entirely crowned with success, and that in not a few cases they were selfsupporting. If that was so and if, as the hon. Member said, in country districts voluntary effort could be made equally self-supporting under the present system, why was it necessary to introduce a measure such as that under discussion which was extremely objectionable to a large number of the community and against which they had been appealed to, by circular by those who were chiefly concerned, to vote. The memorial which had been placed in the hands of every hon. Member, than which no more convincing document had been made available to the House on the subject, showed that the school boards for Scotland, taken as a whole, were strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill. They recognised, what apparently the Government did not, that the principle under lying it would be injurious to Scotland. He did not wish to labour the question of undermining parental responsibility, but there could be no doubt that one of the principles which underlay the Bill was a desire to relieve the parents of the responsibility of feeding their children. Why on earth should parents who received from any kind of poor rates food for their children not be penalised as those who received Poor Law relief? Since it was usual for those who received parish or other poor relief to suffer disfranchise ment, why should not that principle apply in these cases? If those who were qualified and able to support their children were unwilling to do so, or lazy and indifferent as to their condition, and rather than bother about them let their children receive meals at the cost of the rates, they were the very persons who ought to be disfranchised. He did not wish to delay the House in coming to a decision, but he pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition was only a small minority in the House they represented in all probability the great majority of the United Kingdom in this matter, and they would take this and every other opportunity to express their disapproval of Socialistic legislation. MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.) said that, as a Member of the Royal Commission on Physical Training, which first drew attention to this question, he thought he might say that the feeling in Scotland Mr. Carlile. was that, though there was a large amount of under-feeding, there was no general tendency amongst the people of Scotland to neglect the feeding of their children; but, on the contrary, that the people of Scotland attended almost invariably to the care and feeding of their children, and that this was a burden they would be unwilling to throw upon the rates. The recommendations of the Commissioners, therefore, were very modest in their character, and were mainly that the public might well provide the machinery and facilities for meals, and leave to voluntary agencies the provision of the food. So far as he had been able to understand it there was no desire in the Bill to discourage voluntary effort. School boards if they thought necessary might associate thenselves with any committee upon which that board was represented, but they were not compelled to associate themselves. The Bill, being entirely permissive, removed a great deal of his objection to it. He would strongly resist any interference with parental responsibility, as he honestly believed that any such interference would be the commencement of the downfall of the country. What had made Scotland was not exactly its natural wealth, its agricultural possibilities, or its climate, but the independence of the character of the people. If they were to whittle that away and to tell a man that having brought children into the world he need do nothing else but lend them to be fed, clothed, and taught by the State, it certainly would weaken parental responsibility. If he thought the Bill would in any degree weaken parental responsibility he would not hesitate to vote against it; but so long as it was made optional in Scotland he was sure that the common sense which dominated the school boards would teach them to use the powers conferred upon them with moderation. But it was not feeding alone that they had to look after, for attention must be given to the clothing, cleanliness, and general welfare of the children; and it was in these matters that he thought voluntary effort would be most valuable. One point that was not touched in the Bill was medical inspection. He recognised the enormous importance of it, and he hoped a subsequent Bill would deal with the subject. Although there might be much to cause alarm in the Bill, it was at any rate Question put. optional, and would be left to the good| sense of the school boards in Scotland He, therefore, felt obliged to vote for the Second Reading. 52. AYES. Evans, Samuel T. Everett, R. Lacey The House divided:-Ayes, 227; Noes, (Division List No. 32.) Farrell, James Patrick Fenwick, Charles Ferens, T. R. Ffrench, Peter Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Barker, John Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Barnard, E. B. Carr-Gomm, H. W. Causton, Rt. HnRichard Knight Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W. Corbett, C.H(Sussex, EGrinst'd) Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Crombie, John William Crooks, William Dalziel, James Henry Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Duckworth, James Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Dunne, MajorE Martin(Walsall) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Erskine, David C. Findlay, Alexander Flynn, James Christopher Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John Goddard, Daniel Ford Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Hay, Hon. Claude George Higham, John Sharp Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Idris, T. H. W. Menzies, Walter Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Murray, James Norman, Sir Henry Norton, Captain Ceci! William O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Price, Ropert John (Norfolk, E. Rainy, A. Rolland Rea, Walter Rusell (Scarboro) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Rogers, F. E. Newman Runciman, Walter Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford) | Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Sears, J. E. Seaverns, J. H. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. Shipman, Dr. John G. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Soames, Arthur Wellesley Stanger, H. Y. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh) Steadman, W. C. Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Acland-Hood, RtHn SirAlex. F. Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan Ferguson, R. C. Munro NOES. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. ColW Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. AR Main Question put, and agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."-(Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London) said that before the Question was put he would like to ask the Government what course they proposed to follow, not merely as to sending the Bill upstairs, but as to making it a Government measure. He thought they ought to have some clear statement as to that. He was not going to discuss the question of turning private measures into public Bills. Though it might be revelant he did not mean to raise it now. If it was intended to make this measure a public Bill he hoped the Government would take care that on the Standing Committee they were strongly represented. MR. SINCLAIR submitted that the question did not arise at the present stage. The Government could not say what considerations might arise at a later period of the session, and they were not able, therefore, to say what the attitude of the Government would be towards the Bill. Their present attitude had been quite clearly stated that afternoon. The present feeling of the Government towards the measure was friendly, and they had given it their support, and had gone into the Lobby in favour of the Second Reading. They were favourable to the Motion that it should go upstairs to Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would adopt the Bill or give it facilities. As he had already said, at this stage the question did not arise. The Bill occupied a peculiarly favourable position, and it was quite possible that without assistance of any kind, or the granting of facilities, it might become law. Therefore, he was not able to answer the question more definitely than that the attitude of the Government was shown by their action on that occasion. MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.) said the answer of the Secretary for Scotland was by no means satisfactory. He stated that the Government had a Bill in which they were dealing with the same subject. MR. SINCLAIR said the Government Bill did not deal with the same subject, but with medical inspection in schools. COLONEL LOCKWOOD said that no of a Bill dealing with the same subject doubt the Government had anticipation as the Bill under discussion. What he wanted to know was whether the Government were going to lie in wait with their Bill, and, should there not be a chance of bringing it forward, adopt this Bill of a private Member? Or if they had a chance of getting their own Bill through, would they then drop the private Member's Bill? They had their own Bill and a private Member's Bill, which they were ready to adopt if they saw no chance of getting their own through. He maintained that it was a novel proceeding on the part of the Government to adopt a private Member's Bill, and, after it had send it upstairs, thereby giving it a been discussed only until four o'clock, priority which the Government Bill, if brought forward, would not have had. thought he must have forgotten the action of the Government last session in regard to the Land Tenure Bill, which occupied exactly the same position last session as the present Bill did this session. The Land Tenure Bill was moved by a private Member, and it was sent to the Grand Committee upstairs, where the Government were conspicuous by their absence. They took little or no part in the conduct of the Bill in Committee; and when questions were asked in the House, and the Government were appealed to give them their support upstairs, they said that it was a private Bill upon which they had expressed their views, and that they had only a remote connection with its passage upstairs. Then the Bill underwent considerable changes in Committee, and they were in great diff culty, having no legal representative of the Government except a Scottish law officer to whom to appeal. So, considerably changed, the Bill came back to the House, and at a moment's notice it was adopted by the Government. The Bill under discussion occupied no more favourable position than did the Land Tenure Bill last year. If the Government took little part in the conduct of the Bill upstairs, and the measure underwent considerable changes which made it altogether objectionable to those on that. side of the House who had voted for it,tary for Scotland, in answer to a Question, and still more objectionable to those who had declared that he intended to bring opposed and if the Government then forward a Bill dealing with the question adopted it, was it not quite obvious that of Scottish education. He was not rethe whole position of the Bill would ferring to his remarks made that daybe altered Having regard to this remarks which were none of the clearest He was referring modern practice, adopted for the first he could assure him. time by the present Government, of to a distinct answer which he had given allowing Bills to go upstairs, without to a Question. The answer was in effect any suggestion as to what course they that certain provisions would be intromeant to adopt, and, then, when duced into a Scottish Bill dealing with they came back from Committee, taking medical inspection and with the feeding them up as Government measures, he of children. From the language used thought his right hon. friend had asked elsewhere, he thought they were entitled what was reasonable and fair, namely, to ask the Government on which horse that they should now be told whether this they would try to win, because they Bill was so important that the Governwere not going to have them running ment were likely to adopt it. The principle two horses. Were they going to await of the Bill was clear, however it might be the chance of their own Bill, and, if it changed, and surely the Government failed, to take up the Bill proposed by knew now whether they attached so much their masters on the Labour Benches ? importance to that principle as to make it necessary to hasten the progress of the Bill. COLONEL LOCKWOOD said that the Secretary for Scotland in his speech had SIR HENRY CRAIK said the Secre MR. SINCLAIR said he would en deavour to reply to the questions which had been put. Might he remind the House that the next Bill on the Paper dealt with medical inspection in schools SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington) said the Government had been fortunate enough to get not only the first order but the second. They would have not only two, but three horses. Both those Bills practically represented the view of the Government measure, which would be produced shortly. The Government not only introduced Bills in a legitimate way in the gracious Speech from the Throne, but they used the ballot to adopt any number of illegitimate children. in England. Precisely as that Bill stood | sented on the Committee and that the separate from the Bill of last session Committee was properly manned. for feeding children, so the Bill now before the House was separate from any proposal which might be contained in the Bill of the Government dealing with Scottish education. There was no necessary connection between the two Bills; either could stand and be considered separately. With reference to the question as to facilities, he would answer that question when the time came. There was a wide difference between this Bill and the Land Tenure Bill. In the first place this was a purely Scottish Bill of much more limited scope than the Land Tenure Bill. In the Lords its application to Scotland was deleted. He could assure the House that they would take every step to ensure that the Government was properly repre- Noes, 52. (Division List No. 33.) Question put. The House divided:-Ayes, 231; Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch) Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Barnes, G. N. Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Beauchamp, E. Berridge, T. H. D. Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine AYES. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Dalziel, James Henry Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Dolan, Charles Joseph Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness Evans, Samuel T. Everett, R. Lacey Farrell, James Patrick Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Goddard, Daniel Ford Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mr. Sinclair. |