asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to grant Private A. F. Hall, No. 9895, Royal Army Medical Corps, an opportunity of vindicating himself against the findings of a court-martial held on the 8th August, 1916; and whether he is prepared to order the production of evidence alleged to have been suppressed at the trial?

If any fresh facts or evidence are produced tending to show that any evidence had been suppressed at the trial, inquiry will be made into the matter.

Has the hon. Gentleman examined the records of this case?

I think my hon. Friend consulted me about a year ago regarding a case, and, if this is the same case, I did so at that time.

I did not consult the hon. Gentleman. Will he kindly examine the case now?

Yes, I will certainly do that; but meanwhile, if my hon. Friend will give me any further facts or evidence, I shall be glad to receive it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the certificate of exemption was withdrawn from John Clifford M 'Ellin, of Audley; and, in particular, was it because he was Irish, at a time when Irish are unpopular?

This question should be addressed to the Ministry of National Service.

Has it been passed on?

I think so.

asked why Private A. G. Melhuish, No. 2125, 6th Eastern Non- Combatant Corps, Perham Down, is being kept in the Army, seeing that he holds a certificate from the tribunal for work of national importance at the work for which he is qualified, namely, an optician, which decision was supported by the military representative; and will he see that this man is given an opportunity of conforming to the conditions of his exemption?

I have on more than one occasion answerd questions put by my hon. Friend with regard to this soldier, and I also wrote to him. This is the first time that it has been suggested that he was not properly enlisted. I will have inquiries made on this point.

asked the Under secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into the action of the base commandant, Havre, who on the 4th January issued an order to the officer commanding the 11th Labour Group to the effect that the personnel of the Non-Combatant Corps are not soldiers, and he considered they should not be granted privileges as such and further directed that the men of the Non-Combatant Corps should not be granted leave in the same manner as soldiers, but that any application for leave on special grounds should be submitted to the quartermaster-general at Havre; and whether the base commandant has the authority of the War Office for such an order as this?

In January last there were at Havre a number of soldiers who had served in the trenches and had not been granted leave for long periods. The commandant, therefore, ordered that such men should have priority in the matter of leave; but he also arranged that applicants for leave on special grounds from men in the Non-Combatant Corps should be considered. This was a local order issued by the commandant on his own responsibility, and, in the circumstances, I see no ground for intervening.

Did the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that it was distinctly stated that these men were not soldiers, and were not to have leave because they did not regard them as soldiers?

I cannot add anything to the answer I have given, which is practically a repetition of the telegram which I got from the commandant this morning.

May I send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the order, in which it is distinctly stated that they are not soldiers, and that they are deprived of leave because they are not soldiers?

Certainly. I am always very glad to receive information of that sort.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of complaints as to the insufficiency of the food supplied to conscientious objectors in prison, and that, in consequence, many of them are suffering severely in health; whether it is the prison custom to allow a prisoner to lose a certain amount of weight before any account is taken of the fact; and, seeing that many of these conscientious objectors have served successive terms of imprisonment, and that the base weight is taken as the weight when the prisoner on each occasion enters prison, and thus no account is taken of weight previously lost, whether, in the circumstances, he will give attention to this matter?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. As to the third part, the medical officer orders extra food for any prisoner as soon, as he requires it, an important consideration being whether the prisoner is below the standard weight. The matter receives constant attention, and no fresh instructions are required.

Is it not a fact that the base weight of these men is taken at the time they enter prison and the fact that they have lost weight in previous periods of imprisonment is not taken into account at all?

No; I do not think that is so. The standard weight is the normal weight of a healthy man of that age and height and the medical man is guided by that in coming to his conclusion.

In estimating the amount of weight a prisoner has lost is the original weight at the time he first entered prison taken as the base weight or the weight when he entered prison on a subsequent occasion?

No; I think the standard weight must be taken to mean exactly what I have said. It would be no disadvantage to some of us to lose weight.

Would the right hon. Gentleman himself like to undergo a course of this treatment?

I should rather like to.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a young man over thirty years of age, tenant of a farm of over £100 a year and doing all the work single-handed, will be called on for military service?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Men engaged in agriculture of the age of the man in question are not dealt with by the Royal Proclamation dated the 20th April, 1918. Such a man may hold an exemption from military service from a tribunal or he may be in possession of a voucher granted by an agricultural executive committee. In neither case can he be called up for military service until his protection is withdrawn, either by the tribunal or committee by which it was granted or by a general Proclamation or Order affecting all agriculturists of his age. The question of what men should be called up from agriculture above the ages already made available for recruitment would be a matter for discussion between the Departments concerned.

asked the Minister of National Service if he will postpone for a period of three months the calling up of men over the age of forty-three who are cultivating allotments?

I regret that it is not possible for the Government to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture the number of pigs in Great Britain at the latest available date, and how it compares with similar dates in 1917, 1916, and 1915?

There is no figure showing the number of pigs in Great Britain which is strictly comparable with those collected in the Annual Agricultural Returns of the 4th June, 1915, 1916, and 1917. The nearest approach to it is an estimate of the 4th April, which gives the number at 1,650,000. The figures for the 4th June, 1915, 1916, and 1917 were 2,579,084, 2,314,331, and 2,051,486 respectively. In all these cases cottagers' pigs are excluded.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to enable pig keepers to procure food for even moderately preparing their pigs for market; and whether home-grown barley and oats can be released for that purpose?

I have been asked to reply. The application of the Cattle Feeding Stuffs Priority Supply Order has been extended to breeding sows and store pigs, the ration being 4 lbs. per day to the former and 1½ lbs. per day to the latter class of pig. The whole question of the rationing of animals is now engaging the attention of the Joint Orders Committee of the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, and it is hoped to secure a small supply of dry food for fattening purposes.

Would the hon. Gentleman say how he distinguishes a store pig from an ordinary pig?

The hon. Member had better put that conundrum to my colleague.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to whom farmers ought to apply in order to get from the Government the price of £7 10s. per ton for their potatoes in stock after the 15th of May?

The Government have not indicated any intention of taking over stocks of potatoes from growers on 15th May at £7 10s. per ton, but as announced on the 29th March the Food Controller will be prepared on and after 15th May to purchase all sound ware potatoes in lots of 4 tons at £7 per ton, f.o.r., for which the grower cannot otherwise find a market. The Returns of Stocks just received by the Ministry of Food do not suggest that there will be any substantial surplus of ware potatoes in Great Britain which the growers will be unable to dispose of through the usual trade channels during May and June. If, however, after 14th May any grower has stocks on hand which he sees no prospect of being able to sell for delivery during May or June he should send particulars to the Director of Vegetable Supplies, 100, Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7, giving the address of his farm and the nearest railway station, together with the names and addresses of any dealers to whom he has unsuccessfully offered to sell his ware potatoes.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by selling—selling at the same price as the Governments are prepared to give? You can always find a buyer at a price.

asked the Prime Minister whether a Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider the question of the supply of food for dogs and other questions connected with the keeping of dogs; if so, who are the members of this Committee; and whether an opportunity will be afforded to owners of dogs and manufacturers of dogs' food of appearing before this Committee and stating their views?

The question of the possibility of effecting a reduction in the consumption of food by dogs is under the consideration of a Committee of Ministers at the present time. It would not be usual nor, I think, desirable to give the names of a Committee of this kind. The immediate problem created by the present shortage of dog food is an administrative matter under the direction of the Food Controller.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether an opportunity will be afforded to owners of dogs and manufacturers of dogs' food of appearing before the Committee?

I think it is rather a case of appearing before the Food Controller than the Committee?

Is it not the Committee which is considering this question, and should not these people be given an opportunity of appearing before the Committee?

I will put my hon. and learned Friend's views before the Chairman of the Committee.

Having regard to the great importance of this question and the very strong feeling which persons have about their dogs, would the right hon. Gentleman, before a decision is taken about any reduction in the number of dogs, see that the House of Commons has an opportunity of being consulted on the matter?

I would not like to give an absolute pledge on the subject, but I think there is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member has said.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now able to announce any decision taken to reduce the meat rations hitherto issued to troops at home and the extent of such reduction?

Speaking generally, the daily meat ration for troops at home has been reduced by 2 ozs.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that, while this reduction will be generally welcomed, the disparity between the ration for a sedentary soldier and for a civilian doing similar or harder work still remains very marked, and that some further steps are still required?

The question whether or not a further reduction is to be made in the ease of sedentary troops is still under consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the published figures of the profits of the Maypole Dairy Company, which show that their profits in 1916 were £462,000, and in 1917 £747,000, and that in the latter year, after placing £10,000 to reserve, a dividend of 225 per cent. was paid on the preferred shares; whether the prices of the food products sold by this company are controlled; and whether he will take steps, by fixing prices for the food products sold or by adjusting the Excess Profits Duty, to limit the distributable profits of this company to a reasonable amount?

I have been asked to reply. The profits of the Maypole Dairy Company for 1916 and 1917 and the dividend paid in the latter year are correctly stated in the question. The prices of the food products sold by this company have been fixed by the Food Controller. I may point out that while the average dividend paid on the Maypole deferred shares for the four years 1914–17 was 112½per cent., the average dividend paid on these shares during the three pre-war years 1911–13 was over 190 per cent.

May I ask whether, when a company dealing in food products is able to distribute a dividend of 225 per cent., it is not high time that the prices of those food products were further controlled, so as to avoid these extortionate profits being made out of the consumer?

Arising out of that supplementary question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, in order to prevent its misleading character to extend, whether these deferred shares at all represent the capital of the company; and whether any dividend like 225 per cent., or even 100 per cent., was paid in any year by the company?

I can only refer both hon. Members to the reply I have given. The matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) is one for the Food Controller, as it is not for me to reply on a question of policy. I may say that the figures I have given say, not 225 per cent., but 112½ per cent. It was 190 per cent. for the three years preceding the War.

As this question was put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has control over these Departments, may I ask him if he will give a direction or suggestion to the Food Controller that will have the effect of reducing these extravagant profits?

As the question was referred by me to the Food Controller I have not looked into it, but I would point out to my hon. Friend, after simply listening to the question and the answer, that it does not follow if one dealer makes a large profit by selling at the same price as another dealer who does not make a similar profit, that the price fixed is unreasonable.

asked the Minister of Munitions (1) whether any orders have been or will be issued to officers in charge of factories or of work under the Ministry, or to controlled establishments, or to contractors engaged in Government work, to use threats of dismissal or other forms of pressure upon employés which would deprive them of their legal rights as citizens, including the right to refuse vaccination or any other form of medical treatment not required by law; (2) whether Mrs. A. Fullum, 52, Hammond Road East, Southall Green, has been employed for nearly two years at the No. 7 National Filling Factory, Hayes, Middlesex; that on 26th April she received a notice calling on her to be vaccinated, and that on refusal she was interviewed by Miss Whitmarsh, the lady superintendent, and, on persisting in her refusal, was summarily dismissed with a week's pay; whether revaccination, which is not legally compulsory on anybody, is being enforced on employés in the national filling-factories; if not, whether this penalising of an employé for exercising her legal right to resist an attempt to compel by order what cannot be compelled by law will be stopped, and employés under Government no longer deprived of the liberty they possess if employed by other individuals; and whether Mrs. Fullum will be re-employed without an illegal enforcement upon her of revaccination?

No general orders have been given by the Minister as suggested in question 26, nor does he contemplate giving any such orders. As regards the case at the filling factory at Hayes, the facts are substantially as stated in the question. The matter has been submitted to the Medical Department of the Ministry for consideration, and I am advised that the situation in regard to small-pox in London does not warrant the measure taken by the filling factory in question, which has been advised accordingly, and steps will be taken to offer re-employment to the worker concerned.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the labourers at the new aerodrome near Dublin who absented themselves without leave from work on the late anti-Conscription holiday demanded the expulsion, on their return, of the few loyal workmen who remained at their post in this time of national danger; and what course the manager took?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part that of the four men who did not join the strikers two went back to work on 29th April, and the other two will be taken on again if they will make application.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his promise, any appointment in the Air Service has been offered to General Trenchard; and, if so, what is the nature of such appointment?

The Secretary of State has made an offer of employment to General Trenchard concerning which they are at present in correspondence. If my right hon. Friend will repeat his question on Thursday, I expect to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the cases in the drapery trade of large firms offering for several months to pay the Luxury Taxes instead of calling upon their customers to do so, and in the instances where these drapery establishments pay Excess Profits Tax it will be the Government who will themselves pay the greater portion of the tax, in view of the fact that it will be paid out of excess profits; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take?

I can add nothing to my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member.

The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset [to leave out the words "National System of "] is not in order. The words in italics are only the heading of the Clause and are not part of the Bill. The second Amendment is in order.

I beg to move to leave out the words "With a view to the establishment of a national system of public education available for all persons capable of profiting thereby."

This Bill marks quite a new stage in the history of draftsmanship. Those who have studied the language and methods of Acts of Parliament will be aware that there is a certain amount of verbiage on various points in this Bill of which we ought to have some explanation. The words which I propose to leave out are really in the form of a preamble, and I doubt whether if we leave out the whole of the words it would alter the effect of the Clause in any particular. What are they here for? Are they here for rhetoric? If so, rhetoric ought to be kept out of Acts of Parliament. There may be more or less rhetoric in these times. Certainly there is one kind of rhetoric we all appreciate, and that is the speeches, in the country of the Minister for Education. We all recognise how very much those speeches have helped in the framing of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric ought to be kept for the country and ought not to flow over Acts of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has got a great, exuberance of it. I do not think these words are in for rhetoric. I believe the object is to give some sort of direction to the judges. Supposing a case were to arise in the Courts which would raise the question—how far a scheme ought to go or what should be the general object of a scheme? If the words are in the Bill for that purpose, I object to them, because they are vague and indefinite. There are so many points of grave importance in the Bill that I will not do more than move the Amendment, and ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of the rhetoric or the vague explanatory part of the Clause. He is evidently not very satisfied with these flourishes of a legal or rhetorical character because in the second Clause he alters the preamble or preliminary verbiage. Have the words any legal operative effect, and, if not, what is the object of inserting them?

I would like the right hon. Gentleman to devote a sentence or two to explaining the meaning of the words "all persons capable of profiting thereby." These are very curious words.

My hon. Friend (Mr. King) is right in pointing out that the words to which he takes exception have no operative effect in the legal sense of that term. The object is to give administrative directions with regard to the policy intended to be carried out by the public bodies administering our education laws all over the country, and I submit that it is not undesirable in these circumstances that some general words expressing the ideal and purpose of the legislation that they may be called upon to administer should be inserted in the form of the measure. That is the sole purpose for which these words are inserted. It is not a matter of first importance and if the sense of the Committee supports my hon. Friend in desiring the elimination of the words I would part with them, but I would part with them reluctantly. I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to relax his frown on this occasion. With respect to the point raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough), we are desirous that in framing schemes for the education of their respective areas the local education authorities should have regard to the desirability of providing different types of education suitable to the needs of the children who are capable of profiting by those classes of education. My right hon. Friend must have realised the extent to which education is being differentiated in this country. At present we provide a great number of types of education for different types of children, and we wish to direct the attention of the local education authorities to the desirability of making such various provision for the varied types of children.

The President has made such a persuasive speech that no one will desire him to accept this Amendment in its fullness. I rise for the purpose of suggesting a compromise which he could accept without losing anything valuable in the Bill. The really offensive words in the rhetorical introduction are "capable of profiting thereby." You are referring to the establishment of a national system of education open to all persons, and it should be left at that. The words "capable of profiting thereby" may have a most limiting and cramping influence upon the work of the education authorities, and might well come out. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accede to that request.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will adhere to the position he has taken up on this question and will not delete the words "national system of education." It seems to me of the greatest possible importance that in the very forefront of this Bill it should be made clear that it is a Bill not for elementary education or secondary education only, but that it is a national system of education which he is about to found.

I should like to know the effect which the passing of these words may have upon some of the Amendments. Am I right in assuming that if we pass these words as they stand it would influence the judgment of the Chairman in regard to some of the other Amendments, and whether he would rule that, having passed the initial words of the Clause in these terms, some of the Amendments are contrary to some of the wording in the Clause?

I do not think that that would be so. I cannot conceive any Amendment being shut out by passing these words. These words are of a declaratory nature.

I regret that I cannot withdraw my Amendment. My point has not been met, as it might have been by some such words as those suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). This is not, as the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. J. A. Marriott) has just said, a national system of education. Where does Oxford University come in? It cannot come in at all. He knows perfectly well that we are only touching certain points of education. It is not intended to affect our university system of education, which is part of our life. The point is, Is this going to be a national system of education? I do not think so. I think that it is going to establish a number of schemes of different kinds in different parts of the country, which are going to do a great deal of good, but a national system is not going to be evolved out of it, and that everyone who is capable of profiting by education is going to benefit by it I very much doubt. I am capable of profiting by education, but I am not going to benefit by it, and, knowing what I do of bodies like the Board of Education, I do not think that all persons capable of profiting by education are going to get a chance under this Bill.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. Those words, "capable of profiting thereby," are most admirable words. My principal quarrel with the latter parts of this Bill is that they do not carry out that principle of giving opportunities for higher education to those children who are capable of profiting by that higher education; but I am delighted to see that that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, however much he may have fallen away from it in the latter parts of the Bill. I trust that he will keep the words for what they are worth, and as a demonstration of the fact that he did set out with the idea of providing suitable educational facilities for selected children, and not with the idea of having a uniform standard for all children whose heads will all be crammed with the same sort of knowledge, whether they are adapted for it or not, while in many instances it would have been better to train their hands, which could have been done if so much time had not been occupied in following this other system.

When this Bill was first drafted undoubtedly it had a more comprehensive form and was more ambitious in its nature. I think that these words fairly represent the ideal of the President of the Board of Education and the ideal of the House of Commons, and might be allowed to stand. I hope that the President will see his way before very long to introduce another Bill, because there is very much left to be done after this Bill is passed into law. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is rather in the nature of a quibble. We want to get to business without delay, and I would suggest that he should withdraw it.

I cannot agree with the hon. Member in describing this scheme as national while we leave out the class whom we represent, and omit the House of Commons and the children of the rich. Such a system is a travesty upon a genuine system of national education. We drag the word "national" into every conceivable piece of legislation at the present time. We think that if we call a thing national we shall get all kinds of people to support it. This is not a national scheme, because it does not include the children of the rich. It is rather a scheme for training children to become useful producers of wealth than a scheme for producing a national improvement in the real education of the people of the country. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I will support him in the Lobby against the insertion of a misnomer in the Title of the Bill.

I must appeal to the Committee to pass from this subject now. These words have no very important effect, and if I am pressed to omit them I am quite ready to do so. I was somewhat surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend's references to the word "national" He might as well object to the title "National Gallery" because the gallery does not contain all the pictures of the country, or to the title "Dictionary of National Biography" because as yet that dictionary does not contain his own name. If this line were to be followed I do not know where it would end. It never occurred to me to attach any weighty sense to these words when the Bill was being drafted, but I should have thought that it was a national purpose to establish the system now proposed, by which administrative bodies would consider the requirements of the children in the respective areas of the country and provide proper education for them. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will think over the subject again, and see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out the words "capable of profiting thereby."

This is a point of substance, whereas we were dealing on the general Amendment with a phrase which was probably not vital. These words would probably tend to set up some kind of class judgment as to the kind of education which is suitable for certain ranks of society. I think that education should be left free from those words, and I hope the Government will leave them out as being of a narrowing character.

After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, I think the words which it is proposed to omit are valuable, and that their meaning has been clearly explained to us. I agree with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Peto) that the words should be left in.

I hope the President of the Board of Education, will consider this Amendment, and I think that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman would be met if he stopped at the word "persons"—"a national system of education available for all persons." That must have some relation to the capacity of the persons for whom the measure is available, and we do not need the words "capable of profiting thereby." There are two objections. First of all, at certain points in elementary education, somebody or other, either the local authority or the school committee, or somebody in charge, will say that John Smith ought to go to the carpenter's bench and that Thomas Brown ought to go to the university. In the due course of experience differentiation will have to take place, but that ought not to be part and parcel of what is taken to be the ideal scheme that my right hon. Friend is proposing in this Bill. That is the first objection. The second objection is that the scheme also suggests the regional idea of education—that a child born in a seaport town should become a sailor boy, or, if born in an agricultural village, should be surrounded straight away, and from the beginning, with an agricultural education only. I am in favour of those influences being brought to bear, but there is a difference between that and dealing with them from the educational point of view—that is to say, that this block of country must produce agriculturists, and that block sailors, and so on. These are both very objectionable ideas, and we want one broad and liberal conception of a national system of education, differentiated undoubtedly, especially in the higher branches, and, with that view, I think that the Amendment proposed should be accepted.

The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to have read into these words a meaning which the President of the Board of Education never could have intended. I do not think they would have occurred to any other Member of the House except himself. It seems to me that these words in the Clause are necessary and important, having regard to the fact that it may be of no use to give higher education to children who are "incapable of profiting thereby," for it is quite certain that in the course of the education of children from the nursery school to the kindergarten, and up to the secondary stage, it will be found that many of these children will not be capable of taking advantage of the university education which will be given under this Bill. It seems to me that the words proposed to be left out are extremely necessary in order to amplify and explain the real meaning of this measure, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not at this stage accept the Amendment proposed.

I am quite certain that both the hon. Member opposite and the hon. Member for Leicester are anxious to have this Bill, and I submit that at this early stage of the measure we should at least try to make progress. The hon. Member for Leicester has read into the words various meanings, and that could be done with regard to almost any form of words if they are studied long enough. I do not think that the meanings which he has put upon them are at all simple meanings, nor at all the meaning which the words convey. I submit that if we start thus early with verbal Amendments we shall be grasping at the shadow and not at the substance, and if we proceed in this way we will get the shadow, and not the substance.

I would point out that the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out are of a character which might in a number of cases lead local authorities to grasp at them and not give the necessary education.

We cannot disguise from, ourselves that many of these education authorities are ruled by employers of labour, and there is no doubt that the hon. Member, from this point of view, has made an effective intervention in this, Debate. I am very sorry to find that one or two hon. Members are already beginning to bring forward ideas which, in my opinion, are going to do harm. That is not the way to get a Bill through; in fact, it is a real danger. The main point is as that some education authorities may treat these words lightly, and I am quite certain that they are a very dangerous loophole. Some parts of the Bill which we shall have to consider later may be made non-effective if words like this are strewn about the measure. I do not take the same standards as the hon. Member for Leicester; but I say quite candidly that there is substance in this point which has been raised.

I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester and by the hon. Member for Pontefract, but I think that the proposal to stop at the word "persons" is really rather too hard. We are not constructing a scheme of national education available for persons between the ages of seventy and ninety-five, and we must have some limiting words. I do not think that those which have been introduced ought to arouse any apprehension, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract that the Board of Education will take very good care that ample opportunities are afforded for higher education. In fact, I think, the effect of these words upon the minds of Members will be to enlarge, and not to contract their sense of responsibility. I really feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester will be well advised to allow these words to stand part of the Bill. I cannot say more, that is my opinion

Does my right hon. Friend really understand that the opposition to this Bill comes from one feature, and one feature only, and that is the fear of this vocational education. These words are the first hint of the vocational training of the children of the working classes, and we had better have the question debated frankly and fully, at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that this Amendment is the best opportunity for dealing with this problem of vocational training, but it ought to be recognised that the Radicals in this House are against such a proposal, whether the standard of vocational training is to be set by any local authority, or any manufacturers, or any special ad hoc Committee set up to deal with what the children of the industrial classes have got to learn. I think that these words might almost be allowed to stand over until we have a more suitable opportunity. It is well to know that it is on this question that the Bill is going to stand or fall—if you drop it you will get the Bill through, if you keep it you cannot get the Bill through.

The words proposed to be dropped out of the Bill are really an expression of the very ideals put forward by educationists on behalf of the working classes themselves. They always used these very words when the question of the educational ladder to the universities has been raised. The representatives of the workers, such as the Workers' Educational Association — I think that is the name of it—have always used expressions of this very kind, that there should be an educational ladder for all who are capable. If you do not put those words in you will be committed to an ideal which even the representatives of the workers have never put forward, namely, the sending of everyone to the universities. That may come some day, though, I suppose, none of us will live to see the day. Seeing that the words in the Bill are the very words which have been chosen by the most zealous friends of education for the working classes, we should, I think, be ill-advised in striking them out, and, instead, setting up the opinion that we should have a universal system, which, as my hon. Friends will agree, must include the girls as well as the boys. The idea of an educational ladder for all who can be prepared for it will hardly be realised unless special steps are taken to deal with the girls. If you are going to have a system by which the children of the workers are to be placed in the same position as the most incompetent children of the rich people, and be sent to the universities, whether they are prepared or not for it, you will want an enormous provision of university education, of both sexes, but, for my own part, I think the words represent the ideals of the best educationists.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment at this stage in order that the matter may be raised again, perhaps at a period of the Bill when a fuller education discussion may be possible.

I beg to move, after the word "area," to insert the words

"including the provision of secondary or higher education in free publicly controlled and publicly managed schools available for all persons desirous of such education."

I hope the Amendment which I now move will not bring me any lectures from my very kind friends as to the way in which I should bring this forward. If they had honoured me before we came into this Chamber yesterday or a few days ago I would have been happy to consider their suggestions. This is a matter of really vital substance to this Bill, and I hope that the Amendment, if not in these words and in this place, at any rate the object of the Amendment, may be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he will accept my words here, but I believe he will be ready to give a definite instruction that these schemes shall include further powers and opportunity for higher or secondary education than we have at present. The schemes, we understand, are to be comprehensive, as his Preamble which we have just passed to this Clause showed. If so, we ought at least to enact in the first Clause of the Bill that the provision of secondary or higher education should be on the same lines, and, relatively speaking, to the same extent, that is to say, the same required extent according to the needs of the people, as elementary education.

The Committee is perfectly and fully aware of the fact that though you could compel a local education authority to provide an elementary school for the needs of the population, there is no power to compel a local education authority to provide a secondary school. The only way in which it could be done is by going to the Board of Education and getting the Board of Education, by a long process of rather indefinite and uncertain nature, to use power to press the local education authority into providing a secondary school. But in the case of an elementary school it is quite different; the people of a, locality have the power to compel their local education authority to provide sufficient school places for their own children, while they have no power to compel them to provide school places in a secondary school. That is the simple and clear fact which you are up against, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must really face this question. Is he going to allow the provision of secondary schools to be a matter in which the people of a locality may demand as a right? In the case of elementary schools they can be demanded as a right, but secondary schools cannot be so demanded. I want to give the people of a locality this right, apart from the beneficent influences and good intentions of the President of the Board of Education and his inspectors, who may not be there for ever. This Government may go out very shortly. Where will the right hon. Gentleman be then?

He will be in the same place.

Well, I am not a prophet, and I do not want to see him depart, but he must realise that we are all mortal and that the members of this Government are specially mortal at the present time. I really do press this point, because I could give him many illustrations within my own personal knowledge why it is desirable to accept this Amendment. But I restrain myself. I have collected information and have had experience of the matter, but I will content myself by saying to him most emphatically that this is a point of vital substance: Are you going to give the people an opportunity to say "we want secondary or higher elementary education for this locality," and are you going to give them the power to enforce that demand?

This Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, which I rise to support, raises a question fundamental to the Bill in regard to the reorganisation of our system of national education. The criticism some of us have to offer upon some of the proposals in the Bill on educational grounds is that they do no go far enough and are almost exclusively concerned either with elementary education or with the education that is supposed to be appropriate to children who have passed through the elementary school. The criticism we make is that there is no attempt in the Bill to provide, not the ladder that my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Robertson) referred to, but a broad highway along which all the children of the nation may pass. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment which is proposed, it would be a very vital alteration in the scheme of the Bill and in the machinery with which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to realise the educational objects ho has set forth very often and with very great eloquence, because the adoption of this Amendment would mean that the secondary school was to be regarded as the school appropriate, not to a certain social class, but to all who, having passed through the elementary school, have the necessary brains to go on to the more special institutions of learning. The right hon. Gentleman will see that this is a fundamental change in the machinery which is proposed in order to give us a national system of education.

If the Bill remains unamended it will mean that, broadly speaking, the education appropriate is in the nature of the technical or some special form of school which is not a secondary school. We desire to see the elementary school linked on to the secondary school. I was surprised a few minutes ago and interested at the same time in hearing the remarks made by my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench. He referred, I think not quite accurately, but I am sure his inaccuracy was quite unintentional, to the proposals of the Workers' Educational Association, and he used the words "educational ladder" in that connection. My right hon. Friend will remember that that association repudiates in turn any idea of an educational ladder and appeals for this broad pathway, and we are putting forward an Amendment to the Bill which is urged in the strongest possible terms and unanimously by the Workers' Educational Association which pleads for the provision of free secondary schools, and also for free universities, and for the making of the chain between the elementary school and the secondary school a real and complete chain. It is for these reasons, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

I need hardly say that, in common with all educationists, I sympathise with the ideals which have been put before the Committee by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. It is our earnest hope that one of the principal results of the passing of this measure will be very largely to stimulate the flow of children from our elementary schools into our secondary schools, and I think I shall be able largely to meet the point which my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has made. At the present moment, as the hon. Member is aware, we have a large number of secondary schools receiving Grants from the Board of Education, and in virtue of a very valuable provision, which we owe to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Monmouth (Mr. McKenna), there is a stipulation attached to the State Grant that a considerable proportion of free places should be provided, and in virtue of that provision a very large number of children do find their way into our secondary schools from our elementary schools; in fact, I believe no less than from 60 to 70 per cent. of the State-aided secondary scholars in this country have received their education in public elementary schools.

Sixty-seven per cent.

That is a very great testimony to the value of the provision which we owe to my right hon. Friend. The practical question with which we are faced is this: What is the best way of furthering secondary school education in this country? Would it be on the whole a wise policy to insist that all the fees taken in the secondary schools of this country should be forthwith abolished? That would be a loss of revenue to the State of £1,200,000, and if I were given by a munificent Chancellor of the Exchequer that generous sum to expend for the benefit of the children of the democracy of this country, I should prefer to have it expended in some other way. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that the best means of effecting his purpose is to supply every encouragement to the local education authority to build more secondary schools, to apply for Grants in respect of those schools, and, as a natural consequence, to provide free places in those schools. I believe that that is the course which promises the best results, and that is a course which will give the effect desired in the provisions of the Bill, because Clause 1 imposes as a duty upon the county borough and the county council the provision of such forms of secondary education in their respective areas as may be regarded as necessary and expedient by the Board of Education. On the other hand, I think it would be possible, and probably desirable, that something more explicit should be placed in the Bill with a view to impressing upon the minds of local education authorities their responsibility in this respect, and, if my hon. Friend would permit, I should be prepared to insert a new Sub-section in. Clause 4, where I think it would be really most appropriate, to the effect that the local education authorities, in preparing schemes, shall, as far as practicable, provide means that children and young persons shall not be debarred by poverty from the benefits of higher education. I think that would meet the point which was raised by my hon. Friend.

I am sorry to say that it does not meet my point at all. First of all, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathy. It is very much better to get sympathy than lectures, but he has not met the point on which I made special insistence. The parents have the power to demand sufficient elementary places for every child. They have not the power to demand a place for one child for secondary education. That is my point, and he admits it by silence, but he does not face what follows from it—the fact that we are miserably behind in secondary school places. What is the difference between England and Scotland, for instance? In Scotland they have the power to require and provide secondary school places, with the result that, while in England we have in secondary schools forty-five out of every thousand of the population, in Scotland they have 197. They have more than four times as many children in secondary schools for the population than what we have. Scotland is a poorer country. Its geographical, topographical, and economic conditions make it very difficult to have such, education at all. Why, then, is it that they get it? Because the people and the parents, having the power to demand schools, do demand them, and get them. My point is that you are not giving the people any power whatever under this Bill, but you are giving high place to important persons like the local education authorities and persons of intellectual or social position co-opted on education committees, giving them great powers to make schemes, and then to come as deputations to the Board of Education, hobnob with the grand people there, discuss the schemes hugger-mugger, and in secret, and get a concession to pass a scheme. But where do the people come in? Where do the parents come in? There is no provision in this Bill at all for them, even to be consulted, and when I say to my right hon. Friend in the most earnest, and, as I think, very cogent way, to give the parents some right to demand secondary places, he refers me to Clause 4. What does Clause 4 do? I will give the short title of it: "Consultation of authorities for the purposes of Part III of the Education Act, 1902." The Education Act of 1902, Part III., is all with reference to elementary education, and when I say give the people power to have the secondary school, the right hon. Gentleman says, "I will put in a few words at the end of Clause 4," which has to do with elementary education. His good intentions are of no value. They are very pleasant, very comforting, but let me remind him where good intentions lead to. I am going to carry out my intentions by deeds. He is going to give me nothing but good intentions, and a few words in a Clause which has nothing to do with secondary education at all. Certainly, if I am the only member who will go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment, I shall do so. The right hon. Gentleman must give me a little more than he has offered—something more than good intentions.

It is difficult, without seeing the Amendment foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman, to be certain what the actual effect of it will be, but I should like to ask him this. Apparently it will have a far-reaching effect.

No…

Hon. Members below the Gangway say it will not, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say that his Amendment would go a considerable way to meet the suggestions or the desires of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The hon. Gentleman says it will not. As I have not seen the Amendment, I cannot express a definite opinion upon it, but it does seem to me that it is possible it will make a far-reaching change in the Bill. I would like to ask what this new Amendment is, because the last statement we had from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to cost was that it would be about £9,700,000, and that only related to a portion of the Bill. Now if there is to be a considerable enlargement of secondary education, and as I understand it is to be given free to people who cannot afford to pay for it, it stands to reason there will be a very considerable addition to the cost. I think the Committee, in view of the enormous sums that are being spent, certainly should not commit themselves to any extension of the Bill, at any rate at the present moment, which will lead to a great increase in the cost.

I have considerable sympathy with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, in that neither of the hon. Members who have pressed for this Amendment has given the Committee any information as to what their scheme, if developed, would cost, but to that I will return in one moment. I am one of those Members who always regards the hon. Member for North Somerset, as he described himself, as one of the most cogent orators in this House, and, I have no doubt, in a further speech he will refer to it as even more cogent than the one which preceded it. I thought he rather strained his case too far. He is vexed with my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, because he has declined to meet him on what, to him, is the most important point, namely, that of giving to the people the power to ask for and obtain secondary schools and secondary education. Now I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend is really putting rather an exaggerated ease to the Committee. Is it not the fact that ratepayers or parents, if they are very keen on secondary educataion, can bring pressure to bear now on their elected representatives, and, through their elected representatives, on the Education Committee, and, if they are determined to get it, will get secondary education, just as they can bring pressure to bear on anything else? Therefore, I am not disposed to support the hon. Member for North Somerset on that ground. The fact is—and I think we might as well be frank about it—at the present moment, whatever may be the ideal we want to get in the matter of secondary education, there is no public demand for universal secondary education, and those who press it are not in this matter representing ordinary, normal, everyday lay opinion outside this House. My hon. Friend, besides his other qualities, is an extremely practical politician. He has not described to us what this scheme would cost. He has not said anything about what has always been one of the main difficulties in this matter, namely, the supply of teachers. If he insists to-day on asking the Committee to remodel the whole scheme of this Bill he runs a grave risk of endangering the whole proposal. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is so far in favour, though not quite to his satisfaction, I do hope he will not press this Amendment now, but be prepared to support the Bill in its main lines, as it is drawn, so that we may be enabled to go on with the main question.

I can go quite as far as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon in the tribute he has paid to the hon. Member for North Somerset. I am quite ready to listen to his ripe experience in questions of education. I the more regret that, in this instance, the hon. Member for North Somerset has entirely lost a good deal of his usual far-sightedness. He has told us that the ordinary ratepayers insist on higher education. I wonder if he can point to a single Clause in any of the Scottish Education Bills by which the people have any more power to insist upon higher education than in England? The only means that they have of obtaining higher education is by going to the Scottish educational authorities, and getting those authorities to move—

Can they not in Scotland get a far higher education in the elementary schools than is possible by law in England?

There is just the same education in the elementary schools of this country; the code is not drawn up by the inhabitants of each district. Does the hon. Member for North Somerset think that all provision for higher education should come from the locality? Does he not know that it is far more likely to advance the pressure of higher education when it comes from a central authority? The idea of the hon. Member for North Somerset that there is some big power in Scotland that provides schools: to insist on their being provided by some other means than that provided by the Education Acts is pure imagination.

So far from being in agreement with what has fallen from the two previous speakers in the matter of the attitude and activities of the hon. Member for North Somerset, I would there were a large number of hon. Members in this House; so well-informed on educational matters as is the hon. Member, and so keen to promote public free education as I have always found him. The hon. Member for Ripon is evidently not informed as to the facts of the public demand for greater facilities for education. If he had attended some of the conferences promoted by that excellent organisation, the Workers' Educational Association, he would have found that there is a volume of public opinion behind the Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education which has surprised many of those who were getting a little doubtful as to the public attitude towards education. It has delighted them. The public expression of opinion which is voiced by the Workers' Educational Association, representing thousands of working-class people, and at least hundreds of people connected with universities—the expression of opinion to which they have given voice, is in favour of something much more advanced than is contained in this Bill. As a matter of fact I have in my hand a series of resolutions adopted by the Workers' Educational Association, one of which deals with the specific points now before the Committee—that of free secondary education. The demand is laid down in set terms by the Workers' Educational Association, entitled, as I believe, to speak for large masses of the working classes of this country, as follows:

"That the Bill be amended so as to make secondary education accessible, freely and without the payment of fees, to all capable of taking advantage of it."

Hon. Members may take it that those who have been associated with public meetings, apart from the Workers' Educational Association, have found at the present time a public interest about education and a desire to see advancement in it that is remarkable considering present difficulties. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President that he should go further to meet the point which has been brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. If he does not, if he carries out his own suggestion, he still leaves it to the Board of Education to confer with the local authorities as to whether that 25 per cent. or more of free places in secondary schools shall be accorded.

I have no doubt at all as to what will happen if my right hon. Friend stays at the Board of Education. There will be a more generous provision of secondary school places, extra, without payment of fees. But there has been on the part of the Board of Education—I am glad to say not now—an attitude, not of hostility, but of not too generous a sympathy with local feeling in the matter of free secondary education. For example, there are authorities which are allowed to vary that 25 per cent. provision of free places, and which give a lower percentage. I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he makes the concession he has now outlined, to see that with that concession there is a stringing up of the administration of his Department, and that there is no freedom granted to local education authorities to depart, in any instance, from that excellent provision of 25 per cent. of free places in the secondary schools. Let me quote an instance in which departure is possible. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably recognise the case. Take the case of a local authority which has more than one secondary school. It keeps one school a little more select than the other one, or two. While it is prepared to give 25 per cent., or a little more, in one or two of its secondary schools, it carefully bars the boys and the girls of the elementary schools from entering, to the extent of 25 per cent. of free places, the other secondary school. This school is kept for those who, in the main, can afford big fees. It is this division on social lines which is at the back of the demand for free secondary education. There is more in that demand than at present seems to have appealed to my right hon. Friend. If he cannot go the whole way, he can at least do something by stringing up the administration, and providing, as the rule, for the 25 per cent. of free places in every secondary school, and not in some; and seeing that there is no easy way out for any local authority which advances specious arguments to him, showing why, in their particular case, the percentage should not be 25 per cent., but 20 per cent., 15 per cent., or 12½per cent., which they may suggest is adequate to meet the case of free places. I do hope my hon. Friend will press this matter. If he goes into the Division Lobby, I shall certainly accompany him.

While I welcome the extension of secondary education, one of the worst ways of helping the Bill is to overload it. To my mind the speech of the Education Minister is quite sympathetic to the demand that every local authority shall establish free secondary education for every child desiring it. The Bill also contains a provision that every education authority shall establish continuation schools. But I should like to ask hon. Members how they expect to get the necessary teachers or the necessary schools? I do feel that the Minister has been most sympathetic. I should not like to accuse the hon. Member for North Somerset of trying by overloading the Bill to kill it, but I do think it is the greatest mistake to push these sort of points too far, because, by so doing, there will be a real danger of killing the Bill.

It does seem to me that this Amendment is somewhat of a test of the intentions of the Government in regard to the Bill. Everybody who believes in real education knows that it is the teaching, in every branch, of the widest forms of knowledge that they want to see increased in the country. Everybody knows that there has been great pressure brought to bear on the President of the Board of Education to develop his educational ideas along the well-known German lines of Professor Kirschensteiner. The working classes of this country, through the Workers' Educational Association, ask for the opportunity to acquire some of the knowledge that they have not got. The Government, inspired by this nefarious example from across the ocean, give not opportunity, but compulsion. We ask for opportunity for getting real, humane knowledge—the reading of books, the knowledge of the natural sciences, and the knowledge of the higher branches of true learning. Instead of that, they give us these continuation schools, of which the hon. Member for Limehouse speaks so warmly—continuation schools where they are taught not to be thinkers, but workers in some trade which will be handy to their employment. We ask for one thing; the Bill gives us another. It gives compulsion, and the wrong form of education. We are accused of trying to overload the Bill. We want to sink the Bill unless this Amendment is carried—without insisting upon these particular words—but the spirit in which this particular Amendment has been urged upon the Government. The Bill is not what the balance of working-class opinion wants, and that is the reason why this Amendment is, as it were, a test Amendment. Do you want real education? To create amongst the workers of this country, men who stand up for their own rights, thinking out their own thoughts, or do you want a Bill to give us continuation schools, and to have this vocational education selected by the education authorities to suit the different trades of the different districts, farmed out, as it were, to the manufacturers and farmers of the country? I, for one, look forward to a decent, true education; therefore I welcome this Amendment. If it is carried we shall get the opportunity for the working classes to let their children go freely and get secondary education. It is not as though you were giving a great boon to the working classes. Every parent who takes advantage of free secondary education is making an enormous sacrifice. He is losing the wages that the child might have earned if sent out into the world. All that we are asking is that there should be opportunity for free secondary education. I say that by acceding to that request and by giving that opportunity you will be doing more for real education, more for uplifting the whole mind of the country, than you will do by any amount of compulsion into continuation schools and vocational education.

The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Goldstone) has asked for an opportunity for free secondary education, and that opportunity is most fully and abundantly given under the provisions of this Bill; in fact, it is one of the primary purposes of this Bill to offer that opportunity. In what way is it provided? This Bill imposes for the first time an obligation on county councils and county boroughs and upon all authorities having power under Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, to provide a scheme, and the Education Board will see that, as a constituent part of that scheme, there shall be adequate provision for secondary education in the area. That is one of the primary purposes of the Bill, and, as I have already pointed out, in virtue of the Regulations which are laid down, the condition is added that the secondary school shall provide free places. The consequence is that under the ordinary working of the machinery of this Bill you have more free places provided in secondary schools and you have more secondary schools provided as well. I gather the hon. and gallant Member does not wish, by a stroke of the pen, to abolish the existing secondary schools of this country. I, for one, attach very great importance to the education in the same schools of boys and girls belonging to different classes of society. Under the provisions of this Bill that object is achieved. To show the kind of effect which the mere rumour of this Bill has upon enterprises of this kind, may I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the education committee of a great industrial city has already recommended that six additional secondary schools shall be established in its area, in addition to those already existing? I am at the present moment very closely looking into the whole question of scholarships and maintenance, but this is a matter of administrative machinery. This Bill provides a framework within which the object which my hon. Friend is aiming at can be effectively and safely obtained. The more my hon. and gallant Friend looks at the matter, the more sure I am that he will be satisfied that the Bill does realise that part of his aspiration which is concerned with the provision of secondary education.

We take a very serious view of this Amendment. We are grateful to the President of the Board of Education for the sympathetic words he has used with regard to the educational ideals which we have. To the arguments which we have set before him we have tried to give expression in the form of this Amendment. It is useless to pretend that the suggestion made by the President in any adequate sense realises the object we seek to achieve. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that these educational authorities, coming together, would receive encouragement to adopt schemes which will ensure that no child is, by poverty, prevented taking the advantage of further forms of education. What we desire is to have as part of our national system free secondary schools for all children on passing from the elementary schools. A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has recently returned from America, was listening to this Debate. I have had the pleasure of reading the witty diary of his experiences in America. I am sure he must have seen something of the public schools system in the United States, and I had hoped he would be able to give the Committee the result of his recent observations in that respect. This system which we are advocating has worked in America with entire success. There they have free elementary schools leading by a broad highway to the secondary schools, free alike from any charges for instruction or for the necessary books and apparatus. That is the ideal we are aiming at. We want to get free secondary education for all children, without regarding elementary education as a system complete in itself or as a coping-stone in the system of continuation classes. The President of the Board of Education gave certain statistics just now. I want to ask the Committee to examine them. They really do not meet the point which we have urged upon the right hon. Gentleman's attention. The statistics he gave snow that between 50 and 60 per cent. of the children in secondary schools came from elementary schools, but the right hon. Gentleman omits altogether from those statistics the great private and public schools.

I expressly stated they were confined to schools receiving State aid.

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman's statistics did omit any reference to the great public schools system so far as it receives no public Grant. But these are not the statistics which he should have given us. He should have told the Committee in this connection the percentage of children who leave the elementary schools, who pass into the secondary schools or receive any further form of education. I can give him the figures. It is less than 8 per cent. About 92 per cent. of the children leaving elementary schools each year before the War went straight to their work in life, and not only did not get any secondary school education, but got no further education of any kind whatever. That means, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows—for he has publicly acknowledged it—that our ele- mentary school system is a class system, a system for the children of the poor, and that, there is no real relation between the elementary school and the secondary school. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) referred to the Workers' Educational Association. Let me remind the Committee that that association has frequently been the subject of eulogy in this House, and its recommendations have always received great attention here. There is no subject that association is more earnest upon than this question of providing free secondary schools, and linking up the secondary schools with the elementary schools as the natural avenue for all students to pass along. That association is most critical of the form of this Bill because it fails to make any provision whatever on the scale we wish it made for secondary education, and it is because we believe that this is a matter vitally affecting our educational system and because we can hope to get no really national system unless we eliminate the class system and bring unity into the elementary and secondary systems that we feel compelled to challenge the opinion of the Committee on this fundamental matter.

I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend is pressing the President of the Board of Education a little unduly. We all share, I believe, the ideals to which he has given expression, but we do not see how his Amendment is going to give effect to those ideals, nor do we believe that the conditions are such that the President can by any Act of Parliament give effect to the views my hon. Friend desires to see carried out. My hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) observed that the statistics quoted by the President, showing that 67 per cent. of the children in publicly-aided secondary schools came from public elementary schools, did not really touch the question, and he gave us figures showing that only 8 per cent. of the children in public elementary schools pass on to the secondary schools, 92 per cent. failing to do so. If my hon. Friend holds that 92 per cent. fail to go because there is no-room for them, then I think his argument would be to the point.

They do not go into the schools at all.

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the 92 per cent. who do not go in the secondary schools would have gone if there had been room for them?

The right hon. Gentleman appeals to me with great courtesy, and I will at once say that the 92 per cent. fail to secure any further form of education for two reasons. In the first instance they could not go into the secondary schools if they wished, because there are not sufficient secondary schools. The existing secondary schools are already overcrowded in every part of the country, and particularly in London. Secondly, they do not go on, it may be for social and economic reasons, possibly poverty, but that is a matter which I cannot deal with now.

There is a third reason. It is quite possible that a very large proportion of them, or it may be a large proportion of their parents, have no intention that they should go on to secondary schools. We have to deal with facts as we find them. My hon. Friend suggests that a system should be set up in this country by which room will be provided in secondary schools for every child in the country.

That is not my Amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman do me the courtesy to read that Amendment? It does not ask for secondary education for all children, but only for those who desire it. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Amendment he will see that his present argument is pointless.

I quite understand my hon. Friend's Amendment; he very properly uses the word "desires," but I wish to observe that of the 92 per cent. quoted by the last speaker it will be found that a very large proportion were not desirous of secondary education. I am sure the Committee is absolutely unanimous in the desire to provide secondary education—free—for all children in the country who are desirous to have it, but is it realised that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education must build on the existing system? He cannot scrap that system. He would not have the teachers or the buildings or the provision necessary to create an entirely new system such as that suggested. I am inclined to quote a French proverb to illustrate the situation, "Better is the enemy of good." I hope we shall ulti- mately come to the ideals expressed by my hon. Friends, but I am sure they are doing their own case more harm than good by standing in the way of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend who always has in view the highest educational spirit, and who is as earnest as any Member of this House in his desire to give effect to that spirit. While discussions on these topics are most valuable, I do beg of my hon. Friends to give this Bill the hearty reception which it deserves. It is a very fine step forward both in the field of elementary and of secondary education, and I, for my part, would not risk losing it by occupying the attention of this House for five minutes.

I should like to say a word in support of the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKenna). I would certainly ask the Mover of this Amendment to withdraw it and to trust to the proposal that has been made by the President of the Board of Education. The more he thinks of it, the more I am sure he will admit that nearly everything he desires—and I am in much sympathy with what he desires—will be attained under this Bill if that proposal is carried out. Let me further point out that this Amendment could scarcely be carried in the form in which it is presented to the Committee. There are several objections to the Amendment as it stands. It says "including the provision of secondary or higher education." I do not know in the least what the hon. Gentleman means by contrasting secondary with higher education. Secondary education one understands very well, and higher education generally means the education which follows secondary education in the higher institutions or universities. The word "or," therefore, is entirely out of place. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means that provision shall be made for free secondary as well as for free university education. If so, it would be better to state it. The hon. Member has supported by very strong arguments the Amendment which is before the Committee by pointing out that parents cannot possibly in existing circumstances demand free secondary education or demand the establishment of free secondary schools. My experience may not be as large as his, but I must own that I have never known local authorities approached by parents and asked that a secondary school should be established in the district to refuse that request; and, further, I have never known a case in which such a demand has been made to the Board of Education which has been refused by the Board.

What we want to do is to create a greater enthusiasm for secondary education among all classes in the country, and when that enthusiasm exists and a demand is made for further secondary education I feel quite certain it will be acceded to. I know quite well that there is a tendency amongst a large number of secondary schools to approach the Board of Education with a view to enabling free places to be given in those schools, and I am not certain that it will not be my duty to take a deputation to the Board of Education before long asking whether in certain schools which are not at present Grant-aided the opportunity of providing free places may not be afforded in order that a Grant may be obtained. The demand must come from the parents, and as soon as it does I feel quite certain that there will be no lack of opportunity for secondary education to be afforded. I cannot quite understand what my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) means in opposing so strongly vocational education. I agree with him entirely to the extent that what we require is further secondary education in the first instance, and I do not see that we can read into any of the Clauses of this Bill that strong demand for vocational education which he seems to see in some of its provisions, I hope, therefore, that in order that there may be no division on a point of this kind; on which the whole Committee and country are really agreed—as to the further facilities that should be afforded to all classes in the country for secondary education—the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

I am extraordinarily surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus), and I will give the Committee the reason. He said he never knew a case where the parents had asked for secondary education or a school and had not got it. He and I were together members of a local educational authority in the year 1903, and from the county council area which I then represented, Haslemere, a petition came up to our local education authority asking for a secondary school. The local education, authority bought a piece of land, but that piece of land is not built on to the present day, and no secondary school is accessible—

I suppose the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the reason which prevented that local authority from providing that school, namely, that facilities already existed in the near neighbourhood and were quite sufficient?

The nearest facilities are in in the town of Guildford, which is seventeen miles away, and the real reason the school has not been built there is that people who made good professions did not attend, and people who were anxious for democratic ideals in education, like myself, were always turned down. It is not at all the case that facilities are given to places and people when they ask for secondary education, and there is no leverage which the people of the district have in demanding it. There is none. There is in Scotland, and I wish here to reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), who said that there was no power in Scotland which was not enjoyed by the parents and people in England. There is. There is the power to elect the school board, and if a school board which can provide secondary education in. Scotland—a directly-elected authority which has no counterpart whatever in England—does not provide secondary education, all it is necessary to do is to wait three years, turn them out, and elect a body that will provide it. That is the law in Scotland, and for the hon. Member to say that I am wrong in my facts, and to go out of the House and leave me to answer when he is not here, is not quite fair. I am going to press this to a Division if anybody will support me, but before I do so let me say that I do recognise the good intentions and the desire to meet me which the President of the Board of Education has shown. Let me point out, however, that we are not asking that there shall be provision of secondary school accommodation for all children who pass. We are not even saying that there must be secondary schools. We are only saying that in the scheme—because, after all, this Clause is only for making schemes—you must put some provision for secondary education for those children who desire it. I do not think it is a very unreasonable thing. I am perfectly certain that if it were added it would give a real assistance to the very ideas which the President of the Board has. It is not an unreasonable proposal, it is not an extravagant or an expensive one, and therefore I shall certainly go to a Division.

I should like to ask a question with reference to the next Clause, because I think it has a considerable bearing upon the matter the Committee is discussing at the present moment. Clause 2 says:

"It shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of Part III. of the Education Act, 1902,

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

and then going on to paragraph (b)

"—for co-operating with local education authorities for the purposes of Part II. of the Education Act, 1902, in matters of common interest, and particularly in respect of (i) the preparation of children for further education in schools other than elementary and their transference at suitable ages to such schools."

The question I want to ask is whether such schools other than elementary include secondary schools? If they do, it seems to me such a considerable advance on any thing we have now that it is almost an answer to the case made by the hon. Member (Mr. King). Certainly if what the President of the Board of Education says in reference to this is what I expect, I shall be unable, much as I sympathise with his object, to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

It is, of course, true, as the hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Blake) has pointed out, that "schools other than elementary schools" under Sub-section (b) of Clause 2 does mainly refer to secondary schools.

Mainly?

It does refer to secondary schools.

Mainly?

And others.

It includes secondary schools?

It includes secondary schools. I would also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the phrase "Progressive development and comprehensive organisation of education" in Clause 1. I do submit to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. King) that what he desires is already done, and that we are taking power in Clause 1 and in Clause 2 to ensure adequate provision of facilities for secondary education.

Free?

Naturally, because, as I have already pointed out, no secondary school can receive State aid unless it is prepared to make provision for free places, and, as I have already indicated, I am prepared specifically to make reference to the necessity of an adequate provision of free places in secondary schools. I think, therefore, that the points which have been raised by hon. Members who desire free secondary education are substantially met in the Bill as it stands.

I should like to utter a word of warning against the over-enthusiasm of what I may call the extreme education enthusiast, in order that it may not result in the wrecking of this Bill. What with the extreme enthusiast on one side and the education reactionary on the other, I do foresee great trouble with this Bill unless those of us who are really keen to see it carried do our best to support the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge. I have sat on local county education authorities ever since such bodies existed, and the great difficulty I foresee in regard to this Bill is not in satisfying the enthusiasts of education, but in satisfying what I may call the reactionaries—those, in fact, who are very reluctant indeed to spend 1d. more out of the public purse, and particularly out of the public rates, than we are spending at the present time. I cannot, for my own part, see what advantage is to be derived from attempting to force upon local authorities a course of action in advance of local public opinion. After all, local public opinion is quite able to provide what the hon. Member desires through its elected representative, if it is strong enough to do so. The one handicap which exists under the previous Act was removed by Clause 7, by which the absurd limit of a 2d. rate no longer exists. With regard to those who speak for urban areas, and who are prepared to send representatives to the local education authorities, as long as they are anxious to see public money expended upon more advanced education, possibly free of all cost, it is possible for them to effect this with the good will of the locality, which is absolutely essential if you wish to make it a success. I welcome this Bill because, in regard to what we are pleased to call higher education, provision is made for the first time to ensure enthusiasm for the work which is going to appeal to the parents, and for that reason it is going to develop a larger measure of public enthusiasm for education generally. It is only by increasing the larger local enthusiasm for education that you are going to get a real move on, and that you are going to secure for every child in this country a proper secondary education.

I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division. The President of the Board of Education says that what we require is already provided for, but I want to know, is it entirely so? I understand that the Amendment which has been promised in Clause 4 will simply mean consultation. We want something that will be a real provision and not merely a consultation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mon-mouth (Mr. McKenna) said there would not be sufficient teachers, and he urged us not to press this Amendment unduly. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) raised the question of finance, and all this seems to indicate that there is a doubt as to whether it is wise to provide for secondary education. We desire that there should be no dubeity about it. It is not a question of finance. I have always been ready to co-operate with my right hon. Friend in regard to matters of economy, but this question of finance in regard to education should not deter us from providing ample educational facilities for every child in the country. The need is so great that I think this Amendment should leave no doubt at all. It should not be a question of the right hon. Gentleman saying that our point is substantially met in the Bill. We should get an undertaking that these facilities will be provided without any doubt. As the Amendment says, it only applies to those desirous of having these facilities, and the parents would be consulted. Unless we get a definite undertaking that some such provision as I have indicated will be made in this Clause, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division.