Sitting of 2 December 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    CLOSED MINES.
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Secretary for Mines whether, when a coal mine is stopped either temporarily or permanently, any inquiries are instituted by his Department as to the reasons for closing down; whether mineowners are always willing to supply such information; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take with a view to compelling the owners to forward the necessary information?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): It is the regular practice, when a pit is closed, for the owners to inform my Department of the cause, and no difficulty is experienced in obtaining this information.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Am I to understand from the answer that the information is always supplied in every case, and supplied fully, and, if so, can any hon. Member of this House obtain the information concerning a specific colliery if he puts down a question?
    Mr. BROOKE: Will my hon. Friend state in his reply whether there is any obligation upon a mineowner at the present moment to notify the Minister of closing down?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have ascertained that there is a legal obligation in point
    1954
    of time. As regards the first supplementary question, the information is in our possession with regard to the closing down of collieries, but, if my hon. Friend desires information concerning a specific pit, perhaps he will give me notice of the question.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a wide-spread feeling among miners that occasionally a colliery is closed down, not because of economic, but because of other reasons?

    OVERTIME.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to overtime being worked in coal mines; and what steps he has taken to see that the regulations in regard to hours are not broken when such overtime is being worked?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have received complaints concerning the working of overtime in various coalfields. Ail complaints made are investigated by His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and steps taken, whether by prosecution or otherwise, to secure compliance with the law. I am hoping, however, to secure the institution of a system whereby the industry itself, through committees both of owners and of workmen, may assist His Majesty's Inspectors in dealing with these questions. Some progress has already been made in this direction in one coalfield, and it is my, desire to complete it and extend it to other coalfields.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in certain cases reports, particularly with regard to deputies, are altered and falsified by those responsible?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have no information upon that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will furnish me with the information.

    INSPECTORATE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of inspectors engaged under the Mines Act; if this is an increase on 1927 and 1928; and the number of inspections made below ground for 1927, 1928, and 1929, respectively?
    Mr. SHINWELL: There are 110 inspectors appointed under the Coal Mines

    1955
    Act, 1911. The figures for 1927, 1928 and 1929 were 105, 104 and 106, respectively. The number of underground inspections made at coal mines in 1927, 1928 and 1929, were respectively, 18,844, 17,922 and 18,692.

    EXPLOSIONS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines how many explosions of fire-damp causing loss of life there have been during 1929; and how many of them have been caused by shot-firing or by electricity?
    Mr. SHINWELL: During 1929 there were 13 fatal explosions of fire-damp, and they caused a loss of 34 lives. Three, in which 13 lives were lost, were due to shot-firing. One in which nine lives were lost was due to electricity.

    COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary for Mines how many representatives of domestic consumers of coal have been put upon the Committee of Investigation in Scotland set up under the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and will he give their names?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, provides for the appointment on the Committee of Investigation for Scotland of one representative of domestic consumers of coal. I have appointed Mr. William Elger, J.P., of Glasgow, to be that representative.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is not Mr. William Elger the Secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress, and will he not, therefore, be rather more engaged in representing the point of view of the producer than that of the domestic consumer, which is the intention of the Act?
    Mr. SHINWELL: No, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. BROWN: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the intention of the Act was that there should be a representative of the domestic consumers, and that Mr. Elger, as Secretary of the Congress, might be more inclined to represent the producer?
    Mr. SHINWELL: That is precisely why I appointed Mr. Elger, who is, in my opinion, an excellent representative of the domestic consumers.
    Mr. BROWN: Has the hon. Member received any representations against this appointment from the Scottish Co-operative Society?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Representations of the Co-operative Society in Scotland have nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Elger. They asked for special representations for co-operators as such, and I was unable to accede to their request.
    Mr. BROWN: Does not that show that there is a very great feeling of disappointment in Scotland that this appointment does not represent the domestic consumers at all?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not a fact that the complaints have come from the co-operative societies because co-operative societies which are retailing coal have not representation?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The complaint from the co-operative societies was attributeable to the lack of information. They were under the impression that we were empowered to appoint more than one representative of domestic consumers.

    SAFETY MEASURES AND METHODS.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines what steps he intends to take in order to direct attention to the need for the adoption of safety measures and methods in mining?
    Mr. SHINWELL: It is difficult to deal with this subject within the limits of an answer to a question, but I hope to deal with it fully in my speech to-morrow upon the Motion which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Clayton Division (Mr. Sutton).

    COLLIERY LAMPS (LEAFLETS).
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines if he will cause inquiries to be made at certain collieries in Nottingham of the practice of issuing leaflets in colliery lamps?
    Mr. SHINWELL: As far as I am aware the only documents issued with safety lamps have been forms to authorise the payment of trade union subscriptions through the colliery office. If my hon. Friend has any other information and will let me have it, I will consider it.
    Mr. LAWTHER: May I ask the Secretary for Mines if he does not think that

    1957
    it is altogether despicable on the part of this Colliery Company to intimidate the men.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Gordon Macdonald.

    MINERS (NATIONALISATION).
    Captain PEAKEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes to introduce the Bill to nationalise minerals which he undertook to introduce during the past Session?
    Mr. SHINWELL: So far as can at present be foreseen, the Parliamentary programme will not permit of this Bill being dealt with during this Session.
    Captain PEAKE: Is it not a fact that all efforts to draft a Bill on these lines was abandoned many months ago?
    SHINWELL: The hon. Member is quite misinformed.

    SAFETY APPLIANCES (CAP LAMPS).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information concerning the provision of a head-lamp for pit ponies in mines with a view to minimising accidents and injury; and, if so, whether he is taking any steps to secure its adoption?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have authorised the use of a modified form of an approved electric cap lamp for experimental trials underground for this purpose at a mine in Yorkshire, and the progress of these trials will be watched with interest by my Department. Some provisional experiments have also been made in South Wales by one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Horses, using an ordinary cap lamp. At present, there is not enough evidence to enable any definite judgment to be arrived at as to value of lamps used for such a purpose; but so far as they have gone, the experiments are encouraging. My Department will continue to watch them closely and will encourage any further experiments in the same direction.

    ACCIDENTS (BOYS).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the fact that one-fourth of the boys under 16 years employed in mines were killed
    1958
    and injured in 1929, he will consider the suggestions put forward in the Northern Mines Report for 1927 dealing with haulage accidents to boys under 16; whether he can offer any explanation of the high rate of fatal and non-fatal accidents to such boys from falls of ground in the South Wales coalfield; and whether he will consider adopting the example of Germany, mentioned in the 1927 Northern Mines Report, in regard to the prohibition of boys under 16 from working underground and the systematic training till that age on the surface and over that age till they are 18 below ground?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The suggestions contained in the Report of His Majesty's Divisional Inspector of Mines for the Northern Division for 1927 relating to accidents to boys are engaging my serious attention and while I cannot hold out any prospect of legislation under the present conditions of the mining industry, I shall do everything I can to bring to the notice of the industry the necessity for special measures to deal with the problem. With regard to the second part of the question, the high rate of accidents from falls of ground to boys in South Wales is due to the long-established custom in that district whereby boys start work at the coal face as colliers' helpers. Their initial employment on haulage work, as in other districts, is not practicable owing to the size of the horses and trams in use.
    Mr. HERRIOTTS: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that two out of every five boys in Northumberland and Durham were either killed or injured last year and that Sir Henry Walker, Chief Inspector of Mines, says that considerable amount of safety could be obtained by improvement of the haulage roads?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am fully aware of the high rate of accidents among boys in Northumberland and Durham and elsewhere throughout the coalfields, and that is precisely why I am so much concerned.

    MINERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION (DEPUTATION).
    Mr. CHARLES BROWNasked the Secretary for Mines if he is prepared to receive the deputation which the Miners' Industrial Union have requested him to receive?
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will agree to receive a deputation from the Miners' Industrial Non-Political Union?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have informed the Miners' Industrial Union that I do not think any useful purpose will be served by a discussion on the points they wish to raise, but that if they still wish me to receive a deputation I can do so.
    Mr. BROWN: When the hon. Member receives an application from this union will he have regard to the fact that among the men who are compelled to belong to it there is the utmost loathing and contempt for the organisation?
    Mr. COCKS: Is the hon. Member aware that this union is not recognised under the Mines Act?
    Mr. SHINWELL: There is no special union mentioned in the Mines Act.

    SITUATION, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines if he can make any statement as to the coal situation in Scotland and as to the outcome of the conferences held there yesterday and to-day, and if he can state what steps are being taken to secure an early settlement.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I can only say that a delegate conference of the Scottish miners is being held this afternoon to consider whether a means can be found to secure a general resumption of work pending negotiations for a permanent settlement.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether proposals are being considered for a settlement on the basis of no reduction of wages?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply that I have given.

  SOUTH AFRICA.

    NATIVE TERRITORIES (HIGH COMMISSIONER).
    Sir RENNELL RODDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can give the reasons for the decision to take away from the Governor-General of the South African Union the
    1960
    duties which, as the King's representative, he has hitherto carried out as High Commissioner for the native territories and to transfer them to a newly appointed Commissioner who, by the nature of his office, will no longer directly represent the Sovereign?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Sir Herbert Stanley, as High Commissioner for South Africa, will be, in relation to the duties of that office, as fully the representative of His Majesty the King as his predecessors have been. He will, however, both in this capacity and in his capacity as High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in the Union of South Africa, be responsible to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The Governor-General of the Union of South Africa, on the other hand, is no longer the representative of, or responsible to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, but is the representative of the Crown alone; it was for this reason that the separation of the post of High Commissioner for South Africa from that of Governor-General was felt necessary.
    Mr. HANNON: Will it be the function of this new High Commissioner to do everything possible to develop British trade in South Africa?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. That will be the function of every and any High Commissioner.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to follow this policy in any other Dominion?
    Mr. THOMAS: The circumstances are different. Hitherto the duties of the Governor-General of South Africa were combined with that of High Commissioner and the position of High Commissioner made him responsible for native policy. The change, which makes the Governor-General alone responsible to His Majesty the King, through the South African Government, necessitates, in the interests of this country, our saying that we must have someone responsible for native policy who is responsible to us, and to no one else.

    CONVICT LABOUR.
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he

    1961
    can state for what kinds of work the Government of the Union of South Africa hires out penal labour to private employers; and whether the products of such work include any commodities imported into this country?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the section of the Union Act relating to prisons which deals with the question of the employment of convict labour. So far as I am aware, the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps with regard to the Dominions to make amends for the incredible outrage he committed last Thursday?

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any offer relating to the sale of Canadian wheat in this country on the basis of reciprocal preference has been made by Canada since the findings of the Imperial Conference have been published?
    Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what will be the next step which the Government propose to take on this vital matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: The question is whether any offer relating to the sale of Canadian wheat in this country on the basis of reciprocal preference has been made by Canada since the findings of the Imperial Conference have been published. That is a question to which I have answered "No." The next stage is a stage which has already been initiated by the Government at home, namely, to inquire and have immediate investigation made into all the methods by which this can be accomplished. In the case of wheat, the obvious reciprocal agreement would be in respect of coal.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Why were these investigations not made before the Conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: The answer is that I endeavoured 15 months ago to bring about a reciprocal arrangement in regard to wheat and coal, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that coal is also pro-
    1962
    duced in Canada, and Canada feels it necessary in her own interests to put a tariff on soft coal.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in a position to state whether any proposals have been made by the Government of Australia to reduce tariffs now existing in that Dominion on the basis of reciprocal preference with this country?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the speech made by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia at the second plenary session of the Imperial Conference held on 8th October in which Mr. Scullin stated that Australia would be willing, as part of a definite policy of Imperial economic co-operation, to consult with the representatives of manufacturers in this country to see if it is possible, without sacrificing any important Australian interests, to afford a greater degree of preference to certain goods, and also to consider any representations which manufacturers here may desire to make regarding the administration of the Commonwealth preferential system.
    Vice - Admiral TAYLOR: Has His Majesty's Government any constructive policy whatever for bringing Australian trade within easier reach of the manufacturers of this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any exchange of views on the possibility of developing reciprocal preferences with New Zealand have taken place since the close of the Imperial Confernce and whether any conclusion has been reached?
    Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does it mean that nothing can be done to take advantage of the offer that was made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Member must know what the offer was. The particular commodities that New Zealand is mainly interested in exporting are butter and cheese. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that, when the question of quota is being examined and we start with wheat, which

    1963
    applies to Canada and Australia, mainly, we then proceed from that stage to see what particular quota is applicable to the other. In the case of New Zealand, it is butter and cheese.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR—
    Mr. SPEAKER: These questions appear to be foundations upon which to build supplementaries.

    ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT, 1909.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Departmental Committee set up by the Board of Trade to advise what alterations should be made in the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, reported in 1927; and will he state when an agreed Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee will be ready for consideration?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I am aware of the Committee's report. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot say when Parliamentary time will be available for the consideration of an insurance Bill, but I shall be happy to consider any agreed proposals in connection with such a. Bill which may be laid before me.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will it not be possible and indeed helpful in the meantime to circulate a draft of the Bill for the consideration of all parties concerned so that we may get towards an agreed Bill?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think there is a draft Bill at the end of the report, which no doubt could be discussed.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does the Board of Trade put that draft forward as their suggestion for the Bill?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, I cannot make that statement at the present time. Alterations may be necessary, but the Bill is there as a starting point.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see him, so that I can discuss accelerating this matter with him?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIA.
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further information to give the House concerning the initiation of a dumping campaign by the Soviet Government in respect of Soviet produce; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be made?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the right hon. Member on 24th November.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make any further inquiries from the trade point of view?
    Mr. GRAHAMThere s a certain amount of information, but a report has been called for from His Majesty's Ambassador, and we must, of course, wait for that report.
    Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received strong representations from manufacturers and tradesmen in this country, and not least from those in Lancashire?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certain representations have been received, but on this question I have already given all the information that the Board of Trade has to the House.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: As a matter of fact, do not the Soviet Government get as high a price as they can?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is precisely what is in controversy. It is strongly urged on the other side that some of these goods are sold at non-competitive prices.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to consider an embargo upon Russian timber imported into Great Britain, similar to that proposed by the United States Treasury upon cargoes of Russian timber entering an American port upon the complaint of any citizen unless there is presentation of proof that the cargo contains no goods made in whole or in part by convict labour?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As has been stated on several occasions recently in this House, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to initiate legislation to extend the scope of the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act.
    Sir H. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that in another friendly country it is taken for granted that this timber is produced by convict labour unless the contrary is proved?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Under the enactment referred to, if anyone gives information, which is supported by evidence, to the Customs authorities, action will be taken, but it remains a very remarkable thing no one has come forward to give information.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it not a fact that the American Government after investigation has lifted the embargo?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I believe that for a brief period an embargo was imposed and that after a short time it was withdrawn.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not the case that this question is actually under discussion in the United States?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes it has been under discussion for a very considerable time, but that does not alter the fact stated in reply to my hon. Friend's question.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to the action taken by Poland and Czechoslovakia against Soviet Russian dumping?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not aware of any action by Poland or Czechoslovakia directed specifically against imports from Soviet Russia.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to enter into any negotiations with the Soviet Government for a commercial treaty or any reciprocal arrangement?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made as the result of the discussion on Soviet Russian dumping at the Economic Commission of the League of Nations?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that the Economic Committee of the League have not yet concluded their investigations into the question of dumping.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider prohibiting the entry into this country from Russia of lace goods which have been manufactured on machines belonging to British firms and which have been confiscated by the Soviet Government?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no power to impose such a prohibition, nor do I contemplate taking such powers.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is in the interests of the industries of this country that the products of sweated labour should be allowed to come in?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter of opinion.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the (Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to official data giving the number of forced labourers not incarcerated in Russia, and stating that the number of sentenced prisoners so employed in 1928 was 260,631, and that they are mostly used for preparing export timber; whether his attention has been called to the sworn statement of Adam Kuortti, a Lutheran pastor, before the Public Notary at Helsingfors, to the effect that he and his fellow prisoners were employed on timber work, including the preparation and loading of pit props into railway trucks; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to his previous question on this subject on the 25th November, in which I set out the requirements under the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1897, which must be met before action can be taken under its provisions. Information of the nature referred to in the present question does not comply with those requirements and affords no basis for action under the Act.
    Sir H. CROFT: If evidence is provided from escaped prisoners to the effect that timber is convict prepared and has been

    1967
    laden in British ships, will the right hon. Gentleman then be prepared to take action?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member had better, first of all, supply me with the information.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Finnish Government—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what practical proposals are envisaged by the offer of supplementary lines of assistance yet to be devised for schemes of amalgamation in the cotton trade?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which appeared in the Press on the 21st November. In explaining that, since financial assistance cannot be expected from the Government schemes must be supported by agencies referred to in the report or by supplementary lines of assistance yet to be devised, my right hon. Friend did not intend to convey that proposals were under consideration with a view to creating financial machinery additional to that already existing.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not the fact that all the proposals and suggestions which the Government have made to help the cotton trade have, on examination, proved to by a myth, and would it not be fair to say in respect of any suggestions made by the Government to help the cotton trade, either now or in the future, that they are all humbug?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. Neither statement of the hon. Member will bear the slightest examination.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Arising out of the original answer—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

    TARIFF TRUCE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement on the results of the conference for concerted action at Geneva; what States have now definitely become parties to the tariff
    1968
    truce; whether any proposals for the reduction of tariffs have been put forward by any of the States which have signed the Convention; and if any of the signatory States have indicated its desire to withdraw from the Convention?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the delegates to the conference on this subject have only just returned from Geneva, perhaps the hon. Member would repeat the first part and the last two parts of his question a little later. The answer to the second part of the question is that ratifications of the Commercial Convention have been deposited by the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
    Mr. HANNON: While quite prepared to await the fuller reply, w ill the President of the Board of Trade indicate to the House now any single advantage arising from the whole of this tariff truce?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statements which have appeared in the Press are correct, that no country is prepared to go into a general discussion of tariffs, and that all that has happened have been bilateral negotiations? If that is so, has he not by his tariff truce given away the only weapon that he could use in any bilateral negotiations?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. It would take a considerable speech to reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Member, and I would only say this, that the position is not as indicated in the Press if statements to that effect have appeared. I should like to add, without the slightest hesitation, that, but for the offers which have been made in connection with this tariff convention, tariffs would have been even higher to-day than they are.
    Major COLVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if any further foreign nations have ratified the tariff truce and if any British Dominions have intimated their intention to participate?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Italy has deposited her ratification of the Commercial Convention since the opening of the Conference on 17th November. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Major COLVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the amount of time spent on this futile proceeding?
    Mr. BOYCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that no one single member of the British Commonwealth of Nations should ratify a truce of this kind—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise on the question.

    DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the representations his Department has received from the interests affected by the Dyestuffs Import Regulation Act, including the users of dyestuffs and organisations of employers and operatives in the textile industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is not possible to deal with this matter in question and answer, but I propose to make a full statement on Thursday next on an Amendment which has been put down to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In the meantime I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development. Committee which was presented to Parliament in August last, and to the statement which I made in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Brooke) on 19th November.

    COMMODITIES (SALE).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any schedule has been drawn up by his Department of commodities in regard to the sale of which conditions exist which restrict the free play of competition; and, if so, what these commodities are?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: On the assumption that the hon. Member is referring to commodities with which the Consumer's Council will deal under the provisions of the Bill now before Parliament, I would point out that the question whether competition is restricted in any particular case will be one for the Council to consider in the first instance.

    BANKRUPTCIES.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade, for the first nine
    1970
    months of the current year, the number of commercial bankruptcies reported and the total losses involved; and can he say how these figures compare with the corresponding figures in 1928 and 1929?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total bankruptcies for the first nine months of the years 1930, 1929 and 1928 were 3,086, 2,912 and 3,188, respectively. By far the greater number of these might be called commercial bankruptcies. To extract the totals of the losses involved for the nine months' periods would require an amount of labour which hardly seems justified. The total losses for the whole years 1929 and 1928 as estimated by the debtors were £6,436,000 and £6,191,000, respectively.

    ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTS (IMPORT).
    Major COLVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can account for the fourfold increase in the value of electrical instruments, other than telegraphic and telephonic, imported during the 10 months ended October, 1930, as compared with the years 1928 and 1929, respectively?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The increase in the imports into this country of electrical instruments (other than telegraphic and telephonic) registered during the first 10 months of 1930, compared with the imports during the corresponding months of 1928 and 1929, is due to sound recording and reproducing (talking) machines and parts thereof being included under this heading.
    Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of these instruments come from Switzerland; and is it any wonder that Switzerland has ratified the tariff truce?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Without going into that question, I think I can show my hon. and gallant Friend the detailed figures in order that in this matter he may not be weary of well-doing.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Could not all these machines have been made in this country, giving work to our people?

    IRISH FREE STATE (BUTTER DUTY).
    Major ROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the particulars of the duty on imported butter recently put on by the Government of the

    1971
    Irish Free State; and whether preferential rates are to be allowed to other members of the British commonwealth of nations?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: A duty of £5 per cwt. on imported butter was imposed on 21st November by the passage of a Resolution which under the general provisions of the law of the Irish Free State took immediate effect. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Major ROSS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this duty without Imperial preference is in consequence of the recent Imperial Conference, or is it simply a demonstration of the essential unity of Ireland?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should hesitate to pronounce at any time on Ireland, but I think the short explanation is that they anticipated considerable supplies from cold storage in this country. I believe that in Ireland this is regarded purely as a temporary device.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a duty of 10d. a lb. and that the price of butter has not increased?

    TEXTILE GOODS (TRADE DESCRIPTIONS).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to take any steps to protect the public against fraud or misrepresentation by persons or firms describing textile goods as fadeless, fast colour, rainproof, and unshrinkable, when in fact the goods are not fadeless, fast of colour, or proof against rain, and are shrinkable?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Merchandise Marks Acts provide a remedy against false trade descriptions as therein defined, but terms of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend appear rather to denote quality which it might be difficult to bring within the statutory definition. The purchaser in most cases would probably have a civil remedy against the vendor.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the civil remedy one that the ordinary purchaser is capable of taking from a financial point of view, and is there not something to be done to protect the consuming public against these practices?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There is a. great deal in what my hon. Friend says, but, after all, so far as merchandise marks are concerned, it is open to any particular trade to promote an application, and when the application is granted, they have at least that protection.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Textile Institute has issued, or proposes to issue, an interim report of its recommendations for fixing standards for the trade descriptions, fadeless, fast colour, unshrinkable, rainproof, wool and cotton union, and silk reinforced by rayon; and will he state which are the other representative bodies that are endeavouring to set up safeguards?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that whilst questions of the kind which my hon. Friend has in mind are engaging the attention of the Textile Institute, it is not the present intention of that body to issue any special reports on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, other bodies which are concerned with the subject are the Society of Dyers and Colourists, the British Silk Research Association, and the recently-formed British Colour Council.

    FRENCH GOWNS (IMPORT DUTY).
    Sir JOHN FERGUSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the great disparity in the duty charged on French gowns imported into this country by private individuals and those imported by dressmaking establishments for the purpose of being reproduced, the duty on the latter being eight times that of the former; and will he consider a reduction in the latter in order to encourage employment in an industry which, at the moment, is very difficult and depressed?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am aware that different rates of duty are chargeable in the cases referred to, but I cannot anticipate the Budget decisions.
    Sir J. FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to consider sympathetically the very great increase which is taking place in the number of unemployed in this kind of business?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is aware that this matter is dealt with in the Finance Bill, and I cannot anticipate future discussions.

  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

    MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MATTERSasked the President of the Board of Trade what combined or organised action is being taken by the motor car industry, in agreement with his Department, to develop the export trade in motor cars?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am glad to say that the British motor car industry, on co-operative lines, is vigorously prosecuting the development of its business in overseas markets. In spite of the general world depression, which naturally affects to a considerable degree an industry of this character, the results which have been achieved, particularly in the New Zealand market, are very encouraging. As part of its policy the industry has made arrangements for a comprehensive display of British motor products at the British Empire Trade Exhibition at Buenos Aires next year.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that the reason for the decrease in our export trade is due to the inefficiency of the motor industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: My attention has not been called to that speech.
    Mr. MATTERS: Is it not the fact that the export trade bears very little relation to the general production of cars in this country?
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether the Government contemplate any alteration in regard to taxation—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, Order.
    Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what the motor car industry has been able to do in this respect is largely due to the protection which has secured the home market?
    Mr. PYBUS: Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether he considers that one effect of Safeguarding has been to encourage the home trade and discourage foreign trade?
    Mr. MATTERSasked the President of the Board of Trade the figures covering the export from this country of motor cars and light chassis for the 10 months ended 31st October, showing units and values?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As stated in the latest issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" the total number of touring cars (including cabs), of domestic manufacture, exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 10 months January to October, 1930, was 15,581 of a declared value of £2,766,002, and the number of complete chassis for motor cars, etc., of a net weight below 28 cwts., other than those constructed solely for commercial use, was 3,402, valued at £363,674.
    Mr. MATTERS: Cannot something be done to get this highly protected industry to bestir itself in the overseas markets?

    MCKENNA DUTIES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the financial position of the country and the need for revenue, he is able to make a statement with reference to the maintenance of the McKenna Duties in the next Budget for the information of those engaged in the motor and allied industries?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I regret that I am unable to anticipate my Budget Statement.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS)
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps have been taken by his Department to consult and collect professional opinion on the proposals to alter the British custom of helm orders in ships;
    (2) the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to the proposals in Article 41 of the Merchant Shipping Safety Convention to alter the present universal system of helm orders in British ships;
    (3) from what organised bodies of seafaring officers and men his Department has received support for and protests against the proposals to alter the present

    1975
    British custom of helm orders contained in Article 41 of the Merchant Shipping Safety Convention?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Article 41 of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention will come before the House as an integral part of the Convention, and I hope then to convince the House that the Convention, including this Article, should be approved. The question of helm orders has been very fully discussed both before and since the Conference. Shortly before the Conference, a special meeting of the various nautical associations was called by Trinity House, at the instance of the Board of Trade, and at that meeting professional opinion was fairly evenly divided. The following associations, namely, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the Mercantile Marine Service Association, the London Trinity House River and Channel Pilots' Committees have indicated that they are opposed to the change, while the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation, the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, and the National Union of Seamen have indicated that they are prepared to accept it.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether opposition to the change in helm orders, if carried to the length of cutting them out of the Convention, would imperil the Convention itself?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, the Convention must be approved as a whole. It will he debated shortly in another place, and also in this House before it can he approved; and, if it were materially altered, I should say, without finally committing myself, that it would be impossible for the convention to proceed.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the Admiralty view about the proposed change?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should prefer not to deal with that until we come a little nearer to the debate.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the bodies mentioned who have given approval to the proposal have done so formally, or after consulting their members, as there is a serious difference of opinion on this subject?
    Mr, GRAHAM: I know the matter is controversial, but as to the precise details of the support for the proposals I should be glad if the hon. Member would give me notice. It is a very voluminous story.
    Mr. EDE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the opinion of working pilots, especially those navigating the Tyne, on these proposals?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.

    COASTGUARD SERVICE.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the setting up of a Parliamentary committee to make a comprehensive inquiry into the whole question of the coastguard service?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: No, Sir, but I hope to be in a position shortly to make a statement.
    Commander SOUTHBY: In view of the great importance of this matter to the seafaring community, if I put down a question in a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman then be able to give me an answer?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is always very difficult to promise an answer within so many days. The position is that I am working very actively at the moment as regards this committee in connection with the personnel, and I hope to complete it very soon.

    GAS SUPPLY.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, has followed upon the recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Area Gas Supply; and, in particular, whether any action has been taken in respect of the proposed South Yorkshire network scheme?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that two Bills seeking power to carry out a network scheme in South Yorkshire similar to that contemplated by the Area Gas Supply Committee have been deposited for consideration by Parliament.

    TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS ACT.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce the Trade Disputes Act (Amendment) Bill before the Christmas Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.
    Mr. HACKING: In view of the fact there are only a few full Government days for business before the Christmas Recess, when will the Government make up their minds?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If my right hon. Friend will repeat the question between three to four weeks from now, I will give him an answer.
    Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls the pledge which the Foreign Secretary gave?

    FRENCH LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the reply received from the French Government with reference to his communication on the subject of the rights of British investors in French War Loan, he is proposing to take the matter to the Permanent Court of International Justice with a view to final settlement by legal process?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The whole question is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to announce any decision on the suggestion referred to in the question.
    Mr. MANDER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get the French Government to do the very thing that they have done in other cases, and submit this matter to the decision of the World Court?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have already informed the hon. Member that this matter is still under consideration.

    TRUSTEE SECURITIES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the
    1978
    advisability of introducing legisation to amend the Trustee Act, 1925, and the Colonial Stock Act, 1900?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this matter to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on the 11th November.
    Mr. MANDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an overwhelming case for the revision of the Trustee Act, and will he not give it further consideration?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware that there is an overwhelming case for revision.

    TREASURY COMMITMENTS.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated commitments of the Treasury in the present financial year in addition to those provided for in the Budget?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Supplementary Estimates which have been laid. I am not aware of new commitments, in respect of services not included in the Estimates already presented, beyond those of which the House has already been informed.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the very large total of the Supplementary Estimates already presented does not show the need for further and greater economy on the part of the Government?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am always anxious to economise wherever economies can be effected.

    WORLD COMMODITY PRICES.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any action designed to check the present fall in world commodity prices?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green North-East (Major Nathan) on the 27th November.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that if the present fall in commodity prices continues for another six months, a situation of grave emergency will arise, and in these circumstances does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come when he ought to take some initiative in order to deal with the question?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: This is a matter which is always under consideration, and we shall do what we think is best in the circumstances.
    Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps with a view to securing agreement between authorities in all important countries as to the cause of the recent fall in world prices, and as to the extent to which this fall can be, and should be, counteracted by monetary adjustments?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: These matters are under the consideration of the Committee of the League of Nations. Obviously, the wise course is to await their report, which I hope will not be long delayed.

    SILVER COINAGE.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is taking any measures for the withdrawal, through the banks or otherwise, of the discoloured silver coinage of the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, some pieces of which are now occasionally refused, when tendered by the public, owing to their resemblance to forged money?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The position remains as described in my reply to the hon. Member on 24th July, 1929, a copy of which I am sending to him.
    Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman ass are that, owing to the increasing wear of these coins, they are getting increasingly unable to be distinguished from forgeries, and that public time is being wasted by such persons as booking clerks and omnibus conductors having to make long inspections of these disreputable pieces?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is only repeating the statement in the original question.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the anomaly of tax deduction as a result of Rule 8 of Schedule A, Income Tax Act of 1918, to which his attention has been called by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. L. Smith), he will state the nature of the objections which are entertained to dealing with this in the Finance Bill of 1931; and whether, in view of the increasing number of such cases through modern building conditions, he will reconsider his decision?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: While I cannot at present accede to the hon. Member's request, I can assure him that the matter will not be lost sight of.
    Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman admits this injustice; and, if the matter cannot be put right by Act of Parliament, can he not, through the Commissioners, adjust the matter by some form of concession?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not sure, but I have an impression that I have already suggested to the hon. Member that, if he has specific cases, he might get into touch with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

    GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his assistance to grand opera, he will consider giving equal assistance to the drama by the reduction of the Entertainments Duty?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the fact that far more people attend the theatre and the Cinema than the opera, why should they not be treated with equal justice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the proposed subsidy to opera and the refusal to grant a corresponding subsidy for the production of Shakespeare and other classical British plays, he will say

    1981
    on what ground he differentiates between these two forms of public amusement and instruction?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not possible to discuss this wide subject within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. But I would say that, admirable as are some of the bodies to which the hon. Member is no doubt referring, I do not think the same considerations apply in the two cases.

    GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
    Mr. PYBUSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if any form of Treasury control is in existence to ensure that the prices paid by Government Departments for proprietary articles or articles for which it is only possible to secure one tender are fair and include only a reasonable profit?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The duty of ensuring that the prices paid for such articles are reasonable rests with the buying department as part of its normal administrative responsibility.
    Mr. PYBUS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a coating department was set up specifically to deal with contracts in which only one tender is possible, and can he assure us that the Government and all Government Departments are using this department in order to save the taxpayers' money?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will look into that matter and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a separate question on the point.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. GUINNESSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have made any alteration in the policy of giving preference to ex-service personnel in making fresh temporary appointments to the Civil Service?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, Sir.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Labour recently engaged 417 non-service men on
    1982
    a temporary basis; and how does he reconcile this with the policy that preference should continue to be given to ex-service personnel in fresh temporary appointments?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There has been no change of policy, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question on that specific point, I will look into it.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Has there not been a change of practice if the hon. Gentleman does not deny that, in conflict with that principle, 417 non-service men have been taken on?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As far as the Treasury is concerned, there has been no change, but on the specific point on which the right hon. Gentleman requires information, perhaps he will make inquiry of the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I shall raise this matter at an early date on the Adjournment, and I hope that there will be some explanation of the Treasury failure to enforce their own minute.

    P-CLASS CLERKS.
    Mr. ROMERILasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that P-Class clerks in the Civil Service over 50 years of age who were rejected outright on medical grounds after success in the Lytton or Southborough examinations, and have since been recommended for exceptional promotion under Clause 5 of the Guinness agreement, are required to submit to a further medical test; and whether, in view of the fact that the men concerned cannot be given full established conditions of service on account of their age, a second medical test in such cases can be waived?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am looking into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Douglas Hamilton, esquire, commonly called the Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale, for County of Renfrew (Eastern Division).
    INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS BILL,
    "to encourage the formation of industrial councils and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired," presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Foot, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Harris, Major Nathan, Mr. Philip Oliver, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Graham White; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 163.

Division No. 41.]

AYES.

[3,49 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Gossling, A. G.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Gould, F.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Macpherson. Rt. Hon. James I.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

McShane, John James

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Alpass, J. H.

Groves, Thomas E.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Ammon, Charles George

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mansfield, W.

Arnott, John

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Marcus, M.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Marley, J.

Ayles, Walter

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Marshall, Fred

Barnes, Alfred John

Hamilton, sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Mathers, George

Barr, James

Hardie, George D,

Matters, L. W.

Bellamy, Albert

Harris, Percy A.

Maxton, James

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Messer, Fred

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Middleton, G.

Benson, G.

Haycock, A. W.

Millar, J. D.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hayday, Arthur

Milner, Major J.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Hayes, John Henry

Montague Frederiek

Bowen, J. W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Morley, Ralph

Broad, Francis Alfred

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Morris-Jones, Dr J. H. (Denbigh)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Herriotts, J.

Morrison. Herbert (Hackney, South)

Bromfield, William

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.

Brooke, W.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Mort, D. L.

Brothers, M.

Hoffman, P. C.

Moses, J. J. H.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Hopkin, Daniel

Muggeridge. H. T.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Horrabin, J. F.

Naylor, T. E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Hudson, lames H. (Huddersfield)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Buchanan, G.

Isaacs, George

Noel Baker, P. J.

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Caine, Derwent Hall.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Oldfield, J. R.

Cameron, A. G.

Johnston, Thomas

Oliver, George Harold (llkeston)

Cape, Thomas

Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Palin, John Henry

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Paling, Wilfried

Chater, Daniel

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Church, Major A. G.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Perry, S. F

Cluse, W. S.

Jawitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kelly, W. T.

Picton-Turbervill. Editb

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, Thomas

Pole, Major D. G.

Cove, William G.

Kirkwood, D.

Potts, John S.

Cowan, D. M.

Lang, Gordon

Price, M. P

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Pybus, Percy John

Dallas, George

Lathan, G.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Dalton, Hugh

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Day, Harry

Lawrence, Susan

Raynes, W. R.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Richards, R.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lawson, John James

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Dukes, C.

Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)

Romeril, H. G.

Ede, James Chuter

Leach, W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Edmunds, J. E.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Rowson, Guy

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lees, J.

Russell Richard John (Eddisbury)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Egan, W. H.

Lindley, Fred W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Elmley, Viscount

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sanders, W. S.

England, Colonel A.

Logan, David Gilbert

Sawyer, G. F.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unfv.)

Longbottom, A. W.

Scrymgeour, E.

Foot, Isaac

Lovat Fraser, J. A.

Scurr, John

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Lowth, Thomas

Sexton, James

Freeman, Peter

Lunn, William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Macdonald, Gordon (ince)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

George, Major G. Lioyd (Pembroke)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Sherwood, G. H.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Shield, George William

Gibbins, Joseph

McElwee, A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

McEntee, V. L.

Shillaker, J. F.

Gill, T. H.

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Shinwell, E.

Glassey, A. E.

McKinlay, A.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Simmons, C. J.

Sutton, J. E.

West, F. R.

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Westwood, Joseph

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

White, H. G.

Sitch, Charles H.

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

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plalstow)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Thurtle, Ernest

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

Tinker, John Joseph

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Tout, W. J.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Townend, A. E.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Snell, Harry

Vaughan, D. J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Viant, S. P.

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Walkden, A. G.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Sorensen, R

Walker, J

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Wallhead, Richard C

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Stephen, Campbell

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Stewart, J. (St. Roliox)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Wellock, Wilfred

Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson

Strauss, G. R.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Albery, Irving James

Ferguson, Sir John

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Allen, Sir J. Sandernan (Liverp'l., W)

Fermoy, Lord

Penny, Sir George

Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Fielden, E. B.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Atholl, Duchess of

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Balniel, Lord

Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

Ramsbotham, H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Remer, John R.

Beaumont, M. W.

Grace, John

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Berry, Sir George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon, John

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hall, Lieut.-col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Salmon, Major l.

Boyce, H. L.

Hammersley, S. S.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bracken, B.

Hanbury, C.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Briscoe, Richard George

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Harlington, Marquess of

Savory, S. S.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Simms, Major-General J.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Haslam, Henry C.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)

Butler, R. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Herbert, Sir Dennis ( Hertford)

Smithers, Waldron

Campbell, E. T.

Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Carver. Major W. H.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Howard-Birry, Colonel C. K.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hurd, Percy A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)

Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Clydesdate, Marquess of

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Tinne, J. A,

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Train, J.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Liewellin, Major J. J.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Colman, N. C. D

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Turton, Robert Hugh

Colville, Major D. J.

Locker-Lampson, Com. o.(Handsw'th)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Marjoribanks, Edward

Womersley, W. J.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Meller, R. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. (Ayr)

Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Mulrhead, A. J.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Nicholson. O. (Westminster)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)

Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Frederick Thomson.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Question put, and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE)

    SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had
    1986
    added the following Member to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills: the Marquess of Clydesdale.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    RENT (REDUCTION AND CONTROL).
    Mr. CAMPBELL STEPHEN: I beg to move,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the reduction and control of rents of houses and shops."
    Members of the House will be aware that very many thousands of the houses in the country are now decontrolled and very difficult circumstances have arisen in various parts because of the uncertainty as to which houses are controlled and which are decontrolled. One object of this Bill is to bring back all the houses that have been decontrolled—
    Sir K. WOOD: Where is the Minister?
    Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is anxious to know where the Minister is, but so long as he himself is here we are all right. His universal wisdom will carry us through. Many of these houses are in a very doubtful position, and I have found among my own constituents that they are being charged as if the rent of those houses were not controlled. In order to get over that, they have got to bring an action in the civil court, and the Lord Advocate, when he has gone into the matter, has found much difficulty, because the state of the law is so very uncertain. I maintain that this matter should he cleared up, and that the tenants should be adequately protected against high rents.
    The second purpose I have in connection with this Bill is to bring hack rents to the pre-War level. Since 1920 the working people of this country have suffered reductions of wages amounting to over £700,000,000 per annum. Not only that, but workers are at the present time being threatened with further reductions. When the Act of 1920 was passed, and increases of rent were allowed, one of the main reasons given for those increases was the high wages that were ruling throughout the country.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would I he in order in moving that the debate be adjourned until some representative of the appropriate Ministry is present?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to proceed. This is a very important matter, and the main
    1988
    reason that was given for the increases of rent that were permitted under the 1920 Act was the high cost, of repair owing to the high cost of wages. Now that wages have come down, I believe that the time is ripe for the reduction of rents in order that the people may be able to pay them. Also, it is very commonly recognised that very little is being done in the way of repairs, and the tenants have a very good case for the reduction of their burdens.
    I want in this Measure also to extend control to the small shops. There has come this industrial slump; there has come this reduction in the wages of workers, and the small shop-keeping community have had to bear very heavy burdens, because of the reduced circumstances of their customers. I think it is time, therefore, that this House gave some consideration to the difficult circumstances of so many of these small shopkeepers. During the time of high wages and high prices, the rents of many of these shops were forced up to exorbitant figures, and many of these shopkeepers at present are not getting a livelihood. They are struggling to pay these very high rents, and I would like to see extended to them the benefit of control in connection with their rents. I think that a very suitable figure to take is the pre-War figure, and to include within the ambit of rent control the small shopkeepers as well as the tenants of these smaller houses to which the Rent Restriction Act applies. Those are the main purposes which I seek to cover in this Bill. With the tremendous reduction in wages, with the difficult circumstances facing the working people, and facing the small shopkeeper who gives service to those people, I hope that there will be general assent to my request to be given leave to bring in this Bill.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Brockway, Mr. Cove, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Kinley, Mr. Maxton, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McShane, and Mr. Wallhead.

    RENT (REDUCTION AND CONTROL) BILL,
    "to provide for the reduction and control of rents of houses and shops," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

    HIRE PURCHASE.
    Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the hire-purchase system and the law of distress in its relation to the hire-purchase system."
    I have tried to obtain the presence of a Minister, but they are engaged at the moment. It is not, however, my business to try to convert Ministers, but to convert the House. The Bill which I am introducing is one which has become important because of the unemployment crisis. It has made acute the defects in the hire purchase law which have been admitted for a very long time, but now that so many people are becoming unemployed, their instalments cannot be kept up. As the law stands at present, if someone has paid practically the whole of the instalments on furniture—and furniture is the main item so far as the working classes are concerned—or on any other kind of goods, if the last few instalments are not kept up, the hire purchase company can come in and take the whole of the goods back, without giving to the purchaser one penny of surrender value. This has been brought to my notice by a local solicitor in my constituency, who pointed out a case where, on, £80 worth of goods, £60 had been paid, £10 was in arrears and £10 of the instalments remained. Not only did the hire purchase company come in and take the whole of the good, but they were able to prosecute for the £10 of arrears, and although only £10 of instalments were actually outstanding, the poor person not only did not get a penny, but had to pay the costs as well. My Bill hopes to meet that sort of case.
    I am not against the hire purchase system as such. I have myself taken advantage of it on frequent occasions. It certainly enables people to buy goods which they can afford out of their general annual income, but which they cannot afford out of the weekly or monthly income. But these scandals which have surrounded the name of hire purchase have militated against the extension of that system. They have made people ashamed to admit that they buy goods under the instalment system, and it would be for the good of the trade itself if we could remove this stigma, and make it possible, if instalments
    1990
    cannot be kept up, for the hire purchaser to have surrender value. I have put certain figures in my Bill, although I am not dogmatic about these figures. I am perfectly prepared to consider Amendments in Committee, but, for the sake of the Bill, I have put in the following figures, namely, that if 25 per cent. of the instalments have been paid, if the goods seized are in good condition after reasonable use, the hire purchaser shall be entitled to 50 per cent. of the instalments that have been paid as surrender value. As I say, I am not. wedded to these figures as such.
    The second Clause of the Bill makes it possible for a hire purchaser, after goods have been seized, to recover possession of those goods, provided that, the remainder of the instalments are tendered, and a reasonable sum is paid for the cost to the company of actually seizing the goods. I have a case where only £15 remained due on a music-teacher's piano, on which £70 had been paid. The piano was seized, and the music-teacher despairingly went everywhere to try and get the £15. Finally, it was lent to her, and when she went to tender the money to the hire purchase company, she was told: "No, you have not continued your instalments, and therefore the piano is mine." That seems a very real scandal which no one can defend, and this Bill will make it possible, if the instalments are paid, plus a reasonable sum for the cost of seizing the goods, for the goods to be returned to the purchaser.
    This is not a one-sided Bill. It is an endeavour to meet a real grievance which the hire-purchase companies themselves have. As things are at present, a tenant can fill a house with hire-purchase goods, can run into arrears for rent, and although only one instalment has been paid for the goods, the landlord can distrain on the whole of those goods, and leave the hire-purchase company with, perhaps, £10 or £20 paid on £100 or £150 worth of goods purchased. I claim that that is not fair to the hire-purchase company. I have, therefore, tried to be fair to both sides. It takes some doing, but I have tried, and I think the Bill, as drafted, if the House will give me leave to introduce it and allow it to go to Second Reading, will meet what is an admitted difficulty at the present time. We are legislating for the best companies. They have made their own

    1991
    arrangements to meet the difficulty, but they themselves are hampered by these admitted scandals of other hire-purchase companies. We do not legislate for the decent companies, but for the really bad companies, and I do think that, as things are at present, many people who can very bady afford it are being unfairly treated. If the House will grant me the First Reading of this Bill, it will do something towards meeting a very real grievance.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Wilkinson, Mr. West, Mr. Horrabin, Mr. Shepherd, Dr. Forgan, Mr. Griffiths, and Lady Noel-Buxton.

    HIRE PURCHASE BILL,
    "to amend the Law with respect to the hire-purchase system and the law of distress in its relation to the hire-purchase system," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th February, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 25th November.]
  [MR. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Raising of compulsory school age and provision of maintenance allowances.)
  Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, after the word "authority," to insert the words:
  "or being in receipt of a maintenance allowance under the Act wilfully omits to inform the local education authority that his total income has increased beyond the limit entitling him to such allowance."
  We have now come to the penal section of this Bill, which is very necessary in any Bill making grants such as those which this Measure is going to make. The Bill provides penalties for the making of
  "any false declaration or false statement or otherwise wilfully deceives or attempts to deceive any local education authority."
  In my view, those words are insufficient to bear out the full effect that this Subsection should have. According to the Schedule an applicant has to make a declaration to the local education authority if his income substantially increases, and, if he fails to do so, he is liable to the penalty provided for anyone who
  "wilfully deceives or attempts to deceive any local education authority."
  My submission is that that is the wrong way to create a legal and criminal offence, because the criminal offence should be made clear in the Section, and you should not have to refer to some other part of the Bill or some other Act of Parliament in order to find out the liability of a parent if he does not declare the full measure of his increase of income. Everybody will agree that in no case should the maintenance allowance be paid above the limit prescribed. My Amendment makes it clear to everybody and to the courts that will have to administer this Measure that, if a man wilfully omits to state that his income has gone above the prescribed limit, then he shall be liable to the penalties which the Minister has placed in this Clause.
  2026
  All I am endeavouring to do by this Amendment is to make more clear what is intended to be expressed in the Schedule and in the Clause? My submission to the Minister and to the House is that this is a substantial Amendment which ought to be accepted. It does not create any criminal offence in addition to the one that the Minister thinks he has created by the words "wilfully deceives or attempts to deceive." I do not think that those words will achieve what the Minister desires, and that is why this point should be made clear to any court which will have to administer this Measure when it becomes an Act. We want to make plain exactly what Parliament means by those words. It should not be necessary to place a power of this kind in the Schedule, and it would be much better to trust to the actual words in this Section which create a criminal offence. I hope that I have made my point clear to the Committee. I think my proposal is a reasonable one, and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): The object of the hon. and gallant Member in moving this Amendment and the object of the Government in Sub-section (3) are precisely the same, and everything turns on the interpretation which is put upon the words in the Bill. I should have thought that what the hon. and gallant Member seeks is provided for by the Bill itself. The claimant has tc sign a form of claim in which he declares that if his income from any source substantially increases:
  "It is my duty to inform the local education authority of the fact immediately, and that I may be liable to a penalty for wilfully deceiving or attempting to deceive that authority if I fail to do so."
  When we turn to the Bill itself, we find, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, that any person is liable to the penalties provided who:
  "wilfully deceives or attempts to deceive any local education authority."
  I am told by my legal advisers that that provision is sufficient to cover the point raised by this Amendment, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is willing to withdraw his Amendment and discuss it with me and my legal advisers, I shall be willing to take that course. If after

  2027
  that any doubt remains, I shall be willing to make it certain that the object which the hon. and gallant Member has in view is achieved.
  Major LLEWELLIN: Some of my hon. Friends are rather keen about this Amendment, and I cannot consent to withdraw it now.
  Mr. TURTON: My opinion is that this Amendment does not go far enough. The Bill does not place the duty upon any applicant to inform the local education authority of his changed circumstances, and there is no mention of that duty until we come to the Schedule. The Amendment which we are discussing would place that duty in the penal Clause. I would ask the Minister, when he considers this matter, to make it quite clear in Subsection (2) that not only has a person to make application as set out in the Schedule, but that he should also make further applications and returns when the income changes. The object of this Amendment is to place this obligation in Sub-section (3) instead of in the Schedule. It is a great mistake to have two alternative remedies for the same offence. So far as I understand the question, this offence of making a false statement about one's income is already covered by Section 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Perjury Act of 1911, which provides under (a) that anybody who makes a false statement in a statutory declaration or under (b) makes a false statement in any return or other document authorised by Act of Parliament is liable to imprisonment. I think it would be wise to omit the whole of this Sub-section completely, and to rely on the Section of the Perjury Act which I have mentioned. The penalties provided under the Perjury Act are very similar to the penalties which the Minister has laid down in this Subsection. The difference being that, instead of three months, the penalty under the Perjury Act is six months, and, instead of a fine of £25, the fine is £100. I am as desirous as the Attorney-General to have the law made perfectly clear on this point, and, if this is not done, a great deal of hardship will be caused, as well as a great deal of expense. If the President of the Board of Education will consider these two points before the Report stage, I think he will find that there is a great deal of substance in them.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am very doubtful about the advisability of introducing into this Bill any offences which have anything whatever to do with perjury, because perjury is a very difficult thing indeed to prove. I hope the Committee will bear that point in mind. We have been told that it is not customary to provide against offences in the Schedule, but may I remind the hon. Member who used that argument that in the Schedules dealing with the Income Tax you have penalties of all sorts. The object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to ensure that the statements made are perfectly accurate and bona fide at the time that they are made, and that it should be the duty of the person receiving a maintenance allowance to inform the local education authority of any increase in his total income, and that the applicant should not have the advantage of any change of circumstances. I think that is the object of the Mover of this Amendment. I hope that, if it is necessary to make that clear, it will be made clear, and I think that is the substance of the hon. and gallant Member's point with regard to the Amendment. I hope, however, that there will not be too many of these "riders," so to speak, because, as every lawyer knows, they cut down the general words at the beginning of the Section.
  Mr. HARRIS: I would ask the Committee to have a sense of proportion. This allowance will be for one year. It is true that in these days wages fluctuate enormously, but the danger of a large increase of income in the case of the people concerned is not very great, and, when they have to claim the allowance for another child, I assume I am right in saying that they will have to file another application and make a fresh statement.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The question raised by this Amendment is not really a legal question, but simply whether the applicant will know when he commits an offence. The offence is created, to start with, by Sub-section (3), of he omits to report a change of income, and it is defined there as wilfully deceiving or attempting to deceive any local education authority. What is the definition of that deceit or attempt at deceit? For that, you have

  2029
  to turn to the Schedule, where the definition is given, not, as in the Income Tax Schedules, as a substantive definition, but in the form which the applicant has to fill in. The definition, as it is extracted from that form, is:
  "I understand that if my income from any source or that of my wife (or husband) living with me substantially increases at any time…."
  What will the men and women who are going to sign this declaration understand by the words "substantially increases"? In many cases they will convey no meaning to them at all. The main point of the Amendment is to make the offence precise. If the income has increased beyond the limit entitling the applicant to the allowance, that is clear and definite. There is no doubt that under the Bill a man who does not report such a change of income will be legally liable, but his liability will be expressed in this vague and sloppy phrase "substantially increases." We want it to be defined, so that a man may know exactly where he stands, and there may be no necessity for argument as to what is a substantial increase and what is not. Surely that is reasonable.
  Mr. KELLY: I did not want to intervene in this discussion, but I would like to know from the Mover of the Amendment what he really means. Is this to be a daily report by the individual as to the wages he has earned? If he happens to be working in one of those trades where there is a demand in the week before. Christmas for the working of extra hours on three or four days, is he expected to attend each day at the education office in order to report that his income is a shilling or two more than the figure previously entered? Does it mean that, if he works a little overtime and thereby increases his wages that week by another half-crown, he has to report it? I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are trying to make this into as penal a Measure as they possibly can. From my own experience of testing under the Feeding of Children Act, I would be rid of the whole lot of this, because it is bad for everyone concerned—it is bad for the families and bad for the children also. I can understand hon. Members opposite not wishing to withdraw this demand that the man who is called upon to work a little over-
  2030
  time should have to report it., because they are trying to make the Measure as bad as they possibly can.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has missed the point of my Amendment. One of the things that may happen under this Bill as it is drafted is that, if a man's income goes up by a little one week, he may not know whether the court will say that that is a substantial rise or not, and, if he does not go in and report it, he may find that he is liable under this Bill as it has been drafted by the Minister. If, however, he knows from the start what the prescribed limits are, and then, as laid down in my Amendment, wilfully omits to state that his income has gone beyond the prescribed limit—
  Mr. KELLY: Each day?
  Major LLEWELLIN: He does not have to go in every time he gets an increase of sixpence or a shilling, but, when the prescribed limit has been laid down, as I understand it may be when this Bill becomes law, if it does become law, he should be told what that limit is. That is the point of a couple of other Amendments that I have on the Paper. Then he will know at once when his income goes beyond that prescribed limit, and then, of course, he ought to go to the local education authority and say that he does not claim this allowance any more, because his income has gone above the limit. He ought to do so then just as much as when he makes his original claim, and that is all that my Amendment seeks to provide. It does not seek to leave this criminal offence so that a man will not know whether the court will say that his income has substantially increased or not.
  I do not know whether, in the case of a man earning, say, £2 a week, a rise of 5s. would be considered a substantial increase, or whether, if a man was earning £3 a week, a rise of 10s. would be regarded as a substantial increase. Is it a substantial increase or is it not? Probably everyone in this House would take a different view on that question, and it is because we do not want these people to be in danger of being brought before the magistrates—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is far better to have your

  2031
  criminal law accurate in these matters. Do they want people who, perhaps, suddenly come into a large income to get these maintenance allowances? Does the Minister want that? He is providing against it in his Bill, and, in my submission, he should provide against it in a manner that can be seen and understood by all those who will come under this scheme. I know that the Minister has tried to meet me on this point, but personally I think there is a good deal in having these prescribed limits laid down. At any rate, I had hoped that he would be able to accept my Amendment as I have moved it. I do not mind so much about the first words, but I think we want the provision as to wilful omission, and also the provision as to the prescribed limit, because that is the only way in which people receiving these allowances can be certain, if they have an increase in income, that they are on the right side of the law.
  Lord E. PERCY: I should not have risen again had it not been for the attitude taken up by hon. Members opposite. It is clear from the debate that hon. Members opposite do not realise what they are doing in this Bill. I will put a specific case. A man is, and has been for the last two or three months, employed on two days a week. Christmas trade comes on, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has said, and he is fully employed for five and a-half days a week; that is to say, his wages are more than doubled. If your wages are more than doubled, they are certainly substantially increased, and, under this Bill as it stands, and under the form that these people will have to sign, that man would be bound to go back to the education office and say, "I am sorry my income has substantially increased." The effect of this Amendment is that he would not be obliged to make any such report if the increase in his income did not carry him beyond the prescribed limit.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Would it apply if the increase did not bring him outside the limit?
  Lord E. PERCY: The Bill would apply if the increase was substantial, whether it did or did not bring his income outside the prescribed limit, and he would
  2032
  be obliged to report, but under our Amendment, so long as his income is not brought outside the prescribed limit, it does not matter how substantial the rise in wages is.
  Mr. MOSES: He would not report it.
  Lord E. PERCY: I would ask hon. Members to look at this matter in a businesslike spirit. Surely, the Front Government Bench will not deny what I have said. The hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Moses) says that, if the increase does not bring him outside the prescribed limit, he will not report it, but he is bound under the Bill to report it, and the Minister has told us that, if he does not do so, he commits an offence which makes him liable to a fine or imprisonment. It is precisely the sort of misunderstanding that is represented by the remark of the hon. Member for the Drake Division that makes us so anxious to press this Amendment, and I would urge the Government to accept it. They know that all that can be said against it is that it makes more clear, although less onerous, what they have already put into the Bill, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept it.
  Mr. McSHANE: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. In the case which the Noble Lord has put, the increase would be, as he says, a substantial increase, and it would be for the education authority to decide the matter. No education authority worthy of the name would be so meticulous as to require an applicant who has been receiving this allowance of 5s. a week to say each week whether his income is 1d. or 1½d. or 2d. more. This Amendment only represents the general frame of mind of hon. Members opposite. They want the Poor Law system applied to maintenance allowances. They want the constant investigation that was recommended by the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education set up. I want., as far as I can, to oppose that system, and to keep the children in respect of whom these allowances will be given free from any suggestion that a constant inquisitorial investigation is going to be made into their circumstances.
  There is, as far as I can see, no Amendment to the contrary effect. No

  2033
  Amendment has been put down by hon. Members opposite to make it quite certain that a person whose circumstances in one week prevent him from getting a maintenance allowance shall take good care that he shall sign an application the following week when his income falls below what it has normally been. The whole case against this Amendment is that in the very nature of things wages vary, and on such a widespread scale and by such varying amounts that an education committee will have to take broad and long views with regard to these matters, and not adopt an inquisitorial system. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand against the Amendment. In the main, it comes from those who want to apply Poor Law methods. We do not stand for that.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: It is apparent from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that they do not yet realise exactly what the Bill is doing. The hon. Member who has just spoken has told us that any local authority worthy of the name would not be so meticulous as to make these inquiries, but it does not rest only with the local authorities. Someone's next door neighbour, who has a grudge against him, can give the information and insist on a prosecution being taken.
  Any citizen who knows the facts can, for spite, or for any other reason, compel a prosecution to be taken. Without some such provision as this, anyone whose wages are substantially increased and who does not inform the local education authority commits an offence and is liable to prosecution. If the right hon. Baronet cannot accept the Amendment, I hope he will give the matter his consideration and clarify the law.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Hon. Members opposite seem to have missed the point. The duty is laid, not on the local education authority, to ferret out what is going on, but on the claimant himself.
  Mr. McSHANE: Then why press the Amendment? You have missed the point.
  Captain CROOKSHANKThe hon. Member was saying he objected to it being part of the duty of the local authority to find out whether people have an increase of income or not. I am reminding him that the duty is on the claimant and not on the local education authority. It is one more instance of how very little Government supporters know about the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 269.

  Division No. 42.]

  AYES.

  [4.49 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cuourtauld, Major J. S

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Balniel, Lord

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Culverwell, C T (Bristol, West)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)

  Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Boyce, H. L.

  England, Colonel A.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westonat-s.-M.)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Butler, R. A.

  Fielden, E. B

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth'S.)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mulrhead, A. J.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William c.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hanbury, C.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Penny, Sir George

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Hartington, Marquess of

  percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Smith, R W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Vaughan Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Rathbone Eleanor

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  William Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wornersley, W. J.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. (Tavist'k)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sandman, Sir N. Stewart

  Tinne, J. A.

  Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.

  Savery, S. S.

  Train, J.

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gill, T. H.

  Lunn, William

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Glassey, A. E.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Gould, F.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  McElwee, A.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gray, Milner

  McEntee, V. L.

  Angell, Norman

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Arnott, John

  Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McKinlay, A,

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Ayles, Walter

  Groves, Thomas E.

  MacNeill Weir, L.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McShane, John James

  Barr, James

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Malone, C. L Estrange (N'thampton)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mansfield, W.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Marcus, M.

  Bennett. William (Battersea, South)

  Hardie, George D.

  Markham, S. F.

  Benson, G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Marley, J.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Marshall, Fred

  Blindell James

  Haycock, A, W.

  Mathers, George

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Heyday, Arthur

  Matters, L. W.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Maxton, James

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Messer, Fred

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Middleton, G.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Millar, J. D.

  Bromfield, William

  Herriotts, J.

  Milner, Major J.

  Brooke, W.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Montague, Frederick

  Brothers, M.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Morley, Ralph

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Mort, D. L.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Isaacs, George

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Eliand)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Cameron. A. G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)

  Muff, G.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Chater, Daniel

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Cluse, W S.

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Cove, William G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Cowan, D. M.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Dagger, George

  Knight, Holford

  Palin, John Henry

  Dallas, George

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

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lang, Gordon

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Perry, S. F.

  Day, Harry

  Lathan, G.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Law, Albert (Rossendale)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Dudgeor, Major C. R.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Dukes, C.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Potts, John S.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lawson, John James

  Price, M. P.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Leach, W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Foot, Isaac

  Lees, J.

  Richards, R.

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Freeman, Peter

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Rowson, Guy

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lovat Fraser, J. A.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Sawyer, G. F.

  2036

  2037

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Sorensen, R.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Scurr, John

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Sexton, James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  West, F. R.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Shield, George William

  Sutton, J. E.

  White, H. G.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Shinwell, E.

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

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Tillett, Ben

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Tout, W. J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Townend, A. E.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Viant, S. P.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Walker, J.

  Snell, Harry

  Wallace, H. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

  Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(4) The local education authority shall pay the maintenance allowance to the person qualified as aforesaid, at such time and place and in such manner as the said authority shall decide, and may determine to pay such allowance in a lump sum every four weeks, provided always that payment shall in no case be withheld from a person for a longer period than four weeks so long as in the opinion of the local education authority he remains qualified as aforesaid."
  The reason for proposing to insert a provision to this effect is that I cannot find anywhere in the Bill where it is laid down how or when these payments shall be made. I think the Bill is completely silent on the point. All it says is that a person shall be entitled to receive from the local education authority within whose area the child resides a maintenance allowance at the rate of 5s. a week. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Education if that means that a person is entitled at the end of each week to the maintenance allowance The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education spoke on an Amendment which I moved the other night. One hon. Member on the last occasion said that all the Amendments which I moved were in the same spirit. I would remind hon. Members opposite, however, that that particular Amendment was designed to give to those people who were deprived of a maintenance allowance a right of appeal against the decision of the local education authority. I do not think, therefore, that I can be accused by one side or the other of proposing restrictive Amendments.
  5.0 p. m.
  2038
  In reply to the Amendment which I moved the other night, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the person aggrieved because of the withholding of the Maintenance grant already had the right of making an appeal to some court. The court to which he could appeal, I suppose, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, would be the county court, because there would be a summons for debt. He went on to say that there would be a debt which the local authority owed him. When does this debt become payable? If it is a debt owed to a claimant by a local education authority, the right course in law is for the debtor to seek out the creditor. Does it mean that at the end of every week every local education authority will have to go round to every house in their area to pay the parent the sum? If not, what is to happen? In my submission, we should put something into the Bill to say that these allowances should be paid at such time and manner as the local education authority think fit, providing, as I do in the Amendment, that it cannot withhold the allowance for longer than four weeks. That is what I seek to do in the Amendment. If you put in nothing of the sort, when does the debt about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke and for which the claimant would have recourse to the county court, become payable? Does it merely become due within a reasonable time, or at the end of a week?
  As drafted, the Bill merely lays down that a weekly rate of 5s. shall be paid, and not that there shall be paid 5s, each week. It is very doubtful whether you would succeed, if you went before the

  2039
  court, and said, "My last week's money has not yet been paid." If I am wrong in that, I should like to be corrected. We ought to lay down some measure of payment of these allowances, and not leave it in the air, as it is at the present time. The way I seek to deal with it in the Amendment is the right and proper one, because local education authorities can be trusted to go into these matters and pay the money fairly. They should have the power to do it in the way I lay down in the Amendment, so that if there is any single non-payment for one particular week for some reason, and if they have not sought out their creditors as a debtor should, the debtor cannot immediately start proceedings—if, indeed, he can start them at all under this Bill—in the county court. That is why some Amendment of this sort is necessary, and why, if it is inserted, it will improve the Bill.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: It seems to me that the two sides of the Committee have changed roles. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have hitherto been complaining that we have not shown enough confidence in the local education authority. Now, when we leave a perfectly natural duty to the local education authority, which is to decide how and when and in what reasonable way in the locality to pay the maintenance allowances, they want to give them guidance and restriction. We want to leave it to the local education authority to do it. That is the natural and simple way, and I hope that we shall leave it to them.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: The reason for the Amendment, as I understood from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin), is that the point is not made clear in the Bill. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I am not a lawyer, so I do not know but I understand from a legal expert that it is not certain that the Bill as it stands does leave the local education authority the discretion. If the President of the Board of Education can convince us of that, we shall be very much happier.
  Mr. HARRIS: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a restrictive Amendment in its relation to the local authorities, but it does raise a really substantial point. If the right
  2040
  hon. Gentleman is quite clear that the local authorities have complete discretion as to how and when they should make these payments, of course that satisfies me, although we do not want to have too great a variation. I have taken the trouble to inquire as to the practice of the London County Council in distributing maintenance allowances to the children in the secondary schools. The custom there is to pay the money into the savings bank on account of the child. That may be a good or a bad practice, but it has been the custom for a good many years past. It is quite clear that it would be very undesirable that a father should be required to attend each week to collect the money; alternatively, it would be almost equally undesirable if a school attendance officer had to go round to the house each week and hand the money over.
  I think this is a substantial point. I have no doubt that the Board of Education have thought it out; but it is something in regard to which the local education authorities should receive help and advice. I do not think we want a great variety of practice. I am all for discretion, but we do not want one local education authority paying once a month and another authority next door, inside the County of London, for instance, paying every week. There ought to be some general practice. I assume that the work will be directed by Regulations issued by the Board. The Board are going to provide a substantial percentage, and therefore they will have the right to assist the local authority. I think that the matter is worth raising. I do not like this particular Amendment, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give the Committee some guidance.
  Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman twitted us with wanting to restrict the local authorities. Nothing is further from our intention. We put down this Amendment supposing that under the wording of the Bill the local education authority was bound to pay these sums weekly. Hitherto, generally speaking, maintenance allowances—certainly the maintenance allowances to secondary schools—have not been paid at a weekly rate, but have been an annual lump sum paid by the local education authority as it thought fit. The moment you instituted a weekly rate of maintenance allowances

  2041
  I supposed that the words that "a person shall be entitled to receive an allowance at the rate of 5s. a week" meant that he was to get 5s. every week. We want to know—this is not sarcasm, but simply a desire for information—whether it is perfectly clear, as a. matter of legal drafting, that the local education authority has power to pay this allowance as and when it likes.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly. The words which the right hon. Gentleman quotes are in a form which may give the local authority the power to vary the time. If it were "5s. a week" it would be different; but it is "at the rate of 5s. a week." That, I think, is clear. It leaves a latitude to the local education authorities, and it would be very unwise of the Committee to begin to try to lay down methods of deciding how they should act.
  Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman really content to leave the matter in that way? If the local education authority is under an obligation to pay, it is surely entitled to know when the payment becomes due. Unless you put in some words which gives it the right to fix the date at which the money shall become due, everyone will be in doubt, and the parent may have to wait for a long time, not knowing when the payment will be made. All that the parent knows is that payment shall be at the rate of 5s. a week; he has not the smallest indication when he may expect to receive it. Surely, there should be something in the Bill to remove the doubt. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter should be left to the discretion of the local education authority, words should be put into the Bill to show how, or at any rate by whom the time of payment is to be regulated, so that the parties may know when the money is due.
  Sir CYRIL COBB: I should like to know whether the discretion to the local education authority will enable the authority to pay to the child and not to the parent, if it chooses.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think that the local education authority will be able to pay to the child, but that may be a matter of opinion. They cannot make the child a claimant. The money may go to the parent through the child.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As the President of the Board of Education made his statement, we leave entirely to the local education authority the method of payment. Would the authority be able to pay to the child once a quarter, at the end of a term or so? Would they have absolute freedom to pay when it was most convenient for them and in the general interest?
  Sir ROBERT ASKE: I should have thought that, as a matter of strict legal construction, the words "at the rate of 5s. a week" meant exactly what they say, and did not mean "at the rate of some particular sum per month." I cannot see any reason why the President of the Board of Education should not make this matter perfectly plain. It can be done by the insertion of words providing that the local education authority shall pay in such a manner and at such times as it may think fit. That merely means the insertion of half-a-dozen words, and I should think that the Minister might accept them.
  Major LLEWELLIN: These are almost the identical words in the Amendment now before the Committee. I am very glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir R. Aske) as a supporter of my Amendment. All that it seeks to do is to give discretion to the local authorities and not to withhold it. I only went one stage further on behalf of the claimants of maintenance allowance and stated that it should not be withheld for more than a month. That was in order to give absolute discretion. This is what my Amendment says:
  "The local education authority shall pay the maintenance allowance to the person qualified as aforesaid, at such time and place and in such manner as the said authority shall decide, and may determine to pay such allowance."
  I then go on to the four weeks point, and state that it shall not be withheld from anyone who is qualified for more than four weeks. Really that makes the wording of the Act clear and gives full discretion to local authorities, and that is what, I understand, the Minister would like to do. I wish he had welcomed my Amendment to the Bill, because I think that it would improve it. I rose to explain that my Amendment was not one to restrict the local authority.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: It would appear that there is really no difference between us until the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman begins to lay down the kind of things that a local authority might do. I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands; it is not possibly the right phrase to use. I do not in the least mind, on the Report stage, putting in words which will make it clear that the allowances shall be paid at such time and place and in such manner as the local authorities may decide. I do not mind that, but I must take the wording in its proper place. I do not like the latter words of the Amendment which begin to indicate to the local authority what they should or should not do.
  Major LLEWELLIN: With the permission of the Chair, I should be prepared to move the Amendment to the word "decide."
  Mr. McSHANE: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the suggestion with regard to the period of not more than a month. People should not be expected to wait for more than a month.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will consider that matter. If the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment, I. will bring up suitable words on the Report stage. The only difficulty is that, once you begin laying down anything by way of direction to local authorities, there is no length to which you may not go.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman also add the Amendment which comes next on the Order Paper as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment—in line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words:
  "or to the child in respect of whom he is qualified."
  This matter is very important to the London County Council.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think that that is another question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make an Amendment with regard to the previous matter, I hope that he will consider the question which is raised by the Amendment to the proposed Amendment to which I have referred.
  Major LLEWELLIN: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after the word "sums," to insert the words "not exceeding one million five hundred thousand pounds in any one year."
  This is a matter of considerable substance and one to which we attach great importance. Roughly, the object is to limit the amount which may be spent in maintenance allowances to £1,500,000 a year. We do not believe in maintenance allowances at all. If we did believe in maintenance allowances, such allowances would have to be universally applied. If you did not universally apply them, the only reason would be that you could not afford it. If you could not afford it, you should lay down a definite limit beyond which you should not go. The Financial Memorandum has been extremely vague on this point. There have been various estimates given. In the Second Reading debate the President of the Board of Education referred to this £8,000,000, and we feel that at this juncture we cannot go on giving blank cheques round the place either for maintenance allowances or for anything else. I am well aware that those sentiments do not make any appeal to hon. Members opposite. They are like a very young person or a child. They suddenly come into power and into a certain amount of money which they think is endless and can be spent like water. We, who will have to clean up the mess when they get out, which will be very shortly, do not wish the coffers to become empty before that time. For that reason, we wish to put a definite limit upon their wild extravagancies.
  We do not say that £1,500,000 is an excessive sum; we say that it is more than we can possibly afford. But since we have passed the principle of maintenance allowances, we have put in this sum as the very outside amount which the country can possibly afford at this moment. A great deal more could be said on the subject, but we have a great deal to get through to-night. We have to prevent hon. Members opposite getting as far as they desire to go, but we do not want to do it at this stage. [Interruption.]

  2045
  I do not propose to keep the Committee any longer, in spite of the provocative hoots of hon. Members opposite.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: The object of this Amendment is to limit to £1,500,000 the increase in the Board's grants due to maintenance allowances. The effect of it would be not to cut down the total sums to be expended on maintenance allowances, but it would throw upon the local authorities a larger part of the burden than the Government propose to do. In the first year, maintenance grants are estimated to cost £3,750,000, and the Government's proposal is a 60 per cent. grant from the Board. The burden will fall upon the Exchequer to the extent of £2,250,000 and upon the local rates to the extent of £1,500,000. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would put an additional charge upon the rates of £750,000. We are in the curious situation of having the position reversed. Hon. Members opposite have hitherto been complaining of the great burden upon the rates, and now they are trying to impose a new charge upon them. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Sir HILTON YOUNG: I do not quite follow the argument of the President of the Board of Education, and, indeed, I think he has failed to apprehend the actual consequences of this Amendment. He must remember that the Bill is not now in the form in which it was originally introduced and that certain improvements have been effected in his Measure. Amongst improvements which have been effected by the overwhelming weight of criticism brought to bear upon it, is a certain elasticity in the local authorities as to the amount of the maintenance grants they are going to recommend. The effect of the limitation imposed by this Amendment will not be that which he explained, but will be a, strong inducement to the local education authorities to exercise every device of administration which they have at their command in order to economise upon their maintenance grants. That is precisely what those of us who have some sense of responsibility towards our financial state desire to effect. It is well known, in the relations between the central Government and the local authorities, that financial connection between the two can be established for one or other of two objects,
  2046
  either to make use of the central contribution in such a way as to promote the maximum of expenditure by the local education authority, or in such a way as to produce only a limited expenditure. The former device is sometimes adopted when the country is feeling very wealthy and there is some service which it desires by all means to force down the throats of reluctant authorities.
  We see, in regard to the present Amendment, the same attitude of the President of the Board of Education which we have so much regretted throughout, an attitude that he is forcing something upon reluctant education authorities. We, on the other hand, who are trying to maintain some sense of financial responsibility in relation to this Bill, do not desire to see that done. We desire to sec a strict limitation of the expenditure which is possible under the Bill. I ask the Committee to consider, whether, in the very wording of the Memorandum by which the Government introduced this Bill, they are not, as it were, put upon their notice; whether they are not warned to be cautious as to the financial results of the Bill, and whether they are not almost invited, if they desire to discharge their duties at all, to take every possible measure to impose some financial restriction. I think that the phrases in which the Board of Education proclaim that no reliance is to be placed upon their estimates with regard to the cost have almost become notorious—"It is not practicable to make a close estimate," "It is not unreasonable to assume this or that as regards the cost of maintenance grants," "The cost of maintenance allowances payable under the Bill is not susceptible of close ascertainment." That is to say, the President of the Board of Education has not the least idea what it is going to cost, and he does not very much care. It seems likely to cost, in the first half of a full year, £3,750,000.
  That is the atmosphere with which we are contending on these benches and which we are trying to reduce to some definition. I know of no other way than by an Amendment such as this, in which the House of Commons can discharge its most appropriate function by saying that, looking at the whole state of the national finances, having considered all that can be said in favour of

  2047
  the expenditure of the Bill, it will exercise a permanent limit and impose an overriding maximum upon any expenditure, and leave it to the central authority and to the local authority to spend the money to the best advantage. To my mind, this Amendment is a, second best. I do not think that we can afford any of this expenditure. I do not think that we can afford any of it for the mistaken forms of extravagance which the Bill proposes. Still, if something has to be proposed, let us take every possibility of compromise which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government may introduce in order to bring an element of responsibility into the scheme of the Bill, which is necessary if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the general state of our finances during the year, and with regard to which, at the end of the year, there will inevitably be a big deficit.
  Mr. HARRIS: We have had a very nice homily on economy. We always like to hear homilies from the right hon. Gentleman because I suppose we are all anxious to consider the interests of the taxpayers and the ratepayers. I have had very great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked upon him as a pundit of finance, as an ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury but, apparently, in order to assert an excellent principle, he is going to support a thoroughly impracticable proposition. The whole basis of the Bill is a partnership between the local education authorities and the Government. Hard and heavy as the burden on the taxpayer is, it is even heavier on the ratepayer. If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to protect the taxpayer, I am equally anxious to protect the ratepayer. We have already passed that part of the Clause which will impose responsibility for maintenance allowances for certain sections of the community in respect of certain children of a particular age.
  Lord E. PERCY: It is not yet in the Act.
  Mr. HARRIS: The Clause will soon stand part of the Bill. The Amendment would help districts where there are very few children and would put the burden on those districts where the population is greatest. It will help places like Bournemouth, where there is a comparatively small child population, and throw the
  2048
  burden on the already over-rated, over-taxed, over-crowded districts of the North of England and the Midlands. It is not a practicable proposition and, although the right hon. Gentleman gives it his support in the name of economy, it will not work in practice.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member would seem to suggest that the interests of the ratepayers come first and that the interests of the taxpayers in this matter should not have any consideration so far as this House is concerned. I am not interested in standing here to support the interests of the ratepayer as against the interests of the taxpayer; when it comes to a basic fact both suffer when the money has to be found, but I am concerned on this occasion in seeking to put some limit upon the extravagance of the Department. I do not wish it to be thought that in supporting the Amendment I am saying that the sum mentioned is the right sum—I think it is too big—but an idea has been put forward by many hon. Members, particularly Members of the Liberal party, that we should from time to time ration the money allowed to a Department and tell the Department to go on and do its best with the money. If circumstances warrant it, we can increase the amount.
  I support the Amendment for the reason that we are definitely laying down a principle and telling the people of this country what is the limit beyond which the Department shall not go in its expenditure. If at the end of a few years the Department find that their hands are tied and their work is cramped, I do not mind them coming to the House and asking for more money. When we are faced to-day with very serious financial trouble and we are legislating in a hurry, as we are doing in this Bill—the right hon. Gentleman knows little about the Bill from the financial side, even for a Minister supporting the present Government—I should have thought that it was an occasion when the Liberal party would have come into the Lobby with us to check the Department in their Estimates. The Amendment is in the best interests of economy and in the best interests of education in the long run.
  Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid the Minister gave way to the temptation to make a score. This Bill imposes no

  2049
  charge upon the rates, but merely authorises the Minister to put what charge upon the rates he likes by fixing the conditions of the maintenance allowances. If the ratepayer has to pay anything under this Bill it will have to be paid out in the measure of the regulations prescribed by the Minister. We say, by the only way open to us in this Amendment, that the Minister shall not prescribe regulations which will put upon the country a greater burden than
  a sum of which £1,500,000 is 60 per cent. Quite frankly, we desire to tie the hands of the Minister with regard to the maintenance allowances. This is the only way to do it, and I hope the Committee will divide upon the matter and support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 273.

  Division No. 43.]

  AYES

  [5.38 p. m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Albery, Irving James

  Fermoy, Lord

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'f., W.)

  Fielden E. B.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. H n. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Balniel, Lord

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Penny, Sir George

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Berry, Sir George

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Remer, John R.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Creft

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Half, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Buchan, John

  Hanbury, C.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Butler, R. A.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Savery, S. S.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)

  Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Christie, J. A.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O (Handsw'th)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F (Somerset, Yeovll)

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Withers, Sir John James

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Meller, R. J.

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Angell, Norman

  Batey, Joseph

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Arnott, John

  Bellamy, Albert

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Ayles, Walter

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Benson, G.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Barr, James

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Blindell, James

  Johnston, Thomas

  Potts, John S.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

  Price, M. P.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Rt. Hon Leff (Camborne)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Bromfield, William

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Brooke, W.

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Richards, R.

  Brothers, M.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Romeril, H. G.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Burgess, F. G

  Knight, Holford

  Rowson, Guy

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Lang, Gordon

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Calne, Derwent Hall

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Sanders, W. S.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Lathan, G.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Cape, Thomas

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Scurr, John

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Sexton, James

  Chater, Daniel

  Lawson, John James

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Leach, W.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Shield, George William

  Cove, William G.

  Lee, Jessie (Lanark, Northern)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Cowan, D. M.

  Lees, J.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Daggar, George

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Shinwell, E.

  Dallas, George

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Short, Alfred (wednesbury)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Simmons, C. J.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Day, Harry

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Denman, Hon. R. D

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lowth, Thomas

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Dukes, C.

  Lunn, William

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Duncan, Charles

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Ede, James Chuter

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Snell, Harry

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Egan, W. H.

  McKinley, A.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Elmley, Viscount

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sorensen, R.

  England, Colonel A.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall. N.)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Foot, Isaac,

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  McShane, John James

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Freeman, Peter

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Mansfield, W.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Marcus, M.

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

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Markham, S. F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

  Marley, J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Gill, T. H.

  Marshall, Fred

  Tillett, Ben

  Glassey, A. E.

  Mathers, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gossling, A. G.

  Matters, L. W.

  Tout, W. J.

  Gould, F.

  Manton, James

  Townend, A. E.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Messer, Fred

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Gray, Milner

  Middleton, G.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Greenwood Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

  Milner, Major J.

  Viant, S. P.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Montague, Frederick

  Walkden, A. G.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Walker, J.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Morley, Ralph

  Wallace, H. W.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Walters, Rt. Hon, Sir J. Tudor

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mort, D. L.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Harris. Percy A.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  West, F. R.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Muff, G.

  Westward, Joseph

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  White, H. G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Herriotts, J.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffs)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Hoffman. P. C.

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Palin, John Henry.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester.Loughb'gh)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Wise, E. F.

  Horrabln, J. F.

  Perry, S. F.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Isaacs, George

  Phillips, Dr. marlon

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CADOGAN: One of the peculiar features of our discussions in Committee is that, however perfunctory the debate on a particular Amendment may have been, the Government maintain that it has received adequate treatment, and that, however discursive it may have been, the Opposition protests that it has not had a fair deal. I am convinced, however, that no impartial critic of our proceedings in Committee on this Clause could possibly say that the Opposition has indulged in dilatory or obstructive tactics. We have moved our Amendments in all sincerity, and we claim that if they had been accepted by the Government they would have gone far to obviate the great difficulties which will undoubtedly confront education authorities when this Clause comes into operation. I share the experience of other hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have moved Amendments to this Clause in having been grossly misrepresented outside. I have been accused of being opposed to the principle of raising the school age and to maintenance grants. I have been accused of denying to children born in less fortunate circumstances the benefits of advanced education.
  Our critics totally misunderstand the motives which actuate our opposition to this Clause. We oppose it upon economic and educational grounds. We do not oppose it because it means an expenditure of anything up to £15,000,000 when the country should be saving that sum, although that is a consideration, especially when we consider that the annual expenditure of the country is £870,000,000. at a time of trade depression and financial stringency; we should be opposed to the expenditure under this Clause even if the country were in affluent circumstances, because we maintain that you will not get value for the money spent: the accommodation is not ready, nor are the teachers. In taking up this attitude, we knew that we ran the risk of misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise. We are obviously exposed to the taunt that we have ungenerously withheld from the children of the working-classes the benefits of education which we have ourselves received, but the fact that certain individuals are able to
  2054
  send their children to public schools does not seem to me to be a sound argument for prolonging the school-leaving age before the schools are ready for such a reform. What solace can it he to a man who is compelled to keep his son marking time in an over-crowded school, instructed by an elderly female? What solace can it be to him to know that the President of the Board of Education had much better schooling than that?
  I received last week a copy of a journal which I understand is inspired by the National Union of Teachers, and I observe that in the leading article it is said that hon. Members who have moved Amendments to Clause 1 were not aware of the implications of their own Amendments. I am quite sure that the section of the National Union of Teachers which is supporting the President of the Board of Education in his breathless haste to pass this Measure cannot be aware of the dangers of hasty legislation. I am glad, however, that there are other Sections of the community who are not only aware of the dangers of this legislation but have registered their dissent in no unmeasured terms. I have no doubt that this Bill was well aired during the recent by-elections at Shipley and Renfrew, and I hope that hon. Members opposite and those who support the President of the Board of Education are gratified with the results of those two campaigns.

  I should be out of order in discussing the question of the date, but I do not think I shall be out of order in emphasising the point that the postponement of the date makes no difference to our contention that the country is not prepared for this reform. The right hon. Gentleman informed the Committee that 140 local education authorities out of 317 had expressed themselves as being substantially, or very nearly, prepared. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), in a very able and convincing analysis, reduced the figure of 140 to 89, and in these 89 authorities there are no rural authorities and only one or two of the larger urban authorities. Manchester and the West Riding have expressed the opinion that it will be necessary to have six years, and no doubt other education authorities are in the same predicament. We are quite unprepared as regards the training of teachers. We shall not have a sufficient supply of duly qualified male teachers,

  2055
  and I emphasise the word "male," because we do not want our youths of between 14 and 15 years of age instructed by young married teachers or elderly women of between 60 and 70 years of age.
  The question of the supply of teachers is further complicated by the point made by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb). When you are spending an enormous amount of money on a large supply of extra teachers for the bulge years it must be remembered that, when the de-bulging, if I may use such an atrocious expression, process takes place, you will have a lot of teachers unemployed on your hands. That is an extra reason for postponing this Bill until 1936. There is also a further point in regard to the question of our unpreparedness. Unless you take much more time for reorganisation, you will throw out of gear that immensely valuable system of continuation and technical schools, to say nothing of the existing system of apprenticeship. I hope the President will pay some attention to these points.
  6.0 p.m.
  There is a further consideration which has not yet been raised. You are going to increase the school population by some 400,000 and 500,000 children between the ages of 14 and 15. It is a dangerous age, and nothing has been done to increase the recreative facilities of the schools, which I know are hopelessly inadequate even at the present time. So much for our unpreparedness for the great day.
  Let me deal now with Sub-section (2) of this Clause. Here again I have been misrepresented. I do not deny that under the provisions of the Bill maintenance allowances may be necessary, but it never occurred to me before I saw the Bill in print that we were not going to allow local education authorities some discretion in this matter. It is true that the President of the Board of Education has made some grudging concessions. The form of the Schedule is less rigid and local education authorities have some power of investigating the accuracy of the statements of the applicants. But none of the concessions the right hon. Gentleman has made, and none that he contemplates making, meet our objection to the parent being entitled to claim
  2056
  maintenance allowance. We say that unless a far greater measure of discretion is allowed to the local education authorities, it is certain that the maintenance allowances will be faultily and extravagantly administered. I cannot understand this invidious mistrust of the local education authorities. With regard to the objections which have been raised by hon. Members opposite on the subject of the investigation of claims for allowances, I am very glad that the Minister now gives some indications of reasonableness in regard to that matter. There are no grounds for such complaints as have been made in this respect, and I think it very remarkable that those complaints should come from hon. Members who are engaged in trying to set up a Socialist state, because a Socialist state must of course be founded upon a huge inspectorate with endless inquisitions into our private affairs. Hon. Members opposite must accustom themselves to inquisitions, if they want to see Socialism in our time.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A question of that character does not come within the range of the Clause which is before the Committee.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I was wondering, Mr. Dunnico, how long your patience would allow me to continue on that matter, but may I say with apologies that the point has been raised frequently by hon. Members opposite who object to these investigations.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN:Hon. Members in the course of previous discussions may have objected to such forms of inquiry and investigation as are involved in Amendments proposed to this Bill, but the hon. Member was going into the whole question of Socialism.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I bow to your Ruling, and I conclude by submitting to the Committee that the Amendments which we have moved to Clause 1 have been Amendments of substance, and Amendments which would have improved this Bill as far as it is possible to improve such a bad Bill. I earnestly hope that the Committee will vote against the Clause standing part of the Bill.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I think hon. Members opposite will agree that the

  2057
  back bench Members on this side of the Committee have not unduly protracted these proceedings, and it is only because I do not wish to give a silent vote on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," that I ask the indulgence of the Committee to speak briefly upon it. It has been frequently said during our deliberations that now is the time for economy, and I may be pardoned for using that phrase once again. It is at a time when the paramount need is for economy that the proposals contained in Clause 1 have been introduced and those proposals, I contend, are not only inopportune, but are unpopular throughout the country, and are particularly unpopular with the very persons whom hon. Members opposite seek to benefit by this Bill. I am as anxious as any hon. Member opposite to have education of the most advanced type made available to every child in the country whatever his or her walk in life may be. I have no wish to deny the possibility of the most advanced forms of education to any child who is obviously fitted by attainments and capabilities to benefit by such education. But that is a very different thing from the proposal in Clause 1 which seeks to compel every child, whatever the child's special abilities may be, to remain at school imbibing what is vaguely called education for another year.
  Reference has already been made on this side to the technical schools, and it cannot be denied that this Clause will seriously affect the technical education of children. Hon. members opposite know perhaps, almost better than we on this side, how essential it is that any form of technical education for children should begin as early as possible, and certainly at the age of 14. There may be two opinions as to whether the proposals in this Clause represent an attempt to bribe the electorate or not, but there can be no two opinions on the question that they represent compulsion of the parents and coercion of the local authorities. They infringe the right of parents to have some say in the future of their children, and I believe that they will be bitterly resented by parents throughout the country. I can quite understand the objection of hon. Members opposite to any form of inquisition as regards maintenance grants. I can concede that, in certain
  2058
  circumstances, maintenance grants ought to be paid, where there is real need, but if you are going to pay maintenance grants, whether there is real need or not, you must have inquisitorial methods in some form. Otherwise you are faced with the prospect of paying away the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money in cases where it should not be so paid. The very fact that you must have some form of inquisition will rouse great resentment among the people of this country who strongly object to having their private affairs inquired into in the way that will become necessary should this Bill pass into law.
  It is true that all compulsion upon a prospective recipient of this benefit to state a case which will entitle him to the benefit has been removed. Once again, the local authority is to have the whole responsibility for deciding in each instance whether it is a case in which benefit should be paid or not. But, at any rate, the inquisitorial results of the Bill are bound to be irksome to the people whom it is intended to benefit. Under the Clause as it stands, it would be possible for the following situation to arise. Two men might be living in cottages side by side, each drawing £3 a week in wages and each having two children at school. If one of these men by his own thrift or by some good fortune had been able to purchase his cottage, then, under Schedule A, the value of that cottage would be added to his income, and he would be debarred from receiving the grant of 5s. weekly in respect of his children, whereas his next door neighbour because he rented his cottage instead of owning it would receive that benefit although in every other respect his circumstances were exactly the same. Surely, anomalies like that cannot be defended by the President of the Board of Education. Yet this Clause will create anomalies of that character.
  Our Amendments have all been serious Amendments. They have not been brought forward for the purpose of obstructing discussion or wasting time. I have sat through the Committee's deliberations and I have regretted that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to meet us more than he has done. I believe this to be a bad Bill, an unpopular Bill, and in the present state

  2059
  of the country's finance, a wholly unjustifiable Bill, but it might have been considerably improved had the Minister listened to some of the arguments addressed to him from this side, and adopted some of the suggestions which we submitted. It has been pointed out to him that the effect of this 5s. flat rate in connection with maintenance grants will inevitably be to raise the rate paid in respect of secondary school children, and nobody has ever suggested that the present rate in that case is not perfectly reasonable and adequate. That refusal to accept Amendments, which might have obviated some of these anomalies, shows on the part of the Minister a lack of the spirit of co-operation, but I reiterate that hon. Members opposite and especially right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will find when the time comes and the time may come at no very distant date, that this will be a very difficult Bill for them to justify to the people of the country.
  Major LLEWELLIN: Before parting with this Clause there are two questions which we ought to ask ourselves. The first is, what does it do? The second is, what will it cost? The President of the Board of Education has been very vague as to what the Bill will cost. I think he has used the expression "£8,000,000 or whatever it is." It is quite clear, however, that the Measure is going to add a considerable burden both to the rates and taxes of this country. Even in the case of a comparatively small county like Dorset it is going to impose an extra burden, apart from maintenance allowances, of some £40,000, and £22,000 of that amount will have to be borne by the rates of the county, excluding the two large towns of Poole and Weymouth. The additional burden to which I refer only applies to the area of the county education authority. Is this a time at which to embark upon such new expenditure? We hear a lot of talk from Members of the Liberal party about economy, but it seems only to be talk, because their desire for economy is not shown by their votes in the House of Commons, although some of the schemes in their latest book may have been turned down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial grounds, and, the more money they vote for other objects, the less there will be
  2060
  for those schemes which they are said to have so dearly at heart.
  Even if it were to be conceded that this expenditure is necessary at this time, what are we going to get for it? We are going to have a large number of additional children crammed into schools which are not ready for them, without an adequate supply of teachers, and without any curriculum having been arranged for the extra year. That involves not only a waste of money but also a waste of the time of those children. It will give them before they leave school a disrespect for education and an idea of not going on to continuation classes or to technical schools, because they will feel that their last year at school has been a wasted year. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) pointed out, there is no provision at all for what I regard as absolutely essential for growing boys between 14 and 15, namely some increased playing-field accommodation. It seems to me to be just as important that there should be proper facilities for recreation around the schools, as that there should be facilities for education in the schools. The main object of the schools is not so much the actual teaching of children, as the building up of character. That is why I do not wish to see classes so large that the teacher cannot exercise a real influence in building up the character of the children.
  On the question of maintenance allowances, I would support allowances for those who are in absolute need of them in order that they may be able to provide their children with schooling, and of course there has been expenditure of this sort under previous Acts of Parliament. But I oppose the wholesale giving of maintenance allowances as proposed in the Clause. The first thing you have to maintain and build up in this country is the old idea of the family life. [Laughter.] An hon. Member opposite may laugh. If he prefers everything to be done by the State, and children more or less to be taken from their parents from the moment they are born, and put into some sort of seminary, quite away from their parents, then we are simply miles apart in the way in which we look at the family life of this country.
  It seems to me that what you ought to build on is the family life, and you have

  2061
  to do that by building up respect in these families, as we all know, or at least those of us who are fortunate in our parents and have had parents who sacrificed something for us in our earlier years. Therefore, we feel an obligation to them for the rest of our lives, and it seems to me—hon. Members opposite may agree or disagree, but in truth I care not—that what we do not want to undermine is the responsibility of parents for looking after the welfare of their children until such time as they are able to take their place and make their own way in the world. It is because this universal scheme of maintenance allowances knocks out the very bottom of that principle that I object to those allowances.
  I believe very strongly in what I am saying, and I say it outside this House just as much as I say it here. What we want to build up in this country more and more is the individual respect of the people, and to get them less and less to have to lean on some outside force in the State. After all, it is our old individual pride that has built up this country into the position that we now hold, and if we begin to go away, as we are doing by these universal maintenance allowances, from the idea of the responsibility of the individual, the responsibilty at any rate of the individual father and mother for the care and maintenance of their children, then we are doing something that is bad for this country and for the future generations of our race. That is why I oppose this Clause.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have listened with some surprise to the very able speeches that have just been delivered from the Conservative Benches. I thought they appeared here to-day in the character of prosecutors, that they were going to condemn this Bill outright, but instead of that the burden of their speeches has been to explain away what has been said on the Second Reading and in the course of a great many Amendments. That applies particularly to the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin), who has just sat down. He moved a whole series of Amendments which would, as I previously pointed out to him, have been of great benefit to the legal profession, which he adorns, but of very small benefit to the school children, whom it is the object of this Bill to benefit.
  Major LLEWELLIN: The hon. Member is referring to the Clause, as I understand, which gives the claimant to a maintenance allowance a right to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. It is probably an appeal for 5s., or £1 at the most, and that is not going to benefit any member of the legal profession to any vast extent. If it is only a claim for 5s., you cannot at any rate brief counsel to appear for you to get 5s. back.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, but the Amendments to which I have been referring appear on the Paper to-day, and one of them provides that if any person entitled to maintenance allowance wilfully omits to inform the local education authority that his total income has increased beyond the limit entitling him to an allowance, he shall be further penalised, and the other one is that in addition to either such imprisonment or fine as is provided in the Bill, he may be ordered to pay such sum as represents the maintenance allowance that he has received. The only omission that he has made in this very comprehensive series of Amendments is the proposal that each claimant for maintenance allowance should appear to claim the allowance accompanied on either side by two policemen. If he had done that, he would have very adequately completed his series of proposals. However, I congratulate him on the very able way in which he has argued them.
  What I am concerned to paint out is that every hon. Member who has spoken from the Conservative benches to-day has complained that he has been misrepresented in the country. At least, the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) particularly complained of that, and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) made his speech in order to prevent any criticism that might be made upon him in that regard.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I made no complaint of misrepresentation, and the hon. Member is perhaps doing me an injustice in suggesting that I made a speech for fear that I should be misrepresented.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me.

  2063
  I said that the hon. Member for Finchley complained that he had been misrepresented, but the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom is most anxious that he should not be misrepresented and is particularly wishful that a silent vote of his might not be misinterpreted. I do not think there is any controversy between us, because—
  Commander SOUTHBY: Surely any hon. Member may make a speech rather than give a silent vote, without being accused of having done it to prevent some problematical misrepresentation.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Really, my hon. and gallant Friend has no serious cause of complaint. I was not criticising him. I was saying that he makes a speech in order to be completely understood. I am very much surprised at this attitude of my hon. Friends in the Conservative party. They introduced a Measure when they were in office to give equality of franchise, and they proclaimed through a thousand trumpets that at last we had approximated to the ideal of equality of opportunity. The Prime Minister of that day became very exuberant about that Measure, and used some very remarkable language, which I took the trouble to note down this morning. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) said:
  "Once this Bill is law, the last fraction of truth about inequality will have gone, and gone for ever. It will never again be possible to blame the sovereign State for any position of inequality."
  Is that what my hon. Friends are saying on this Bill? When parents come with the charter offered to them by the right hon. Member for Bewdley and say that it is worthless to them unless he gives them the power to exercise the vote intelligently, my hon. Friends there will say, "Ah, yes, but that kind of equality costs money." To give a vote costs nothing. They will dish votes out as if they were potatoes to every section of the community, but when the same people come to this House and ask for the power to exercise their votes intelligently, my hon. Friends here resist it because it is expensive. I think that is a very serious paradox for the Conservative party, and it is very unbecoming, for a party which claims credit for enfranchising the whole population and free-
  2064
  ing them, to come to this House and resist a miserable little Bill like this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear the applause of my hon. Friends—which, far from bridging the gap between one system of education and another, only gives to the working classes a chance of being educated up to the age of 15. That is the Bill that my hon. Friends are resisting, and I say that it is miserable and pettifogging.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I was resisting the expenditure not because of the expenditure but because we are not getting value for it.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is most ingenious. I listened with great attention and a great deal of alarm to the speech delivered by the Noble Lord on the Second Reading. That is not his attitude. His attitude is that the proper place for the child of 15 is the factory, and that you have no right in principle to force education upon him or to give it the advantages which this Bill, however meagrely, offers to the child. I say to my hon. Friends above the Gangway that what makes the division between class and class in this country is not money, but education. Any difference that exists between one man's fortune and that of another can be redressed—he may win the Irish sweepstake—but any difference that exists on the basis of education can never be made good to those suffering that disadvantage. I should have thought the Conservative party, which is always in fear of revolution, would have regarded this Measure as a guarantee against revolution.
  Why should they deny to the poorer children of this country an advantage which they themselves possess? The whole distinction between class and class reposes on that. You have two systems of education in this country which you must at some date or other assimilate. You have a public school education, and you have a private school education, and that produces a difference of outlook, a difference of thought, a difference of expression. It almost makes in this State two nations, and we cannot afford to go on like that. The great Disraeli would have turned in his grave if he had listened to the speech of the Noble Lord who represents the Conservative

  2065
  party so forcibly and with such reaction in these debates. The great Disraeli saw a little farther, I am glad to think, than does the Noble Lord.
  Then there is the other proposal in this Bill, namely, the proposal for maintenance allowances. Why the whole public school system, which was founded for the poor, is based on the principle of maintenance allowances. The endowments of the great public schools are maintenance allowances, and far more adequate maintenance allowances than are proposed in this Bill. They give the child lodging and food, and in some cases they were intended to give them clothing. That is the principle of the public school endowments, and nobody who has read the history of our public schools will dispute for a moment What I say.
  In spite of that, I do not think that this is the proper way to give maintenance allowances. They have nothing to do with an Education Bill. These maintenance allowances are to feed and clothe children, which has nothing to do with education, and it ought to be done in a different way. What are the weaknesses of the scheme? The first is this: Does anybody pretend that the maximum will remain at 5s.? It cannot be suggested that 5s. is enough on which to keep a child. Nobody, whether he supports or opposes maintenance allowances, will say that. At every election we shall be asked, "Are you prepared to increase that allowance?" There is another weakness, and that is that we shall be asked why maintenance allowance is given between the ages of 14 and 15 only. Why is it not given at the age of 13, or at the age of 12? We shall be asked to make this into a complete system for the endowment of children. That may or may not be a good thing, but an Education Bill is not the Bill in which to do it.
  Is it realised how much this adds to the chaos of our present social system? We have a pensions warrant administered by the Ministry of Pensions, under which a child obtains 10s. a week. We have an Unemployment Insurance Act under which a child gets 2s. a week. We have a Contributory Pensions Act, under which a widow receives is. 6d. in respect of her child, or an orphan receives a like sum. We have several Acts on
  2066
  the Statute Book by which maintenance allowances are given. They are not given for the purposes merely of education, but for the purposes of sustenance. It has been the tradition of this country, for good or for evil, since 1908, that we should insure a workman against every risk of his life. That is an old Liberal principle, and it has been adopted by other parties. I am not entering into the controversy whether the insurance should be contributed or not, but we have provided by legislation against every abnormal risk of life, against old age and death, against unemployment and various other contingencies, and the proper place for a maintenance allowance is in an insurance Bill.
  We could carry it much further if we did that. It would cost next to nothing to insure against the £5,000,000 which is being provided in this Bill; it would cost about one halfpenny a week for each contributor. Under an insurance scheme, we could give something much better. Do the Socialist party believe in this Bill and this form of maintenance allowance? It is foisting upon education the sins of industry. Wages are not big enough, and we are trying to save them out of the Vote for education. Do you realise that you are mobilising against education by this Measure many of the people who have hitherto been in favour of it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who has spent a political lifetime in advocating equality of educational opportunity, is appalled at the cost, and is actually opposing the Bill; he is not appalled at the cost of education, but at the cost of putting upon education something that does not legitimately belong to it, but belongs to a system of family allowances.
  My hon. Friends opposite are not new to this question. They have discussed it at the Trade Union Congress and the Labour Party Conference, and to what conclusion did they come? They rejected these cash payments, as they called them, on two grounds. I ask leave to read two very instructive paragraphs from the report which they adopted. The first is:
  "Nor do we wish to argue at length the question of the possible effects which a system of cash payments might have upon wage negotiations and collective agreements,

  2067
  though we are quite satisfied that such a system would effect detrimentally negotiations regarding wage fixing."
  They are quite candid about it. They say that if cash payments are distributed, it will affect the wages of the workers, and that they are taken into account when trade union leaders go to employers and ask for a rise in wages.
  Mr. MAXTON: Was not that decision in reference to a somewhat larger proposal than the one before us? Is it not a fact that both the Trade Union Congress and the Labour party carried practically unanimous votes in support of this particular maintenance grant?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am talking about the minority report on family allowances. I do not dispute that the Labour party are in favour of this Bill. That is proved by the fact that the Bill is going to be carried. I am talking about the principle of cash allowances and the possible effect that they will have upon the economic system.
  Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a substantial difference between a very limited Measure of this description and the very wide scheme of family allowances that was proposed by me and my hon. Friends. The argument that he is now using would apply just as forcibly to the widows' and orphans' pensions which he himself has praised.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is really no difference between my hon. Friend and myself, because when I was arguing just now that this would never stay here, and that it was not logical to leave it here, my hon. Friend applauded me. I am dealing with the whole matter on that basis, and saying that this minority report thought a system of cash payments undesirable. The first ground on which they thought that, was that it would prejudice trade union leaders when they came to negotiate wages, and Mr. Cramp made an instructive speech on that point. The second ground, after determining the sum required, was:
  "If such a sum were realised for this purpose, it is obvious to us that nothing would be available for developing the national health, education and pension services."
  2068
  They say the same thing many times, and sometimes in a stronger form. They conclude:
  "We believe, in short, that the development of the national health, education and other social services is so vital in the interests of the workers' children, that all the funds available for such social purposes should be spent in extending these services, until they are completed, rather than in paying out cash allowances."
  That is the considered view of the minority report. It contains an important principle, namely, that we have to choose whether we are going to develop the social services or pay cash allowances for children. This is the first step towards family allowances, and this is the first time in this country that we have made a cash payment to the working man. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked me just now about pensions. Pensions are contributory for the most part, or they are deferred pay. There is no provision in this country by which hitherto we have paid a man earning wages an additional sum of money, such as is contained in this Bill, and to that extent the proposal is new.
  Mr. MAXTON: Surely we are paying for secondary education quite regularly, and we give grants to employed men for a variety of things. I want again to insist that there is a tremendous difference. The proposal that was being discussed by the Trade Union Congress was one that amounted to an expenditure of £100,000,000. The Congress say that £100,000,000 is a tremendous sum of money, and that the spending of it at this juncture would cripple the development of every other social service. I do not accept that, but that is what they say. Surely the same argument cannot be applied to the £6,000,000 odd which is being provided in this Bill?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman has not rebutted my points at all. There is a difference between paying a selected child a sum of money under an Education Bill, and making it imperative to pay to every child and to every working man below a certain wage limit. That is quite a different proposal. The hon. Gentleman's second point was that those who made this report were appalled by the vastness of the amount, and therefore laid down the principle which they would not other-

  2069
  wise have laid down. I will read another passage. The hon. Member used the figure of £6,000,000:
  "The crucial question to us is therefore not whether to pay cash allowances would be an ideally sound policy, but whether, given a certain sum at the present time, be it £10,000,000 or £50,000,000, to disburse in cash payments would be a better, more effective, more economical and socially more advantageous policy than to devote it to developing our social services. The question, in our view, admits of but one answer. Such funds as are available would achieve far more valuable results in the form of improved health, education and other conditions of well-being for the children, if expenditure in developing the social services than if spent in cash payments."
  Even if it is £10,000,000, they say, they prefer the system of extending education. So do I, and I do not think that it is fair—and this is my point—to burden education with maintenance allowances which are for the purpose of giving sustenance and clothing to a child. That is a subject which must be considered on its own merits. If the House of Commons wishes to debate family allowances, let us debate them, and if it wishes to have them, let us take that decision, but once we have placed these enormous burdens upon education, we have done education no good. We have held it up for, perhaps, generations. During the time that the Mond-Turner Report was under discussion, many people were of opinion that it would be advisable to raise the age to 16. How many years would it be now for a child to be educated up to 16 under a Bill of this kind?
  We shall not have another Bill of this kind for a long time, whereas, if this maintenance allowance had been left out, and had been provided for under the existing insurance system, we could have had a Bill to raise the school age to 16 or even more. As I believe in education, I think that it is a mistake for the Government to pursue this course. The Bill will not come into operation until September, 1932, if a subsequent Amendment be carried. Between this date and that, the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity of considering the whole principle of family allowances, and to make provision for them if the House of Commons so desires. He has the opportunity of which the Government are availing themselves, and have been
  2070
  a great deal of time about it, of investigating the possibility of co-ordinating insurance services. All these things can be done between now and September, 1932, and I hope that it will be on a more satisfactory basis than it is in the present Bill.
  A mother has a right to have her children not only educated, but properly fed. Children are an asset to the nation, and. if industry cannot do it, if we are faced with the deplorable fact that the majority of the working class population are getting less than £3 a week, we must give them a proper opportunity in life by one method or another. I believe that the proper way is by insurance without unduly burdening anybody else. I hope that I have made it clear that while I welcome this Bill, because it proposes to do for the nation what Plymouth did for itself a very long time ago, and while I welcome the raising of the age to 15, I regret that it does not go further and takes no step towards assimilating the two systems of education which now exist in the country, into one which shall be the best and open to all. I regret that the Bill contains this proposal for maintenance allowances in a form in which it can never finally be left, although I hope that maintenance allowances in some more appropriate form will eventually be carried.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, and I have already covered many times most of the ground over which we have travelled this afternoon. I have listened very carefully for any new points of view, and I cannot say that I have heard very much that is new. The hon. Member for Finchley complained that he was misunderstood, but I could not quite make out why. He is opposed to the Bill, but it seems that he was misunderstood. [Interruption.] It may he that his opposition is limited. For one reason or another he and his party are decidedly against the two things which this Bill proposes to do, to raise the school age—
  Mr. CADOGAN: Compulsorily!
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, compulsorily. [Interruption]. All the Conservative party are not against the compulsory raising of the school age, although the Noble Lord and some of his

  2071
  supporters may be. It is a new thing in the Conservative party to find opposition to compulsion as such, and I very much doubt whether the Noble Lord is completely in touch with his party. That may have something to do with the misunderstanding which exists. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) did say two new things about unpreparedness. He said this new proposal would throw out of gear the continuation classes and technical schools. I do not know why, because if the pupils who go to continuation schools are better grounded in the elementary schools or senior schools from which they come, they will be able to profit more from the technical education which they get at later stages. Then he referred to recreative facilities, and asked whether, as a part of our preparedness, we were thinking about more playgrounds, and so on. Certainly we are, and if he had opened as many schools as I have had the pleasure of opening in the last year, he would have known that in every case where it was a senior school, and in most cases where an elementary school was opened, a playground is attached. A good many local authorities make it a rule to have playgrounds.
  Mr. CADOGAN: They are still hopelessly inadequate.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: For the reason that, in the matter of playgrounds, the country, unfortunately, starts from scratch. A few years ago there were very few playgrounds other than the asphalt yards round the schools in which the working classes get their only chance of education; but we are rapidly moving beyond that, and most local authorities now are saying that it ought to be part of our education to give all children the facilities for recreation which have been recognised as proper for children in the older schools of the country. As my hon. Friend reminds me, we have a special pamphlet on playing-fields, urging that they ought to be provided. I think that the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha) exaggerates in saying that what we are doing is entirely new. Maintenance grants—I agree, on a limited scale—have been part of our education system for a very long time, and he has forgotten that maintenance
  2072
  grants in connection with the raising of the school age are part of his party's programme. It is all very well to say, "This is not the way to do it, this is not the time to do it; this is not the Bill in which to do it." If it is right to do it, it does not matter in what Bill it is done. It is just as well to do it here and now, by this Bill, as to wait to do it by some careful articulation with some insurance or unemployment scheme, or whatever other method he would propose. Here is the opportunity of doing it for a real purpose. We shall get another generation of children in the schools whom it would be almost impossible for our poorer people to have there if we did not do it. That is the justification.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: There are some things which must be said from these benches before we go to a division on this Clause, which, of course, is the kernel of the Bill. I am sure that many hon. Members beside myself were taken aback at hearing the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), who is himself an old public school boy, entering into some very regrettable inaccuracies with regard to public schools similar to those we have heard on more than one occasion from the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). Probably the hon. Member for Silvertown did not have the advantage of being educated at one of the old schools, and, therefore, is not accurately informed about the endowments of those schools; but it is surprising to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Devonport. He has told us that the old endowments of these schools were intended for the poor and are being used by the rich. The hon. Member for Silvertown actually went so far as to say that boys in the public schools were costing the country so much for their education. He said the boys in Westminster school were costing the country £200 a year each. Since that speech I have taken some trouble to ascertain the facts, and have found that what was said is entirely inaccurate.
  Every parent who has a boy in Westminster School pays the full cost of the boy's education, except, of course, the parents of those boys who have gained scholarships, and even they have to pay about £50 a year, because the value of a scholarship is not sufficient for the full

  2073
  cost of the schooling of the boy. There is a further deficit on each scholar which is made up from the school funds, and I do nut think need remind the house that the endowments were left by private individuals, and are in no sense State endowments. With regard to what the hon. Member for Devonport said as to the endowment of public schools being for the poor and needy, I think he must be unaware of the facts. Mr. Leach, who wrote about the schools of mediseval England, paints out that every scholar at Winchester had to make a declaration that his father had a certain income, which was nearly three times the income of an artisan. The same thing applied at Eton. In founding Eton, Henry VI expressly excepted persons of what was then called villein status from coming under the benefits of the endowments of that school. They were persons who were of unfree status. [Interruption.] I must not get into a discussion with my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) regarding villein status, but I think it might be described as tenant status. Villeins, I think, did not hold land freehold, but had to render certain services to the lord of the manor. The point is that those schools were not in- tended for what we call the children of working-class parents, because in those days people had not got so far as to visualise the need of a thorough education for all classes. It was true in those days, as it is to-day, that those endowments enabled many boys whose parents were not well-to-do, and yet were not of the working class, to get a first-class education. It is utterly untrue to say that all the boys in those schools are
  robbing anybody, and least of all robbing the State.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope the Noble Lady does not suggest that I said they were robbing anybody. I was merely saying that the system of maintenance allowances is an old system, as we see in the endowments of public schools. I should be the last to say that anybody was robbing anybody else.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member spoke of the desirability of assimilating the two classes of schools. I entirely agree; but I submit to him that already there is a great deal of
  2074
  assimilation. All secondary schools are sending in boys to the same examinations; the boys are passing on to the same universities. Scholarships at the universities are being gained by boys from all types of schools. What we call the public school system—;the team spirit, the games, the division into "houses"—is now found in every grant-aided secondary school in the country, and also in many of the public elementary schools. The public schools have benefited from the elementary schools through the introduction of school medical services, and the other schools have benefited through what the public schools have taught them —the games and so on. There is a far greater degree of assimilation than some hon. Members realise, and it is an assimilation which, I am certain, is growing every day.
  One further point, with regard to maintenance allowances. I think that what the hon. Member for Devonport said about them is rather in the nature of a belated penance. We on these benches wonder why we did not hear that speech two or three weeks ago. Even last week that speech would have been very valuable to us in our discussions. I do not think the hon. Member has taken any part in these debates previously, but now, when the matter is practically settled, he comes forward and airs some very interesting views. I have one thing to say to the Minister which I do not think he has heard before. The other day I ventured to point out that he had underestimated the cost of these maintenance allowances in the "peak" year. I have done some more arithmetic since then, and I think he has under-estimated the cost in the year previous to the "peak" year. Therefore, the estimates given in the Financial Memorandum are not sufficient. There is an under-estimate, and this expenditure, to which the hon. Member for Devonport so much objects, is going to lead us a great deal further than was expected. In one locality I understand that not 75 per cent. but 79 per cent. of the children will be entitled to them, and if that is the case all over the country, it will add very considerably to what is already admitted to be the cost.
  The Minister has made some concessions in the course of our discussions. He said that local authorities are to be per-

  2075
  mitted to make inquiries, and that if they do not like the Schedule attached to the Bill they may use another Schedule; but the alternative Schedule is to be "similar" to the one in the Bill, and therefore that concession seems to be valueless. We say we object to the Schedule because under it local authorities may find it difficult to make the inquiries on which they lay so much stress. We say that all this is just part of the leading strings which the right hon. Gentleman is introducing for the first, time into our educational system. The spirit of our educational system hitherto has been a very free one. There has been a great deal of power delegated to the local authorities. They have said how they wished these maintenance allowances to be administered. Their advice has been largely disregarded, and this Clause says that the parents are entitled to receive 5s. a week. Therefore, any
  liberty which the President of the Board of Education professes to give to local authorities amounts to very little. The Minister has in this discussion gone a very small way to meet our objections to the Clause, and particularly in regard to maintenance allowances. We propose, therefore, to divide against it.
  Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: There is one small point I would like to mention before the Division takes place. In Sub-section (2, a) the maintenance grants mentioned are not given to any children attending an institution. Thai will be a great handicap to certain institutions like Dr. Barnardo's Homes for Waifs and Strays, and I would ask the President to consider whether he can do anything to help this institution.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 200.

  Division No.44

  AYES

  [7.3 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hardie, George D.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymnour

  Harris, Percy A.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hlllsbro')

  Cove, William G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cowan, D.M.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ammon, Charles George

  Daggar, George

  Hayes, John Henry

  Angell, Norman

  Dallas George

  Henderson, Right Hon. A.(Burnley)

  Arnott, John

  Dalton, Hugh

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Davies, E. C. Montgomery

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Davies Rhys John (Westthoughtor)

  Herriotts. J.

  Ayles, Walter

  Day, Harry

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Barr, James

  Dudgeon, Major C.R.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Batey, Joseph

  Dukes, C.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Bellamy, Albert

  Duncan, Charles

  Hore, Bellsha, Leslle

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central

  Ede, James, Chuter

  Horrabin, J.F.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Benson, G.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Egan, W. H.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Elmley, viscount

  Johnston, Thomas

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Unvier.)

  Jones, F. Liewellyn. (Fllnt)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Foot, Isaac

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Freeman, Peter

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

  Jones, T. l. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Bromfield, William

  George, Megan Lloyd (Angiesea

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Bromley, J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford

  Brooke, W.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley

  Kelly, w. T.

  Brothers, M.

  Gill, T. H.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Knight, Holford

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West

  Gould. F.

  Lang, Gordon

  Buchanan, G.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Burgess, F. G.

  Granville, E.

  Lathan, G.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Gray, Milner

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine).

  Law. A. (Rosendale)

  Calne, Derwent Hall-

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamergan)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Cameron, A. G.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lawrie, Hugh Jartley (Stalybridge

  Cape, Thomas

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lawson, John James

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Chater, Daniel

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll

  Lee. Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Lee. Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn

  Lees, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Harbord, A.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Oliver, George Harold (likeston)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Oliver, P. M.(Man., Blackley)

  Snell, Harry

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Longden, F.

  Palin John Henry

  Sorensen, R.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Pallng, Wilfrid

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Lowth, Thomas

  Parkinson, John allen (wigan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Lunn, William

  Perry, S. F.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Strauss, G. R.

  McElwee, A.

  Piction-Turbervlll, Edith

  Sutton, J. E.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston.

  Potts, John S.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  McKinlay, A.

  Price, M. P.

  Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Pybus, Percy John

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Tillett, Ben

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Ramsay, T. b. Wllson

  Tinker, John Joseph

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Tout, W. J.

  McShane, John James

  Raynes, W. R

  Townend, A. E.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Richards, R.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Richarson, R. (Houghton-ie-spring)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Marcus, M.

  Romerill, H. G.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Markham, S. F.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Walker, J.

  Marley, J.

  Rothschild, J. de

  Wallace, H. W.

  Marshall, Fred

  Rowson, Guy

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mathers, George

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

  Matters, L. W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Maxton, James

  Sanders, W. S.

  Watson, W. N. (Dunfermline)

  Messer, Fred

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Wellock, Wllfred

  Middleton, G.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Milner, Major J.

  Scurr, John

  West, F. R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Sexton, James

  Westwood, Joseph

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  White, H. G.

  Morley, Ralph

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Whiteley, Wllfrid (Birm., (Ladywood)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Shield, George William

  Williams, David (Swansea, East

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Mort, D. L.

  Shinwell, E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffeld, Attercliffe)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Short, Alfred(Wednesbury)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke.on-Trent)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Muff, G.

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wlthington)

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Mugneridge, H. T.

  Sinclair, sir. A. (Calthnese)

  Wise, E. F.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Sitch, charies H.

  Wood, Major Mckenzie (Banff)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen

  Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaten)

  Young, R. s. (Lsllngton, North

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  TELLER FOR THE AYES.—

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley.

  NOES

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonet

  Burton, colonel H. W.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. charles

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l

  Campbell, E. T.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  England, Colonel A.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wllfrid W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerest, Weston-s.M.)

  Aster, Maj. Hon John J. (Kant, Dover

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmith.S.)

  Everard, w. Lindsay

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Baillie-Hamltton, Hon. Charles W.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Fielden, E. B.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Chamberiain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)

  Fison, F. g. Clavering

  Balfour, George (Hampstead

  Christie, J. A.

  Ford, Sir P.J.

  Balfour, Captain H. H.(l. of Thanef

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Balniel, Lord

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cobb, sir Cyrill

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamllton

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Berry, Sir George

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Betterton, sir Henry B.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Courthope, colonel sir G. L.

  Grace, John

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London

  Bowater, col. Sir t. Vanslttart

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Bracken, B.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phllip

  Hacking, Rt, Hon. Douglas H.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Brown, brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berle, Newb'y)

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.

  Hanbury, C.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  2078

  2079

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell, sir, W. Lane (Streatham

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Harvey, Major S. e. (Devon, Totnes)

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Smithers, Waldron

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Somerville, a. a. (Windsor)

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley

  Moore, sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Somerville, D. G. (Wlllesden, East

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Southby, Commander A. r. J.

  Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Spender-clay, Colonel H.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Newton, Sir D. G. C.(Cambridge

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O.(W'merland

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Howard-Bury, colonel C. K.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Tinne, J. A.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Train, J.

  Kinley, J.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Peto, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Wallace, Capt. D. e. (Hornsey)

  Lane fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Remer, John R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester

  Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy

  Williams, Charles (Devon, torquay

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Long, Major Hon, Eric

  Russell, Alexander, West (Tynemouth)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. viscount

  McConnell, sir Joseph

  Salmon, Major L.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. d. (L. of W.)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Maitland, A. (Kent. Faversham

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hun. Sir L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Slewart

  Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Travist'K)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Savery, S. S.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Simms, Major-General J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Meller, R. J.

  Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short, title, construction, extent, saving and commencement.)
  The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GRAY:
  In page 3, line 25, to leave out the words "April, nineteen hundred and seventeen," and to insert instead thereof the words "September, nineteen hundred and eighteen."
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): This Amendment raises the question on which we may take a general discussion.
  Sir D. MACLEAN Sir D. MACLEAN rose—
  Lord E. PERCY: Am I to understand, Mr. Chairman, that you wish to take a general debate on this more or less consequential Amendment rather than on a later Amendment which raises the question more directly?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think this raises the question on which a general discussion can take place.
  Lord E. PERCY: The only point I was raising was that this Amendment was a consequential one on the one which appears on page 165 which directly fixes the, date. It is not of very great matter, but I was hoping that the discussion
  2080
  might take place on the substantial Amendment later on, rather than on a consequential Amendment.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: The difficulty is that we cannot tell what decision the Committee will take, and therefore it might be more convenient to have the discussion on this Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "A bargain!"] There may be those who approve of a bargain. I think it will be simpler to take a debate on this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it matters much.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out the words "April, nineteen hundred and seventeen," and to insert instead thereof the words, "September, nineteen hundred and eighteen."
  It seems to me that this is the best way to raise this question. The remarks which I shall address to the Committee on this question will be short, because it happens to be a subject upon which there is a very large measure of agreement among Members of the Committee. It is quite obvious that, if this Bill stands as it is printed, this scheme will come into operation on the 1st of April next, and I think there is general agreement

  2081
  that that date is much too early. Undoubtedly, considerable alterations have been made by the various education authorities in response to questions addressed to them by the Education Department during the past 12 months and considerable progress has been made. Nevertheless, there is a very large number of other authorities, especially in rural districts, where no preparations have been made, or where, at any rate, such anticipatory steps as have been attempted are of a very primitive kind. I think the Committee as a whole is agreed that April next is not a convenient date.

  The question which next arises is what should be the appointed day? It is quite clear that if this Measure is to operate efficiently three things are necessary. In the first place, the buildings should be ready; secondly, the teaching staff should be adequate; and, thirdly, the curriculum should be sufficiently well prepared. If those three conditions are not substantially provided for, it is obvious that the money proposed to be devoted to this great step forward in education will, to a very large extent, be wasted. Further, that would be a waste of money which would be thoroughly unjustified. Many associations and public bodies have been addressing circulars to Members of this House stating their views on this important question. The County Councils Association have passed a resolution in favour of the Bill coming into operation in April, 1933. That is an important body, and its views are entitled to serious consideration. Other bodies of considerable importance have come to the conclusion that September, 1932, would be a suitable date to which to postpone the appointed day provided that the Bill carries out the three conditions to which I have alluded.
  I will deal, first of all, with the question of the buildings. Undoubtedly, you cannot get the full educational value of the additional year unless the school buildings are properly adapted, not only to provide accommodation for the additional number of scholars, but also to provide for the reorganised education. It is necessary to have education reorganised under this Bill, and, if we do not get that, it will not be worth while spending the money which it is proposed to spend. In my opinion, if we agree to
  2082
  postpone the operation of this Measure for 18 months from April next, that will be quite adequate.
  With regard to the teachers, I should say that, after the three conditions which I have mentioned have been fulfilled, the supply of teachers is one which can be most easily dealt with. Undoubtedly, there is a very large number of teachers who can be brought into line to meet the requirements of this Measure more quickly than the buildings or the curriculum. Another question which arises is: how is the additional year to be spent? To mark time would be wasteful. Many points of special interest have been put forward during the course of this debate, and one of them which interests me very much is the evident desire to see that this additional year should not be spent merely on book learning, but should be adapted to vocational training. Adequate time will be allowed for that thoroughly to develop if the operation of this Measure is postponed for 18 months from April next.
  The question of voluntary schools has been mentioned. It is perfectly clear that that question must sooner or later be dealt with and disposed of, and to attempt to hurry it would only court disaster. I am sure that one of the results of the postponement of the operation of this Bill until September, 1932, would be to effect an amicable settlement of this problem which has beset education for the last 50 or 60 years.
  Another reason for postponing the operation of the Measure is the condition of the finances of this country. Grave as was the situation of public finance a year ago, it is much more serious to-day. The amount of money to be spent in connection with this Measure is bound to ha large. I agree that the funds of the nation devoted to education, if wisely invested, will bring back interest many fold. It is a fact that while in other days Governments and Parliaments might have undertaken with a cheerful heart large financial expenditure upon education, to-day it behoves hon. Members especially to see that such expenditure is well and wisely invested, and that is a problem which requires very careful consideration.
  For my part, I should be very happy indeed, on national grounds, to bring this Act into operation at the earliest

  2083
  possible moment, but I certainly hold the view that there never was a time when public expenditure should be more carefully scrutinised than at the present moment, and I think a further 18 months might very well be utilised to see that the expenditure is kept down to the lowest possible amount consistent with full efficiency of service. I hold that, at the present moment, it is not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include in his Budget the very heavy additional expenditure involved in this Bill. I estimate that this Measure will place upon the Exchequer a charge of about £2,500,000, and a charge on the rates amounting to another £2,000,000. I am certain that it is the desire of the general body of the people of this country to develop and achieve a large measure of progressive education, but we must take the requisite time to see that the money is efficiently and adequately expended. On these and many other grounds, I hope the Committee will adopt my Amendment.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have already announced that the Government are prepared to accept the date of September, 1932, in place of April, 1931. I have little to add to what I have already said. I regret the alteration greatly. I never can see in this life why you should not do two things at once. In this case we might have made a great educational advance and we might have greatly helped to reduce unemployment. It could have been done—that is to say, the school age could have been raised in April as the Bill proposes. It would have been at the risk of imperfections—at the risk of considerable imperfections, very likely—but it could have been done. I do not propose to argue the matter further, except to say that I am sorry that the orderliness of mind of my fellow countrymen resented the idea of an emergency effort, which might have secured another year of removal from the labour market, at this juncture, of 500,000 children. I think it is a mistake that we did not do it, but the two parties opposite were adamant; they would have nothing but education under this change.
  I admit that that is a most respectable attitude, and I admit also the vast national advantage of everyone with one voice saying, "We cannot bear to think
  2084
  of raising the school age till we know that every child between 14 and 15 is going to have adequate and interesting education" That was not always so. It is a good thing that we have got agreement about that, and, so far, the attitude of the Conservative party is pleasing. Some of my hon. Friends are resentful at the change which is being made in the Bill; I think that some of them would have liked me to die in the last ditch. Of course, there would have been nobility in that, but I prefer, I will not say to bow to the inevitable, but to use the inevitable. As it appeared to be the main thing which stood between a frank acceptance of the Bill in the minds of a large number of Members, I thought it better to agree with them than to fight them hopelessly. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) was quite right, there is one real gain in the postponement, because there will be more time to arrange a settlement which will enable the voluntary schools to play their part—not that we might not have found some satisfactory line of advance by next April, as I hope we shall, but it would have been very difficult to find the necessary Parliamentary time actually to carry through legislation by then. I shall continue the efforts which I am making in that direction.
  As to the date which is now proposed, and which the Government are prepared to accept, that is to say, September, 1932, I say quite frankly that, if we had been considering from the first the date for raising the school age from a purely educational point of view, that is the date which in all probability we should have chosen. The Hadow Committee's report suggested the beginning of the school year 1932. [Interruption.] There is not such an enormous difference; the Hadow Committee suggested a somewhat earlier date by a few months. I suppose that the most important body in this connection, who realise best what the educational necessities are, is the Association of Education Committees, and they, twice this year, in March and again in November, have urged this date as the best date on which to start. By 1932, all authorities who really want to be ready will be able to be ready. It is quite true that complete reorganisa-

  2085
  tion, as I have already tried to explain, will not have been accomplished throughout the whole country, but for the children who are coming into the schools there will be schools, there will be places, and there will be teachers. The Committee must recollect that, when we take the date of September, 1932, the full operation of the Act will not be effective until well into 1933.
  There is one other point to which I want to allude. There is uneasiness in some quarters as to the increase of teachers that is taking place this year. We calculate that in 1931 there will be 1,250 more teachers from the training colleges than in previous years. We are making an effort to increase the number of teachers to meet the new conditions. The new conditions are not only the raising of the school age; they are a whole process of reorganisation, of which the raising of the school age is part; and in that process of reorganisation you can go faster or slower. If the school age is not raised at the date that we originally intended, there is no reason why the teachers should not be used for what everybody knows to be required as well as the raising of the school age, namely, the reduction of the size of the still too large classes. One of the arguments used by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and his friends is that I am proposing to raise the school age too fast, before I have got the size of the classes down to what it ought to be. I agree that the classes are not down to what they ought to be, but I think that the raising of the school age is more important than getting perfection in that direction at once.
  If, as the result of not raising the school age this year, but putting it off for another year, a proportion of the increased number of teachers coming into the profession will find it difficult to get employment, it is perfectly easy for the local authorities to develop the decreasing of their classes and the improvement of their organisation so as to employ more teachers. The actual number of teachers who by this particular process will come into the profession is only 1 per cent. of all the teachers. It will not be difficult to absorb that number, and I shall use all my efforts to see that those teachers are
  2086
  absorbed, knowing perfectly well that they can be absorbed if the local authorities do their duty. I shall be pressing the authorities to do this even if the age is not raised. I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend. I think that the date is the right one from the purely educational point of view, and, in spite of the disappointment which I know exists on this side among many of my hon. Friends, as well as in my own mind, I think it wise that we should accept it.
  Lord E. PERCY: May I at the outset, in order to clear up the question of what this general discussion is covering, ask if I am right in supposing that it covers the question of the general date for the whole country, but not the Amendment as to non-provided schools which stands in the names of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) and others of my hon. Friends—in page 3, line 29, at the beginning, to insert the words:
  " In order that children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen may receive efficient elementary instruction in public elementary schools hot provided by the local education authority, this Act shall not come into operation until an Act has been passed empowering local education authorities, during such period as the Act may determine, to contribute to the cost incurred by the trustees or managers of such schools in providing adequate and suitable accommodation for the efficient elementary instruction of such children, but, subject to this proviso."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is quite right in his assumption. The debate will be a general debate, but excluding the Amendment to which the Noble Lord refers; it will not include the question of non-provided schools.
  Lord E. PERCY: And equally, I take it, it will cover all the various proposals which come later for postponing the date in the particular year?
  The CHAIRMAN:In so far as I select them.
  Lord E. PERCYCertainly, in so far as I select them. We are faced with a very curious situation. This is the fourth time that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind, and he says that he has changed his mind under the united pressure of a hard-hearted Opposition. But has he? How does he

  2087
  know that we would ever have agreed with our Friends below the Gangway on a particular date? How does he know that we should have voted with them? We certainly shall not vote with them on this Amendment, for reasons which I propose to explain. The real truth of the matter is that this is the result of a bargain, with which we on this side of the House above the Gangway have had nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House on the Second Reading and said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that now at last the Liberal party ought to vote for the Government and support the Government, because he was a hundred per cent. he-man and was really going to do something. But all this red-blooded courage oozed from him when he was confronted with even so mild-mannered a gentleman as the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). That is the situation with which we are faced so far as Parliamentary manoeuvres are concerned.
  Colonel BURTON: The gun was not loaded!
  Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Member for North Cornwall said the other night that he welcomed this bargain because it relieved us of a certain amount of sham fighting. He speaks for himself when he speaks of sham fighting, but, if sham fighting has been ended by this arrangement, the fight has ended in a sham treaty, for, of all conceivable proposals, this one for September, 1932, is, in my judgment, the most nonsensical. There was a good deal to be said for the right hon. Gentleman's original idea. He said that the schools would not be ready. He rather exaggerated the extent to which they would be ready, but he said,"I quite agree that they will not be ready, but, at any rate, by bringing this into force now, we shall be doing something to relieve unemployment."
  I disagree with him in that belief and I disagree with his reasoning. I do not think it will be a contributon of any considerable amount to the relief of unemployment. But on that reasoning and on that belief there was a good deal to be said for the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. It, hung together. Now, how-

  2088
  ever, as is usually the case with deals of this kind, which are done in a corner, which are not done across the Floor of the House, but are arranged in some purlieus upstairs, those who tried to make a deal have fallen hopelessly between two stools. The unemployment side of this Bill has gone past recall. Nobody any longer pretends that it will have the slightest effect in relieving the serious crisis which confronts us at the present moment.
  The Bill has become a purely educational Bill, and, to my amazement, the right hon. Member for North Cornwall and the President of the Board of Education unite in saying that on educational grounds September, 1932, is the right and best date. I can only say that when I was at the Board of Education I never met anyone who did not agree that, on purely educational grounds, September, 1932, or April, 1932, was the worst possible date that could be selected. What arguments have been brought before us to show that September, 1932, is a good date educationally? The first is that it is recommended by the Hadow Committee. I know it is, but the Hadow Committee had before them no single scrap of evidence as to the amount of the variation in the numbers of the school population in future years, and they took their decision without any account whatever of the number of children who would be in the schools.
  Mr. MARKHAMSurely they had before them the birth statistics for the years under consideration?
  Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member will find that they did not.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: On page 144 of the Hadow Report this is quite clearly dealt with.
  Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. May I read the passage he has indicated?
  "The task of making the provision required will in some districts be somewhat, lightened by the decrease in the school population which has taken place as the result of the decline of the birth rate, the effect of which will be, as the President of the Board of Education stated on July 22nd, 1926, in the House of Commons, a fall in the next three years of upwards of 20 per cent. in the number of children over the age of 11 in elementary schools."

  2089
  In other words, they base their recommendation on the decrease in the school population resulting from the low birthrate during the War years, but they never took into consideration the much greater increase in the school population which would take place after those years.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Will not the Noble Lord withdraw his statement that the Hadow Committee never considered the birth statistics?
  Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member understood my statement to mean that the Hadow Committee never considered that the low birth-rate during the War would produce a fall in the school population, he is right and I withdraw.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The Noble Lord said the Hadow Committee had never considered this question of the number of school children. It is clear throughout the report that they did consider it.
  Lord E. PERCY: I am within the recollection of the Committee. I was arguing that the Hadow Committee had never taken into consideration the growth of the school population after the year 1932, and I repeat that. There is not a line of evidence in the report to show that they had anything of that sort be fore them. They were dealing with the decrease.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord is misleading the Committee. May I point out that the figure of 1932 was never mentioned in the first part of his speech.
  Lord E. PERCY: I am within the recollection of the Committee. If the hon. Member says that, I do not think it will be supported. That is the first thing they recommended, and I am sorry to say that they were wrong.
  The next point is that the Association of Education Committees have passed resolutions in favour of it. That also is perfectly true, but it should be remembered that, when the Government actuary produced full statistics of the numbers of the school population, the Association %f Education Committees cancelled that resolution and substituted 1933. They have now come back to the year 1932, but surely both the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken realise that it is hardly fair to quote the Association of Local Education Authorities at this
  2090
  moment for a particular date. If the right hon. Gentleman has had to give way to the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, does he not know that the Association of Local Education Authorities, and every local authority, is impressed with the absolute necessity of going as far as they possibly can to carry out the wishes of the Government of the country? Any Association of Local Education Authorities will always meet the President of the Board of Education more than half way, and to quote any resolution of that kind as evidence that this is educationally the best date is too absurd for words. At any rate, we have had no reasons given by the Minister as to why it is educationally the best date, and he was content to quote other people, which is not, after all, a dignified attitude for a Minister of the Crown. We have a right to be presented with some argument, particularly when it is quite notorious that a great many people regard it as a bad date and when many arguments have been brought forward to show that it is a bad date.
  It is a had date for this reason. The 18 months between April, 1931, and September, 1932, are 18 months when the school population will be comparatively low. In April, 1931, there will hardly be more children in the schools between 11 and 15 than there will be children between 11 and 14 a few years later, and in those 18 months, therefore, it will be fairly easy to provide for the extra number involved. From September, 1932, it will become increasingly difficult, because you propose to raise the school leaving age exactly when the bulge is beginning. In other words, this much trumpeted deal between the Labour party and the Liberal party, this situation in which the Liberal party has emerged as the god from the machine to save education and to save the country, amounts to this, that you are going to relieve the local education authorities of providing accommodation during 18 months when it would have been comparatively easy and you are going to leave them under the obligation of providing accommodation, teachers and so on during four months when it will be admittedly impossible.
  Let us frankly face this fact. With a few exceptions, such as my own authority in Hastings which, through no virtue of

  2091
  its own, has a considerable surplus of school accommodation, there is no local education authority in the country which even proposes to provide additional accommodation for that bulge period. Of course, any local education authority would be doing something wholly incompatible with sound administrative methods if it was to do so, because it would be providing accommodation, teachers and so on for a number of pupils who will only be in the school for four years, and it is known to be quite impossible for the local education authorities to provide adequately during those swollen years.
  We come to other effects of the right hon. Gentleman's volte face. The first is the effect that he mentioned on the teachers—the extra number who have been trained in the training colleges for two years and are coming out. The right hon. Gentleman says he will use that extra number to reduce the size of classes. Surely he has learned this elementary maxim, that the size of classes depends on the number of class rooms rather than upon the number of teachers. What is the good of cramming a thousand extra teachers into existing class rooms so that you will have two teachers in the same room teaching two classes? He has room for teachers exactly to the extent that he has extra accommodation, and he has not got that extra class room accommodation now and, therefore, these optimistic forecasts about being able to absorb any surplus number of teachers by reducing the size of the classes is fallacious, and it is equally fallacious if you use the argument about the period after 1936.
  I suggested the other day that out of every seven extra teachers who would be employed by local authorities to deal with the bulge, and to raise the school-leaving age before the bulge, three at least would be unemployed in 1938. The reply to that is the reduction in the size of classes. That, also, rests on the assumption that you are going to provide surplus accommodation over and above what you need in normal years, and that you will have extra class rooms in which to divide off the classes and employ the extra teachers. That is not what is going to happen. You always come back to this fact, that you will have, if you raise the school-leaving age, say, between
  2092
  1936 and 1938, a, roughly steady level of school population and, if you raise the age before then, you will have a swollen number of pupils during those years for which you will not provide accommodation in excess of what will be needed after that period and, therefore, if you have to employ an extra number of teachers during that period, as you will have, those teachers, after that period is over, will not find the extra number of class rooms in which to teach, and all your talk about employing more teachers by reducing the size of classes in a pure piece of academic dreaming. It cannot happen, because you will not have the number of class rooms. Those are some reasons why September, 1932, is the worst possible educational date.
  8.0 p.m
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) really amazed me when he said he had come to the conclusion that by September, 1932, there would he enough teachers and enough buildings and the whole thorny question of the curriculum would be solved. There is not very much difficulty about the number of teachers in 1932, although there will be tremendous difficulty as to the number of teachers after September, 1932. The right hon. Gentleman has never yet shown how he can produce the 12,000 or 15,000 teachers for that period. How does he really think we can solve the problem of the curriculum? There is not an expert official of the Board who does not look forward to 10 or 15 years of experimentalliy working out the curriculum.
  The idea of solving the 8.0 p.m. problem of the curriculum by September, 1932, is a pure piece of imagination. This is the flimsiest pretext that ever was put before the House; it abandons all the unemployment arguments in favour of the Bill, it does nothing to improve the educational advantages, or disadvantages, of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education says he has come up against the orderly mind of his fellow countrymen; but he has got into this mess because he has the orderly mind himself. With his orderly mind he has said that the school age must be raised from a particular date for the whole country, without exemptions of any kind. He would not let the local education authorities give exemption for children for

  2093
  whom there was not sufficient accommodation and provide, part-time courses. He must have a complete system of compulsion in every area applied to all children without exception. That is why, having that cast-iron attitude, he has had no choice but to throw over his own scheme and to take what is given to him from the Liberal benches. It was a bad Bill on the Second Reading, and it is a ten times worse Bill now.
  Mr. EDE: The greater part of the speech of the Noble Lord is in effect that the Noble Lord is opposed to the whole Bill. As between the two dates, there is very little of his argument that has any real application. When he talks about a deal in the corner with such indignation, I can almost believe he has been in the corner himself and failed to do a deal.
  Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member makes that assertion seriously, may I say that there is no foundation for that suggestion.
  Mr. EDE: I have spoken in that way about the Noble Lord's speech; but I feel doubt if I should be able to use language which you, Sir, would allow me to use in alluding to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). On 13th November, 1929, the right hon. Gentleman moved in this House:
  "That this House urges the Government to bring forward without delay the details of its scheme for raising the school age, especially the financial proposals connected therewith, so that local education authorities may know what their commitments are likely to be; and further urges that any changes in the existing law that require legislation shall at once be put in the form of a Bill and presented to this House."
  In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Another point is this. Has the right hon. Gentleman"—
  that is, the President of the Board of Education—
  "thought out the question of the effect of his proposal on the labour market, the unemployment question, the insurance question? The Hadow Report, issued in 1927, I think, said the school-leaving age ought to be raised within five years from this date, but the Government with great courage and as far as I am concerned I am going to support them in their great task"—
  2094
  I want the Committee to listen to the next few words—
  "I think I can speak for my hon. and right hon. Friends as well—have decided that it must be done by 1931."
  I really thought the right hon. Gentleman meant it. What has happened since to make the right hon. Gentleman depart from the quite sane principles he laid down that evening? I did not find in his speech to-night one single syllable that shows any recollection of the speech that he made in November, 1929. I shared the disappointment expressed by the President of the Board of Education that we are unable to do anything to relieve the labour market until 1st January, 1933. The words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall are sufficient condemnation of him and of his colleagues on the Liberal benches. I cannot help thinking that the House, and our party in particular, must now address itself to this Measure entirely as an educational Measure. No child will be kept in school beyond the age of 14 until 1st January, 1933, and there is no longer any argument for this Bill as an immediate measure to deal with unemployment. It will eventually have its effect, but the President of the Board of Education regards it as no longer a Measure directed towards dealing with the present crisis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this imposes on the Government and this party the necessity of seeing that by 1st January, 1933, as large provision as is possible is made to make this a thoroughly sound educational advance. If in the two years that intervene, the President of the Board of Education will direct his mind towards that, I am quite sure that, from an educational point of view, there may not he too much to be regretted in the delay, regrettable as it is from the employment point of view.
  My own experience in dealing with local authorities shows me this. We have been told that some local authorities would not have been ready by April,1931; I believe that those are the people who will not be ready on 1st September, 1932. There is a type of local authority which only acts when the emergency arises, and they will see in the 17 months' postponement of the appointed date and the 21 months' postponement before they will have to deal with the first child retained in school, an excuse for 21

  2095
  months' postponement of dealing with the situation. I hope the President of the Board of Education is going to assure us that he will use all the persuasion, and all the other powers that he has, to make it quite sure that the schools will be ready on that date. I thought it was rather hard of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) to say that the 1st September, 1932, was a most nonsensical date. No matter from what motive they did it, it was the second thought, which is presumably the best thought of the Association of Education Committees, and it is rather hard on them to use this as a weapon with which to attack the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall, The Noble Lord has apparently spent a great deal of time mastering the mathematical inclination of the bulge, and when he is rather gravelled for arguments against the Bill, he refers to the statement about the bulge. I believe that the mere presence of this large number of children is an additional reason why the Bill should be passed during their school lifetime.
  If there is any good to be done by retaining the children in school, it should be secured for the largest number of children our generation will ever see in the schools. I have come to the conclusion that when I reach the place where I find my ideals, I shall not he in the company of the Noble Lord opposite. But in a practical world we really never reach our ideals, and we have to do the best we can with what is at our command. Nature has provided us with a large number of children who could be best benefited by some provision of the kind which I have indicated. I believe they could be absorbed into the educational system and retained there and given a greater opportunity than any generation has ever had. I think all the "academic dreaming" has been done by hon. Members opposite.
  Except the Noble Lord himself, I have not heard any speech from the Opposition benches which convinces me that a single hon. Member there has any conception of what an elementary school is like. They speak as if this is a layer of children being superimposed on the rest of the school, distinct from the rest of the school and never to be really a part
  2096
  of the life of the existing school. The whole basis of the Hadow report— "The New Prospect"—and of the White Paper which accompanied it is that the raising of the school age should he used to secure the complete four years' course for every child. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall when he urged that some attention should be given to the curriculum, but I am sure the Noble Lord will agree that that curriculum must be secured in the way of a complete four years' course.
  Lord E. PERCY: It is quite true that the children between 14 and 15 ought to be able to go upwards, but you have not sufficient accommodation for the separate age groups which is to be brought in, and you Will not be able to have a full four years' course even if you keep those children four years at school.
  Mr. EDE: The Noble Lord will recollect that I did state that if my right hon. Friend was to use the next two years in order to see that that was secured, then, much as we on this side of the Committee may regret that we are unable to use this Measure for the immediate relief of unemployment, we shall have no ground to complain that our educational ideals remain unfulfilled. We have been twitted for not carrying out "Labour and the Nation." As far as I am aware, this is the first time we have definitely taken "Labour and the Nation" and tried to place it on the Statute Book. The unfortunate result is, that the moment we try to do so both parties opposite fall upon us and try to prevent it. I believe that the Liberal party, when they think over this situation, will greatly regret the part that they have taken in this matter, and that the Conservative party, while they may feel that something has been gained, will find that we shall be able, through this delay on the educational side, to turn our adversity into a source of success for our policy.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The fact that the President of the Board of Education has so readily accepted the Amendment for extending the time by another 18 months rather gives away his case and tends to show that practically every one of the Amendments proposed from this side of the Committee were Amendments of

  2097
  substance and were, in fact, in the interests of the Bill and of the children. We have put down Amendments with regard to insufficient teachers, insufficient accommodation, reorganisation, and curricula, every one of which has been turned down by the Board of Education, and yet, for a reason best known to the right hon. Gentleman and the party concerned, when a few Liberals come to him and ask him for a concession of 18 months he at once accepts their proposition. I suggest that the acceptance of the Liberal Amendment will, in the long run, cost the country a great deal of money, because the Liberals are not going to make a bargain with the Socialist party unless they get a quid pro quo. Therefore, this concession of 18 months may mean that the Socialist party will be kept in office for an extra 18 months, which fact will cost the country a great deal more than the £8,000,000 which this Bill is going to cost. Therefore, what is regared as a gain for the children will prove to be a loss to the country.
  Mr. SEXTON: How much will you cost?
  Mr. CAMPBELL; I have been asked how much I shall cost, but I do not think that such a question is in order, seeing that I have not cost the country very much as yet, and that I have worked my way through in the same way as tie hon. Member who has asked the question. Therefore, while we realise that a concession has been made and that the President has admitted that he ought never to have suggested the 1st of April, 1931, we on this side are pleased even with the so-called concession of 18 months. We still consider that we are not getting value for our money. As a business man, I am often apt. to suggest that a firm should launch out along some line or other and should expend money in order to reap the benefit in some other way, but we maintain that, owing to the fact that the time is not yet ripe for this Bill, the money which is to be expended will not produce a sufficiently large dividend in the interests of the country, and of the ratepayers and taxpayers, and of the children themselves.
  I am most distressed about the question of the reorganisation and the
  2098
  curricula. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) seemed to think that nobody on this side except my Noble Friend the late President of the Board of Education knew what the inside of an elementary school looked like, or what kind of education was given in an elementary school. I do not think that that was very flattering to those of us who have spent a great deal of our time in trying to learn something about education which we realise is for the benefit of the country itself. I do not think that it is very flattering to be told that we do not know much about the matter. I think I know a good deal. I consider that the child who stays at school voluntarily after 14 years of age does not get any additional education. The child may stay in school six or eight months longer in an endeavour to get better education, but as often as not it is merely experiencing a repetition of the work learned during the previous six months. That is the sort of thing we want to change.
  We are very anxious that the schools should be so reorganised and the curricula so arranged that girls may receive definite vocational training such things as cooking, needlework and domestic service, which between the ages of 14 and 15 are highly beneficial, no mailer what a girl may intend to do; and with regard to boys, that far more attention should be given to physical training and organised games, both in and out of school, and to such like things as, at the present moment, are catered for by the girls' clubs and the boys' clubs which are run by voluntary effort and which do so much to benefit the younger generation. These are the things which I am very anxious to see introduced as part of the educational training if these children are to be kept at school between the ages of 14 and 15. It is no use continuing on the present lines. They must do something of definite advantage to themselves and to the country, and we must do something which will be of definite advantage to the taxpayers and ratepayers and justify the expenditure of this extra money. As the President of the Board of Education has so readily adopted the Liberal Amendment it convinces me that, as regards the question of accommodation, he also is not

  2099
  satisfied that except in a, few places accommodation is ready, or even will be ready in 1932.
  The other day the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) was discussing the London figures, and was contradicted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I am sorry the hon. Member is not in his place, but I would ask him to read to-morrow what I have said. In any case, I should like to put the matter right so as to have it placed on the records of the House. He said that Mr. Gater, the Education Officer of the London County Council, had said that in London there are at present 80,000 empty places in the schools. It is true that he did say that, but he said something more than that. Unfortunately, the distribution of empty places is uneven, and, while there are some parts of London in which a margin of places exists, there are other places in which the schools are already full. He goes on to say that this shows clearly that in large measure the need for additional places is temporary to cover the peak years from 1832 to 1935.
  "I estimate that in London 10,000 additional places will be required in 1932, but in all probability not more than 5,000 of these will be needed permanently. I imagine that the London situation is typical of that in other areas."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): Will the hon. Member complete the sentence?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Yes.
  "I imagine that the London situation is typical of that in other areas, and it is perhaps reasonable to assume that the provision of accommodation will not he amongst our greatest difficulties."
  Mr. MARKHAM: Does he not also mention the fact that redistribution could fairly easily be affected?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Yes, but he also says that it is no use our spending money which is going to be wasted eventually. He says that if you bring in a scheme—
  Mr. MARKHAM Mr. MARKHAM rose—
  Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member will have his opportunity of speaking, later.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I am wondering if I shall.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: In Bromley and Beckenham our great cry is the lack of accommodation. We have a great number of London children who have migrated to those districts and there is not sufficient accommodation even for the children who are in school already. The President of the Board of Education has suggested that we should not worry as much as we have been doing; but we have been trying to cut down the number of children in classes and he now suggests that that does not matter. If the Bill is brought into operation too hurriedly it will upset the schools as they are at present constituted. We have to consider that there are children in school to-day who are bound to be there according to law. I am more anxious to see that there should be fewer children in. the classes as the schools are than that we should cram the schools with other children, so that the whole educational system of the country will suffer.
  There is the question of the teachers, but as I have no special knowledge of the teaching staff I will not deal with that matter. The mere fact that the Amendment has been so readily accepted justifies all that we have said. It has not been a sham fight but a very real fight. After great study and after going into the matter night after night we have drafted Amendments which have justified themselves, if for no other reason than that the Minister has said to-night in so many words: "In all that you have said, and all that I have contradicted, you were really right, because I hale now carried forward the date by 18 months." The one thing that we have to grouse about now is that he has not put the date to 1935 or 1936 when, as the last. speaker said, the schools, the teachers, the organisation and the curriculum will be available, for the benefit of all concerned.
  Mr. EDE: I never said anything of the sort.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Nothing has impressed me so much in this debate as the absolute insincerity of the speeches delivered by hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the Committee. They did everything in their power to oppose the raising of the school age, otherwise why should they have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill? For them to come here now

  2101
  and to suggest that the date proposed in the Amendment, the 1st September, 1932, is the worst possible date is simply an indication of their insincerity in connection with the matter. The hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) has referred to the fact that he is interested in the schools. Seeing schools from the outside, as many hon. Members above the Gangway have only seen them, is a very different experience from seeing the schools from the inside, as many hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on these benches have done.
  I should have rejoiced if it had been possible for the operation of the Bill to have begun next year but, as was pointed out by the Minister, on educational grounds—and in dealing with an Education Bill one has, in the first instance, to approach it from the educational standpoint—there can be no question that the date now suggested is very much better than the date in the original Bill. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to a speech made in 1929 by my right hon. Friend. It is obvious that what was meant by that speech was that a certain time must elapse before the education proposals of the Government could be passed into operation, and obviously it would be perfectly correct in 1929 to bring in a Bill to come into operation in 1931. Therefore, if we are to deal with the Bill on the analogy now suggested we are right in proposing that a Bill introduced in 1930 should come into operation in 1932. It simply means the lapse of the necessary time between the Bill becoming law, and the appointed day upon which the local authorities have to put it into operation.
  The Noble Lord seemed rather to sneer at the opinion of the Association of the Local Education Authorities, but I think we must all realise that by far the greater number of those who take interest in education in the various education authorities are the people who sit upon that association. Their prime interest is in the education of the country. They do not desire simply to adopt resolutions which they think will please the President of the Board of Education. It is nor their busness to follow the President of the Board of Education. Their business, as an authority with intimate knowledge of educational administration, is to make suggestions which may be of value to the
  2102
  President of the Board of Education, and in suggesting the date which is going to be adopted they have suggested a date which from their experience and their knowledge of conditions appears to be the most suitable date for bringing the Act into operation.
  One hon. Member from the Government benches suggested that there were certain education authorities who were not disposed to move very rapidly. Is it not the position that the education authorities have to wait until the legislature has adopted certain proposals before they are justified in incurring expenditure in carrying out those proposals? Until the proposals of any Government are embodied in legislation a local authority is not justified in assuming that there is going to be legislation on those lines. Immediately these proposals are embodied in an Act of Parliament you will find that the great majority of local education authorities will he prepared, even without that pressure of which we have heard so much, to move forward and do everything in their power to see that buildings a re provided, that teachers are provided, and that the organisation of the schools will enable the Bill to be brought into operation on the 1st September, 1932. It would he extremely difficult, almost impossible, from what I have learned from representatives of rural education authorities for these proposals to be brought into operation on the 1st April next, and it would be an educational disaster to bring the Bill into operation and find local education authorities, in the short time at their disposal, unable to organise their schools satisfactorily in order to give effect to the change.
  During the last few days a very interesting report has been jested by the Board of Education. It is the report of the Departmental Committee on Rural Education in England and Wales, and it would be well if hon. Members representing rural constituencies would get a copy of that report and peruse it. There are a number of suggestions with regard to the organisation of rural education which are of value not only to Welsh educationists but to educationists in other parts of the country. Some of the suggestions put forward with regard to rural education, the type of education that should he given and the organisa-

  2103
  tion of rural schools, ought, as far as possible, to be adopted by local education authorities before the appointed day under this Bill. As far as rural schools in Wales are concerned it will be an unmixed blessing to postpone the appointed day until September, 1932, in order to give local authorities an opportunity of adopting the recommendations made in this report. I support the Amendment. I feel certain that from an educational point of view it is a far better date than the one suggested in the Bill.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord the ex-President of the Board of Education has accused the present President of the Board of Education of changing his attitude at least four times in as many months on this question. It is within the knowledge of every hon. Member who was in the House in the years 1924 to 1925 that no Member of this House changed his views more rapidly on the subject of education than the Noble Lord himself. Let me give one short instance. In 1925 on the 8th April the ex-President of the Board of Education supported a. Resolution to this effect:
  "That local education authorities should he called upon to prepare schemes by which without a reasonable period adequate provision may be made for secondary or some form of full-time post primary education or all children up to the age of 16 …. and for the development of maintenance allowances on such a scale that no children may be debarred from higher education by the poverty of their parents."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 8th April, 1925; col. 2350, Vol. 182.]
  That was the Motion which the Noble Lord and Members of the party opposite supported. Their attitude soon changed when it came to doing something practical. Then they began to use their influence, which has been extended and developed during the past few months, to delay any practical reforms. In 1928, when the matter was brought up again, the Noble Lord, instead of doing his best to get educational authorities to get on with the Resolution which had been passed by this House, did his best to hamper their activities by restricting their financial resources. One is led to this conclusion that hon. Members opposite never intended that the raising of the school-leaving age should come into
  2104
  operation at all, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) has indicated as much.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: There is no secrecy about it. My Noble Friend has always said that he did not believe the school age should ever be raised compulsorily. There has been no concealment about it.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I am very glad to have that confession from the hon. Member.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member surely must know that that has been our attitude all through. It has been the attitude adopted by my Noble Friend, and he will see that it is so if he will read through those debates.
  Mr. MARKHAM: It means that the Conservative party will oppose the raising of the school age by any means in their power, by fair means or foul, no matter how; and it also means that the Resolution I have read was just a pious Resolution supported by the Noble Lord the ex-President of the Board of Education and by hon. Members of the Conservative party who were in the House at that time. May I ask whether the Noble Lady the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) agrees with this pious Resolution or not?
  Duchess of ATH0LL: I only want to say that if the hon. Member will read the speech he will see that my Noble Friend was ready to accept the Resolution as something which should be the ultimate aim of our educational policy.
  Mr. MARKHAM: It comes to this, that the Resolution was nothing snore than pious platitudes which hon. Members opposite were prepared to profess, but it is quite a different thing when it comes to putting them into practice. What they do on county councils is amazing. I am glad that at last we are getting at the real attitude of the party opposite. The ex-President of the Board of Education not only supported the principle of raising the school age on this occasion but on many subsequent occasions, and he also supported the principle of maintenance allowances. The attitude of the Noble Lord and the party opposite is now precisely the reverse. They say that on no account will they agree to the raising of the school age or to maintenance allowances. It is now a fight with

  2105
  the gloves off. One of the reasons given by hon. Members opposite for suspending the operation of this Bill is because local authorities are not ready. Who is the cause of that unpreparedness? It is hon. Members opposite. I can give case after case where they have used their influence to secure delay on local education authorities against the wishes of other members of those councils.
  Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member can give instances of that kind, will he kindly do so?
  Mr. MARKHAM: Most decidedly. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) and myself have been members of the Education Committee of the Bucks County Council, and I am sure that he will agree with me, in justice and in honesty, that he himself put up a great fight on that council for delaying this Measure from coming into operation.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: As the hon. Member has mentioned my name, may I state, perfectly frankly, that I have always said that I hoped that this Measure would not come into force; that I did not believe that any money ought to be spent until it hail come into force, and that I would do everything in my power to prevent it coming into force. I have said so, openly, in the county council, in the House of Commons, and on the platform, and I have never concealed that fact, but the hon. Member seemed to suggest that hon. Members on this side had been doing something underhand to try to stop it being carried into effect.
  Mr. MARKHAM: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) has always been above-board in his expression of his ideas upon this matter. It is the ex-President of the Board of Education who has said in this House that he is in favour of these things, and, then, by various means has endeavoured to postpone them—
  Lord E. PERCY: What does the hon. Member mean by that?
  Mr. MARKHAM: I was explaining that hon. Members on the opposite side had used every means they could to stop this Bill from coming into operation. The hon. Member for Aylesbury admitted that he himself has used every endeavour on the Bucks County Council Education Committee to prevent it coming into
  2106
  operation, and that applies, not only to the hon. Member for Aylesbury but to many other hon. Members opposite.
  Lord E. PERCY: But the hon. Member bas suggested that while the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) has been above-board in his opposition to the Measure, I, on the contrary, have been hypocritical. What does the hon. Member mean by that statement?
  Mr. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord in 1925 gave his verbal allegiance, or his passive allegiance, to the principle of raising the school age and giving maintenance allowances with it.
  Lord E. PERCY: Raising the school age by compulsion?
  Mr. MARKHAM: The words of the Resolution are "post-primary education for all children up to the age of 16."
  Lord E. PERCY: Does that mean compulsion?
  Mr. MARKHAM: Anyone who has been at an elementary school as I have been and who has come from a working-class family knows that you could never give all children up to that age post-primary education without compulsion and maintenance allowances.
  Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is like other hon. Members opposite, who have always been trying to put off their responsibility for compulsion and to put it on to me. Hon. Members who were present at the debate to which reference has been made know perfectly well that at that time and all through my term of office I was in favour of providing accommodation and teaching for all children up to the age of 15 or 16 who wished to stay at school. But I was consistently against compulsion, and there is no use in hon. Members trying to get rid of the odium of compulsion by seeking to put it on to me. Really, hon. Members opposite are in alliance with Lord Rothermere all the time.
  Mr. MARKHAM: We on this side have realised that the question of compulsion must arise inevitably. The Noble Lord himself in 1924 assented to the principle that no child should be debarred from higher education—
  Lord E. PERCY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. MARKHAM: You will not make that education available to all children unless you have compulsion and maintenance allowances. The Noble Lord has resented the term "hypocritical" being applied to him in this connection, but what could be more hypocritical than the action of hon. Members opposite who give approval to the principle of this thing, and then every time when something practical is about to be done, oppose it on the ground that the time is not opportune, that this year is not suitable, that next year is not suitable, that no year apparently is suitable. The Noble Lord has mentioned several dates on which the Bill ought to come into operation. In these discussions we have beard at one time that it should be September, 1932, at another time it should be 1931, and this evening it is 1938. What is that but sheer rank hypocrisy? There is no other word for it. I, for one, am glad to get to: he root of this matter. I feel sorry that the President of the Board of Education has given way on this matter to any hon. Members opposite, Liberal or Conservative, and I sincerely trust that if there are any further occasions in connection with this Bill when the Minister cannot get his way, except by truckling to hon. Members opposite, he will take the bold heroic course of going to the country.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: I congratulate the President of the Board of Education upon having got rid of the element of unemployment in connection with this matter, as it helps us very much in the consideration of the very important question of the date. That being so I should like to make a suggestion on the basis of what has been said already to the effect that of the 317 local authorities concerned a considerable number will be ready soon. If you are going to have a Bill of this kind, I fail to see why the local authorities who are ready, should not start at an earlier date, and by arrangement, we could bring in all the local authorities by 1936–bringing in the others as they are ready. While the President of the Board of Education may be averse from doing things piecemeal, I cannot see why he should not bring the Bill into operation in the areas of the local authorities which are ready for it. It seems a reasonable way of dealing with the matter
  2108
  and I think it is the way which would be adopted in any other sphere of action.
  Captain CAZALET: The arguments which the Minister gave in reply to the proposals put forward from these benches in the previous discussion, to the effect that local authorities should bring in the Bill at different periods, were rather cogent, and I was considerably influenced by them. I think they provide the right answer to the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches had the audacity to accuse us of insincerity but it was only a few minutes before his speech that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) was exposed in a most glaring instance of insincerity. The hon. Member for Northern Cornwall only last year urged the Government to introduce something along the lines of this Measure and wound up his speech by saying that it could, and should, be introduced in April 1931. We have heard from him to-night a speech giving reason after reason why it should now be postponed until September 1932. For a Member of the right hon. Gentleman's party to accuse us of insincerity is a little difficult to bear.
  We have heard to-night not only from the Liberal benches, hat from the Minister, many of the arguments which we have been putting forward for the last month. The Minister himself said that if the Bill were put into operation in April next year there would be considerable imperfections. He also said, in regard to the voluntary schools, that it would be a definite educational benefit if he could have a further extension of time in order to make satisfactory arrangements, and conduct negotiations. We have heard arguments about expense, about the lack of teachers, the lack of accommodation and the lack of appropriate curriculum. Those are all arguments which we have been urging from these benches on practically every Amendment, and. therefore what the debate to-night has shown, and what the President himself has confessed in accepting this Amendment, is that the Conservatives have been right all the time.
  We are pleased that the coming into operation of the Bill has been postponed till 1932. It is certainly better so, than

  2109
  that it should come into force in 1931, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham), who made such a spirited speech from below the Gangway opposite, because I think he cleared up the question as to what principles we advocate on these benches and what principles they advocate on those benches. I think the Committee should be very grateful to him for having, by various interruptions, made perfectly plain what I think we on these benches thought always was perfectly plain.
  May I dissociate myself and, I know, my hon. Friends on these benches, from the accusation that we had anything whatever to do with the agreement or arrangement come to, as it was said, in a corner, in some secret conclave, as to the actual date which the President has now accepted? I should have thought that the argument put forward in the Second Reading debate regarding what is known as the bulge was complete and adequate to show that, while 1932 is a better date than 1931, in itself it is a completely unsatisfactory date. In 1932–and I quote the figures given by the Minister himself—you will have some 420,000 children between the ages of 14 and 15 in school; in 1934, owing to a variety of circumstances, that number is increased to 578,000; and in 1935, it will be increased by another 50,000 to 627,000.
  In those three years between 1932, when this Bill is to come into operation, and 1935 you will have an increase of over 200,000 children between the ages of 14 and 15, and therefore this is a point that we may very pertinently put: Even if you are ready with your schools, your accommodation, your teachers, and your curriculum in 1932, you will not be ready or prepared to give the extra teaching and accommodation in 1934 and 1935, and you will have all the same problems in. those particular years as you would have had if you had made the Measure operative in 1931, unless of course the local authorities burdened themselves with a large additional amount of accommodation, which they are not obliged to do, and which would involve them in even greater expenditure than that which they will have to bear under the present Bill. Further, if the local authorities burden themselves with some additional expenditure, in order to provide for what is known as the bulge, this
  2110
  accommodation for extra teachers will not be required after the year 1935, because, as we know, the figure descends from that year.
  9.0 p.m
  There is another point. We have had the usual arguments to-night casting, I will not say aspersions, but some reflections on the activities of certain local authorities. In. these debates the poor local authorities are always abused or accused by certain hon. Members opposite, but what is the fact? We have heard a great deal in these debates, and we have heard to-night from the right hon. Member for North Cornwall, of the financial burden which this Bill is imposing on the Treasury. He also gave an interesting figure as to the additional burden to be placed on local authorities. He gave the figure as £2,000,000 for 1932, and that figure will gradually increase. I think the finances of the local authorities to-day are in almost as parlous and grievous a condition in many cases as are the finances of the central Executive and the Treasury, and one of the main reasons that prompts us to wish that the date of the coming into operation of this Bill should be postponed is that we believe that in a few years hence the local authorities may be, like the State, in a better financial position to meet the greatly increased burdens which this Bill will impose upon them.
  Sir C. COBB: The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham) inferred, I think, that it was impossible to hope that the older children of the working classes would be able to get extended education unless that education was compulsory.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not enter into the argument between the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham). The question now is the date.
  Sir C. COBB: I am coming to the date.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, the hon. Baronet must come to it.
  Sir C. COBB: At any rate, we in London are extremely anxious that the date should be postponed as late as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are 'we'?"] I am quite sure that that is the opinion of the local authority, and

  2111
  the reason that the local authority in London wishes that date to be postponed as late as possible, is that the great majority of the children are already enjoying this post-primary education which this Bill is supposed to be going to give them, and, what is more, they are enjoying a post-primary kind of education which is very much more useful to them than the extended kind of elementary education which the Bill would give them. Therefore, we think that if we could have a longer time before this Bill comes into operation, we should be able to make our arrangements very much better and more satisfactorily for the children.
  At the present time we have 20,000 children, out of a total number of 51,000 children who form the age group of 14 to 15, who are enjoying post-primary education in evening institutes, and we say that those children should be able to go on for as long a number of years as possible in those evening institutes, because they are there learning for two or three years—not for the one year which this Bill would give them—those things which are really useful to them in the course of life which they will pursue. In the same way, we have in the day continuation schools no fewer than 6,000 children whom we should like to continue for two or three years in those schools in order that they may study those things which are useful to them for the professions or occupations which they are going to adopt. That makes 26,000 children out of a total of 51,000 of from 14 to 15 who are in part-time post-primary education and learning those things which will be useful to them in their after life, and we wish them to stay in those schools for two or three years and that they should not have to exchange that kind of education for the one year in an elementary school which you are going to give them under this Bill.
  In the same way, we have 14,500 children having whole-time education of a similar kind. Children in the central schools number 4,500 and children in the ordinary elementary schools, who are staying on in the 14 to 15 group, number about 10.000. Therefore, we have 14,500 children out of the total of 51,000 which forms the age group 14 to 15, who are now taking post-primary
  2112
  education of the type which their parents most desire for them. What have we to exchange for that in this Bill? We are given in exchange one year in the elementary schools, the children going on and getting the same type of education that they ate now receiving. That is a bad change, and the longer we postpone the operation of the Bill, the better it will be for the children.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The Minister made an interesting remark in his speech on this Amendment when he said that one reason, at any rate, for postponing the date, was that it would give time to deal with legislation with regard to the non-provided schools. That was a very welcome remark. In the last Bill there were provisions dealing with the non-provided schools, and I hope that the discussions that have been going on between the right hon. Gentleman and the non-provided schools will lead to a solution. These schools are an essential part of the education system, and anything that tends to their advantage tends to the advantage of the system. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) twitted us on this side for knowing nothing about the inside of elementary schools. I can assure him that there are some of us on this side who have some knowledge of and the greatest sympathy with the education which is given in our elementary schools.
  If I could be assured that the raising of the school age to 15 would provide all the children with a real education and with proper teaching. I could not possibly vote against this Bill, but because I have an honest belief that the raising of the school age will result in waste, and will not provide the teaching that is necessary for the children of 14 to 15, I oppose the Bill and would like to postpone its operation until at least 1935. It was interesting when my Noble Friend was speaking of the necessity for a 10 or 15 years' experiment in the curriculum in central schools, to find that two practical teachers sitting opposite, the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), approved. I was discussing with the headmaster of a central school of 20 years' experience the question of the curriculum, and he was of the same opinion. I was there

  2113
  fore amazed at the complacency of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) in saying that everything would be ready by 1932. It was proof that he at least did not realise the size of the problem.
  I wish to direct the Minister's attention to one particular point. He is not going to provide the right teachers for the boys of 14 to 15 by September, 1932, or 1933. Do hon. Members opposite wish the teaching of the boys of this country to fall into the hands of women? At a conference of head mistresses recently one of the subjects discussed was co-education, and there was an almost unanimous opinion that from 12 onwards the teaching of girls should be in the hands of women, and the teaching of boys should be in the hands of men. Most people who think about teaching will agree with that view. What is the fact?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The fact is that the best teacher of a boy is his mother.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: I quite agree, but the teaching that a mother gives is the moral teaching at home, and we are speaking more particularly of instruction, as well as the formation of character. Let me remind the Committee of the facts. There are three times as many women teachers as men in our schools. In 1927–28 the figures were 42,300 men and 125,600 women. There were rather more boys than girls, exclusive of infants, in the schools, namely, 2,107,000 boys and 2,017,000 girls; so that at present the main part of the teaching is in the hands of women. The school age is now being extended, and how does the Minister propose to provide the extra teachers? He said that he would absorb the unemployed teachers; they will be mostly women. He will re-employ married women—women again. He will retain in the schools teachers about to retire—women again. So that he will provide for the teaching of these boys of 14 to 15 by an increase of women teachers. The result will be that the teaching of the boys of the country will fall more and more into the hands of women. That is not for the good of teaching, and, unless you provide the right curriculum and the right teaching, the Bill will be not an Education Bill, but a Detention Bill, simply to keep children in school for one year. Whereas
  2114
  the Government are postponing the date, the object of the detention, which was to help the unemployment problem, will disappear. I hope that the Minister will take this particular point into serious consideration and do his best during the next three years to provide that the boys of 14 to 15 will be taught by men.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: As a Scottish Member, I feel in some difficulty. This Bill applies to England and not to Scotland, but it is quite obvious that it may be taken as settling a date for Scotland as well as for England. According to the provisions in the Education Act of 1918 for Scotland, the appointed day may be fixed by order of the Department. It will be out of order for me to discuss the question in its relation to Scotland at this stage, but I should like to have some undertaking or understanding that there will be an opportunity afforded to Scottish Members to put the case of their constituents in regard to the questions which may arise.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education cannot possibly answer such questions as the hon. Member requires.
  Mr. MILLAR: I shall take an opportunity of putting a question on the subject to the Leader of the House. I should like to associate myself with what was said by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) about the reasons justifying the postponement of the date. Listening to the Minister it appeared to me that he was prepared to accept the views which have been stressed from these benches, and to regard them as affording extraordinarily good grounds for the postponement of the date. I attach great importance to the financial burden, and I have received many strong representations on that point. I am quite satisfied that it will be for the advancement of education throughout the country to allow a longer period for the preparations. The view of the Minister that it will be to the advantage of all concerned to have a substantial postponement is a welcome one, and I hope it will be possible to consider the point again at a later stage and before the Bill comes into operation.
  Mr. TILLETT: I am astounded at the effrontery of the Opposition in claiming to speak as authorities on the education

  2115
  of the children of the workers. If we told the Opposition that they must not educate their children after the age of 14 or 15 or 16 the old British aristocracy—the dead ones—would rise from their graves in protest. Here we are, listening to the same arguments as were employed in 1870, and as have been brought forward in every discussion on education. There has always been a reference to the financial difficulties of the country, though in the course of a long life I have never heard any anxiety expressed as to industry absorbing our children as "machine fodder." Back in my early days, when people discussed the education of the dear children, they talked about their practised and capable fingers and the great service they could render to the industry of their country. I do not know whether Forster's ghost is alive; if he were, he would be alarmed at the figures that are quoted and the statements made. I happened to be 10 years old when the Education Act of 1870 came into force, and I can remember the arguments of the hon. Members of the Opposition and their lady supporters of those days, how anxious they were to safeguard the interests of the children!
  I want to say, quite frankly, that the party opposite have never appreciated the importance of culture for the children of our people, the importance of their education, of their mental evolution or development; and here they are to-day using their educational abilities to present meticulous arguments and figures against the right of our side to have education for our children. I am sorry that we on this side have given way. It was said in 1870 that there had been no preparations. Always, during the last 60 years, it has been said that there have been no preparations. We have had the same arguments ad nauseam. If we on our side attempted to discuss the merits of education for the children of hon. Members opposite, we should be attacked as revolutionaries, and classed as Communists, Anarchists and "Clydites." I am sick of the hypocrisy of it. The other side have declared against education for our children all the way through. Only the best brains and the best souls among the party opposite, the men with a love of their country and a love of culture, have helped us; the majority
  2116
  have been opposed to us all the way through. The whole discussion has hung upon sheer hypocrisy and sheer make-believe. I am astounded that hon. Members opposite do not recognise that we must secure a higher educational standard for our children in the future, in order to compete with other nations. We are behind Germany, we are behind America, we are even behind Scotland in education.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Not now.
  Mr. TILLETT: I should like to believe that was true. On this side we have met the position in which we find ourselves in regard to this Bill with calmness and with reason. Our accommodating Minister has done his level best. In spite of that, however, we are still met with the old arguments, raised from the grave, against giving education to the children of our class. I wish hon. Members opposite all the culture in the world, and why on earth cannot they allow us a chance? Why cannot they allow our children to be trained to become competent for the highest offices in the State?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I will say frankly to the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the Minister, that I am one who, if I cannot get a whole loaf, prefer to have a quarter of a loaf to nothing; and it is in that spirit that I view the concession which the Minister has made to the speeches from another quarter of the House. I think it is very much a quarter loaf, because though more local authorities will be ready with their additional classrooms and teachers by September, 1932, I am quite sure the Minister cannot think that all the authorities, or anything like all, will be ready. He cannot have forgotten that the County Councils' Association expressed the view, only a short while ago, that the counties would not be ready before September, 1933; and I am certain, also, that he does not forget the large factor which the voluntary school form in the educational system of the counties. If local authorities are to be able to reorganise their school in such a way that the raising of the school age is of benefit to the children an agreement must be come to with the voluntary schools, and, as we know, the Minister has not been able to embody any such agreement in this Bill. Even in the West Riding of

  2117
  Yorkshire where agreement has been come to between the local authority and the voluntary schools, and where the chairman of the Education Committee has been most warmly seconding the Minister's efforts, we have it on the authority of the chairman that the schools in the West Riding cannot be ready for six years from last year. September, 1932, is very far from being a date when we can expect all the councils to be ready.
  I must also remind the Minister that he must have a little regard for Scotland, although he does not have to answer for Scotland. It is unthinkable that English Members should be sitting here to pass a Bill without any thought of what the Scottish authorities can do. I noticed a tardy sign of realisation from the Liberal benches just now that all is not on the point of readiness in Scotland. I listened with great surprise when the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) spoke the other day as if Scotland wanted this change. I venture to suggest that he has exiled himself rather from Scotland by standing for a Cornish seat. If he represented a Scottish seat, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) does, he would have known the views of the education authorities in Scotland. The fact is that only last Friday there was a conference of education authorities in Scotland at which a resolution was unanimously passed saying that September, 1934, was the earliest date at which the authorities could be ready. That is a point of very great importance which the Minister must take into account. If there is one thing in the world that Scotland will not have it is to be dragged at the heels of England, and yet here we see Scotland in danger of being dragged at the heels of a Minister who, however near he lives to the Scottish border, seems rather to have forgotten the existence of that country. Perhaps it is because he lives so close to and south of the Scottish Border that he is not going to care what happens to it. That is a possible explanation.
  However that may be, there is the fact that the Scottish education authorities, at a conference in Edinburgh only last Friday, expressed the view that they could not be ready before 1934. One
  2118
  very important burgh authority, Aberdeen, which we are accustomed to regard as always in the van in educational matters, has told us it will not be ready before 1935. The Committee will see what the difficulties are, and I think it is very hard that the education authorities in Scotland are to have no consideration paid to their views. It is all the more remarkable, because in Scotland there is a surplus of teachers. The authorities are not faced with quite the same anxiety as the English in the matter of having sufficient teachers by the appointed day. Therefore, this decision that the age cannot be raised before 1934 rests almost entirely on the question of accommodation. It shows, as my right hon. Friend said not long ago in debate, that the question of accommodation is the first thing, and that even if you have a surplus of teachers, you cannot use them unless you have the additional class-rooms. Here you have Scotland showing us the truth of what my right hon. Friend said. A further proof of the truth of what he said was that it was all the new schools which were built between 1925 and 1929, the replacement of old schools and the new schools in the new housing areas, that enabled a great reduction in the number of large classes to be made. In our term of office the large classes were reduced from 25,000 to 10,000, and that was mainly Owing to the fact that so many new schools were built.
  The position of the President of the Board of Education is a much more difficult one than that of the Scottish education authorities, because he has to find his additional teachers. In Scotland they have a large surplus at present, but the right hon. Gentleman told us he had got to find 13,000 additional teachers by 1932–33, assuming that the school age were raised by April, 1931. I admit that the change of the date will, no doubt, throw that large number of teachers back a year later, but it will mean that by 1931–32 8,500 additional teachers will be needed, according to the figures he gave. The right hon. Gentleman said he expected to have 4,000 additional teachers trained by 1932–33, but he has not been able to substantiate that figure. He has got 1,800 additional teachers training now. He has got 1,800 who will be available in 1932.

  2119
  In answer to a question put to him, he said it was impossible to say what teachers would be going into the training colleges next autumn. We have got from him only definite figures showing that 1,800 additional teachers are now in training, 1,150 of whom will be ready by the summer of 1931 and about 500 or 600 more by the summer of 1932. That does not carry us very far towards the 8,500—if that be the figure instead of the 13,000 he mentioned.
  I still refuse to believe, for instance, that he will be able to pick up the 5,000 unemployed teachers whom, he told us in the summer, he would be able to find in the profession to meet normal expansion. I also hold with an hon. Member on this side that the 4,000 married women teachers he proposes to retain will not be the most suitable people to teach boys of 14, nor the 1,000 teachers of over 60 years of age whom he proposes to retain. Therefore, even this postponement of date leaves the right hon. Gentleman with a very stiff problem of training additional teachers. He gave us figures in the summer, and has not enlarged on that since. The only figures he has given us are those in training, which are considerably less than those which, he gave us to understand in the summer, would be ready. It seems to me quite impossible that by September, 1932, he will have anything like the number of teachers necessary.
  Some rather hard things were said by the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett). I do not think that his speech was made after very much reflection. He spoke, I think, on the spur of the moment. He said, for instance, that if Forster were alive, he would have been aghast at our speeches from this side. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Bill which Forster presented to the House was to give power to local authorities to keep children up to the age of 13, but with very liberal power of exemption, and no power for compulsory attendance? Is it not possible that Forster, if he came back, would feel that his Bill had borne even richer fruit than he had ever dared to hope?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the Noble Lady think that two years in 60 years is rapid progress?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member does not appear to realise the vast improvement in the training of teachers since then. That is a very important point. I am surprised at hon. Members on the benches opposite, a good many of whom are ex-members of the teaching profession, appearing not to realise the importance of well-trained teachers. It is the essence of education. Education is not something that you ladle out like soup. It depends far more on quality than quantity.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I appreciate to the fullest possible extent the necessity of having fully-trained teachers. I would do away with training colleges, and put them all through universities. I want the very best. I was one of the victims of the early scholastic system, and left school when 12 years of age, which was the age 50 years ago. How can the Noble Lady call it a tremendous gathering of fruit from Forster's tree to increase the age by about 12 months in 50 years?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member is ignoring all the progress that has been made in other directions. In the early days the teachers were largely untrained and the classes were overcrowded.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is getting a long way from the Amendment. The question we are considering is the postponement of the date.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I am not so sure that the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) said very much about the Bill, but I think I have been able to show that there have been substantial advances and that education is advancing every year. What matters now is the amount of thought being given to education by the members of local education authorities, by the Board's inspectors, and by the teachers—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must keep within the limits of the Amendment.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very sorry that I have transgressed. Education is a very interesting subject to myself and many others, and that must be my excuse. I will only say, in conclusion, that, though I regard this amendment as part

  2121
  of a loaf, it is a very small part, especially in view of the difficulties with which the education authorities are faced in my own part of the country, and I regret that more consideration is not being given to the difficulties of Scottish education authorities.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN Sir C. TREVELYAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 180.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES.

  [9.38 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gill, T. H.

  McElwee, A.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Glassey, A. E.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

  Gossling, A. G.

  McKinlay, A.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Gould, F.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Ammon, Charles George

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Angell, Norman

  Granville, E.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Arnott, John

  Gray, Milner

  Malone, C. L'Eslrange (N'thampton)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Marcus, M.

  Ayles, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Markham, S. F.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Groves. Thomas E.

  Marley, J.

  Barr, James

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Marshall, Fred

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Mathers, George

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)

  Matters, L. W.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Maxton, James

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Harbord, A.

  Messer, Fred

  Benson, G.

  Hardle, George D.

  Middleton, G.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Harris, Percy A.

  Millar, J. D.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Montague, Frederick

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morley, Ralph

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Bromfield, William

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Mort, D. L.

  Bromley, J.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Brooke, W.

  Herriotts, J.

  Muff, G.

  Brothers, M.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Brown W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hare-Belisha, Leslie.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Oliver, George Harold (likeston)

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Isaacs, George

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Cameron, A. G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Cape, Thomas

  Johnston, Thomas

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Perry. S. F.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

  Pethick Lawrence, F. W.

  Chater, Daniel

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Church, Major A. G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Potts, John S.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Price, M. P.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Cove, William G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cowan, D. M.

  Knight, Holford

  Raynes, W. R.

  Daggar, George

  Lang, Gordon

  Richards, R.

  Dallas, George

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lathan, G.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Day, Harry

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Rowson, Guy

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dukes, C.

  Leach, W.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Duncan, Charles

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lees, J.

  Scurr, John

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sexton, James

  Egan, W. H.

  Lindley, Fred W,

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shield, George William

  Foot, Isaac

  Longden, F.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Freeman, Peter

  Lowth, Thomas

  Shinwell, E.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Lunn, William

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  George, Major G. Lloyd(Pembroke)

  Macdonald, Gordon(Ince)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Tillett, Ben

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  Townend, A. E.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attereliffe)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Walker, J.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester.Loughb'gh)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Watkins, F. C.

  Wise, E. F.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  West, F. R.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Westwood, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  White, H. G.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Nicholson, col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsl'ld)

  Albery, Irving James

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Fielden, E. B.

  O'Neill. Sir H.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Penny, Sir George

  Balllie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Baldwin, Rt. Han. Stanley (Bawdley)

  Gault, Lleut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Pownali, Sir Assheton

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Remer, John R.

  Berry, Sir George

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Reynolds, Cot. Sir James

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur y, Ch'te'y)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir fames Rennell

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lleut..Colonel E. A.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hall Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Boyce. H. L.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Salmon, Major l.

  Bracken, B.

  Hanbury, C.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Savery, S. S.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Butler, R. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Smithers, Waldron

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hudson. Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Kindersiey, Major G. M.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

  Christie, J. A.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomson, Sir F

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Liewellin, Major J. J.

  Train, J.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Tartan, Robert Hugh

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Long, Major Hon. Erie

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lymington, Viscount

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Wardlaw-Mline, J. S.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Marjorlbanks, Edward

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon, Viscount

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.

  Question, "That the words April, nineteen hundred and seventeen stand
  2124
  part of the Clause," put accordingly, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the words 'September, nineteen hundred and eighteen be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 183.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Granville, E.

  Marcus, M.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannoock)

  Gray, Milner

  Markham, S. F.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)

  Marley, J.

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Free

  Alpass, J. H.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

  Mothers, George

  Ammon, Charles George

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Matters, L. W.

  Angell, Norman

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Maxton, James

  Arnott, John

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Messer, Fred

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Middleton, G.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Millar, J. D.

  Ayles, Walter

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Milner, Major J.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Harbord, A.

  Montague, Frederick

  Barr, James

  Hardie, George D.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Batey, Joseph

  Harris, Percy A.

  Morley, Ralph

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Heyday, Arthur

  Mort, D. L.

  Benson, G.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke.on.Trent)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Muff, G.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Muegeridge, H. T.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Herriotts, J.

  Nathan, Major H. L

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hint, W. (Bradford, South)

  Newman. Sir R. H. B. D. L. (Exeter)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Bromfield, William

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Bromley, J

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Oliver, George Harold (likeston)

  Brooke, W

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackiey)

  Brothers, M.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnervon)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Isaacs, George

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Palin, John Henry

  Brown W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  John. William (Rhondda, West)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Burgess F. G.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Perry S. F.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merfoneth)

  Picton-Turhervill, Edith

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Potts, John S.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Price, M. P.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Pybus. Percy John

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jowett, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Chater, Daniel

  Kelly, W. T.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Church, Major A. G.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwood. D.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Knight, Helloed

  Richards, R.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lane, Gordon.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lensbury. Rt. Hon. George

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Compton, Joseph

  Lathan, G.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Cove, William G.

  Law. Albert (Bolton)

  Roshotham, D. S. T.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Rowson, Guy

  Daggar, George

  Lawrence. Susan

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dallas, George

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Leach. W.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Davies, Rhys John(Westhoughton)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Scum John

  Day, Harry

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Sexton, James

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lees, J.

  Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Dukes, C.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Shield, George William

  Ede, James Chuter

  Logan. David Gilbert

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shillaker, J, F.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Longden. F.

  Shinwell, E.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lovat-Fraser, J A.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lowth, Thomas

  Simmons, C. J.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lunn, William

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Foot, Isaac

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Freeman, Peter

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  McElwee, A.

  Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  McEntee, V. L.

  smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  McKinley, A.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lance, Mossley)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Gill, T. H.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Glassey, A. E.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Gossling, A. G.

  McShane, John James

  Stephen, Campbell

  Gould. F.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Mender, Geoffrey le M.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Los

  Strauss, G. R.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Walihead, Richard C.

  Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifle)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Tillett, Ben

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Wise, E. F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  West, F. R.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Townend, A, E.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  White, H. G.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Viant, S. P.

  Whiteley, William (Biaydon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Walkden, A. G.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  Walker, J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

  Nicholson. O. (Westminster)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsr'ld)

  Albery, Irving James

  Fails, Sir Bertram G.

  Niefd, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Fermoy, Lord

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Penny, Sir George

  Bailllie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Baldwin, Rt. Han. Stanley (Bawdley)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Power, Sir John Cecll

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (l. of Thanet)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Pownall, Sir Asshetoa

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Remer, John R.

  Berry, Sir George

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gunston, Captain D. W

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

  Salmon, Major i.

  Boyce. H. L.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bracken, B.

  Hanbury, C.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Savery, S. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hnonage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Butler, R. A.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt, Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hurd, Percy A

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)

  Knox. Sir Alfred

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Chamberlain, Rt. hon. N.(Edgbaston)

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Christie, J. A.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Liewellin, Major J. J.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Tinne, J. A.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Train, J.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  VaugharoMoroan, Sir Kenyon

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Maitland. A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Wardiaw-Milne, J. S.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Makins. Brigadier-General E.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Metier, R. J.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Monsen, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Moore, Sir Newton, J. (Richmond)

  Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Eillot, Major Walter E.

  Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Major sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.

  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the beginning, to insert the words:
  2128
  "In order that children between the ages of fourteen and fifteen may receive efficient elementary instruction in public elementary schools not provided by the local education

  2129
  authority, this Act shall not come into operation until an Act has been passed empowering local education authorities, during such period as the Act may determine, to contribute to the cost incurred by the trustees or managers of such schools in providing adequate and suitable accommodation for the efficient elementary instruction of such children, hut, subject to this proviso."
  I am aware that, in dealing with the subject of voluntary schools, I am raising a matter of a considerably controversial nature, but I will treat it in as non-controversial a fashion as I can and avoid as far as possible any trace or tinge of sectarian disagreement. I should like to bear in mind the words of the President of the Board of Education last May when he said that when he was a young man education meant a religious wrangle and to-day it means the instruction of the children. I have no wish to rake over the smouldering ashes of the controversy of 1902 except to make this point, that the circumstances which made the settlement of 1902 more or less acceptable no longer exist and have very little application to our present circumstances. There has been a complete upset of money values, making salaries to-day not what they were; the cost of building has doubled, and, where the managers of a voluntary school spent £1, to-day the spend £2. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), in a very interesting speech last May, set oat a number of causes affecting the Roman Catholic community, in which he is interested, showing the immense increase in expenditure to which managers of voluntary schools are now put.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this Amendment does not raise the general question. The only question involved is the additional accommodation which will be required by reason of the raising of the school age.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I was endeavouring to make good what the Amendment desires to effect, that until an Act is passed giving the voluntary schools adequate and suitable accommodation this Bill should be suspended in its operation. I was leading up to that, perhaps at rather too great length, and explaining by way of preface the difficulties under which voluntary schools are at this moment suffering.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must make it perfectly clear that I was not
  2130
  in any way trying to prevent the hon. Member from making his case; but it is obvious that in this Amendment the only question involved is the difficulty of building and equipping the schools for the children between the ages of 14 and 15 dealt with in this Bill.
  Sir DENNIS HERBERT: With very great respect, may I not call your attention to the fact that the main object of this Amendment is to deal with and afford a certain measure of protection to certain well-known classes of schools usually known as religious schools. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] I may be mistaken in the Amendment, but I was under the impression that we were discussing the Amendment at the bottom of page 164, that is, the question of elementary schools not provided by the local education authority. I do not profess to be an expert on these matters, but I have always understood that these are what we commonly call religious schools. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Non-provided schools!"] They are non-provided by the State authorities, because they are provided by certain religious bodies— [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and it is those religious bodies which provide those schools which we desire to protect or for which we desire to obtain a certain measure of justice through this Amend-merit. Therefore, I submit to you that the general question of the share in education undertaken by the religious bodies which provide the so-called non-provided schools is of the very essence of this Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will permit me to point out that this is an Amendment to a. Bill the whole purpose of which is to raise the school age from 14 to 15 and provide maintenance allowances. That is the sole purpose of the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the Bill coming into operation until the requisite means have been provided to enable non-provided schools to equip themselves to meet this new demand. Therefore, I must rule out of order any discussion on the general position.
  Lord E. PERCY: If the Bill is to be postponed until these schools are able to meet the demand made on them surely some reference to the means which must be taken to equip these schools is surely in order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled that out of order. All I have ruled is that you cannot discuss the settlement of 1902, or questions arising out of that settlement. The only question we can discuss is that this Bill, when it becomes law, will necessitate numbers of children between Vile ages of 14 and 15 remaining in school, and the purpose of the Amendment is to prevent this new Bill becoming operative until measures have been taken to render the non-provided schools in a position to provide suitable accommodation for such children and for them alone.
  Lord E. PERCY: Further to that point of Order. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), being a Scotsman, does not know our position in England, I hope he will allow me to state it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I want to say that we went through all this in 1918, so that we are perfectly clear, and they are only taking a lesson from us. I think that they are trying to get the better of you, Sir. Do not let them.
  Lord E. PERCY: After that illuminating intervention, may I point out that as it is the 1902 settlement which prevents these schools at present being put in order by the local authority or the State, I think you, Sir, will agree that some passing reference to the main obstacles is really necessary in discussing this question at all.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want too strictly to limit discussion, but I still point out that the Bill we are now discussing is not concerned with any other children except those who will be in the schools from 14 to 15. The settlement of 1902 has no direct bearing on the matter so far as this Bill is concerned. The only point I can take into account is whether, in the event of the Bill becoming law, it shall not become operative until certain steps have been taken to get these non-provided schools in proper order and guide the debate along those lines.
  Sir D. HERBERT: May I point out that it deals with a partial exclusion from the operation of this Bill of a certain particular class of school. I
  2132
  respectfully submit, therefore, that it will be permissible to show why that particular class of school should receive special treatment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This particular Bill does not exclude from assistance any school not excluded by the Act of 1921, and therefore I cannot allow that question to be raised. I repeat that the Bill is not concerned at all with the 1902 settlement, or the arrangement which now exists between the Government and the non-provided schools. The only question at issue to-day is what shall be the relationship, if this Bill becomes law, to those children, and only those children, who are compelled to attend non-provided schools by reason of the passing of the Bill. That is the only question that can be discussed, and not the general question.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, if I may say so with great respect, for your elucidation of this matter, and I entirely accept your Ruling. I was only mentioning the earlier history for a brief moment, and the increase in expenditure, in order to lead up to what was the coping stone put on the expenditure of the voluntary schools by this Bill as a result of the Hadow Report. The Bill makes no provision for and no mention whatever of the non-provided schools. It leaves them completely out of account. Hon. Members are well aware that there are cases where minorities have to go to the wall. It is often impossible for any Government, however willing, to take notice of small minorities, but here is no case of a small minority. Out of 5,500,000 school children nearly 2,000,000 are in -non-provided schools. Out of the 20,000 odd schools in England, over 11,000 are non-provided schools, and most of them are in rural areas. This is no case of a recalcitrant or small minority, but of two-fifths of the school population of England
  The President of the Board of Education spoke of consideration for the children. What consideration for the children is it when you leave 2,000,000 children out of account in the Bill which you have introduced, and what consideration is it of the parents of those 2,000,000 children? In the North of

  2133
  England and elsewhere—I know the North—the parents of children made great sacrifices for their education out of their own purses. In the Division for which I sit there is a large Roman Catholic community, who, it is no exaggeration to say, are at their wit's end to know where to find the fresh money which this Bill will involve. At this moment they have to find £13,000 for a new school. The Church of England in my constituency, in the last few years, has raised £33,000, and one church alone has raised £9,000 in the last year or two. The parents have done their utmost, and yet when they read the Bill they find that the schools in which they are interested are left completely out of account, and are to have no share in the money which is to be found for the other schools. Not only that, but they feel a sense of great injustice that they will have to pay an additional education rate.
  When this Bill is put into operation, the increase in the rate in the towns of Lancaster and Morecambe, which are in my Division, will be 3d. or 4d., and a great deal more in the countryside. I remember that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell) mentioned the figure of 1s. 3d. for his rural area. Whatever views hon. Members may hold for the necessity of a Bill of this kind, surely there cannot be two views upon the justice of a Bill which mulcts the parents of these children for these sums and deprives them of a fair share in the sums which are raised. It is a poor return for the immense work which the voluntary school system has done for this country, particularly when it has been estimated that to replace these schools would cost the State something like £33,000,000.
  The Bill cannot fail to create a preferential class of child. It is a lop-sided Bill. It is a Bill which, whatever else may be said for will disfigure our Statute Book, especially when it is found possible deliberately to omit provision for 2,000,000 children. The strongest condemnation I can find for this Bill is in the speech of the Minister of Education which he made upon the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill of last May. His words commanded universal
  2134
  approval at the time they were uttered, and I should like to trouble the House by reading them:
  "What is the origin of the necessity which I am trying to meet by these proposals? There are large areas of our country districts, and there are many parts of our cities where reorganisation can only be really effective if the voluntary schools can be properly utilised. For instance, there are many parts of rural districts where there are groups of four or five voluntary schools waiting for an appropriate reorganisation. One of these must become a senior school. The voluntary managers are totally unable to find the necessary funds to build a new classroom, to provide a new playground, or to add a new science-room. Either the local authority must build them, or the children must go without. In many cases the local authority, humanly, cannot be expected to erect a big new school at the public expense, when at one-third of the cost a voluntary school could be easily reconditionsed. Therefore, it comes to this that we have this alternative, that we must in some way enable the voluntary schools to be reconditioned in a good many cases, or in many parts of the country thousands of children will be left without the proper chance which we are trying to give to all." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1930; cols. 1525–6, Vol. 239.]
  The House, no doubt, will entirely agree with those words, and yet we have a Bill brought forward making no provision whatever in order to secure the results which the Minister of Education properly desired to secure when he spoke last May. What is his defence? He will say, "I cannot allow the interests of 2,000,000 children to stand in the way of 3,500,000 children?" Is that a good defence? Is not that equivalent to saying, "Rather than produce no Bill at all, I will produce a bad Bill. I will produce a Bill which is only three-fifths good and is two-fifths bad."? Is that the kind of legislation of which this House can properly be proud? He might say again that he had to get the legislation through quickly, and could not wait for negotiations. Negotiations broke down last July, and he was unable, apparently, even with the best of intentions, to get them going before the House re-assembled three or four months later. That is not a very long time for negotiations. He was in an immense hurry. Spurred on by forces he could not control, desirous of improving employment, and possibly for a hundred and one reasons, very few of them educational reasons, and none of them reasons which would appeal to parents of voluntary

  2135
  schools, he had to produce his new Bill. It is true that to-night we have rendered the danger which threatens these schools, a little more remote. The sword of Damocles which was hanging over them will not fall quite so soon. When I heard the President of the Board of Education introduce this Bill this Session I could not help being reminded of a description of a personality in the Book of Revelation, who was described as:
  "Unchained, but in great wrath, knowing that he had but a short time."
  The President of the Board of Education is still unchained and I think his wrath is abating, but he has a little longer time. I ask him to accept this Amendment because he has the time now to negotiate. By accepting the Amendment and placing the Bill upon the Statute Book so amended, either he or his successor will be forced to take into account the needs of the voluntary schools and their claims for fair treatment before putting into operation an Act for raising the school age.
  Mr. SCURR: My position on this question is well known to the Committee. I am a supporter of the system of religious education. I am anxious to do everything that I possibly can to get help for the non-provided schools, and no party ties, under any consideration, will have any effect on me in a question involving justice being rendered to the schools on whose behalf I am speaking. I take it that the Amendment is not in the ordinary sense of the word a party Amendment. It has been moved by the hon. Member as representing a group of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who hold views similar to the views held by a group of hon. Members on this side, concerning the non-provided schools. To-night, it has been ruled that we cannot refer to the 1902 Settlement, a settlement which was not an agreed settlement but one which was imposed by a powerful Government. The carrying out of that settlement has raised many problems. Since that time the development of our educational system and the new requirements put forward by the Board of Education and the public have enormously increased the expenditure which falls upon the trustees of these schools.
  2136
  During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill I declared my intention of supporting it because I believe that the raising of the school age is a good thing from the educational point of view. The Catholic community to which I belong have always been anxious to have the very best education for the children with whose welfare they are concerned. I have received a letter from a distinguished member of the hierarchy of my Church in which he says that he hopes a settlement will be brought about now in order that we may devote ourselves to assisting the Government in the education of our children. When I supported the Second Reading of the Bill, and I took a great risk in doing so, I suggested to the President of the Board of Education that the door should be kept open for possible negotiations. The Parliamentary Secretary, replying at the close of the debate, indicated on behalf of the President that the door was open for negotiations, and on that assurance I and those who think with me went into the Division Lobby in support of the Second Reading.
  The acceptance of my offer by the President of the Board of Education imposed, I thought, a certain responsibility upon myself, and I had to explore possible suggestions which might deal with the narrow question which is covered by this Amendment, the extra cost of the children from 14 to 15 years of age, those who will be affected by the Hadow reconstruction. I took some care and put forward certain suggestions, and I say with a full sense of responsibility that those in authority in the church to which I belong were perfectly cognisant of those proposals and gave their general approval to them. In putting them forward to the President of the Board of Education, I was not merely speaking as a Member of this House and the representative of a constituency, but with full authority as the representative of the whole Catholic community. I make that statement with a full sense of the responsibility which it carries.
  The President of the Board of Education acknowledged those proposals, and said that he would give them his careful consideration. He has entered into conversations with various interests on this matter. Those conversations are going on, and I am very hopeful that the

  2137
  result will be comething which will be satisfactory to all the parties concerned. I and my friends had prepared an Amendment on somewhat similar lines to the present Amendment, and in the ordinary way we were going to put it down for the Committee stage, but having entered into conversations with the President of the Board of Education, and as those conversations are still going on, I must not, so to speak, present a pistol at his head. I must give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity and, therefore, I do not put down the Amendment I had prepared. I am sure the President of the Board of Education will not mistake me when I say that if it is found, as a result of the conversations, that the Government are not in a position to make any grant at all to the non-provided schools, I shall certainly put that Amendment down for the Report stage of this Bill and I shall be prepared to go into the Lobby in support of it. I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that, as the conversations are still going on, the right hon. Gentleman must be given an opportunity for consideration of the position. If nothing is done for the non-provided schools, I shall cheerfully vote for the postponement of this Bill to the Greek Kalends. I am not concerned with any question of party advantage; I am concerned for the children of the community to which I belong, a community the vast majority of whose members do sincerely believe in the religious education of their children.
  There is one point on which, I think this Amendment ought not to be supported as it stands, although I agree with the principle of postponement. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) told us something of the burdens which will be thrown on the rates of his locality and other localities by the coming into operation of the Bill as it stands. Yet in the Amendment he suggests that we should empower local education authorities to contribute. We do not remedy one injustice by substituting for it another injustice, and, as far as the hierarchy of my church are concerned, they declared in 1929 quite clearly that what they desired was a national contribution and not these local contributions. If this Amendment were carried, we would have a revival in the localities of the old religious controversy.
  2138
  Those of us who took part in the old school-board elections, know that very often those elections were, in no sense, good for any religion. We do not want a revival of that controversy and a good many people accepted the settlement in 1902 because it took us very largely out of the old religious controversy. That is the first point. Secondly, the Amendment would make two classes of schools, getting two different kinds of grants—the provided schools getting their grants from the State, and the non-provided schools getting their grants from the localities. Therefore, from the practical point of view I submit that we could not adopt this Amendment as it stands.
  I hope I have made my position clear. We are continuing the conversations, We are most hopeful that they will result in something of benefit to the schools which the hon. Member for Lancaster and myself represent, and which, I think, the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) correctly named the religious schools. We hope that those schools may receive that which is due to them if the Bill becomes law, but I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to consider the representations which have been made to him, the various ideas which have been placed before him, the proposals submitted to him by myself and by other people, in order that he may be able to come to the House later on and say to us, "Let this Bill go through because I pledge the Government to introduce the other Measure which will give those schools the assistance which they need." If that does not come at a later stage, and if no provision is made for the non-provided schools I am prepared to vote against the Bill. Perhaps, with this explanation, the hon. Member for Lancaster will take the same view as myself. Discussion may be valuable, but do not let us have a Division merely for the sake of a Division upon this matter. Do not let us divide merely for the sake of going into one Lobby or the other on this question, as if we had reached the last stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
  I believe that the feeling of this Committee is that there ought to be a settlement of this question. I sometimes think that He Whom we all profess to serve, if we call ourselves Christians, He Who looks on the world with such divine com-

  2139
  passion and charity, Who all the time said, "Let us forgive unto seventy times seven," must has His heart torn very often when we enter into these stupid controversies, while we bow the knee before Him. It is because I so sincerely believe in the religious education of our children, because I so sincerely believe that this Committee wants to do justice to the people who feel this need, that I ask hon. Members not merely to have a Division but to give the President his opportunity, and if that opportunity is taken advantage of, all of us, I think, would be pleased with the success which would have attended our efforts.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am very anxious that in this matter that we are discussing to-night we should keep the temper with which this discussion has been begun by the two hon. Members who have so far addressed us and that we should maintain the general desire which was shown in the summer to arrive somehow at an understanding and a settlement of this exceedingly difficult question. I shall therefore say very little to-night.
  I want first of all, however, to say that I think it is exceedingly important that we should not exaggerate. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) talked about 2,000,000 children left out of account, but that is putting it a little too high, because the case with regard to the mere raising of the school age is that most schools, including non-provided schools, can cope with the increased numbers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am talking about what I know. There are certainly cities where they cannot do it and where the difficulty will be great, but generally speaking throughout the country they can cope with the numbers. I have told the House over and over again that were the school age to be raised most of the children could get at least as effective an education as those between 13 and 14 are getting now.
  But this is where the disadvantage begins to come in. What I said in the summer, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Lancaster, was perfectly true, namely, that the reorganisation could only be really effective, that is to say, the full measure of improved education which we want to get for all the
  2140
  children will not be obtained by large numbers of the children in voluntary schools, unless we can get some means by which they are enabled to improve their schools in many cases. In many parts of the country the Church voluntary schools, at any rate, have fallen in with the plans of the local education authorities and have got a large and even in many cases a full share of the reorganisation. There are a good many counties where that is so. On the other hand, there are a great many schools where the managers allege that they cannot provide the money and where they do not see their way to co-operate completely with the local education authority.
  I say again, as I said in the summer, that there are large numbers of children who may be prejudiced by no substantial improvement being made in the character of the teaching which can be obtained for them, at any rate for a time. That is a national disadvantage. I do not want to exaggerate it, but we all admit it and know it, and we have to deal with it. The whole Committee is anxious for a settlement, if it can be obtained, and the atmosphere is definitely favourable. If it remain so, I am perfectly certain that the main body of the Church of England is very anxious to find some kind of settlement. I believe that with rather greater anxiety there are also large numbers of Free Churchmen who are increasingly uneasy about the continual persistence of the dual system in a form which they do not like and with no real appearance of modification. They are just as anxious about education as any other part of the country. They know the disadvantage under which many children labour, and they do not like the system. We none of us think that the dual system, as it exists, is satisfactory.
  The only possible solution of this problem is of the nature of compromise. I do not mean that everybody has to agree, for in a question like this, that is an impossibility. Everybody cannot agree, and I want the Committee to recollect that irreconcilable factors exist, and if the belief is encouraged that they can hold up national advance in education, they may become more and not less irreconcilable. That is why I should oppose under any circumstances an Amendment of this sort, or a proposal to hold up the

  2141
  raising of the school age until a settlement of the voluntary schools is arrived at. I do not think that we have any right to arrest the general progress of the country for a limited, even though important, number of children. I cannot, as a matter of fact, imagine a more effective way of preventing a settlement than the passing of a proviso of this kind, because we should put it in the power of any party or any section of people, by obstinacy and by the exorbitance of their demands, to make the raising of the school age inoperative. You would create an atmosphere of suspicion, and there would be a feeling in the minds of a large number of people that a kind of blackmail is possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I am not saying that it is correct; I am only saying that a feeling of that kind would be liable to arise.
  I am, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has said, very fully exploring the basis of new proposals, and I am still very hopeful of a settlement. I see no reason why we should not be able to secure the necessary amount of agreement. I hold that it will be a disgrace to our national powers of arrangement and compromise if we cannot obtain it. I believe we can. Difficult as I think it to be, I say so. I say finally to-night that I do not think it will be wise to say that the larger national advance is to be made dependent upon the reasonableness of every religious organisation or of every secular interest. I believe it ought to be an entirely separate act of this Parliament. It is true that I had hoped in the summer to do the two things together. I hoped it could be done, and I believe we came very near to doing both together. But they are separate things and they must be kept separate; they must not be mixed up together; because it is a very big and a very difficult thing to get the 1902 settlement rearranged.
  Mr. FOOT: We never agreed to it.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: The 1902 arrangement, then. I am certain it would be far better to leave that to a separate act.
  Mr. HANNON: The right hon. Gentleman challenged my hon. Friend below the Gangway with regard to the 2,000,000 children. Will he say, from his knowledge
  2142
  as President of the Board of Education, how many children are really affected by this Amendment?
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is quite impossible to say, because it is impossible to say how many of the voluntary schools need reorganisation and how many of the voluntary schools have been reorganised.
  Mr. HANNON: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman challenge my hon. Friend's figure, if he is not prepared to give an alternative figure?
  Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman has opposed this Amendment on one main ground, and that is that it is not right to make what he considers to be educational progress dependent upon the reasonableness of a number of religious denominations; but this Amendment does not do that. It makes the raising of the school age dependent upon the reasonableness and statesmanship of His Majesty's Government and Parliament, and I want to drive home that point of view. I think it distinguishes my attitude from that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). I would say that in this matter we here speak only for ourselves. It is not a party question and I have always refused to speak as representing in this matter either any political party or any religious denomination. I represent myself and my own judgment and my own knowledge of the circumstances. The hon. Member for Mile End has spoken a great deal about negotiations which he has been conducting outside this House. I have no objection to that. As he knows, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on one occasion I took part in consultations of that kind with the right hon. Gentleman, and I placed before him, purely personally, my solution of the difficulty. I do not know what has happened to it since then. I do not object to any of these negotiations outside the House, but I do, I think, object to negotiations of this kind being used as an argument that this House shall not do a thing which is inherently reasonable and right in itself.
  The real reason why I think an Amendment on these lines ought to be passed is this: The right hon. Gentleman, from the beginning, has tended to make a mistake. He has said he will not move

  2143
  in this matter unless he gets agreement between all the parties concerned, namely, all religious denominations. I hope that no hon. Member will misunderstand me when I say that we who believe most firmly that the Church represents the Kingdom which is not of this world, realise, what I am sure many hon. Members on both sides must realise, that no part of the Christian Church is a very good bargaining and negotiating body on a secular matter such as the bricks and mortar of schools. For the Government to make their political action dependent on the securing of agreement between a number of religious bodies on matters which are predominantly secular, is to put the greatest possible obstacle in the way of a settlement. Agreement by all means in the sense of finding by negotiation the line of least resistance which is at the same time just and fair, but to say that you will not move until you have got every religious denomination to say "I am in agreement" is a very different thing. I do not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this line now, though I thought he was very much inclined to take it a year ago.
  I am anxious not to exaggerate at all. Let us consider for a moment what the Amendment actually says. Let me take the first point of the hon. Member fort Mile End about the local authorities. At one moment in his speech he said that if he could not get some satisfaction before the Report stage, he would put down an Amendment. As he knows, no private Member can put down an Amendment which involves an increased public charge on the Exchequer. The only course open to him will be, as was open to my hon. Friend, to put down an Amendment giving a local authority the power, and not excluding the possibility, and on the assumption, that any expenditure of local education authorities will be aided in the ordinary way by grants from the Board of Education.
  Mr. SCURR: Wait and see!
  Lord E. PERCY: However long I wait and see, I do not think the hon. Member will get over that particular snag if he is to put down an Amendment. At the time of the last General Election my own submission was for grants wholly from the
  2144
  Exchequer without any burden on local rates at all. I think that I have dealt sufficiently with that point to show that there is no inconsistency in hon. Members of this House voting for an Amendment in this form. There is nothing to prevent the Government giving a 100 per cent grant on the expenditure incurred by those local authorities. Beyond that what does the Amendment say? It does not say that the Government shall, or that Parliament shall, do anything in particular for the non-provided schools. It does not, therefore, cut across any negotiations. It simply says that this Act shall not come into force, and the school-leaving age shall not be raised until there is a settlement of this question; and that, whether the number of children is 2,000,000, 1,000,000 or 500,000, we know that a very large section of children in this country cannot conceivably get the education which they ought to get between the ages of 14 and 15, not only in 1932 and 1933, but at any time after the passing of this Act, unless a settlement of this kind, within the next 10 or 20 years, is arrived at.
  The only answer, the only objection to making an Amendment of this kind has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, who says that it is unfair to enable any religious denomination to stop the coach and prevent the raising of the school age. I have dealt with that objection already. I am not seeking to bind the right hon. Gentleman or Parliament to introduce a scheme which will be satisfactory to any religious denomination or to all of them. I am only trying to pledge Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman to produce a scheme which will enable these schools to be put right, even though the scheme has to go through against the protests of every religious denomination in this country. We are trying to get some scheme which will work, and that is our only object. We have been told a lot in the last few days about it being absolutely essential to pass legislation raising the school age as from a particular date, and that unless you put pressure upon the local education authorities you will not get any progress. What about this House putting pressure upon His Majesty's Government to do something in the matter. I do not think that any Government is worse for being told by the House of Commons

  2145
  "if you want to carry out the policy you wish to carry out you must go through the motions and effect the physical changes which are necessary to carry out that policy, and if you do not do that your policy cannot be carried out."
  11.0 p.m.
  I know the difficulties of the President of the Board of Education, and I do not want to add to them, but I do feel that it is necessary that this House should put the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say—there are some sections of opinion which may be recalcitrant—if you are going to get what you want in the raising of the school-leaving age, you must take the measures necessary to prepare for that. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he will be weakened by an Amendment of this kind but still—I am speaking my own mind—I can only say that I have done my best for the last few years to get a settlement, to get it without any party advantage or party kudos of any kind, and that I will continue to do, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman all the reputation and honour and the glory of getting a settlement if he can get it. I did, however, make certain promises at the last Election as to what I would do if I had the power. I have not the power, and the only way in which I can show to-day that I really meant those promises is to vote for this Amendment.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: No one can object to the tone of the speeches which have been delivered on this most important Amendment. One comment, however, I permit myself, and that is that I am quite sure that the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) realise that the denominations with which they are associated have not a monopoly of religious conviction or appeal—
  Lord E. PERCY: After I have said that I have never spoken in this House on behalf of any religious denomination, may I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to start his speech by saying that I speak for a denomination?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I was giving the Noble Lord credit for the tone of his speech, and was only reminding him and the Committee, and anyone else whom it

  2146
  may concern, that there are others, not associated with those great Christian communities, who hold very deep religious convictions with regard to this matter. That is a matter of common knowledge, and my right hon. Friend knows, and the Noble Lord also knows, that, very much to their personal inconvenience and discomfort, there are great religious communities who have to be considered in this matter, and that there are also millions of citizens in this country who do not attach themselves to any religious community at all. This is a matter for the community as a whole, and I join most heartily, on behalf of my hon. Friends who sit with me here, in expressing the hope that in discussing this most important and difficult subject we shall keep as clear as is humanly possible from religious difficulties and shall discuss it on a broad, general citizen basis.
  I am convinced, however, that, if the Amendment which has been moved be passed, it will seriously hinder the settlement which I hope, and we all hope, may be achieved. Undoubtedly, its effect will be to postpone indefinitely the raising of the school age. We want to avoid that, and we want, if possible, to facilitate in every way a settlement of this great religious difference. That is the desire, I think, of the whole Committee. The great point is that we have failed hitherto—not only has the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill failed, but the Noble Lord also has failed—to achieve a settlement along with a Bill such as we have now before us. I believe that my right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the next approach to the problem must be a separate approach, and I want, as far as possible, to assure him, and the Noble Lord and his party, that we shall not be lacking in making our contribution to assist a settlement of this important question.
  Commander SOUTHBY: In supporting the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend, I should like to make it clear that I do so in neither a party, a partisan, nor any sectarian spirit whatever. I deplore the speech made by the President of the Board of Education. I do not believe that it can possibly help the settlement which he has said he is so anxious to achieve. The use of words such as "exorbitancy"

  2147
  and "blackmail" can hardly be a help to any negotiations in which he is at present engaged. I cannot understand why he should say that the estimate of 2,000,000 children is putting it too high nor why he should call the 2,000,000 children referred to by my hon. Friend a limited number. I do not agree with the statement that the non-provided schools can possibly cope with the increases that they are bound to incur if they are to get themselves in a condition to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I do not believe the hon. Member for Mile End concurs in that statement. Every word the right hon. Baronet has said has made it obvious that he has been putting forward arguments which, if they were read aright, would cause him to delay the coming into force of the Bill until this settlement has been arrived at with the non-provided schools. He says a solution must be accomplished. Surely that is an added reason why there should be delay in the provisions of the Bill being forced upon school authorities.
  The Bill imposes a compulsion on the school-leaving age being raised to 15. Nowhere in the Act is there the slightest reference to non-provided schools. My hon. Friend below the Gangway did not put it too high when he said 2,000,000 children go through the church schools. The community owes a very deep debt of gratitude to them for the wonderful work they have done and are doing. He well referred to the Bill as lop-sided. It is a lop-sided and ill-timed Bill, since it leaves the children in the non-provided schools at a serious disadvantage, which the right hon. Baronet himself does not deny, as compared with children in the State-provided schools. The children at the church schools will have to remain for another year at schools which are catering for children from 5 up to 14 where it will be impossible for them to obtain the type of more advanced education which this Bill envisages. Surely the Government cannot shirk this issue. They have to come to a settlement of the non-provided school question before the Bill can possibly be operative, and it is the plain duty of the Government to come to that settlement before they attempt to put into force a Bill which is totally incapable of being
  2148
  really successful. It is not less of religious teaching that we want in our schools but more. These schools must have a square deal and no alteration in the educational system can ever be equitable nor successful unless it includes in it a just and fair settlement of the non-provided school question. The arguments brought forward by the right hon. Baronet were really arguments in favour of the postponement of the raising of the school age.

  I believe the acceptance of the Amendment would not be a hindrance to any settlement he is endeavouring to negotiate but would greatly strengthen the hands of the right hon. Baronet in those negotiations which I, in common with every other Member, hope will come to a successful conclusion. We believe that no settlement of the educational question can be satisfactory unless there is a square and reasonable deal with the non-provided schools, no matter to what denomination they belong, and therefore I support the Amendment. No one would doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for Mile End; but I suggest that he would be better advised to go into the Lobby to-night for the principle which he so ably expressed than to wait until a later stage when it may he too late for him to act effectively.
  Mr. GRAY: I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment. I have no desire to enter into discussion of the 1903 settlement, but it created a great sense of injustice in a large section of the people under which they still labour. Hon. Members who support this Amendment are saying that the raising of the school age is not to come into force unless they get what they want, and no consideration is to he given to those who hold a different point of view. So I may illustrate it by supposing that we on our side put down an Amendment to say that the raising of the school age cannot take place unless teachers of all denominations are given a chance of reaching headmasterships in schools provided out of public funds. If hon. Members supporting the Amendment have no desire to reach a settlement—[HON. MEMBERS "No"]—then their Amendment is reasonable; but if it is not their attitude, and they say it is not, then their Amendment is utterly unreasonable. They ask,

  2149
  even before the matter is discussed, that the whole situation shall be held up until they and their friends get practically all they want. Speaking as a member of the Free Churches, I consider, and I think the great bulk of our friends consider, that a great injustice is done to all of us by the present condition of affairs. You have at the present moment a large number of schools, the entire cost of the teaching staff of which is provided out of public funds, and everything else is provided except the bare maintenance of the building, where no person who is not a member of the particular denomination concerned can have the headmastership.
  Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. With great respect, Mr. Young, your predecessor, Mr. Dunnico, has ruled that a wider discussion of the conditions resulting from the 1902 settlement was to be strictly precluded. I think the hon. Member must be forgetting that ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN: I was not aware of that ruling. If such a ruling were given I trust the hon. Member will keep to the point.
  Mr. FOOT: Does not the Amendment suggest that the 1902 arrangement is to be disturbed, and if that is so cannot the arrangement be discussed?
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Is it not a fact that the question was raised very thoroughly to your predecessor and that he ruled quite definitely that the conditions of the 1902 settlement could be discussed on this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: My hon. Friend, no doubt, forgot to tell me. I trust that the hon. Member will keep to the Ruling which has been given.
  Mr. GRAY: I have refrained from intervening on the point of Order, because I wanted to hear your Ruling. I frankly admit that I have not contravened the Ruling of your predecessor. I have not the slightest intention of discussing the 1902 settlement. If I wished to do so, I should want to speak for a very much longer period than I propose to do now. I am merely pointing out that this Amendment which has been put upon the Order Paper, which is to hold up the whole raising of the school age, does raise the question of the claims of the denominational schools for further assistance in the maintenance of their buildings. I am
  2150
  not discussing the 1902 settlement, but taking the Amendment as it is. This Amendment against the raising of the school age shall not be made until an Act has been passed empowering the local authorities to make contributions towards developing those schools. What my hon. Friends are asking is that the raising of the school age shall be stopped until their demands are satisfied. Obviously, if that decision is taken, the demands of those who speak for Roman Catholic schools must also be satisfied and the demands of those who speak for the Free Churches must be satisfied. The point I am stressing upon this Committee without raising the religious controversy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not raising it, the Amendment raises it. What I am pointing out to the Committee is that this Amendment raises it in one of the most objectionable forms in which it could be raised. It demands that a particular section shall be satisfied, and that the raising of the school age shall be stopped until they are satisfied. The only possibility of our getting a satisfactory solution of this great problem is that we shall lay down, first and foremost, which I do, that the first thing we have to bear in mind is the real education of the children to the largest and fullest extent, and that we shall—speaking for my own Church, we shall—make every possible concession to obtain an agreed system of education which will provide a great broad highway for our children from elementary school to the University. In the raising of the school age what we should seek is to provide a very much better form of education for the great mass of our children. If that is to be secured, some satisfactory solution must be arrived at in regard to the religious difficulties that separate us in the claims that we as religious people make for the education of our children.
  My complaint is that this Amendment does not ask that the raising of the school age shall be delayed until a settlement is reached, but it makes a deliberate demand that it shall not be raised until these concessions are made to the voluntary schools. The conditions on which they should be made may or may not be such that Free Churchmen will readily accept—I cannot say—but if we do want a solution, we must leave it so

  2151
  that the President of the Board of Education can see whether some satisfactory arrangement could be made, and, if not, then the responsibility will rest upon the Government to put forward the solution that they think is the right one. It will then be for this House to decide on the merits of the proposed solution. The plea that I make for the withdrawal of this Amendment is that, in my judgment, an Amendment of this sort, if accepted, must inevitably arouse the fierce opposition of many people, because it does prejudice the whole situation. We have heard the remark from the opposite side, "How these Christians love one another!" In reply to that, I might say that in my own county we have arrived at a solution to the extent of having an agreed syllabus, which has been agreed upon between the Church authorities and the Free Churches, and we are reorganising our schools on that basis. If we really want to arrive at a solution it must be in the broad spirit of Christian, charity, not stressing entirely our own point of view, but in that broader spirit which is the teaching of our Master:
  "Suffer little children to come unto Me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."
  If we can only interpret our views in the light of that teaching, it ought to be possible for us to arrive at a solution that will be satisfactory to all sections of the Christian Church. It is in that hope that I ask hon. Members to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. LOGAN: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but certain remarks of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat make it impossible for me to remain silent. I have tried to restrain myself. I know how delicate this subject is, not only in this House, but also outside. It is one of the most difficult questions which confronts the House of Commons, but in my humble opinion, some solution for this pressing problem will have to be found. As the representative of my constituency, I should be wanting in my duty if I did not speak honestly and sincerely on this matter, but I hope that nothing I may say will hurt the deep religious sentiments of any other hon. Member. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. I believe that we have reached a most critical stage. I am the
  2152
  last man in this House who would be influenced by any party pressure on this particular matter. Delicate negotiations have been going on, and the Amendment might injure those negotiations if it is pressed. It may be reasonable to ask the President of the Board of Education to make a pronouncement which will be satisfactory to the opinions which have been expressed during this debate and settle once and for all on statesmanlike terms a problem which has confronted many governments and which has so far never been settled.
  I appeal to all parties in the Committee. I ask that the Amendment shall not be pressed. To some of us all other issues go to the wall before this vital question, but at the same time it does not follow that we should destroy all the attempts of the right hon. Gentleman to bring the negotiations to a successful issue. It is no use fiddling while Rome is burning. We must express our honest convictions and allow the President of the Board of Education to state what in the opinion of the Government are reasonable proposals which might satisfy all parties. If that could be done, I feel that a great degree of satisfaction would be reached. In passing, may I say that I am as loyal as any man to my party, but I am more loyal to principles. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are we."] I know that, and, because I know it, I appeal to the sense of justice of hon. Members and ask them to allow the Minister the opportunity of coming forward to the House of Commons with a proposition to meet this difficulty.
  Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I very much regret, and I am sure that everyone in the Committee regrets, the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Gray). We have been listening to speeches of the most solemn and moderate character, which have shown a realisation of the very grave difficulties involved in this question. The Mover of the Amendment spoke in reasoned terms, and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), in a speech which must have touched every right-feeling man in this Committee, gave utterance to sentiments which came out of the fulness of his heart and the firmness of his faith. We are not here dealing with contentious matters in the ordinary sense of the term, but with matters which affect the most vital thing

  2153
  in our lives, and, therefore, I feel that the Committee ought to address itself to this question, with calmness, with moderation and with consideration for the feelings of everybody. The Minister did not import into his speech anything which would arouse controversial fires and, on the other hand, the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) stated his side of the case quite fairly and clearly. But whatever may be felt by strong political partisans, those of us who have convictions on this subject are speaking irrespective of party feeling. On that point, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mile End. I am perfectly prepared to vote against my party on a matter of this kind, if my party take up any line which is contrary to my convictions.
  I feel that we ought to discuss this question in that high spirit to which the House of Commons rises from time to time, the spirit which has made this country what it is, the spirit of men whose first principle in life is to fear God and to do right. We may be mistaken in what we think to be right, but the first thing that we want is the fear of God and then we want the sense of right and wrong and the determination, cost what it may, to do what we believe to be right. It is on these lines that we ought to approach this question. Many difficulties arise when we come to deal with such controversial matters, but one thing is clear to some of us at all events. We may be mistaken in the view which we take, but there is such a thing as justice. We are asked in the Bill to do certain things and to change the whole condition of the country in reference to this subject. It may be for the good to do so, but the argument that education is more important than anything else must be qualified by the question "What is education?" The very first principle of education, as I and, I believe, many of us see it, is the fear of God. Somebody has said that you might call this a question of religious education, but religion lies deeper than mere Bible teaching. It has to do with the principles of your life, and your whole faith, and therefore it is much deeper than a mere question of an hour of religious teaching; it is a question of being taught by those who believe themselves in those great truths which they have to teach. I am not saying which contentions on mere
  2154
  details of religion are right or wrong. I want to bring the Committee up to the point that what we have to deal with is the most vital question in our lives. Therefore, I am sure we are all thankful that the President himself, although we did not quite agree with his conclusions, approached this great problem in a serious manner. I speak as the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings spoke, purely as an individual and as the question strikes me. I may be, and probably am, very inconsistent and very failing, but I desire to stand for the faith of my fathers, which I believe to be the only real living power, and I speak as one who firmly believes what he is saying.
  It is impossible under the Rules of this House to bring out what we really want, and that is that the State should come into this matter. Therefore, it has to be brought out in this particular form, but here are certain special terms being imposed for special purposes, and we have one particular class of the community who, we know, are not only paying their rates for the ordinary education, but putting their hands into their pockets to instruct their children in what they 'believe to be the most vital things of life. The State comes in and says that from the State point of view it wants this, that, and the other. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that there should be a contribution from the State for something which the State demands solely for its own reasons. Therefore, when we ask that the working of the Bill should be postponed until this matter is settled, we are not interfering with a settlement.
  My hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) seemed to think that by this Amendment we were disturbing the conversations that are going on, but he is quite mistaken. We are not disturbing any conversations; we are merely putting on record what we firmly believe to be the right and proper thing to do. It will not disturb the Minister, I know, whether or not we pass this Amendment. I am not quite sure if we shall, in view of certain conversations in the House already, but I do not think it will disturb anything. I appeal to the Committee to put on record our sense of the right and justice of this matter, without importing any other question into it. We are not discussing what the hon.

  2155
  Member below the gangway brought up. That does not come in at all, because it is not involved in these arrangements. We are merely discussing this simple issue, which involves no acrimonious discussion, and merely leaves the question open so that a settlement may be arrived at; and now that the Bill has been postponed for 18 months, there will be plenty of opportunity for a settlement to be arrived at in one way or another. I make an earnest appeal to the Committee to deal with a question which hon. Members realise is not a party question, but one of supporting what we believe to be right, and even if the Amendment be defeated, it ought not to make any difference to the sense of this Committee that we want to do what is right. I think very little of those who are out merely for a party score or merely for a religious party score. We should stand as Englishmen in the Faith for which we are working.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I should like to intervene in the Debate as a Churchman, and I speak on behalf of certain Churchmen on this side of the Committee. Fortunately the great religious bodies do not follow party lines; we have members of all Churches in all political parties. I am going to vote against the Amendment and I appeal to Churchmen in the Labour party to do likewise. At the same time, I urge the Minister of Education to make every effort that he can towards bringing about a settlement of this long-standing trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ranasbotham) expressed concern for the Church schools. We of the Church of England in the Labour party are also concerned about the Church schools. We owe the Church schools an immense debt of gratitude for what they have done in this country. It is about 120 years since Andrew Bell brought about the establishment of the National Society, and that Society has saved the nation millions of pounds in educating the children. The Church schools have therefore a claim to be treated with every consideration. We want a settlement.
  The voice of Nonconformity was heard for the Front bench below the Gangway. The Churchmen in the Labour party recognise to the full the claims of Non-
  2156
  conformity, and the enormous debt that we owe to it for the services it has rendered to religious life. John Wesley has no greater admirers in any religious Community than he has among many of us in the Labour party. We earnestly hope that in any settlement the claims of Nonconformity may be met. I believe that such a settlement could be made, and I urge upon the President to make his best endeavours in that direction. The temper of the Churches is favourable and I believe that the Church of England would welcome a settlement. It will be a feather in the President's cap if he brings to an end this long wrangle about religious education.
  Sir HILTON YOUNG: I am surprised at the heat of some of the speeches upon the Amendment. I do not refer to the last speech. One feels a certain sense of uneasiness in looking forward to the final settlement and all the difficulties that lie ahead of the President of the Board of Education. If these things be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? If these speeches are made upon an Amendment to which they are strictly irrelevant, what sort of speeches will be made when we come to discuss the religious settlement? I have not ventured to use the word "irrelevant" in-advisedly. No doubt the speeches are all in order, or they would have been ruled out of Order, but really the question of the relative merits of the various denominations which run non-provided schools, and what terms they are entitled to in a final settlement, does not arise upon this Amendment, which covers such a very important matter from the educational point of view that it would be a matter of great regret if it should pass without having had its merits considered by the Committee. I think I can point out the real point of view from which this Amendment is advanced by referring to the observation made by the President of the Board of Education and supported by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). They said we should treat the question of the non-provided schools and the raising of the school age as separate matters and deal with them separately. That shows a failure to bring their minds to the point of the contention from these benches, which is that you cannot consider them as separate matters. They are one in the

  2157
  nature of the case in the educational world.
  Let me recall the facts which were so ably presented by the Mover of the Amendment. We are dealing here with more than half the schools of the country and two-fifths of the children. What is more important, we are dealing with the vast majority of the schools in the single-school areas, and it is just there that the problem is most difficult. We are not dealing with a little unimportant corner of the educational world, but with a very substantial part of it. Just a word on the speech of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), who advanced his case in a manner which secured the attention and the sympathy of the House. Of course, it is the desire of all who wish for a settlement of this long-vexed question that the negotiations to which he has referred should succeed, but they are negotiations which affect only one of the parties interested in this matter. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] If I am wrong, let me withdraw that statement. If it affects all the parties concerned then the position is better, but the community for which the hon. Member speaks is only one portion of the community concerned. In any case, however, I was not referring to that in order to draw any distinction between the claims of the various parties interested in the non-provided schools, but to show that there is a very big interest involved, and that I am afraid that in this mechanism of Parliament through which we work there is only one wisdom, and that is to make sure of your Amendment while you have the chance.
  I will not repeat the contention of the noble Lord that, as a matter of fact, the passing of this Amendment will strengthen the hands of the President of the Board of Education just as much as it will strengthen that of the denominations in their negotiations, but in a few words I would like to show how the issue raised by this Amendment looks from an educational point of view, an issue which you cannot separate from the final settlement of the question of the non-provided schools. In order to get any real educational good out of raising the school age, you must have a reorganization of the schools, particularly in the rural areas, and in order to provide for the reorganization of the schools in any methodical and organised way you
  2158
  must bring in the non-provided schools. The real point of the Amendment is that you cannot bring the non-provided schools into the reorganization scheme until you settle the whole question of their finance, because reorganization means for these non-provided schools in rural areas the provision of fresh accommodation. It means money which they have not got and cannot provide, and, in order to get it, you must settle the great question involved. As a matter of the realities of the educational situation, it follows as night follows the day, that, if you hurry this through before you solve the bigger question, you are leaving a very big part of the problem unsolved. The President may be inclined to say that it is doing something if you solve part of the problem, but the problem cannot be solved in parts. It must be solved altogether or not at all. If you try to carry out the scheme as regards a part only leaving so big a part unaffected, is it not known to every practical administrator that you will have two bad results. First of all, you will have the minor bad result that, as a matter of fact, the children in the non-provided schools will derive no benefit. Having been left out, we know from the way in which legislation is passed and from the practical difficulties that they are likely to be left out for a very long time.
  Secondly, if you leave them out, you will run the risk of reducing the scheme to chaos. I should not have ventured to advance this last argument on my own authority, but it is the argument of the President himself which he put in some very powerful passages which have been quoted by the Mover of the Amendment. This argument, quoted from the President's speech, represented his first thoughts, which might be supposed not to be careful thoughts, though he is always such a careful thinker. He has had second thoughts in spite of the arguments which he advanced on the Money Resolution. He told us then that the circumstances I have alluded to would make it only too likely that the local authority, if it was going to be able to deal with the question of reorganisation, would have to build absolutely new schools of its own, which, as he pointed out, would be an extremely clumsy suggestion in many parts of the country—first of all clumsy, and, secondly, expensive, and very likely

  2159
  the local authority simply would not do it because of its clumsiness and expense.
  To-day, the right hon. Gentleman has had to adopt another attitude, and he has minimised the consequences of the results which he then described, but there they are, and I say again that it is known to every practical administrator that, if you carry the Bill through without first dealing with the question of accommodation in the voluntary schools, there will be two necessary consequences. Either the children in those schools, particularly in the rural areas, will derive no positive benefit at all or, as the President himself pointed out, it will lead to what he described as clumsy and extravagant waste of money through the local education authorities building wholly new schools in areas where they are not wanted. There we have the alternatives of waste on the one hand and inefficiency on the other. It is from finding himself impaled on the horns of that dilemma that we desire to rescue the President by this Amendment, and I would fain commend it to the more reasonable attention of hon. Members opposite. I consider that that is the acid test in regard to the sincerity of the desire for education.
  Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: The question which I ask myself is whether it is wise or not to dispose of the Amendment at this stage or whether it would not be wiser to postpone its further consideration until the Report stage. If I am spared to see the Report stage and I am not satisfied, I can then vote against this proposal. We are all well aware that there is a considerable difference of opinion on this question, and the Government is being forced by some of their friends to reconsider their position. It is frequently found that on the Report stage we get a more satisfactory position, and we must look at this problem in that light. I feel sure that if a vote is taken tonight the Amendment will not be carried, and I am afraid that, if the Amendment is defeated, instead of strengthening the denominational side of the question, it will weaken the negotiations at a later stage. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) told the Committee that he and many of his friends are desirous of seeing that justice is done to the denominational schools, and he said that, as
  2160
  far as Roman Catholics are concerned, they are prepared to agree that the question should be postponed and considered later stage. Our Roman Catholic friends are very determined about matters of faith, and they are not likely to shrink from their responsibility, and we know that the hon. Member for Mile End has their authority for stating that they are anxious to have this question further considered.
  There are many difficulties in all educational criticisms. There is a large body of Nonconformists who are anxious to further religious teaching and who look at this subject from a totally different standpoint. All these matters have to be considered, and for these reasons I would like to see this Amendment withdrawn with the intention of reviewing it again on the Report stage. I am not very much in love with the Amendment itself, and I do not think there is much chance of its being carried. Personally, I do not think it goes far enough; it is merely optional; it only allows local authorities to take action if they think proper to give a vote in favour of doing so. If it were carried, what would happen We know as well as possible, or, at any rate, my experience has been that in all these controversies some local authorities are sympathetic and some are quite the reverse.
  I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but it seems to me that this Amendment does not go very far. It leaves to the local authorities the option to do something if they wish, and does not even lay down what the help given is to be. It might be a merely nominal grant of £2 or £3, to each school; nothing definite is laid down. I go further, and say that, even if the Government had brought forward this Amendment as their own proposal, I should consider that it was not good enough, because I do not believe it would give to the denominational schools the security of which they stand in need. Even if it had been proposed by the Government, I do not think it would be really worth having.
  I quite agree with the Mover that it would be a good gesture if we could get a unanimous vote on the Amendment, but that is absolutely impossible. The Minister has assured us that he wishes very much to come to terms, our Roman

  2161
  Catholic friends are anxious for a postponement, and, although I admit I have not been consulted on this matter, I imagine that a large number of staunch Churchmen and Roman Catholics on this side of the House would be most anxious to meet their friends on the opposite side, not in any party spirit, but in order that they might, come together and try to formulate some principle and system which, while doing justice to the denominational schools, would also, I hope, receive the support of our Nonconformist friends; and I cannot help thinking that we should do well to leave the matter there for the present.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision, largely because I should like the Committee to leave this question in the spirit of good temper which, on the whole, has been exhibited all along. Most of the speeches have been helpful rather than otherwise, and I think that, from that point of view, the sooner we can come to a decision on the matter the better.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I say just two or three words on this Amendment, I hope in the spirit for which the right hon. Gentleman has just appealed? I hope it will not be thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Gray) represents the views of all who sit on these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Most of them!"] There are others who take an opposite view, and believe that the cause of liberty, as of education, is not well served by perpetuating the disabilities under which certain religious communities now suffer, and particularly a community which has rendered great service to education in the past. We should like to see those disabilities removed. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that this Amendment would, if carried, have the effect of making the acceptance of the Bill which we are now discussing dependent upon the concurrence of all the religions denominations. It would do nothing of the kind.
  Mr. GRAY: I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I do not think that is borne out by what I said. My point was that, if that Amendment was not accepted, it was accepting the point of view of one section, and
  2162
  therefore, prejudicing that of other sections.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The last thing I would wish to do is to misrepresent my hon. Friend, and, if I misunderstood him, I can only apologise most sincerely. I hope the point of view which has been expressed will not be encouraged. This Amendment goes a very little way indeed and imposes no compulsion upon anyone. It simply calls for a measure to enable local authorities to give certain assistance in the way of buildings, and so forth to non-provided schools.
  Mr. FOOT: On what terms? [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope that question will not be pursued. The terms of any arrangement must not now be argued.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has rightly been said that this is not a party question and I am entitled, therefore, to represent my own point of view, I hope without any offence, and that of two of my hon. Friends who have asked me to associate their views with mine. The last thing I should like to do is to offend my hon. Friends below me. However, this is a matter of great importance upon which everyone who has spoken feels very sincerely. The Amendment does not go very far. It imposes a settlement upon no one. If it were carried, it would merely express the view of the House that a settlement is desirable and I hope it will be carried.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman gave us distinct hope in his speech at the beginning of the debate that there were good reasons to think a settlement might be brought about on the matter before the Bill came into operation. The general tone of the speeches from all sides of the Committee has been in the direction of a, hope that something would be done to meet the claims of the non-provided schools. I want to make this our appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He has asked that we may come to a decision, and many hon. Members have asked that we might withdraw the Amendment, relying on the Minister's willingness to continue conversations. I am afraid that the experience of many of us in this House shows that, however much we trust—and I entirely trust—the right

  2163
  hon. Gentleman's good fauth in this matter, we cannot rely too much upon good will and upon pleasant words which are spoken on these occasions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us a perfectly definite pledge that he will endeavour to arrange some form of Amendment to protect the non-provided schools which may be introduced on the Report stage. If we can get a definite undertaking that something will be done, I think, speaking for! myself, that we may be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. Failing something of the kind, we shall be bound to vote for the Amendment to show our determination to do what we can to see that the non-provided schools are fairly and properly treated.
  Mr. FOOT: I have no desire to say one word which would cause any feeling between those hon. Members who represent one Church and those who represent another. I was a little astonished to hear the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) speak as if that was not a common feeling throughout the country. After all, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Gray), who spoke amid a great deal of interruption, represented a great many people who have been associated with religious life in this country for many generations. A very foolish interruption was made by an hon. Member behind me; it would be better if he spared some of his time in the House of Commons for studying the elementary history of his own country. An interruption of that kind does no credit to his courtesy or his intelligence. Although there have been differences of expression between those who sit on the second bench on the other side of the Committee who have taken part in the Debate and those for whom I speak, I hope that there will he no bitterness between us. They stand for one school of thought, and some of us stand for another. Some of those for whom I speak appreciate the serious disabilities under which we suffer in the single-school areas. There are thousands of children belonging to Free Church homes who have no opportunity of going to any school except a school of a denomination other than their own. They are compelled by law to go, and yet they have to go into a school where the claim is made that there
  2164
  has to be a religious atmosphere. That is a penalty which I thought all fair men had recognised, and it must be remembered before the educational system can be put on a fair basis.
  The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir. H. Young) urged that we should pass the Amendment because, he said, we could not carry through this scheme of school reorganization unless provision was made for public grants to the voluntary schools. I should have understood the Amendment if it had said that the right hon. Gentleman should not proceed with the Bill, or that the Bill should not come into operation until some arrangement was arrived at. I should not even then support the Amendment myself, but I think it would be a reasonable Amendment that, until this vexed denominational question was settled, the Bill should not come into operation. But the Amendment asks for a great deal more than that; it asks that the Bill shall not come into operation until grants are made to the denominational schools. If grants are to be made out of public funds—and it raises the whole issue—on what terms are they to be made? A suggestion was made when the previous Education Bill was brought before the House that one of the conditions of a public grant was that there was to be a larger measure of public control. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks concede that fact? Does he suggest that there is to be a large payment made out of public funds and that still you are to have in every denominational school in the country a complete mastery on the part of the denominational management over the derisory minority representing those who provide money in this respect? Surely, if money is to he paid out of public funds there must be a larger measure of public control. If money is paid out of public funds, we have a right to ask that the question which played such a great part in the discussions of 1902 and in 1906, should be faced, and whether in the new arrangements which are to be made you are going to enlarge or lessen the tests for teachers. These are questions which must be faced before a settlement can be reached.

  2165
  While I appreciate the fervour with which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) spoke, surely he cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to-night—in the dead vast and middle of the night—to get up and from the Front Bench opposite announce a settlement upon a matter which has troubled serious men ever since the discussions of 1902. This settlement has not been delayed because of malice or because there is bitterness between one communion and another. I heard one hon. Member say: "See how these Christians love one another." I do not think that the difficulty is prompted by hatred on the part of one Englishman towards another. It is because there are opinions held going back to the roots of history dependent upon traditions and upon our upbringing. The outlook of every Member of this House very largely depends upon the home in which he or she was brought up, and we must realise in all our difficulties, and however sincerely we hold our opinions, that the first and main consideration should be the good of the child. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say:
  "As far as you can, abate your denominational claim, and, if possible, arrive at a settlement which will give the child the best chance." Those conversations are still continuing. They would be made impossible, I think, by the passing of the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If an Amendment were passed in those terms, this House would for the time commit itself to a solution which would settle only one part of the problem, but I give this warning, that if you settled the claims of one party and ignored the rest you would raise such criticisms that the whole of the Bill would become derelict and fall to pieces.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I want to bow to the appeal which has been made by the President of the Board of Education, but, as one of those in whose name the Amendment stands, I want to say why it does not seem good to us to withdraw it. We all very much appreciate the spirit in which, for instance, the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) spoke. We understand that at the moment there were two loyalties—the loyalty to his religion and the loyalty to his party—and we appreciate very much his position in this matter.
  2166
  Unless we make some provision in the Bill for the non-provided schools, we are going, in the words of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), to deal with one part only of the population and to leave the other part unprovided for. If we look at the Bill as an Education Bill, it is fair that in this Bill, as in the Bill introduced by the President of the Board of Education last summer, there must be some provision for these schools. I regret the attitude taken up by one or two members of the Liberal party, because it seems to me that they are stirring up the dust of the religious controversies of their fathers, rather than looking to the future of the children of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are stirring up the dust!"] If it was right to make provision for the non-provided schools in the Bill of last summer, why has it ceased to be right to provide it now? If it was necessary for the President of the Board of Education to bring in a Financial Resolution making that provision on the last occasion, why is that provision unnecessary now? We have not been given a single answer to that question.
  We did expect that the Minister would have been in a more conciliatory mood. He accepted the Amendment moved by the Liberals, because he said that it would be difficult to find time for fresh legislation to deal with the non-provided schools by the 31st April. I thought that gave some indication that he was inclined to bring in the fresh legislation before September, 1932. Our Amendment asks, not for any agreement, but that power should be given by the Government to the local education authorities to provide some schools for the new children who will come in. If I may say so without offence, if we pass the Bill with our Amendment in it, the position will become more and not less reconcilable, but if we pass the Bill without the Amendment, the President of the Board of Education will become less and not more reconcilable. Those of us who stand for the non-provided schools have not been given any undertaking to-night that either at this stage or on the Report stage anything will be done to meet our position. Had we been given some undertaking, we might not have pressed the Amendment to a Division, but, as things are, those of us who believe in helping the schools which have been the real

  2167
  pioneers of education in this country to carry on with their good work, have no other course than to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
  Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I must register my protest against the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) when he accused Members of the Liberal party of "stirring up the dust." We have stirred up no dust. It is the members of his own party who are responsible by putting on the Order Paper an Amendment which is not really essential to the consideration of the Bill—[Interruption]—not essential to the principle of raising the school age. And they have put down the Amendment for the very purpose of raising the religious controversy. [Interruption.] Not only does this Amendment raise the religious controversy but it prescribes a remedy—grants to denominational schools. The suggestion that we are responsible for stirring up the dust is
  wholly unjustifiable and one which the Liberal party resent.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY PAGE CROFT: The Bill raises the question.
  Mr. EVANS: The Bill does not raise the question at all. It is raised by this Amendment alone. The whole of the discussion has been most lamentable. The Bill is presented to secure something which we are anxious to secure—the raising of the school age, and if the President of the Board of Education is going to he seduced by arguments of this character he is running the risk of imperilling the future of the whole of the Bill.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"?
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 140.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES

  [12.28 a.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Edge, Sir William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Adamson, W.M.(Staff., Cannock)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cragle M.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)

  Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jones, T.L. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Egan. W.H.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F.W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Elmley, Viscount

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Arnott, John

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Foot, Isaac.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Barr, James

  Freeman, Peter

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Batey, Joseph

  Gardner, E. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Bellamy, Albert

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesa)

  Lathan, G.

  Benson, G.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vate)

  Gill, T.H.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Bowen, J.W.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gould, F.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gray, Milner

  Leach, W.

  Brooke, W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Brothers, M.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts Mansfield)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lees, J.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Groves, Thomas E

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayshire)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Brown, W.J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth. C.)

  Longden, F.

  Burgess, F.G.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn

  Lovat-Fraser. J. A.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hardie, George D.

  Lunn, William

  Cameron, A.G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Cater, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Charleton, H.C.

  Haycock, A.W.

  McElwee, A.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Hayday, Arthur

  McEntee, V. L,

  Clarke, J. S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Mac Laren, Andrew

  Cluse. W. S

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Cocks, Frederick, Seymour

  Herrlotts, J

  Malone, C. L'Entrange (N'thampton)

  Compton, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Cove, William G.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Marcus, M.

  Cowan, D.M.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Markham, S. F.

  Daggar, George

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Marshall, Fred

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Mathers, George

  Davies, E. C. (Montogomery

  Horrabin, J.F.

  Matters, L. W

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hudson, James H (Huddersfield)

  Maxton, James.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Middleton. G.

  Dukes, C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Milner, Major J.

  Duncan, Charles

  Johnston, Thomas

  Montague. Frederick

  Ede, James Chuter

  Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

  Morley, Ralph

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Romeril, H. G.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham,

  Rowson, Guy

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mort, D. L.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Vaughan, D.J.

  Moses, J. J H.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Scott, James

  Walker, J.

  Muff, G.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Watkins, F. C.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shield, George William

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Shitlaker, J. F.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Sinkinson, George

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Palin, John Henry

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Perry. S. F.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract,)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Potts, John S.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester.Loughb'gh)

  Price, M. P.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phlilp

  Wise, E. F.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Sorensen, R.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Ramsey, T. B. Wilson

  Stephen. Campbell

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Raynes, W. R.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Thomas Henderson.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Albery, Irving James

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'L., W.)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Remer, John R.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Gilmour, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (L. of Thanet)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Ruggles-Smite, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Greaves- Lord, Sir Walter

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Hanbury, C.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Bracken, B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harbord, A.

  Samson, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Harlington, Marquess of

  Savery, S. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Heneage, Lieut -Colonel Arthur P

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Butler, R. A.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Train, J.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Long, Major Hon. Erie

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (L. of W.)

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Meller, R. J

  White, H. G.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Samerset, Yeovil)

  Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Moore, Lieut,-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Weimer. Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Duckworth. G. A. V.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Nicholson, Cal. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Sir George Penny and Captain Euan Wallace.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 198

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES.

  [12.38 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Albery, Irving James

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'L., W.)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Remer, John R.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Gilmour, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (L. of Thanet)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Ruggles-Smite, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Greaves- Lord, Sir Walter

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Hanbury, C.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Bracken, B.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Harbord, A.

  Samson, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Harlington, Marquess of

  Savery, S. S.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Heneage, Lieut -Colonel Arthur P

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Butler, R. A.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Liewellin, Major J. J.

  Train, J.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Long, Major Hon. Erie

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (L. of W.)

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Meller, R. J

  White, H. G.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Samerset, Yeovil)

  Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Moore, Lieut,-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Weimer. Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Duckworth. G. A. V.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Nicholson, Cal. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Sir George Penny and Captain Euan Wallace.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Compton, Joseph

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Cove, William G.

  Hardie, George D.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Cowan, D. M.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Daggar, George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hayday, Arthur

  Arnott, John

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Herriotts, J.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Duncan, Charles

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Barr, James

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Batey, Joseph

  Edge, Sir William

  Hoffman. P. C.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Bennett. William (Battersea, South)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Benson, G.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Elmley, Viscount

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Bowen, J. W.

  Foot, Isaac,

  Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Freeman, Peter

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brooke, W.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Brothers, M.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Brown. Ernest (Leith)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Gould. F.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Burgess, F. G.

  Gray, Milner

  Kirkwood, D.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Cameron, A. G.

  Grenfell, D.R.(Glamorgan)

  Lathan, G.

  Carter. W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Giffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Charleton, H C.

  Giffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Groves, Thomas E

  Lawrence, Susan

  Clarke, J. S.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lawson, John James

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvill)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  2172

  2173

  Leach, W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Oliver, George Harold (likeston)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Lees, J.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Sorensen, R.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Palin, John Henry.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lovat-Fraser. J. A.

  Perry, S. F.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Lunn, William

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Thurtle, Ernest

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Potts, John S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  McElwee, A.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McEntee, V. L,

  Qulbell, D. J. K.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Viant, S. P.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Walker, J.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Marcus, M.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Markham, S. F.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Marshall, Fred

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Mathers, George

  Rowson, Guy

  Westwood, Joseph

  Matters, L. W.

  Sanders, W. S

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Maxton, James

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Middleton, G.

  Scott, James

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Milner, Major J.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Montague, Frederick

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Morley, Ralph

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Shield, George William

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wise, E. F.

  Mort, D. L.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sinkinson George

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Muff, G.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Thomas Henderson.

  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I do so that I may put one or two questions to the Minister. We have had a long and very interesting Debate, conducted, I think, on the whole, with good temper; and we have made a certain amount of progress. It is now getting late, and I want to know the intention of the Government. We have three Cabinet Ministers, and the House is left to discuss a Bill at this time the urgency for which has disappeared with the postponement of the date. After all, I have had a good deal of experience of the House of Commons, and it has never seemed to me that the unnecessary forcing of the pace really helps, in the long run, the progress of a Bill. We have to-night had perfectly good temper, and progress has been made. I do hope that, having regard to the progress made and the hour it is now—and considering the pressure put on the House with the Committee sitting overtime upstairs—the Minister of Education will see his way to tell us that it is not proposed to keep the House sitting up to any later hour than we have already reached.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not deny that a certain amount of progress has been made. That progress has, as a
  2174
  matter of fact, covered practically all the important points in the Bill. The remaining subjects which stand to be discussed look, I agree, numerous on the Order Paper, but the actual variety of them is not very great, and the importance of them is not very great. There is pressure for this Bill to be passed. It is quite true that part of the excessive urgency to which the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) has alluded has disappeared with the change of date, but there remains an urgency of which the House is perfectly well aware. The local authorities have the right to know whether or not this Parliament is going to put the Bill into force. They have a right to know that, in order to make their plans and preparations, and the Bill ought to be passed this year. Therefore, it is essential that it should be pressed on. I very much hope that, as the House has sat up to this hour, it will be content to sit somewhat later and get on a great deal further.
  Lord E. PERCY: The President of the Board of Education led off his reply by saying that the subsequent Amendments were unimportant. [Interruption.] I hope the President of the Board of Education observes among his followers the Hampstead Heath atmosphere. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Does the

  2175
  President of the Board of Education really think his followers are in a fit condition to discuss any question? These unimportant questions which his followers are setting themselves to discuss so seriously and with such a sense of responsibility include the whole question of the supply of teachers, and I would remind the President of the Board of Education that several times in the course of the past two days hon. Members on this side of the House have been stopped by the Chair and told that there would be a fuller opportunity to discuss the question of the supply of teachers on a later Amendment. The same applies to various other questions.
  The CHAIRMAN: How is this relevant?
  Lord E. PERCY: Well, perhaps I may recall your attention to the fact—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not let him bully you, whatever you do.
  Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps I may recall your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) on 20th November was arguing as follows:
  "The President has been exerting himself, with all the authority of his high office and with all the enthusiasm which we know he brings to this subject, to get the training colleges to train as many additional teachers as possible, but so far he has only succeeded in getting some 1,800 additional students into the training colleges,
  Then the Deputy-Chairman intervened and said:
  "The Noble Lady must not continue on that line. The general question of the advisability or otherwise of raising the school age will doubtless be discussed on specific Amendments later, and the Chair is placed in a position of great difficulty if, on every Amendment, we are to have a repetition of the same arguments"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1930; col. 727, Vol. 245.]
  Again, I may refer you to the fact that you yourself intervened on 24th November, when one of my hon. Friends was speaking. He said:
  "Except in a few isolated cases it has not been done up to the present; and there is no immediate prospect, as far as I can see, of it being done."
  That was with reference to agricultural reorganisation, and the hon. Member proceeded:
  2176
  "There were not enough teachers—
  "The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting far away from the Amendment, which is to allow children under 15 years of age to work on the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1930; col. 1027, Vol. 245.]
  So again we were pulled up.
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the Noble Lord tell me? Is that my Ruling?
  Lord E. PERCY: That was on 24th November. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, I am replying to the Chair. It was when we were in Committee on this Bill. Do not think I am attempting to establish a claim on the Chair in any improper way. I am trying to point out to the President of the Board of Education that there are, on these immediately succeeding questions, many points of great substance. Then we come to a whole series of points which have not been discussed at all. There is the question of the exemption of individual children, which we on this side regard as one of the greatest blots on the Bill. Then we come to a variety of drafting Amendments on the Schedule, and we all know from our previous discussions how very faulty is the drafting of this Bill, and what careful scrutiny it requires. I have left out many other points, especially that of part-time education courses. When I fast came into this House, I heard hon. Members opposite, from the Prime Minister downwards, constantly denouncing—
  Mr. MAXTON: Say from the Prime Minister upwards.
  1.0 a.m.
  Lord E. PERCY: From the Prime Minister upwards, until you reach the exalted heights in which the company from Clydeside sit—I heard then denouncing the absurd unbusiness-likeness of sitting at these hours of the night to discuss important subjects. No one has claimed that this Debate has been characterised by time wasted by the Opposition. A great deal of the time of the Committee to-day has been taken up by speeches from hon. Members opposite and from hon. Members below the Gangway. A complaint was made to me informally that we have taken a long time on the discussion that Clause I stand part. I think we took one hour and ten minutes, and about twenty minutes of that time was consumed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-

  2177
  Belisha) for whom I really cannot be expected to be responsible. What is the real fact about the President's reply? It is, that the Labour party have long ago abandoned their opposition in principle to discussing important questions in the middle of the night and have adopted another principle, that it is important that this House should sit up from one o'clock to five o'clock in order that hon. Members might have some place to sleep in or otherwise to disport themselves in. Some hon. Members propose to use this Chamber as a night club and some as [Interruption]—
  Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord in order to describe the House of Commons as a night club?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it is a remark I cannot rule out.
  Lord E. PERCY: Some hon. Members like to use this Chamber in one way and some in another [Interruption]—
  The CHAIRMAN: It is utterly impossible for me to hear what the Noble Lord is saying.
  Lord E. PERCY Lord E. PERCY rose—
  Mr. LOGAN: On a point of Order. Will the Noble Lord explain what he means by the use of the Chamber?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question before us is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be permitted to proceed.
  Lord E. PERCY: No one who has listened to the Debate up to now would believe for a moment that members of the Labour party are prepared to sit here for four hours to discuss business.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord must give reasons for reporting Progress.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Noble Lord to suggest that members of any party do not wish to sit here to carry out business?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is a statement I cannot prevent.
  Mr. BROAD: Is it in order for the Noble Lord to be deliberately provocative and offensive?
  Lord E. PERCY: I think, with all due submission to you, Mr. Young, that the strongest reason for reporting pro-
  2178
  gress is that hon. Members of this House are not at the present moment in a state to discuss. [Interruption.] I have heard hon. Members opposite use that argument in a moving to report Progress. May I point out, Mr. Young, that we are asked to sit up as late as this, after a discussion, the length of which has been largely due to the fact that the Government have changed their minds radically about the Bill. It is a fact that the Government have changed the Bill after they introduced it into the House.
  Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order. Is it in order to suggest that our Government is Radical?
  Lord E. PERCY: The only principle upon which business of this House can be conducted is that after the House has had a business-like discussion, say up to midnight, it should adjourn. The idea that the House or the Committee should get through allotted sections of a Bill, no matter what is the character of the discussion, is absurd, and this Committee should oppose any suggestion of the kind. The final reason for reporting Progress is that a proposition put before us on a Bill like this, on which the Government have changed their mind, should be put before the House of Commons by the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] We have at the present moment only two members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench.
  An HON. MEMBER: How many do you want?
  Lord E. PERCY: I should like some members of the Cabinet to show some interest in the question of education.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): There are three.
  Lord E. PERCY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is only his coyness he has to thank for the fact that I did not see him. The extraordinary sparseness of the Government Front Bench and the fact that immediately after—[Interruption]
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord will save the interruption if he addresses me.
  Lord E. PERCY: It is customary, Mr. Young, for a Member of the House while

  2179
  speaking to turn towards those behind him, but in order to save—[Interruption]
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue.
  Lord E. PERCY: Immediately after the complete change of policy on the part of the Government we are asked to stay here all night because of that change of policy, and neither the head nor any really responsible Member of the Government is present. [Interruption.]
  My final argument is—
  An Hon MEMBER: Order.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who calls "Order" is out of order himself.
  Mr. COCKS: The Noble Lord said that there was no responsible Member of the Government present.
  Lord E. PERCY: My final argument in support of the Motion to report progress is supplied by behaviour of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. BRACKEN: When the President of the Board of Education asked the House to hurry up the discussion of this Bill he apparently forgot the language he used when resisting the last Amendment. He then said that certain negotiations were going on outside which prohibited him from informing the managers of non-provided schools of such decisions as he must arrive at. Now we are asked to deal with an entirely contradictory argument.
  The CHAIRMAN: The discussion of non-provided schools has nothing to do with the question before the Committee.
  Mr. BRACKEN: Yes, but, whatever red herring was dragged across the trail, was entirely due to the argument of the President of the Board of Education on the previous Amendment. It is impossible to support the President of the Board of Education in asking us to burke discussion of this Bill. On the previous Amendment we were told that no discussion should take place on the floor of the House until certain parties outside had come to an agreement. If justice is to be done to the municipalities, justice should also be done—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to reasons for reporting Progress.
  Mr. BRACKEN: I maintain that it is improper for the Government to come to the House and on one Amendment take one argument and on another another argument. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members on this side will do all in their power to continue this discussion until justice is done.
  Mr. SMITHERS: I do not agree with the remark of the President of the Board of Education when he was speaking on this Motion that all the important points of this Bill have been discussed, and that nothing much of any importance remains. I have been informed by courtesy of the Chairman that an Amendment which stands in my name is to be called, and I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his statement that there are no more important points to be discussed is not correct. The point that I have to raise has not, I believe, been discussed before in these debates. I have not taken part in these debates before, and I should not have stopped to-night had not I sincerely believed that a point of great importance was raised by my Amendment. One further point. I think we should stop this discussion because of the behaviour of the party opposite, which is a disgrace to the House of Commons. If only there could be some mechanical television device by which the whole country could see their faces to-night there would be no doubt whatever that they would be out of office for ever.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I heard the chief Whip shouting to terminate this discussion, but I should like for a very few moments to draw the attention of the Committee to the somewhat awkward and serious character of the issue which has now been raised, which perhaps has been less raised than broken upon us. My right hon Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked leave to move that we report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and he has appealed to the responsible Minister in charge of our

  2181
  debate that he should accede to that request made in full formality. That is a matter of considerable consequence and should not be dismissed in idle levity or in rollicking and boisterous good humour or ill-humour. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition has, in the course of the present Session at any rate, made such a Motion before. I think in all the circumstances, a minority Government in office, and the instabilities of the political situation being what they are, that a request of that kind seriously made ought not to be brushed aside or sullenly dismissed. I do not know whether it is the intention of hon. Gentlemen gathered upon the opposite benches to treat those who sit in this part of the House in a rough and bullying manner, but I am bound to say that during the time I have been sitting here I have hardly heard a single speech from this side that was not violently interrupted. It is in the interests of Parliamentary tradition that arbitrary action should be resisted by every measure at the command of an Opposition.
  It is not my intention, however, to raise the temperature of the debate. On the contrary, it seems to me that the Government would be unwise not to consider the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has himself moved to report Progress and wise to give that respect to a party, which numbers almost as many members in this House as their own, and to their wishes in the conduct of the debate, which is customary. As has been referred to by my hon. Friend, the Government bench is ill-garnished with persons of responsibility. In the broad courtesies and decorum of the House of Commons a Motion to report Progress made by the Leader of the Opposition ought to be answered either by the Prime Minister or by a deputy-Leader of the House. Not one of those high officers is here. I hope the Minister of Education and the Chief Whip will not press this matter now. I do not believe it will facilitate their business. It is quite true we may have a very uncomfortable night. We may go on trapesing through the Lobbies and cheering our passage through them with laughter and with song, but it will not be a help to the administration at the present time nor to the progress of their business. There has not been much
  2182
  ill-feeling or ill-temper during the present Session.
  HON. MEMBERS: You have not been here.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am all the more an impartial judge. Not only do I appeal to the Government, but I request them not to ignore the serious consequences of neglecting the Motion which has been made. After all, we are not without resources, and, if ill-treatment is meted out, I for my part would gladly join with those who would carry their resistance to it to all lengths.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am very interested in this discussion, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition moving to report Progress had been prepared in advance of the situation on the assumption that the Amendment of his supporters was going to be carried and that he was going to adopt the usual attitude when a Government defeat has taken place. He was disappointed in that, but he proceeded with his speech. The very bad temper of the Noble Lord, his very offensive remarks and the bad taste displayed by him, I excuse from the bottom of my heart on the ground that he was disagreeably surprised that his Party's vote was not so good as he anticipated. Apart from these little things, the Opposition leaders are doing the recognised thing, going through the Motions the official Opposition is expected to go through on these occasions. There is, however, a serious case to be put by the supporters of the Government for a release—
  An HON. MEMBER: Who are the supporters of the Government?
  Mr. MAXTON: Those who gave them the majority over the Amendment which was proposed by the party opposite. There is a serious case which we can put up for the House going home now. I put up this plea. To-morrow is a private Members' day. I have noticed it was quite frequently the case, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, that they chose these late sittings and the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule on days when the next day was going to be a private Members' day. It is not true, as has been suggested, that a late sitting in this House is an ineffective sitting.

  2183
  The late Government carried an Unemployment Insurance Bill with the guillotine by repeated late sittings. It was a rotten Bill, but it did get through. It is not that the business at a late sitting is badly done, but that the next day's sitting is farcical. I am therefore putting up this plea for private Members. Their opportunities are not great or frequent. To-morrow we are going to discuss the woollen industry and accidents in mines, subjects which to my mind are of much greater importance to the working-classes of this country than this Bill in its now emaciated form.
  I also learn from the newspapers that we are going to have an extended Christmas Recess. Many right hon. Gentlemen opposite are more in the confidence of the Government than I am, but that is the report, that we are going to have an extended Christmas Recess. I cannot see the urgency—[Interruption,] One of my hon. Friends behind

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES

  [1.29 a.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Edge, Sir William

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Egan, W. H.

  Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer-)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Arnott, John

  Foot, Isaac

  Kelly, W. T.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Freeman, Peter

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Barr, James

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lang, Gordon

  Batey, Joseph

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Bellamy, Albert

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lathan, G.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Benson, G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Law, A. (Rossefifiaie)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Bowen, J. W.

  Gould, F.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gray, Milner

  Leach, W.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Brooke, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Brothers, M.

  Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lees, J.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Groves, Thomas E

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lindley, Fred W. Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Brown. Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Longden, F.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Harbord, A.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Calne, Derwent Hall.

  Hardie, George D.

  Lunn. William

  Cameron, A. G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Haycock, A. W.

  McElwee, A.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Hayday, Arthur

  McEntee, V. L.

  Clarke. J. S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  McShane. John James

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Compton, Joseph

  Herriotts, J.

  Marcus, M.

  Cove, William G.

  Hirst, G. H. (York, W.R.,Wentworth)

  Marley, J.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Hoffman. P. C.

  Marshall, Fred

  Daggar, George

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Mathers, George

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Matters, L. W.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Matters, L. W.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Mliner, Major J.

  Dudgeon. Major C. R.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Montague, Frederick

  Duncan, Charles

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Dukes, C.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Morley, Raiph

  Duncan, Charles

  Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Ede, James Chuter

  Jones,Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

  me realises that I am not putting the case quite so succinctly as he would have done and is encouraging me to do it more quickly. I shall endeavour to do so. With the possibilities of an extended Christmas Recess, with the progress my right hon. Friend has made, there is absolutely no reason why this House should be kept at this unnatural time to do work which can be done perfectly well in the months that lie in front of us, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman, not because the Members opposite have raised this question, but out of consideration for the back benchers on this side of the House and for private Members generally, to accept the Motion.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put"
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 99

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Rowson, Guy

  Toole, Joseph

  Mort, D. L.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Scott, James

  Viant, S. P.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Scurr, John

  Wallace, H. W.

  Muff, G.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Nathan, Major H.L.

  Shepherd. Arthur Lewis

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Shield, George William

  Westwood, Joseph

  Oliver, George Harold (Likeston)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  White H. G.

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Whiteley, Wilfried (Birm., Ladywood

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Sinclair, Sir. A. (Calthness)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Palin, John Henry

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley

  Perry, S. F.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Potts, John S.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Winterton, G. e. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)

  Price, M. P.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Wise, E. F.

  Pybus. Percy John

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Wood, Major Mckenzie (Banff)

  Aulbell, D. J. K.

  Sorensen, R.

  Young, R. S.(lslington, North)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Raynes, W. R.

  Strauss, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

  Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Remer, John R.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Albery, Irving James

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy,

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Rodd, Rt. Hon, Sir James Rennell

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Balfour, Captain H, H.(I. of Thanet)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Salmon, Major l.

  Beaumont, M, W.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Glyn, Major R. G C.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillip A. G. D.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Savery, S. S.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Bracken, B.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Smithers, Waldron

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Buller, R. A.

  Lamb, Sir J. O.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Train, J.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir a. Lambert

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Courtauld, Major J. 8.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Withers, sir John James

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Nicholson, Col, Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptraf'id)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William

  Sir George Penny and Captain

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wallace.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 208.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Savery, S. S.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Halfam)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O (W'morland)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrisf'ld)

  Train, J.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Remer, John R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Reynolds. Col. Sir James

  Wells. Sydney R.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Withers, Sir John James

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Liewellin, Major.J. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gray, Milner

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  McElwee, A.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Groves, Thomas E.

  McShane, John James

  Arnott, John

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marcus, M.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Marley, J.

  Barr, James

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Marshall, Fred

  Batey, Joseph

  Harbord, A.

  Mothers, George

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hardie, George D

  Matters, L. W.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Milner, Major J.

  Benson, G.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Montague, Frederick

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hayday, Arthur

  Marley, Ralph

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Morrison Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Brooke, W.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Brothers, M.

  Herriotts, J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Moses,.J. J. H.

  Brown. Ernest (Leith)

  Hoffman. P. C.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Muff, G.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Cameron, A. G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Oldfield. J. R.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Oliver, George Harold (likeston)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Jones, Henry Hayda (Merioneth)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnaryon)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Palin, John Henry

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Compton, Joseph

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Perry, S. F.

  Cove, William G.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Cowan, D. M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Potts, John S.

  Daggar, George

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Price, M. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Denman, Hon. R. O.

  Lang, Gordon

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Dukes, C.

  Lathan, G.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Duncan, Charles

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Haynes, W. R.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Edge, Sir William

  Lawrence, Susan

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawson, John James

  Romeril, H. G.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Leach, W.

  Rowson, Guy

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Foot, Isaac,

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Freeman, Peter

  Lees, J.

  Scott, James

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Scurr, John

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shield, George William

  Gill, T. H.

  Longden, F

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lunn, William

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Calthness)

  Gould, F.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Sinkinson, George

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Smith, Ben (NBermondsey, Rotherhitho)

  Toole, Joseph

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Trevelyan, R. Hon. Sir Charles

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Wilson, C. h. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Viant, S. P.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Winterton, G.E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Wood, Major McKenzle(Banff)

  Sorenson, R.

  Walson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Strauss, G. R.

  Westwood, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  White, H. G.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Whiteley, Wilfris (Birm., Ladywood)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon

  Sir D. MACLEAN: Before the House proceeds any further I want, if I may, to make a suggestion. Of course, I must move to report Progress in order to put myself in order. I have noticed that, notwithstanding the boisterousness and the vigour with which the debate has been conducted, there has been an underlying feeling of good humour. I venture to make a suggestion to the Government that they might be content with one more Amendment on this Clause, and I would suggest to the Opposition that, as no doubt they attach importance to some of the other Amendments, some agreement might be come to between the two Front Benches through the usual channels that the debate, when it is resumed, may be kept within reasonable limits.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman should move that I do leave the Chair.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair"
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important in this House that, as far as possible, you should have debates carried on in a good temper. I am prepared to be content with the next very important Amendment, on the general understanding, however, that we get through the rest of the Amendments on this Clause very rapidly when we meet again. [Interruption.] I understand from the Opposition that they are willing to agree to that. If I get the assurance that we can make very rapid progress with the rest of this Clause, then I shall be prepared to report Progress after the next Amendment.
  Mr. S. BALDWIN: I welcome the suggestion that has been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) is an old Parliamentary hand and most of us are grateful
  2190
  to him for the suggestion which he has made. I am obliged to the President of the Board of Education, and, if I understand him aright, his proposal is that we take the next Amendment and that we adjourn, and on our part we undertake, that there will be no unnecessary delay, and in fact we will get through the rest of the Amendments at a very reasonable rate.
  Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: On Clause 2.
  Mr. BALDWIN: On Clause 2, that is the suggestion.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GRAY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the words "April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one," and to insert thereof the words "September, nineteen hundred and thirty-two."
  I do not propose to take any time in moving this Amendment. It is consequential on the Amendment already passed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir C. Trevelyan.]
  Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Thursday.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven, of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Two o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  CADET CORPS.
  CADET CORPS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL WORKERS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL WORKERS.
  EQUIPMENT, EGYPT.
  EQUIPMENT, EGYPT.
  MILITARY ORGANISATIONS.
  MILITARY ORGANISATIONS.
  TRANSPORTS (CINEMA ENTERTAINMENTS).
  TRANSPORTS (CINEMA ENTERTAINMENTS).
  POISON GAS EXPERIMENTS.
  POISON GAS EXPERIMENTS.
  OATS (SUPPLY).
  OATS (SUPPLY).
  RECRUITING.
  RECRUITING.
SCOTLAND.
  ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, ABERFOYLE- TROSSACHS.
  ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, ABERFOYLE- TROSSACHS.
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION.
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION.
  GRASS SICKNESS.
  GRASS SICKNESS.
  BLIND PERSONS.
  BLIND PERSONS.
  RENT RESTRICTION ACTS (INTER- DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  RENT RESTRICTION ACTS (INTER- DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  MILK SUPPLY, SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  MILK SUPPLY, SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  INSURANCE BENEFIT (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  INSURANCE BENEFIT (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  CRIMINAL LUNATIC DEPARTMENT (INMATES).
  CRIMINAL LUNATIC DEPARTMENT (INMATES).
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  INFANT MORTALITY.
  INFANT MORTALITY.
  TEACHERS (EXCHANGES, DOMINIONS).
  TEACHERS (EXCHANGES, DOMINIONS).
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
  MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.
  OSPREY (DESTRUCTION).
  OSPREY (DESTRUCTION).
POST OFFICE.
  LETTERS (DELIVERY).
  LETTERS (DELIVERY).
  EMPLOYÉS (PAY).
  EMPLOYÉS (PAY).
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE AGREMMENTS (OFFICERS, BRITISH FORCES).
  TELEPHONE AGREMMENTS (OFFICERS, BRITISH FORCES).
  RURAL TELEPHONES, ESSEX.
  RURAL TELEPHONES, ESSEX.
  CHRISTMAS MAILS, ELTHAM.
  CHRISTMAS MAILS, ELTHAM.
  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
BROADCASTING.
  EMPIRE NEWS BULLETINS.
  EMPIRE NEWS BULLETINS.
  LICENCES (REVENUE).
  LICENCES (REVENUE).
  BREAD (PRICE, PARIS).
  BREAD (PRICE, PARIS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  WORK SCHEMES.
  WORK SCHEMES.
  WAR OFFICE (ACCOMMODATION).
  WAR OFFICE (ACCOMMODATION).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  LEAFLET (DISTRIBUTION, BRITISH FORCES).
  LEAFLET (DISTRIBUTION, BRITISH FORCES).
  PADDINGTON ESTATE.
  PADDINGTON ESTATE.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).
  TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).
  HOUSING (LOCAL LOANS).
  HOUSING (LOCAL LOANS).
  IRAQ (ARMY AND LEVIES).
  IRAQ (ARMY AND LEVIES).
  KENYA (IMMIGRATION).
  KENYA (IMMIGRATION).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  ROYALTIES.
  ROYALTIES.
  BOYS (EMPLOYMENT IN MINES).
  BOYS (EMPLOYMENT IN MINES).
  MINING REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  MINING REGULATIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  COLLIERY, LLANELLY.
  COLLIERY, LLANELLY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  COTTON INDUSTRY.
  DYESTUFFS ACT.
  DYESTUFFS ACT.
  WORLD TRADE (BRITISH SHARE).
  WORLD TRADE (BRITISH SHARE).
  GLOVE-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  GLOVE-MAKING INDUSTRY.
  FORCED LABOUR.
  FORCED LABOUR.
  RUSSIAN OATS (LANDINGS, BELFAST).
  RUSSIAN OATS (LANDINGS, BELFAST).
  MISSION, SOUTH AMERICA.
  MISSION, SOUTH AMERICA.
  FOREIGN WARSHIP BUILDING.
  FOREIGN WARSHIP BUILDING.
  BRICKS (PRICE).
  BRICKS (PRICE).
  ARMAMENTS.
  ARMAMENTS.
  NAVAL SCHOOLMASTERS (PENSIONS).
  NAVAL SCHOOLMASTERS (PENSIONS).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD BRIDGE, LLANDAFF NORTH.
  ROAD BRIDGE, LLANDAFF NORTH.
  ROAD SIGNS.
  ROAD SIGNS.
  SHOOTER'S HILL BY-PASS.
  SHOOTER'S HILL BY-PASS.
  ALIEN MOTOR CAB DRIVERS.
  ALIEN MOTOR CAB DRIVERS.
  IMPORTED FRUIT PULP (EXAMINATION).
  IMPORTED FRUIT PULP (EXAMINATION).
POOR LAW.
  CASUALS (DIETARY).
  CASUALS (DIETARY).
  VAGRANCY COMMITTES.
  VAGRANCY COMMITTES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR OH the Woolsack.
DUMFRIES WATERWORKS ORDER (CONFIRMATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the offices of clerk of the county council and clerk of the peace of counties and to persons holding those offices; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ALDERSHOT DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (GODALMING TRANSFER, Etc.) ORDER, 1930.
ASHBOURNE RURAL AND SUDBURY DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
HAZEL GROVE AND BRAMHALL ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
CLECKHEATON AND LIVERSEDGE ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1930.
SOUTH-WEST NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
EAST CORNWALL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
HAMILTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
LLANFRECHFA UPPER ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
CARLISLE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
PORTHCAWL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
WHITEHAVEN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER., 1930.
PORTSMOUTH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
GRANTOWN-ON-SPEY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
LATHOM AND BURSCOUGH SKELMERSDALE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had the following Notice on the Paper—To call attention to the Report of the Imperial Conference; and to move the following Resolution: That this House deplores the refusal of His Majesty's Government to respond to the advances made by the Prime Ministers of the Dominions towards closer fiscal relations, and condemns their failure to grasp the opportunity of strengthening the ties which link together the several parts of the British Empire.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in bringing before the House a subject which was matter of debate in another place only five or six days ago I make no apology whatever. In the first place there are in your Lordships' House members qualified by long experience in Imperial affairs to express an opinion which shall carry weight in the country; and, in the second place, it will not, I think, be quite so easy in the atmosphere of this House for the Government to ride off on the cheap personalities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or on the wilful perversion of the subject matter of the Motion which characterised the speech of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs I shall endeavour to formulate the complaint which I make against His Majesty's Government in terms which even they will be able to understand. I ask your

371
Lordships to say that His Majesty's Government, by their mismanagement of the recent Imperial Conference, have, in the first place, thrown aside in time of deep industrial depression, a golden opportunity of improving the markets for British manufactures beyond the seas. And I ask your Lordships, secondly, to say that, in so doing, they have at the same time failed to grasp the opportunity of cementing the Empire with the Imperial bonds of closer economic association at the very moment when, by resolutions on the constitutional side, those bonds were most in need of reinforcement and of strengthening.
The Resolution refers to the advances made by the Prime Ministers of the Dominions towards closer fiscal relations, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, for a few moments, I remind the House of what those advances were. I am not suggesting that His Majesty's Government were to blame because they did not instantly accept in terms the specific suggestion which Mr. Bennett put forward with regard to Preference between Canada and this country. Mr. Bennett himself made it clear that it was a matter which would require adjustment, that it was not a final and rigid proposal, and that it would want some months of careful examination to put it into final shape. What I am asking your Lordships to condemn is the failure to accept the advances which were made by every one of the Dominions towards the great principle of Empire Preference, which, as each and all of them took pains to affirm, could be done effectively only in one way—namely, by creating a Preference in favour of Empire goods.
Those words I find in the speech which was made by Mr. Bennett, which appears as an annex to the only Official Report which so far has been published of the proceedings of the Conference. Your Lordships will remember that in this Report there appears as an annex verbatim statements of each and every one of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions at what was called the second plenary session, but which was in fact the first business session of the Conference. It is a remarkable and significant fact that one speech only is omitted from that. annex, and that is the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the
372
Dominions, on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I shall hope, in the course of a few moments, to indicate to your Lordships some reasons why that speech was omitted, with great discretion, from this document.
Mr. Bennett, as I have said, pro-posed—
"that we of the British Empire, in our joint and several interests, do subscribe to the principle of an Empire Preference, and that we take, without delay, the steps necessary to put it into effective operation."
To that invitation, Mr. Scullin, who spoke next, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, gave his unqualified adherence:—
"I entirely agree with Mr. Bennett"—
said Mr. Scullin—
"that we must come to some decision on that principle "—
the principle of Preference—
"…it is our duty at this Conference first of all to affirm the maintenance of that principle and the extension of its operation."
A little later on in his speech he said:—
"I must definitely declare that tariff Preference is, in our opinion, much the most satisfactory form of help."
He was followed by Mr. Forbes, of New Zealand, and Mr. Forbes, after a careful and interesting analysis of Empire trade, went on to say:—
"in my opinion, the most important and effective method of increasing inter-Imperial trade is by means of tariff Preferences."
Then followed Mr. Havenga, of South Africa, who, in these terms, expressed his opinion—
"As our Prime Minister has already stated, South Africa would welcome the extension of trade relations in the Commonwealth by agreements providing for reciprocal tariff benefits, and let me add that it will be necessary, if these agreements are arrived at, that they be for sufficiently lengthy periods to give confidence and to ensure stability. I hope, Sir"—
said Mr. Havenga—
"that this will be considered as a definite. Suggestion…"
Sir Richard Squires, Prime Minister of Newfoundland—I think the only Dominion beyond the seas which has not in fact accorded a Preference to British goods—said:—
"I join with him"—

373
that is, with Mr. Bennett—
"and the other distinguished Empire leaders who have preceded me in their view that now is the time for action; that this is the body to which not only the entire Empire, but the whole world, is looking for constructive thought; not merely thought expressed in polislied periods, but thought expressed in action. The policy of imperial Preference, so ably indicated by Mr. Bennett, will certainly have the enthusiastic support of Newfoundland."
It is not necessary for me, in view of those quotations, to reiterate that every one of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions overseas united in saying that they had come to this country, not for the discussion of abstract propositions, but for action; that they had come with one common end in view and with one common opinion, whatever else they might differ about—that the policy of Imperial Preference was essential for the closer economic association of the Empire and that by means of tariffs that Imperial Preference could be best brought about.
I have said that there was a remarkable omission. We find in the document no trace of any speech on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Fortunately, memories are not quite so short as the Socialist Government might sometimes hope, and it is easy, by referring to the newspapers of pot many weeks ago, to remind ourselves of what it was that Mr. Thomas had said before these speeches were made. Mr. Thomas had explained that the 1926 Conference had been mainly occupied with constitutional problems. He went on to explain, in my judgment rightly to explain, that in his opinion it is best —I think I must try to find the exact phrase, if I can—at any rate it is fitting (these are very nearly his words) that we should not only stress, but frankly realise, that it is in the economic field that our constituents are looking for guidance. He did not stop there. He went on to an analysis of the trade of this country and of the Empire both with foreign countries and between the various parts of the Empire. He pointed out that to-day there are being imported into our Dominions beyond the seas not less than £235,000,000 worth of manufactured goods from foreign countries and, Mr. Thomas added, there was no reason why a great part of those £235,000,000 worth of goods should not be
374
produced in and imported from this country. On the other side, he pointed out that we in this country imported not less than £467,000,000 worth of food and raw materials from foreign countries, and that there was, in his opinion, no reason why a great part of that £467,000,000 worth should not be produced in and exported from our own Dominions beyond the seas.
Having brought those striking figures to the attention of the Conference, he went on to say:—
"…we are faced this morning with one short question—that is…how far can we devise ways and means at this Conference which will enable us to say that practical steps have been taken to increase this volume of trade to the mutual advantage of us all? "
He went on—
"The world outside, and especially our people, Sir—
that meant the people of this country—
"are looking to this Conference for guidance, for help, for a lead. There are people in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in every Dominion, who are suffering to-day and who are building up hopes that something will emerge from this Conference. We must not let them down."
The indictment which I bring against His Majesty's Government is that, thanks to their obstinacy and mismanagement, nothing emerged from the Conference, and that the failure which Mr. Thomas said must not happen has, in fact, occurred, and that, in his own words, the Government have "let down" the people of this country and the people of the Dominions.
It was on the 8th of October that that meeting took place. What happened is recorded in the Report of the Imperial Conference after that date. On the 9th October another meeting was held, at which the sinister figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared. Matters were adjourned till the following Monday, 13th October, and on the 13th October we read in the summary of proceedings that His Majesty's Government suggested that there were other methods—that is, other methods beyond taxes in this country—worthy of examination by which the common object of increasing inter-Imperial trade might be attained. In this connection mention was made of quotas, import boards, bulk

375
purchase, direct exchange of commodities, the promotion of agreements between industrialists, and improved machinery for inter-Commonwealth wellbeing in economic matters.
The Report leads one to believe that at that time, or about that time, His Majesty's Government had intimated a refusal of the policy of tariff Preference for which the Dominions had all asked. I cannot think that that is a correct deduction from the subsequent history of events, and I say that because I find that two days after the 13th October, on the 15th October, Mr. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada, was broadcasting to the people of this country, and he said that in the near future his proposals would either be accepted or rejected. He added:—
"We can only await the decision, which will be a momentous one, for I believe that if the opportunity of closer Empire economic relations is not seized, it may not occur again."
It is plain that on the 15th October, at any rate, Mr. Bennett had no idea that any intimation had been given of the decision of His Majesty's Government. On the 22nd October, a week later, General Hertzog, the Prime Minister of South Africa, was broadcasting, and he said:—
"While it must be clear to everybody that once more the conflict between Free Trade and Protection for Great Britain has to be decided on, and that upon this decision must to a large extent depend the economic policy which in future will obtain within the Commonwealth, we, in the Dominions, whatever that decision may be, and however much we may thereby eventually feel ourselves disappointed in our hopes, will have no quarrel with anybody."
Obviously, General Hertzog, on the 22nd October, did not think that a decision had been reached. But we have more authoritative and more recent information that I am correct in that view, because only this morning, in the very remarkable statement published by Mr. Bennett, we find that he says that Mr. Thomas has condemned his proposals and the principles which he put forward, despite the fact that during the whole period of the Conference there was seriously discussed neither the principle of tariff Preferences nor his (Mr. Bennett's) plans to make them operative. In fact, we see from the Conference Report itself that when mention was
376
made of these other alternatives, an Economic Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Mr. William Graham to examine into these alternatives, but not, my Lords, to be allowed to examine into the one method which every Dominion had said was the one effective method—namely, the question of tariff Preference. That was excluded from the consideration of the Economic Committee altogether.
If I may pause there I say that up to that point His Majesty's Government stand self-condemned. They knew six months ago that this Conference was going to take place. They knew that the Dominions were coming to discuss practical measures, and that the Dominions at least desired a tariff Preference. They had declared in the House of Commons that when the Conference met nothing would be excluded from discussion, that everything should be open for examination and inquiry, and yet, when these Prime Ministers make the one proposal which the Government knew they were going to put forward and press, that proposal is never even examined or discussed in the Conference, and the Government had made up their mind in advance apparently to shut their ears to all entreaty, to refuse to allow all argument on this, the one thing about which the Dominions were agreed, and they had not thought it worth while to prepare any alternative scheme to be considered by the Conference. What they did was to set up an Economic Committee, which was to examine the various measures of which mention was made, to run a kind of debating society or study circle in order to investigate these matters, but with the assurance that whatever result was reached by the Committee His Majesty's Government were going to be very careful to see that nothing was arranged, and that nothing practical emerged.
I say that. because we find that the Committee, in fact, did report that there were possibilities in the quota scheme, which had long been under examination by the Party to which I have the honour to belong, and that as soon as they reported to that effect, instead of finding the Government of the United Kingdom, which had mentioned the quota scheme, ready to embrace it and go forward with it, they found that it had only been

377
mentioned as a hypothetical and contingent matter, which might be the subject of examination, but which must on no account be a matter of decision. These Dominion Premiers had come thousands of miles to attend this Conference. They had left their own countries for periods in some cases of more than half a year. They had travelled for thousands of miles at a time when, in many cases, conditions were critical for themselves and for their countries at home, and they had done so, not in the hope of having an interesting abstract discussion with Mr. Graham, but in the hope of carrying forward some practical step for the closer economic association of the Empire. That they were baulked in that hope, that they went back disappointed and disillusioned, is due to one thing only—that is, to the obstinacy, to the lack of vision and to the lack of preparation by the Government whose misconduct I am indicting before your Lordships this evening.
Let us see what happened after the 8th of October. I have said that no official intimation seems to have been given to the Dominions that their proposals were either to be accepted or rejected. They were left outside the pale of discussion. But unofficial intimations were not lacking. On the 9th of October—the day after the proposals had been made—the Daily Herald, the official organ of the Socialist, Party, treated these proposals in its own language as the "very bankruptcy of statesmanship." I thank the Daily Herald for that phrase. On the 13th of October, four days afterwards, Mr. Graham, the very man who had been chosen to be Chairman of this Economic Committee, made a speech, not to the Dominion Prime Ministers, but away up in Edinburgh, on a platform, where he was careful to announce that he was satisfied that there was no remedy what-ever in tariffs. A week later Mr. Snowden was on the war path, and on the 20th of October Mr. Snowden made a speech at Manchester, in which he said that in his experience and his knowledge any attempt to introduce Protection or tariffs was not a genuine effort to improve economic conditions, but could only be regarded as a sinister attack on wages. And he said that if such a system were introduced into this
378
country, then, he spoke of what he knew of his own experience and knowledge, it would reduce Parliament, in his own elegant phrase, to a "sink of corruption."
It must have been very gratifying to the Labour Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Scullin, to be told that when he advocated Protection he was really embarking upon a sinister attack on the wages of his constituents. It must have been a great gratification to Mr. Bennett, fresh from his Election victory in the Dominion of Canada, to be told that the Canadian Parliament must be regarded as a sink of corruption, and that the only real purity of statesmanship was to be found in a country where the Socialist Government got into power by using public money to bribe the electors with promises which they knew they could not fulfil. I should add that on the 21st October Mr. Snowden made another speech, in which he sneered at the value of Dominion trade, because, he said, after all the Dominions were thinly populated. They could not do much good to out manufacturers. They are not really worth troubling about. What you have really got to do is to cultivate such nations as China with a population of 400,000,000, or some of those European nations who have many millions and who can consume our goods.
Is it surprising that on the 22nd of October The Times came out with a statement that, after Mr. Snowden's speeches, any idea of Imperial Preference must be regarded as definitely ruled out? Is it surprising that four days afterwards, Mr. Forbes, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, speaking at Oxford, said of the Conference:—
"We simply seem to be drifting and not setting anywhere. Instead of food taxes, the Government is suggesting theoretical problems. We are practical people in the Antipodes. We know things which will work and have worked, but we look upon theoretical things with some suspicion. The attitude of the Government, therefore, leaves little hope of unanimity. In adopting Mr. Snowden's view of Preferential tariffs the Government has, in my opinion, precluded any hope of real progress."
Mr. Forbes' prophecy, gloomy as it sounded, has been amply justified by the event. In fact, as we now know, the Government never intended to consider any question of Imperial Preference seriously at all. We know from the

379
elegant phraseology of the Secretary of State for the Dominions in another place, that they regarded the proposal which Mr. Bennett put forward as "humbug"—an offensive and a wholly unjustified phrase.
But it is not surprising that Mr. Thomas twice repeated that phrase in that debate. It was still less surprising that he was defended by Mr. Snowden in the use of that phrase, because we have only to look back a few more months—to April of last year—to find Mr. Snowden, not in the heat of debate, but in the course of an article, writing: "All this talk about Imperial Preference is the merest bunkum." Between "humbug" and "bunkum" there is not very much to choose. What hope had the Dominion Prime Ministers of any serious consideration of the proposal they had come all this way to discuss, when we find that before they had ever arrived the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whose iron will apparently dominated his colleagues in the Cabinet—had already made up his mind that all this talk of Imperial Preference was mere bunkum and was not worthy of any serious consideration?
If one looks, not from the prejudiced view of a Socialist Party leader, but dispassionately, on the merits of his proposal, I think one would arrive at a very different conclusion from that which Mr. Thomas so easily reached. I do not want to embark on a prolonged fiscal controversy this afternoon, but just for a few moments let us look at the fiscal aspect. We know—this at least is common ground on both sides—that on our export trade we as an industrial nation depend for our very existence. We cannot pay for the food we eat, for the clothes we wear, for the raw materials which we consume, unless we are able to maintain our export trade. We know—statistics prove it—that for years our export trade has been dropping, not only absolutely but relatively, compared to the rest of the world. Before the War, in 1913, our volume of the world's trade was about 14 per cent. In 1928 it had fallen to 10½ per cent. If we look at the days of economic depression through which we are now passing, we find that within the first nine months of this year our exports—exported manufactures—have fallen by some £87,000,000. Imports of raw material, which are perhaps the best
380
gauge of what our future manufactures are likely to be, have fallen by £55,000,000. Our imports of foreign manufactured goods have fallen only by £16,000,000, which probably is mainly represented by the fall in values which has taken place. We find that, for the first time in history, the second place, to which we had been relegated a few years ago by the United States, has been taken from us by Germany, and that Germany now out-tops our exports of manufactured goods.
These are signs which no responsible statesman can afford to ignore. We must find some means of increasing our markets overseas. Where is the best chance of increasing those markets? Mr. Snowden says: "Do not trouble about the Dominions; they are a sparsely populated part of the world. Go to China or India or some of the more densely populated parts." But there is no sign in the people of China of any anxiety to give Preference to British goods, there is no sign from any of our immediate neighbours in Europe that their tariff walls are being lowered in order to enable British manufactures to find free entrance within their markets. There is one part of the world, and only one, which shows itself not only ready but anxious to extend our trade with their people and to open their markets to our goods, and that part is the Dominions overseas. True it is, as Mr. Snowden has said, that they are thinly populated, but in that very fact, if Mr. Snowden had a little less bigotry and a little more vision, he would see the greatest hope for expansion, rather than a reason for the contemptuous rejection of their offer.
If Mr. Snowden had read—I suppose he has read it, but if he had studied and considered the Report of this very Imperial Conference, he would have found that a Committee was set up to deal with the problem of overseas settlement, and that the Committee made a Report which the Conference unanimously adopted, and which may therefore be regarded as expressing the considered view of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The resolution of the Conference ran in these terms:—
"The Conference is of opinion that the problem of the better distribution of the white population of the British Common-

381
wealth continues to be a question of paramount importance for the British Commonwealth as a whole."
What does that mean? It means that, in the considered opinion of all the Dominions and of this country, the prospect of encouraging migration from these over-densely populated islands to the great open spaces of the Dominions is a matter of paramount importance both for them and for us. The resolution goes on to say:—
"its successful solution depends upon the availability of adequate markets for the products of the Empire and of sufficient capital for the development of its resources."
On their own view, therefore, the one way of encouraging migration, of populating the Dominions and relieving the congestion at home, is by the provision of adequate markets for the products of the Empire.
The very object of the proposals which the Dominions brought forward—and 'which, after all, they may be allowed to know something about, because it depends upon finding a market for their own products—the very purpose of their proposals was that, in this vast market in the United Kingdom, adequate provision might be made for consuming the products of the Empire, and that those adequate markets of which this resolution speaks might be found. Do the Government mean what they say when they say that this problem is one of paramount importance for this country I If they had just a little vision, must they not have seen that, as Mr. Thomas has said, with this £460,000,000 worth of goods, food and raw materials pouring into this country, which might largely be produced in the Dominions, the right way of securing the population of the Dominions, and consequently of securing markets for our goods in the Dominions is to encourage the Dominions to produce this food and these raw materials by assuring them of a market within the United Kingdom when the goods were produced?
I have said that, for Mr. Snowden and for Mr. Thomas, this matter of Imperial Preference is "bunkum" and "humbug," but I would remind your Lordships that this at least is not the view either of the Dominion Prime Ministers on the one hand or, on the other hand, of the commercial community at home.
382
Mr. Scullin, in the same speech, pointed out that in Australia alone some £28,000,000 worth of British goods were received which, if they had been foreign, would have had to pay over £7,000,000 worth of duty, and that this £28,000,000 represents nearly half the total exports from this country to Australia. The Balfour Committee, which was set up to inquire into problems of trade and industry, unanimously reported in these terms:—
"The figures of Empire trade, supported as they are by the testimony of the trade witnesses who appeared before us, are amply sufficient to show the great value and importance to British traders of the preferential access which they enjoy to certain Empire markets. In view of the facts, it cannot admit of doubt that the preservation and development of these advantages must he one of the cardinal objects of British commercial policy."
And, in face of that Report, His Majesty's Government, which professes to be concerned with the unemployment in this country, turns down without examination the only practical proposal put forward for that development and the maintenance of that Preference! On the economic and fiscal ground alone I venture to submit that I have made out my case.
I pass to another consideration. I find that I am taking up rather more time than I had hoped, and I apologise to your Lordships, but I take leave to add that, to my mind, the matter on which we are engaged is a matter of paramount importance to this country and to the Empire as a whole. I pass to the second Imperial aspect. Again I have to remind your Lordships of one or two elementary facts. In 1926, as Mr. Thomas told us, the constitutional aspect of relationship between the various parts of the Empire occupied a great part of the time of the Conference. Decisions were reached which were embodied in a series of resolutions, which established beyond all doubt the entire equality of status of all parts of the Empire and the Mother Country. In 1929 an expert Committee was set up in order to consider the reduction into Statute form of the resolutions that had then been passed, and this year the Conference, on its constitutional side, was largely occupied with considering and giving effect to those resolutions.
I do not desire to discuss whether or not those steps were altogether wise or prudent. I confess to feeling some mis-

383
giving, which I gather that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has also felt, to judge from the speech that he made last week, as to the wisdom of trying to put into Statute form all these great constitutional relations between this country and the other parts of the Empire. I think there is a real danger in attempting to reduce into a permanent and crystallised form what is necessarily a matter of organic and consistent growth. But, however that may be, the thing was done, the Statute of Westminster was framed and was agreed to by all the Dominions, and henceforth, from the passage into law of that Statute, whenever it comes forward, there will remain no trace of any legal bond between the Dominions and ourselves other than the fact of our common allegiance to His Majesty the King.
This being established, it became essential, in my judgment, to find something to take the place of those legal bonds which would cement and secure the Empire against the risk of distintegration and absolute dissolution. The Prime Minister, in an eloquent period, the other day spoke of the bonds which united us as being the "magnificence of human co-operation and human sympathy." Whether or not the language used by the Secretary of State for the Dominions is exactly what I should regard as an expression of human sympathy for the Dominions, is open to question. Whether or not the best way of securing human co-operation is to close the door to any form of economic association may even more be open to question; but at least we have this fact, that the legal bonds having disappeared, it was an act, not of supreme wisdom but of elementary common-sense, to try to find some other material bonds to take their place, and we found in the language of Mr. Bennett appreciation of that fact, and, in the acceptance of the proposal by the Prime Ministers of the other Dominions, evidence that they too saw the importance of what ought to be done.
I know, and it has often been mentioned before, that the great high priest of the Free Trade covenant desired to see the Empire destroyed. One of his avowed purposes in bringing forward Free Trade was because it was bound, as he told us, to loosen the bonds of Empire and
384
separate us, sooner or later, inevitably and gradually from the Colonies. He regarded that as a desirable thing. The present Government adopt his policy of Free Trade. Have we not a right to ask of them: Yes or No, do they also adopt his ideal of the disintegration of the Empire? If they do, then the country has a right to be told this. If they do not, how comes it that they are advocating and practising a proposal which, in the opinion of their great high priest and Messiah, is bound to lead to a result which, on that hypothesis, they do not desire? Sometimes it seems as if the Party opposite imagined that by a policy of drift they could in some way find safety. They seem to think that our existing Preferences can go on for ever. They are living in a fool's paradise if they think anything of the kind. The German Treaty with South Africa indicated that the Dominions will not wait for ever. Mr. Bennett, in his speech, referred to this and said:—
"The time is now at hand when the doctrine of closer Empire economic association must be embraced, if we would not have it slip for ever beyond our power of recall."
The true conception of the British Empire is that it is not static, but that it is developing and growing always. It can develop in the direction of closer fiscal union until the old legal bonds are replaced by stronger material bonds of economic association. It can, on the other hand, develop, as Cobden foresaw it would, on the lines of loosening those bonds until the Empire is wholly disintegrated, until the chances we have let slide are, in Mr. Bennett's words, gone beyond recall. Does anybody suppose that if any foreign country had been offered the terms which the Dominions pressed upon us, they would have hesitated for twenty-four hours, or even twenty-four minutes? Why is it that we alone are unwilling to accept offers made with such generosity and good will by our own friends beyond the seas, which any other nation would give great advantages to possess? If we will not accept them, if we are adamant in our refusal, and if in our blindness we cling to the outworn shibboleths of Free Trade; if we prefer to the possibilities of a united Empire the chances of an Election Party cry that

385
"your food will cost you more," then indeed the disintegration of the Empire must inevitably follow.
It is not true, of course, that your food will cost you more. They even report in their own Committee, to which Mr. Graham, that orthodox champion, was a party, that:—
"…provided there is free competition in the United Kingdom market among Dominion exporters, the price of Dominion wheat in the United Kingdom could not be raised appreciably above the world price since, as the United Kingdom price tended to shipments to 'Continental ports would be diverted to ports in the United Kingdom."
The truth is that already your food is costing you more, thanks to Free Trade and the extravagances of Socialistic administration. The last time that wheat was at the present price the loaf cost 2½d. less. The reason that it costs more to-day is not that the bakers and the middlemen are making greater profit, but that the burden which legislation has placed upon everybody connected with the process of turning the wheat into the loaf has so raised the cost that your food is costing you more, thanks to Socialism and Free Trade. Imperial Preference will reduce and not raise the price. At any rate it is sufficient for my purpose to say that Socialists admit that if cap-not raise the price. Whatever be the merits of this question, at least this may be said with some certainty, that the question of refusing the offer of the Dominions is not one which was before the people of this country at the last Election.
We know that out of the wrecks of this Conference this scanty salvage has been made by our Dominion brethren. First of all, for three years to conic a possible and contingent offer of a continuance of the existing Preferences has been given, and secondly, arrangements have been made that a Conference on the economic status should he resumed at Ottawa some time towards the end of the next year. What good, however, is the renewal of the Conference at Ottawa If the Socialist Government go there to conduct the negotiations? What is the point of a meeting between the Dominions, who expressly in the closing resolution say that they have not departed from the attitude that tariff Preference is the one effective method of closer economic
386
association, and a United Kingdom deputation, which equally has not departed from its view that Imperial Preference is "humbug" and "bunkum," and injurious to the trade and burdensome to the people of this country? Such a Conference can reach no more profitable conclusion than the barren discussions of the last few weeks. There is one chance only of a more fruitful result, and that is if the people of this country are given a chance of redressing the mistake which the Government of this country have perpetrated on their behalf.
I hear a laugh from noble Lords opposite. At least the only constituency which has had a chance to express an opinion since their action has shown no doubt as to what the verdict would he. I believe that if the people are given an opportunity of expressing their views they will condemn, with no uncertain voice, the narrow-minded bigotry and pedantry of noble Lords opposite. I believe that they will say, if they are given the chance, that the Empire is worth saving even at the cost of a little risk; and that they will not be content with this policy of negation, of doing nothing, this contemptuous rejection of offers which are made by our kith and kin beyond the seas. But, however that may be, at least your Lordships' House is given this opportunity of registering your verdict. You can pronounce to-day, I ask you to pronounce to-day, on the question of whether or not you regard the mismanagement, the lack of preparation, the blindness which have characterised every act of the Government in relation to this economic conference as worthy of condemnation, as to whether or not you are willing to embrace the opportunity which the Dominions offer of building up that closer economic association which they and I at least most ardently desire; and it is in order to give your Lordships that opportunity that I have the honour to move this Resolution this afternoon.
Moved, That this House deplores the refusal of His Majesty's Government to respond to the advances made by the Prime Ministers of the Dominions towards closer fiscal relations, and condemns their failure to grasp the opportunity of strengthening the ties which link together the several parts of the British Empire.—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, "Nothing," said the noble and learned Viscount who has just resumed his seat, "nothing emerged from the Conference." Is that quite correct? It is not my province, and I do not desire personally, to offer any remark upon the economic issues which were debated at the Conference, and I should not have ventured to occupy your time had it not been drat my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, in calling attention to the Report, made certain remarks upon the political questions which were also involved. The fact that it fell to my lot to be the Chairman of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee will, I trust, be sufficient justification for asking your Lordships to hear with me for a few minutes while I draw your attention very briefly to some of the constitutional decisions which may affect the future structure of our Empire.
The Conference of 1926 was fortunate in having as the Chairman of that Committee the late Lord Balfour—a statesman of great political experience and great political sagacity, and, beyond that, a well-known and trusted member in both Houses of Parliament, who was responsible for the famous declaration concerning the equality of status of the great Dominions. May I be permitted, for the first and last time as far as I am concerned, to place that declaration upon the records of this House? It is as follows:—
"There is, however, one most important element which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any respect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Forgive me one more quotation. Lord Balfour said:—
"The rapid evolution of the oversea Dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made it impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it
388
has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the Empire is now master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever."
In order to allay any anxiety which may be felt in the Dominions, let me at once say, speaking as Lord Chancellor and, as I trust, with the approval of this House, that the United Kingdom will not go back upon that declaration. There is no desire to alter a single word in it, or a single implication to be derived from it.
Let me also add, to allay any anxiety which may be felt at home, that, as far as I know, nothing was done at the late Conference to extend or to go beyond that declaration to the prejudice of the United Kingdom. Our problem has been to translate general phrases into concrete practice, and to harmonise equality of status with unity of Empire. The politician, quite rightly no doubt, invents formulas: the trouble is that, although they sound all right at the time, when the lawyer has to translate them into concrete practice at once people are found differing as to their meaning. It is difficult to define the meaning of vague political phrases when applying them to particular conditions and particular situations. While we hope that the work we have done will secure your approval. at any rate I am sure that we shall have your sympathy in our endeavour to discharge the task entrusted to us. Nothing was done at the Conference which was not the legal and logical result of the application of Lord Balfour's declaration. But in my view we ought not to attempt to crystallise our relationship in too many formal documents. Laws and logic are both admirable, but too many laws and too much logic make life impossible.
The Empire will not be maintained merely by Acts of Parliament passed at Westminster or any other great capital city, nor will it be maintained by appeals to national or Imperial selfishness. Everyone of our nations is entitled to preserve its own identity, to develop and to realise its own characteristics and ambitions, while joining in the great common cause—namely, the united wellbeing of our peoples. Even if, therefore, there are some of the younger Dominions who, as a result of the 1926 Declaration, are of opinion that past methods want altering, they ought not to compel any

389
of the older Dominions who are, it may be, content with such methods, to accept any change. Obstructions and hindrances to the development of free national institutions must be removed, and your Lordships will be asked at a later period to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which prevents a Colonial Legislature from passing laws which are repugnant to any Act of Parliament passed by the United Kingdom and extending to each Colony. I will not degrade my argument by asking what sanction exists behind that Act to-day, nor will I weary your Lordships with other technical legal matters. It must be remembered that most of our problems were concerned with setting up the machinery for carrying into effect Lord Balfour's declaration. It is not to be expected that this machinery will run smoothly at first: but time and experience will enable us to make the necessary adjustments.
Your Lordships are well aware that I am a late corner into this House, and that politics have to be learned just as any other science has to be. One thing I will say and that is that at my initiation I was taught to be cautious. It is better to be criticised for expressing doubts—thereby gaining time for further discussion and further deliberation at some future Conference—than to persist in convictions hastily arrived at during a few strenuous weeks, which may result in decisions to be contemplated later with unavailing regrets. Differing as I do from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham on many questions, there is one at any rate, if he will allow me to say so, upon which we are agreed. That is our pride in the great past of our Empire and our belief in its still greater future. But I am not prepared, by taking hasty decisions, to gamble with the British Empire. It is too precious an inheritance.
Who are we that we should despair or be despondent when difficulties arise and face us? Nothing has happened to us but what has happened to all nations who have had extensive Empires. Questions as to nationality, as to an Empire tribunal, as to the form of treaties, as to the applicability of inter-Governmental agreements, as to channels of communication, and many another, cannot be settled in a moment. Other Empires destined to last through the
390
ages were built up by the patient work and thought of generations of statesmen. "Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem." If our Empire were to end tonight, we have no cause to be ashamed of it. We should leave behind us the legacy of our laws, our language and our literature; the impress of our commerce and our civilisation, and a perpetual memory of our achievements both in peace and war. The Empire is not going to end to-night. It will continue as long as we remain true to our trust and faithful to our mission of seeing that justice is done between man and mean, of securing the peace and happiness of millions of cur fellow subjects and of being the guardians and protectors of the poor and the oppressed.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, we have just listened to an address from the Lord Chancellor which, no doubt, had many merits, but one it conspicuously lacked. It was no attempt whatever to answer the speech that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. So far as I could gather from the speech, which, the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack will permit me to say, expressed a great number of noble and irrelevant sentiments, its purpose was to show that the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that nothing has been accomplished at the Conference, was not in accordance with the facts. What I understand was accomplished was that an attempt has been made to put into statutory form a declaration made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in 1926, with which nobody disagreed. We are encouraged to pursue that idea by the promise that when it is done it will not work very well at first. I never in all my life heard such a malediction performed upon the infancy of an Act of Parliament. This Bill, which is to do nothing except to put into the form of a Statute something upon which we are all in agreement, is not going to work well; but in the end something may happen to it. I suppose it may be destroyed. Things which begin ill frequently come to a violent end.
I protest utterly against the theory that you have accomplished anything by putting what is a common understanding into an Act of Parliament. You have done the one thing that you ought not to do.

391
You have attempted to make rigid and difficult of change, relationships which ought to be fluid and capable of being adapted from time to time to the ever-changing circumstances of life. The reason why the Constitution of this country has stood storm after storm is the very fact that it never was in writing. Had it been in writing we should have had, I imagine, revolution after revolution, and I am quite satisfied that we never could have got through the difficult times of the early part of the nineteenth century. The same thing is true of our Common Law. When people refer to the Common Law of England as being what in fact it is, the greatest basis of law that has ever been known to mankind, it is due to its never having been put into an Act of Parliament. Directly you attempt to put into an Act of Parliament any of these provisions it is exactly like cutting a hard sear through a living tissue. The scar can never change. The tissue may grow round it, but the scar remains immovable until you are dead.
I have not heard a single word from the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack to suggest that there was any reason at all why we should have put an understanding which everybody accepted—an understanding which, after all, was strong enough to bring the men from overseas when we needed them—into the formality, and, I add with knowledge and experience, the obscurity of an Act of Parliament. So far as the speech of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack is concerned, that was all he dealt with, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, dealt with ninny other totally different matters. If I disagree with him, as I do, I do not disagree with him as vehemently as I do with the noble Lord on the Woolsack. The truth is that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been, as I think, rather unnecessarily excited by the unguarded utterances of members of the Government.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think by this time he ought to have known that the members of the Government do not always use the same measured language in expressing their opinions that we think desirable, and I am bound to say I think it is rather a pity that too much
392
emphasis has been given to what may have been a casual word—which was certainly an unwise word—used by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. In truth, you have to consider two different things. You have to consider an abstract question and a concrete proposal, and unless you keep the two things quite separate in your minds, grave confusion and misunderstanding are likely to arise. If you come to the abstract principle, there is nothing which can be said in support of it with which I would not agree. The idea that we should seek by every means in our power to establish closer and more intimate commercial relations with all our Dominions and all our Colonies is an ideal which every one of us, I believe, whole-heartedly accepts, and to be just to the Government—because, though it is hard, it is well to be just—I do not think they disagree with it.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What has happened that has caused all this trouble has been the definite practical proposal that was put forward—a proposal that I do not suppose a single person here would have accepted, because it was a proposal by which you should have an additional 3 per cent. on the preferential tariff of our goods going into the Dominion of Canada in exchange for a tax on food. That was the definite proposal. What I think has been the unfortunate part about all this is the fact that the definite practical proposal and the abstract scheme have got confused. I should have said: "We are perfectly willing to discuss every means that can possibly be devised for the purpose of establishing closer, more intimate, more enduring commercial relationships; we take the statement that you make as a suggestion of the road along which we may travel, and along that road we are prepared to go, but to ask us to give up to you what is by far the most important bargaining counter we have in our hands for a 3 per cent, increase of the duty on our goods is to ask us to sacrifice a thing of great value for something ad libitum."
That is the way I think it should have been approached, because I do think this is a thing which must be borne in mind. The tax on food, in order to give effect to any system of Imperial Prefer-

393
ence, must be something of substance. It must be a tax that will exclude, or at any rate must prejudicially hinder, the import of other foreign commodities. That cannot be denied, for otherwise it is valueless. The noble Viscount, I cannot help thinking, gave rein more to his wishes than to his reason when he said that no such tax is going to affect the price of food over here. I say that is a very dangerous possibility on which to base your case. We know that a shilling Preferential Duty on wheat was removed by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer because he thought it did affect the price of food here, but that was a mere triviality compared with the tax wanted now.
There is something more to it than that. I am not prepared myself to say that in no circumstances and for no end ought; you to consent to put a tax on food. I can conceive a situation in which it might be of great advantage. For example, if it were possible to secure by a tax on food that you could place our manufactured goods in the Dominion markets, notably in the Dominion of Canada, in the place which is now filled by goods from the United States of America, I would say that the bargain might be worth striking, and for this reason, that you would then he able to offer to your industrial centres something that would be a definite compensation for the haunting fear, which all possess, that your tax on food is going to raise the price of the first necessity of life without giving them anything in exchange. But it is only on those conditions, to my mind, that the thing should be done, and that is the reason why I say that the rejection of the actual definite offer is not a thing for which the Government ought to be reproved, because I cannot believe that we should bargain away our greatest asset for a thing which, in itself, intrinsically, as it stood, was of such small value. None the less I should like to add that I do not for a moment believe that that was the end of what Mr. Bennett wanted to offer. I believe it was an illustration, a proposal, something definite on which we could proceed to bargain, and I very deeply regret that it should have suffered such severe treatment at the hands of the Government.
394
I have only one or two further remarks to make. I do not think it is wise to suggest that Mr. Cobden, who, I suppose, was the gentleman referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as the Messiah—I do not suppose Mr. Cobden would recognise himself under that name—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble and learned Lord misunderstood me. I referred to him as the person whom the followers of Free Trade doctrines regarded as their Messiah.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Let us put it that way—that he was claimed as the Messiah by his followers. Even then, I think he would have found himself in an extremely awkward position to have been so received. But I do not think that that was at the basis of Mr. Cobden's doctrine. I am not going to argue it again, nor do I think it is wise to take what may have been a statement which had that meaning, and use it as the expression of his considered policy. You must remember, if you do that, you could take statements from the Earl of Beaconsfield which were just as tremendous the other way, and from the other Party. Let the dead politicians, and their dead views in these matters, rest in peace, and let us keep our minds on the thing we have to do. It is said that to continue our present policy is to alienate the Dominions. Is that so clear, and if so, why is it more likely to alienate them than a policy by which our relations a-re defined in terms of commerce which must change and can never be made permanent, which must be constantly needing adjustment, and in the adjustment of which endless causes for differences of feeling and opinion may well arise? It is all hypothesis, but why should you make the hypothesis that pursuit of the present system would lead to the dissolution of the Empire, and the pursuit of another system to its re-integration?
There is only one thing further I have to add, and that I must add in justification of my Free Trade faith. I was literally amazed when I heard the noble and learned Viscount complaining that there is a drop—as there undoubtedly is—in the imports of the things we need for our manufactures and our food, and in the same breath suggesting that you

395
would increase imports by making goods more costly. It seems to me to be the most astonishing proposition I have ever heard. Whatever may have led to the diminution of our imports it certainly is not the fact that they are coming in cheap. I cannot possibly see how you can hope to increase food and raw material by adding to their price at the Custom House. That small excursus into what is now the unpopular region of Free Trade may perhaps be forgiven me, because, in spite of what I have said with regard to relations between ourselves and Canada, I still am essentially a Free Trader, and the only reason why I suggest that there should be any modification of that system is that by reason of that modification you may be able to get something which, under the present system, you cannot obtain.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, after the eloquent speeches from the three noble and learned Lords who have spoken I rise with considerable diffidence, especially having regard to the fact that one of them is the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and that the other two noble and learned Lords who have spoken have occupied that dignified and important position in former times. I would not have ventured to take part in this debate to-day if it had not been for the fact that this is a subject in which I have taken particular interest and of which I have made a very special study. As late as the 17th July in your Lordships' House, in a speech which I made on the subject of the Imperial Conference, I expressed my grave anxiety at the attitude adopted at that time by His Majesty's Government in regard to that Conference. On that occasion, from this side of the House, we discussed the whole position in which that Conference should be called. We asserted that when that Conference assembled it must be a tied Conference. In ending that debate I ventured to suggest that if, owing to the attitude of His Majesty's Government, it was going to be a tied Conference, it would be better that the Conference should be put off for six months or a year, until the Government in this country were prepared to go into the Conference absolutely untied and ready to discuss every side of the economic problems that would arise.
396
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack reproached the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for saying that the Conference had accomplished nothing. I venture to suggest that when that Conference assembled, those who came from overseas, the Dominion Premiers and other representatives, came here with their hearts full of hope and with a desire to discuss, not those questions of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us, but particularly to discuss economic problems. To-day the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said: "I am not going to deal with those questions, with economic questions, I am going to tell you about the others." It is rather like asking a man to think about his clothes when he is starving. I do not wish to traverse all the steps through which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has led us and through which he has informed us of the result of that Conference. But I cannot help referring to one or two points.
First of all His Majesty's Government stated in unequivocal terms before the Conference that they were willing to discuss every issue connected with the economic problem. What happened at the Conference? At the very beginning of the Conference the Canadian Prime Minister made a proposal on the lines of Imperial Preference. All the other Prime Ministers supported that proposal. The Conference continued, and His Majesty's Government gave no word of what they thought of that particular proposal. They did not consider it at all. Three weeks afterwards, about the 17th October, they suddenly informed the Conference that they would have nothing to do with any proposal which involved the taxation of foodstuffs or raw materials. In the meantime the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, much against his will, as we have been led to believe, informed the Conference that he was prepared to consider the question of a quota for wheat. Now, that question, together with import boards, bulk purchase and so on, was referred to the Economic Committee, and I find on reference to the summary of the proceedings which has been issued, that that Committee considered practically nothing else but that question of the quota. That was stated quite categorically in the sum-

397
mary of proceedings. Not only that; they made definite proposals with regard to the quota in two or three pages of this summary, ending up with an outline of a plan for the institution of the quota.
They practically recommended—and I have read this very carefully two or three times—the institution of the quota system, whilst in no way abandoning their position so far as Preference was concerned. They made that recommendation with regard to wheat—and to wheat only, I admit—but still the proposal originated in the first instance from His Majesty's Government. What did His Majesty's Government do after that recommendation was made? They said: "We will refer this subject to another Conference." A debate took place last week in another Place to which reference has already been made. The right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, described the proposals made by the Prime Minister of Canada in terms which, I think, everyone in this House will regard as self-condemned, and I feel certain that no fair-minded man or woman in this country will in any way resent the statement that was issued by Mr. Bennett this morning in response to the expressions which were used in the House of Commons last week.
I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, and I was in the first instance pleased to think that, speaking as he did from the Liberal Benches, he was seeing the light of salvation in this matter of Empire policy. In fact, I was amazed to hear the noble and learned Lord say that, in the event of this country receiving certain considerations in return for a tax on food, he would be prepared to accept that situation; and he went on to say—to be perfectly just to him—that he was influenced by the possibility of what might occur in Canada think he had that Dominion particularly in mind) in case that principle were not accepted. I agree with him entirely. Mr. Bennett, in the statement that he issued to-day, hints in the last few lines at what might happen. We know that to the south of Canada there are the great thriving United States of America, which are seeking to advance their trade interests daily and hourly in Canada. How is
398
Canada going to resist those advances unless she has a counter-action? The only counter-action she can find is in this country, and that is why Mr. Bennett has come to this country and has put forward these proposals, in the hope that he might find that counter-action.
But the noble and learned Lord, who, as I said, I regret is not now in his place, referred to the proposal which Mr. Bennett made at the Conference as a definite proposal, and he said that he could quite understand the Government's feelings in rejecting that proposal when it only meant an addition of 3 per cent. of duty on goods imported into Canada. I should like to read an extract from Mr. Bennett's statement, published this morning, from which your Lordships will observe that the proposal was not a definite proposal, but was put forward as a basis for negotiation and might he modified or increased according to the circumstances. He used these words:—
"To crystallise the terms of my proposal, and to provide a basis for discussion, I made a concrete offer of reciprocal and what believe to be mutually advantageous tariff Preferences. At the time I was careful to point out"—
it is this that I wish to emphasise—
"the need of ensuring a certain flexibility in the tariff, and I said that the unit of preference suggested would necessarily be modified or increased in relation to different classes of commodities. On many other occasions I have made clear my views on this point."
I hope therefore that the point is not going to be emphasised over and over again in a wrong sense, as has already been done in this debate.
What is going to happen if a Conference assembles in Ottawa next year, and His Majesty's present Government are in office then and attend that Conference? We have had from Mr. Bennett, in that statement, an intimation that, in any event, Canada is prepared to negotiate with the other Dominions for inter-Imperial trade upon a preferential basis. We have further a cabled report of a statement made by General Hertzog to the Cape Times yesterday to the effect that the Union had been negotiating for special trade agreements with Canada and Australia, and was prepared to negotiate with any of the Dominions. Canada might offer a good market for South African wines, maize and sugar, and Australia for tobacco, Australia be-

399
ing anxious to develop her wheat exports to this country. His Majesty's Government have definitely told the Imperial Conference that they will not accept any extension of preferential duties on foodstuffs and raw materials. They have—and I want to give them every credit for what they have done—agreed to maintain the present range of Imperial Preferences for three years, subject to Parliament's control. They will arrive in Ottawa absolutely hand-tied again, with a policy which is quite negative, so far as the interests of the Ottawa Conference are concerned, and with a policy which will lead them nowhere at all.
What will happen then? The other Dominions will get together and will form trade agreements between themselves: they will form an economic unity as between the other parts of the Empire, leaving the United Kingdom out and leaving her in the humiliating position of having no interest in the matter whatsoever. When did Great Britain give up leading the Empire? Great Britain gave up leading the Empire when His Majesty's Government came into office, and I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government that the time has come when they should ask the electors of this country to decide whether this country desires to consider and to adopt proposals of the nature of those put forward by the Dominion Premiers at this great Conference. There are absolutely clear-cut principles that emerge from this Conference. The Dominions say definitely, and they know what they want, that the only thing that is going to help them is Imperial Preference. It is no good going to Ottawa unless you accept that principle, and will accept the extension of that principle.
I venture to believe that in these days when unemployment is still leaping up, when in spite of apparent prosperity owing to the "dole," and because of the general spirit of determination which pervades the character of our people—I venture to think that the time has arrived when we must get together with the Empire. If you look at the Empire, at Canada, Australia, Tasmania and Newfoundland, with their great resources and their growing populations—populations which are only in their infancy—then, as the noble Viscount has said, I
400
cannot imagine any country in the world, whether France, or Germany, or any other country, who would push away the chances that we have to-day of developing our Empire. This is a matter which cannot wait. The Dominions are determined that they themselves are at the parting of the way. If they are at the parting of the way, then we are at the parting of the way, and unless we enter to-day into ties, commercial as well as sentimental, I can see nothing but disaster for this country and disintegration for the Empire. Personally, I shall have the greatest pleasure in going into the Lobby in support of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, if he presses his Motion to a Division.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I think it is my duty, if I can, to try to bring the debate back to the point at which it started, because, without wishing to reflect upon the speech which we have just heard, or upon other speeches, the debate which has taken place seems to me to be a little apart from the particular indictment brought by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I do not say that in any sense the debate has been out of order, but I am going to try to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, a little more closely, although at this hour I shall have considerably to telescope what I have to say.
If he will allow me I would say that I was amazed at the skill and success with which he framed his indictment. I know, of course, that the noble Viscount is a past master at that sort of thing, but I venture to point, out to your Lordships that the success was achieved by a constant assuming of the facts which were a basis of the indictment. We are in a difficulty about those facts, because most of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference took place in the meetings of the heads of delegations. There, we were constantly having the most frank and open discussions, but those meetings are confidential. The plan of the Conference, as it has been at previous Conferences, is to confine the plenary Conferences more or less to the oration side of the proceedings, and for the real discussions to go into Committee and to confine the Committee to the heads of delegations and others brought over to deal with special points.

401
Those proceedings are confidential, and it would be wrong for me actually to quote anything that happened there. Consequently the noble Viscount had no means of knowing what took place in those Committees, but it has been open to him to assume the facts upon which he indicted us. For instance, one of the long criticisms of the Government which he made was that they did not give any proper or serious discussion to the proposals of the Dominion Premiers, especially to Mr. Bennett's proposal; that the Economic Committee, for instance, was not allowed to examine tariff Preference; that the Government were determined not to allow discussion of this; and that no answer was given to the Premiers as to the decision of the Government for a very long time, although His Majesty's Ministers were speaking in the country. The noble Viscount assumed—I do not say without any justification—that no answer had been given to the Dominion Premiers, and when he finds in a summary of the proceedings the statement which the Government had put in at a very late day, he assumes that it had not been put in before, or mentioned before. We were always discussing, and although that statement was not in a written form put in until a late day, it is not open to the noble Viscount to assume that no answer was given. How can I, under the conditions governing confidential proceedings, explain to the noble Viscount or convince him that his assumptions were not warranted? At any rate he has no evidence in support of them.
Let me endeavour to do what I can within the limits of what is permissible. The main proposal, which is summed up in the proposal that Mr. Bennett made, at what is called the second plenary session, was the principle of Preference, which he then and there asked the Conference, including the United Kingdom representatives, to subscribe to in principle. It has always been treated as if it was a question of Preference, but we quickly found it was not question of Preference as ordinarily understood. It was a question, not of this country or the Dominions allowing a preference off Customs Duties which were in existence, or put on for their own sake, or to meet the needs of the Government, but we were asked to subscribe to putting a duty on foodstuffs coming into this country,
402
and especially wheat coming into this country, not because a Customs Duty was required, or there was any reason for a Customs Duty in this country, but deliberately in order that we might allow a substantial preference off that Duty to Empire wheat.
That was a proposition to which, mind you, His Majesty's Government were invited to subscribe before it was examined in its details. Mr. Bennett, in his opening speech, said that of course it would take a long time to examine it in its details, and suggested that the Conference would not have time to go into the details, and that it would have to be adjourned to a subsequent meeting at Ottawa, to which he invited the Conference. And so far from the Ottawa Conference being a belated device of His Majesty's Government to get rid of this Imperial Conference without coming to any conclusions, it had been from the first proposed by Mr. Bennett that there should be an adjournment for economic questions to Ottawa, and that, had been borne in mind all through. As a matter of fact, His Majesty's Government, following the desire of some of the Dominions, had endeavoured to arrange for a separate Economic Conference before the Imperial Conference, suggesting that it might be at Ottawa, but unfortunately the convenience of the Dominion Ministers made that quite impossible.
Consequently His Majesty's Government from the first accepted the proposal of Mr. Bennett made in his first speech, in which he put his proposition that that and all other economic questions should be adjourned after discussion at the Imperial Conference to the special Economic Conference which is to be held at Ottawa next year. Therefore, misconception Number One, which has run through the debate, is that the Ottawa Conference was a belated device of His Majesty's Government in order to escape a decision at this Conference. I think I have convinced your Lordships that it was a proposal of Mr. Bennett himself made at the very outset, and accepted at the very outset for the obvious reason that there was no adequate time to go into this question now.
Mr. Bennett's statement, which appears in to-day's newspapers, has been quoted, that during the whole period of the

403
Conference neither the principle of tariff Preferences nor his plans to make them operative was seriously discussed. Undoubtedly Mr. Bennett has said that, but he has not said what the noble and learned Viscount said as an inference from that, and as a gloss upon it, that it was His Majesty's Government which prevented them from being seriously discussed. The noble and learned Viscount said that the Economic Committee was not allowed to examine tariff Preference, that His Majesty's Government determined not to allow discussion. It is quite true that in the sense in which Mr. Bennett was speaking these propositions were not referred to the Economic Committee to which the other cognate propositions were referred. But is the inference from that to be made that it was His Majesty's Government which would not allow them to be so referred? What warrant is there for that assumption? I must not say what happened, but I can perhaps go so far as to say that nothing was referred to any Committee during that Imperial Conference except by the unanimous consent of the delegations. And if what Mr. Bennett called the principle of Preferences, including a duty on foodstuffs, especially wheat, was not referred to the Economic Committee, I will go so far as to say that it was not at the dictation of His Majesty's Government that it was not so referred; it was because it was impossible to get the unanimous assent of the delegations to its being so referred.
As a matter of fact, it is known that the plan of procedure for this Conference, which was necessarily arranged by the Government of this country, was that after the plenary sessions and the discussions of the heads of delegations, all the propositions should stand referred to suitable Committees in order to be reported on and brought back to the heads of delegations. I think the noble and learned Viscount will see that he was perhaps rash in saying that, because His Majesty's Government determined not to allow discussions, the Economic Committee was not allowed to examine tariff Preferences at all. In the result Mr. Bennett is able to say that they were not seriously discussed. But again it is not a fact that they were not discussed, and, I think, seriously discussed, in the meetings of the heads of delegations. I am
404
revealing no secret; the Press knew a great deal about it. Your Lordships will find in the Press reports day by day a good deal of evidence that it was discussed at the meetings of heads of delegations. And I myself was present day after day when these things were discussed. But it is quite true they were only discussed as a sort of Second Reading discussion because, as Mr. Bennett had said in his speech at the second plenary meeting, he wanted the Conference to subscribe to the principle before any more minute examination took place. We never did manage to subscribe to the principle.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount, if he had been there, or the noble Marquess, the Leader of his Party, would have subscribed to the principle. Because, remember what Mr. Bennett's principle was. It was not the principle of Preference that many guileless people have supposed. It was not even the principle of extending that Preference to every Customs Duty that was in existence, or might be brought into existence. It was that a new Customs Duty should be put upon foodstuffs imported into this country, and this country only, or that this country only should be required to put a substantial Customs Duty upon foodstuffs, and especially upon wheat in order to give a substantial Preference to the Dominions in respect of all those things. All that was included in Mr. Bennett's principle, and the noble and learned Viscount will find it all as part of his principle in the opening speech, which has been reported verbatim and published. I may go so far as to say, as Mr. Bennett said it publicly, that Mr. Bennett said it privately at the meetings of heads of delegations. Now, would the noble and learned Viscount have subscribed to that principle? We know, as a matter of fact, that at any rate up to to-day the Conservative Party has declared against a Customs tariff upon foodstuffs.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: No.
LORD PASSFIELD: Oh, yes. Of course, the noble Viscount may have a Party of his own, but I am talking about Mr. Baldwin's letter to Mr. Neville Chamberlain of October 16. At any rate, I can take my view about it. In that letter Mr. Baldwin explained why it was not practical or convenient to put a duty

405
upon wheat; but instead of that he proposed to subsidise wheat out of the proceeds of a duty on manufactures. Surely, that is so. If that is not declaring to the ears of the electors against a duty on food, what does it mean? I repeat that the declared policy of the Conservative Party, at any rate on October 16—because I will not venture upon prediction—was definitely that a duty on wheat is not the way to deal with the import of wheat, but the right way is a subsidy to the wheat farmer, to be paid for out of the proceeds of a duty on foreign manufactures. Well, that is the policy of the Conservative Party; at least that is the policy which they have proclaimed to the electorate. What subtle meanings there may be behind it I do not venture to assume. I am dealing only with facts. That is the declared policy of the Conservative Party to-day. On half of it I can congratulate them; that is, in not putting a duty on wheat. As to the other half, the giving of a subsidy to the wheat farmer I am not at all sure, though I will go so far as to say that a subsidy is much more economically sound than a Customs Duty, if you are going to do anything of that kind.
I have been concerned to show that the statement of the noble and learned Viscount, that His Majesty's Government refused to discuss these things, is incorrect. They were discussed; but if it is meant that they were not referred to a Committee to be gone into seriously by experts, it is true that they were not, as is shown by the published proceedings of the Economic Committee; and I think I have indicated that it was not His Majesty's Government which refused to have them sent to the Economic Committee. They were not sent to the Economic Committee because the Conference of the heads of delegations was not unanimous about allowing them to go until they had been accepted in principle. I am bound to admit that the delegates of the Government refused to accept them in principle, and I am not ashamed of our refusal. As I say, noble Lords also would have refused to subscribe to the imposition of a duty upon wheat coming into this country deliberately for the purpose of giving away a large part of the pro-
406
ceeds for the sake of an Empire Preference.
That is not the policy of the Labour Party. That is not the policy of the Liberal Party. That is not the policy, up to date, of the Conservative Party. I would challenge the noble Viscount to say whether he would have done what he blames the Government for not having done, whether he would have subscribed in advance, before an examination of the details, to what Mr. Bennett required, the principle of imposing this duty on wheat and other foodstuffs, in order to give a Preference to the Dominions. Would the noble Viscount have subscribed to it? Would the noble Marquess by his side have subscribed to it? Would Mr. Baldwin have subscribed to it? I challenge them again to say that they would have done what we are accused of having failed to do—that is to say, that we failed to subscribe in principle to this proposition of Mr. Bennett's, not because the one-tenth was not worth very much, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said (because, of course, that was only the beginning of possible bargaining) but because in principle we were not prepared to adopt or to subscribe to the proposal of putting a duty on imported wheat in order to give away a Preference.
I would like to go a little further with regard to this point of Preference. The policy of Preference is as old as the century. Hitherto the term has been understood as meaning that a preference, a reduction, a rebate should be made from Customs Duties in favour of some particular country. We have done the same. On practically all our Customs Duties we have given preferential terms to the Dominions. Even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, as noble Lords know, long ago gave publicly an undertaking that so long as the Duties remained so long would the Preferences remain. We have, therefore, subscribed to the policy of Preference, and of course at the Conference, in order to give stability, we went a little further and talked about a three years term. No doubt the Dominions have done the same thing. We have never disputed the right of the Dominions to take off a Duty or to impose a Duty, according as they thought fit, and they have done that according to their own needs and their own policy,

407
and most of them have given this country a Preference which, I am glad to say, they have continued. I appreciate that Preference. The Government appreciate that Preference. We believe that it has been of great value to our trade on the whole. But there are differences. In some cases we do not think it has been of much value; in other cases we think it has. At any rate on the whole, we appreciate it as being of value. I want to say that I appreciate it even more than for any consideration of its value, just because it was voluntarily granted in what they believed to be the interests of the Empire.
Do the Dominions come now and ask us to do the same No. They ask us to do something entirely different. As I said, we have already done the corresponding thing to what they have done. We have already given them a Preference on practically all our Import Duties. We have told them that it will continue for as long as the Duties continue, that is to say indefinitely as regards most articles. They come now and ask us to do something entirely different—to change our whole fiscal policy. They did not change their fiscal policy. They merely adjusted it in little details. But they ask us to change our whole fiscal policy at a cardinal point for which the people of this country have never yet voted, and when they have had an opportunity of voting they have voted against it by a majority. Obviously we could not agree to that, and, as I say, no other Party could agree to it. It was an altogether new principle of taxation that they asked us to adopt.
The noble Viscount said we never gave an answer to the Colonial Premiers. He blamed us for inconsistency, lack of preparation and so on. How does he know? Has he any idea of the preparation that was made for this Conference? Of course he has not. However, he blamed us for not giving any official answer to the Colonial Premiers although Ministers went about the country speaking. How does he know what answer was made? Was he there at the meetings of the heads of delegations? There was no plenary session until the end, so how does the noble Viscount know that we gave no answer? Surely, he might presume from his knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not sit at
408
those meetings and give no answer. I only draw attention to that to show how the noble Viscount's argument has been made up. It has been made up by assuming the facts upon which he based his charges. I am prevented from absolutely telling him what has happened, but I think he can see that his charge, that we never gave any answer to the Dominion Prime Ministers on that point, is hardly one which he will venture to repeat. The Government never intended, he said, to consider any proposal of Imperial Preference at all, but on the other hand, we appointed the Economic Committee to go to work. I have explained how it was that Imperial Preference was not referred to that Economic Committee. Will the noble Viscount again say that the Government determined not to allow it to be discussed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Hear, hear.
LORD PASSFIELD: Then I think I must go a step further and say that as a matter of fact several of the Dominion Premiers objected to the matter being referred for examination to an expert Committee at all until the principle had been subscribed to by the heads of the delegations.
A NOBLE LORD: Of course.
LORD PASSFIELD: If the noble Viscount thinks that had he been there he would have subscribed to the principle of a tax on wheat and then have sent it to be considered as to whether it was practicable, whether it was injurious or what the effect of it would be—after he had subscribed to it—I do not think his conduct would have been commended. In any case, I am not going to be ashamed of what we did. But when it is said that the Government were determined to allow no discussion of Imperial Preference, that is going a little far. In the first place, there was discussion; in the second place, there was a considerable amount of discussion; and, in the end, it was found impracticable, not by us, to refer it to a Committee at all for expert examination. Fundamentally, of course, whatever the noble Viscount may say in detail, he is attempting to make out to the public that, owing to the blundering and all the other gross wickednesses which he alleged, the Imperial Conference of 1930 has been a failure.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PASSFIELD: That is only made out by concentrating on one point; that is to say, on the refusal of the British Government to subscribe to the principle of putting a duty on foodstuffs. After all, the Conference followed in succession from the Conference of 1926, and its primary purpose and absolute duty was to carry out the policy laid down by the Conference of 1926. May I remind your Lordships that the Conference of 1926 was held in a state of extreme economic depression all over the world, especially in this country, and that at the Conference of 1926 the representatives of the British Government do not seem to have brought forward these economic proposals which are supposed to be so important. The Conference of 1926 met at that time and occupied itself with other things—occupied itself with dealing with the constitutional position of the British Empire, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has explained, and directed a Committee of legal experts to sit in order to bring up to the next Imperial Conference—namely, this one of 1930—how that declaration of the constitutional position could be worked out in the Statute Law. That Committee of legal experts sat in the autumn of 1929. It was my hard fate to have to preside over their deliberations. I must, of course, tell your Lordships that the Attorney-General did the work, but I never in all my life found anything so difficult as to work out these complicated problems which had been left by the Conference of 1926 to be worked out and adopted by this Conference of 1930.
The Report of that Committee came up necessarily as the principal business of this Conference of 1930. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said that it did not matter, and that it ought not to have been the principal business. But it had to be the principal business. The Conference gave to that Report and the questions which arose out of it no less than eighteen and a half days out of the twenty-seven working days which the Conference lasted, and more than two-thirds of its time had to be given to these constitutional questions. I am glad to say that, whilst two or three minor things have been left over as they were not urgent, substantially speaking, agree-
410
ment was obtained among all these Dominions to the whole of these complicated constitutional relations. May I be allowed to say that it is due very largely to the patience, skill, and work of the noble Lord on the Woolsack that that result was arrived at.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, important as no doubt that Conference of 1926 was, there was no discussion upon it in the House of Commons. The Report was never specifically brought into discussion in the House of Commons, and, similarly, the Report of the Committee of Last autumn for putting it into practice was never discussed by the House of Commons. But I think that the future historian, if he comes to say what was done at the Imperial Conferences, will say that the Imperial Conference of 1926 was noteworthy for a memorable declaration as to the status of the component parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and he will say that the Conference of 1930 was noteworthy For having produced the Bill, which we propose to call the Statute of Westminster, which for the first time sets free the Dominions from the fetters—the half worn out and obsolescent fetters—of the Westminster Statutes from which they desired to be set free, and from which the Imperial Conference of 1926 declared that they were to he set free.
The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said we have done a wrong thing in doing that, that we ought never to have done it, that there is danger in putting into law these intangible constitutional relations. It may be that there is danger in doing it, but it would not be fair if you did not realise that it had to be done. The declaration of 1926 compelled it, and the declaration of 1926—I was not conversant with matters at the time—was not quite a spontaneous declaration on the part of the representatives of the United Kingdom. The noble Viscount (Viscount Hailsham) probably knows something about that, knows that the Dominions insisted on their equality of status; and now, similarly, the Dominions came to the Conference and to the Committee last autumn insisting that what had been given to them in 1926 should be meticulously put into statute form. It may

411
have been a mistake, as the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, suggested; but it had to be done. We have managed to do it at the Imperial Conference which has just concluded, and I say that that will stand as a great landmark, at any rate, in the constitutional evolution of the British Empire. It took eighteen and a half days' discussion out of the twenty-seven working days, which was all the Conference was allowed.
I have a concluding remark to make. I say that that alone will stand out as a landmark in British constitutional history, and as marking out this Conference of 1930 as a success, long after the temporary quarrels about Preferences have been forgotten. What is the general inference from this? I think we all see to-day that we cannot keep the British Empire together by any form of coercion of the component parts. Instead of missing the chance of binding the Empire together by Imperial links in the form of Customs Duties, I submit to your Lordships that by our refusal to impose a tax on wheat in this country, in connection with the demand of the Dominions, we have averted a danger from the continuance of the Empire. In my judgment, possible peril to the British Empire lies in just such attempts at binding the Empire together. I want to suggest that what is fatal, and what will be fatal at any time, is an attempt to maintain the British Empire by the coercion of the will of any one of the component parts of the Empire.
A century and half ago we learned by experience that it was fatal to attempt to maintain an Empire by military force. I do not think any one of your Lordships to-day would assert that we could or ought to maintain the Empire by military force against a component part which determined to be out of it. No one would maintain that to-day, but there may be legal coercion without military coercion. You may have Acts of Parliament which extend to the Dominions which would fetter and bind them, or, at any rate, hurt them, and I think we have learned now that we must not, with regard to these Dominions, attempt to fetter them by Acts of Parliament passed here.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Lord give us an instance of such an Act of Parliament as he refers to?
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which says that any law passed by any British Colony which is in contravention of a Statute passed at Westminster applicable to that Colony shall be invalid. That is what we have to repeal.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I said, in recent years.
LORD PASSFIELD: This is a surviving Statute, and it is still law, and it is even more silly to attempt to bind the Dominions by obsolescent laws of sixty years ago. That is what we have done in this Committee on the Operation of Dominion Legislation of last autumn. I cannot say that its Report is amusing literature, but it is worthy of being read. I can also say that it leads to most interesting and far-reaching conclusions that I had no idea of until I had to go into this matter. We have gone through the subject at this Imperial Conference for eighteen days, and we have done it. When that Statute is passed, just as we have turned down the idea of coercion by military force we shall have turned down the idea of coercion by law.
There is another peril, not perhaps of to-day, but a peril I do see the possibility of arising for the next generation with regard to the British Empire, and that is the attempt to coerce each other's economic opinions, to put pressure on one or other part of the British Commonwealth of Nations in order to coerce that part of the Commonwealth to adopt some particular economic policy because the others think it desirable. Remember, there is such a thing as a minority. If you imagine a duty on wheat, carried possibly at a tremendous General Election owing to the influence of the newspapers, amid the wild passion of misunderstanding and misstatements made at a General Election, carried against a determined minority connected with British industry and connected in the minds of men with the maintenance of the British Empire, would not that be a danger to the continuance of the Empire? Minorities have a way of becoming majorities. It seems to me that to bind the British Empire with an electoral policy on one of these questions, carried at the Election against a big minority whether in this country or in another country—nothing could be

413
more fatal to the continuance of the Empire than that sort of economic coercion. When that is done in combination or collusion with one or another political Party, and with the support of one or other of the great newspaper trusts, I suggest there is a danger.
But there is a better way, and I believe in that better way. Just as we abandoned a long time ago any idea of maintaining the British Empire by force of arms, just as we are now in this very Session, I assume, going to abandon the idea of attempting to bind the British Empire by Acts of Parliament made here in West-minster, so I think we have got to give up the idea of putting pressure on any part of the British Empire, even on the United Kingdom as part of the British Empire, to adopt by a mere majority vote any economic policy which can be reversed and would be reversed. I think that would be really calculated to be a danger to the Empire. The better way is surely along the line we have gone—namely, that the motto of the British Empire, the British Commonwealth of Nations, as it exists to-day, is "Voluntary co-operation in unfettered freedom."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, you listened so patiently to me in opening this debate that I do not wish to take up more than five or six minutes of your time before the Division which I hope will register your Lordships' opinion. I began by saying that I thought this time I had been able to frame my indictment in terms which not even the Government could misunderstand. I regret to inform your Lordships that I was entirely mistaken. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the thesis which he read to your Lordships on the topic of the Balfour declaration, began by saying that he was not going to deal with the economic side of the problem. Of course, he had only to read my Resolution to see that it dealt with nothing else. Therefore his contribution, valuable as it may he as a contribution to a law quarterly or some similar magazine, is really not relevant to the subject we are debating.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, told us that he thought the right way of dealing with this problem would have been not to have accepted Mr. Bennett's specific proposal, which he said is not good enough, but to have said: "We are prepared to consider
414
everything. We would go even along the road of tariff Preference, but only if we could thereby increase the trade of the country." I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. I would only add this qualification to what he said, that he criticised Mr. Bennett's proposal as only an addition of 3 per cent. to our Preference. He forgets, I think, that we are already enjoying a voluntary Preference of 10 per cent. from Canada, and that the continuance of that Preference is by no means a thing upon which we can base our calculations, unless we come to some arrangement with that country. It is not, therefore, 3 per cent. but 13 per cent. that Mr. Bennett offered.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Pass-field. The noble Lord said that I assumed facts of which I had no evidence, that I had assumed that there had been no serious discussion and that the answer of His Majesty's Government had not been given till a comparatively late date. The noble Lord will forgive my saying that he has a very convenient, memory, because I gave your Lordships the evidence. I read out to your Lordships the statement made by Mr. Bennett on October 15 and the statement made by General Hertzog on October 25, in which they said that at those dates they were still waiting the decision of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, obviously, they had not received an intimation or they could not have said that. I go further. We had this morning—again I read it to your Lordships—a new statement by Mr. Bennett who was at all the meetings of the heads of delegations. What Mr. Bennett said about the discussion of the proposal is this—
".…during the whole period of the Conference, there was, seriously discussed neither the principle of tariff Preferences nor my plans to make them operative."
What is the good of the noble Lord saying I have no evidence and that I am making assumptions on which to base my charge? I have the evidence of someone on whose word I am content to rely.
The noble Lord went on to say that I was mistaken in thinking that the Ottawa adjournment was a dilatory device arranged in order that His Majesty's Government in this country might get rid of the Conference. I am sorry if I conveyed that impression. I never had that view. I regard the Ottawa Confer-

415
ence, not as a device of His Majesty's Government to get rid of the Conference, but as a device of the Conference in the hope that before Ottawa they might get rid of His Majesty s Government.
The noble Lord told us that we were making a great mistake in supposing that the economic questions were really the important ones, and that really it was the constitutional decisions which rendered this Conference important. Again the noble Lord will forgive me for criticising his memory as somewhat convenient, because your Lordships will remember that I quoted from a speech of Mr. Thomas, his colleague, who presumably had some idea of what were His Majesty's Government's views about the Conference, in which he said expressly they must frankly realise that it was on the economic side that his constituents and the constituents of the various Dominion Premiers were looking for guidance on this occasion. The constitutional questions were dealt with in 1926. Which am I to believe? I believe that Mr. Thomas before the fact is more likely to be accurate than the Secretary of State for the Colonies after the economic side had proved such a disastrous failure. The truth is that their absence of preparation, their refusal to discuss the proposals which the Dominions brought before us, rendered the failure of the Conference on the economic side, which was the important side, a necessary consequence of their own mistake.
There is one other point with which I want to deal, and then I have finished. The noble Lord said that the proposal which they were invited to accept was the principle of a tax on wheat, and he asked would the Conservative Party accept such a proposal? Mr. Baldwin, he said, had refused it. Nothing of the kind. Again I prefer the record issued by His Majesty's Government. This is the proposal of Mr. Bennett:
"And so I propose that we of the British Empire, in our joint and several interests, do subscribe to the principle of an Empire Preference, and that we take, without delay, the steps necessary to put it into effective operation."
LORD PASSFIELD: A tax on wheat; he said so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord says a tax on wheat. Undoubtedly,
416
Mr. Bennett contemplated a tax on wheat as probably the most effective way of carrying it out, but the noble Lord will not forget at least, I hope, that Mr. Bennett repeated this morning, what I think he said at the final meeting, that he was not prepared to reject the quota system as possibly a competitive substitute for the tax. That offer to subscribe to the principle of Imperial Preference was accepted on behalf of the Conservative Party. Mr. Baldwin said:—
"The striking offer made by the Prime Minister of Canada cannot fail to create a profound impression throughout this country and the Empire, and, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, I say, without hesitation, that the great principle of Imperial Preference embodied in that offer is one to which we must and do subscribe, and I heartily endorse Mr. Scullin's statement that it is our duty to affirm not only the maintenance of that principle but also the extension of its operation."
What is the good of saying that the Conservative Party has not accepted the principle of Mr. Bennett's offer?
It is true that we think the quota system a more effective method of carrying out Empire Preference in the case of wheat. It is true that Mr. Bennett thinks that very likely we may be right in the case of wheat; but, whether one method is better than another for carrying it through, we commit ourselves to the principle, believing that once the principle is accepted two parties loyally working together for the same end will arrive at a practical means of achieving their desire. The Socialist Government, on the other hand, refuse to consider the principle they decline seriously to discuss it, and they send their Ministers up and down the country to say that there is no benefit whatever in tariffs, that they are a sinister design to break wages, that they produce a sink of corruption in Parliament and that in no circumstances will they even be considered by His Majesty's Government. In the face of those declarations, it is idle for the noble Lord opposite to say that the Government were really seriously considering them all the time and that, while they were saying in the country that they would not look at them, they were really behind the scenes, as he suggests, having serious discussions with heads of delegations, not one of whom

417
seems to have had the slightest idea that such movements were going on. I say that the whole conduct of His Majesty's Government has shown, in the words of their official organ, a "bankruptcy of statesmanship," and I ask your Lord-
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
ships by your votes this afternoon to show that you think so too.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Ernle, L.

Camden, M.

Brentford, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M.

Burnham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Zetland, M.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hothfield, L.

Albemarle, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V.

Islington, L.

Denbigh, E.

Hailsham, V.

Jessel, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hereford, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Howe, E.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Iveagh, E.

Novar, V.

Lovat, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Luke, L.

Lindsey, E.

Aberdare, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lovelace, E.

Alvingham, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Malmesbury, E.

Annaly, L.

Midleton, E.

Auckland, L.

Queenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Saltoun, L.

Peel, E.

Sempill, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Roden, E.

Cushendun, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Daryngton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sydenham of Combe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Amulree, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Dickinson, L,

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

House adjourned at seven o'clock.

ABERSYCHAN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Abersychan Electricity Special Order, 1921:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BEAULY ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of part of the Second or Aird District of the County of Inverness:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CRANBROOK ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of East Grinstead, in the Administrative County of East Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

STAMFORD ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the Borough of Stamford, in the parts of Kesteven, in the County of Lincoln:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BROADSTAIRS GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Broadstairs Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LITTLE HULTON GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Little Hulton Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MAIDSTONE GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Maidstone Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DERBY GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Derby Gas Light and Coke Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ST. HELENS GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of St. Helens:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
  GLASTONBURY GAS ORDER, 1930.
    CLACTON GAS ORDER, 1930.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

    CENSUS ORDER, 1930.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee that they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House, and having heard the Registrar General and a representative of the Scottish Office, beg to report—

    1. That the Committee is only concerned with Paragraph 13 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Order,

    421
    inasmuch as it is only in respect of that paragraph that an affirmative Resolution of the House is required;

    2. That the provisions of the said paragraph require particulars to be given in Scotland as to the right to medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts;

    3. That in the opinion of the Committee the provisions of the said paragraph do not raise any important question of policy or principle;

    4. That in the opinion of the Committee the provisions of the said paragraph are founded on the precedent of Paragraph 15 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Census Order, 1920;

    5. That in the opinion of the Committee, having regard to all the circumstances, the Order, including the said paragraph, can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision upon the Resolution approving the said Order:

    Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.