, 19 per cent. to dysentery, 9 per cent. to cerebrospinal meningitis, and 7 per cent. to malaria. The Commander - in - Chief reports that there is no deficiency of blankets, clothing, or medical stores. No carrier camps of large size are without adequate medical supervision, and from the weekly death rate which I have given it will be seen that the daily death rate in any one camp could not be twenty, as is suggested. Since January the death rate has steadily decreased. The hospital accommodation for carriers is adequate, and fully staffed with medical officers and personnel. Everything possible is being done, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Carriers are as well looked after as the troops.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Can the hon. Gentleman account for this very serious death rate?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot very well add anything to the answer I have given.

    BASIC SLAG.
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a considerable portion of the basic slag produced in this country is being exported to Ireland, while there is a considerable shortage of slag for use in this country; and what return is made by Ireland for this export?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): Though a larger amount of basic slag is now being produced in this country than in pre-war days, the demands for it have increased to a much greater extent, and, in view of the extended area of tillage land, some shortage may be anticipated. The proportion allocated to Ireland is not more than is justified by Ireland's acreage of tillage. Meat, oats, and potatoes are being exported from Ireland for both military and civilian consumption.
    Mr. MASON:Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the price of basic slag delivered in Ireland is the same as that at any station in England, however near the works of production; whether that price is based on the flat rate of 12s. 6d. a ton; and whether the effect of this is to increase the cost to English consumers by several shillings a ton and give the Irish consumers an advantage?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The hon. Member must give me notice of that.
    Mr. MASON: I will give notice.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what quantity of basic slag has been allotted to Ireland?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I am afraid I must have notice of that also.

    POSTAL SERVANTS (WHITLEY REPORT).
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to state the steps which his Department is taking to apply the principles of the Whitley Report to the Post Office service?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): This question is the subject of discussion between the Post Office and other Departments concerned, and I am not at present in a position to make any announcement.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the restrictions applicable to new season tickets apply to men discharged from the forces subsequent to 1st January, 1917?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The restrictions specified in the Railway Season Ticket Order of the 21st May apply generally to all classes of the community, and I fear that it would not be practicable to exempt discharged soldiers as a class from the restrictions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the man who has served and been discharged from the forces after 1st January, 1917, obviously was ordinarily a
    798
    resident in the place where he was recruited prior to the War, and why does he urge the Board of Trade to continue this restriction against that man?
    Mr. WARDLE: He will be under no special disability in consequence of that in any shape or form.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Would the hon. Gentleman undertake, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that this question should be carefully considered?
    Mr. WARDLE: Yes.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that if a man has been resident in a neighbourhood before 1st January, 1917, the fact that he has been discharged since is not a handicap against his applying for a new season ticket?
    Mr. WARDLE: Certainly.
    Sir A. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the limit of. 12 miles radius from Charing Cross for season tickets on railways means that from Liverpool Street Station the limit will be 10 miles from that station, whilst from Charing Cross Station it will be 12 miles, and from Waterloo 11 miles; and if it is proposed to create these differences under the new Orders?
    Mr. WARDLE: The Order relating to this matter provides that a railway company may refuse to issue or renew a season ticket between any station situated within a radius of 12 miles from Charing Cross Post Office and any station outside such radius. The increase in charges for season tickets, which applies all over the country, is either 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., according to whether the tickets caver a journey up to or over 12 miles.
    Sir A. FELL: Would it not have been simpler to have made it 12 miles from all stations rather than 12 miles from Charing Cross, which must create the difficulty pointed out in this question?
    Mr. WARDLE: My hon. Friend will see that that would not obviate the difficulty.
    Colonel W. THORNE: May I ask whether the Government have made up their mind not to make any alteration in regard to this matter, in face of the tremendous feeling in London?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a question which must be addressed to my right hon. Friend.
    Colonel THORNE: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a possibility of the Government falling over this question?
    Sir A. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if there are any records kept now of the number of persons travelling on the railways; if there are any figures showing the number of times persons use their season tickets; and if the statistics of persons travelling now are mere guesswork and not to be relied on for statistical use?
    Mr. WARDLE: An exact record of the number of persons travelling on the railways, including those using season tickets, is not kept, and shortage of staff would make it impossible to keep such a record.
    Sir A. FELL: Are there no records now from which you can state how many persons are travelling, and particularly the percentage of season-ticket holders, nor as to how they compare with ordinary travellers?
    Mr. WARDLE: I do not think records of the sort are now being kept.

    MUNITIONS.

      STEEL PRODUCTION.
      Mr. J. MASONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has taken any, and, if so, what steps to compensate, by an increase of the controlled price or otherwise, the producers of steel for the increased cost of production consequent on the increased cost of labour and coal; and whether he will give an assurance that no subsidy has been paid or promised to such producers?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): Certain subsidies are given to steel makers to compensate for the increased cost of labour and coal. Rebates are also paid by steel makers to the Ministry in certain cases, These subsidies and rebates enable the price of steel to be stabilised, and thus prevent the necessity of frequently revising contracts involving the use of steel.
      Mr. MASON: Will my hon. Friend say whether the effect of this subsidising is not really to conceal the cost of the material?
      Sir W. EVANS: It does equalise the price, and the advantage gained from the
      800
      equalisation of the price is incomparably greater than any danger that arises from concealing the fluctuations in price.
      Mr. MASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the premises of steel workers are becoming blocked with plates for shipping which the railways are unable to accept for carriage because the shipyards are not ready to receive them; whether, under these circumstances, he proposes to urge the steel works to increase their rolling power; and whether such works may be allowed temporarily to manufacture other forms of steel which can be delivered and steel for export for munitions to France?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara):While it is true that some time ago there was difficulty on the North-East Coast of England in obtaining conveyance from the steel works to the shipyards of certain quantities of plates for shipbuilding, the situation has now materially improved. The difficulty of obtaining carriage was largely due to lack of wagons, although in certain cases also to lack of means in the shipyards to unload wagons already delivered. It is still necessary that the rolling power of the steel works should be increased wherever possible, looking both to our present and future needs. In reference to the last part of the question, it is. understood that all the most urgent uses for steel are always kept fully in view by the Steel Allocation Committee in deciding upon the forms of steel which the steel firms should manufacture.

      MADSEN MACHINE-GUN.
      General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Munitions whether he can give any explanation as to the delay in introducing the Madsen machine-gun into the British Army; whether he is aware that for the last three years this machine-gun has been admitted by all machine-gun experts to be infinitely superior in every respect to the machine-guns now in use; and whether the only military expert who has opposed the introduction of the Madsen machine-guns is Major-General Sir William Furse, Master-General of the Ordnance; and whether, in view of the favourable reports again urging the adoption of the Madsen gun made this month by all the machine-gun experts of the London District, he will give orders to proceed immediately with the manufacture of this gun?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Churchill): The question of the adoption of the Madsen gun was recently re-examined by the Army Council, who decided against adopting it. It was further re-examined last month by General Headquarters in France, who also decided against its adoption. The main reason in both cases was confidence in the Lewis gun, which alone can be supplied in the enormous numbers required. It is the function of the Ministry of Munitions to supply stores on the requisition of the Army Council.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is there a danger of this gun being handed over to the Germans?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, Sir, I do not think they would have had much difficulty in acquiring it, had they so desired, in the early days of the War.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: When the Army Council and the military authorities in France came to this decision, had they had full particulars of the recent examination of the improvements in this machine-gun, and were they aware of the favourable reports that had been come to in this country which induced my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister to order 5,000 of them when he was Minister of Munitions, and, I believe, induced my right hon. Friend himself, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, to order a large number for the Navy, none of which have yet been produced?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. All those facts were before the Army Council and General Headquarters, and I am confident that every new circumstance and all the arguments which are now being used were thoroughly considered. As I say, the scale on which machine guns are now required to be produced, with the disadvantages of duality of types and duality of training, and with the excellent qualities of our existing Lewis gun, were the deciding factors in the conclusions which we reached.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me under whose authority the recent decision has been come to by the military authorities, and under whose authority the recent experiments were undertaken in the London district by all the military machine-gun experts in London?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I cannot. I know that in the last month that General Headquarters made a full re-examination of the gun.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for the reports that have been submitted in the month of May—within the last fortnight or three weeks— on this machine gun?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; I shall certainly call for the reports. But the question does not turn so much on the relative merits of the Lewis v. the Madsen gun as on the great question of the supply of scores of thousands of guns, and the family arising of our Army with it—the training of the troops in the use of the weapon.
      Mr. G. FABER: That reason rather than the possible superiority of the Madsen gun?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not at all sure that if we were starting absolutely from the beginning with a clear table, assisted by a wave of the wand, that there are not certain important points and advantages in the Madsen gun that we should not note. But we have a very good gun, and it is the only gun that can be made in enormous numbers.
      Sir I. PHILIPPS: In view of the circumstances—
      Mr. SPEAKER:We seem to be getting into a debate. Any further questions had better be put down.

    DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish a draft statement of the reforms at present under contemplation in his Department and in the Diplomatic Service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The scheme of reforms for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service to which my hon. Friend refers is under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot at present give any further information as to what is proposed.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

      REGISTRATION (LONDON AREA).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board how many registration officers in the London area have commenced or arranged for a proper house-to-house canvass in order to obtain complete lists of voters for the new registers; can he state if he has yet ordered all registration officers in London to undertake such a canvass; and, if not, will he undertake to issue such an Order?
      The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have made inquiry, and find that in most districts in the London area a house-to-house canvass has been made, or is being made at the present time. In the Memorandum which I sent to registration officers on the 17th instant, and again in the Circular of the 23rd instant, I impressed upon them the importance of making the electors' lists complete, and authorised the employment of additional staff in order that the house-to-house inquiry might be as thorough as possible.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether the persons who are doing the house-to-house canvassing are qualified to give advice where it is needed, or whether they simply read the canvass papers, and are not able to give any advice whatever?
      Mr. FISHER: The hundreds, if not thousands, of canvassers have no doubt varying qualifications—at the present time!—and from many I doubt whether much assistance can be derived.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the actual canvass involve the collection of the names?
      Mr. FISHER: The canvassers are generally expected to do their best, and, where possible, to give the information necessary to secure the correct filling up of the forms.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the canvassers he has referred to have themselves been instructed in the correct way of filling up these forms?
      Mr. FISHER: It is impossible for the President of the Local Government Board to answer a question like that.
      Mr. G. FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the really great difficulty there is in the correct filling up of these forms? Has he heard of the authentic case of the old lady who said she had prayed to God all night, and that this had not enabled her to fill in the paper properly? In view of this fact, cannot some means be found to employ men of skill so that they may give proper advice?
      Mr. FISHER: If my hon. Friend can find me some thousands of men and women of skill I shall be very much obliged to him.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE and Mr. CHANCELLORrose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions had better be put down.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the House is to sit on Friday, and, if so, what business will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be necessary to ask the House to meet on Friday. We shall take the Report stage of the Horse Breeding Bill, and, I hope, the Third Reading; also the Second Reading of the Emigration Bill, and, if time permit, the Second Reading of the Naturalisation Bill.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee—[Progress, 8th May.]
  [MR. WHITLEY IN THE CHAIR.]
  CLAUSE 4. —(Consultation of Authorities for the Purposes of Part 111. 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 organisation of education in the area of that authority for consideration in connection with the scheme of the county.
  Amendment moved [8th May], at the end, to add,
  "(2) Before submitting schemes under this Act a local education authority shall consider any representations made to them by parents or other persons or bodies of persons interested and shall adopt such measures to ascertain their views as they consider desirable, and the authority shall take such steps to give publicity to their proposals as they consider suitable or as the Board of Education may require"— [Mr. Herbert Fisher.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "other bodies or bodies of persons" and to insert instead thereof the word "ratepayers."
  810
  The question of continuation schools is primarily one for the parents of the children, and it would be regretable of amongst those consulted there exists an element which is somewhat distrusted in this House and whose co-operation in education, while it may be desirable, is already sufficiently represented on the county councils and the education committees themselves. If the continuation schools are really to provide the best education for the children themselves and not merely make them useful hands for the factories and farms, then it is extremely important that the discussions of these schemes should be carried on in the absence of what I may call the interested parties and in the presence of the parents of the children themselves. We want a scheme of education which will teach the children between fourteen and eighteen the wider side of education and not the specialist brand, which devotes them to hedging, ditching, the milking of cows, or the working of machinery. Therefore, I think some such Amendment as this is absolutely necessary in order to prevent the exploitation of the children.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think it achieves the object which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. If it is desirable that there should be representations from ratepayers, I think it is also desirable that the representatives of bodies interested in education should be heard, for the reason of the interest they have in education. For instance, it is desirable that a university should be able to make representations with regard to education in its capacity not as a ratepayer but as a learned body.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
  Proposed words there added.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "A council in preparing schemes under this Act shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges not provided by local education authorities, and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges."
  I hardly think this Amendment needs to be commended to the Committee as it is quite in conformity with the spirit of our educational law.
  Mr. KING: I really think that this Amendment ought to have been introduced with a more important and serious

  811
  speech than that which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It opens up a very wide subject and adds very considerable danger to the proposal to establish continuation schools. We have passed the Clause by which a new type of school is to be brought into our educational system, a continuation school for boys and girls above fourteen and up to eighteen years of age. I want to see these schools, first of all, as much as possible under public control, and secondly, as far as possible, such as will at once gain the support, interest and confidence of both parents and pupils. The Amendment, which is an afterthought to the Clause, endangers both those objects. If in a place where a continuation school has to be provided under the Bill some rich person thinks he will carry out his own fads or ideas he can provide a school at his own expense, and having done so the public will have no right to say, "No; we will have such a school as we want." Suppose a landlord in the. place is a Roman Catholic and everybody else in the place is strongly Protestant. The landlord can establish a continuation school on Roman Catholic lines entirely under his own control, and, if it is efficient—that is, if the equipment, the staff, and other conditions are favourable—he can prevent any Protestant school coming in. That is quite obvious as I read the Amendment. I do not want to raise the religious bogey, although I think it is possible that it might be an actual danger. Take, for instance, a large employer of labour with a factory in the district. He might say, "I will establish an evening continuation school which will teach all the young people how they would best qualify to work in my factory." He might say, "I am going to offer you the opportunity of good and regular employment at good wages for having attended my school," and if that school is efficient that has got to be the provision there. If it is adequate in numbers for all the population of that place, any alternative will be ruled out. You are giving, first of all, religious cranks an opportunity that they never ought to have; you are giving employers and capitalists an opportunity that they never ought to have; and, supposing there is a man who has been carrying on a private school which has been inefficient, you are giving him a chance, by getting advances from friends or in some other way, of putting his premises
  812
  into such a condition as to render it an efficient school and thus making a good business out of it. Public control of education in this matter will not have a chance. The President of the Board of Education, I am convinced, does not see the dangers of putting in this Amendment at the demand of people who have got special rather than general and wider objects of education in view. I must oppose it, and, if I do not succeed in my opposition, I hope at any rate that I shall get my Amendment which I have put down to insert the words "and suitable." I will not move it at the moment, because I should like to know what arguments the President can really advance in opposition to the case which I have put forward.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend credits me with more originality than I really desire to claim. The Amendment is merely a substantial restatement of an unrepealed Clause in the Act of 1902. In Section 2, Sub-section (2), of that Act it is laid down:
  "A council in exercising their powers under this Part of this Act shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges, and to any steps already taken for the purposes of higher education under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891."
  I merely propose substantially to repeat that provision in this Bill.
  Captain A. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman must understand—I think he is rather slipping the point—that the schools to be set up under this Bill will be different in character from the schools set up under the Act of 1902, and they will be worked differently. Hardly two schools will be worked alike. I think it would be a very bad thing if there should be a multiplication of these schools. The fewer schools not under the education authorities the better, and if this means the setting up of private or semi-private schools with which the local education authorities have nothing to do, then I think the Amendment is a very bad one
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There are several questions of the utmost importance raised by this Amendment, which, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, would appear to be of an entirely harmless character. The right hon. Gentleman himself opposed a similar Amendment when it was moved at an earlier stage of the Bill, and he objected to it on more than one ground. He told the Committee that it was unnecessary, and he men-

  813
  tioned the existing Statute law. Why is it necessary this afternoon? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the provision in the Act of 1902, but that provision related to higher education, and dealt with schools for which fees were charged, whereas the continuation schools, at all events, to be provided under this Bill are to be free of all fees. We hope many more of the schools will be free. It is, therefore, surely relevant when inquiring as to existing schools and colleges to consider whether they are free of fees, because if they are private institutions and charge fees they offer no solution of the public demand for popularly controlled free education. There are, therefore, many points of educational importance in connection with this Amendment.
  Mr. FISHERindicated dissent.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is so. Let me give him another reason, and then hear his reply. A scheme may be put forward to provide certain types of continuation schools. Some private firm—I will not say from any unworthy motive—may propose to set up its own system of continuation schools. You are giving a direct Instruction to the local education authority to consider such a proposal, not yet carried out, of a private firm to set up its own system of continuation schools for its own workpeople. I carry with me in my interpretation of the Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott). The right hon. Gentleman will therefore see that this is not a drafting point, but is a point of real importance, if you are going to have a free and popularly controlled system of education.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that this Amendment is mandatory. It says, "A council shall have regard," etc. I would also like to point out that the proposal goes further than the Act of 1902. That Act, in the words just read by the President, says, "A council shall have regard to existing schools" and "to any steps that may have been taken." The Act of 1902 required that the steps should already have been taken, so that the character of the new institutions which the council was required to consider would be clear. Instead of those words, we find the Amendment says" and to any proposals that have been
  814
  made." That is a most fishing sort of sentence to insert in an Act of Parliament. A proposal might be faked up in half an hour, and the council is directed to have regard to it. It might be a proposal made just to embarrass the council. There is no qualification. It might never have effect given to it. It might be made just to prevent anything being done. There are two suggestions that might be made. In the first place, the words "and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges" might be left out altogether; and, secondly, if anything in the nature of them is to be inserted, then the more cautious words of the Act of 1902, of which I am not such a slavish admirer, might be used.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry to have to come back to the same point again, but this Amendment is extremely dangerous from the works schools point of view. I wish the hon. Member opposite had said something about the admirable works schools established by men like Mr. Cadbury. Although some of these disinterested employers have works schools running on voluntary lines, I am perfectly certain that as soon as this Bill goes through we shall have proposals for works schools from a very large number of other very much interested employers. You will have all over the country the natural desire of the ratepayers for economy, combined with the natural desire of employers for a trained body and a tied body of workers. You will have those two desires co-operating to establish all over the country not continuation schools as ordinarily understood, but continuation schools of a trade type. I am against educating young people between fourteen and eighteen simply in the trade in which they are working part-time at that age. I am very much surprised that the President of the Board of Education has adopted this proposal, because from all his previous speeches I have understood, and the Committee has understood, that he himself regards this Bill as containing the principle of a liberal education, whereas, if this Amendment is passed, it will give a great fillip— far more serious than the Committee at present understands—to a trade education instead of a liberal education. I hope the hon. Member opposite will press this question to a Division, because I regard it as being vital to the direction in which our education is to move.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I agree with the last speaker to the extent that I think the Amendment is one of considerable importance and substance.
  Mr. FISHER: It makes no change at all.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I did not say it was a question of change; I said it was a question of some importance and substance. I am perfectly well aware of the provision of the Act of 1902 to which the President referred. I would suggest that, although the Amendment does not introduce a change in the existing law, to bring it into this Bill is a point of considerable importance. If hon. Members go to a Division, I hope the President will adhere to the position he has taken up, because what I believe he has in mind is an attempt to meet to some extent the views of those of us who have very strong opinions in regard to the subsequent Clauses of this Bill, particularly Clauses 8 and 22. I do not know that that will commend itself to other hon. Members. Our great desire in regard to this Clause and other Clauses of the Bill is to have the greatest possible variety, and not to impose upon the country any dull and drab uniformity in the type of schools. For that reason I hope the President will adhere to his Amendment, and, if he does, I shall support him.
  Mr. ANDERSON:I understand that the right hon. Gentleman attaches little or no importance to this particular Amendment.
  Mr. FISHERindicated assent.
  Mr. ANDERSON: And that is an Amendment of little substance, if any. If that is his view, as it is, I would suggest that he should drop it altogether. One point is whether or not these schools and colleges mentioned in the Amendment are to be free. If they are not to be free, it means that, because a certain district has provided private schools or colleges, which rich people will be able to pay for, the provision is going to be worse so far as the poor people are concerned. That is bound to be the result of an arrangement of this kind. I am quite sure also that it will give a stimulus to works schools. Sometimes, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) has suggested, these schools may be run on excellent lines, but there is also a real danger that their object will be not so much to turn out good citizens as to turn out good plumbers, carpenters, and joiners. You are opening the door to that
  816
  kind of thing by this Amendment. Seeing that the President himself attaches practically no importance to it, and that it was not in the Bill as drafted, and in view of the divided opinion that has been expressed, the right hon. Gentleman might well agree to drop it.
  Mr. D. MASON: I agree that this Amendment seems to be quite unnecessary. In fact, it is not consistent with the declaration in Clause 1, which states:
  "With a view to the establishment of a rational system of public education …"
  I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is carrying that out. While no one objects to any number of rich men or any other class of people, if they care to do so, starting schools of their own, to go out of our way to put in a Bill which is an attempt to establish a national system of education a saving clause saying
  "A council …shall have regard to any existing supply of efficient schools or colleges not provided by local education authorities, and to any proposals to provide such schools or colleges,"
  seems to be going rather against the principle of a national system of education. Why should we support this Amendment, which would really invite the Board of Education to go out of its way to encourage outside bodies or religious bodies to set up works or other schools which will not come under the control of this Bill? The Amendment does not give control to the Board of Education. Before we go to a Division I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he means by the words "shall have regard to." Does he mean that the education authorities are to be encouraged or discouraged to proceed with various schemes for schools that are not under their authority? We ought not to pass an Amendment which governs our system by having regard to schools provided by outside bodies over which we have no control.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I should like to back up the appeal of my hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. Undoubtedly there is a danger that schools may be set up of a special kind, whose only qualification is that they shall be efficient, which may be fee-charging, which may exclude a larger number of very young people whom we want to get in the scheme of national education, and may include by favouritism individuals from amongst them. If there be such a danger of the erection and

  817
  existence of these schools not under popular control and not forming part of the system of national education at all, surely it is better to remove it by leaving the development of this particular form of education under popular control as intended by the Bill, if I understand its purpose at all, and if the right hon. Gentleman really attaches so much importance to it, and if, as he says, it is already embodied in the previous Act, is it worth while to carry it through against the opposition which evidently exists?
  Mr. FISHER: A good deal of misapprehension has gathered round this Amendment, and I think hon. Members, in criticising it, attach too much importance to the phrase "shall have regard to." We are asking these local education authorities to provide general schemes for education in their special areas. We are asking them, in fact, to provide schemes for secondary education, which we expect greatly to develop through the operations of the Bill. It is obvious that the local education authority, when it is considering what its policy shall be with respect to the development of secondary education, must have some regard to the existing secondary schools, and it would be absurd not to. Similarly, with regard to technical education. It would be ridiculous for local education authorities to embark upon extension schemes for the development of technical education without any regard to existing schemes, and that is what I meant when I said the Amendment would simply constitute a rule of ordinary prudence which a well-advised local education authority will naturally follow. Consequently, I do not think there will be any practical difficulty. On the other hand, in several quarters of the House there has been a feeling that it would be desirable in this body of administrative suggestions or regulations, which is really what the Bill comes to, to reaffirm the principle laid down in Section 2 of the Act of 1902, in order to meet this feeling which exists that possibly in some cases local education authorities will not have regard to the existing provision of education. Hon. Members have also assumed that if you accept this Clause you open the gate to all kinds of undesirable forms of schools, work schools and others, which will be totally exempt from the control of the Board. Nothing of the kind. I propose, however, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. King).
  Mr. LOUGH: I have pointed out that the last words of the Amendment go further than the Act of 1902. They are of a fishing character; they are vague, and they ought not to be included in an Act of Parliament—
  "And to any proposals to provide such schools."
  Anyone may make a proposal. Nothing may come of it. In legislation that we pass upstairs there is nothing more common than these proposals which are put forward to embarrass actual suggestions, and of which nothing at all comes. Here is a bad example of the same kind which goes a great deal further than the Act of 1902.
  Mr. FISHER: Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman is a little over-apprehensive. Let us suppose a local authority is planning a scheme of secondary education in its area. A secondary school may actually be being built. Is it to take no account of such a scheme as that?
  Mr. LOUGH: The Act of 1902 covers that.
  Mr. FISHER: I think it would belong to the discretion of the local education authority to consider how far the proposal is a genuine one and how far it is going to be carried out. Obviously the local education authority can be trusted to use its own judgment in a matter of that kind, and it would not take account of proposals which were perfectly flimsy. The proposals would be substantial.
  Sir W. BARTON: Do I understand that under this Amendment an existing school which is fee-charging might be treated in substitution for a school to be set up under the Act?
  Mr. FISHER: No!
  Sir W. BARTON: That is not clear. With regard to existing schools, it Bays nothing about not being fee-charging.
  Mr. KING:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "efficient," to insert the words "and suitable."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "In schemes under this Act adequate provision shall be made in order to secure that

  819
  children and young persons shall not be debarred from enjoying the benefits of education through inability to pay fees."
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained this. It looks to me as if it must impose a charge upon someone. If the benefit of the education is to be had without paying fees, there must be a charge imposed upon someone. It is not in order to impose a charge now without a Resolution having been passed in Committee of Ways and Means.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Resolution already passed in Committee covers it.
  Mr. T. WILSON:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "enjoying," and to insert instead thereof the word "receiving."
  I am not certain whether we could find the word "enjoying" in many Acts of Parliament. I have not been able to find it. Therefore, I move to substitute the word "receiving."
  Mr. FISHER: I will accept that Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "of" ["benefits of education"], to insert the words "any form of," and after the word "education" to insert the words "by which they are capable of profiting."
  The last line of the Amendment would then read,
  "shall not be debarred from receiving the benefits of any form of education by which they are capable of profiting, through inability to pay fees."
  I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept this Amendment, and although I do not like the phrase "by which they are capable of profiting," I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes that limiting phrase put in. Therefore, I move it in that form and express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: Another Amendment to the proposed Amendment has been handed in, but I am afraid it will not read in the form in which it stands. It
  820
  raises the question of maintenance. There will be another opportunity later of dealing with the point.
  Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should be much obliged if the Minister of Education would tell us the effect of the Amendment. Can he tell us the additional cost which would be entailed? It is evident that it must entail some additional cost. It may be that the addition is not very great. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of people who are likely to benefit by this Amendment, and what would be the cost to the ratepayer or taxpayer?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR:If a person desires to obtain free education for his son or his daughter, will he have to sue in forma pauperis for it?
  Mr. FISHER: It is impossible to give the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) an exact figure. It is very difficult to estimate the extent to which the children of poor parents are able to benefit by secondary school education. In good times there is a considerable flow into the secondary schools, but in bad times that flow is cheeked. There has been a considerable flow of children into the schools, and that flow no doubt will be considerably augmented if the local education authorities will come forward and pay the fees. Obviously the figure will be variable. In any case, even without this Clause, the Board of Education in considering schemes submitted by local education authorities will naturally have regard to the provision of scholarships and maintenance allowances in the various schemes. Already there are free places, maintenance allowances and scholarships, although in my opinion that provision might be very beneficially increased.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR:Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised? How will they get free education in these schools?
  Mr. FISHER:At the present moment, in virtue of a Regulation which we owe to the right hon. Member for North Monmouth, there are a very considerable number of free places allotted in every secondary school which receives Government Grants. There will be no difficulty in increasing that number
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged for the explanation. Do I understand that it is within the power of the Board of Education, without this Clause, to increase the number of free places which are already granted?
  Mr. FISHER: Under Regulation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Not beyond the 25 per cent.? Then this is really an addition to the powers of the Board. If this Amendment is passed, there is nothing to prevent the Board of Education saying that the whole of the places in a secondary school shall be free. The original Amendment says that in schemes under this Act adequate provision shall be made in order to secure that children and young persons shall not be debarred from enjoying the benefits of education through inability to pay fees. Therefore the only check upon the whole of the places being free is that the parents will have to prove their inability to pay fees. It is difficult in these days to say who is able and who is not able to pay. Everybody seems to think they are not able to pay, and everybody wants something for nothing. Therefore this Clause, to that extent, does enable the Board of Education to grant free places over and above the existing limit of 25 per cent., and might enable them to give free places to everybody, always providing that the people could prove that they could not pay the fees.
  Mr. FISHER: The 25 per cent. is fixed by Regulation, and not by Statute. Therefore the Board of Education could at any moment amend the Regulation in that respect and require a higher proportion of free places in respect of any school in receipt of a Government Grant. It is always open to a local education authority to establish a new secondary school in which every place would be free. There is nothing to prevent it. All that this Amendment does is to call the attention of local education authorities to the fact that the Board of Education has a very strong interest in the provision of free places, and in considering the adequacy of schemes which are submitted to them by local education authorities that consideration will be held in view.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is a point beyond which, I think, they should not go, because it will throw an additional burden on the ratepayer or the taxpayer. On the Second Reading of the
  822
  Bill the right hon. Gentleman mentioned £10,000,000 as the estimated cost. Was this included?
  Mr. FISHER: This was not included.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: With regard to the effect of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), with the spirit of which I am in agreement, I should like to ask a question. What is to be the test and who is to be the judge of their ability to pay? It might obviously be the parents of the children or the Board of Education or the managers of the schools who would be the judges of the matter, but there is nothing in the Bill to elucidate this, and it is desirable that something more precise should be inserted either here or in some other part of the Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: In the ordinary course I take it that the local education authority would submit a scholarship scheme, and that in the conditions of obtaining the scholarship some evidence would be shown. The test might be some kind of examination. I think that we can trust the various bodies charged with the administration of education to discover whether or not children are capable of profiting by different classes of education, and I do not think that it is necessary to go very much more closely into the matter at this stage. A very large number of scholarships and free places in secondary schools are awarded at present, and in all cases some means are taken to inquire as to whether the child is capable of profiting by the instruction to which it is admitted under the free places regulations, and those requirements I believe will continue substantially.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES:I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider between now and the Report stage whether some provision could not be made with regard to children in the rural districts who live some distance away from the school. In Wales there is a large number of children of considerable mental ability who are still deprived of secondary education on account of the cost. Children in the towns, who are near the schools, can avail of the opportunities, but children living some distance away are prevented from attending secondary schools on account of the cost of travelling and maintenance during the day, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to

  823
  consider whether it would not be possible to empower the local education authorities to give either subsistence allowance or travelling expenses in such cases?
  Mr. FISHER: I will consider that.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The position is becoming clear now. I will go back to my example of the works school and we shall be able to see—
  The CHAIRMAN: We must not have the same speech on a series of Amendments. The Amendment on which we are at present simply says that provision shall be made for the children of poor parents so that they shall not be debarred from secondary education by inability to pay fees.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: If you will allow me to make my speech, no repetition will be involved. This question is complicated by the question whether the children can pay fees. My suggestion is that at the back of this scheme is a system of assisting the works school from the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' profits. These schools have got to become free. The scheme will be put before the local education committee. There will be a proposal by the manufacturers of the district to establish these schools, but they will say "we cannot establish them without payment. It is true that the present schools are run without payment, but we do not see why we should establish these schools without payment." Therefore they will be schools which will be paid for by public money in order that children may be trained for those occupations. That is what it comes to. A 20 or 25 per cent. basis is not enough. Of course, if the problem is for manufacturers to have subsidised schools or pay for schools of their own, obviously they will choose subsidised schools; and I protest against that.
  Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5.(Approval of Schemes by Board of Education.)
  (1)The Board of Education may approve any scheme (which term shall include an interim provisional or amending scheme) submitted to them under this Act by a local education authority, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the local education authority to give effect to the scheme.
  (2). If the Board of Education are of opinion that a scheme does not make adequate provision in respect of all or any of the purposes to which the scheme relates and the Board are unable to agree with the authority as to what amendments should be made in the scheme, they shall offer to hold a conference with the representatives of the authority and, if requested by the authority, shall hold a public inquiry in the matter.
  (3). If after such conference or public inquiry the Board of Education disapprove a scheme they shall notify the authority, and, if within one month thereafter an agreement is not reached, they shall lay before Parliament the report of the public inquiry (if any) together with a report stating their reasons for such disapproval and any action which they intend to take in consequence thereof by way of withholding or reducing any Grants payable to the authority.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert as a new Sub-section:
  "(1) The Board of Education shall draw up and lay upon the Table of the House a sample scheme upon which local education authorities can base the scheme to submit to the Board."
  I do not mean by this Sub-section that the Board of Education shall lay down any hard-and-fast scheme for the local education authorities to adopt, but when we are putting before the country an entirely novel scheme for secondary education for children it is certainly desirable that the Board should frame some sample schemes for country districts and town districts and mining districts, showing the lines on which this secondary education should proceed, and whether it should be given on four days in one week for a couple of hours each day, or on one whole day or on two half-days, and in what form instruction should be given in these schools. Judging local education authorities all over the country from the one which I know, I am quite sure that the Staffordshire Education Authority would wish for some outline of what the Board proposes under this Bill, and it will be of the greatest importance to members of this Committee if we also knew what the Government were proposing. We have had a great deal of sympathy from the President of the Board against excessive devotion to vocational education, and we have heard from all quarters expressions of popular sympathy with liberal education. We have had intimations that what will be taught will be English, reading, mechanics, general mathematics, and, generally speaking, the wider courses of which we have ourselves had experience. But all that would be much better impressed on the local education authorities if there were a scheme

  825
  drawn up by the Board of Education showing what the Board intend them to do.
  After all, local authorities are given a certain amount of latitude in dealing with different interests and industries in different parts of the country, but without sample schemes such as are proposed broad agreement of policy will be lacking. We know now more or less what this Bill intends for the children of the country, but the councils all over the country have not heard the speeches in this House, and have not heard the Minister of Education, and do not really grasp what is intended by this Bill. For their advantage, as well as for the homogeneity of the scheme produced and for the advantage of the children who are to be educated, it would be extremely desirable that these samples should be provided. I go so far even as to think that it would be an advantage to the Board of Education itself to set itself, on the supposition that this Bill will become law, to draft the sort of scheme it would like to see adopted by a sample county council or a borough council. I have had letters on this subject from, among others, so great an educational authority as the Dean of Lincoln, and all to whom I have spoken and from whom I have heard on the subject say that those who are to be in the position to draw up these schemes would welcome some outline scheme from the Board of Education as to what they are intended to do. I cannot think that there can be any objection to that, and I do urge the President to accept this Amendment and to say that these schemes shall be proceeded with at once.
  Mr. FISHER: I sympathise fully with the interest which my hon. and gallant Friend takes in the procedure, and I agree with him that it will be necessary for the Board of Education to co-operate with the local education authorities in the production of schemes. It is, indeed, our very full intention to do so. We intended to invite the local education authorities and their officers to co-operate with us in framing heads of their respective schemes, but I think it would be unwise and contrary to the general policy of the Bill for the Board to come forward at this moment with model schemes. What we want to do is to encourage the initiative of local authorities and to furnish the local education authorities in each area with such help as we can give. The schemes which
  826
  maybe suitable for a country district are not necessarily suitable for a town district, and what suits one town may not necessarily suit another. We desire a great deal of elasticity in the arrangements. In one district the arrangement of hours, for instance, will be quite different from what it will be in another. I imagine that when the heads of schemes are worked out they will undoubtedly include such items as the provision of buildings, domestic instruction, advanced elementary instruction, general technical schools, central schools, scholarships, maintenance allowance, medical treatment, after-care, and choice of employment. All those items will naturally figure in a normal scheme, but it is undesirable at the present moment for the Board to come forward with a particular model scheme which might be quite unsuitable to a large number of areas.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I listened with great interest and a considerable amount of sympathy to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, and I have listened to the whole of the Debate this afternoon. In reference to model schemes, I think that the Departments are only too ready to encourage the laying down of model schemes. On the practical side, I am quite certain that if, in response to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, the Board of Education were to lay down a model scheme, that model scheme would become a bone of contention all over the country, and all the local authorities would be perplexed by criticisms and counter-criticisms over that unhappy model scheme. Surely we have to learn this fact in connection with our education, that if you are to have any sound system there must be local initiative both on the part of the teacher and the local authority, and without that initiative you cannot possibly have an efficient education or an efficient school. You may have a local authority producing an inefficient school, but you cannot possibly have an efficient school without it. Do let us leave the teachers and local authorities to work out their own salvation by a little hard work and experience, and by having regard to their own circumstances and their own requirements, which they know better than anybody else. Do not let us leave, as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, this matter in the bands of Departments or

  827
  bureaucrats, who are only too ready to law down lines for schemes of education. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman has taken up the role which I usually adopt in this House, and I apparently have taken up the role which he usually adopts. But I do not support bureaucracy against local initiative, and what I want to guard against is officials of the local authority meeting together and drawing up a scheme of education about which nobody knows anything locally, and which is adopted by the Board of Education and becomes the law of the land. What I wish is that a draft of the scheme locally prepared should be published in the local papers, so that everybody who desires to know will learn what the scheme is which has been prepared by the local education authority. I want the matter to be subject to local opinion, and not that you may call it local initiative where a scheme is prepared by officials, and say what a divine institution is the British Constitution.
  Amendment negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), touches upon Section 17 of the Act of 1902, and it should come up in the form of a new Clause.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: On the point of Order. This Amendment was put down in the name of the hon. Member for Attercliffe and by myself, in identical terms, on Clause 1, and we were informed that the proper place would be Clause 5. Therefore my Amendment now appears upon the Paper. Of course it has reference to a particular scheme submitted under Clause 5, according to the general law of the land.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Clause with which we are now dealing makes provision for a scheme of education, in consultation with the local authorities, and the hon. Member should bring up his proposal in the form of a new Clause showing to which Clause, in connection with their education scheme, it is to apply. If the Amendment were introduced at this point, it would only have partial application.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "after
  828
  such conference or public inquiry," and to insert instead thereof the word "thereafter." This is purely a drafting Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of the Amendment?
  Mr. FISHER: Sub-section (3) contemplates the Board of Education disapproving of a scheme after a conference or public inquiry, and it is obvious that the words "after such conference or public inquiry" would make it necessary for a conference or an inquiry to be held. The Board of Education would be bound to offer a public inquiry, and, if that be refused, then, if these words are omitted, the Board can "thereafter" lay before Parliament a Report stating their reasons for disapproval.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely it appears in the Sub-section that there "shall be a report of the public inquiry (if any), stating the reasons for disapproval." I admit that I have not read the Clause very carefully, but I do not see what the object of the Amendment is.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): Sub-section (2) provides that the Board of Education shall offer to hold a conference with the representatives of the local authority, and, if requested by the authority, shall hold a public inquiry. It is quite possible that the offer of a conference may be declined, and also that the authority might not press for an inquiry, and therefore the words at the beginning of Sub-section (3), "after such conference or public inquiry," would not apply, if no conference or inquiry had been held, and "thereafter" it would be a matter for the Board of Education to notify the authority.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member (Mr. Rawlinson), is one which I am unable to accept in the form in which it stands. It is too indefinite altogether, and I do not know what it means. The Amendment must be brought forward in a definite form. The same applies to the Amendment which follows, in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Major HILLS: I see by Sub-section (3; of the Clause that in the event of the local authority and the Board of Education disagreeing about a scheme the Board are enabled to report to Parliament upon any action that they may have taken. I would like to know in what form that Report is going to be laid before Parliament, and what opportunity this House will have of passing its opinion upon that Report? Unless some opportunity is given the House to consider the Report of the Board, I do not see much reason for laying it before Parliament.
  Mr. LEWIS: The object of the Report is to inform Parliament as to the action taken in regard to any scheme; and as regards the form in which the Report is made, that, of course, will depend very largely upon its substance, but the only object is that Parliament shall be fully informed about the matter. In regard to details, I would point out that it would neither be profitable to Parliament nor to education that such details should be discussed.
  Major HILLS: Are we to understand that no action will be taken on such a Report when laid before Parliament?
  Mr. LEWIS: The usual course of action would; be open to the House, namely, to move the reduction of the Estimate, and the reduction to be carried.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I hardly think that is a satisfactory answer in regard to the power to revise any action that may have been taken. The point of greater substance is that the Board of Education ask the local authority to have a public inquiry, and the local authority say, "We are not going to do what you want us to do." Who is to decide between the Board and the local authority? I submit there should be a Committee of the House, or some tribunal, to decide the matter between the central and the local authorities. As I understand, the Board of Education is absolutely supreme, and all the speeches we have heard about local initiative really come to nothing. If the local authority refuse to have an inquiry, then there should be an independent tribunal to decide whether the Board of Education or the local authority is right or wrong. The explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary is extraordinarily good from the Parliamentary point of view, but do any of us understand what this provi-
  830
  sion means? According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the position is that Parliament is to be informed. Is Parliament really to be the judge between the Board of Education and the local authority? I am anxious that some other tribunal, or Committee of the House of Commons, should deal as between the Board of Education and the local authority; at any rate, something of that kind is highly desirable. Summarised, the case stands thus: The local education authority brings up a scheme, and the Board of Education disapproves of it, and asks for a public inquiry. The local education authority stick out against that inquiry, and the Board of Education still disapproves the scheme. The only result is that the Board is bound to take action under this Clause, and report upon that action to Parliament. They report upon their action, or, again, they need not take action: so what is the meaning of the provision? If it merely means that the Board are to present a Report to the House of Commons, then I submit that there should be some tribunal to decide between the Board and the local education authority.
  Mr. FISHER: The hon. and learned Member is more royalist than the King. Clause 4 and Clause 5 are agreed Clauses as between the Board of Education and local education authorities. Discussion went on for several months very carefully, and every word of this Clause was agreed upon. The local education authority is perfectly satisfied with the arrangement that is now proposed, and I submit that under this arrangement the local education authority have a very much more complete guarantee than they have now that their schemes shall be carefully and deliberately examined by the Board. After all, a public inquiry has been held, and I think it would be very undesirable if the responsibility of the President of the Board to this House were in any way weakened or diluted by the establishment of a Committee. I feel the President ought to be responsible for the policy of the Board, and especially when such a point is raised as a diminution of Grant, a step that is only taken as a last resort in a case of proved and established inadequacy of provision, and I feel that in producing a Report after public inquiry, and in submitting that Report to Parliament we are meeting the case
  Sir G. REID:Is there any limit of time within which the Reports are to be laid before Parliament?
  Mr. FISHER: No. Every security is given.
  Sir D. GODDARD: The Under-Secretary has said that we shall have the usual opportunity of discussing it on the Vote for Education or on the Adjournment. Suppose, after this Report is made, a Vote for Education does not come up. That opportunity is lost. The Adjournment is a very uncertain question. I do not know if I am right, but I have the impression that when a Report is laid on the Table in this way it can only be raised after 11 o'clock at night. You will see, therefore, if you look at these means of raising the subject matter of the Report they are exceedingly limited, and I think you can only conclude that the opportunity is a very slight one indeed.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I think I can go a step further. To get a Division on the question, whether a Report should be accepted, is a matter of even greater difficulty. It has to be moved "That this House doth disagree." The very unusual phraseology of the Bill is that they shall report to Parliament. I do not know any precedent, though my right hon. Friend may have many in his mind. I should like to know what discussion he thinks there will be and what chance we have to divide on this. I rather gathered he did not mean the House to have that power. I gathered him to say he wished the Board of Education to have complete power, and he did not intend the House to have power to divide on whether the Report should be accepted or not. I do not know in the least what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to when he says that all the local authorities were content with this Clause. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is a red rag to me to be told that the House of Commons should give up its power on something which occurs when I was not present, whether some education authority was there or not. The House of Commons is fighting for its rights in a most vital way, and when the head of a Department says, "It is all right, the thing has been settled, do not exercise your own judgment upon it," I think the House of Commons is giving away something very vital which will affect those who come after us. Some of us may not be here much longer. It is an
  832
  easy way of giving away the rights of the House of Commons. The question is, Are we satisfied? If we are, it is all right. As to being more royalist than the King, I should like to say where I got this Resolution from. I got it from the Teachers' Registration Council, and it is not likely that they would take alarm on a question like this unless there were something in it. If we are the people dissatisfied and wish an Amendment moved, I do protest against giving away our rights because the local education authority is satisfied. Let us come to the simple point here. Does the President of the Board of Education mean to press the point he made in his answer to me, that he thought it would be a pity the responsibility of the President of the Board of Education should be whittled away by having to submit the question to this House.
  Mr. FISHER:I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand me. I did not mean to intimate that the House of Commons should not be perfectly free to divide on the Report. Of course it will be free to divide on the Report.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that point, but what does it come to? Is it a real offer you are making us or not? Anybody who has been in the House so long a time as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir D. Goddard) knows it is absolutely impossible. An hon. Member who has not been here as long as I have will probably find in the Green Book the way it is to be done. But the hon. Member knows how difficult it is even in a properly drawn Act to raise a question after eleven o'clock on an Order which stands on the Table at any particular moment. It is so difficult as to be almost impossible. That is why it is much better, if possible, that Parliament should delegate its power to some other tribunal in cases where it can be done. It is a small point, but I do think it is important we should be satisfied ourselves.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I think there is no doubt whatever about the procedure referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. If you intend to have an opportunity of discussing a Report or any scheme laid before the House, the formula in an Act of Parliament is contained in this: it states that the Report or scheme shall be

  833
  laid on the Table of the House, and unless objection shall be taken by the House within thirty days or two months, it shall have effect. That course is not followed here, and therefore you could not possibly raise an objection in the same way as you could under the Clause of an Act which referred to the laying of a Report on the Table of the House. That may be right or it may be wrong, and the President may be quite right in maintaining his point. But as to the fact of procedure, it raises no doubt in my mind whatever. We have to deal with these things over and over again, and we know what schemes are open to discussion and what are not. If a scheme is on the Table of the House and has to lie there, you can raise discussion after eleven o'clock and go on. Of course an Adjournment Motion, we know, comes to an automatic ending at a certain hour. There is another question under this Clause I would like to put to the President of the Board of Education, and it is of more material importance. Under this Clause, if the Board of Education fails to come to an agreement, it has to lay the Report before Parliament, stating any action which it intends to take. Action of what sort? Merely in the way of withholding or reducing Grants that are payable? But the whole scheme falls to the ground. Are you not going to take power to establish an alternative scheme? Is your alternative to be that if you cannot corns to an agreement all you are to do is to fine the local authority by depriving it of its Grant, and the poor locality is to go without a scheme all together? Surely the President must take power of substituting a new scheme, so that the whole locality should not be entirely deprived of the benefit of any scheme at all. All you can do is to lay a Report on action of a strictly limited kind, withholding or reducing the Grant. You have not the power of substituting a new scheme, and that is what I want the President to tell us: Is he going to leave the scheme simply floating in the air or take power to float a new scheme?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the procedure in this case will not mean that the Report will be laid on the Table of the House?
  Sir H. CRAIK: No.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: "Will be laid before Parliament." Is it to be laid on the Table of the House? If it is not, in
  834
  what way can the question be discussed? So far as my recollection goes, the only way you can discuss it would be by private Member's Motion, and the only chance of getting a discussion would be by obtaining time for a private Member's Motion, The chances in a crowded Session are practically nil, and therefore the chances of the House discussing and expressing an opinion on a Report so laid amounts to nothing at all. I am sure something more than that must be passing through the mind of my right hon. Friend, and if he can give the House some assurance that the Report so laid will be discussed, he will find it necessary to amend his Bill when he comes to the Report stage.
  Sir J. YOXALL: I think there is a confusion between two methods. Those documents which are laid on the Table for thirty days or two months arc documents which, at the end of that period, have the power of a Statute, and it is necessary to provide means of challenging those documents and preventing them having the force of law. The question now before the House is that in any case—not one in a year, or perhaps not one in five years even, judging from past experience—where there may be a dispute between the Board of Education and the local authority on a comparatively small point, in order that the Board of Education — an arbitrary Board of Education—in the future might not use this particular Clause in an offensive way, it is provided that the Report of the inquiry, if there has been one—I suppose a verbatim Report of the evidence and the judgment of the person holding the inquiry who is usually distinguished by discernment and legal knowledge—should be placed before this House, and there should be a notification of the intention of the Board of Education to withhold part or the whole of the Grant payable to the particular authority unless it assents to the terms of the agreement. I imagine that is the idea. I imagine that is the argument which satisfied the Board of Education on the one hand and the local education authority on the other.
  These are two very different things; in the one place you table a Parliamentary Paper, which, at the end of one month or two months, is given statutory effect; in the other case you have a Report merely dealing with a dispute between a local

  835
  authority and the Board of Education on a small point. I do not agree that these are matters in regard to which special opportunity should be given for Debates in this House. I have heard many Debates raised here regarding disputes between the Board of Education and local education authorities, questions as to the treatment of certain Church of England schools, and also with regard to the treatment of Roman Catholic schools. I suggest there are plenty of opportunities for raising these questions; it can be done at Question time or on the Motion for the Adjournment; there are, in fact, ample opportunities. This is a proposal to apply to the Board of Education a method of procedure different from that which is applied to any other Government Department, and why should special opportunities be afforded by this House for the discussion of disputes of this nature? It is not done in the case of the Local Government Board when it has a dispute with some town council, and I do not understand why disputes, small in themselves and very unlikely to occur, should be treated in a manner differently from that in which disputes between other Government Department sand local authorities are treated—simply because the Board of Education says, "We will report to the House what we propose to do in this particular case, so that the House may have some greater chance of discussing the matter than would be afforded if the dispute arose in connection with some other Government Department." While I am anxious to retain the full rights of this House, I submit we should be able to use them without committing the whole work of the Board of Education to the control of anybody in the way suggested as a result of a dispute between some small education authority and the Board.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There is one point I would like to mention, as it may help to remove the difficulty which has arisen in the minds of some hon. Members. This discussion is as to the action to be taken in this House when a disagreement has occurred which it has not been possible to bridge over. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Glasgow University (Sir Henry Craik) has suggested, I think erroneously, that it is not in the power of the Board of Education to compose such a difference of opinion by
  836
  submitting an alternative scheme. I am suggesting that when a conference takes place between the Department and the local education authority it will, of course, be open to the Department to submit to the local education authority an alternative scheme that would be acceptable to the Board. This is a very important point, as it would greatly reduce the number of cases likely to come to this House on Report. I desire to associate myself generally with the remarks which fell from the last speaker (Sir J. Yoxall).
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) has raised a very important point as regards the action of the Board of Education in cases where no agreement has been reached. He has suggested that the only course open to the Board of Education is to withhold the Grant payable to the authority. That would be a very serious matter, because it would mean that all the schools under the authority would be penalised because of the failure to reach an agreement. I take it that that is the only course really open to the Board. Suppose the Board were to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend and to say, "Very well, we have proposed an Amendment to your scheme to which you are unable to agree, we have had a conference with your authority, and have instituted a public inquiry, and, notwithstanding all these efforts on our part, no agreement has been reached; therefore we have decided that the local authority shall adopt the particular scheme which we have drawn up." Suppose, if agreement is not reached, the local authority still refuses to adopt the scheme, what will happen? Surely under these circumstances the Board of Education can do nothing other than penalise the authority by fining it. I quite admit that these are cases which are very unlikely to arise, but I would suggest that, having regard to the fact that this power can only come into operation by disagreement having arisen between the local authority and the Board, after an inquiry has been held and after the representatives of the authority have had full opportunity of discussing the question, then some consideration should be given to the views put forward by the local authority. I earnestly appeal to the President of the Board of Education to undertake to reconsider this question before the Report stage is reached, because there is now

  837
  no one who is in a position to suggest an alternative proposal to meet what many of us feel to be a real difficulty.
  Mr. FISHER: I find myself in entire agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall). The object of this procedure is to secure publicity. That is the sole object. It is to enable Parliament to know when the President of the Board, in the exercise of his admitted responsibility, has taken the grave step of reducing or disallowing a Grant to the local education authority. We feel that Parliament should know when that is done in order that, if necessary, it may be discussed here either on the Motion for Adjournment or on the Estimates, or by way of question and answer, or, as I am also reminded, on the Appropriation Bill. There are, indeed, many opportunities on which action taken by the Board of Education in withholding or reducing a Grant can be discussed. I wish the Committee to realise that the action of the Board in providing opportunity for criticism constitutes a step which has not been taken by any other administrative Department in regard to the exercise of its ordinary powers of administration. It is not, therefore, entirely fair to speak as if this Board were attempting to deny to Parliament rights of criticism which are enjoyed in connection with the administrative powers of other Departments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) has asked a very important question. He has asked what would happen in the case of disagreement between the Board and the local education authority? He seemed to assume it would be a question between a scheme on the one hand and no scheme on the other.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Before you took action in the way of withholding the Grant.
  Mr. FISHER:Yes. What would happen would be this, the local authority would submit a scheme which the Board would say was not adequate. There would be a conference and possibly a public inquiry. Assume that at the end of the inquiry the Board still considered the scheme to be inadequate, it would then take action to either reduce or withhold the Grant, and the intention to do so would be communicated to Parliament. But the authority would go on with its scheme, and even if the Board of Education had power under this Clause to substitute another scheme
  838
  it would have no power to compel the local education authority to carry out the scheme which it had approved. The relationship between the two parties is defined in this Clause, which I hope the Committee will allow to stand.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that some of the confusion in the mind of the Committee is due to a remark he himself made to the effect that Parliament would have the charge of the Vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat misled us by that. Although it may be true that there are opportunities for discussion of these matters in various ways it is not always convenient to deal with one question in isolation. The right hon. Gentleman himself is receiving from most Members of this House very cordial support in regard to his education policy—support more cordial perhaps than his predecessors have received, and this for very obvious reasons. It would, therefore, ill become any of us to put down an Amendment to reduce his salary by £100 when we arc in full agreement with his general educational policy merely because we do not approve of his decision in an individual case. There is also a great deal of difference between a report of this kind and a report which might be made by another Government Department. Other Government Departments—the Local Government Board, for instance, has been mentioned—have not the wide powers which are entrusted to the Board of Education with respect to finance, and they have not the power to withhold from a body; large or small, any Parliamentary Grant. That, therefore, places the administrative functions exercised by the Board of Education in a very different category from the administrative functions exercised by the Local Government Board and other Departments. That is not the only question. There are other questions, such as the educational condition of a district, which may give rise to discussion, and I would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, not desiring at this moment to make further inroads on his administrative functions by way of the delegation of his authority to Parliament, that he should, between now and the Report stage, consider what is obviously desired in many quarters of the House, some slight modification of the wording of the Clause by which the opportunity to bring these matters before Parliament should be put in clearer form than is now apparent from the present drafting of the Bill.
  Mr. FISHER: I should be very glad to consider that.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  EDUCATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Co-operation and Combination.)
    (1)For the purpose of performing any duty or exercising any power under the Education Acts a council having powers under those Acts may enter into such arrangements as they think proper for co-operation or combination with any other council or councils having those powers, and any such arrangement may provide for the appointment of a joint committee or a joint body of managers, for the delegation to that committee or body of managers of any powers or duties of the councils (other than the power of raising a rate or borrowing money), for the proportion of contributions to be paid by each council, and for any other matters which appear necessary for carrying out the arrangements.
    (2)The Board of Education may, on the application of two or more councils having powers under the Education Acts, by scheme provide for the establishment and (if thought fit) the incorporation of a federation for such purposes of any such arrangements as aforesaid as may be specified in the scheme as being purposes relating to matters of common interest concerning education which it is necessary or convenient to consider in relation to areas larger than those of individual education authorities, and the powers conferred on councils by this Section shall include power to arrange for the performance of any educational or administrative functions by such a federation as if it were a joint committee or a joint body of managers.
    (3)A scheme made by the Board of Education constituting a federation and an arrangement establishing a joint committee or a joint body of managers shall provide for the appointment of at least two-thirds of the members by councils having powers under the Education Acts, and may provide either directly or by co-optation for the inclusion of persons of experience in education and of representatives of universities or other bodies.
    (4)A scheme constituting a federation may on the application of one or more of the councils concerned be modified or repealed by a further scheme, and where a scheme provides for the discontinuance of a federation provision may be made for dealing with any property or liabilities of the federation.
    (5)Where any arrangement under this Section provides for the payment of an annual contribution by one council to another, the contribution shall, for the purposes of Section nineteen of the Education Act, 1902, form part of the security on which money may be borrowed under that Section.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Acts" ["power under the Education Acts"], to insert the words "the Education Committee of."
    5.0 P.M.
    We now come to a Clause of an entirely different nature. It provides that one authority may co-operate with another
    840
    authority. This, of course, is a very desirable thing. We all know localities, certain districts, say, on the borderland of two counties, where it is very desirable that there should be co-operation. The general object of this Clause is one of which I am entirely in favour, but this provides not only for co-operation but also for combination. What it means by a council combining with another council I do not know. The phrase is, I think, a new one in this connection, but even if it is not a new one it ought to be considered in view of the history of these proposals. In the original Bill which we had last Session it was quite clear that the words were, if not a determination, at any rate an opportunity for abolishing certain of the smaller local authorities, eliminating them practically, and handing over their work to the higher and larger authorities. It is a very intelligible course for the Board of Education to advocate. They have probably too many authorities with which they deal, and a very natural tendency must arise in the office and certain quarters towards abolishing certain of the minor local authorities. But that determination or object to abolish smaller authorities evidently was not favoured by local authorities, and we find that a considerable modification is embodied in the Bill as we now have it. This ought to give us ground for suspicion. I want to see co-operation between the different authorities, but I do not want to see the local educational authorities co-operating with other local education authorities to the exclusion of the actual persons who are directing the work, namely, the education committees. After all, the education committee of a county or a borough is in a different position from that of a public health committee or a housing committee. It is established under a scheme, and has a statutory and official position different from that of an ordinary committee of a county or county borough. I want to see the co-operation established between these various education committees, and not necessarily the councils which are the local education authorities. I have several Amendments down, which form a series and follow one on the other, but the first I have to move would be to substitute for "council" the expression "an education committee of a council." Then later on I should propose to leave the opportunities for co-operation quite vague by eliminating a large

    841
    part of this first Sub-section, leaving in the first Sub-section the provision for co-operation not a power of one council or local education authority to enter into co-operation with another—which may mean, and was originally, I believe, intended to mean, the elimination of certain authorities—but to provide for amicable and quite voluntary co-operation between the actual committees which are working out these problems and administering our law. I want to see the education committees, not the education councils, voluntarily co-operating with one another in the working of this Act.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to me. I do not quite follow his speech in connection with his Amendment. The Amendment, as I understand it, is practically to substitute for the word "council" the education committee of the council, and to put it entirely on the education committee of the council.
    Mr. KING: That is the first Amendment. I think it is in order. It is quite clear that it means that the education committee of a council would have the powers under this Clause, and not the council itself.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That follows, surely?
    Mr. KING: It does not at all follow.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then if the hon. Gentleman moves this Amendment, he really must distinguish, and show to me that, instead of council, he means the education committee to the exclusion of the council. Then I can understand him, but I have not yet been quite able to follow what he really means.
    Mr. KING: With due respect to you, Sir Donald Maclean, I would say that I think the people on the Treasury Bench do understand what I am aiming at; and though I always address my remarks to the Chair, and desire to illuminate the Chair as much as possible, may I respectfully say that I desire much more to have both the attention and the understanding of the Treasury Bench than even of the Chair? I say that with great respect.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have nothing whatever to do with the merits. The merits of the question are entirely outside my province, but I have
    842
    to define as well as I can what is within the limits of order and relevancy, as far as I understand relevancy. It is because of that, and only because of that, that I ask the hon. Gentleman to make his remarks to my mind—he has to convince me on that point—really relevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I shall submit the point in as few words as possible. I want to see co-operation. I do not want to see the education committees eliminated, or possibly eliminated, by the councils. The education committees are set up under schemes under the Statute. They are, therefore, a distinct entity which may be regarded for the purposes of this Act as the subjects of legislation.
    Mr. LEWIS: I think I clearly understand my hon. Friend's object. It is to enable not councils to combine, but the education committees of such councils. He desires that they should have an independent power of entering into arrangements with other education committees without the sanction of the council by whom they have been appointed. [MR. KING: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend must allow me to characterise that as a most extraordinary proposal. It has absolutely no precedent of any kind in legislation, and I venture to say it is absolutely contrary to all the principles of local government. I would ask my hon. Friend just to imagine one result which would follow. It would enable, for example, two education committees to decide what powers a council should give to a joint board, and what contribution the council should make out of the rates to the expenses of a joint-board. It is perfectly obvious that local education authorities would never look at a proposal of that kind. I think that if we were to put it to the local education authorities of the country we would find that not a single one of them would be prepared to support a proposal of that character. I hope my hon. Friend will realise that it is one which we cannot, in the circumstances, accept.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "may" ["may provide either directly"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This Clause deals with the provision for co-operation and combination for the providing of schemes whereby there can be

    843
    federations and joint committees, and it is stated in regard to this that they may provide, either directly or by co-option, for the inclusion of persons of experience in education and of representatives of universities or other bodies. The purpose of my Amendment is to make this provision more definite. If it is good that these persons should be represented on these federations and joint committees, then, I think, it is well that we should make it certain that they will be represented, and that is really the purpose of the Amendment that I move. I do not know quite who would be included, and perhaps we may have some guidance from the Minister of Education as to who would be included as persons of experience in education, and who would be included as representatives of universities or other bodies. "Other bodies" is a very wide term, and it might be well that we should know definitely from the President of the Board as to who would be included under that category. I take it, for example, that teachers and representatives of teachers would be eligible—and the President agrees with this—to go on under the term "other bodies" It is really of the teachers that I am thinking. I think there ought to be in regard to these federations and joint committees representatives of teachers, and I think that this ought not to be a matter of chance, but that it ought to be certain that the teachers are going to be accepted on these committees and are going to give the benefit of their advice. I think that we have been trying on various Clauses to get this principle affirmed. For my own part, I think there is great necessity for carrying teachers with us in regard to these various schemes, and that more important even than the question of increasing the salary of teachers, important though that is, is the matter of increasing the status of the teachers and giving them a proper place in regard to education. They have special knowledge and special experience, and they will bring a special standpoint of their own to bear in regard to these various educational schemes.
    Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. The subject of debate now apparently is the inclusion of teachers in these bodies. Will there be a second debate on this on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) at the end of this Sub-section, where it is specially raised?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we will wait until we get to that, and then we will deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am quite in order, for this reason: that the President of the Board of Education admits that the expression "other bodies" includes teachers, and therefore I am arguing, in moving the word "shall" as against the word "may" that they shall be equitably included in these various schemes. I believe that the definite inclusion of these teachers, not as matter of privilege but as a matter of right, will help to interest teachers, and will help to make these various educational schemes a success. We know by means of Whitley Reports that this principle of joint working is receiving very wide endorsement, and I am quite sure that if the President could see his way to accept this Amendment, and give teachers and others who have a real interest in education a definite standing on these federations, he would be going a very long way to make his scheme a success.
    Mr. FISHER: I think that, perhaps, the hon. Member rather overlooked the very diverse purposes for which these joint bodies may be constituted. A joint body may be constituted, for instance, for the sole purpose of conducting one public elementary school, and in that case he would agree with me, I think, that it would be inappropriate to have a statutory requirement that such a joint body should contain representatives of universities. The number of purposes for which it may be desirable for authorities to combine are considerable. Authorities, for instance, might combine for scholarships. They might combine for continuation schools. They might combine in order to establish a school for defectives, in which case it is much more important to have doctors than teachers. Consequently I think it would be better to preserve the Clause in its present shape, which gives a sufficient degree of elasticity; but I greatly sympathise with the observations which fell from the hon. Member with reference to the desirability of securing the co-operation of teachers on such bodies, and I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall), which comes a little later.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Sir J. Yoxall), I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "of" ["for the inclusion of persons"], to insert the words "teachers or other."
    I understand that the President of the Board of Education is prepared to accept this, and I therefore formally move it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(Provision as to Amount of Expenditure for Education.)
    The limit under Section two of the Education Act, 1902, on the amount to be raised by the council of a county out of rates for the purpose of education other than elementary shall cease to have effect.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8.—(Provisions as to Compulsory Attendance at Elementary Schools.)
    (1) Subject as provided in this Act no exemption from attendance at school shall be granted to any child between the ages of five and fourteen years, and any enactment giving a power, or imposing a duty, to provide for any such exemption and any provision of a by-law providing for any such exemption, shall cease to have effect, without prejudice to any exemptions already granted. Any by-law which names a lower age than fourteen as the age up to which a parent shall cause his child to attend school shall have effect as if the age of fourteen were substituted for that lower age.
    (2) In Section seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by Section six of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, fifteen years shall be substituted for fourteen years as the maximum age up to which by-laws relating to school attendance may require parents to cause their children to attend school, and any such by-law requiring attendance at school of children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen may apply either generally to all such children or to children of a particular sex, or to children other than those employed in any specified occupations:
    Provided that it shall be lawful for a local education authority to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to individual children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen for such time and upon such conditions as the authority think fit in any ease where after due inquiry the circumstances seem to justify such an exemption.
    (3) The question whether a child, who is not attending a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient, is under efficient instruction within the meaning of the Education Acts, or any by-laws relating to school attendance made there under, shall be determined by the local education authority, or, in the case of a child attending a school or educational institution which the Board of Education or the local education authority are enabled to inspect, if the parent of the child so desires, by the Board of Education, and any such determination shall be final and conclusive.
    (4)A local education authority may with the approval of the Board of Education make a by law under Section seventy-four of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, providing that parents shall not be required to cause their children to attend school or to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic before the ago of six years:
    Provided that in considering any such by-law the Board shall have regard to the adequacy of the provision of nursery schools for the area to which the by-law relates, and shall if requested by any ten parents of children attending public elementary schools for that area hold a public inquiry for the purpose of determining whether the by-law should be approved.
    (5)The power of a local education authority under Section seven of the Education Act, 1902, to give directions as to secular instruction shall include the power to direct that any child in attendance at a public elementary school shall attend during such hours as may be directed by the authority at any class, whether conducted on the school premises or not, for the purpose of practical or special instruction or demonstration, and attendance at such a class shall, where the local education authority so direct, be deemed, for the purpose of any enactment or by-law relating to school attendance, to be attendance at a public elementary school:
    Provided that if by reason of any such direction a child is prevented on any day from receiving religious instruction in the school at the ordinary time mentioned in the time-table reasonable facilities shall be afforded for enabling such child to receive religious instruction in the school at some other time.
    (6) In Section eleven of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, (which relates to school attendance) for the words "there is not within two miles" there shall be substituted the words "there is not within such distance as may be prescribed by the by-laws"
    (7) Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Acts, 1899 to 1914, relating to the attendance at school of the children to whom those Acts apply.
    Sir F. BAN BURY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1)
    The effect of this Sub-section would be that children under fourteen could not give any—shall I call it temporary—assistance either to their parents or to employers, as they are able to do at the present moment. Whether or not this is advisable after the War I do not know. I am inclined to think myself it is not, but that is a matter of opinion on which there might be considerable difference. But, in view of the great shortage of labour at the present moment, to introduce a Sub-section to this effect is, I maintain, a very great mistake. There is a very useful work being done, especially in the country districts, by boys of thirteen or fourteen, who at odd times can give

    847
    assistance—and very valuable assistance— to farmers, and, as I understand it, the result of this Sub-section will be to prevent anything of the kind.
    Mr. FISHER: It is not proposed to carry this into operation during the War.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, but is there anything in the Bill which says that?
    Mr. FISHER: Clause 45 will give power.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But it is only within the option of the Board of Education.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not mind giving my right hon. Friend an undertaking.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not casting any doubt upon the undertaking of my right hon. Friend—I am sure he will acquit me of any such desire—but it must be remembered that we may not always have the good fortune of having him President of the Board of Education, and another President may take a different view. I am rather glad of the interruption on the part of my right hon. Friend, because only yesterday I received a letter from a firm of solicitors concerning a question which has been in the Courts of Law, and which turns entirely upon a statement of a Minister — a member of the present Government—in a debate last year on a question raised by myself. It was held in court that you must not allude to any undertaking given in Parliament. Under these circumstances, I think it is absolutely necessary that we should go a little bit further than an undertaking, and, at any rate, have words put either into this Clause or into Clause 45. That Clause says:
    "This Act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day as the Board of Education may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act."
    I think that is much too vague, and, personally, I would much rather have this Sub-section left out altogether, but I do not know whether I shall get any support in Committee for it. I think I shall move the omission for the sake of getting an explanation from the Minister, as I think I should be prepared to accept an Amendment further on, or at the end of the Subsection, providing that this Clause shall not be brought into operation during the continuance of the War. If my right hon.
    848
    Friend will give some undertaking that he will put in words of that sort—and I would prefer them now to on Report—possibly I shall be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. FISHER: I will consider the point which my right hon. Friend raised, to see whether I cannot put something into the actual face of the Bill which will make it clear what is the intention of the Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point I am most anxious about is that the age should not be made compulsory up to fourteen until they have got the provision for giving the children proper and efficient education up to that age. We all know at the present time the education which the clever children get in the last year or two of their school time is lamentably inefficient. They practically waste their time during the last years of school at the present time, because no provision is made by most of the educational authorities for any advanced education for the cleverer children. For the last year they stay at school, instead of at home, reading or otherwise wasting their time. If that is simply to be extended now to all the children over the age of twelve, who at present can get back home and get to work, then you are not doing anything for education; you are merely harassing the parents of the children. I do not think Members of this House realise what this Bill is going to mean to most of the poor parents of the country. With the present high price of living, they have their time cut out to make both ends meet. Anyhow, they are more dependent than they were upon the earnings of the children. The wages of these children are much higher. If you are going to raise the age to fourteen everywhere, and at the same time not provide more efficient education, you are committing not only a piece of interference with the whole life of these children, which is uncalled for, but you are pretending to provide an education which you know perfectly well the local education authorities are incapable of giving. In the first place, they have not teachers enough to train these children, and, in the second place, if they had the teachers, the education authorities are not willing in most parts of the country, and, particularly in the rural areas—they are not capable of giving the children this better higher education that is contemplated under the Bill. We are pretending to ourselves, and pretending to the country, that we are

    849
    really making a great educational reform, and, at the same time, we are merely providing machinery of coercion which in itself cannot produce better education. I therefore support my right hon. Friend opposite in his opposition to the compulsory raising of the school age.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Would my right hon. Friend the President now consider whether we could not add words achieving the object suggested? This could be very easily done if the words were put at the end of the Sub-section. I would much rather have it done now than later, because one does not know when the Report stage is coming, and these matters are apt to be forgotten. Very simple words would meet the case. They should provide that this Clause should not come into operation until the end of the War. If the words were put in now we should have the opportunity of considering them in the interval, and they could either be withdrawn or altered. I do not much like putting off these matters.
    Mr. FISHER: I would point out that the matter can come up on Clause 45.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD: At the end of Sub-section (1) insert the words,
    "Provided nevertheless that this provision shall not have effect until after the provisions required under Section two shall have been made, and the facilities for education are available."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes more properly at the end of Clause 45, Sub-section (3)—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not want to dispute your ruling, Sir Donald, but it seems to me that this is the proper place for a proviso dealing with a possible alteration of this Clause. This portion of the Sub-section says that certain education shall be compulsory, and I wish to say, "Provided that this provision shall not have effect until after the provisions required under Section 2 shall have been made."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have some doubt about the matter, so perhaps I had better give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the benefit of it, and allow him to move his Amendment
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "Provided nevertheless that this provision shall not have effect until after the provisions required under Section two shall have been made, and the facilities for education are available."
    Obviously no part of this Bill can be brought into operation until after the end of the War.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have no guarantee about that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have no guarantee, that is true; but I think it is generally so understood. What I am anxious for is that even after the War we shall not have this raising of the school age, because we shall not have the teachers or the curriculum prepared. If it is—as it surely must be—the intention of the Education Minister, not that he should have his compulsory powers, and then get his teachers, but that he should have his teachers first, then I think he might accept this Amendment. However, T will not press it unless the President says that he will agree to it.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I inquire whether this discussion will in any way prejudice an Amendment which I have a little later, to leave out the words "between the ages of fourteen and fifteen"?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think we ought to have some statement from the Education Minister on the point I put: What is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not see my way to accept this Amendment as it stands. Of course it is quite obvious that the local authorities will have to consider the matter before the preparation of an adequate standard of instruction and higher education as projected. But it must be remembered that this Clause does not impose any new obligation. The existing obligation is that children should be educated up to the age of fourteen. What the Clause does is to abolish two classes of exemptions—half-time and partial exemption.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This Sub-section increases the age from fourteen to fifteen at which children shall

    851
    be compelled to attend the elementary schools. The local education authority can force them to attend if they think well. There is perhaps no obligation on the part of the education authority to do so, but if they think it necessary they can do so. That is how I understand the Clause, and I gather that my right hon. Friend so far agrees. It is pretty certain to my mind that a majority of education authorities will consider it necessary.
    Mr. FISHER: The majority of the education authorities may not consider it necessary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then why put in this Sub-section? Why put it in, if it apparently is not to have any effect? By omitting it you shorten discussion. I think this Sub-section is a great mistake. I venture to disagree from the Minister for Education in thinking that the majority of education authorities will not enforce these powers. I think they will. They may not just at first, but as time goes on they are quite certain to say that all children must attend the elementary schools up to the age of fifteen. Is that wise? Is it wise in the interests of the children? At the present time boys and girls leave school at the age of fifteen. In the case, especially of the boys, they are enabled to learn a trade which is not only useful to them in after life, but is extremely useful to the country. After the War, when the male population will unfortunately have been very much diminished owing to the loss of life on the battlefield, it will be absolutely necessary that we should have all available labour, if we are to recover our position in the commercial world and in the agricultural world. To me this is one of the most inopportune times to say that for the future boys of fourteen are not to be able to go and learn a trade or assist in earning their own living as they have done in the past. No one knows what the actual condition of matters will be after the War. There may be very great distress. I trust not. There is certain to be a very great shortage of labour. I fail to see one advantage to be gained by compelling the majority of children to stay on at school after they are fourteen. There may be something to be said, where you have an exceptionally clever child, who shows an aptitude for learning, why such a child should continue, for he would perhaps gain by staying on. I do not, however,
    852
    think that that applies to the average of the children, and I really do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to leave out this Sub-section. After all, this age has been in force for a great number of years, and before it is increased I should like to have some really cogent arguments in favour of the increase. Secondary schools are to be improved. Facilities are to be given to school children to attend secondary schools. It does, therefore, seem to me that, under the circumstances, the raising of the age from fourteen to fifteen is quite unnecessary. It is still more unnecessary if, as my right hon. Friend says, the majority of education authorities are not going to enforce it. I trust, therefore, on this particular Amendment I shall have some support from all sections of the House.
    Sir J. D. REES: I should like to appeal to the Minister for Education to consider the argument of the right hon. Baronet opposite. It seems to me to be quite clear that not a few of the education. authorities will immediately avail themselves of the permission given to them in the Bill. I never knew a taxing authority that in a case of the kind did not avail themselves of their powers, and I do not think that any education authority is going to be more modest. All educationists—I daresay greatly to their credit! —are enthusiasts, and I really believe that this Sub-section will be carried out in the manner suggested by my right hon. Friend opposite. What will be the result? I myself, and I dare say other hon. Members of this House, have received a memorial from the news agencies who say they will not be able to carry on if they are deprived of the services of boys up to the age of fifteen. There is the age, too, represented in the Amendment which I have mentioned, and there are the children who work on the films to whom some consideration should be given. This provision seems to me to be a drastic one. I most heartily agree with the right hon. Baronet that, whether it be good or bad, this is not the time for dealing with this age question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not agree with either of the last two speakers, but I do wish that this Sub-section should be left out. We have no mandate whatever to raise the school age to fifteen. Some of us will probably lose our seats if this thing is passed. Members of local authorities will, I think, inevitably lose their

    853
    seats too. Anyone who knows anything of working-class feeling on this question knows that this suggestion of raising the compulsory school age to fifteen is going to meet with very strong opposition from the voters and parents of this country—and I think quite rightly so. They do not see such success attending the teaching in the elementary schools that they are very anxious to see that education extended for a further period. If the teaching of the school improves still more, if they get a subsistence allowance to enable them to keep their children at school without going short time, then you may find enthusiasm for education and get a really satisfactory education, but as long as they are dependent upon the earnings of their children you will not find elected representatives too anxious to raise the school age which will prevent the children of the electors from earning money. I doubt whether there is in the whole of England a single authority where the proposal to raise the age to fourteen or fifteen would get more than a handful of votes. The electors themselves know perfectly well that to raise the school age to fourteen or fifteen would be inflicting a hardship on the parents.
    Captain SMITH: I join in the appeal that has been made to the President not to put this Sub-section into the Bill. In my Constituency we had a ballot of the people who were at home, apart from the younger members of the trade unions, and they decided against any increase in the age at all. This Bill makes provision for extending the age beyond anything hitherto attempted in this House. There may have been good reasons for giving this permissive power when the age was eleven, twelve, or even thirteen, in cases where the inhabitants really desired it or under special circumstances. In those circumstances you gave them permissive power to increase the age by another year, but under this Bill that hardly applies. I think the age should be definitely stated in the Bill, and you should give nobody any power to override either an Act of Parliament or the Board of Education when it sets the age limit down.
    It may happen in the working of the Bill that the local education authorities or the local authorities may have agitations to put this Clause into operation. Under certain circumstances they may get a majority of the local authority to
    854
    put it into operation, but I think if the whole of the people were consulted in the area they would not put it into operation. Arguments of that kind will be set up, and this makes the parents more uneasy, for they will have to face more difficulties than those provided for in the Bill at the age of fourteen. It was intended that generally fifteen years should apply. If that is so, I am of the opinion that a Clause ought to be inserted that after a certain time fifteen years should apply rather than give power to local authorities, who, by the genuineness of their position from an educational point of view, wish to put on another year. I think it would be infinitely better had it been stated that this could be done at some time or other, but I am quite sure that the best course would be for this House to say that if the age is to be increased to fourteen, let that be the limit, and I shall submit the same argument when we come to another part of the Bill. I believe in a clean cut. I think the President has got on exceedingly well with the Bill so far, but I do not think he ought to insist on this power being placed in the hands of these people. I am not going to say that the power will be ill-used, but it is not the proper place to put a question of this kind.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to the appeals which have been made to him—in fact, I should be prepared to ask him whether he could not see his way to go even further in the sense of the Amendment which is down on the Paper to leave out "fifteen" and insert "sixteen." It seems to me that in regard to the policy of putting in a maximum to which various local authorities can work up there can be no real difference of opinion in this House. There may be special difficulties in the district for which the hon. Member for Clitheroe speaks, but there are other districts in the country which I should imagine would be prepared to go further. I am afraid the hon. Member who contemplates that all the local education authorities will at once raise the age to fifteen does not realise the composition of these various local authorities. I do not think they are likely to take that very drastic action, but I do think it is desirable to give free play to the initiative of the different localities, and where you do get a progressive body of opinion ready to educate the children and give them something more than the very scanty modicum

    855
    of education which you are able to get into a child's mind at the age of fourteen, you ought not to prevent that authority going further. I know there are economic difficulties and prejudices. A very strong opinion has been expressed by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that the chief effect of education seems to be to divert people from their natural occupation in agriculture, but you can get public opinion beyond that stage, and certainly other countries are prepared to go beyond it. How anyone can expect to face after-war problems unless we are prepared to cultivate our brains in a way which we have not done hitherto, I fail to see. I press my right hon. Friend to stand by this Sub-section and to improve it by increasing the age limit. I should like to see a higher maximum put before the local authorities of the country, to which, in course of time, they may be able to work up.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I also express the hope that the President of the Board of Education will not yield in regard to this particular Clause? I know there are special difficulties with regard to Lancashire, but the hon. Member (Captain Smith) who represents one of the Lancashire Divisions knows very well that the party with which he himself is identified has often asked that the age should be put up to sixteen—in fact, that has been part of his party programme.
    Captain SMITH:Personally, I agree.
    Mr. ANDERSON: The hon. and gallant Member said he was quite certain that no local authority in Lancashire would adopt the idea of raising the age to fifteen, and, if that is so, why should he try to put a stumbling-block in the way of some other education authorities who are prepared to adopt a more progressive educational policy? Apparently, there is no danger to Lancashire by this proposal, because the hon. Member says the local authorities will see that the age is not raised to fifteen, and, if that is the case, surely the interests of Lancashire are properly safeguarded, and the hon. and gallant Member very well might withdraw his opposition in the case of other authorities who are not faced by the same problems as Lancashire, and who are perfectly prepared to see the age advanced up to that point. The hon. Member said the age should be definitely stated in the Bill, and
    856
    that there should be one age right across the country. If there are towns where they are prepared to go in for a more advanced policy, I do not see why they should be held back by the more conservative parts of the country. The only other arguments advanced are of the kind which would depress the standard of education down to thirteen years. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) seems very concerned about the interests of children, and he thinks that they may be taken away from the films and the singing of Christmas carols if this Clause is put through. It will still be possible for the children to sing their Christmas carols even if the age were fifteen, and there seems to be no substance in that kind of argument. That is really only the argument of people who take a very reactionary view of education. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to that kind of argument, but will realise that the majority of the people are behind him in regard to giving the local authorities this special power.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. E. DAVIES: As I understand this Amendment it merely proposes to give to the local authority the right to raise the age to fifteen under very special circumstances. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) says that too much use it not made of this power. Many local authorities who are interested in the claim for better education object to this proposal because of the hardship that may be inflicted on the parents in being compelled to keep their children at school until they are fourteen or fifteen years of age. I intend to raise a question as whether some assistance could not be given to the parents of the children who desire to send their children to continuation schools. If local authorities are going to be given the power to compel children between fourteen and fifteen to attend continuation schools—this may be very desirable in the case of brilliant children—then there arises the question how far the local authority can assist the parents of those children. I see that by Clause 20 power is taken by which, with the approval of the Board of Education, assistance can be given to parents in certain circles, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether assistance could not be given where children between fourteen and fifteen are compelled to attend school. We all know that the local education authority will be faced with the fact that children on.

    857
    the one hand will not be allowed to be employed, and that in some cases parents, on the other hand, will be put to very considerable expense. The right hon. Gentleman would be meeting a great difficulty which will be felt by the local authorities and by those parents who are anxious for their children to have the education if he could make provision for the local education authority assisting parents, and if he could go further and say that the Government would repay any expense thus incurred. We know that the reactionary elements on the local authorities will object to any expenditure which is not compulsory, and, in view of the fact that the expenditure incurred under Clause 20 can only be incurred with the approval of the Board, I would ask him to make a similar provision here so that the money may be repaid to the local education authorities.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) who has moved this Amendment will carry it to a Division. If he does, it will be very interesting to see how many Members are prepared to support an Amendment which is so far behind the public sentiment of the day. What would be the position if this sub-Clause were omitted and if local authorities were prevented from raising the age for full-time attendance above fourteen? The only form of education that could then be provided compulsorily for the great body of the children of the working classes would be attendance at a continuation school on an average for one hour each day. There is not a single member of this House who will say that compulsory attendance at continuation classes for an hour per day can be regarded as an adequate or a satisfactory solution of the problem of education for the adolescent portion of the nation. We can only regard this attendance at continuation classes as a temporary expedient during a transition period in education. We have to face frankly the fact that a solution must come through raising the age for full-time attendance at school far beyond the age of fourteen. After all, this is the principle upon which we should act when we consider the education of children of the working classes. We should not think about the claims of industry in any special part of the country or what children can benefit by a narrow ladder. We should go frankly on the principle that fourteen is too young for children to enter industrial life, and
    858
    we should keep them in school longer and surround them with every kind of ennobling influence. We must ultimately observe that principle with regard to the children of the whole nation, and I earnestly hope, so far from omitting this Sub-section, that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared with much sympathy to consider the Amendment which will be moved later with the object of strengthening this Clause and giving local authorities power to increase the age for full-time attendance at school beyond fifteen. So far as it is possible to collect the opinion of the people affected, they are all in favour of this change in our educational policy. The hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division (Captain Smith), I am sure, would not claim that he in any way spoke for the Labour party, because the Labour party has repudiated the views that he expressed and has demanded that the age for full-time attendance should be increased even beyond the provisions of this Bill. That is the demand that is also put forward by the Workers' Educational Association, who desire the local authorities to have power to increase the age for full-time attendance to sixteen. On every ground it would be a great calamity if the more progressive educational authorities were to be prevented from pointing the way to further educational advances.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to state, for the information of the House, what cost will be involved in raising the age?
    Mr. D. MASON: I appeal to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) not to press this Amendment to a Division.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, I am going to do so!
    Mr. MASON: I often find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on questions of finance, but I must say that in this matter he is misinformed. For example, he said that after the War there would be a great shortage of labour.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There might be!
    Mr. MASON: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Probably there will be a shortage of capital, but there will certainly be a surplus of labour after the War. There may be some temporary shortage, but surely the right hon. Gentleman will see that when you demobilise a vast Army and a great many munition workers you will have a large surplus of labour?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Unfortunately, a large portion of the male population will have been killed, and there must, therefore, be a less number of males in the world after the War.
    Mr. MASON: It is quite true that by the number of killed the population will have decreased, but a great contraction of trade must follow from the impoverishment of the world by reason of this War, and all authorities agree that there will be an enormous surplus of labour seeking employment. You have to remember that a vast number of munition workers of all classes, young and old, will be seeking employment. May I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend on the grounds of political economy, apart altogether from the higher ground of giving to the youth of this country the very best possible education, not to press his Amendment? After this War you will be faced with an enormous interest charge, and instead of reducing this age we ought to increase it, and give to the youth of the country the very best possible education, including technical education, so that the artisan will be a skilled artisan, and so that we may be able to pay the enormous charge on the debt which will result from this War. My right hon. Friend would reduce the age to fourteen, and keep our youth in a state of ignorance, and I would appeal to him not to divide the Committee. The Amendment goes to the very root of the Bill, which is for the purpose of developing and increasing our educational facilities and of giving our youth that which is their birthright—namely, the very best education that the country can give them. I appeal to my right hon. Friend on economic grounds, and in the interest of the conservative classes, to allow the youth of this country to have the very best possible education. I hope he will not press his Amendment to a Division, but will recognise that it goes to the very root of the Bill which the President of the Board of Education is so ably conducting through this House.
    Mr. FISHER: I have been pressed in two opposite directions in the matter of this Section. On the one hand, the right Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) has moved the omission of this Section, and, on the other hand, I understand that an Amendment will be moved to enable a local authority to raise the age to sixteen. I do not' propose to accept either Amendment. I propose to adhere to the terms
    860
    of the Bill. As has already been indicated in more than one quarter, there is no reason to believe that this option will be at all widely made use of. I myself have served as a member on two local education authorities, one an urban authority and the other a county authority, and I can assure the Committee that the interests of the ratepayers are by no means neglected by these local education authorities; in fact, very often it is a criticism upon the local education authorities that they are perhaps a little too careful of the pockets of the ratepayers and a little less interested than they might be in the fortunes of the schools. It is not for me to say whether that criticism is just or not. I believe the Committee can safely assume that this is an option which will not for some time to come at any rate be very widely made use of, but it will be made use of, we hope, just in those directions in those places where it will really be useful. There are two classes of employment in this country, roughly speaking, from the point of view of education. There are the employments which recruit labour early, and there are the employments which recruit labour late. If we take engineering as an instance of the second type of employment, that is an industry which recruits its labour comparatively late, simply because boys are. not physically strong enough to do the work at the age of fourteen. It is a current complaint among engineering employers that their boys go down physically and morally in the period which intervenes between their first leaving school and their permanent entrance into the working life. It would be a considerable advantage if that particular type of boy could be kept in the school till the age of fifteen. Again, in certain industries you may have a girl who would be better for being kept at school between fourteen and fifteen. There are some districts which I could mention where, as it is, most children do, as a matter of course, remain in the school after passing their fourteenth year. There is a great deal of variety in that respect. I believe that this option, if it were granted, would be sparingly used. The Committee will observe that the Sub-section is accompanied by safeguards. We empower the local education authority under the operation of this Sub-section to make individual exemptions in all cases where exemptions may in their opinion be required between fourteen and fifteen. I believe, therefore,

    861
    that the Sub-section can safely be adopted by the Committee without any fear that it will be worked unjustly or to the injury of industry or in any other way but to the benefit and progress of education.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to have had the support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Captain A. Smith), who made an extremely powerful and interesting speech. He said that this House ought to be the tribunal to decide whether or not children should remain at school until the age of fifteen, and that it should not be left to a local education authority to say whether or not the age should be increased. I certainly agree with him upon that point. It is said that very few education authorities would raise the age to fifteen. The President of the Board of Education made that statement twice over, and the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe said that no education authority would dare to raise the age. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that every Member who voted in favour of raising the age would lose his seat either in this House or on the education authority. In these circumstances it is clear that there is a very strong opinion, if not in this Committee certainly in the country, that it would be a mistake to raise the age from fourteen to fifteen. At any rate, if it is a good thing to raise the age from fourteen to fifteen, why not do it, if it is the proper thing? I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wilton Division (Sir C. Bathurst) in his place, and I should very much like to know his opinion on this subject, which raises a very important point with regard to agriculture. My contention is that if this is going to be done it should be done by Parliament, and not left to isolated authorities, who may or may not raise the age. It would create a very bad feeling certainly among the parents of the children if in one district the age is raised to fifteen, perhaps against their wish, and in another district it is not raised. It cannot be right to have these different principles running in different parts of the country. If it is right to raise the age to fifteen, the right hon. Gentleman should have the courage of his opinion and do it in the Bill. I have much greater faith in the right hon. Gentleman than apparently he has in himself. I have much greater faith in him than I have in the local authorities who manage educa-
    862
    tion. If the thing is right, let us have it in the Bill; if it is wrong, let us leave it out; but do not leave it undecided, so that possibly a local education authority which may not entertain advanced views may decide to leave the age at fourteen, while another education authority, holding different views, decides to put the age at fifteen. I am glad that the Committee is fuller now than when I moved the Amendment, because there is undoubtedly a very strong feeling outside the House, certainly in the agricultural districts, that it would be a fatal mistake to put a Sub-section of this sort into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) said something about the necessity of endeavouring to pay off the National Debt. I would point out to him that all people in the community cannot be brain workers; there must be some people who work with their hands.
    Mr. D. MASON: Surely they will work better with their hands if they are better educated?
    Sir F. BANBURY: That all depends. If a carpenter has been well trained he will be skilful at carpentering, but it does not follow that he will work better as a carpenter because he has read Aristotle. People sometimes rather suppose that everybody is going to wear a black coat, and sit on a stool in an office, or become a don at Oxford or Cambridge. There must be a large number of people who have to work with their hands. In these circumstances what is the use of extending the age in this way? If it is good, let us put it in the Bill; if it is bad, let us leave it out.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I desire to say a word or two in support of the President of the Board of Education, who, indeed, during this discussion does not seem to have required much support, for the Committee generally has agreed that this proposal, so far from going to extremes in one direction, is so tender and gentle as scarcely to go far enough. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) wishes to have it cut out on economic and trade grounds. His doctrine of the use of manual labour is a nineteenth-century doctrine and not a twentieth-century doctrine. The truth is that manual labourers in almost every trade are the more efficient the better they are trained. There are, of course, notable exceptions. Even in this House there are men who have had singularly

    863
    little education but who have been extraordinarily successful in commerce, industry, and even in statesmanship. But the truth remains generally true that the skilled workmen in all trades are on the increase. The tendency to eliminate: unskilled labour is greater and greater. The use of machinery is spreading rapidly and will spread more rapidly after the War. The whole tendency is for the demand for skilled labour to be on the increase. In any case, whether we think in terms of skilled or unskilled labour, the necessity for having intelligent men and women is on the increase. I go further than my right hon. Friend in testing this question. I would ask whether we are going to have happier boys and girls and happier men and women as a result of increasing the length of their school life? There is no manner of doubt on that point among those who take any interest in, or have any knowledge of, the social conditions of our people. The only regret I have in regard to this Clause is that it is left so much to the local authorities. I would rather have the age level raised throughout the whole country than leave it to the local educational authorities to raise the age. It would be a far better thing in counties like Lancashire, for example, that it should be impossible for the borough of Nelson, represented as it is so admirably by my hon. Friend, to have a lower age standard than some of the other boroughs where the feeling against the higher age is not so pronounced. The tendency even in industry itself will be all to the bad if the counties have a patchwork system of age limits. It would be far better to have them all levelled up to the same level, and for this House to take the responsibility of raising it.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that those who voted in favour of a higher age would probably find that we should lose our seats in consequence. I have not that view of my Constituents. I believe that my Constituents are quite prepared to get as much value as they can out of the schools, even at the expense of giving up something of the earning capacity of their children. I have only one anxiety in regard to these proposals. We are giving the local authorities the option of raising the age limit and thereby increasing enormously the demand for school places. In the first place, we have
    864
    not enough school places in this country now. The lack of building operations during the War has accentuated that evil very much. Secondly, the tendency to have small classes instead of large classes has been absolutely checked by the War, and in most of our big towns the number of children in the hands of a single teacher is so excessive as to make the teaching inefficient. The final necessity is a larger supply of teachers. In regard to all these proposals I must confess that I think far more of the teachers than I do of anybody else. Local authorities are all very well in their way, and the Board of Education, of course, is excellent—there was never an ex-President who said anything else—but the truth remains that the success of the schools will depend not on the Board of Education nor on the local authorities, for. in the long run, it is the teachers who make it. The only anxiety I have, as I see these proposals going through, is that we are legislating along lines which are progressive at the same time we shall have a smaller number of teachers to deal with a larger number of children. I hope that my right hon. Friend in putting these proposals through will have that thought uppermost in his mind, and that he will satisfy the House that not only will the Regulations be screwed up, but that the facilities given for teaching the children will be improved.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I repeat my question to the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House if any and, if so, what extra cost will be involved by this provision increasing the age to fifteen, if it is availed of?. That is all I wanted to ask, but I should like to explain to the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) that he unwittingly misrepresented me. My remark referred not to the prevention of children singing carols, but to the picture called "A Christmas Carol," which I instanced on account of its pious and peaceful character. I would also point out to the hon. Member, who is in favour of the representation of Labour by labour, that when he hears the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Smith), representing a Labour constituency, enunciate a certain view with which he does not agree, he says he does not represent Labour—a piece of special pleading which, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) also indulged in his speech.
    Colonel W. THORNE: I am sure the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) would not

    865
    apply his doctrine to his own children, if he has any, and would not allow them to go to work at fifteen years of age, or even sixteen. For many years past organised Labour, through the Trade Union Congress, has passed a resolution in favour of the school age being raised to fifteen. The union that I represent, for the last fifteen or sixteen years, has had before the Trade Union Congress, I should say, one of the broadest forms of education that has ever been presented in this country, and by a very large majority for a good number of years we have carried resolutions in favour of the age being raised to sixteen. I understand the right hon. Baronet is afraid of competition in other countries. I believe we allow our children to go to work at a lower age than many countries which are our biggest competitors, so I do not think there is any ground for suspicion in that direction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that.
    Colonel THORNE: No; but I think that was at the back of the right hon. Baronet's mind. I was not in the House when he spoke, but I think it was running through his mind all along the line that he wanted children to go to work at a very tender age so as to produce cheap labour with a view to competing in the markets of the world against other countries. I am one of those unfortunate fellows who never had any education, because I had no chance of going to school in my life, and that is the reason why I have always pleaded for a better system of education. I recognise that there are difficulties that we have to face. There are some parents who are very anxious to allow their children to go to work at a tender age for the purpose of supplementing their income, but it is the competition between members of households and between the child and the father which prevents us from allowing children to remain at school to a later age. There is not a father or mother in this country who would not be prepared to allow children to remain till sixteen if economic conditions would allow it. It is the duty of legislators to see that our children get the best form of education that we can possibly give them. I believe if a vote of all Lancashire were taken they would be quite in favour of this Clause. I should say that what was at the back of the mind of the President was to allow a little elasticity in order to meet the views of Lancashire, where there are a good number of people in favour of their
    866
    children going to work at a tender age. But so far as industrial workers are concerned, their views are in the opposite direction. It has been suggested that some hon. Members would lose their seats if they attempted to fight an election upon this. I am prepared to contest my division on this question of raising the age to sixteen. I have fought three Parliamentary elections on the Trade Union Congress educational resolution, and I am prepared to take that stand again. I trust, therefore, that the President of the Board of Education will stick to his guns.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I should not have addressed the Committee if my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) had not appealed to me to intervene. I have not the smallest sympathy with him. Assuming that the Clause were mandatory I should have some measure of sympathy, but as this is a matter which is left entirely to the discretion of local education authorities I feel absolutely certain that as regards the agricultural community those authorities are not likely to err in the direction of putting too great a strain upon the leading industry of this country. I have some little recollection of the operation of the so-called Robson Act. Some latitude was in fact given by that Act to enable the juvenile workers in agricultural employment to be released from elementary schools at the age of twelve instead of the age of thirteen. I had an opportunity of conducting a somewhat extensive inquiry before giving evidence before an inter-Departmental inquiry on partial exemption from school attendance as to the actual operation of the Robson Clause as affecting the agricultural industry, and I discovered to my regret that a very large proportion of the boys who were, in fact, being exempted under a similar Clause to this because of their assumed beneficial employment in agricultural processes, were, in fact, running messages for the farmers or blacking their boots. I came before that Committee absolutely convinced that I could not honestly put in a claim that farmers' juvenile employés should receive special treatment in the matter of earlier exemption than other boys in elementary schools. I share the right hon. Gentleman's apprehension that the difficulty in all these cases is going to be to find not merely the buildings, but particularly the teaching staff, to enable these extensions to be made, and I really very much fear he is going to be a little

    867
    disappointed if he thinks the extension of the age to fifteen is going to be made widely. The local education authorities at present simply cannot find the material out of which elementary teachers are to be made, and they see no prospect in the early future of finding such material, even with the enhanced salaries which are being offered. I have great apprehension as to the possibility of carrying into effect not merely this Clause, but Clauses like No. 10, which is to many of us the inspiring part of this Bill, owing to sheer lack of teaching material.
    The experience of Belgium, Denmark, and other countries where juvenile agricultural labour is far better equipped educationally than in this country, goes to show that if the education in the elementary schools is of a sufficiently practical character, and the literary work in the school is properly co-ordinated with the practical work, you have as the result a far better equipped workman, who is capable of doing his work not merely more efficiently, but far more economically, and with far less expenditure of manual labour, than those who are not equipped so well in the elementary schools, not merely in the matter of theory, but, so far as is possible, in the matter of practice also. That more practical class of elementary school is increasing in almost every agricultural area in this country, and I hope and believe that as the result we are going to get the support even of farmers in carrying the education of the school children in agricultural areas to a far more advanced age than is dreamt of at present, because, in fact, whatever wage it may be found possible to pay them they will be found far better value to their employers than they have been found in the past.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that the Committee is under some misapprehension as to what is being done by this Clause. It is not a Clause to empower local authorities to provide facilities for educating the children of the working classes up to the age of fifteen. It is to give them power to compel them to go to these schools up to fifteen without paying their parents the wages which those children would earn. That seems to be unjust to the parents of this country. I and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Smith) and all those who are in favour of real education are anxious that every facility should be given for it, but we do
    868
    not see why the children of the working classes should be compelled to attend school when it means direct loss to the economic power of the family to subsist under the present industrial system.
    Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSON: Speaking for a very large area, that is for Rotherham, Sheffield, and Chesterfield, some two months ago I received a letter which I handed to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) in which the railwaymen—not the best paid workmen of this country—covering the whole of that district had a special meeting on the question of education. They sent to me, to be handed to the right hon. Gentleman, the educational programme that they desired should be carried into operation, and one of the Clauses that they insisted upon more than any other—I distinctly remember how pleased the right hon. Gentleman was—was that there should be compulsory education up to the age of sixteen.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the word "fifteen" ["fifteen years shall be substituted"] and to insert instead thereof the word "sixteen".
    There is not only a great feeling in the country in favour of raising the age to sixteen, but also a very strong case can be made out for this change on educational grounds. There is nothing mandatory about my Amendment. This is simply a proposal to give local education authorities the power, if they so think fit, to increase the age for full-time attendance to sixteen instead of fifteen, as proposed by the Bill. The President has already said that he agrees in principle with the proposal to further extend the age for compulsory full-time attendance, but I gather that he does not think the time is ripe to give local education authorities this power, and he prefers to stand by the more moderate proposal in his Bill. Therefore, there is no question of principle between us. I need not argue the principle, because it is demonstrable. It is the principle we follow in arranging any scheme of education for our own children. I would point out the real difficulty which will arise if the right hon. Gentleman goes on with the provisions of this Bill. The Bill will make compulsory attendance at continuation schools between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that one effect of this proposal will be that parents will be

    869
    tempted to keep their children at full-time attendance at school till the age of sixteen in order by that means, if for no other reason, to escape liability to attend continuation schools after the age of sixteen, because under the Bill children who have been in full-time attendance up to the age of sixteen are relieved from the necessity of attending a continuation school after the age of sixteen. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that one effect of the Bill will be to encourage parents to keep their children at school until the age of sixteen. A serious difficulty will arise by local education authorities having only the power to increase the age to fifteen. If the right hon. Gentleman's prophecy is right that there will be a great increase in the number of children who remain in full-time attendance up to the age of sixteen, it will mean that the local authorities will have to make very extensive accommodation in order to provide for the new demand for full-time attendance up to the age of sixteen.
    Under the Bill, if it remains like it is, what will be the position of a child of the extremely poor who wants to remain in full-time attendance at school until the age of sixteen? He will want to do that, amongst other reasons, to be on an economic equality with his wealthier neighbour at the age of sixteen. I am assuming that the child is the child of very poor parents who cannot pay fees. There will be no provision for the full-time attendance of that boy. He may not be able to pay the fees of a secondary school, and the right hon. Gentleman well knows that practically every secondary school at the present moment is overcrowded, and there are no facilities for any increase in the number who may require secondary school education. The boy will, therefore, in many cases be excluded from a secondary school either by poverty or insufficiency of accommodation. As regards the elementary schools, there will be no elementary school that can receive him and keep him up to the age of sixteen, because they will not have the facilities to do so. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is faced with this real difficulty that will arise: If the proposal to compel attendance at continuation schools until the age of eighteen is going to result in keeping children at school until sixteen, the poor children who wish to remain until the age of sixteen will not be able to do. They will be debarred in many cases from the secondary schools, and the
    870
    elementary schools which could keep them and give them proper education up to the age of sixteen will not exist. I submit, with great respect, that my Amendment will meet this very real difficulty. Apart altogether from the question of principle, which I take it most of us are agreed upon, and that is keeping children at school until the age of sixteen, if we give the local education authority power to raise the age to sixteen, it necessarily follows that the necessary school accommodation will be provided. It will be no use for the most progressive education authority raising the age for full-time attendance to sixteen unless it reorganises its educational machinery and provides schools and the teachers to keep these children at school. That is a point which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to in speaking in anticipation of this Amendment. I trust the Amendment may receive his assent.
    Mr. FISHER: I sympathise with many of the observations which fell from the hon. Member. He is perfectly right in drawing attention to some observations which I made, saying that I regarded it as likely that there would be a considerable increase in the number of children desiring to continue full-time education up to the age of sixteen, as well as the continuation school proposals in this Bill. The point raised by this Amendment is whether or not it is educationally desirable that education up to the age of sixteen should be given in elementary schools. Is it not a fact that if children continue their education at an elementary school up to the age of sixteen, there is considerable danger that you will be injuring your secondary school system
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want them to be sent to a secondary school. Enlarge your secondary schools.
    Mr. FISHER: This is a Clause which is dealing with elementary schools, and I think it would be undesirable—except in the case of exceptionally backward children—to keep children in elementary schools beyond the age of fifteen.
    Sir J. D. REES: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am very glad. I doubt whether hon. Members who make these proposals consider it worth while

    871
    to think of the financial effect of their proposals. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what would be the effect of raising the age to fifteen, and he said it amounted to £5 7s. 6d. per head.
    Mr. FISHER: £4 17s. 6d.
    Sir J. D. REES: That spread over many thousands of children is a considerable sum. It is characteristic of those who make these proposals that they think it is proper to discuss them and that it does not matter about the cost. We have heard the cost of raising the age to fifteen. If you raise the age to sixteen the cost would be much greater. I suppose the hon. Member would be equally happy in raising the age to seventeen or eighteen. I think that at every stage of the Bill the cost of each individual Amendment should be properly brought before the House.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: It is rather trying to sit here and to restrain one's self and to hear hon. Members speaking about the various Amendments in a way that shows that they do not understand at all, while those who are restraining themselves do know and do understand. The speech we have just listened to is an instance of that sort of thing. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) assumes that by this Amendment we are proposing to add a great deal to the expenditure of the country on education. We do nothing of the kind. All this Amendment would do would be to permit by-laws to be made which would contemplate the age for elementary education being raised to sixteen instead of fifteen. Of course, if you get a large number more pupils in the schools up to the age of sixteen instead of fifteen, it will cost more. But what is the alternative? A large extension of education is the object of this Bill, and the alternative is whether the children will continue in an elementary school up to the age of sixteen, or whether they will go to a secondary school up to sixteen, or whether they will go to a continuation school up to the age of eighteen. On the mere question of which is the most economical of these three courses—and one or other of these courses is enforced by the Bill—the proposal in this Amendment to continue elementary education up to the age of sixteen, is the more economical, because the cost of education in an elementary school, even a higher elementary school, is several pounds less than in a secondary school. To keep a child in an elementary school up to
    872
    the age of sixteen would be a considerable economy, instead of sending that child into a new continuation school up to the age of eighteen. Therefore, when the hon. Member talks about this Amendment as if it would entail additional expenditure, and when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury), who talks so often but really does not know much about education, regards these sort of Amendments as adding to the expenditure of the country, one must point out that the object is to carry out this Act in a way which will be a distinct economy. If you take the iron industries in the north-east of England or the coal districts, you do not want boys in those industries before sixteen. When you do get them to work at sixteen you want them to be full time. The result in these districts would be in regard to the male population that the object both of the parents and employers would be—and generally it would be essential to the industry—to keep the boys at school until they are sixteen, at which age they will be able to go into industry. Where you have that applied to the whole male community you want elementary schools up to the age of sixteen much more than you want secondary schools or continuation schools. Therefore, I do not think that the full force and importance of this Amendment was seen by the President of the Board of Education, and I do not think that justice was done to it by the hon. Member who moved it, because his theory is to have more secondary schools. My argument here is rather that we should support this Amendment in order to make the most of our elementary school system, especially in those cases where children are not able to go to a secondary school and where an elementary school, in its higher classes, will suit their circumstances very much better than a secondary school. In my own Constituency, in the coal mining centre of Radstock and Midsomer Norton, the Somerset County Council established, only a year and a half before the War, a splendid higher elementary school which would take boys, and was taking boys, up to sixteen years of age when many of them would go into industries like mining and metal working. At the beginning of the War they reduced the age. The result was that they had to close this higher elementary school. I am told that in Germany the ages for attendance of children are advancing, and education is progressing with even more

    873
    energy and completeness than before the War. But here is an instance in which education has gone back seriously and most distinctly. As soon as the conditions of war are over and this Bill comes into force, as I hope it will, you have got in an institution like that an opportunity of carrying out this Act in that particular district where there is such an important mining industry. Therefore, I appeal earnestly to the President of the Board of Education to reconsider his decision from the point of view first of the higher elementary school, which can be so easily developed and which is more economic to the rates and taxes than the secondary school, and also especially from the point of view of those districts like the iron and coal districts, where they do not want boys before sixteen, but where, when they do want them, they must have them as well educated as possible and have their whole time. If we have any more speeches on this matter I hope that this Amendment will not be regarded as an attempt to spend more money, because if it is accepted it will mean that there will be much less expense.
    Captain SMITH: If the operation of the permissive power which is given to local
    authorities is found to be beneficial surely that is a good argument that local authorities should have facilities for extending the school age to sixteen. Up to the present we have had elementary education in our schools, and when boys or girls reach the age of eleven or twelve there has been no practical education for them in the elementary school. As I understand this Bill, there are going to be set up different schools altogether for juveniles over this age which will be in advanced type of elementary schools. This requires to be understood. If this is not understood and is not carried out you may put twenty years in the Bill, and it will not have the slightest effect and will be no use in any shape or form. What is wanted is to advance the education for boys and girls, when the age of eleven or twelve is reached, and to give facilities to those parents who desire to do so, if the expense of sending the children to secondary schools is too great, to keep the children at the elementary schools and get some advanced education.
    Question put, That the word "fifteen" stand part of the Clause.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 24.

    Division No. 42.]

    AYES.

    [7.8 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

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

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Currie, George W.

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs.,Louth)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydyll)

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Barran, Sir R. Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Barton, Sir William

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

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

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

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

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gardner, Ernest

    Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gilbert, J. D.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Bird, Alfred

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Glanville, Harold James

    McNeil!, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gretton, Col. John

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Boyton, Sir James

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mallalleu, Frederick William

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Holme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Cator, John

    Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfleld)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Pease, Fit. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Wardle, George J.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Wedgwood, Lieut.-Commander Josiah C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Smallwood, Edward

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Pulley, C. T.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Stoker, Robert B.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

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

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Wright, Captain Henry Fitzherbert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Tootill, Robert

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Roch, Walter F.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Rowlands, James

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Ward.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    NOES.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hogge, James Myies

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hudson, Walter

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    John, Edward Thomas

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dickinson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    King, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Finney, Samuel

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Whitehouse and Mr. Chancellor.

    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words,
    "and any such by-law requiring attendance at school between the ages of fourteen and fifteen may apply either generally to all such children, or to children of a particular sex, or to children other than those employed in any specified occupations."
    This Amendment raises a point of great importance, as well as an economic question of very great importance. The Clause as drafted allows the education authority, in raising the age for full-time attendance, to make a difference, not only between sexes, but between classes of children. The words of the Sub-section require the most careful examination in considering their economic effect. Personally, I think it most undesirable that the local authority should be able to say all children employed in a certain industry shall be exempt from school attendance, or all children employed in other forms of industry shall be required to attend school to a later age. That is my first objection. I believe the proposal to be unsound on economic grounds, and open to the most serious objection. The second objection, and I think it is a very serious one, is that the power taken in this Clause differentiates between the sexes, and the local authority would be able to say that boys shall be released at a certain age, and that girls shall be released at a later age from school attendance, or the other way about. This proposal is viewed with the utmost concern by practically the whole of the societies
    876
    representing social questions, especially as they affect women in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he cares to do so, will be able to tell the Committee that he has received innumerable communications from representatives of the organised labour of women, and from representatives of societies that have concerned themselves in giving expression to the opinions of women on social questions. I submit that in this House, which has now enfranchised women, but which has not yet been able to have the benefit of the result of that enfranchisement, we must consider an economic position of an unusual character. If the Amendment I am moving is carried, it will take away from the local authority the power to make these sex distinctions, by ordering boys to be kept at school and girls to be released or girls to be kept at school and boys to be released; but it does not take away the power of the local authority to consider individual cases of exemption, and I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that a later paragraph makes it lawful for the local education authority to grant exemption to individual children on any grounds they think proper. I, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he omits the words, the deletion of which I move, he still retains adequate power in his Bill to give whatever exemption to individual children the local authorities may think fit, when they have raised the age for

    877
    compulsory full-time attendance. The subject is difficult and complicated, and raises economic issues of the utmost importance.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I notice that the hon. Member has covered in one speech the two Amendments he has on the Paper.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I did that to save the time of the Committee, and if my second Amendment is reached I can move it without repeating my argument.
    Mr. FISHER: This is a matter in regard to which I should be quite willing to be guided by the sense of the Committee. If the Committee desires that the Amendment shall be adopted, I shall acquiesce in that position. My only feeling is that it would limit the Clause. I am very anxious that this option which we are offering the local education authorities, to raise the age if they think fit, should be widely operative, and it is more likely to be widely availed of if the words of the Clause are retained than if they are omitted.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask, Sir, whether it would be in order on this Amendment to discuss the selection which might be made by the local authority of one sex or the other for the higher age limit, or shall we have to wait for the next Amendment to be moved in order to discuss that question?
    The CHAIRMAN: I reserve the possibility of moving the second Amendment. I think it would be more convenient— although I cannot say it is out of order on the present Amendment—to leave out the words down to "occupations" ["any specified occupations"]. If this Amendment succeeds, the decision of the Committee may be taken on the separate question, and therefore it may be discussed now.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that in the by-laws there should be elasticity, and against the proposal of differentiating between the sexes I propose to say a few words. I can see the advantage, and I think there are many advantages, in making the by-laws so elastic as to commend themselves to the peculiar local conditions which exist in various parts of the country. The case of agriculture and its safeguarding of course at once comes into one's mind. But in making a difference between the two sexes we
    878
    get into difficult economic and social problems which are far outside the interests of various industries. I can see no reason why boys should be kept at school up to the age of fifteen, or why girls should be released before that. The idea of a smaller education being given to girls than to boys has passed out of date. It is quite possible that the local authorities may arrive at the decision of placing the sexes on exact equality with regard to education, but that girls should be at school longer than boys would be a great injustice to boys. I can imagine nothing more calculated to have an injurious effect, where men and women in the same walk of life are in competition—if there be any value in education than to give to girls greater educational advantages than are given to boys. Every women's organisation in the country regards any differentiation between the sexes as being contrary to social justice, and that is a view which has been discussed, printed, and upheld for a long time past. A case no doubt which is in the minds of the Board of Education, and in the minds of the local authorities, is that of the textile trade, in which there is greater necessity for boys and girls, but if the age of the girls is raised in this industry, surely that must be extended to the boys as well. As regards agriculture, I can see no advantage whatever in making any difference between boys and girls, and the case to be made out in some districts for such a differentiation surely must be on other grounds, it may be, in many directions more on social than on industrial grounds. I am glad that the President of the Board of Education has an open mind on the subject, and I hope he will allow no differentiation as between the sexes.
    Mr. FISHER: I quite sympathise with the arguments that have been addressed to the Committee. The reason for the differentiation between the sexes is indicated in this Clause. It is that there are many more girls who are not occupied at the age of fourteen. The figures show that the number of girls unoccupied at the age of fourteen is 211,000, as against 120,000 boys. Therefore, it seems to me to be worthy of putting before the local authorities the question as to whether there may not be in parts of England local education authorities who would be willing to raise the age of girls. However that may be, we may assume that there will be a greater number of girls between fourteen and fifteen unoccupied than there are boys.

    879
    At any rate, that is the ground upon which these words were inserted in the Clause. My only desire is to induce the local authorities to avail themselves of this offer, and I should be very sorry if that opportunity were affected by the form of the Clause, so as to prevent them from extending the education of girls. I did, of course, receive these memorials from women's organisations, and I was interested to notice that they all assumed that this discrimination would be a discrimination used adversely to the interests of their own sex. As a matter of fact, I inserted these words in the Bill from the opposite point of view, with a view of securing more facilities for the education of girls. However, I am perfectly willing to leave this to the sense of the Committee. If the Committee desires that the words should be omitted, I am perfectly willing that they should be
    Colonel SANDERS: I do not want to speak on the question as between the boys and girls. I think it is a pity we are discussing the two points together, and I wish we could have separate discussions on the two points. But on the other point I hope the President will keep these words in the Bill. I think it is very important that this Clause should be used as often as possible, and, if we leave these provisions out of the Bill, I can assure the President that he will very rarely get it used in the agricultural districts. You will not get it used by the county councils of counties which are agricultural counties You will not get them to apply this Clause at all if you make it a hard and fast rule. If you want to get it largely used, do trust your county education committees as far as ever you can. After all, they are elected bodies, and the spirit of the age is to have a certain amount of trust in elected bodies. All the arguments that are used about differentiation between classes and between the sexes may be perfectly good arguments, but I say that they are arguments which should be applied in specific cases before county education committees rather than in this House. I do hope that the President of the Board of Education will keep the Clause in the Bill as it stands—at all events on the larger question. On that, as between the sexes, it has only just been raised, and I have not looked into it closely enough. But I hope there may be some opportunity of dividing the two
    880
    questions, and let us have one decision on the general principle and one on the question between the sexes.
    The CHAIRMAN: On that point I would point out that it is quite open to the Committee to negative the first Amendment, which proposes to leave out the whole of this proviso, and then I should call the Amendment to leave out the children of a particular sex. In that way the object of the hon. and gallant Member could be arrived at
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I try to assist the Committee by offering to withdraw the larger Amendment I have moved, feeling, as I do, that the sense of the Committee is against that, and move instead the next Amendment, to omit the words "or the children of a particular sex"?
    Mr. KINGrose—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member object to the withdrawal of the Amendment?
    Mr. KING: I do, Sir. I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend (Mr. White-house), but I allowed him to speak, and I had attempted to speak several times. As I have also exercised a great deal of self-control, I must insist on pointing this out, that I object to these provisions altogether, and I object to them on this ground, that they give to certain employers and industries the opportunity of advantage to themselves. I object to any employer of labour, if he is a member of a county council or an education authority or an education committee, being able to say, "If we give an exemption to our industry, or an advantage to our industry, we can do so within the law." Really this provision is not one that you can safely or that you ought properly to give to any authority. They should not be able to give a superior advantage in respect of child labour or youthful labour to one industry above another in their district. If that advantage is to be given at all, I say it should not be given by a local authority, but should be given by some central authority, because the local authority is one which can appeal to influences and to electoral advantages which are very undesirable to introduce into the matter of exemptions and advantages of this kind. Therefore I am sorry my hon. Friend wishes to withdraw, because, objectionable as work schools may be—

    881
    not all, of course, are objectionable, but it has been admitted that they may be objectionable—I think it is still more objectionable to give to local authorities like county councils, which are very largely, and must be, composed of rich and wealthy men, certain advantages which they can confer by their by-laws. I object to the principle altogether. If certain exemptions have to be made, let them be made by the central authority. Now I should like to say something further, and that is this: I very often agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Bridgewater Division (Colonel Sanders)—
    Colonel SANDERS: Not often.
    Mr. KING:Oh, yes, very often, and I recognise that in some ways he is as worthy a representative of the county of Somerset as I am myself, but certainly I did not like the tone of his remarks on this Amendment. He evidently had the idea that you were not to consider education first of all, but you were to consider the agricultural interest, and he adduced the action of the Somerset County Council. Well, now, the Somerset County Council—
    Colonel SANDERS: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I did not adduce the action of the Somerset County Council at all. I said nothing about it.
    Mr. KING: Well, the hon. Member did, to my mind. He referred to county councils, and, of course, I knew he was thinking of the Somerset County Council. However, I will not quarrel with him. But the point still is clear, and it is this, that many county councils have really shown in this matter of child labour a very undesirable influence and really a very retrograde inclination, and they all the more confirm my belief that these exceptional provisions which you are going to allow to certain districts by these words are not desirable. I am very glad indeed, therefore, that the President of the Board of Education has left it to the Committee. I suppose he means by that that if there is to be a Division the Whips will not be put on.
    Mr. FISHERsignified assent.
    Mr. KING: Very well, that is an advance, and I hope we shall carry this Amendment.
    Sir C. BATHURST: In these days, when devolution is being so largely advocated,
    882
    the centralising tyranny of the hon. Member (Mr. King) fairly staggers me. I am rather interested to know to what extent he himself has served on these local bodies either in Somerset or elsewhere.
    Mr. KING: Oh, a great deal.
    Colonel SANDERS: Not in Somerset.
    Sir C. BATHURST: I am bound to say this. The local education authorities in the South-west of England, which the hon. Member should know something about, are not the reactionary and over-wealthy people which he imagines they are; and while I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman is going to leave this matter to the discretion of a large number of Members of this House who are not present here to listen to the discussion, and though I entirely agree with the reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bridg water has urged in favour of leaving this Clause intact with the possible exception of the words my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman) would like to see eliminated— although I agree with his argument, I am far more apprehensive about a county which is preponderantly urban in character, and yet has a considerable agricultural population, than I am about a county—Somerset possibly is of that description—which is almost wholly agricultural. What I feel is that such an education authority as that of Lancashire, for instance, might be induced under considerable urban pressure to extend the age as applied to the whole county. If that is so, not industrially merely but educationally the children of the agricultural areas would suffer. I should like to remind the Committee that these young people, if they are really going to be efficient agricultural workers, have got to learn how to handle stock between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, certainly not later than sixteen if they are ever going to handle stock at all. For that reason if for no other—and it is an educational reason—I should ask the Committee to deprecate the omission of words leaving the discretion as between one class of workers and another to the local educational authorities. At any rate, we must trust these duly elected local bodies to carry out not merely the letter but the spirit of the Act, and if you are going to leave it to the Board of Education to decide in every case how in such a matter

    883
    discretion should be exercised, if you are going to leave it to them to decide as to what should be left for local industries, you are going to bring the central department into an odium which they do not deserve, and you are going to widen the gap between the central bodies and those who are working most loyally and with true regard, in nine cases out of ten, for the progressive interests of education.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I desire to support this Clause as it stands, subject to the point raised by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman). It is really heartbreaking for those of us who have given time and consideration to the interests of education to hear these dogmatic axioms brought forward as if you could deal with so subtle and complex a matter by altering five or six lines in an Act of Parliament. It cannot be done. When I hear my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. King) speaking of county councils being composed of wealthy men anxious to give privileges to certain classes I desire to utter my strongest protest against it. The chairman of the Somerset County Council, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, is one of the most distinguished educationists in the country, and to say that that council is run to get special privileges for certain classes of trade is so ludicrous as not to have the merit of even that peculiar form of humour which sometimes adorns my hon. Friend's speeches. It is the hardest work for any local educational authority to act justly and fairly in great difficulties. The local educational authorities should be encouraged. They should be given increasing powers to promote education, and they should be given the widest possible discretion, subject to the minimum not falling below what is indispensable in all parts of the country. That is why, as one intensely interested in all details of education, I appeal to the Committee to trust the local authorities, to encourage them, and to induce them to apply their minds to these problems, feeling that they are really given a voice in settling them and not merely the underlings of any Government Department, still less that they are there to represent the mere financial interests of any class. That is why, when once you have got a minimum high enough, the difference between that minimum and the maximum should be left to the discretion of the county councils. If I may say so, being in a position to correlate evidence coming to me from many county councils,
    884
    I say that they are trying to work through their education authorities in the spirit in which this Act is framed, and anything which looks like general distrust of them will in the long run work against education and not for it. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. King), if he took half the pains to help local authorities that he does to criticise them, would forward the end we all have in view. As to the point raised by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman), I think you should give some discretion to local authorities. but it should be subject to the approval of the Board of Education, and in that way it could be brought before this House. When you are dealing with differentiation of sexes, and when the economic spheres of the sexes are constantly widening and changing, I agree that that is a matter of a national character. Therefore I hope, on that point, if possible, the power of the local authority will be made subject to the sanction of the central authority. That, in practice, would mean that the question would come before this House if there were any grave errors of administration. I hope we shall support the draft of the Bill, and I do so purely and simply in the interests of educational efficiency.
    Sir J. D. REES: The case has been argued as if the omission of these words would deprive the local authority of power to make this provision. But if these words were omitted, I take it what would happen would be that the local authority would be able to make a by-law, and the point whether the by-law was within the Clause or not would be a legal question. It is not the fear that the omission of these words would tie the hands of the local authority, but the general permission to do certain things includes anything which legally falls within the Clause according such permission. I do not think the particularities of the words sought to be omitted matter much. What is desired is to enable the county council to take such action as they wish. I am well aware it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman to tie the hands of the local authorities. He wishes to show distrust of the local authorities by enabling them to interfere with local industries, but whether he will attain his object by this means I am not prepared to say.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Committee will allow the Amendment to be disposed of, and then the question of sex can be dealt with.
    Mr. BOOTH: With reference to the latter words, I see the Amendment carries us down to the end of the paragraph. I want to know whether a separate issue can be raised?
    The CHAIRMAN:I am putting it down to a point which will keep the way open for any subsequent Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the words "or to children of a particular sex."
    I have already put the case, as far as I can, against the inclusion of these words, and I was gratified that the President of the Board of Education offered no objection to the Amendment. I will, therefore, simply formally move it.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Would it be in order for me to move, after the word "or," to insert the words" subject to the sanction of the Board of Education "? Or, if it be not in order, can those words be moved as an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment if that is adopted? I have already stated the issue which I want to raise.
    The CHAIRMAN: No; it could not be moved as an Amendment to this Amendment, because this Amendment proposes to leave out the words entirely. It could only be moved if the present Amendment is withdrawn.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Or negatived?
    The CHAIRMAN: No; if the present Amendment were negatived, the result would be that the words would stand part of the Clause.
    Sir J. D. REES: As there are only two sexes, would it not be better to alter the Amendment to children of either sex?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is a little more particular than the circumstances require.
    Mr. KING: I should like to point out the peculiar nature of the remarkable suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins) that this should be made subject to the approval of the Board of Education. The whole gist of the speech he delivered just now was that we should trust the local authorities. We ought not, he said, to interfere with them, because they know best, and if we leave matters to them it
    886
    will be all right. Now he wants to propose an Amendment providing that the action of the local authority shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Education.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If the hon. Gentleman had done me the honour to listen to me he would have realised that what I was advocating was that we should trust the local authorities in issues that are local, and I carefully differentiated the sex question as one having a national aspect.
    Mr. KING: And I have advocated that we should not interfere with the local authorities, that we should deal with this as a national system of education. My whole argument was that we should not involve ourselves here in petty local issues, but should remember that we are dealing with a great national system. I hope the Amendment will be carried. Let us no longer discuss parochial or even county questions; let us remember we are dealing with national education.
    Mr. BOOTH: As I understand it, the retention of these words would leave a loop-hole for some possible ill-effects from this Bill. It seems to me there is great danger of our manufacturing a lot of lazy boys and girls. To keep either sex at school when they would be much better trained elsewhere is, I think, a mistake. I take it that these words are intended to apply largely to girls. I do not know on what other ground the Government could have put them in. If they are meant to apply to boys, then I think nothing is to be gained from them. Girls do not run the same dangers as boys do at a critical time of life when they go wild and waste time. They have sense enough to know it is wrong, their parents know it is wrong, and the people in their particular neighbourhood know it is wrong. But it is realised very often that it is not desirable to tie boys to school where they are not learning anything and when they could be gaining much more valuable knowledge outside. But with regard to the girls, as I have said, they do not run the same dangers as the boys. If they are not kept at school they are retained at home to do household work, and they do not run the risk of becoming idle and shiftless. As to boys, unless the education is going to strengthen them, I do not think it is of much real service to retain them at school. I hope that in time to come we shall see this education question

    887
    tackled in a much more vigorous spirit than it is in this Bill. I repeat that in regard to girls I see no necessity for these words at all, because a girl at home is not likely to fall into laziness such as this Bill largely foreshadows; but the boys we know look upon attendance at school as a waste of time. They feel they are learning nothing likely to be of value to them in future life, and therefore they go out and play. I take it these words were simply put in as a sop to the county councils. It was a compromise between two contending principles—Centralisation and Evolution. This Bill is meant to be a centralising Bill. This particular paragraph means evolution. If we are to have a division on this question, let us have it on a clear issue, the one now before the Committee seems somewhat confused.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I hope it will not be necessary to have a division on these words, because the opinion of the Committee, so far as it has been expressed, has been entirely against their inclusion in the Bill. The only qualification has been the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Midleton (Sir Ryland Adkins), who seemed to think it better to take a middle course by suggesting that the by law should be subject to the sanction of the Board of Education. But all these by-laws have to be submitted to the Board of Education. I have taken the trouble to look the matter up. Legislation by reference is always a matter of some difficulty, but I find in the Act of 1870—
    Mr. BOOTH: Is there anything left of the Act of 1870?
    Mr. JONES: Yes. I find in that Act there is a Clause providing that every school board may, with the approval of the Education Department, from time to time make by-laws. Of course school boards have gone, but the question as to by-laws still remains. I think we had better agree to leave out these words and get on with the business of the Committee.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has taken up a rather strange attitude. He suggests that because two or three hon. Members in a very thin House has expressed an opinion upon this extremely important point their opinions should be taken as an indication of practical unanimity on the part of the House. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that quite a
    888
    number of hon. Members have spoken, but I think that probably my own attitude of mind is a not uncommon one. I at first agreed with the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Whitehouse); on principle I was inclined to agree that there was no possible reason for differentiation between the sexes, and that view was strengthened by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman). But then, when the President of the Board of Education made his speech, and when he gave us his reasons for differentiating between the sexes I was tempted to alter my mind. In dealing with these educational questions I always try to apply one test. I want to see the greatest possible amount of education provided for the greatest possible number of children. How does that come to be applied in this particular ease? Primâ facie, we are all, of course, against any differentiation between the sexes, and especially should I be against it if it implied any differentiation of the female sex that suggested that they were inferior. The right hon. Gentleman explained to us that precisely the opposite is the reason for this differentiation, and surely the effect of adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. L. Jones) and accepting this Amendment would be that a considerable number of girls throughout the country would be deprived of a certain amount of education which they otherwise might get. I am not prepared for any doctrinaire reason, to get uniformity or to support any logical social principle or for a mere consideration of that sort, to deprive a large number of girls in this country of educational advantages which they may get under the Bill as it stands, especially as the right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is a very considerable majority of girls in the country unoccupied; and I think the same will be the case after the War. Surely there is no possible reason why these girls, not required for any very important work, or even if they were who are not employed, should be kicking their heels about their homes and be deprived of the educational advantages they may have because some Members of this House have a cut and dried notion that it is very wicked to differentiate between the sexes. The practical view seems to be in favour of the words being retained in the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be inclined to accede to the suggestion that

    889
    he should accept this Amendment, and if there is a Division I hope the words will be retained by the Committee.
    Mr. DENNISS: As we have been challenged in this matter I think it best to say that I thoroughly agree with what the President and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) have said. This is an enabling Clause which enables the Board of Education to give an advantage, perhaps, to the female sex over the male sex in certain conditions where it would not be possible for the male sex to have it. I am quite sure the male sex do not envy that differentiation in favour of the female sex. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in favour!"] I have said, if hon. Members will allow me, that this is an enabling Clause giving girls a possible advantage over boys, not necessarily a disadvantage at all. The object of the Clause is to give them an advantage. In the case where a boy cannot have this advantage and a girl can, I am sure that the boys or men of this country will not envy the women their privileges. That is what the Clause does. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones) comes down here, rushes into the Library, hunts up the Statute of 1870, and gives us a legal opinion. He says that by-laws are already only made with the approval of the Board of Education. If the Board already have that power, why do they put these words in the Bill? It is because they have not the power, and the power in the Act of 1870 is not to make by-laws on any subject and to differentiate between the sexes. If the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter a little longer, he would have come to that conclusion. It is necessary that this should be in the Bill. It is an enabling Clause in favour of women principally, and therefore I shall support it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) said women were opposed to any differentiation between the sexes. Surely he meant any inferiority in the treatment of women as opposed to the treatment of men. He surely did not mean that in no circumstances were women not to have any advantage over men, or girls over boys. Surely they do not oppose an advantage being given to the girls which is to the benefit of the girls in circumstances when that benefit could not be extended to boys! It would simply shut out from an extended education a large class of people for whom it is intended,
    890
    namely, those who are unoccupied at home after the age of fourteen. I shall, therefore, support the Clause as it stands.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "or to children other than those employed in any specified occupation"
    I wish to ask for an explanation from the Government, because I think we ought to have it a little clearer than it has been made as to what is the policy of the Department towards, say, the cotton trade in Lancashire, or agriculture. Is the Department going to allow the education authorities in Lancashire to deal in a special way with the premier industry in that country as against the other children? That seems to me to be where the interest will lie. There is no doubt that the cotton trade dominates the trade of Lancashire as does no other trade in this country, and it seems to me that this is a concession to certain capitalists. I object to a Bill framed on those lines. If this thing is honestly done let us say so, but to make concessions to particular interests —I would almost say cliques—in a general Education Bill is altogether wrong. We know these words will not be used in the greater part of the country, and I suppose it will depend on the Education Board. I am perfectly certain that if ever by-laws are made which use these words you will have confusion and almost rioting through the country. I will take Lancashire, where I was born and of which I am aware, and I say that even there, powerful though the cotton trade is, if by-laws were made dealing with those attending cotton mills and treating the rest of the children in Lancashire in a different way, you could not obtain them in that county, valuable as the trade is. That being so, I do not see that it will be of any use anywhere else. There is no illustration, I think, that will occur to anyone where you will have so potent a force coming into the field as the cotton trade.
    I should like to know to what this will be applied. In my opinion you will enable authorities all over the country to drive a coach-and-four through this Bill. I do not think anyone will be able to deny that. In some counties the education borders are very sharply defined, and you will have spectacles of people moving across the boundaries if you attempt to put this into operation, as well as the changing of industry and occupation. I do not see how

    891
    that is going to benefit education, and I think it will bring it into disrepute. If the right hon. Gentleman has put this in as a compromise to someone in the kind of way that is becoming painfully familiar in this House—whenever a Minister thinks of bringing in important legislation we hear of this, that, kind the other interest being consulted, and then finally a paragraph appears in one of the papers that all these rival people have been squared and the Bill is expected to be passed unanimously by the House, before Members have seen a line of it—he should say so. It may be that I am unduly suspicious, but that is taking place so much now in Government Departments that I want a frank statement as to whether that is the reason these words appear here. I am quite prepared to give the utmost consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman will say, and I do not say that I shall pit my judgment against the Minister for Education on this point. All I am pleading for is to make it clear that I feel very strongly that we should know why these words were put in. if they were put in with a good object, well and good, but if the right hon. Gentleman has been compelled, in answer to some interest, to put them in order to silence it, I think we ought to know it.
    Mr. FISHER: I have not the slightest difficulty in answering the challenge made to me by the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment. These words have been inserted in this Clause not to conciliate a sinister interest but in order to secure that the option which is conferred upon local education authorities to raise the age to fifteen, should they think fit, should be exercised as widely and as freely as possible. The Board is of opinion that if local education authorities could exercise that option sometimes in respect of a particular group of children occupied in a particular industry they might be willing to do so having regard to the educational needs of these children and the character of their occupation, but that they might not be willing to exercise that option if they were faced, and always faced, by the alternative of doing everything at once or doing nothing at all. That is the sole reason for introducing these words.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that with these words some authorities will put up the age
    892
    in order to include certain kinds of children? Is it not possible that they may be used the other way, to debar certain kinds of children from education because there is a clamour for them to go into business? I quite see the object my right hon. Friend has. It is a good one, and I hope it will be made to act, but that he will assure us there is not a danger that it will be used in a totally opposite direction.
    Mr. FISHER: The option, of course, will be used subject to the Board of Education, who will see that it is not abused by the local education authority. I must remind the hon. Member that this option only extends to one year. This Clause deals with children between the age of fourteen and fifteen, and it does enable local education authorities to raise the age from fourteen to fifteen either with respect to all the children in that area or in respect to certain groups.
    Mr. BOOTH: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "occupations" ["in any specified occupations"], to insert the words,
    "Provided that where necessary owing to the position of the parents or guardians of young persons over the age of fourteen years, the local education authority, under schemes to be approved by the Board of Education, shall pay maintenance allowances for such young persons who are in compulsory full time attendance at school."
    I hope that this Amendment may meet with the unanimous support of the Committee and with the support of the Government. I think I can put the case for it very briefly. Educational advance has always been stopped in the past by the poverty of the parents. It has been a very real difficulty, because the burden has fallen upon poor parents, who are compelled to sacrifice the earnings of their children, and that argument has weighed in this House and in this country, and it has also been used with very great effect by employers of labour. It has been used in order that the exploitation of children —their premature and improper use—in industry should be continued. It has only been by very slow stages that, in the face of that argument, based as it was upon real economic conditions, that any advance in educational reform has been possible, and if no such provision as to maintenance allowances for poor children is included in

    893
    this Bill it will mean that very few, if any, local education authorities will use the option given them under this Bill. We have no doubt whatever as to the opinion of organised labour on this matter. There has been no division whatever of opinion amongst the ranks of labour, and those entitled to speak with regard to the need for establishing maintenance allowances in the case of poor children. I want to ask the Committee to consider the new economic conditions that exist now, and may exist after the War. While it is true that a great number of parents are much better off during the War than they have ever been, yet it is also true that there are a great number of persons to-day who are far below the line that separates them from poverty and real want, and it is those persons who are going to be chiefly affected by the compulsory provisions of this Bill. What may be the conditions after the War? I am sure it is unnecessary for me to more than remind the Committee of the enormous and daily increasing number of orphans and fatherless children created as a result of the War. This means that the problem of the maintenance and education of these orphans and fatherless children will be the gravest possible problem for their guardians, especially, as I hope may be the case, instead of seeking to care for these children in huge barrack-like institutions, we encourage the system of adoption, and the preservation of the family life, and all that it means in the individual live? of these children. That fact alone is, I think, a final argument in favour of adopting the principle of giving maintenance allowances to these children where necessary.
    Mr. BOOTH: To whom would you give the maintenance allowances?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member has only to read the Amendment to find out. The maintenance allowances obviously are paid either to the parents or the guardians of the children who maintain them. There is not the slightest room for any doubt. There is no ambiguity in the Amendment. We are not suggesting a salary to the child who goes to school. I feel that merely to state this case is really to carry conviction without any prolonged argument, believing it will. receive the general approval of the Committee.
    Mr. LEWISrose—
    Mr. ANDERSON: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are quite a number of Members who desire to express a view on this Amendment, unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept the Amendment, which would cut the speeches short. This aspect of education brings us down to the economic question, and there is no doubt at all that in certain cases the burden of maintaining the children at school can fall with undue severity upon individual shoulders. There is the case of the large family and the small income. My hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment raised the important question of the large number that you will have, say, of war widows, women who have lost their husbands in this War, who are left practically to be the father and mother of their children, and if they are going to be able to give them the extra educational facilities it is wrong that the burden should fall on the shoulders of these women themselves. I say it becomes a far wider responsibility, and provided that you do limit this responsibility to the parent directly concerned, then the temptation will certainly be to put the children to work at the earliest possible moment, in order that there may be extra money coming into the home. Now we claim that, since you are raising the educational standards, we ought to feel more than ever that education ought to be a national burden, and that the cost of education ought to be borne in a national sense. For myself, I believe, without labouring this question at all, that the payment of the extra cost will be a sound national investment, and that the nation will get the money back in every possible way. I also believe that the adoption of this Amendment would go far to remove the opposition of certain districts such as Lancashire to these educational changes. I am convinced that in the long run the exploitation of children, the too early wage-earning labour of children, hurts the parent as well as the child in the economic sense, and brings down the level of wages.
    Mr. BOOTH: Also in the too late employments!
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am not dealing with the too late employments. We are endeavouring to keep the children from being put too early to work when they ought to be still in school, and when the children of the more fortunate classes are still at school and being armed with

    895
    all that science and knowledge can put within their grasp. Why should the children of working people have their shoulders bent prematurely with toil and be permanently worn out? I do say this, although it is true that the exploitation of child labour in the long run lowers the wage standards all round, it is very difficult to get the individual to take a long view in a matter of this kind. The burden is keenly felt by many poor families, and most of all in certain classes, and you ought not to ask individual families, or war widows, to bear the whole sacrifice, or a burden of this kind. I am quite sure that if this Amendment were adopted it would go far to remove a great many of the difficulties in regard to any advance in our educational system, and I hope it will be possible on the part of those representing the Board of Education to say that they do mean to have an advance of this kind, which will mean in the long run an all-round advance.
    Colonel LORD HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I hope very much the Government will accept this Amendment. When the President moved the Second Reading of this Bill he said be was determined to establish the rights of the child. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere—as doubtless he is—in his desire to do so he can have no option but to accept this Amendment. There is nothing that would grease the wheels of education more, and make it more popular—or perhaps I should say remove the unpopularity of it —than a step of this character. The main obstacle to educational advance in this country is the unfortunate idea that prevails in a great many quarters that the child is the property of the parent, and that parents have a right to the labour of their children at the earliest possible moment. It is an unfortunate idea. After all, however, one cannot blame the parent but rather the social system which creates that attitude and that frame of mind. It is an injustice, and a gross injustice, to a great many poor parents that they should have to choose between the ignorance of their children and the poverty of their homes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Amendment, for which I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, is a real educational reform. It is the first we have seen in these three days' Debates. So long as you have parents of
    896
    children desperately set against any raising of the school age—any educational reform is bound to be slow—much slower than anybody here could wish. The secret of getting any real educational advance is to see that the children at school are maintained so that their parents do not suffer by the children being kept at school. We attempt now to teach children up to the age of fourteen in our schools. Children, often underfed, under clothed, and half-starved. These children cannot possibly assimilate the education given. They cannot take advantage of the physical exercises or even of the brain training that goes on in these schools. Quite unjustly we have said to the parents of children—parents who are none of us!—you shall send your children to school up to fourteen, and there shall be no exception. We have gone further, and said that any local authority that chooses may raise the age to fifteen, and that the parents shall send the children, and so stop any earning or bringing any money into the house. In common justice, then, to these parents, over whom we are tyrannising, and more particularly on account of the children, we ought to see that the latter do not suffer in their stomachs and health by being kept at school by a Government composed very largely of well-intentioned people whose children do not go to these schools.
    Mr. LEWIS: I apologise to hon. Members who wish to take part in the Debate for intervening at this stage, but I do so on the ground that the effect of this Amendment upon this particular Clause does not appear to have been apprehended by any hon. Members who have so far spoken. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with a great deal of what has been aid, but hon. Members have been arguing the general question of maintenance at the schools—a question in relation to which other opportunities for arguing will come later. What we have to consider now is the effect of this particular Amendment on this particular Clause. I venture to submit that the effect of this Amendment, if adopted, upon this Clause, will be disastrous. After all, we are dealing with a Clause which confers power on local education authorities—a power which it is desired they should exercise if they think that the circumstances of the area make it desirable or necessary. They will certainly be deterred from exercising that power if the exercise is coupled with an obligation of the extremely formidable

    897
    character of a wholesale maintenance allowance for young persons in the public elementary schools.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman is not quoting accurately, and I am sure he desires to do so. It is not wholesale payment, but a payment where the needs of the parents demand it, and subject to schemes approved by the right hon. Gentleman's own Board.
    Mr. LEWIS: At the same time the payment will fall upon the shoulders of the local education authority. That local education authority is to have the power, if the Committee accept the proposal to raise the school age to fifteen, to so raise it, and it is now to be coupled with the proposal that they should be called upon to make these maintenance allowances. I wonder really if, in the circumstances, there is a single education authority in the whole country which is likely to adopt this particular Clause? It is because we are in favour of this particular Clause—and my hon. Friend behind me is not—and desire to see this Clause work in such areas where it can be adopted by the local education authority, that we object to this particular Amendment which, if adopted, would, I am certain, have the effect of inducing the local education authorities to reject any proposal of the kind. It is perfectly true that no obligation rests upon local education authorities to give scholarships, but that does not deter education authorities from doing so. Under the Bill every authority is required to prepare a scheme with a view to establishing a national system of public education available for all persons capable of profiting thereby, and the Board of Education will certainly regard it as one of the essential parts of the scheme that a sufficient supply of scholarships should be pro-Tided. Under Section 11 of the Act of 1907 the local education authorities already have the power of providing scholarships and bursaries under the conditions specified, in connection with the elementary schools, where it is found that owing to the position of the parents or guardians of the children scholarships of this kind are needed. The Board will therefore ask why provision has not been made in the scheme of the authority, whether the leaving age is fourteen or fifteen? I suggest that a procedure of that kind would be more effective than the procedure
    898
    of the Amendment, which really can only have the effect of hindering educational advancement. I ask the Committee once more to consider what would be the probable effect of the adoption of this Amendment upon the Clause itself. I have only too much ground for fearing that it will absolutely nullify it. Other opportunities will arise of discussing maintenance allowances further on, and I ask the Committee to discuss that question when the effect of it will certainly not be so disastrous as that which I have described from the passing of this particular Amendment.
    Captain SMITH: I heard to-day that it was useless to ask for any assistance for maintenance either from the Board of Education or the Treasury on this question, and so it did not surprise me that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken against this Amendment. What is the position? The Board of Education have fixed the age at fourteen years with power to the local authorities to increase it to fifteen where they think it is necessary. The Board of Education did not put fifteen in, because they could not face the music in putting the measure into operation, for the very reason that prompted the hon. Member in moving this Amendment. What are we doing? We are taking away these children up to fourteen years, and the Board of Education must admit that in thousands of cases this will put a big strain on the household to which those children belong. The right hon. Gentleman argues that if this Amendment is accepted, and maintenance allowances are granted where they are needed with the sanction of the Board of Education, it will nullify the Clause.
    What will be the result? Up to the present this permissible extension of the age by local authorities has been operative for years, and very few local authorities have taken advantage of it, and I feel quite sure that as time goes on there will be fewer unless some inducement is given to get them to take advantage of this provision. Supposing a local authority does this work and they realise that in the main they can extend the age fairly comfortably, but they find in its application that it leaves out of consideration a tremendous number of people who cannot under ordinary circumstances be expected to keep their children at home until they are fifteen years of age without some monetary return. To-day I feel exceedingly sorry to see so few hon. Members present when we are discussing a most important Bill,

    899
    and the most important Education? Bill that has ever been introduced here. This is the beginning of one of the most important points in the Bill dealing with how far the Government, in inflicting these hardships on people who are living under circumstances which are no fault of their own, but which are the fault of the industrial system, and here you are going to put this on them all at once, and it is something which they cannot bear. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should hear something about this matter later on, and I hope we shall. I am quite sure, from my point of view, that we shall hear a great deal. Successive Governments up to the present have stood round that box, they have had supporters from all parties in the House on the principle of education and educating the nation's children for years back, yet they have never had the heart or courage to face the problem financially.
    Put whatever obligations you like upon the local authorities so long as they have money to do the work they do it, but in many cases, unless they are promised compensation, they will not work the Clause. In that position education is not going to progress very rapidly in this country. If you have a system whereby you can increase the industrial value of the adults in this country in co-operation with any Bill that is passed through this House, it will be taken advantage of, but if it depreciates the industrial value of the household you cannot expect people to stand that all the time. They may stand it once or twice, but not all the time. The widow who is not the product of the War will suffer a great deal more than the widow with a pension. I am speaking not only about the cotton trade, although that will suffer, but so will the coal and iron trade, and all the low-wage trades will suffer tremendously. Under this particular Clause I am not anticipating a very great number of sufferers, because, unless some inducement is offered by financial assistance to help local authorities to put that Clause into operation, very few will adopt it until fifteen years.
    If you can get the Board of Education to say that if local authorities will make by-laws to extend the age to fifteen, and then you will help them financially, you will get more extensions to fifteen years of age. If that were done everybody would be satisfied, but so long as the Board of
    900
    Education sits down and does not make a determined attempt to take Imperial or Government responsibilities for impairing the household resources, and after that giving some counter to bring them to their normal condition, so long will you have bitter opposition to a proposal of this kind. I took good care to keep my own child at home as long as I could, and I never regretted it, and if I had any more children I would adopt the same process and I would not send them to work until I was absolutely compelled. All people cannot do it. There are thousands upon thousands of people who are as willing as anyone to do it, but it is impossible for them to meet their expenses and clothe and feed their children. As long as you sit there and do nothing to help them in their financial troubles so long will they have to suffer needlessly, because the nation, if it were asked properly, would gladly meet this obligation.
    Sir H. HIBBERT: As chairman of the largest education authority in the country, I would like to say a word or two upon this subject. My authority has dispensed a considerable number of maintenance allowances. It is perfectly true that they were not large, but still they were maintenance allowances, and they were given with the avowed object of making the path of these children easier in the secondary schools. This Amendment reads:
    "Provided that where necessary owing to the position of the parents or guardians of children and young persons over the age of thirteen years the local education authority, under schemes to be approved by the Board of Education, shall pay maintenance allowances for such children and young persons who are in compulsory full-time attendance at school."
    I want to point out the difficulty from my own experience of doing this. I remember when we first started paying maintenance allowances that we decided to give them to needy parents in order that their children who went to the secondary schools and there met children from a different class should not suffer in comparison. What was the result? The list increased month by month—it was surprising the number of needy parents that there were —until at the finish we were obliged to make the rule absolute and give it to every parent. That, I imagine, would have to be done in this case. It is an extremely difficult and inquisitorial duty to place upon the shoulders of any educational authority. In my district the duty

    901
    devolved upon me, and I do not think that I ever undertook a duty with greater reluctance than that of trying to ascertain by inquisitorial methods whether parents were in needy circumstances or not.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I was not quite clear as to the statement that the hon. Gentleman made. Did I understand him to say that his authority decided to pay maintenance grants to the parents of the whole of the children?
    Sir H. HIBBERT: Ultimately, all the parents of a particular section of our children who attended the secondary schools were in receipt of maintenance grants. Of course, they were not large grants. They came entirely out of the rates, and, whatever people may think, there is a great deal of difference between paying rates and paying taxes. With regard to another point which has been raised, I may tell the Committee en passant that my budget this year for the first time has reached £1,000,000 sterling. In consequence of the necessity of giving our teachers more adequate salaries than they have obtained in the past, we have not only used the £94,000 which the Fisher Grant gave to us, but we have added to it a sum of £57,000. The increase in the salaries of our teachers this year alone amounts to £151,000, and that is why the budget, which is generally £750,000, has, with slight additional expenditure in other directions, reached the total of £1,000,000. It would be absolutely impossible to appeal to the ratepayers to give these maintenance grants. A great deal may be said for and against such grants, but if this House in its wisdom decides to give maintenance grants they will have to come out of the Treasury.
    Mr. BOOTH: This Amendment does not say to whom you would pay the money. Would you send it to the parents by the child as a messenger, or would the parents have to call for it? It is all very well to say that these are small points. They are not. Those who have had experience of Poor Law Guardians' work know the great difficulty there is in discrimination, but no one until the hon. Member for Chorley (Sir H. Hibbert) spoke seemed to have in mind the enormous difficulty of discriminating between different sets of children. I think he made a correct forecast of what would happen. All the parents would ask for it. Discrimination would gradually disappear and then it could not be regarded as anything of a
    902
    disgrace. It would, therefore, amount to a substantial sum. One hon. Member seemed to regard it as glorified outdoor relief for war widows, but, if he takes that view, he should see that it is added to the pension. This is not the place to subsidise war pensions. I take it that the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) does not support the Amendment on that ground. He does it in order to make education efficient and not because the War Office is negligent of its duties to those who have fallen in the War. I do not think we can proceed on that ground. If the Amendment goes to a Division, I feel inclined to vote for it. Very few local authorities will raise the age to fifteen, but I think it likely that any authority that is advanced enough to do it will also meet this bill. I cannot imagine any authority with the necessary courage to raise the age unless they have the requisite courage to meet the bill.
    My fault with this Amendment is that it does not go far enough. If you are entitled to pay maintenance allowances you are entitled to subsidise the home on account of the wages that the children would have earned if they had stayed away from school. There is no logical answer to that argument. My view is that it is better to state the plain fact and not burke the main issue. If you say to a child, "You shall not work and help your parents," and if that child comes from a poor home, there is a great deal to be said for giving it maintenance allowance and giving it wages. The advocates of this Amendment say, "Make education popular." I do not know that it will make education popular, but it will make going to school and getting paid for it popular. If these proposals are brought forward and they go the whole hog and face the whole thing, I have not the same objection that I have to these compromises. This is a mere compromise, and it will not work. It is no use at all saying that it meets the case. If you can justify this you can justify giving the children wages, paying them to go to schools, so that the home will consist of so many children and young persons at work earning money, and so many children at school earning money. Then there will be enough for them to live in comfort and go to the pictures, I do not object to that, but I am bound to say that there is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Captain Smith) said. These ideals and these causes are all very well in their way,

    903
    but only when the Government say, "We are so keen on education that we will have the children at school and see that the people who send them do not suffer because of their attendance at school," shall I believe in the genuineness of their speeches. Until then I do not. Although this is more or less a hotch-potch Amendment, yet, in order to see whether or not the authorities of the Government are genuine, if it goes to a Division I shall support it.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The speech that has been delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education calls for some reply. Personally, I very much regret that the discussion on this subject, which is of fundamental importance, has taken place in so small a Committee, for I could have wished that the Committee had had the privilege of hearing the extraordinary reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Debate was taken part in from every quarter of the House, Members representing every political party speaking, and the support to this Amendment was unanimous. No dissenting note was raised, nor has any dissent been raised save for one speech. Yet the right hon. Gentleman ignores the unanimous view of the Committee and goes on to set forth arguments and make statements that have no relevancy whatever to the Amendment under discussion. I will try to show why. Let me say candidly that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has acted quite fairly towards those who have put forward the Amendment or to the Committee itself. He described this Amendment as one which would authorise the wholesale payment of large grants to the children at school. It does nothing of the kind. It limits the maintenance grants to those who should receive them by reason of the poverty of their parents or guardians. Again, the right hon. Gentleman put on one side the further proviso in the Amendment that even the scheme so limited should be subject to the approval of the Board of Education. The description he gave of the effect of the Amendment was, if he will allow me to say so without offence, wholly erroneous, and his remarks were, therefore, without relevancy. The right hon. Gentleman further made a most amazing claim to the Committee. He said, "Do not discuss this Amendment now. Another opportunity will arise later on the Bill. Let us leave it to that period." He distinctly
    904
    conveyed—I do not know whether intentionally or not—the idea that the Government had an open mind on the question and might themselves approve the payment of maintenance allowances and make it mandatory.
    Mr. LEWIS: I made no statement whatever on that point.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I say that the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to us not to discuss the matter now but to wait until a later opportunity carried with it an implication to that effect. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain A. Smith) stated that the Government had conveyed to him their decision not to agree to the payment of the maintenance allowance. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman what he ought to know and what he ought to tell the Committee in making this claim, namely, that the next opportunity to discuss this matter arises in connection with the payment of maintenance grants to the children attending continuation classes—a wholly different matter. This is a question not of paying maintenance allowances to children attending continuation classes for an hour a day, where the allowances may not be necessary, but of paying maintenance allowances to children over fourteen years of age who are required to attend school for full time, and of whose earnings therefore the parents are deprived. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman pretending that if the smaller principle is not going to be yielded, the greater principle may be yielded at a later stage of the Bill. I dissent altogether from the amazing view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that, if we establish the principle of maintenance grants for those so urgently in need of them, we should prevent any reform in education in this connection. I should have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion from the institution of maintenance grants. I should have said that only by paying maintenance allowances will you give local authorities the necessary impetus to go forward with educational reform.
    Mr. LEWIS: May I point out that the Amendment provides that the local education authority shall pay the maintenance allowance?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: What an extraordinary intervention that is! The

    905
    Amendment does nothing of the kind. It provides that where necessary, and under a scheme to be approved by the Board of Education, maintenance grants shall be paid, but it does not say by whom.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: It does say that the local education authority shall pay maintenance allowances.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think I have made what I mean quite clear. I do not want to do any injustice to the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment reads:
    "Provided that where necessary owing to the position of the parents or guardians of young persons over the age of fourteen years, the local education authority, under schemes to be approved by the Board of Education, shall pay maintenance allowances for such young persons who are in compulsory full-time attendance at school."
    What is there there to prevent the Board of Education paying one-half or the whole of such allowances? The local education authorities pay certain salaries to teachers. Does the local education authority get no help from the Imperial Treasury? Therefore the intervention has no relevancy whatever, because there is nothing in the Amendment to prevent the Board of Education paying the whole of these maintenance allowances. I am very glad to receive now this acceptance of the principle from the right hon. Gentleman. He wants not the local rates to pay these maintenance allowances. He wants the State to pay them.
    Mr. LEWIS: I did not say that.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Now the right hon. Gentleman says he does not. Where are we? He first rose to protest against the local education authorities paying them; now he rises to protest against the Imperial Exchequer paying them. What becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's convictions, if he has any, on this subject? I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that I am not making any personal attack upon him. What is there in this principle we are asking the Committee to adopt that is not adopted in connection with the children of the wealthy? I can show in a sentence almost that what we are now proposing is already an accepted principle in schools attended even by the most wealthy classes. Everyone knows that in connection with the War huge funds are raised in connection with the wealthiest public schools. Eton, for instance, raised a huge fund which forms a new and
    906
    great endowment which is invested and applied solely to the maintenance at Eton College of the children of old boys. Those are maintenance allowances. Let us then realise that this is a principle which is acted upon in the higher branches of education. I remember that the London County Council has always been most liberal—I am speaking of the time before the War—in paying individual grants to boys residing within its area who are going either to the higher secondary schools or even to the universities. The principle of the maintenance grant by all the most progressive authorities has been already recognised voluntarily, and for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this is going to frighten them out of the field of educational advance is to go contrary to the whole of the facts. I shall certainly press this to a Division, and I am not without hopes that it will be carried.
    Sir P. MAGNUS:I think the Committee will recognise that the hon. Member has acted rather unfairly to the Secretary to the Board of Education, and has occupied unnecessarily on this occasion the time of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman has explained quite clearly why it would be impossible—and I think he was right—to accept the Amendment. To begin with, it is by no means clear, and that is perfectly evident from the speech of the hon. Member, who was at great pains to explain it under circumstances which were not even intelligible to the majority of the members of the Committee. The words of the Amendment alone render it such as to make it impossible to accept it. I should like very much to ask the hon. Member what he really means by "under schemes to be approved by the Board of Education." By whom are these schemes to be prepared? By the local authorities or by the parents? And what is to be the character of the schemes? There is no indication whatever of the sort of scheme he has in his mind, and I am not clever enough to be able to ascertain what is in his mind. Then, again, he has himself tried to explain what he means by saying the local authority shall pay maintenance allowances for such young persons who are in compulsory full-time attendance at school, and when he speaks of the local authority paying maintenance grants he means the Board of Education. Of course, that is not quite intelligible. Then he commenced

    907
    his speech by pointing out that these arrangements are only intended for poor parents, but there is nothing in the Amendment to say they are necessarily poor parents. "Provided that where necessary, owing to the position of the parents." They might be very rich, for all we know.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Then it would not be necessary.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: The words of the Amendment fully justified the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that anyone within the area of the local authority might say his position was such as to justify the acceptance of maintenance grants. Therefore, every word in the whole of the Amendment would have to be modified, if not completely changed, before the Committee could be expected to accept it. The Parliamentary Secretary gave reasons, which are absolutely unanswerable, why it could not be accepted. Those of us who are in favour of the local authorities being able to extend the school age from fourteen to fifteen know quite well that if that liberty were accompanied by the obligation to pay maintenance grants still fewer of these local authorities would agree to extend the school age, and if it is desirable that the school age should be extended it is equally undesirable that that extension should be accompanied by an obligation to pay maintenance grants. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out another matter to which the hon. Member has not referred. Nearly all local authorities give exhibitions to pupils who are capable of profiting by the instruction. These exhibitions can be increased to any extent, and it is far better that the exhibition should be given to the parents of children who show very great ability to profit by the instruction provided for them than that there should be a general distribution of maintenance grants to all persons who, in their own opinion, are in such a position as to render it desirable that they should receive such grants. I hope no more time will be wasted upon the Amendment, worded as it is, but that we may get on with the Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think we ought to be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary and also to the hon. Gentleman (Sir P. Magnus). They have put a view before the Committee which they think is unanswerable, and it has not so far been
    908
    answered. It is, that if this liability for maintenance grants is attached to this Clause giving local authorities the power to raise the school age from fourteen to fifteen, that liability will prevent the Clause being taken advantage of by the local education authorities. That is, frankly, their ground, that if this is going to be expensive, if the money for the parents is going to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers, it will prevent this change being made. I think they look at the question through somewhat old-fashioned spectacles. They have the idea that education has always to be imposed upon the working classes, that these schemes have, first of all, to be invented by us here or by, let us say, the Lancashire County Council, and obeyed by the working classes. I want to put a very revolutionary educational idea before them. Is it not possible that in the years to come it will be the people who will demand education? They will say, "Here is a chance under this Act of Parliament of getting education. It will not be expensive to us. We can still keep our families as they are accustomed to being kept. We can still have our children properly fed and clothed because we can get maintenance allowance. Let us press Parliament to increase the school age, or to increase facilities for schooling at any rate up to fifteen, and we need not be beholden to superior people who give us these laws. We will make them ourselves." The right hon. Gentleman thinks this will be a blot upon all educational progress. There is another suspicion at the back of my mind. It is possible that after this War we may see a great many of these local authorities, particularly the boroughs, controlled by the Labour party, and where the Labour party controls boroughs such, for instance, as Bradford or Leeds, they will not be deterred from bringing forward this educational reform and from raising the school age by the mere fact that maintenance has to be provided as well. They will not only not be deterred from it, but they will be induced to do it, whereas otherwise they would not dare to face the parents. I think the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the hon. Gentleman (Sir P. Magnus) are very double-edged. It may not be that this will prevent this Clause being taken advantage of. It may be that the carrying of the Amendment will secure it being taken advantage of.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I claim the indulgence that this House always extends to Members who address it on the first occasion. I do so because for many years I have taken a very keen interest in educational matters, having been on the Devon County Council Education Committee now for several years. Devonshire is a large county, with difficulties, I suppose, like other counties, and having this experience behind me I should like to join in asking the President of the Board of Education whether he can leave this an open matter, because if I were asked to vote according to what I really think is best in my own opinion, I should certainly vote for the Amendment. I understand the reason for raising the school age under this Bill is not merely to benefit the parents but to benefit the nation, and therefore if sacrifice is to be suffered by any particular members of the community I do not see why, if the whole State is to be improved and benefited by this increased education, it should fall merely on the shoulders of the parents and not on other people. I have been for many years, as I have said, on a county education authority. How can I possibly vote for an increase of the age of children compelled to attend school, thereby taking the option out of the hands of the parents, and then at the same time absolutely refuse to put my hand into my pocket and help them to bear the loss which would be entailed upon them by having to send their children to school up to that advanced age? One hon. Member said that if we vote for this maintenance proposal we ought to go further and pay compensation to the parents for the loss of the wages which the children might have been able to earn. I cannot see that argument at all. It is one thing to say to the parents, "For the good of the child and for the good of the State you must send that child to school," but I do not think we ought to go further and say that we shall pay the parents compensation for the wages which the child might earn and the wages which the child ought not to earn. On the other hand, you make the child go to school at an age when it is becoming more expensive to keep. When a child reaches the age of thirteen and fourteen they naturally require better nourishment, and, therefore, when that child is becoming more expensive on the one hand to maintain and more valuable as a working machine, if you may put it that way, surely it is hardly fair to
    910
    ask the education authority or to ask the parents to send these children to school and compel them to maintain them out of their own pockets.
    There is another point. There are some counties, agricultural counties, where the parents are very poor. Some Members of this House may not think it matters very much, Is. here or Is. there, but where a man is perhaps an agricultural labourer, with a wife and a large family to maintain, every shilling is of importance. Therefore, I maintain, that if the State compels these parents to send these children to school up to a greater age than has been the case up to the present time, surely it is time for the Board to realise that they are altering the state of affairs and to consider whether some powers ought not to be given to the local authority to meet cases where it is a necessity. We have been told a great deal this evening about trusting the local authorities-. It has been said that we must trust the local authorities, because they know local requirements, and so on. Under this Clause, I take it, it is proposed to leave the discretion in the hands of the local authority. They are not bound to give this relief in every case. It is only applied to certain cases, and the scheme has to be approved by the Board of Education; so that there is a double security. Therefore, I take it, none of these schemes can be brought into operation unless it receives the approval of the local authority, which ought to know the local requirements, and also of the Board of Education. With that safeguard I do not think that we need anticipate any very great danger. One hon. Gentleman said that it would become very expensive. But we must remember the Amendment, if I read it aright, would only apply to children of one age—fourteen. It is not as if we were going to give the maintenance grant to children of all ages. I thank the Committee for having given me a patient hearing.
    Mr. FISHER: I should like in the first place to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for the very fair and interesting contribution which he has made to the discussion. I fully sympathise with the desire which he has expressed, and which has been expressed by other hon. Members, that the local education authorities should in necessitous cases make use of the power which they already possess of granting maintenance allowances. I do not think there is any difference of

    911
    opinion among us on that subject. There are many cases in which maintenance allowances are forthcoming. This is an enabling Clause. It enables local education authorities to raise the age of school attendance from fourteen to fifteen, either in respect of all children in their area or in respect of certain groups of children. We are desirous that this option should be as widely used as possible, and the sole question which the Committee have to consider is whether the adoption of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lanark will have the effect of restricting the range of that option or of enlarging it. My own fear is that if it were accepted, and if, consequently, the warning was given to every education authority that it could not take this step of raising the age without at the same time embarking upon a very considerable measure of expenditure, that step would not be taken, and there would be on the whole an educational loss to the country. On that ground, and on that ground only, I would ask the Committee to adhere to the text of the Bill.
    Mr. E. DAVIES: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept the Amendment. He has pointed out that it is possible local education authorities may be frightened from putting this Clause into effect. On the other hand, local education authorities are in touch with their electors, and they may be frightened from putting it into effect on account of the hardship that would be inflicted. I hardly like to say it, but I think it is quite right that a large number of Members of this House hardly realise how difficult is the actual life of the working classes in this country.
    Mr. FISHER: The local education authorities already have power to make maintenance allowances.
    Mr. DAVIES: On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that they very seldom avail themselves of that power. The object of the Amendment is that the payment shall be made not by the local authority, but by the Exchequer. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the expense is to be borne by the local education authority, then they would certainly not put the Act into force, for the simple reason that they would be afraid of the expense. On the other hand, I am afraid they will not put the Act into force
    912
    on account of the hardship that would be inflicted upon the parents. In many cases if the children are retained in the schools till the age of fifteen there will be no provision for their education, and the teaching staff will be inadequate, and in some cases not even qualified. I take it that where these children have to be educated at a distance there should be provision made for the maintenance of the children. I will not deal with the question of travelling expenses, but where a child resides 4 or 5 miles from a school, it is a matter of considerable expense to the parents to keep them. I am told that, unfortunately, the hardship inflicted by the education of children often falls upon the mother. Too often when the parents are poor it is the mother who has to suffer for the education of the child. She has to provide food necessary for the bread-winner and for the children, and I am told that in my own county in particular the better education which is given to a child is often given at the expense of suffering on the part of the mother. I would not have troubled the right hon. Gentleman so often on this point—I think that I have referred to it three times—unless I knew that our educational system as it is at present is really inflicting very serious hardship upon deserving classes of people. It is because I desire that local authorities should put this Clause into operation and increase the age to fifteen that I press upon the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude with regard to the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I cannot help thinking that there is a certain amount of confusion of. thought in the Debate to-which I have listened for the last quarter of an hour. Personally, I am all in favour of maintenance grants, but the discussion ought to resolve itself into the question of may or shall. The powers already exist. It is the custom in the existing central schools of the county council to give maintenance grants in addition to scholarships where the parents are not in a position to maintain the children while they are at school. So I do think that the attitude of the President of the Board of Education is unreasonable. It is undoubtedly a fact that so long as retaining the children up to fifteen is optional, if you are going to force education authorities, whether they will or not, to maintain the child, many education authorities will be reluctant to take advantage of the Act and to provide

    913
    opportunity to retain the children up to fifteen. Personally, I think it much better to leave the matter to the good sense and wisdom of the education authorities, especially as this Bill does not compel education authorities to extend the age to fifteen.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire in expressing regret that the President of the Board of Education has not been able to meet in any way the wish put forward by the Mover of this Amendment. I cannot help feeling that he has not allowed enough weight for the position of the words "if necessary." All that is asked by the Amendment is that it should be mandatory, where the authorities do raise the age, that, where necessary, in cases of hardship, maintenance allowance should be provided. It does not apply to all cases, but it does apply to cases of exceptional hardship, and it would be putting a cruel weight upon those families which can least bear this burden if you insist that it should be only at the good pleasure of the local authority. In some cases no doubt the local authorities will act wisely and will use the powers that they have, but they may prefer not to make use of them, and the result will be that the weight will fall upon the families which can least afford to bear it. It is not asking too much, surely, of all local authorities which make use of this power, that, in cases of hardship, where necessary, maintenances allowances should be provided! I cannot help thinking that the real difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman, without saying so, is fighting the battle of the Treasury. He would like to see these allowances paid, but he knows that if it is made mandatory there will be a claim inevitably from the local authorities to be paid by the Treasury. Of course, that will come, and the Treasury will not consent to this enlargement of the claim of education upon it. But I very much hope that the Committee, when they realise it, will support this Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am inclined to agree with the analysis which my hon. Friend who spoke last has made of the decision of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, but is the adoption of the Amendment in this form the best way to grapple with this matter? The problem of poor parents, and of maintenance allowance for children in particular cases, is precisely one
    914
    of those problems which have both a national and a local side. The proper solution would be that the Board of Education should be in a position, as I wish they were and hope they will be, to offer to the local authorities the payment of a large proportion of the maintenance allowances, which are necessary, because of the poverty of parents whose children will be kept at school an additional year, and ought to have these educational advantages, and if between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend would bring forward some proposal on those lines, I think that he would unite in its support very varying points of view in the Debate as it is now. I agree with my right hon. Friend that to accept this Amendment as it stands would be to hinder the local authorities from raising the age as they ought to. But if we could have some undertaking, preliminary to some statutory provision, that when the Board of Education were satisfied that it was necessary they would help, then I think that we could get the local authority to share the burden and raise the age where it ought to be raised, without being embarrassed by a vague and contingent liability. Therefore I support most heartily the substance and spirit of my hon. Friend's speech, while at the same time I could not possibly vote for this Amendment as it stands, because I believe that it is the very way of defeating the object which we all want to encourage—to raise the age where it is educationally necessary, and help those-who are most deserving of help when their children will get a better education.
    Mr. FISHER: I can assure my hon. Friend who has just addressed the Committee that the whole subject of local scholarships and maintenance allowances-is engaging my attention and the attention of the Board of Education, but I am not able to make a statement on it at present, because it is a very complex, difficult, and big subject.
    Mr. D. MASON: I hope that my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division. The Amendment, if carried, would involve a Financial Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am inclined' to think that it would, but I do not want to argue the point. The principle involved is so important that I trust my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division. I agree with my hon. Friend

    915
    behind in thinking that the whole difference is involved in the distinction between "may" and "shall."
    Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot agree with the Amendment in the form in which it stands, but with its underlying principle I believe there is a very much larger feeling of sympathy in this House than the President of the Board of Education possibly is aware of. I do not want to put the right hon. Gentleman in any difficulty, but I would urge upon him very strongly whether he cannot see his way to give us a somewhat more definite assurance than he did in his speech. He told us that ho was giving serious consideration to what is admittedly a very difficult question, but I submit that now is the time that he should give us some definite assurance, seeing that we have really come to grips with the bargain, so to speak. I have the honour to represent a very poor industrial Constituency which I am proud to say is immensely interested in the question of education, and the welfare of the children, and to their credit, be it said, whoever else suffers in these times of stress, the children do not suffer. It comes to be a very difficult question where you have large families, and when you are extending the period of education at a time when it is reasonable to expect that the children shall begin to co-operate in bearing the expenses of the household, for the parents to go on with the education of the family in order to raise them to a better outlook in civic life, which we all hope in the future they may be able to do. Surely the only way to deal with this matter is—I do not say compulsorily—to make possible provision out of State funds for hard cases. I do not agree with the Amendment, because I believe it would defeat the very object which the Mover has in view. But somehow the problem has got to be dealt with. I am no convert of recent date to this, because I put this point forward when the Education Bill was previously before the House. I believe that where there is a large family, if you raise the age of children for education at a time when they should be bearing some of the burdens of the household, you will be confronted and will have to deal with cases of difficulty and great hardship. I am quite sure that the President of the Board of Education will give this matter his sympathetic consideration, but the point I wish to impress
    916
    upon him is that the burden upon the poorer parents is a very real one, and it is one which calls for sympathetic consideration and an assurance that something will be done.
    Mr. FISHER: To urge upon me the desirability, even the necessity, of a further extension of the maintenance allowance for children, and the obligation of attendance at school, is to hold an open door. I admit the desirability of an extended allowance for maintenance, but at the same time I would call attention to Clause 38, under which one-half of the expenditure incurred under the Bill is defrayed by the State.
    Captain SMITH: Not more than half?
    Mr. FISHER: At least one-half, and it may be more, of the expenditure incurred either for elementary or higher education will be defrayed by the Exchequer, and consequently, if it is approved by the Board of Education, part of the expense now under discussion will be defrayed upon that principle. The Board will expect when a provisional scheme is introduced that there will be an adequate scheme of maintenance allowance, where necessary. I do not think, therefore, that it is desirable; I think, on the contrary, it would have the effect of really retarding the object of the hon. Member that this Amendment should be adopted.
    Sir J. D. REES: I only want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give the Committee any idea of what is to be the cost of this. In one speech the President of the Board of Education calculated the cost of this Bill at a certain figure, and I think that Amendments like this exceedingly comprehensive Amendment, whose Mover does not care in the least what anything costs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I have never heard him mention any one Amendment in regard to which he has asked what the cost would be or has even considered it. I will withdraw the words that he does not care and substitute the words "practically does not care" what the cost is to be. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Surely I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or I hope the House will allow me to ask him, to tell us what the cost is likely to be of this proposal! Is the right hon. Gentleman, or is he not, departing entirely from the rough-and-ready estimate he made of the extra cost which this Bill will impose

    917
    upon the State? That is a vital consideration, and vital at any time in any country in the world, and is vital at this moment to this country in regard to this Bill.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am not surprised at the speech which we have just heard, for the simple reason that the hon. Member is absolutely out of touch with the working classes of this country.
    Sir J. D. REES: I dispute that!
    Mr. WILSON: The hon. Member disputes it; he will dispute anything. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not rule this Amendment out without further consideration. If he could put himself in the place of parents whose income is anything from 20s. to 30s., 35s., or even £2 a week, he would recognise that unless there is some maintenance allowance made this Bill will not be acceptable in any shape or form to the working classes of the country, for it will make the position of those people even worse than it is now. The right hon. Gentleman has got to recognise this fact, that it is not the parents of the children who are going to reap the benefit of the education to be afforded to the children, but it is the nation that is going to reap the benefit of these young people being educated in a better manner than they are at the present time. I hope that in spite of what has been said the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, or, if he cannot do that, that he will do something that will be acceptable to the House and also to the country. If he is not prepared to accept this, I ask him to postpone the consideration of this Bill until after a General Election, because the people who will be most directly affected by this Bill are people who just now have not got votes. When the next General Election takes place the women will have votes, and therefore the opinions and views of the women of the country ought to be recognised in connection with this question of education. It is not because the working classes are against their children having a better education, but because poverty will be intensified unless there is an allowance. Speaking as a working man and as a Labour man, in spite of what has been said by some members of the Labour party, I suggest that in the meetings which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed throughout the country he has not been able to get the true and real opinion of the working classes. I say that, in dealing with any
    918
    Bill of this magnitude, affecting the economic conditions of the working classes of the country, he and the Government will be well advised to withdraw certain Clauses under present conditions.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position in the countries that compete with us in the industrial and commercial world, so far as the age at which children are compelled to go to school is concerned? If he will read the reply given by the Foreign Secretary to a question I put yesterday he will find that he is going to handicap the people of this country in the race for commercial supremacy in the world, and that being so, I suggest that a Bill of this magnitude ought to receive a great deal more consideration, not from the right hon. Gentleman, but from the Government, before they attempt to press it through the House. What is more, we have to recognise the fact that the abolition of half-time under the age of fourteen is an extremely important step, and unless he is prepared to get the Treasury to grant some financial assistance to the parents who are poor, to assist them in their struggle, for it will be a struggle, to maintain their children whilst they are attending school, losing time and income, he can rest assured that instead of being blessed by the working classes of the country he will be damned by them.
    I hope he will give real consideration to this point. It is no good passing over questions of this kind lightly and saying we must be here or there in our educational effort and also preserve the trade of this country, without which a number of people would have no income. If people are unemployed owing to there being no trade, then Part II. of the Insurance Act is going to suffer severely, and not only that, but the funds of the trade unions are going to. suffer severely by the fact that people will be thrown out of employment by our not being able to compete successfully with the countries which are our competitors. He must not dismiss an Amendment of this kind lightly and think he is going to satisfy the people of this country by saying that the boys and girls are going to be better educated than they have been in the past, if the fathers and mothers and younger children are going to starve. In such a case not only will he be condemned, but the Government will be condemned for passing a Bill of this kind. I hope, therefore, that he will postpone the Clause with regard to continuation schools until a

    919
    later period and until after the General Election, and, if he likes, allow the question to be made a test question at the next election. Otherwise he should accept the Amendment on the Paper, and I appeal to him to give further consideration to it, and not to dismiss it as easily and glibly as he has done.
    Sir R. ADKINS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not prepared to give an undertaking that, at any rate, between now and the Report stage he will bring up some Clause which will modify Clause 38 to the extent of making it perfectly clear that there will be both a Grant and encouragement from the Board of Education to all local authorities to give maintenance allowance based on the position of the parent, rather than, as most allowances are, on the particular character of instruction? What many of us feel is that the Bill as it stands does not meet the situation, and that for some practical reason this Amendment does not. We believe in the right hon. Gentleman's absolute bona fides, and I ask him to give us an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he will consider the question of introducing some such Clause.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I would just like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far the answer he gave me went. He referred to Clause 38, which provides for half the cost being borne by the Treasury and half by the local authorities. I take it he had in
    view Section 11 of the Act of 1907, which says that the local authorities may make grants or give bursaries. But the dominating word in that Section is the word "instruction." The difficulty I feel is not assisting the local authority to benefit by instruction, it is the burden on the family I am thinking of. If you could get the word "maintenance" as well as" "instruction" in Section 11 of that Act of 1907, then I think the President's answer that the Treasury is to bear half the cost would clear us, but the emphasis in the Act of 1907 is laid on "instruction"—it is laid on the clever children. You may get a clever child of a parent who has only one child and can afford to educate it properly, and as long as the education authority has the emphasis laid on the word "instruction" we shall not get what we want. If the President will somehow give us the word "maintenance," all that we want will be secured.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member has raised a very interesting point, but I think it is a point which would be most conveniently considered in connection with our Financial Clause, and I suggest that if my hon. Friend would put down some such word as he suggests we would consider it on that occasion.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 43.]

    AYES.

    [9.54 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hogge James Myles

    Rowlands, James

    Anderson, W. C.

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    John, Edward Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Bowerman. Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jowett. Frederick William

    Tootill, Robert

    Buxton, Noel

    King, Joseph

    Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Finney, Samuel

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Whitehouse and Lord H. Cavendish Bentinck.

    Helme, SirNorval Watson

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Henderson, John M (Aberdeen, W.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

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

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Barton, Sir William

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cory, James H. (Cardifo

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Boyton, Sir James

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nuttall, Harry

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Stoker, R. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pease,Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Swift, Rigby

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Pulley, C. T.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

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

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin, U.)

    Worthington-Evans, Sir L.

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Dudley Ward and Lord E. Talbot.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Shortt, Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Mr.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    The point of this Amendment may be stated very briefly indeed; it is connected with the general purpose of retaining non-provided and private schools and abolishing the final appeal to the Board of Education. Many of us feel very strongly indeed that the Clause as drafted deprives parents of a right they have hitherto enjoyed, and which has been very much prized by them—the right to appeal to a Court of law. I know we shall be told by the Minister in charge of the Bill that this is neither the intention nor the effect of the Clause, and that, as a matter of fact, punitive measures will still rest with a Court of law. That may be so, but the practical effect of the Sub-section as it stands is, I suggest, to place the ultimate authority in the hands of the Board of Education. That we desire to avoid. I desire to avoid it on the ground which was so fully stated by the Bryce Commission on Secondary Education when it reported, I think, in the year 1895. The Committee and the President of the Board will remember that the Bryce Commission reported very strongly indeed in favour of maintaining a variety of secondary schools.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Sub-section does not refer to elementary schools only, and not to secondary schools?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so, but it does not make the Amendment out of order. The hon. Gentleman who is moving it may be under a misapprehension.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I did not say that the Amendment was out of order, but that the argument, based on the supposition that this Sub-section referred to secon-
    922
    dary schools was out of order, and I rather hoped that the Mover of this Amendment would restrict his arguments to questions concerning elementary schools, with which this does deal.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I submit that that was rather a matter for the Chair than for the hon. Gentleman by whom I have been interrupted. I will, of course, restrict my arguments to elementary schools, but the argument in regard to the variety of schools applies with equal force to them as it does to the secondary schools, and in some respects with even greater force. What is the position, as I conceive it, under the Sub-section as it would stand in the Bill? It would be this, that a parent who was sending a child, we will say, to a Roman Catholic school, or an Anglican school, or any school that might not be approved of by the local education authority in the particular district in which they happened to be, would have under the Clause as it stands only on appeal to the Board of Education. My argument is directed to the general point and not to the question of elementary or secondary schools. I submit that in the interests of variety and liberty of education it is desirable to delete the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. BOOTH: I object to this Clause upon the ground that it comes within the attempt to make the administrative body a legal and final body. I submit that is quite wrong. It was introduced to a considerable extent in the Insurance Act, whereby the Insurance Commissioners, who had to frame Regulations and send them out, were the sole judges, like the Court of law, in administering them. It has now become the fashion among the would-be legislators on the Front Bench to attempt to get round the decision of His Majesty's judges, and I am perfectly

    923
    sure they will not accomplish it by this Clause. I think the weight of the legal Bench will be quite sufficient if this Clause is in for them to defeat it. It seems to me to be clumsily worded, and that is my one hope of it if it goes in. We find again and again that the decisions of these Departments are upset when they come before a judge if equality, rather than technicality, prevails. I want, on the general ground, to take the strongest objection to the Board of Education following in the wake of other Departments in the bad example of trying to put themselves up as a Court of justice. I do not think they should. They should be content to frame their own Regulations correctly and to have their own powers, and I do not like to see that their decisions should be final and conclusive. I am perfectly certain that these words are in to prevent someone getting their rights. It may be that it is aimed at the voluntary schools, and one only has to look at the names to see that there has been a great fear aroused in some quarters, while I have information that that is well-founded. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to be misled too much by the Government draftsmen and the usual permanent officials, who always like not only to get large administrative powers, but not to be challenged, for the very good reason that they have been challenged frequently and the Government have been found in the wrong. They have been compelled to come forward with short amending Bills to indemnify themselves against the mistakes they have made. We have had one or two this Session, and we may have one or two more. I cannot see what purpose this has unless it is to set up the Board of Education as a last resort as a Court of justice, and on that ground I object to it.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he consider how far he would like to proceed this evening? I think it would be quite possible for the President to get Clauses 8 and 9 before the House adjourns to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I think we ought to facilitate matters as much as possible, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee may consent to taking Clauses 8 and 9, if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he would be content with that progress. If he would, I think it might facilitate business.
    Mr. FISHER: If I get Clauses 8 and 9, I will not ask the Committee to go further to-night.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Marriott) when he was speaking, but I really wanted, before he made his speech, to obtain from the President of the Board some information not contained in the Sub-section itself as regards the class of schools to which this particular Sub-section refers. The Sub-section speaks of the question whether a child who is not attending a school recognised by the Board of Education is efficient. Having regard to the fact that the schools referred to in this Sub-section are only elementary schools and not secondary schools, I was very desirous of ascertaining from the Board of Education a statement as to what classes of elementary school it refers to in this particular Sub-section which are not under the inspection of the Board of Education. It is really because I am rather ignorant as regards what the Subsection means, and what class of elementary schools there are at present in this country which are not under the inspection of the Board of Education, that I ask for that information. I think it very desirable that the Committee should know to what extent the Board of Education at the present time is able, if it should be able, to inspect all the elementary schools in the country, and if it is not able to, or does not inspect those schools, I think the Committee ought to be informed before passing this Clause what are the particular classes of schools it is not able to inspect. I also want to know what exactly is meant by the educational institutions referred to in this Sub-section. It is for that reason that I ventured to interrupt my hon. Friend, and I apologise for doing so.
    Sir H. CRAIK: With every disposition, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to support this Bill and facilitate its passing, I am compelled on educational grounds to take very strong objection to 'this Sub-section. I agree with the views laid down by the hon. Member for Ponte-fract (Mr. Booth) with regard to the growing desire on the part of official organisations and Departments to assume to themselves judicial functions; but let us sec exactly what this change involves. It is a very largo and a very wide change, and it is quite independent of what the hon. Baronet below me (Sir P. Magnus) speaks of. It goes far beyond

    925
    that. When the Education Act of 1870 was passed the injunction and the obligation laid on parents was to provide efficient education or instruction for their children. They could do that in the way they pleased, and that is the very valuable buttress of individual liberty and freedom of choice. It becomes a totally different thing when you say it must be given in a particular manner, and that particular manner is not to be decided in the open Court before a judicial tribunal which can hear the evidence on one side or the other, but merely by a Government Department. That is the essential fault that I have to find with this Section, and I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will not misinterpret what I say, as one of the fundamental supporters of the Bill, if I object to this as a new, and, as I think, a subversive principle introduced into our legislation.
    Compulsory education is, no doubt, a good thing to meet a neglectful part of society, but those who introduced compulsory education in the Act of 1870, with which my first acquaintance with educational administration began, always felt that compulsory education would best prove its success by the fact that in a few years it would show itself to be unnecessary. I am very sorry indeed, looking back upon nearly fifty years now, that that has not been the case, and that the pressure which seems to increase in this House to make more and more stringent rules with regard to obligations has not increased the anxiety, the ambition, and the personal interest of parents, but has diminished it, and it is just as well we should recognise it. Human nature is a very cantankerous and difficult subject, and very often things we are quite ready to do when we are left to ourselves, as soon as they are made obligatory we begin to kick against them. Compulsory and obligatory education was, no doubt, necessary for neglectful parents. In my own country of Scotland, except for the criminal classes, there was not a parent who was not proud to have his child educated. That has rather died out than increased under compulsory education, and now you are giving in this Clause a new and very serious turn to the screw. You are going to tell the people not only that they must educate their children, but that they must educate them in a particular way, that they have no right to go before a judge in a Court and say, "I have educated my child. Here is the
    926
    proof; test it if you like," but they must do it in a particular manner, and the determination as to that particular manner, and the school in which it is to be given, is to rest not with the Court, not with any proof or argument which the parent may bring forward before the Court, but in the judgment of the Board of Education as to the efficiency of the instruction. The right hon. Gentleman may say that they have an appeal to a Court of law, but what is left to the Court of law? If it comes before a judge he will say, "Who is the judge of what is efficient instruction? I have looked at this Sub-section of the new Act, and it tells me that efficient instruction is only that instruction which is pronounced by the Board of Education to be efficient." He has no judgment in his own hands at all. I do not think any choice would be left him but to convict in such a case.
    Surely there are a great many ways in which children may obtain education otherwise than between the four walls of a school One of the most able Members of this House has confessed to me that he thought a great deal of his success in life was due to the fact that he had never attended a school for more than six months at a time. There are all sorts of varieties in the methods of obtaining education. Some parents may think that education at home has its advantages, or that education by travel has its advantages; but here, if you are in a particular school which does not teach in a way that the Board of Education approves as. efficient, you may appeal, as my light hon. Friend may tell us, and the Court of Law will only say, "You are giving instruction in a way that is pronounced by the authority which is constituted the final determining authority to be inefficient." I do think that is a very serious new move. It is-open to the objection of the hon. Member for Pontefract, that it is an extension of official and departmental power at the expense of the Court of law. It is also open to the objection that it introduces an entirely new form of compulsion. In place of saying, "You must educate your child and give him efficient instruction or you must be prepared to be brought up for neglecting him and for it to be proved that he is without efficient instruction "— instead of that you are now told by a Government Department, "We pronounce-this form of instruction, and this school, whatever the results may be in regard to

    927
    your child, to be inefficient, and because your child goes there, or because he receives instruction in a way we have not pronounced to be efficient, and which we may have no means of pronouncing to be efficient, you here come within the four corners of the law"—which has no alternative but to condemn the parent for neglect of duty. I know that in the Courts of law in years gone by this case was fully argued, and the judges laid it down more than once that efficient instruction did not necessarily mean attending within the walls of a school, but the giving to a child such instruction, in any way you please, as might prove itself in the results to be efficient and satisfactory. I trust that the Committee will not give up on the part of the parents or the children of this country that liberty which has hitherto existed, that we shall not now, at this time of day, allow a new turn of the screw in the matter of compulsory education which will have very dangerous effects.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think members of he Committee, or at all events some of them, are reading into this Clause far more than is there. It would appear to me that if there is to be a national system of education there must be some method of, shall I say, erecting a standard by which the education which is given shall be judged. Clearly it would be against the national interest to allow the multiplication of schools of an inferior type which, giving an education of an inferior type, would allow children to come from them inefficiently equipped to engage in the battle of life. We know there are parents who desire to keep their children apart from the public facilities for education, and are prepared, in some instances, to forego the more efficient education given In the public system rather than submit their children to contact with the children in the public schools. That appears to me to be a thing not to be encouraged at all. If we are to have a public system of education with a high standard, let us ensure that all the schools supported by the parents who wish to avoid public institutions shall be up to the standard attained by the public provision of schools. That, I take it, is the object of this Clause. The Board of Education, perhaps not being in the best position for seeing that every small school comes up to their standard, delegates, through this Clause, the right to
    928
    see whether any small institution is reaching the standard of the general public provision. That seems entirely the right course, and the Board of Education, in the interests of national education, is endeavouring to secure from every institution a standard not lower than that fixed for the local education authorities. That is an entirely good thing and meets the snobbish idea of parents that the public provision of education should be avoided. I think the Board of Education should stick to this Sub-section. In the second half of the Sub-section it is intended to give protection to the parents, because it gives an appeal to the parents of the child in a school which is inspected by the Board against the type of education given. It gives the parents an appeal to ensure that the type of education given is up to the proper level, and will compare in all respects with the public provision made by the local education authority. The cumbrous provision of the law Courts seems out of place to settle whether suitable standards of education are reached in these educational institutions. There is nothing in the Sub-section inimical to the interests of private schools which reach a good standard, and, therefore, I think the Board of Education is well advised in inserting this Sub-section, and I hope it will be adhered to.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I cannot agree with the interpretation which has been put upon this proposal by the last speaker, nor with the reasons given by him in support of it. By all means have a national system of education supported by national funds under national control, and the more you extend those principles the better hon. Members will be pleased. But to say that the administrative body which properly controls that system is at the same time to be a judicial authority is to confuse what ought to be kept separate in the most important respects. Who is to decide whether a child is receiving instruction whose parents have chosen some other method than the national method? Surely not the administreators who are concerned with the national method. They must be, to a certain extent, zealous of their own type of education, and in the most inoffensive sense of the word partisan. My hon. Friend is an expert, and he knows that education is not so simple that you can apply a standard the same as you would apply to the height of a building. You may have a kind of education so different

    929
    from the national one that it would be quite unfair for the decision as to whether it is efficient or not to be left to the officials of the national system. It is a judicial duty and function to decide whether a child in being educated in an exceptional way is being educated efficiently. Many hon. Members are lay magistrates with no special knowledge of any special occupation, but the whole tendency of our race is to allow laymen to decide matters of judicial importance after listening to what the experts may have to say on either side. The question whether a child is being efficiently educated is far better decided by the common sense of an experienced Englishman who hears what the local education authority or the Board of Education has to say through their witnesses than by those committed to one particular view of education. As I read history, nothing is more dangerous to the civilisation of a State than to confuse the executive and administrative with the judicial. It marks unhesitatingly the downward step in the growth of a nation. It is a disease which attacks nations at almost all stages, and their power of resisting it is one of the best test of their virility. We have seen a tendency in all sorts of crevices and corners of Bills to make the administrative authority the judicial authority as well, and for my part I will oppose that always, not because I do not care for education, but because I know that education will be better carried out if you keep these fundamental distinctions. Therefore, while I approach education from a very different point of view than those hon. Members whose names are down to this Amendment—I have no doubt that on other occasions we should have acute controversy as to the best methods of education—on this point of demarcation between the administrative and judicial functions I entirely agree with them, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow this Sub-section to go out, and that we may get this Bill as quickly as possible. Let him realise that we are in a state in which legislation can only proceed on a very wide basis of consent. This Bill has the vast bulk of public opinion behind it. Why destroy it, why injure it, why spoil its symmetry by bringing in matters of this contentious character? If it goes to a Division I shall have to vote for the Amendment because of the principle involved, but if the right hon. Gentleman took the Sub-section out
    930
    it would not interfere with the efficiency of the Bill, while it would widen the area of contention.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: When my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) moved this Amendment, I did not fully appreciate the significance of it, although I am generally in agreement with him, and I recognise that there is no Member more competent to give an opinion upon a question of this sort; but I do realise now that the Amendment involves one of the most important principles in the whole course of the Debate upon this Bill, and I am very clear that I differ as strongly as possible from the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Goldstone). The Amendment brings very prominently to the front the great difficulty, perhaps the chief difficulty, which is involved in any system of national education. There is necessarily in any such system a conflict of great principles. First of all, we desire to give 'the beat possible education to the greatest number of children. We desire that in the interests of the children themselves, and as I feel, we desire it still more strongly in the interests of the State. I do not look upon education as a mere privilege or advantage, which we offer to individuals who form the State, but rather as something which the State is entitled to exact from the people in the interests of the State itself. But along with these principles we have to recognise the inherent right in the parent to bring up the child in the way in which the parent thinks right and to give that child education upon the lines of which the parent approves. It is quite clear that those are principles which it is sometimes difficult to reconcile. If you devise your national system of education upon too strict lines with a view to satisfying the requirements of the State, you must inevitably sacrifice the co-relative right of the parent to direct the lines upon which his child shall be brought up. Those two principles are brought out in this Amendment. In this Clause, as it-stands, it is quite clear that the direction upon which the education of all children is to proceed is subject to the control of the local education authority and of the Board of Education—in other words, the administrative authority throughout the country. These directing authorities may or may not give any value to the opinions or wishes of the individual parent. The words of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldstone) appeared to me to involve the theory that

    931
    the rights of the parent are to be disregarded. He spoke of schools which might be inefficient and modes of private education which might commend themselves to the parent which, according to him, are to be swept aside as being entirely inefficient, and the Board of Education is in all such cases to say, "Such a school is entirely inefficient; it is not on the lines of which we approve; we do not approve of your educating your child in such a way and you must conform to our system." That appears to me to be entirely wrong. While the State provides a system of education for the child and provides it free, all that the State has a right to do is to say to the parent, "What we insist upon your doing is to give your child an efficient education. We are not concerned to say upon what lines that education is to proceed. You may be, from our point of view, an educational crank. You may have ideas of education quite different from those of the majority and quite different from that which the Board of Education or any local education authority is likely to sanction, and all we have the right to do is to see that you provide your child with an efficient education." Who is to be the judge of an efficient education? That is a difficult point, but because it is a difficult point, in the last resort certainly the very last authority to decide that difficult question is the administrative department itself. You must have some judicial body which is to decide upon a matter of fact. I agree that it is a very difficult point for any judicial body to decide, but that difficulty you cannot get rid of. It is just as great a difficulty, whether you submit it to the decision of the Board of Education or submit it to a Court of law. That difficulty is inherent in the situation. A Court of law is more competent than the administrative body to decide upon a pure question of fact, because they may hear evidence. They are accustomed to deal with evidence and to deal with matters upon which they have no pre-conceived notions themselves. If a parent comes before a judicial body and says, "It is quite true I do not send my child to school at all. I do not wish to send him to school. I do not approve of the influences to which he may be subjected when at school." The parent has a right to say that. I think he has a right to say, "I will not send my son to learn with a number of other boys. I prefer that he should be
    932
    subjected entirely to home influences." He may give evidence that he and his wife, or persons whom he employs, are quite competent to give a good education at home. He may say, "I prefer that my child should be so educated at home," or, "I prefer that he should gain his education by travel," or in fifty other ways which the Board of Education might consider quite freakish and crankish. But a judicial authority, having heard all the evidence, might say, "This is certainly a very strange method. It is quite true it is off the ordinary lines, but. having heard the evidence, we are not in a position to say this is not efficient." It is quite possible that a boy or girl so educated may be much better educated than by going to an ordinary humdrum school conforming to the ordinarily accepted, steam-roller-ridden lines of education. That is exactly what I think the parent has a right to do, and, therefore, I feel very strongly that on a question of this kind we should be departing from the very best principles of a national system of education and those which have been followed in this country hitherto if at this time, when we are making the greatest step forward which we ever made in the development of national education, we developed it entirely upon the lines of State regulation and gave the "good-bye for ever" to the quite as important side of it of the right of the parent to direct the education of the child, and I feel that it is very important that we should be careful not to override the rights of the family, which, from the social and the educational point of view, are of the utmost importance, in our anxiety to see that the individual child gets what most of us would regard as efficient education. Let us be very careful in this matter to avoid the tyrannical rule of the majority. We have heard a great deal during the last two or three years. sometimes in directions with which I was unable to agree, about the rights of the individual conscience and the rights of individual opinion, but surely, if there is any part of our national life in which the individual conscience and the individual opinion are entitled to respect and support from this House and from the State it is in the education of the children, which is the most sacred right of the people of this country, and therefore I seriously and earnestly urge upon the Committee that they should consider this matter before

    933
    they refuse to accept the Amendment, which I am perfectly ready to support if the House goes to a Division.
    Mr. FISHER: It would perhaps be convenient if I first of all explain the character of the evil against which this Clause is directed, and then invite the Committee to consider some of the misconceptions which have, I think, gathered round the discussion of this point. The hon. Member for London University asks me what was the class of school to which this Clause referred? It refers to private schools, which educate children up to the age of fourteen. Many of these schools are quite good. Many of them are interesting experiments in education with which nobody wishes to interfere. On the other hand there are a very large number of private schools which are frauds, and gross frauds. I do not think the House or the country realise how very serious this evil is and what a grave menace it is to the educational progress and prosperity of the country. Let me give the Committee an instance. There was a school in a county borough in the Midlands which came before the notice of the Board last year.
    "It had seventy-two children on the register, most of whom were between the ages of eleven and fourteen; consequently, of an age requiring instruction or a fairly advanced character and also of the age when children can profitably be employed. The staff consisted of one entirely unqualified teacher, assisted by two elder girls, scholars of the school, neither of whom was fourteen years of age. There was supposed to be six classes taught by this staff. The premises consisted of a front bedroom of a. house, 15 ft. by 10 ft. by 10 ft. and the front ground floor room of another house 50 yrs. away, 10 ft. by 10 ft. by 10 ft. There were no desks; but there were a few forms of various sizes and conditions of dilapidation. One broken blackboard was supported by two chair legs. The children were doing their work on broken pieces of slate. There were no facilities for paper work. The instruction was entirely of a mechanical type—multiplication and money tables up to 10,000 pence. Lists of words, some of which were incorrectly spelt, were copied from a blackboard. Instruction was given in a mechanical way in geography. There was no syllabus of work, nor was the instruction graduated—all classes were served alike. The attendance was supposed to begin at 9.30, but on one occasion, when a visit was paid to the school, the proprietress had not arrived at 11.20, and the children dribbled in, many of them being an hour late. The two rooms were separated by an open field, the soil of which was soft and muddy. The air was very foul. There was no provision of artificial light and the natural light was quite insufficient. The floor was filthy; large pieces of dirt had been carried in on the children's boots. The walls and ceilings were dirty and
    934
    large patches of plaster had fallen away in places. There was no playground and no sanitary conveniences whatever except in the caretaker's house on the other side of the street and in the vestry in the church. The lavatory was also in the caretaker's house, but had never been used. Substantially, it may be said, that attached to one of the rooms there was no lavatory or sanitary accommodation at all, and that in the case of the other room, it was entirely insufficient. There was ample evidence that the teacher generally did not arrive at the proper time and that hardly any of the children -stopped the full time. On one afternoon when the school was under observation the maximum instruction given amounted to thirty-three minutes in the case of ten girls and nine boys."
    That was declared to be efficient by the magistrate. He refused to convict. This is not by any means an isolated case. I could give similar cases. That is the evil which has to be dealt with. I am told that we can safely leave this matter to the magistrates. I think in many cases we can, but we have to remember that the magistrates have no inspectors at all, and for many of them it is a physical impossibility to visit the school. They have no machinery for knowing what the quality of the instruction in the school is; what is the physical condition of the school; and what is the sanitary condition of the school. They could ask, but they have not the machinery that is possessed by the education authorities in this country for arriving at a correct decision as to whether the school is giving a reasonable quantum of education. I do not think that my hon. Friend, in his interesting speech, was quite correct in saying that the magistrate would probably be in a better position to reach a satisfactory decision as to the quality of the instruction than the local education authority.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is there anything in such cases to prevent the local authority from putting evidence before the magistrate in order that he may arrive at a decision in such cases as my right hon. Friend has just read out? Surely, if the facts had been put before the magistrate by the local education authority he would have immediately said, "This is an inefficient school."
    Mr. FISHER: He would be unable to enter the school. I was astonished when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham accused me of violating the principles of the Constitution, which declared that the executive and judicial functions should be separated, and I was still more astonished when that sentence was

    935
    cheered by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, because surely if there is one characteristic in the History of our magistrates in this country it is that forcenturies—
    Sir R. ADKINS: It is recognised by all parties in the State that it was a great step forward when they were separated by the Act of 1888.
    Mr. FISHER: What is it that this Clause proposes? That the question as to whether the education is efficient should be a question for the education authority to determine. The magistrate will be bound to accept the verdict of the authority which is served by inspectors who can enter the schools and can give presumably a qualified opinion upon the subject, but a magistrate is not bound to fine, and if the magistrate does not fine, and if it is his view that there is a local education authority which is apt to take an unreasonable line in questions of this kind he will not fine, and the local education authority will know very soon that it is useless for it to attempt to bring cases of this kind before the magistrate. Then, again, the magistrate has got to consider what are reasonable excuses for non-attendance, and it has been judicially held that the reasonable excuses for not attending school are the three statutory excuses contained in Section 74 of the Education Act of 1870. Even if the magistrate is bound to hold that the education which is received is efficient, he can still find that for some other reason the child has an excuse for not attending school. This matter was considered by a very strong Departmental Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, and they recommended without hesitation that there should be an alteration in the law, and that it should be laid down that the only possible excuses which could be accepted should be the three statutory excuses of sickness, of inefficient instruction, and excessive distance from a public elementary school. I went into the matter very carefully, and came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to fetter the discretion of the magistrate. Consequently I did not adopt the suggestion which was made by the Departmental
    936
    Committee, but I do think that the magistrate would be helped rather than hindered if on this particular point of efficient instruction he could be guided by the opinion of the local authority, always on the understanding that there is an appeal from that opinion to the Board of Education. I think the Committee have been largely influenced by a feeling, which is very natural, that the education which is provided by our public system is of a very uniform and mechanical kind. I do not think that is the case. I think that in the case of the elementary school there is a very great difference between one elementary school and another. The mere fact that the system of education is administered locally through a local education authority, influenced by all manner of local differences and considerations, does ensure a very great deal of variety of type. I do not share the apprehensions expressed so freely by members of the Committee that this Clause will endanger educational variety in the country. There is no real risk. If there were, I would certainly withdraw the Clause at once. It has been suggested to me by some member of the Committee that the Board of Education should associate itself, in considering the inspector's report, with a panel of independent members not connected with the public system of education. If that would meet the views of hon. Members I would be very glad to fall in with that suggestion.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I hope that the President will see his way to modify this Clause. The difficulty of the voluntary school is admittedly a great one. He gave a very alarming instance of a school in the Midlands where local education had been carried on, and where it was very difficult to imagine any child receiving efficient instruction. To all of us interested in education instances of that kind are not unknown, but I think that something in the way of an extension of the Board's power of inspection, coupled with the power of making reports on schools, would meet the evil with which the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal. It should be borne in mind that under the Act of 1876 the compulsory duty is imposed upon the parents to see that the children received efficient instruction. If they do not receive efficient instruction, then the magistrate can impose a fine.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  FINANCE [EXPENSES, ETC.].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any local authority or police authority in the exercise of powers in relation to Luxury Duty; and to authorise a provision to enable the currency of War Savings Certificates to be extended in pursuance of any Act of the present Session dealing with Finance."
  Mr. D. MASON: Does it mean that if we pass this we subscribe to the Budget Act? I have put down an Amendment on the Finance Bill to leave out a Section.
  The CHAIRMAN: It does not commit the Committee on the Bill in any way; it only enables them to consider it.
  Mr. BALDWIN: May I explain to the hon. Member? This is merely the Committee stage of two enabling Reso-
  938
  lutions which have to be passed before they can be considered in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which will probably be taken in the course of next week. They deal with two subjects on which financial Resolutions have to be moved. One relates to Clause 13 of the Finance Bill, which empowers the local or police authorities to make certain arrangements in connection with the administration and the collection of the Luxury Taxes. The second refers to the War Saving Certificates, and will provide, under Clause 40 of the Finance Bill, for the payment of interest on War Savings Certificates after the expiration of five years. At present there is a statutory limitation of five years, beyond which period there is no provision for paying interest.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock

WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    BUTTER (INVALID'S RATIONS).
    BUTTER (INVALID'S RATIONS).
    FLOUR PRICES ORDER.
    FLOUR PRICES ORDER.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    LABOUR EXCHANGES (PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS REGISTER).
    LABOUR EXCHANGES (PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS REGISTER).
    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Foreign Second Chambers (Memoranda).
  Foreign Second Chambers (Memoranda).