§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 35:—
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan),
in moving the omission of subsection (a), said that while as a matter of fact he did not wish the subsection to be omitted, he did desire to raise this question of the use of the school buildings during holidays. The point was not so much what was desirable but what was possible of accomplishment as a matter of administration. The midsummer holiday would be mainly affected by this provision, and it was desirable that in that period the schools should be closed for the purpose of cleaning. He was not quite sure it would be in the interests of education to use them as suggested. He was greatly struck by a remark made by Archbishop Temple in the summer before his lamented death. When distributing prizes at his old school at Tiverton he advised the boys to shut up their books during the whole summer holidays and to spend their time in seeing as much as they could and in observing objects around them. Such advice was equally good for children and teachers; all school children required recreation and change in the mode of thought; so too did the teachers, and he was once told by a very experienced teacher that it was good neither for masters nor boys for them to be always together. Those who were engaged on the Committee which considered the question of 1362 feeding the children had had before them the question of the attendance of the masters during the times the children were supplied with food, and they thought the willingness of the masters to undertake the task was not a sufficient justification for exacting that duty from them. They discouraged it on the ground of health and the usefulness of the school. If that was true with regard to the meal hours in the school, there was also some truth in it as regarded other occupations during the holidays. Another thing of great importance was that the masters should have some time that they could really call their own. They required recreation and amusement almost as much as Members of Parliament, and as an old Member he might be permitted to say they deserved it quite as much. The constant pressure and striving was, he was sure, injurious to the teachers from the point of view of health, and in other regards inasmuch as it prevented them acquiring information. When detained in school day by day and week by week they had no opportunity of acquiring information beyond the school and the district, which it was important that teachers should possess. Their inclinations should be made more wide and their opportunities to acquire knowledge of the world around them more extensive. He therefore thought it was injurious to the teachers to have this new task imposed upon them. There was also a domestic reason. They should not be deprived of their family life. They should not be prevented from seeking with their families recreation and the means of gaining health as they would be if detained within the bounds of the school. He thought these reasons were of sufficient importance to weigh with the Committee in their dealing with this matter. He presumed the intention of the Government in introducing the clause was that there should be some provision either by by-law or by other means for the securing of good order. During the holidays there was a period of freedom and sometimes of neglect. It appeared to him that if the clause became part of the Act there ought to be some provision to compel good order without mischief arising. There were, no doubt, more opportunities given in these, classes for extended visits on the part of the children and for their gaining 1363 wider information, and on that ground he welcomed the clause, provided it was properly self-guarded. Another point that ought to be borne in mind was that of parental responsibility. Parents ought to feel their responsibilities for the children during the holidays, and he believed the country would lose rather than gain if in a provision of this kind they weakened that responsibility which was as important to the parent as to the child and which was certainly of enormous value in building up society and producing that sympathy and loving kindness which ought to exist between parent and child. He did not care at the moment to make suggestions as to the nature of the teaching to be given in these classes. His reason for rising was really to ask for further information on the subject. He begged to move.
In page 20, line 3, to leave out subsection '(a).' "—(Sir Francis Powell.)
§ Question proposed, "That subsection (a), down to the words 'holidays; and,' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
supported the Amendment not so much because he objected to the subsection as that he objected to the vagueness of the terms in which it was drawn. He thought the criticism of the Education Committee of the Lancashire County Council was very much to the point. They said that the powers given under this clause appeared to be very wide and should be more closely defined. That, he thought, was a fair and honest statement. He did not quarrel with the powers given under subsection " (a)" but with the fact that in that subsection the same power was not given to the Board of Education as was given in subsection "(b)." "With regard to the provision for recreation in the schoolhouses during the holidays, the children would, he thought, much prefer the power of recreation in the school-yards, but he might be told that that was included in the term " schoolhouses." If the provision meant that the local education authorities should have the power of providing the children with football or cricket in the playgrounds during the holidays, he heartily supported the clause as being 1364 one that would keep the children out of the streets and take care of them generally. But how much further did the clause go, because it was very widely drawn? As he read the new Clause 26 all the powers of Clause 35 could be handed over by the local education authority to a minor education authority, and although no doubt the majority of such authorities would use their powers well and with credit to themselves and the local education authority, yet there-might be some whose hearts were stronger than their heads, who might go beyond what was intended by the clause. "When school boards were first started everybody agreed that the rate would never exceed threepence ["No]." That he believed was the general impression. Now in many cases the rate went into shillings, and he thought they ought to have some statement as to how far these powers were to go. He agreed that the attendance at the vacation schools was voluntary for both teachers and children, but the Committee ought to know what was to be permitted to be taught. So far as he could see there was no limit. There was nothing in the clause to prevent even the teaching of denominational religion in the vacation schools at the public expense. The teachers also, he presumed, would be the ordinary teachers of the school, both for the sake of economy, and because they knew the children, and because the local education authority knew them to be well qualified to give the instruction. They were not under the clause compelled to give the instruction, but as the Parliamentary Secretary stated the other day in another connection, although they could not be compelled to give it, they could be discharged if they did not. He thought the Committee was entitled to some further explanation with regard to this important matter.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.
said he was glad to find there was no real opposition either from the hon. Baronet who moved, or the hon. Gentleman who supported the Amendment. All they desired was that the clause should express in a more precise form the limitations and the character of the vacation schools, and the teaching that could be afforded. He was not in a 1365 position, and he hoped he never would be called upon, to make a syllabus of games, but there was an evident desire on the part of many local authorities and of a great many people deeply interested in education in our large towns to organise games, and he need not say that he himself attached great importance to the movement. It. might be that the children of the well-to-do classes in our public schools had of late years attached too much importance to athleticism. But because they got too much, it was no reason why the children of the poorer classes should got none; and the idea that children could be turned out to play games without any instruction or organisation was absurd. There was a great desire that children should be instructed in the ethics of the playground; but it would not be wise to attempt any exact definition of what was to be done. The children were there, and the desire to play was born with them. All that was required was that they should have the opportunity and the necessary amount of instruction in the rules which were so essential if games were to be carried on in the proper spirit and the children were to learn the invaluable lessons of organised play. Though the language of the clause was purposely wide, there was no reason to anticipate any such evil consequences as an attempt on the part of the local authorities to use these schools for purposes outside their proper scope. The term "school-house" included the playground. It was melancholy to see these playgrounds standing empty when they might be filled with playing children. Those who asked what was meant by a vacation school had bettor go and see one, such as that in which Mrs. Humphry Ward had interested herself. The visitor would be struck by the amazing cleverness of the children—the marvellous ability they displayed for all kinds of exercises demanding manual dexterity, and the readiness with which they learnt to do these things together. They were taught to draw and to dance— one of the most pleasing of social accomplishments. If he were asked what the London ratepayers had got for their money, he would point to the acquirement by children of the charming and graceful accomplishment of dancing—even if it were only round a barrel organ. In these schools children were taught weav- 1366 ing, basket-making, modelling and drawing, and even tiny children learnt to play nursery games with an enthusiasm and an affection one for the other which was most remarkable. Such occupations played a useful part in the education of the children, and fitted them for graver pursuits, besides enabling them to enjoy some of the gaiety of childhood. There was no necessity to enter into a detailed statement as to what was to be done. It would have to be done cautiously, and there was no danger of local authorities plunging into extravagance. In the interests of the children and of the country, the Committee might pass this provision with satisfaction, and in the hope that the powers might be more largely taken, advantage of.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
said that he, and he thought the Committee generally, sympathised with what the right hon. Gentleman had said. In the large towns there could be no doubt the elementary school holiday was not so much a holiday as it was in country schools or in the better classes of life. The children often missed during vacation the airy and comfortable schoolroom and the playground. Anyone who had seen a vacation school in a large town must be alive to the fact that it was a great boon to the children who attended it. He entirely agreed with the President of the Board of Education that it wanted a little instruction in order to play a game with satisfaction to all concerned, and that games under some-sort of supervision were much happier and wholesome than those without any. All he would suggest was that the clause needed something more in the nature of definition. Was it equally applicable to the town and the country? He should have thought that children in the country were really better left to their own resources. They were dealing with a great number of schools to be transferred from owners or trustees to local education authorities, and under these circumstances he thought the consent of the owners or trustees should be asked, though he had no doubt, it would be willingly given. Then, again, they had to bear in mind that the Minister for Education contemplated a very large measure of delegation, but were the minor authorities to have power to spend the ratepayers' money on vacation schools, possibly without sufficient inquiry 1367 beforehand as to whether they would be fully used and properly carried into effect? On all these points they needed something in the nature of definition, and, above all, that a local authority desiring to provide vacation schools should have to refer to the Board of Education for formal permission, so that there might be proper inquiry to see that the owners or trustees did not suffer under a hardship or that the ratepayers' money was not misspent.
§ MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)
said it was refreshing to hear the Minister for Education express the hope that some of the time, thought, and care expended on the playtime of the rich might also be spent on the playtime of the poor, and from that point of view he felt himself in very cordial sympathy with this clause. It was a question in which a good deal of practical experience had already been obtained, if not in this country, at least in America. The vacation school had been started there at first as a voluntary movement, but it was found that if it was to be carried on in a useful and permanent form it must be done under public control and by public funds. In New York he believed that over 80,000 children attended such vacation schools. In Chicago, after having Leon carried on for five years on the voluntary principle, the system had now become a matter of State interest and administration. In London experiments had been made at the Passmore Edwards (Settlement for four years. In 1902 the numbers attending were 600; last year they had increased to between 1,100 and 1,200. These boys and girls, but for the vacation classes, would have been simply thrown upon the streets. The cost of the experiment was small compared with the value of the result, the sum expended in 1905 being £270, of which by far the larger part went to the payment of teachers. It was in providing the teachers that the crux of the problem lay. They must not encroach upon the holidays of the regular staff of teachers, because of all people in the world teachers needed rest and recreation. This difficulty, however, ought not to interfere with the carrying out of the experiment; and various suggestions had been made to meet it. If the principle of the vacation school were applied to the whole of 1368 London it would be a very large affair. It was estimated that some 600,000 children would have to be provided for, distributed over 300 schools, and the cost would be about £60,000 a year. That I would be a heavy charge upon the rates, but he was inclined to think that the experiment might proceed gradually and the local authorities might be trusted to see, whether starting from small and cautious beginnings, they could not organise it on a larger and more general scale. The chief work hitherto done at the Passmore Edwards Settlement with the elder boys was woodwork and with the elder girls cookery. In Chicago the programme in future was limited to manual training for boys and various domestic arts for girls, with physical culture and science for all.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
understood that this clause gave power to local education authorities to carry out many objects which he thought were desirable, but he would like to know what its effect would be upon previous sections in regard to transfers. Probably the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that in matters of this kind it was unwise to attempt any definition or bother about details. That was the attitude taken on Clause 26, and that had since boon dropped. He wished to know if the local authorities could go to the trustees or owners, and say " We want your school for the whole of the vacation and the evenings and the whole of Saturdays." They had been told that the existing voluntary schools would only be required from 9 to 4, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. Supposing the trustee or owner did not come to an agreement, was it within the purview of the local education authority to take the matter before the Commission under Clause 8? Could this point be made a condition of the arrangement under Clause 2, and would the Commissioners under Clause 8 be able to deal with the matter? If that view was correct he presumed it would exclude agreements from the initial stages of the transfer. Clause 4 as amended provided that " no rent or payment can be made." Would that exclude any rent or payment for the use of the transferred schoolhouse on Saturdays, Sundays, or during vacations?
§ MR. BIRRELL
thought the noble Lord was under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. It had nothing whatever to do with the bargain which the local authorities might strike with the trustees for the use of the schools for the purposes of elementary education. They might come to any bargain they liked, but there was nothing in this clause which required them to do any more than come to terms for the purposes of public elementary education, and no more burdens would be placed upon them than were already provided for in the Bill. The noble Lord might rely upon it that the trustees would not be ousted from the use of their schools. In many transferred schools these provisions would never come into operation at all. Except by agreement there was nothing in the clause that could impose upon owners or trustees any greater obligation than would be the case if it was not in the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said he did not see, after reading the clause, what the limited power was. They were not divided upon any point of policy, but it seemed to him that the local education authority would have power in vacation time to do what they pleased with the buildings now used as voluntary schools, and to use them on all days of the week and all hours of the day. That view might be wrong, but it seemed to him to be the natural interpretation.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
moved to insert in line 4 after the word " classes," the words " in other than bookwork." His view of these clashes was that they should be for play, or something near to it, namely, interesting manual instruction. He was a great believer in the educational value of games, and he was certain that games were more educational than a great many other things that were taught at considerable expense. He knew that his opinion was not universally held. He was convinced that 1370 unless they put in some limiting words the word " classes " taken by itself would suggest to a large number of people, not always the most highly educated, that what was wanted was to have a holiday task imposed, which was an abominable practice.
In page 20, line 4, after the word ' classes ' to insert the words ' in other than book work.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the purpose in view. But the words he had suggested might prevent a child's reading " Hans Andersen's Fairy Tales," or little manuals to which reference might have to be made. He was aware what book work meant and he was a little frightened of it. Book work in university circles might have a technical meaning. He did not like absolutely to bar out books, but he would consider whether he could not introduce words which would carry out the laudable desire of the right hon. Gentleman and also his own, so that the clause might not be made to seem to impose a burden on the sometimes overburdened brains of the children.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
suggested that what was proposed might be met by the omission of the word " classes " in sub-section (a). There were many delicate children in whose case it was not desirable to impose book work which might take the form of a holiday task.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)
suggested that the children might be taught shooting during the vacation.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
said that a great poet had spoken of theDelightful task ! to rear the tender thought, To teach the young idea how to shoot.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
moved an Amendment to enable the local education authority to provide "play centres " for children out of school 1371 hours during term time. The clause as it stood gave the local education authority power to organise vacation schools, and means of recreation in the schoolhouses during the holidays, and what he now proposed was that they should be permitted to organise play centres in different parts of the great cities to which the children could go in the evenings after school hours. The main reason why he thought the Committee ought to encourage the organising of play centres during term time was in order to deal to some extent with one of the worst evils of slum life in our great cities. To enable hon. Members to make up their minds whether these centres would be of value, he would read what was said by Mrs. Humphrey Ward of one which was established in the district of Walworth—The Warden of the Browning Settlement reports of Walworth; ' In this crowded district, the only playgrounds for the children after dark are the streets; and the damp and cold stairs and corridors of the tenement blocks, where they sit and play on the hard stone. The homes are as a rule much too small and crowded to allow any room for child sports there. Not infrequently the one room is filled all night with washing, which must be punctually delivered next morning. Anything more dispiriting and heart-sickening than the Walworth streets on winter nights, in fig or drizzling rain, with pavements and roads covered with fine adhesive and permeating mud, can scarcely be imagined; and the moral effect of what the child sees in the darkness need not be mentioned. And when it is remembered that most of the children are poorly shod, the dismal discomfort of what ought to be the brightest years in life is only too obvious.The Warden of that Settlement also described how the children were forced to go out from the rooms in which their parents lived to spend their evenings on the door-steps or in the streets, no matter what the weather might be. What had been done? An effort had been made to organise a certain number of schools to which the children might go between half-past five and half-past seven to play, in much the same way as the Minister for Education had described. Describing an experiment in play, Mrs. Humphrey Ward said—Hand-work occupations, such as cooking— both for girls and boys—sewing, knitting, basket-work, carpentering, cobbling, clay-modelling, painting and drawing; dancing, especially combined with old English songs and nursery rhymes; musical drill and gymnastics; quiet games and singing games; acting; and a children's library of story-books 1372 and picture-books: these are the pleasures and occupations which the Settlement in Tavistock Place has for eight years offered to the children of the neighbouring schools from 5.30 to 6.30 or 6.45, five evenings in the week, and from 10 to 12.30 on Saturday mornings.He might remark with regard to the objection taken to dancing that when he visited Dartmouth Training College for cadets the other day, he found that twenty minutes were allowed for dancing every evening, and forty minutes on Saturday evening. All that the Amendment asked was that the local education authority should be permitted, if it pleased, to organise play centres throughout the great cities. Mrs. Humphrey Ward, who had done a great deal of work in this direction, calculated that if about 1,000 children were organised— 300 or 400 a night—the yearly expenditure would be about £200. A hundred play centres would thus affect 100,000 children, and cost £20,000 out of the £2,000,000 odd which made up the educational budget of London.
In page20, line 4, after the word 'classes,' to insert the words ' play centres.' "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the object of the Amendment was to organise play for the children by the grouping of schools. After all that was only carrying out the purpose they had in view, and he was willing to accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL
moved to insert " or elsewhere " in subsection (a) in order to enable the local education authority to provide vacation schools, or means of recreation in places besides schoolhouses. His object in proposing the Amendment was simply that the benefit of the classes, or whatever might be provided, should not be confined to the schoolhouses. In Germany, and he thought in Belgium also, there were in many cases gymnasia in connection with the large schools, but children attending the smaller schools were sent to a common gymnasium. A great economy to the public purse was effected in this way. He hoped that the children would be taught swimming under 1373 proper superintendence in swimming baths.
In page 20, line 5, after the word " schoolhouses" to insert the words " or elsewhere."— (Sir Francis Powell.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he had no particular objection to these words. They might be useful, particularly in the case of transferred schools, where the use of the school promises could not be obtained out of the ordinary school hours. " Or elsewhere " were very wide words, and it had been suggested that a local authority might give the children a tour round the world. He had no particular objection to the words, and was ready to accept them with limitations, so that they should be construed as meaning that the recreation was to be carried within a reasonable distance of the school.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was not so much afraid of the geographical difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the children would be taken a tour round the world or even into the neighbouring towns. But he thought that the words which his hon. friend desired to introduce for providing at the expense of the rates, spaces for play away from the schools were not only too wide, but dangerous. At any rate it was too great a power to give to the local education authority without very careful consideration.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that although he quite agreed with the general desire of the hon. Baronet he thought there might be dangers in carrying the Amendment as it stood. The local education authority should not be prevented from carrying out some such scheme as the hon. Baronet suggested.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL
asked if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring up on Report words to give effect to his suggestion?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1374
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Hudders-field)
said that the Amendment standing in his name was necessary not only to give effect to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Elland division, but also to go a little further by vesting in the local education authority a discretion to extend the opportunities to other times than holidays.
In page 20, line 5, after the word ' holidays,' to insert the words ' or at such other times as the local education authority may prescribe.' " —(Sir James Woodhouse.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ LORD BALCARRES
said that the trustees and owners of the voluntary schools taken over as public elementary schools were to have the use of them when they were not devoted to the purposes of elementary education. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet proposed, " or at such other times as the local education authority may prescribe." That carried the question a stage further than had already been provided for. Would it not infringe the rights of the owners or trustees of the school buildings?
§ MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)
said that the President of the Board of Education, in answer to a Question, had informed him that this clause referred to the ordinary school vacations only, and not to time other than school hours during term. If a wider interpretation was to be given the result would be to interfere with voluntary efforts and agencies which provide happy evenings for the children without any expense to the ratepayers. Reference had been made to such an agency managed by Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and there were others of longer standing which had accomplished very considerable work owing to the charity and personal devotions of subscribers, notably the Children's Happy Evenings Association, under the presidency of Lady Jersey. He feared that these admirable institutions could not continue to exist in the face of a law authorising public bodies to do as much, and more, at the expense of the ratepayer.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that, there was nothing in the clause to over-ride the agreement between the owners or trustees and the local education authority. The question now was not whether the local education authority should be bound to provide such play centres and means of recreation. It was only a permission to the local education authority, and he was sure that if the local education authority found that these facilities were being given by voluntary associations they would not insist on putting the permissive clause into operation. He thought the clause would be improved by the insertion of the words.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that the Amendment standing in his name would carry out what the right hon. Gentleman had promised. It only stated plainly that in the case of transferred schools, the use of the schools during holidays should only be with the consent of the trustees or owners. The use of those schools might be extremely important for other purposes by the trustees and owners, and if the section securing that were in the least obscured, as it was obvious that it might be from the way in which the matter was put by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, it would be unfortunate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see fit to carry out the undertaking which he had given.
In page 20, line 5, after the word ' holidays,' to insert the words ' with the consent, in the case of transferred voluntary schools, of the owners or trustees of those schools.'"—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that the only possible objection he had to the words of the Amendment was that they would involve an agreement being made in every case. He thought that an agreement should be made one for all. However, he quite accepted the spirit of the words of the hon. Baronet's Amendment, and he undertook to insert words to give effect to his intention on the Report stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT (Berwickshire)
had an Amendment on the Paper to move " In page 20, line 5, to leave out from 'holidays,' to end of clause, and insert—(b) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to make arrangements, in accordance with a scheme to be made by the Board of Education, for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools."
said the hon. Member must move his Amendment in a slightly different form, but the effect would be exactly the same. He must move to omit from " holidays " down to the word " to " in line 6 with a view of inserting the words " The duty of every local education authority to make arrangements in accordance with a scheme."
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT
said he would move the Amendment in that form. As a Scotsman and as Member for a Scottish constituency he had hitherto not intervened in these debates, but upon this subject he asked the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments. The subject which he wished to bring before the Committee was that of compulsory medical inspection which did not, he explained, mean compulsory medical attendance. He had great confidence in his case. He believed the arguments in favour of medical inspection were overwhelming, and that the objections to it were illusory. His right hon. friend, by the introduction of this clause in the Bill, admitted it was desirable that there should be medical inspection; but he asserted it was not only desirable but essential. The Bill was an Education Bill; it provided for education, and he conceived that education presupposed health, mental and physical. Education in this country was compulsory and universal, and therefore the conditions upon which education depended ought to be compulsory and universal. We ought not to allow the local authorities to differ from the nation in a matter in regard to which the 1377 nation had already pronounced. Departmental and Inter-Departmental Committees had considered this subject and it had also been considered by a Royal Commission in Scotland. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration at page 91 said—The Committee are emphatic in recommending that a systematised medical inspection of children at schoolshould be imposed us a public dutyon every school authority.He would also like to quote the very interesting evidence of Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, Medical Member of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and a high authority upon this subject, given before the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland) 1903. He said—The large number of serious and minor diseases directly and indirectly affecting physical efficiency and mental efficiency constitutes an overwhelming case for a medical inspection of school children.And again—No systematic exercise ought to be practised or enforced without a preliminary medical examination of the vital organs, to ensure that irreparable damage shall not result.If these inquiries were not sufficient to show the necessity for steps of this kind, he should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a fresh inquiry which had been made into the physical condition of children in Dundee. It was estimated that in that place 1,500 children suffered from affections of the heart, and such children required constant medical inspection. These children might be permanently injured by ordinary physical exercises. There were ailments which impaired general health, and made it difficult for children to profit by instruction, but defects of the ear and eye made it impossible. If the child did not hear, or see a blackboard, how was it possible for it to gain instruction? It was ascertained in Dundee that only 55.15 per cent, had normal hearing and nearly 7,000 had defective eyesight. Dr. Templeman, at the conclusion of the Inquiry of the Dundee Social Union 1905, saidI think that the result of the examination of the Dundee school children materially adds to the mass of evidence already accumulated showing the urgent necessity for the compulsory medical inspection of school children.The examination of the teeth was of great importance, because if the teeth were imperfect the digestion was impaired. 1378 One of the greatest causes of the rejection of recruits in the Army was defective teeth. Out of 69,500 recruits inspected 4,400 were rejected for this reason, or 63.26 per thousand. This was 10.29 in excess of those who were rejected for being " under chest measurement," the next highest cause of rejection. Of this number 192, or 2.76 per thousand were found to be unfit for service within three months of enlistment. It might be said that the Army did not furnish a standard, as in it they only dealt with the dregs and scum of the population. He resented such a phrase being applied to the Army, and he resented the existence of any class to which the ordinary standards of physical well-being could not be applied. In other countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and the United States of America, they found compulsory medical inspection. Were they going to ignore the experience of other countries and the advice of their own? It might be objected that local authorities would act in any case if left to themselves. Public-spirited local authorities would act with wisdom, no doubt, but some would not, and would be behindhand in this matter. Probably in the cases where the need for action was greatest there would be no action at all. No doubt he should be asked where the money was to come from, and the objection was their old friend the increase of the rates. The Physical Deterioration Committee said that " no large or expensive new staff would be necessary." In Boston, United States of America, the cost of providing medical inspection for the children worked out at 1s. for seven children, and in this country that would mean £35,000 a year on a basis of five million children, which, spread over the whole rateable value of England and Wales, would not be large, would in fact be very small. Supposing they established a small medical department of the Board of Education, it would not exceed £1,500 or £2,000, or at the outside £3,000 a year. The department need not be so large as that of the Local Government Board, whose work consisted largely in the eradication of diseases which had already disclosed themselves in an epidemic form. The duties of this Board, instead of dealing with matters which were past, would be of an anticipatory nature. If the course he advocated were adopted, 1379 he asked what would be the saving to the nation. What was the goal to which these children with stunted minds and crippled bodies were drifting? Their asylums, workhouses, and the ranks of the unemployed. Were they not full enough already? Were there not enough canditates? Were we to grease the wheels of the machinery for their further manufacture? Were our schools to be their recruiting stations? Were we to save on the child that we might spend on the pauper? Let us give this elementary right to the children, this elementary justice to the nation. It might be urged that we could not afford to do this thing. He asserted that we could not afford not to do it.
In page 20, line 5, to leave out from the word ' holidays' down to the word 'to' in line 6, ill order to insert ' (b) the duty of every local education authority to make arrangements, in accordance with a scheme to be made by the Board of Education, for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools.'
§ Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out down to the word ' to' in line 6, stand part of the clause."
§ MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)
was sure that there could be nothing like a satisfactory settlement of the education question until we got medical inspection of our schools. We should not have another education Bill for some years, and unless this Amendment were agreed to, the children would for some years be deprived of this elementary right which was granted in Germany and many other countries in the world. His experience in connection with the Children's Country Holidays Fund enabled him to say that, if the House could get personal knowledge of the beneficial effects of medical inspection, it would be willing to vote the necessary funds to enable it to be carried out in the poorer districts. He did not think £35,000 would be sufficient, but one-tenth of the £1,000,000 new grant would be quite enough to establish a universal system. If the Government could not see their way to provide for a universal and compulsory system, he 1380 pressed them to encourage local authorities to undertake the work by offering on behalf of the National Exchequer to bear a considerable proportion of the cost. The Government report upon experiments in this direction was profoundly unsatisfactory. In only about eighty out of more than 300 local authorities had any attempt been made at all, and the attempts, even at the best, that had bun made in such questions as teeth and eyesight had no kind of relationship to the system carried on in Germany, where the body of the child from the moment it came into the school was made the subject of careful and yearly study, and where, in consequence, all manner of hidden diseases were discovered and treated, and the child was given a far better start in life than it would have without such a system of medical inspection. He pleaded for some central stimulus and inspiration and grant, and urged that parents and teachers would welcome the system, even if made compulsory. He believed the inauguration of such a system would be worth practically all the rest of the Bill put together.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)
said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to make this medical inspection a real and not an illusory thing, would remember that this Amendment was asked for by both sides of the House. The Minister for Education himself was in entire sympathy with it, but hesitated to make it compulsory. The right hon. Gentleman had throughout been sincere in his attempt to make this Bill carry out the original proposals of the Government. That he had not been able to do so was not entirely his fault. It was because the Government and the Party behind him had not permitted him to do so. But the Party behind him would permit him to make this subsection compulsory and the Opposition would support him. In a recent utterance he had stated that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench represented public opinion. On this matter of medical inspection the Opposition were united with them in representing public opinion. If a plèbiscite were taken upon this Amendment to-morrow, a great majority would be found to support it. This country stood in rather a different position from our 1381 Colonies in this matter. In the Colonies there was no congestion and the question did not apply there. The poorer people were also better off. The congestion in the United States also was not so great, because there was more room for expansion, but even in the United States the value of medical inspection was shown by the fact that whereas a few years ago 64,294 children were excluded from the schools on account of contagious disease—a branch of the question with which the hon. Gentleman had not dealt—in 1905 the number excluded had decreased to 18,144. That proved that the medical inspection was effective, because it showed that year by year the number of children turned back from the schools on account of disease decreased. Some parents might object, although in the opinion of the hon. Member for West Ham and the hon. Member for North Camberwell they would not. At one time when an attendance officer was sent into the slums of our great cities he often had to take a police officer with him for protection. Now the slums had been cleared and the schools were filled by the children of parents who at one time would not allow an attendance officer to enter their district. If we applied the provision now under discussion to the slum districts of our great cities we should soon find a great change in the physical condition of the youth of the country. His hon. friends below the gangway desired the children to be fed at the public expense in the schools, but although he was not in favour of that he supported this proposal because it would lay the foundations of a healthy, natural life. If the Minister for Education would accept this proposition he believed he would have behind him the bulk of those hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House as well as those who sat in Opposition. Therefore, he urged that the sub-section should be made compulsory. Under the Public Health Act the local authorities were obliged to have a medical officer of health and it was quite probable that he would also be able to perform this work at no very great expense. There were about 6,000,000 children in the schools, and if the inspection cost one penny per child it would not amount to more than £25,000 a year But supposing it amounted to £50,000 or ,£75,000 he ventured to think that the majority of 1382 people would infinitely prefer that that sum should be spent in the interest of public health than upon any other purpose under this or any other Act, and he was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the last man in the world to resist an appeal of that kind for funds out of the Imperial Exchequer. If this inspection was made compulsory he honestly believed that it would have the same effect upon the health and lives of the children in the slums as was produced by enforcing compulsory attendance through the school attendance officers, and there would result a change in the social condition of the people scarcely calculable by those who knew nothing of the life of the poor.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
hoped the Minister for Education would respond to the appeal which had been made to him from the Opposition benches. As one who had spent many years of his life in daily touch with some of the poorest children of one of our great cities he wished to join in that appeal. If they could get this Amendment carried and medical inspection made compulsory, it would be worth all the rest of the Bill put together. The parents would not complain, and far from the teachers objecting he was sure they would be glad to associate themselves with the work. In regard to the condition of working class children, five-sixths of them were better off to-day than ever they were before. Ordinary school life had been greatly improved and parents had taken a pride in sending their children to school clean. The disciplinary results and the whole routine of school-going had generally improved the physique of the working classes. That applied to five-sixths of the children, but the other one sixth, numbering about 1,000,000 children, were never worse off. Day after day in East Bristol he used literally to shudder in contemplation of the fact that it was upon these ricketty shoulders that the burden of the Empire in time to come would have to rest. For this one-sixth of the children there ought to be a medical officer attached to the staff of every education authority, and every child on admission to the school should be medically examined and a record kept. A medical survey of this character would enable them to see what the result of 1383 school life was upon the child population. It was not too late to begin. The children in the schools in the slums of the East End and south-east of London should be in touch with the doctor every week or ten days. One-sixth at least of the poor children were almost hopeless, some with running eyes and ears full of matter, and not 1 per cent, of them had sound teeth. This matter of the teeth alone was one of the most important questions they could deal with. If the teeth were all rotten and bad they knew what followed. He would have every child examined on admission and afterwards from time to time, records being kept of their condition. The teachers did the best they could under the circumstances. He remembered one case when he was engaged with a class where a boy in the middle of the class said he could not see the blackboard, and he brought him closer to the blackboard. The result was that he damaged that boy's eyesight, I because as a matter of fact he ought to have sent the boy further away from the board instead of bringing him nearer. Had there been any system of medical survey he would have been advised what to do in the matter. In Brussels, one-tenth the size of London, there were sixteen doctors on the schools staff and they examined each child every ten days. In London they had only two doctors and twenty-three half-time doctors for this purpose. On the same scale as Brussels they ought to have at least 160 doctors permanently on the schools staff. This inspection in Brussels cost 10,000 francs, and in London it would not cost more than one-thirtieth of a penny in the £. If the ratepayers objected then they might get money from the Imperial Exchequer. He felt sure that the people would willingly spend the money necessary for this purpose if they were assured of good results. They ought to compel the local authorities to take the matter up, for it was a really pressing problem of much more importance than the things which the Minister for Education had been worried with during the last three months.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said he agreed that this clause was worth more than all the rest of the Bill. He believed that this question of the medical inspection of the children lay at the root of all the questions relating to the physical condi- 1384 tion of the people, and it was a matter of national importance. There were certain ailments or defects often unheeded but needing attention, and this attention would at once be secured through inspection by medical men or nurses. To begin with there were ailments arising from uncleanly habits; he understood that the question was best dealt with by the employment of trained nurses. Then there was the question of eyesight, to which a great deal of attention was now being paid, and with the happiest results. A great deal more might be paid, particularly in rural districts, where medical inspection had not as yet found any official place. A more difficult matter, requiring much more time, skill, and attention, was that of deafness, because it was not easy to tell whether what seemed to be deafness arose from sounds being unfamiliar to the child. Then there was the important question of the condition of children's teeth, and in some cases inspection had already taken place. When at the Board of Education he was made aware of a retired dentist of a kindly disposition with professional enthusiasm enough to offer to inspect the teeth of all the children within his area if only the authority would place an arm-chair in every school in which to conduct the operations. But that sort of kindliness was rare, and dental investigations were a matter of time and expense. There were, however, other matters which need not take so much time, and yet would be of great value. Medical inspection might tell whether a child who appeared to be unfit to do the work required in the school was so unfit because it had come to the school hungry, or because it was backward or retarded by mal-nutrition from babyhood, or through improper treatment by ignorant parents, or whether it was physically or mentally deficient, and ought to be sent to a school for defective children. In that way they might clear the ground in some cases and assist the teacher by distinguishing the children who really ought not to be at a public elementary school at all. Then it was very important that children should not be put to physical exercises for which they were physically unfit. He mentioned these things as matters lying on the surface, and as showing the great importance which medical inspection would be to 1385 the health of the children, to the satisfactory conduct of the school, and to the nation generally. As to the difficulties that might arise, it was well to bear in mind what was the machinery already in existence. Every local education authority had power to appoint medical officers and nurses, and some had used this power with excellent results. Every urban or rural sanitary authority was bound to have a medical officer, and it would be no great extension of his duties if he were called upon to inspect the children in the elementary schools. Every county council might easily have a medical officer, but of course the difficulty, so far as he had endeavoured to work out the subject, would mainly arise in large rural areas where they would have to connect the medical sanitary officer of the rural sanitary authority with the general organisation of the county. So far as he could ascertain, that would not really be very difficult, though it might require considerable time and trouble in reorganisation. There were powers in existence, but there was no compulsion to exercise them. If it were said that parents might object to inspection, all he could say was that he could not ascertain a single case of a parent objecting where medical inspection had been adopted. He believed that inspection was gratefully accepted by the parent, although the directions which followed the inspection were not always pursued by the parent. There was the question of the time that the medical inspection would occupy, because time in these matters would mean money. He thought a system such as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell might be worked out, whereby every child on entering the school should be inspected by a medical officer. and again when it left the department in which it was first placed; that the medical officer should mark off such children as he desired to see again in the meantime, and at the same time desire the teacher to call his attention to any children who appeared to require medical atention. In that way they might get a fairly satisfactory system of inspection without requiring the medical officer to inspect every child at short intervals. But if this method was to be successful the teacher must possess some rudimentary medical knowledge, involving a knowledge of the ordinary symptoms of children's ailments. He would not by 1386 any means despair of that being accomplished under the existing system of training teachers. There remained the question of cost. The Departmental Committee which sat last year came to the conclusion that in an urban area the cost would not come to more than a rate of one-twelfth of a penny, and he thought there must be very few urban areas that would not pay that sum cheerfully in order to secure adequate medical inspection of the children. Personal inquiries he had made seemed to show that in urban areas the matter of organisation would not be difficult. In rural areas a great deal of re-organisation might be needed, involving more expense, but the difficulties, he thought, were by no means insuperable. All that remained was to require this medical inspection to be made, and he sincerely hoped that whether an addition was imposed on the rates or taxes, or a subvention from the Treasury was made to the local authority to assist them in the matter, the Government would take a friendly view of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. It was satisfactory to anyone who really cared for the education of the children that after the wearisome controversies of the last six weeks they had now come to some solid ground on which they felt they could all work together for the benefit, the happiness, and the health of the children.
§ SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)
said that what was required was not so much compulsion upon the parents to submit their children to medical investigation, as compulsion upon some of the local education authorities who had been singularly backward in taking advantage of some of the powers they already possessed to appoint medical officers or to secure the assistance of their sanitary officers in connection with the school life of the children. In the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee of last year it was somewhat melancholy reading to find that so little was being done by county and borough authorities under the head of medical inspection. In the case of London, when the County Council took over the work of the late school board, there were two medical officers and six part-time oculists employed by the board. Since then twenty-three part-time medical men had been appointed, 1387 chiefly to investigate the diseases and defects of the senses which prevented full advantage being taken of education provided in the schools. Twelve nurses had been appointed, and the County Council had determined to increase that number to twenty. The question of anthropometrical survey might really wait until the future. At present what was urgently required related to the primary needs in relation to child life. Statistics with which he had been furnished showed that in some districts 7 per cent., and in other districts as many as 22 per cent, of the children had been found to have defective eyesight. He could quote many cases which had come under his own notice of children being punished for stupidity or dulness which might have been cured by a pair of spectacles or the removal of adenoid growths. With regard to the very primary matters of cleanliness, medical inspection might be invaluable, for in certain schools in which 119,000 children were examined no fewer than 44,000 were reported as being verminous. Ordinary simple remedies applied for a week or a fortnight would have been sufficient to remove that bane. As in the matter of the under-feeding of school children, so in this the State had made itself responsible in some degree by requiring that children between the ages of five and fourteen should go to a certain place to receive certain instruction for certain hours daily. He hoped that the effect of this clause might be to compel a larger number of local authorities to do their duty in this matter. Outside the Metropolis only forty-seven local authorities had done anything in the way of medical inspection, and he thought such supineness gave occasion for interference. He rather doubted whether it would be desirable to attempt to force medical investigation on every single child, but he hoped that in future the services of wise and tactful medical officers might be used for the benefit and the welfare of child life in schools, and that the schools might not continue in the future as they had sometimes been in the past, the means of propagating infection.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
said there was no part of school work more interesting and important than that which related to the physical condition of the children. The 1388 Department with which he was for many years connected first directed attention to it by instituting an inquiry into the physical condition of school children in 1901. In connection with that, an inspection was made of individual schools both in Aberdeen and in Edinburgh. Medical experts examined a large number of scholars, and although there were occasional objections on the part of parents, he was able to state that they were useful as showing how easily they could be got over, and how small in number they were as compared with the number of parents who not only permitted the inspection, but were grateful for the help thus given to them regard to the health of their children. The revelations which were brought out by the investigations of these experts were in themselves something that might give the Committee pause. They proved, if proof were required, how absolutely necessary it was that some such work as that contemplated by the Amendment should be carried out. He believed that the local authorities had already powers in their hands. What was wanted was that the right hon. Gentleman should introduce something in the Code which would make the carrying out of these powers, which were so necessary in connection with the health of the children, a condition of the payment of the Parliamentary grant. That was what he wished to see, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman, to introduce such a condition It was essential, if they were to learn how to train the children, that they must learn more about their bodies and their health. In the elementary schools far too much of the work had been spent in mere intellectual training, in book work and blackboard work. It was surprising during the investigations of the Commission on Physical Training to see the extraordinary contrast between the attention given to corporal training and to health in secondary and high class schools as compared with elementary schools. In the secondary schools, at least one-third of the time in the week was devoted to physical training, while in elementary schools the time given was about twenty minutes three times a week. If the children were to be properly equipped for the work of education, medical inspection must 1389 be carried out as part of the educational work of the schools.
§ MR. THORNE (West Ham, S.)
said it was quite true that local authorities had already the power to appoint medical inspectors, but for the past seven years he and his colleagues on a town council of which he was a member had been hammering at the council trying to persuade them to appoint one or two medical officers for this purpose, but they had absolutely failed. The reason given was that the rates were so high that it was impossible to burden them further. In West Ham the rates amounted to 10s. 8d. in the £. A right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench had said that medical officers might spare the time to give some attention to this matter, but he thought medical officers had plenty to do already, He hoped the Minister for Education would not be timid about accepting this Amendment, because, as showing that public opinion, was behind it, he might mention that the principle had been unanimously approved at ten successive Trades Congresses. Therefore, he hoped that this all important Amendment would be accepted, and he was glad to think that at last the Committee was giving more attention to the bodies of the children and less to their souls.
§ MR. ALDEN (Middlesex, Tottenham)
hoped the Amendment would be accepted, though he admitted that the question of cost was a difficulty which they must face. They were now, however, spending a great deal of money on education to no purpose by attempting to teach children who were not physically fit to receive instruction, and a good deal of that waste might be prevented by a compulsory system of medical inspection. Let them begin by saving money in this respect if they had to spend it in other directions. He believed the Committee were practically unanimous on this point. He had had fifteen or sixteen years experience in the district of West Ham. He had seen a large number of children turned out of the board schools who were quite unprepared to make a living or to become effective members of society. The first remedy for that evil was the proper inspection of the children. The cost of that could 1390 be lessened in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for North Camberwell and the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. They should begin by inspecting all the children as they entered school, and setting aside those most unfit, who should be thereafter regularly inspected. Then, he would suggest that they should have to assist the doctors some trained nurses who would be much less costly than doctors. In fact, the nurses, if properly and scientifically trained, were as good as, if not better, for the purpose with young children, than doctors themselves. He had seen that system in operation in the United States with the most beneficial effect, while it seriously reduced the cost of the inspection. He ventured to hope that the Minister for Education would take into account the speeches and able arguments adduced on both sides of the House, and, knowing quite well the great need there was for this medical inspection, that he would see his way to accept the Amendment, even if he had to modify it in some respects on the Report stage.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said that it had not been made quite clear whether the Amendment was intended to cover the cost of the treatment of the children as well as the inspection.
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT
said he thought he had made it clear that he did not intend to include treatment as well as inspection.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN
believed that there was some danger, by drafting the Amendment in too wide terms, of the local education authority being involved in the expense of the treatment of the children as well as the inspection. The Committee were practically unanimous that medical inspection was necessary, but not that inspection should carry with it after-treatment. He was not so sanguine of the results of medical inspection as some hon. Members, because nearly every one who had spoken in the debate had left out of account the early stages in the life of the children before they attended school. He believed 1391 he was right in saying that a large proportion of the ailments from which children suffered at school had been very much aggravated by the treatment which they had undergone before they went to school. It would be far more likely to bring about the result desired by hon. Members if it became necessary that every child by the time it was a year old should be medically inspected in its home. He was convinced that many children of the poor had ailments so fixed upon them at these tender years that it was far more difficult, if not impossible to remove them at a later time. He was not at all sure that this whole question was not of such great importance that it required to be treated separately from the question of education. He had no conception of what the views of the President of the Board of Education were on this subject, but he hoped that no one would go away with the idea that by merely medically inspecting the children in the schools that would accomplish all that so many hon. Members expected.
§ MR. A. WILLIAMSON (Elgin and Nairn)
said he was Chairman of the Liverpool District Nursing Association, by whom this work of inspection and a tending to the children's health had been most successfully carried out by the Queen's Nurses, who were paid by the subscriptions of the public. Their object had been to get the Board of Education to give a grant to the Association in assistance of this work. The local education authority might pay for medical inspection but not for nursing. The local education authority valued the work of the nurses immensely, because it had improved the attendance and condition of the children. If the Amendment of his hon. friend were carried, half or two-thirds of the cost of inspection and nursing which would otherwise be borne by the nursing institutions of the country would have to be paid for by the local education authority. When they were dependent on purely school nurses the work would not he of the same quality as when nurses were employed who had district work as well, and who had had a scientific training for three years in a hospital. To employ medical men solely for inspec- 1392 tion was to increase the number of officials in connection with education, which he thought was undesirable. Another thing to be borne in mind was that it was desirable to follow up the children in their homes where the Queen's Nurses could attend to them.
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT
said it was not the intention of his Amendment that the medical men should follow up the cases to the children's homes; but it was quite possible that they or the nurses could follow up the cases.
§ MR. A. WILLIAMSON
said that in Liverpool they had twenty-two schools in which the children were nursed by Queen's Nurses, and last year 60,000 ailments were treated by them. The Nursing Association had said to the local education authority that they would undertake to nurse all the schools in Liverpool if they granted £40 a year for each nurse. By adopting the Amendment they would do away with all voluntary effort and get an inferior quality of nurses.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was the only critic of the Amendment on either side of the House. There were occasions when the whole scope of expressed opinion seemed to be going in one direction, while other members-were silent for one reason or another. He hoped that that was not the case on the present occasion. It had been proved that immense benefit could have been done to the children of the present generation if some such scheme as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman had been adopted in former years. He did not feel confident to press on the Committee that side of the case; but the hon. Member for North-west Ham, who spoke from personal experience of what had occurred in certain elementary schools in which the system had been adopted, had told them of the most obvious and most marvellous advantages which had resulted from it to the children concerned. Very few hon. Members were able to correct or supplement that personal experience. At any rate from the hon. Gentleman's personal experience the result had been 1393 that the health of the children had visibly improved. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras, who spoke with very great authority on all these questions not only as an educationist but as one well acquainted with the working of our local authorities seemed to think they ought to approach this matter only from the practical side, and not to attempt to obtain any scientific basis for future conclusions as to the effect of our social system —educational, sanitary, housing—upon the fortunes of cur population. He associated himself with the hon. Member for North Camberwell in the statement that if we bad twenty-five or thirty years ago established some such method of investigation as was now proposed, we might have been able to build our conclusions on a more solid foundation. The problem of urban life was really the problem they had got to consider—it was not the country. He did not in the least desire to limit the benefit of the Amendment, but, after all, it was in the great towns that they wanted both the remedial changes which could be produced, and that basis of knowledge in which they were most lamentably and sadly deficient. They had been in the habit of making speeches about the effect of overcrowding and devoting themselves to the consideration of the deplorable influences which urban life had on our population. Let them now get at the real facts of the case. He was himself wholly sceptical about the idea that the next generation would be weaker than this, and the generation after that weaker still, and so down an in infinite process of retrogression. He did not believe it. The population of this country must more and more be an urban population. No man, how-ever much he believed in what was called " return to the land," sincerely believed that, if the population of this small island was really to increase to any large extent, more than a small fraction of the increase could be among the population engaged in agriculture. If they admitted that, as they must, the problem of the health of the town was really the complete problem they had to face. He did not believe the health of the town was worse than it was. It was incredible to suppose so 1394 when they considered what it was in past times. On what did they spend these huge sums for sanitary improvements? Why were our rates mounting up to 10s. in the £? Had it all been thrown away? Surely not. But of course the evil effects, such as they were, of urban life had enormously increased, although the conditions of our towns were healthier, simply because the proportion of our population in the cities had increased. This was not a digression, it was really pertinent to what was the most important problem before them. It led up to the conclusion that it was worth while for this House to spend money upon anything that would give them a really solid scientific data on which they could calculate the effects which modern urban conditions produced on the mass of our population. He therefore earnestly suggested that the Government should carry out this Amendment if they thought it practicable. He would desire not to restrict their attention merely to what he might call the medical aspect of the problem as it affected the children at the moment. Let them not be led away by the counsels of the hon. Member for North-west St. Pancras; let them rather take counsel from the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and other hon. Gentlemen, and accept compulsory medical examination, if not in this form, then in some other. Let them see that it was carried out on a general scientific plan, a plan applicable to the whole country, a plan which would enable them to compare area with area, children under one condition with children under another condition, and the children of one generation with the children of the next. When they had done that, and not till then, they should have some really solid scientific basis for what was now too often merely rhetoric and speculative conclusions about the effect of modern civilisation upon the health and progress of the race. The question was a very big one, and he did not speak of what might be the great practical difficulties in the way. The Government were now in the unhappy position of having to consider those practical difficulties, and if the right hon. Gentleman told him they were insuperable, he should accept his word. But he 1395 hoped they were not insuperable, and if they carried out this scheme, which was of first-rate importance, let it be done thoroughly and not merely in what he might call a philanthropic spirit.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said there was a time when a public elementary school was a place where the small children of the locality went for very limited purposes— to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. People did not look beyond that, and that made the work of the Minister for Education, and also the burden of the ratepayers, comparatively light. Time was, thirty or thirty-five years ago, when these were the ideas that generally predominated, and that played a leading part in the debates which then took place in Parliament. But they now lived in another world, and ever since he had been at the Board of Education he had been pursued by deputations of learned men and zealous men and women, who looked upon schools as places where not merely reading, writing, and arithmetic were more or less badly taught, but as places where they were to consider the health, the future happiness, and what he might call the breed of the English-speaking race. Well, those were new ideas to the Board of Education, they were extensive ideas, and they sought to impose upon the Board of Education duties which he did not know that the Board was the best body to carry out. But so far as he felt that these were opportunities for benefiting the future generations of this country, he was eager to avail himself of every one of them, and he could assure the Committee that this was a part of his work in which any man in his place would naturally take the deepest possible interest. Therefore, everything that could be done he was anxious should be done to promote the health of the children. The question seemed to him to be divided under two heads. First, leaving out for the moment the question of population, what were the duties they would desire to see performed by the local education authorities, assuming that they were all alive to their duties, and were not, as they well might be, frightened by the heaviness of their rates? The duties were of a two-fold character. There was, first, the inspection, a medical inspection, 1396 of the child when it went to school. He did not know whether that was best taken at the infant stage or after completing that stage. But he entirely agreed that it was most desirable in the interests of true and accurate information, as to the people for whom they were labouring, to see what kind of people they were, and to compare one generation with another. He deeply regretted we were so behindhand in these matters. This medical inspection was also of very great value as indicating to the teachers what congenital weaknesses the children might have, in order that they might be treated properly in the class. They had heard a great deal about defective sight. He himself all his life had had to contend with that adversary. Certainly, he never in his life saw anything on the blackboard except, perhaps, the map of Africa; as to figures on the blackboard, he never saw one during his school career, which might account for many deficiencies. He had been condemned in the moment he was born to wear spectacles. Similarly ear and throat troubles were among the things which were easily detected at once by a very simple inspection by practised medical men. Every school ought to keep a precise register of the result of this inspection, which would not only serve a scientific and a national purpose, but would also be available for indicating what treatment children ought to receive while at school. The inspection need not necessarily be very expensive, although doctors, like all other professional men, required to be paid. They must bear in mind the possibility of the duties sometimes overlapping those of the officers of the Local Government Board. Reference had been made to the kind of work which might be done by nursing. There was some little red tape difficulty, he believed, as to how far a nurse could be considered to be an officer within the meaning of the Act, if she did not give her whole time. In large towns nurses were to be got from institutions. He was glad to think that in many country villages, owing to the generosity of country gentlemen, the nurse was also becoming a familiar figure. But in large towns nurses were to be obtained from institutions; and, if they were employed 1397 in connection with schools, it would not be necessary to engage their entire services. In cases of serious illness the nurses in Liverpool, who, his hon. friend had told them, had attended 60,000 children suffering from bad cuts, burns, and other things of that kind, were able to follow the children home and point out to the mothers the treatment that should be followed. These suggestions were always most thankfully received. But he thought they might disregard what they might call the malignant parent. Every schoolmaster was acquainted with the cantankerous parent who objected to his child receiving the ordinary treatment of the school. He thought they might very well disregard such parents in the matter of nursing also. In Liverpool, however, mothers welcomed the visits of the nurses, and were most anxious to learn from them how best to look after their children. But the question before them was whether they should make obligatory the duty on the local authority to provide for the medical inspection of children attending the schools. He confessed that in this matter he was in the hands of the House. The difficulty he saw was not so much in the way of securing that the particular duty should be carried out by particular medical men, but the obligation on the part of the Board of Education to compile schemes and impose them on the local education authorities. In this matter of medical inspection he was willing to submit to the judgment of the House that it should be made obligatory on every local authority to provide for the medical inspection of every child on application for admission to a public school and on such other occasions as the Board of Education might direct. The Board of Education was equally willing to receive inspiration from the House in the direction of strengthening its medical staff at headquarters for the purpose, not of carrying out the inspection of the schools—for that, of course, must be done by local doctors to be appointed by the local education authority—but of seeing that the local authorities were discharging the duties which they have at present power to discharge, and also to keep in touch with what was going on in Continental towns, from which, he admitted, we had much 1398 to learn. But what he was not prepared to accept was the further suggestion in the Amendment that the Board of Education should prepare generally, for town and country, schemes for the medical inspection of school children. The conditions of districts were so totally different and the physical circumstances of children varied so much that the preparation of general schemes would require an amount of consideration and care beyond the power on an already overworked Board. But apart from that he was quite willing to put down for the Report stage of the Bill an Amendment to the following effect—It shall be the duty of every local authority to provide for the medical inspection of every child on its application for admission to a public elementary school, and on such other occasion as the Board of Education may direct or the local education authority may think fit.
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT
asked the right hon. Gentleman to continue the words after that to record and correlate the statistics.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he took it it would naturally follow that each local authority would collect the same statistics.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he understood about the anthropometrical sphere. That was to be the data, but he wanted to point out that in the great urban centres it was most desirable to have a continuous inspection to be in continuous medical touch with the children in the schools. He wanted to make that point quite plain, and desired to know whether what the right hon. Gentleman had said would apply to the fact that it should be obligatory in the poorer schools to have the children continually examined by the medical officer.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that was not in his mind at the time. It was not in his mind that there should be medical treatment.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
disagreed, and said if there were continuous medical inspection there were many agencies which might be brought into play to take over the treatment.
§ MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)
said this was a most important matter, and that while he was quite willing that there should be medical inspection in any schools in which he might be interested, he should very much object to medical treatment. In the case of adenoids, that was absolutely harmless, and many people might object to having their children treated for it.
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT
said he was particularly careful to guard against medical treatment—periodical medical inspection did not include treatment.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
pointed out that one medical inspection was not sufficient to be of any use; it must be periodical.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
said he did not think the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman carried out the desire of the Committee. Unless there were continuous inspection for cleanliness that inspection was of no use at all.
§ MR. H. J. TENNANT
said the Committee had had a most interesting debate, and he was very grateful to his right hon. friend the Minister for Education for the sympathetic attitude he had taken. They had struck a great blow for the children and for the race. He begged to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
§ MR. ASHLEY
moved an Amendment to limit the expenditure which might be incurred under this subsection in any one year to an amount not exceeding that which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound. He agreed that it was necessary that as much attention as possible should be paid to the physical 1400 condition of the children, especially in our big towns. They might best consider what further power should be given to the local authorities by considering what had been done up to the present time. He understood that the local education authority had power to provide gymnasia and baths. Further, they had the obvious duty of preventing the spread of infectious disease from one child to another, and therefore they could medically inspect the child to see if it were suffering from infectious disease. The medical officers of the London County Council had the power to inspect children's eyesight, and the authority had endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon the parents to supply spectacles for their children when necessary, although they had no legal power to compel the parents to do so. Children who went to school outrageously unwashed were refused admission, and parents were threatened with the law in order to compel them to look after their children. He desired to bear testimony to the good work that had been done by the London County Council in respect to improving the physical conditions of the children in London. He thought they on those benches who did not always agree with the policy of the London County Council must agree that their policy so far as the physical condition of the children of London was concerned ought to be supported in every way, and that the thanks of London ought to be given to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras for the leading part he had taken in helping forward this excellent work. They had to consider what extra powers should be given to the local education authority. Although it might seem a small matter, it was obviously right that the local education authority should be given power to purchase spectacles for the children, but he did not think it would be contended that it would require more than 5s. per child per annum to provide spectacles for each child that wanted them and for the medical inspection that the Committee had decided should very properly be carried out. The Amendment he now moved would not in any way hamper any legitimate work by the local education authority, but would prevent any tendency on the part of the authority to outrun the constable.
In clause 35, page 20, line 6, after the word ' arrangements,' to insert the words, ' not involving an expenditure in any one year exceeding the amount which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
thought it would be contrary to principle in a matter of this kind where they had just imposed an obligation upon the local authority to put any limit upon their expenditure. At the same time there seemed to be no reason to apprehend that the expenditure under this clause would amount to anything like the limit suggested by the hon. Member. A penny rate all over England would amount to about £700,000, and no one could anticipate that medical inspection and other provisions likely to be made under this section would come to any sum of that kind. He thought it was unnecessary to put in a limit, and, moreover, it would be contrary to principle to make an obligation and then impose such a restriction as this. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said perhaps his hon. friend would withdraw this Amendment. The difficulty could not be practicably dealt with by limiting the expenditure on the particular objects in this Bill, and the moment for supporting such a plan was not the happiest when they had just imposed an obligation upon the local authority. He thought that the end of legislation of this character would be that the taxpayer would have to come to the help of the ratepayer on a very large scale. That was a question they could perhaps debate more successfully on a future occasion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIB JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
wished to tender to the 1402 Minister for Education his cordial congratulations upon being able to address the Committee in a time of total abstinence from bitter controversy. He would also venture to thank his right hon. friend for the spirit with which he had met the various proposals that had come befo e the Committee, and he was inclined to tell his right hon. friend it was a pity he did not take the country into his confidence at the beginning of the preparation of the Bill, because it might then have met the wishes of the House in far more complete measure. He proposed to move to insert words giving the local authority power to make by-laws subject to the approval of the Board of Education, to enforce the attendance of children at evening continuation schools or technical schools up to the age of seventeen years. If the Amendment were adopted the local education authority would have power to make by-laws, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, to enforce the attendance of children at evening continuation schools or technical schools up to the age of seventeen. One of the considerations of the utmost importance was the amount of hardship imposed upon the parents of the children who attended these schools. He was a member of a school attendance committee many years ago when they began imposing compulsion upon the parents to send their children to school, and it was found to be a hardship. In those days they were taking children away from the earning of money and compelling them to attend school. To day he was not imposing anything which would entail hardship upon any parent, because, after all, the attendance at these schools would be only for two or three evenings a week during the dark months of the year, or a maximum of 120 hours in the year, those hours being the least valuable in the way of earning money. Every one knew that a large amount of the work done at school was lost by the pupil a few years afterwards. He cited his own personal experience. Every boy who entered the service of Brunner, Mond, and Co., below the age of fourteen was bound to attend an evening continuation school up to the age of seventeen. Later the period had been extended to nineteen years, and that was the general rule now. 1403 With apprentices they went further, and said they must attend these schools until the age of twenty-one. The parents hid been called together and were consulted as to the adoption of compulsion, and he had the greatest pleasure in stating that not one parent out of many hundreds had a word of objection to offer as to the imposition of compulsion. One of the happy results of this system had been that large numbers of other boys and girls had come forward to submit to the system, so that the character of the population in the two neighbouring villages had been completely changed. His firm, moreover, were better served as the outcome of this educational method, and he thought that if the same rules were applied universally the same good effects would be forthcoming. If by adopting his proposal the Committee could bring about the same result in all the villages of the country it would be an extremely happy piece of work. The Amendment he proposed left it optional on the part of the local authority. He had not the courage to make the amendment obligatory on the authorities, but he wanted to make a beginning and to secure that the children should not forget what they had learnt in the schools. If his Amendment was not suitable to factory districts at least they might try what he proposed elsewhere, and perhaps the example set by other parts of the country and the benefits which followed would prove an inducement to the factory districts to shorten their hours of labour. He appealed to the Labour members to support his Amendment.
In page 20, line 6, to insert ' (b) Power to make by-laws, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, to enforce the attendance of children at evening continuation schools or technical schools up to the age of seventeen years.'
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said the Committee had listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Baronet and with much of what he had said many hon. Members would agree. They were all aware that in many cases the benefits which the children derived from 1404 elementary education were entirely lost in after life, but he asked the Committee to pause before accepting the present proposal. There was a danger that they might interfere too much with the family life of the people if they transferred parental responsibility at every turn to the care of the State. His own experience of these institutions at Chester showed him that there was a great deal of keenness on the part of the scholars to learn just because they were enabled to satisfy their thirst to acquire knowledge voluntarily. That keenness of desire in the scholars re-acted very favourably on the teachers, for to them it was a change as from the treadmill to a delightful occupation when they were imparting the knowledge sought for and asked for by the scholars. But compulsion meant the formation of a plan and rigidity in the curriculum. One of the advantages in the work of continuation schools was its variety in the giving of a liberal education, and compulsion meant restricting the teaching within certain rigid limits. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that he had great admiration for the educational efforts of his right hon. friend, though he thought that his experience was being misapplied when he wished to make the system so successful of results in his own case universal. One of the effects to be looked at was the influence of such compulsion on employment, for the Amendment would enforce attendance on the part of the scholars. The child who was compelled to attend school was relieved from industrial work, but under the Amendment a young man, who had done his day's work would be compelled to attend evening classes in addition. That was not shortening the hours of labour. The Government could not accept the Amendment. Compulsion was a very ungracious and difficult task in the case of children under twelve years of age, but how much more difficult would it be in the case of boys and young women up to seventeen years of age The proposal would involve a very heavy addition of intellectual labour in the case of many, and, he dared say, in the case of most people. It would be hard if youngmen who had done their day's work it might be as clerks or in a severe form 1405 of manual labour, were to be compelled, irrespective of their condition, to receive education in the evening up to the age of seventeen. If public opinion strengthened on this matter, Parliament or the Government might be prepared to take further steps.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said he fully sympathised with his right hon. friend. He agreed that the real weak place in our system was that we lost touch with the children at far too early an age, and that a great deal of the money we spent on education was put into a bag with holes in the bottom of it. The existing law permitted a child to go to work as a half-timer in the agricultural areas at eleven years of age, provided he made 250 attendances out of 400. The Amendment would compel a child then to go five years to a night school for the period set out. At twelve years of age a child might go as a half-timer in a factory, if he passed the legal standard for a half-timer, and at the same time he might go on full time if he had passed the full time standard and made the necessary attendances. Under the system proposed by the Amendment the children would have to go five years to a night school. At the age of fourteen, no matter what his qualification, a child was free from school. It should be remembered that this Amendment was rendered impossible largely by the reactionary Act of 1899, introduced by the Solicitor-General, under which a child engaged in field work might become a half-timer at the age of eleven.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that that Act added to the child's school life and to his opportunities of recreation. If it were reactionary, it was a pity there was not more reactionary legislation.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that the Amendment would be simply cruel in the present state of the law. It would be necessary, first, to shorten the hours of labour and raise the age of school exemption.
§ SIR WILLTAM ANSON
supported the Amendment. The hon. Member for Month Camberwell had somewhat ex- 1406 aggerated his right hon. friend's proposal. He talked as though there was to be universal compulsion, and that the law would fall heavily on children from the time they left the day school. The proposal was that the local authority should have power to make by-laws requiring compulsory attendance, subject to the approval of the Board of Education. It rested with the local authority, having regard to the state of public opinion in its area, to make by-laws or not as it thought desirable. Everybody regretted the rapidity with which children forgot what they had learned after they left school, and everybody desired that their education should be prolonged, if only to make sure that they would retain what they had learned. There was another reason advanced by the advocates of evening classes—a moral, rather than an intellectual, reason, namely, that it was desirable for the youth of towns that some occupation should be provided to keep them off the streets, and give them something to learn which would interest and be of value to them. These were good reasons for pressing this matter on the attention of the Government. He did not agree with, the denunciations of the Solicitor-General and his Act of 1899 which they had heard from the hon. Member for Camberwell. He had always thought that it would be of great advantage if they could get the children on to the land sooner in the rural districts so far as that could be done consistently with the continuation of their education. He did not suppose anyone desired that children who were hard worked all day should be compelled to go to continuation classes, any more than that teachers who were possibly working at an ungracious task throughout the day, should be compelled to teach, whether they wished it or not, at evening classes. But if they could by some relaxation of school attendance in the rural areas impose a condition that attendance at evening continuation classes should be given later on, he believed they would do a great deal to keep children on the land by giving them an interest in rural pursuits at an early age and so counteract the prevailing wish to go off to the towns. The real difficulty was as to the age at which 1407 compulsion should cease, but he believed it was not beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme, and he thought it might be left to the local authority to consider whether the public opinion of the district justified compulsion.
§ MR. T. P. RICHARDS (Wolverhampton, W.)
said he opposed the Amendment simply because he did not think there was any proposal which met with more opposition from the working classes. This matter had been under consideration at Glasgow, and while the working-men wished that boys could be persuaded to attend evening schools after the age of thirteen or fourteen, they could not see their way to approve of the principle of compulsion. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that those who were anxious for this principle at all should assist in raising the school age. He would prefer that the children should not be permitted to leave school under fifteen or sixteen years. That was the policy advocated by the working classes. He himself had to leave school at an early age, and he found that after getting to work he lost interest in the school. If evening schools were to be continued, attendance thereat should not be made compulsory, but boys and girls might be persuaded by parental encouragement to go to them. In that way more would be got out of them than by compulsion. He trusted that the Committee would not pass the Amendment.
§ MR. MADDISON (Burnley)
said that the right hon. Baronet who had moved the Amendment had probably done as much as any man in the House or country for education. His enthusiasm for education had taken the best of all forms, that of giving solid cash to advance it; but he was sure that the object which he had at heart would not be secured if the Amendment were passed. He himself had long thought that something would have to be done with regard to the larger development of evening schools, and that compulsion might eventually be necessary; but he thought the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell was unanswerable that this was not the 1408 time to do it. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that if the Amendment became law it would paralyse the efforts of those who desired to lengthen the ordinary school life of the children, because they would be told that a child's education was going on in the evening schools. In the case of half-time boys and girls working in a weaving shed, spinning mill, or factory, as he understood the position, they already suffered by the half-time system, but they would be hereafter compelled to go to an evening continuation school. He did not hesitate to say that if he were a parent he would object to his boy having to make an enforced attendance at an evening continuation school after undergoing many hours of hard work. He hoped that his right hon. friend would not press the Amendment to a division, otherwise he would find himself in conflict with a large number of Members who were in sympathy with him, and supported him in his general education policy. They had heard something about the land. He did not know very much about the land; he was town bred. True, he wanted a large number of his fellow citizens to go back to the land because really he was not selfish; but personally he preferred to get his living, if not in public life, as a compositor in the city. Still, he could not for the life of him see that it was the business of the Education Department to keep little boys on the land. The land was an excellent thing, but the school was the place for children up to fourteen years of age at least instead of their being employed in hoeing turnips, or acting as scare-crows. He did not want any sort of idea to prevail that workmen would support any proposal which, however good it might be under proper conditions, would have the effect of preventing the lengthening of the school life of the children, which they believed to be one of the greatest blessings that could, be bestowed upon them.
§ MR. HICKS-BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
said that as an agricultural Member he believed that this was an Amendment that found very great favour in the country not only with the employers of 1409 labour, but also with the parents themselves; and for this reason, that in the agricultural districts children might be allowed to leave school in the summer months to earn a few shillings at work upon the land. The children enjoyed it; it benefited the parents; and the fanners liked it. It was found that when the children got beyond the age of twelve and thirteen years and were sent to work on the land, they were absolutely useless. [" Oh. oh,"] What they were being taught in the schools was useless to them for working on the land. [" Oh, oh."] That was true nevertheless. At the same time he quite agreed that something might be done during the winter, in evening classes, to give the boys instruction which would be invaluable to them all their lives. But there was the obvious difficulty that a child was not at his best for receiving education in evening classes after he had spent the best hours of the day working in the fields. It was the ambition of all hon. Members to do something to keep the people on the land, and therefore he favoured additional means of instruction for the children of peasants in the winter months, but it should not be made compulsory.
§ SIR PHILIP MUNTZ (Warwickshire, Tamworth)
said that he sympathised very heartily with the suggestion of the right hon. baronet, but he must be excused for saying, as a man who had had considerable experience, that it might lead to an amount of friction which hon. Members could scarcely realise. It was most desirable, he agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, to continue the education of the children as long and as far as they could, because if they left school at the age of fourteen by the time they had reached the age of eighteen they had forgotten all they had learned. It was desirable that boys should go on the land as early as possible, and it was his own experience that boys who went to work early in life became better artisans than those who went at the age of sixteen or seventeen. He ventured to say that in many employments at the present time the workmen were not as 1410 efficient as they were fifty years ago, because they did not go to work at an early age.
§ SIR PHILIP MUNTZ
said the wanted these people to improve their minds on the land or in the workshop, but the difficulty was how it was to be done. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that they could not enforce compulsory attendance at evening continuation schools, but they could make these schools attractive and persuade the young people to go there on their own initiative. He was in favour of the half-time system, but they could not expect boys who were employed on laborious work during the day to be compelled to attend evening schools.
§ SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University)
said he agreed with the right hon. Baronet's motive in bringing forward the Amendment, but as the Government were not disposed to accept it the Committee should not waste their time in giving reasons against it. Compulsory attendance at evening schools was not altogether an impossibility, as in parts of Germany, at all events, persons who left school at a certain age were compelled until they reached a higher age to attend evening schools. He thought the Amendment was objectionable on account of its vague character. The right hon. Baronet had not given any idea as regards the age at which compulsion would be necessary. If a person left school at sixteen years of age, it might not be necessary for him to attend evening classes, but if he left school at twelve it might be. Another matter which the Committee must bear in mind was that children who left school early, too often forgot what they had learned and were consequently unable to take advantage of the evening 1411 schools. That involved the loss of a great amount of money to the country. The pupils who were attracted to evening classes were rapidly increasing in number, and they belonged to the industrial classes. None were more responsible for this great improvement than manufacturers of the type of Messrs. Brunner and Mond, who encouraged young people in their works to attend those schools. He should deprecate the acceptance of the Amendment also for the reason that it would have the effect of preventing manufacturers from taking the deep interest in the education of the people employed in their works which they now evinced.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER
thought that his action might be mistaken outside if he pressed his Amendment to a division, because he should appear to be in opposition to a great many Members whose objects were the same as his. He therefore asked for leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. MASSIE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
moved to insert a sub-section as follows, providing that the powers of the local education authority under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, should include—(a) Power to provide, in public elementary schools, instruction of scholars in day schools up to the end of the school year in which the scholar reaches the age of sixteen.He said the effect of the Amendment would be to raise by one year the age at which children had to be turned out of the public elementary schools Section 22 of the Act of 1902 fixed the age at between fifteen and sixteen That might mean fifteen plus one day, or sixteen minus one day, and the average worked out at fifteen years and a half. He proposed to raise the age to be between sixteen and seventeen, which in the same way would work out at an average of sixteen and a half years. It was true that the Government grants would not continue payable with regard to the instruction given to such scholars. For many years they had been payable up to eighteen years of age, up to which age they still continued payable in Scotland and Ireland; but the non-continuance of the Government grants should not prevent local authorities from re- 1412 ceiving these children and training them at their own expense if such a course was thought desirable. As it was now, not only did the Government grant cease at a point between fifteen and sixteen, but the local authorities were positively forbidden to continue to receive children beyond that age. The origin of this arbitrary exclusion was the well-known Cockerton judgment in 1901. The actual question of age was not raised in that case by those who were in effect crippling elementary education, and it was not even argued by their counsel. The judges themselves raised that question. Mr. Justice Kennedy said that elementary education was established for the welfare of children and not for adults. He did not say anything more definite than that, but Mr. Justice Wills was more definite, because he intimated that between sixteen and seventeen an age was reached which no one could call childhood. Why had the Government of the day gone one worse than the Judge and fixed the limit at from fifteen to sixteen? The Amendment which stood in his name was in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Justice Wills, that the age should be between sixteen and seventeen. Of course they had been told that the secondary school was the proper place for a child between sixteen and seventeen. That might be all right in theory, though it seemed to him to depend very much upon how long the child could stay at the secondary school and it did not answer in practice. The number of children who were in a true sense fitted for a secondary school; was severely limited. That number might be gauged by the fact that all the local authorities in England taken together provided an aggregate of only 13,000 scholarships, and the number of children available for those scholarships was 2,400,000. After all secondary school provision had been made for the clever children in the elementary schools, an enormous number of children remained whose need was completer elementary education, or rather some extra teaching which might fit them for the industrial life upon which they were about to enter. He knew of many parents who were willing and anxious that their children should remain at school for a longer period, when they had attained fourteen or fifteen years, of 1413 age, if they could be in the same school, under the same teacher, in the same educational atmosphere and—this was a practical point—with the same suit of clothes and without paying higher fees. He had known parents receive with genuine sorrow the notice that their children would no longer be received in the school. He thought it was but faintly appreciated how many unfinished articles, even as regarded elementary education, were turned out of our elementary schools. In the County Council schools of London, where the teaching was most excellent and an excellent system of compelling attendance prevailed, nearly 40 per cent, of the children left at the age of fourteen without getting beyond the fourth standard, which was the standard for children between the ages of ten and eleven. Many causes contributed to this unsatisfactory and unprofitable result, such as early neglect, frequent illness, prolonged absence from school, slow development in the intellect of the child. But there were many children who, encouraged by their parents, would be willing to redeem the time by remaining in the school for a year or two longer. One wondered why these children should be excluded. There was no such exclusion in Scotland or Ireland, and why should they be excluded in England, especially at the time when the intellect of the child often took a new start? Many hon. Members had, he thought, been startled at some figures given to him in reply to Questions which he had asked the previous week as to the number of children over fourteen years of age who were still attending the elementary schools in the three divisions of the kingdom. According to the latest figures available, taking 1,000 as the numerical basis, the proportion in England was 10.6, in Scotland 28.3, and in Ireland 64. As to Ireland, many of the children went to school at the age of twelve or thirteen to learn to read and write. There was less child labour in that country and there was a great deal more looseness about absent children being allowed to remain on the register, and these facts among others perhaps accounted for the figure in regard to that country. It must be borne in mind that the children who were allowed to continue 1414 their education belonged to parents of the most enlightened class, parents who exercised considerable self-denial in their action. Why, therefore, should these parents and children be discouraged? Why, when parents were willing that their children should continue at school until they were sixteen or seventeen, should they be forbidden? England was already backward, why should she be made more backward by statute? It was not proposed by this suggestion to compel the children to attend or the authorities to receive. All that was asked for was that in particular cases where parents, scholars, teachers, and authorities, were willing, the novel and pedantic limitation of the Act of 1902 should henceforth cease and that exclusion should operate between the ages of sixteen and seventeen, and not between the ages of fifteen and sixteen. He asked for this on behalf of the mass of the children of the elementary schools who could not go to a secondary school.
In page 20, line 6, to insert ' as power to provide, in public elementary schools, instruction of scholars in day schools up to the end of the school year in which the scholar reaches the age of sixteen.'
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BIRRELL
said his hon. friend had made a most excellent speech on the subject matter of his Amendment, but he hoped he would not press it too severely, because he believed it would really check and discourage a great number of most zealous educationists who had established in our large towns secondary schools on the principle of what was called the four years course. The object of the four years course was to get the child to go into these schools at the age of twelve on the understanding that he would be allowed by his parents to remain four years and get the benefit of the course. He agreed that no scientific distinction could be drawn between what was primary and what was secondary education. Anyone who went to the public elementary schools knew that in the higher standards there was an amount 1415 of education being given which was properly secondary education, and if they went to the secondary or higher grade schools they would find in the earlier classes there was a great deal of what was called primary education. The only distinction in the matter was that in the secondary schools they strove to get an assurance from the parents that the children would be allowed to attend the school for a definite period, so that the work could be spread over with the knowledge that the child would get the benefit of the four years course. It was not quite the case, as his hon. friend had suggested, that there was no means of allowing the children to remain in an elementary school beyond the period named, because in Section 22 of the Act of 1902 there was a provision that the local education authority, with the assent of the Board of Education, could extend the limit, provided there was no higher education school in the district. There was, therefore, no hard and fast rule prohibiting a child after he had reached a certain age from attending school. They need not now go into the question; the pre-Cockerton days were over. The Act of 1902 seized an opportunity and made different arrangements, and they did not now say that in public elementary schools nothing but elementary education should go on. The distinction made in the Act of 1902 was the distinction between the elementary and secondary schools, and no hard and fast line was drawn between what must be taught in the one and what in the other. They need not therefore, concern themselves with that. The real difficulty here arose from the fact that it was all right in county boroughs and counties where they had complete jurisdiction over both Part II. and Part III. of education, but that the autonomous districts as they were called, the non-county boroughs and certain districts with a particular kind of population claimed the right to and did provide their own elementary but not their; own secondary education. There was no power in the non-county boroughs to provide both primary and secondary education. The effect therefore of the Amendment would be to allow children to remain in the elementary school of a non-county borough longer than they 1416 were now doing, with the disastrous result that the elementary school would come into competition with those secondary county schools which had been established. That he thought would be a very serious blow to education. He knew that there was an objection to these secondary schools on the ground that they were too classical and too humanitarian in their curriculum, and that they were not up-to-date because they did not teach science and mathematics as they ought to do. But there were schools of different types according to the wants of the neighbourhood, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that a child who went to a secondary school would get that sort of clerkly education which would unfit him for earning his living as an artisan. The keeping of a child from year to year living intellectually a hand to mouth existence in the elementary schools would deal a blow at what was most dear to the hearts of most educationists who had established secondary schools which had met with great success in many of our large towns. Working class parents were beginning to appreciate the fact that it was the wisest thing, and that it was best for their children to go to these schools. What they wanted in the secondary schools was to see children of all classes mixing together and receiving the same education according to their particular wants. He would be sorry if the idea got into the heads of the parents that these secondary schools were a sort of genteel place where children of the artisan class, or those who wished to follow the crafts, should not go. He hoped that in the present condition of education, when we had had people toiling and moiling since the Act of 1902 to establish technical and secondary schools, and when the local edcuation authorities were waking up to the fact that schools of all types should be established, a blow would not be struck at that system. He did not in any way wish to limit the curriculum of the public elementary schools or interfere with or keep down the level of the higher grade schools. But do not let the Committee strike a blow at the higher grade schools by inducing parents to believe that it was better for their children to remain a year or two longer at the elementary school than to avail 1417 themselves of the advantage to be derived from the secondary schools. Teachers could proceed to work on different lines, and secure much greater results if they knew their scholars were going to remain under their tuition for four years. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful of the public elementary schools, but he did think it would be a pity to encourage the children to remain on year after year instead of taking advantage of the instruction at secondary schools. If there were any faults to be found with the curriculum of the secondary schools let them be corrected, but let them not strike a blow at those schools. He could not accept the Amendment of his hon. friend and he hoped he would not press it.
§ MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)
said he was sorry he could not agree with his right hon. friend in the line he had taken. No educationist would oppose the recent policy of the Education Department to develop the system of secondary schools, but his quarrel with the Department was that it had been developing secondary schools at the expense of elementary schools. They had had too much of the University man and the public school man at the Education Department; his influence had been not altogether for good. The responsible authorities of the Department in order to develop the secondary system had dealt very serious blows at our elementary school system. It was perfectly true that they could not draw a line between the elementary school and the secondary school, but they knew there was a difference between them. The atmosphere of the two classes of school was quite distinct, and as a matter of fact the secondary tended more and more to become a sort of school for higher education in gentlemanliness and respectability. They might deplore it, but it was the case. The moment they sent the child into the atmosphere of the secondary school and brought it into contact with its influence and ideas, a different point of view was put before the child, who was made to occupy a different standpoint altogether in life, He did not for a moment dispute the educational advantage of sending a child 1418 to a school where it entered upon a carefully-planned curriculum for four years. It was, undoubtedly, a great advantage to a child who wanted to attend that kind of school and to emerge from it moulded in the spirit and in the character of the school. But there was also another great necessity, and that was to make the elementary school teacher feel that he was not merely a teacher of the lower standards, but that he was required to turn out children fully equipped for their duties in life. If they impressed on the elementary school teacher that if a child on reaching twelve years of age showed special ability it was to pass from his control and care, they would do the worst possible thing for elementary education. They had heard references to the excellence, of the Scottish system, but that excellence depended on the fact that in the Scottish board school they could get better and more efficient teaching than could be got in English secondary schools. Since they had interfered with the Scottish education system by the attempt to differentiate between so-called secondary and elementary education the English influence upon Scottish education had been altogether for the bad. Let them remember that the country depended not merely upon an efficient secondary system, but upon an efficient, self-respecting, proud elementary system, and they could not have that if they were constantly skimming the milk, passing the cream on to other schools, and leaving behind the more backward and less promising children to be beaten into shape by the uninspired elementary teacher. The great intellectual poverty which had hung like a pall over so much of the elementary education of England had been largely owing to the fact that elementary education had largely consisted of the more simple exercises of education. When they had succeeded in getting more democratic influences at the Education Department the would have an improvedstatusof elementary teaching. There were children who wanted something between simple education given in the three R's with the small additions that had been made, and the four years carefully-planned curriculum of the secondary school. They wanted an education which would make them good 1419 artisans. The secondary school was professional in its atmosphere and led children to look down upon any career except a professional one. Children who were going to follow a profession should be given the advantages of the secondary school, but those children who did not want to follow a profession should be allowed to stay in the schools to which they had been accustomed by proper education being provided for standards VI. and VII. and ex-standard VII. The reason the last years of a child's life in an elementary school now were probably the most barren of school life was that no provision was made for higher education. By enabling elementary schools to provide those facilties they would elevate elementary education, without doing anything to militate against the system of secondary education which they were glad the Education Department was doing its best to establish in this country.
§ MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)
said he differed from the view of his right hon. friend that the growth of the elementary school system was being fostered. One natural growth of the elementary school system was the higher grade board school, the extinction of which showed that that system was being stopped. When his right hon. friend suggested that it had been replaced by municipal secondary schools in every part of the country he was bound to call to mind that there were only some seventy schools in the country so far, that a fee was charged in these schools, that the committees which managed these schools were not permitted to give an adequate number of free places in them, and that the management of the schools was removed from the democratic committee who arranged the elementary schools. He would assume that his right hon. friend was correct in saying that a great number of children in the elementary schools ought to proceed to a secondary school. The object of the Amendment was the assistance of pupils who did not go to secondary schools, and who by a prolongation of their time in an elementary school might develop latent qualities that had not appeared in their earlier 1420 years. There was need for such a provision, and he regretted that the Minister for Education did not see his way to adopt it.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
could not agree with the distinctions drawn by the hon. Member for Leicester. Each kind of education had its purpose and its place in our system and all were equal in so far as they fulfilled the purpose for which they existed. He did not admit the distinction of one class of teacher over another. Elementary, secondary, or other, the teacher did his best to develop the mind and form the intelligence of the pupil in his charge. The hon. Member had assumed that secondary schools developed class distinctions, but he would be sorry if that were so. The only object of the Department in its regulations for secondary schools was the preparation of boys and girls for their work in life. The greatest care was taken to give them a good basis of general education, and beyond that the scholar could specialise in any direction that would be useful to him, but the prolongation of time at the public elementary school would serve no good purpose. If a boy had attended school from five to fifteen years of age, it was useless for him to continue marking time for another year, playing at being a boy when he was becoming a young man. There would be no advantage, but rather injury to the boy, and it would have a bad effect on the teacher and the character of the elementary school. The attention of the teacher would be distracted from the general work to a small group of pupils whose time at the elementary school had been prolonged. What they were mostly concerned with was the raising of the standard of the average student. If the children wanted something between elementary and secondary education there was the higher elementary school to meet the case of students who had not the time for the secondary school course and who wanted something more than the elementary and something more suited to the career in which they were going to embark. For these reasons he should find very great difficulty in supporting the Amendment.
§ MR. MASSIE
said he was satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, though not with all that had been said; and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MADDISON
said the Amendment he had to propose sought to give power to the local education authorities to train pupil teachers as part of their ordinary work of elementary education. He believed in the superiority of the pupil teacher centre system over that of the secondary school, where a poor man's child often found herself in an atmosphere pervaded by a " nasty class feeling." He appreciated the necessity for imparting to the teacher the fullest culture and refinement, but maintained that there was no training of that kind given at many of the secondary schools that could not be given at the pupil teacher centre. He submitted that it was the natural and even the traditional duty of elementary schools to train their own pupil teachers. Under the old system that training was received at the school in which the pupil teacher was engaged, and was given by the headmaster or the headmistress or some other teacher, and in that way some of our best head teachers had been trained. In course of time it was felt to be rather a clumsy method to make pupil teachers dependent upon the aptitude of a particular headmaster or headmistress, and for that and other reasons the pupil teacher centres were set up. At these centres the training of elementary teachers was conducted and many of the very best teachers who were in charge now of some of the largest schools were the product of that system. He would not now deal with the agitation which lead to the Cockerton judgment, which he thought was regarded upon the progressive side as an attack upon popular education, and it was generally agreed that the work of school boards in this direction had been curtailed and largely destroyed by that judgment. He believed he was right in saying that those who promoted the Cockerton judgment never had in their minds any desire to interfere with the pupil teacher centres. They 1422 were undoubtedly very determined in their attack on the higher grade schools which they thought were competing unfairly with the secondary schools. The judgment centred round the question of the age at which a child could be educated at an elementary school. The age of sixteen was obviously one which covered a large number of those attending pupil teacher centres, and, although these institutions largely went under, there was good reason for saying that the Cockerton proceedings were not primarily intended to be directed against them. He did not share the opinion of those who believed that it was better that boys when they reached a certain stage in their education should go for their further training into secondary schools. The higher grade school of the old school board was the workmen's best form of higher education. But pupil teacher centres stood apart from these, and he hoped that the Minister for Education might see his way to accept the Amendment. The objection which was raised against the previous Amendment would, he imagined, be raised against this one. The argument was that it was desirable that the pupil teachers who were to have the training of the children of the working classes should become more and more cultured. He would make a candid admission. He had gone into board schools, and when he had heard teachers training children he had wished that they had brought more refinement to their work. He quite admitted that education did not consist entirely in teaching a child that two and two make four. But was it a fact that pupil teachers who were sent to secondary schools got more culture and refinement than they did in the old pupil teacher centres? Speaking of London, he ventured to dispute the proposition altogether. A daughter of his had attended the pupil teacher centre at Battersea where the headmaster was a gentleman who afterwards became an inspector. The fact that he was considered fit to be appointed an inspector might be taken as an indication that the centre was really one of the best secondary schools that young people could be sent to. His second girl was sent to a secondary school. The school was one of a number mentioned in a circular which was sent 1423 to him stating that they were open to Her for the purpose other probation. These girls' middle class schools were in the main attended by pupils who came from suburban villas, and the pupils might know how to do their hair, what sort of frock they should wear, and how to hold their knife and fork—excellent things no doubt—but if a girl was not dressed up to the average of the others attending the school, she would have an unpleasant time. That was an actual fact. The girl was not necessarily in an atmosphere of culture. Let not the Committee run away with that idea. Culture was not necessarily to be found in suburban villadom. There was another objection. The pupil teachers were hedged round by a lot of rules and conditions, and they ought to be protected. What protection did the secondary school girls get? They were not subject to the conscience clause. They were not subject to many of the safeguards which were enforced in the elementary schools. They were part of the elementary system of education, and he contended that all the culture and refinement that was necessary could be obtained as well in the pupil teacher centres as in secondary schools. The hon. Member for Oxford University knew all about the Oxford pupil teacher centre, and must be aware that the chairman of that body proposed a scheme for a new centre thoroughly equipped with everything which was needed for higher education, and with laboratories—a scheme which was recommended by Professor Sadler. But, in opposition to that scheme, one of His Majesty's inspectors said that it was the policy of the Board of Education to abolish the pupil teacher centres and to use secondary schools instead, and the result was that the young people were sent to the Oxford High School and another denominational school in which there was neither a laboratory nor any of the apparatus necessary for the training of pupil teachers. He submitted that for a large number of years the system recommended in the Amendment was in actual operation with the best results, and that the pupil teacher centres were capable of development and contained within them all the possibilities of secondary schools. He ventured to say that if the President of the Board of Education 1424 would accept his Amendment he would be doing something to give real effect to popular education. The Amendment did not raise any wretched religious squabble; it was only meant to advance real education, and therefore he hoped they would get a satisfactory answer from the representative of the Government, He begged to move.
Amendment proposed —
To insert at the end of the clause ' (a) power of training and preparing pupil teachers up to the date of their entering a training college or becoming assistant teachers.' "—(Mr. Maddison.)
§ Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH.) Islington, W.
said that a long time had elapsed, and a great deal had taken place since the case of hardship referred to by the hon. Member for Burnley. So far as he could follow his hon. friend, he dealt with London more than with the provinces, and he had spoken of most excellent pupil teacher centres in the Metropolis, and especially of one at Battersea. He acknowledged the excellent work which had been carried on by these pupil teacher centres in London, of which there were formerly twelve; but as a matter of fact seven or eight of them had gradually developed into most excellent secondary schools.
§ MR. LOUGH
so that at any rate they were doing excellent work. There were seven or eight girls secondary schools maintained by the London County Council and facilities were given in them for training pupil teachers. He maintained that to take the step recommended by the hon. Member for Burnley would be equivalent to setting back the hands of the clock. Pupil teachers had hitherto been as a rule badly trained, and the Government believed that they would receive a better training in secondary schools where they would breathe a somewhat different atmosphere and meet with all classes. Those secondary schools 1425 were now managed by the same education authority as the elementary schools. Then there was the question of money. A large amount of money was now devoted to secondary schools, and even in small urban districts a levy of 1d. rate could be made to supplement what was being done by the county council for secondary education. Altogether for the reasons given the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment on its merits.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that the hon. Member for Burnley had challenged him as to what was being done at Oxford. Of his own knowledge he could testify to the excellence of the two secondary schools in that city, and negotiations were now going on the result of which would be that the boys intending to be teachers could get their instruction as pupil teachers at one of the secondary schools before going into the training colleges, which he thought would be very much to their advantage. His own belief was that the future of the pupil teacher would be that an intending teacher would get his education at the secondary school, and his training as a teacher at the training college. In those happy conditions the education of the teacher would improve and the output of the training colleges would increase, because the period devoted to the training college would probably be reduced. He could not think that the hon. Member wished to place the pupil teacher in the position he was in before the Cockerton judgment. The pupil teacher would get at the secondary school what every teacher wanted—a good general education—and he would then be better fitted for the preparation he would get at the training college. He believed that the system now proposed by the Board of Education was the best possible, under present conditions, for training teachers, and that it was a most important factor in promoting the general education of the country.
§ MR. MADDISON
said that after the statement of the President of the Board of Education on the previous Amendment he wished to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1426
§ MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD
moved as an Amendment to include among the powers of a local education authority the power to aid by scholarships or bursaries the instruction in public elementary schools of scholars beyond the age or standard of compulsory attendance. He argued that any attempt to curtail the dignity and importance of elementary schools or to limit the work of elementary teachers would be a profound mistake from the point of view of elementary education, but he did not want to emphasise that point too much, because it had already-been raised and the opinion of the Committee expressed upon it. It did not, moreover, cover the whole scope of his Amendment. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had an Amendment on the Paper to his Amendment to leave out " beyond the age or standard of compulsory attendance," and to insert " from the age of twelve up to the limit of age fixed for the limit of instruction in a public elementary school by Section 22, sub-section (2)of the Education Act of 1902." That would be an exceedingly important improvement for the Board of Education to grant, because the other day the President of the Board of Education in answer to a Question put to him by an hon. and gallant Member on the Opposition Benches, had stated that two - thirds of the education authorities in rural districts granted exemption to children at the age of twelve. It was obvious that a child who left the elementary school at that age and probably never saw the inside of a school again and never came under the influence of education or of teachers, could not possibly be fit to discharge the duties of life. When they looked into the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave, and acquired some knowledge of the conditions in which the children lived and of the reasons which prompted the parents to apply for exemption, they could see at once that it was a mere matter of poverty which rendered it impossible for parents to allow their children to go on attending school. If the local education authority had the power to grant scholarships and bursaries it would be brought within the power of thousands 1427 of children to continue to attend school up to the age of thirteen and fourteen and to proceed higher later on. Everybody who had been connected with a local education authority or with education must have been met with this difficulty, which was also one of the great obstacles experienced in getting the children to attend technical schools. What happened was that when they had reached a certain amount of proficiency the parent came and said that he was not able to keep his children at school because of the pressure on his means. There was only one way of meeting that and it had been adopted by the Technical Education Board, who had established a system of maintenance scholarships. For the first year the grant was, he thought, £10, for the second year £12 10s., and for the third year £15. Such a system enabled the parent to keep the child out of the labour market and enabled the child to reap the full benefit which the ratepayers intended to confer. If a system of maintenance scholarships could be justified in regard to technical education, it could be justified ten times over as part of our ordinary educational system. There were no doubt a number of children who would not be benefited if they had to attend secondary schools. But there was no class of children who would not be benefited by attending elementary schools up to the age of fourteen. His proposal was that not only should the local education authority be enabled to grant fee scholarships, but maintenance scholarships up to the age of fifteen, and he would be very glad if the Board of Education would meet him in this matter and say that it should be in the power of the local authorities to give these scholarships beyond the age or standard of compulsory attendance.
In page 20, line 9, at the end, to add the words 'and (c) power to aid by scholarships or bursaries the instruction in public elementary schools of scholars beyond the age or standard of compulsory attendance."'— (Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said that the late school boards, under the pres- 1428 sure of the needs of the working classes, had to make considerable provision for the continuance of education, but that was all cut away by the Act of 1902, which said that they must eliminate and co-ordinate. The elimination had been carried out very thoroughly and even now they had had a refusal from the Treasury Bench to provide for a continuance up to the age of sixteen. He had obtained a Return a few days ago which he would ask all the Labour Members and those interested in this question inside and outside the House to study. It showed that there were many urban districts scattered up and down the country without a scholarship of any kind for the children of the working classes. In many of the English boroughs also there was not a scholarship available for the children. If a child happened to be born in Dundee, for one of every twenty-three scholars there was a scholarship of some sort. In Perth there was a scholarship for one out of every eighty scholars, while in Dunfermline there was a scholarship for one out of eighty-five. The borough of Accrington and that of Burslem both contained a considerable number of children, but there was not a single scholarship available. He regretted the hon. Member for Cambridge was not in his place, because he wanted to point out to him that while in that place there were 6,147 elementary scholars in attendance upon the schools, there was not a single scholarship or bursary available for them. The Return gave the cases of great boroughs where there were 5,000, 6,000, or 7,000 scholars and not a single opportunity of going beyond the limit of elementary instruction. In cases, moreover, where there were 20,000, 30,000, and 40,000 scholars there were only two or, perhaps, four scholarships. He did appeal under these circumstances to his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education to give the local authority power to make better provision than this. In Exeter and other cathedral cities and also in Chester the number of scholarships was very large, whereas in large places like Smethwick and Burslem such provision was entirely lacking. In agricultural counties also, where there were perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 children, some of whom, although born of humble parents, 1429 migh have great capacity, the provision of scholarships was sadly needed. He did not ask that the 20,000 or 30,000 children should be carried forward, but in the agricultural areas there would probably be 5 per cent, of the children whom it would be desirable, for the benefit of the nation, to carry forward to something better in the way of education than anything which they could obtain to-day. He had never read a more humiliating Return, and he contended that some general provision should be adopted whereby scholars both in boroughs and in counties should be enabled to carry on their education in order to give them a better chance in life.
§ MR. PAUL (Northampton)
said we had a system of elementary education, a system of secondary education, and a system of higher education, but we had no system of education as a whole He supported the Amendment, because it was a step in the direction of bringing these three systems together and making them into one. There were no such foundations in the world as those of Winchester, Eton, and Harrow, and for the last half-century and more the entrance into those foundations had been purely intellectual, yet how little had those foundations contributed to the literary or scientific life of the country. The reason was not far to seek. It was because they were not connected with the elementary school system of the country, but were simply private adventure schools, cramming institutions for the vulgar art of pot hunting. The examinations for these foundations were so constructed that the pupils of the elementary schools could not compete. It was useless to say that all people were born equally intelligent; they were not so, and Parliament could not make the people equally intelligent, but it could give them, and they had a right to have, the same equal intellectual opportunity before the law to rise in the world. That was what the educational system of the country now denied them, and that was what this Amendment proposed to give them, and he supported it because in his belief it was a step in the right direction.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said that if he accepted the Amendment at all he would find it easier to do so after it had been amended in the manner proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite. The real effect of the hon. Member for Leicester's Amendment was to induce a parent to allow a child to remain a little longer at a public elementary school by giving, in the form of a bursary, the equivalent of what might be earned if the child left school at once. The only objection he had to raise to the form of the Amendment was that he did not wish to do anything to deplete our secondary school system, which had been slowly built up in the large towns and was receiving a large amount of municipal support and local enthusiasm. To tempt a parent by giving the equivalent of his child's labour was hardly the right way to go to work. He was in favour of extending the term of years of compulsory attendance at schools, and he hoped an opportunity would occur during the existence of this Parliament of dealing with school attendance. He did not think his hon. friend's Amendment proceeded quite on the right principle. He quite agreed that we were lamentably deficient in this country in scholarships for children attending our public elementary schools. He did not want to do anything which would seem to limit the increase of these bursaries. He wished it were possible to persuade English millionaires to behave with the same generosity as Scotsmen had shown. Scotland had become a country of bursaries. It was the cheapest country in the world in which to get a good education. It would, he feared, be many thousand years before England reached the same stage.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON
said that if, it were in order he would now move his Amendment to the Amendment of the Member for Leicester, which would provide for power to aid by scholarships or bursaries the instruction in public elementary schools of scholars " from the age of twelve up to the limit of age fixed for the provision of instruction in a public elementary school fixed by Section 22, subsection (2), of the Education Act, 1902." He was anxious that local authorities should be able to offer some inducement to children to remain at school after 1431 the age at which exemptions from attendance might begin.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 2, to leave out the words ' beyond the age or standard of compulsory attendance,' and insert the words ' from the age of twelve up to the limit of age fixed for the provision of instruction in a public elementary school fixed by Section 22, subsection (2), of the Education Act, 1902.'"—(Sir William Alison.)
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
hoped his right hon. friend would not accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet, because it would only enable a scholarship in an elementary school to be given beyond the age of twelve up to fifteen, and that would only carry a boy a little distance along the road. They wanted scholarships or bursaries for bright lads beyond the age of fifteen in secondary schools. They would have to get a much more general system than they had now.
§ MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD
said he understood the Minister for Education was prepared to accept his Amendment as proposed to be amended by the hon. Member for Oxford University. He did not accept the reasons that had been urged, but as this was a substantial step, he was prepared to accept it if the Government would agree to it.
COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)
objected to the proposed Amendment to the Amendment for the reason that the scholarships provided by the higher schools were taken great advantage of at this moment. There was hardly any school in England which had not the power of offering scholarships to boys of elementary schools, and a very wise provision it was. But this proposal was entirely different. It was not a proposal for scholarships at all. It was putting a burden upon the rates which ought not to be put upon them. It was paying greedy parents to keep their children at school when they wanted them to go to work, and he hoped, therefore, this Amendment would not be accepted.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)
said he was very strongly in favour of anything that would enable the elementary scholars to proceed to secondary schools. He believed that the powers possessed by the authorities were to some extent used, although he regretted it was very small extent, and anything the Board of Education could do to increase the use of those powers would certainly earn the gratitude of the country. But it struck him that the present Amendment opened up a very difficult question.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ Proposed words inserted in the proposed Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there added."
§ MR. GEORGE WHITE
said that unless it was proposed to make this arrangement universal, which he did not expect was the object of the hon. Member for Oxford University, it seemed to him that members of education authorities would have opened up to them the prospect of having to examine parents as to their powers of sending their children to school without this assistance. In the days of school fees no more unpleasant duty was forced upon School boards than that of inquiring into the wages of parents to see whether they could or could not afford to pay the fees for their children. In this case some inquiry would have to be made as to the financial ability of parents to keep their children at school until the age proposed. Unless some further explanation was given as to what would be the plan of operation he should be compelled to vote against the Amendment, although he was very anxious to assist any scheme to give scholarships to boys who had passed the elementary stage of education.
§ MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes)
thought it better that the scholarships should be held at the secondary than at the elementary schools, because a boy or girl of twelve years of age who was up to scholarship standard would have exhausted the capacity of the 1433 elementary school. He was anxious to provide scholarships for children whose parents were too poor to pay for the completion of their education, but it would be a blunder to give scholarships to keep a smart youth at an elementary school. He should be obliged to vote against this Amendment because he did not think it was the right way to deal with the question.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said that he agreed with the last speaker. He had been for many years on the governing body of a county secondary school to which a number of children came with minor county scholarships from public elementary schools, and were then helped on by means of major county scholarships to the University. The hon. Member for Northampton was perhaps not aware how much had been done by county scholarships. [An HON. MEMBER: There are very few in some counties.] The remedy for that was not to discourage counties which had done their duty in this matter. He was afraid that if this Amendment were accepted it might stop that process. He was in favour of the scholarship system and he hoped it would spread, but he could not support this Amendment.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)
said he came from a county where a system of scholarships for secondary schools was being developed. They wanted to get the children who had qualified for leaving the elementary schools before they reached the age at which they might leave school and give them a scholarship. He would much prefer an Amendment like this if it gave
§ more scholarships to secondary instead of elementary schools.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said there was nothing inconsistent between the scholarships aimed at in this Amendment and the secondary schools scholarships. A child went to a secondary school with a scholarship at the age of twelve and went through a four years course. There was nothing inconsistent between this kind of scholarship and the other. He hoped that as time went on the secondary schools would vary their curriculum sufficiently to give an advantage to children who proposed to follow a handicraft rather than to mere clerkly persons. As things were at present it was difficult to find a secondary school of that sort, and it might be very useful to keep a child at a public elementary school. The power proposed was permissive, and no county would allow it to interfere with the general system of secondary education, of which he was an enthusiastic advocate. As things stood at present there was room for both. He hoped a vote would now be taken.
MR. WILLIAM KUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the object was not to send the child to a superior school. The Amendment merely proposed that money should be paid to parents for allowing their child to stay at an elementary school. Any hon. Member who supported the Amendment under the impression that it was going to give an intelligent youth some chance of advancement would be woefully mistaken.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 391; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 218.)1439
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Beck, A. Cecil|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)||Bellairs, Carlyon|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt|
|Agnew, George William||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Bennett, E. N.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barker, John||Berridge, T. H. D.|
|Alden, Percy||Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset||Bertram, Julius|
|Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Barnard, E. B.||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)|
|Armitage. R.||Barnes, G. N.||Billson, Alfred|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry||Beauchamp, E.||Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne||Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)||Boland, John|
|Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire,N.E.||Duffy, William J.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Kearley, Hudson. E.|
|Brace, William||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Branch, James||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Kilbride, Denis|
|Brigg, John||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Bright, J. A.||Elibank, Master of||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Kitson, Sir James|
|Brodie, H. C.||Essex, R. W.||Laildaw, Robert|
|Brooke, Stopford||Evans, Samuel T.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)||Everett, R. Lacey||Lambert, George|
|Bryce, Rt.Hn.Jas. (Aberdeen)||Ferens, T. R.||Lamont, Norman|
|Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Field, William||Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Findlay, Alexander||Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Flynn, James Christopher||Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lever, W.H. (Cheshire,Wirral)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fuller, John Michael F.||Levy, Maurice|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Fullerton, Hugh||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas.||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Lough, Thomas|
|Cairns, Thomas||Gill, A. H.||Lundon, W.|
|Cameron, Robert||Ginnell, L.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn||Luttreli, Hugh Fownes|
|Causton.Rt.Hn.RichardKnight||Glover, Thomas||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Cawley, Frederick||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lynch, H. B.|
|Chance, Frederick William||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Grove, Archibald||Maclean, Donald|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Gulland, John W.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Callum, John M.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||M'Crae, George|
|Clough, W.||Hall, Frederick||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Halpin, J.||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.)||Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)||M'Killop, W.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Collins,SirWm. J. (S. Pancras.W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Harwood, George||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Corbett.C H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hayden, John Patrick||Massie, J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hazelton, Richard||Meagher, Michael|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hedges, A. Paget||Meehan, Patrick A.|
|Cowan, W. H.||Helme, Norval Watson||Menzies, Walter|
|Cox, Harold||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)||Mond, A.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Higham, John Sharp||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Crean, Eugene||Hobart, Sir Robert||Montagu, E. S.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Hodge, John||Mooney, J. J.|
|Crombie, John William||Hogan, Michael||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Morley, Rt. Hon. John|
|Crossley, William J.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Morrell, Philip|
|Cullinan, J.||Hope, W- Bateman(SomersetN||Morse, L. L.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Horniman, Emslie John||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Murphy, John|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Murray, James|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hudson, Walter||Myer, Horatio|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hyde. Clarendon||Napier, T. B.|
|Delany, William||Illingworth, Percy H.||Nicholls, George|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jackson,R. S.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jacoby, James Alfred||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N||Jenkins, J.||Nusssy, Thomas Willans|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Duckworth, James||Joaes, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Robinson, S.||Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Tomkinson, James|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Rose, Charles Day||Toulmin, George|
|O'Dowd, John||Rowlands, J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|O'Grady, J.||Runciman, Walter||Ure, Alexander|
|O'Hare, Patrick||Russell, T. W.||Valentia, Viscount|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Verney, F. W.|
|O'Malley, William||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Vivian, Henry|
|O'Mara, James||Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Wallace, Robert|
|Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Partington, Oswald||Scott, A. H. (Ashton- under- Lyne||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Paul, Herbert||Sears, J. E.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Seaverns, J. H-||Wardle, George J.|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Seddon, J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Pearson, SirW.D. (Colchester)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)|
|Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Piekersgill, Edward Hare||Simon, John Allsebrook||Whitbread, Howard|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Pollard, Dr.||Sloan, Thomas Henry||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)||Snowden, P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk, E.)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.||Soares, Ernest J.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Spicer, Sir Albert||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Stead man, W. C.||Williams, Llewelyn(Carm'rthen|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Williamson, A.|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Rees, J. D.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Renton, Major Leslie||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Richardson, A.||Sullivan, Donal||Winfrey, R.|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Summerbell, T.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.||Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Young, Samuel|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifte)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Tennant, H- J. (Berwickshire)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Robertson, Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradfrd||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.||Pease.|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn.Sir AlexF.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.||Hill. Henry Staveley(Staff'sh.)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham||Hills, J. W.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Courthope, G. Lloyd||Hunt, Rowland|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon||King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)|
|Beach, Hn.MichaelHugh Hicks||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Du Cros, Harvey||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Duncan,Robert Lanark (Govan||Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.Farebam)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Fardell, Sir T. George||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin.S.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Fell, Arthur||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Marks, H. H- (Kent)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Fletcher, J. S.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Forster, Henry William||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Haddock, George R.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield|
|Cave, George||Hamilton, Marquess of||Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington|
|Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.||Hardy.Laurence (Kent,Ashford||Percy, Earl.|
|Radford, G. H.||Starkey, John R.||Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick P.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark||Wortley, Rt. Bon. C. B. Stuart|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Thornton, Percy M.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Younger, George|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid|
|Smith, AbelH. (Hertford, East)||White, George (Norfolk)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Smith, F. E. (Liverpool,Walton||Willoughby, de Eresby Lord||Colonel Williams and Mr.|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)||Rogers.|
Question, " That Clause 35, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of Clauses 35 and 36.1440
§ Clause 36:—
§ Question put, " That Clause 36 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 337; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 219.)1443
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Elibank, Master of|
|Agnew, George William||Burt, Rt.Hon. Thomas||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Buxton.Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles||Essex, R. W.|
|Alden, Percy||Byles, William Pollard||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Armitage, R.||Cairns, Thomas||Eve, Harry Trelawney|
|Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry||Cameron, Robert||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Astbury, John Meir||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cawley, Frederick||Findlay, Alexander|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Chance, Frederick William||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Barker, John||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers'||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Clarke, C. Goddard||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cleland, J. W.||Gill, A. H.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Clough, W.||Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJo'n|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Clynes, J. R.||Glover, Thomas|
|Beauchamp, E.||Coats,SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbo'r'e||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexh'm)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cooper, G. J.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)||Grove, Archibald|
|Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt||Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Gulland, John W.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cowan, W. H.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B-|
|Bertram, Julius||Cox, Harold||Hall, Frederick|
|Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth||Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cremer, William Randal||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Billson, Alfred||Crombie, John William||Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Crosfield, A. H.||Harmsworth, R.L. (Cairhn'ss-'h|
|Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)||Crossley, William J.||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)||Dalziel, James Henry||Harwood, George|
|Bolton,T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)|
|Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Brace, William||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol.S.)||Helme, N
|Branch, James||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Henderson Arthur (Durham)|
|Brigg, John||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Henry, Char
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Herbert,Colon, lIvor(Mon.,S.)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Dobson, Thomas W.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Brooke, Stopford||Duckworth, James||Hill,HenryStaveley(Staffsh.)|
|Brunner,SirJohnT.(Cheshire)||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hodge, John|
|Bryce,J.A.(InvernessBurghs)||Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Hope.John Deans (Fife, West|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||O'Grady, J.||Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Parker, James (Halifax)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Partington, Oswald||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Paul, Herbert||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Jackson, R. S.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Jenkins, J.||Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke||Summerbell, T.|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Kearley, Hudson E,||Pirie, Duncan V.||Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pollard, Dr.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Kitson, Sir James||Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh,Central)||Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk, E.)||Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)|
|Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.||Thompson, J. W.H. (Somerset, E|
|Lambert, George||Radford, G. H.||Tomkinson, James|
|Lamont, Norman||Rainy, A. Rolland||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras.E.||Raphael, Herbert H.||Toulmin, George|
|Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Lehmann, R. C-||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Ure, Alexander|
|Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich||Rees, J. D.||Verney, F. W.|
|Lever, W.H. (Cheshire,Wirral)||Rendall, Atbelstan||Vivian, Henry|
|Levy, Maurice||Renton, Major Leslie||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Richards, TF.(Wolverh'mpt'n||Wallace, Robert|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Richardson, A.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Lough, Thomas||Rickett, J. Compton||Walton, Sir John L. (Leec's, S.|
|Lupton, Arnold||Ridsdale, E. A.||Welton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Ward,John(Stoke upon Trent|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)||Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Robertson, Rt. Hn.E.(Dundee)||Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robortson,SirGScott(Bradf'd||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Maclean, Donald||Robinson, S.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Weir, James Galloway|
|M'Callum, John M.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whitbread, Howard|
|M'Crae, George||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, George (Norfolk)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Rose, Charles Day||White, J. D. (Dunbartonshire)|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Rowlands, J.||White, Luke (York. E. R.)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Runciman, Walter||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Russell, T. W.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Rutherford, V. H.(Brentford)||Whittaker, Sir ThomasPalmer|
|Mansfield, H.Rendall(Lincoln)||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Marnham, F. J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Massie, J.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Williams,Llewolyn(Carmarth'n|
|Menzies, Walter||Schwann,SirC.E. (Manchester)||Williamson, A.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Scott,A.H.(AshtonunderLyne||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Mond, A.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sears, J. E.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Montagu, E. S.||Seaverns, J. H.||Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Seddon, J.||Wilson, J.W.(Woresstersh.N.)|
|Morgan, J.Lloydf Carmarthen)||Seely, Major J. B.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton|
|Morrell, Philip||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick,B.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Morse, L. L.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk,Mid ,|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Murray, James||Simon, John Allsebrook||Woodhouse.SirJ.T(Huddersf'd|
|Myer, Horatio||Sinclair, Rt.Hon. John||Yo
all, James Henry
|Newnes.F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Snowden, P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Soares,Ernast J.||Pease.|
|Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.||Anstruther-Grey, Major||Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirH.|
|Acland-Hood,RtHnSirAlex.F.||Arkwright, John Stanhope||Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Ashley, W. W.||Balcarres, Lord|
|Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.||Field, William||Nicholson, Wm.G.Petersfield)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Barrie, H.T(Londonderry, N.)||Fletcher, J. S.||O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Beach, Hn.Michael HughHicks||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Forster, Henry William||O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Boland, John||Ginnell, L.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Haddock, George R.||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Halpin, J.||O'Dowd, John|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hamilton, Marquess of||O'Hare, Patrick|
|Bright, J. A.||Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashford||O' Kelly ,James(Roscommon,N|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B.||O'Malley, William|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Mara, James|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hervey,F.W. F. (BuryS. Edm's||Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)||Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hills, J. W.||Percy, Earl|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hogan, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cave, Geroge||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rawlinson, John Frederick P.|
|Cavendish.Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.||Hunt, Rowland||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennaway,Rt.Hn.SirJohn H.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rutherford, John (Lancashire|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kilbride, Denis||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool .Walton|
|Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham||King,AlfredJohn (Knutsford)||Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||King,SirHenrySeymour(Hull)||Starkey, John R.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich||Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.Oxf'dUniv|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.||Lee, ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareh'm||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Crean, Eugene||Long,Col. CharlesW. (Evesham||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cullinan, J.||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galw'y||MacVeagh,Jeremiah(Down,S.||White, Patrick (Meath.North)|
|Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon||M'Killop, W.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wortley. Rt.Hn. C.B. Stuart-|
|Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Du Cros, Harvey||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Young, Samuel|
|Duffy, William J.||Meagher, Michael||Younger, George|
|Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Mooney, J. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.|
|Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants,W.)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Samuel Roberts and Mr.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Murphy, John||Butcher.|
|Fell, Arthur||Napier, T. B.|
Bill read a Second time, and committed for to-morrow.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.