HOUSE OF KEYS.DOUGLAS. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1920.

Present: The Speaker (Mr G. Fred. Clucas, J.P.), Messrs C. Gill, T. Gerald Bridson, 15. Callister, E. S. Dalgleisli, G. B. Kerniode, D. J. Teare, E. J. Curpliey, J D. Clucas, T. S. Corlett, W . Kermeen. .). R. Corrin, A. Qiuilfcrough. AY. Moor\ A. ! I Teare. C. P.. Sliinimin, Richard Oa'n. S. Norris, R. C. Cain, P . B. Moore, A. J. Teare, and J. D. Qualtrough. The absentees were Messrs P . S. Corlett and Goldie- Taubman, the latter of whom was excused. The Secretary (Mr P . T). Gelling) was in attendance.

AGRICULTURAL AND R U R AL INDUSTRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr Clucas: I give notice that I intend to ask for lea.ve to introduce a Bill to amend the Agriculture and Rural Industries (Amendment) Act, 1917. Ma.y I suggest that it is a matter of getting the grant this year, and until this Act is amended, it is impossble to get the grant, in- levy the rate. I ask for the suspension :>f the Standing Orders so as to advance the Bill a stage.

The Speaker: That will mean that leave ;o introduce will be given now. Is that igreed ?

Agreed.

RETURN TO TYN W ALD .Mr A. H . Teare: I give notice that at

he next sitting of the House, which I resume will be on Tuesday, I will move lie following resolution :—That tliis Iloiue, having ?'eceived with satis- xtion the report of the deputation of the ouse which recently waited upon the Home ¡cretary on the subject of Financial Control, id more particularly the assurances given by ie Home Secretaiy to such deputation, and nding 1ms decision thereon, intimates to His ccellency the Lieut.-Governor its readiness to .et forthwith in Tynwald for the purposes of uisacting: the ever-increasing number of liters of urgent pniblio importance, the post- nement of which can only prejudice the in- ■ests of the Island at large.I think I can fairly claim to have the pport of the majority of the members of

| this House, so that it is not merely introducing something that has no chance of support. Under the new Constitution Act it is provided that 13 members of the House can petition his Excellency to summon Tynwald; but needless to say, I hope that procedure will not be necessary, and therefore I give notice of tliis motion for the next sitting.

THE BREAD SUBSIDY.— FURTHER I REPORT FROM THE DEPUTATION.

Tli© Speaker: I will ask the committee who waited upon the Governor with regard to the position of the flour subsidy to report to the House.

Mr Norris: The committee have drawn up their report, but there has not been an opportunity of having it printed and circulated. With your leave, sir, will the Secretary read the report?

The Secretary read the report, as follows:—To Mr Speaker and the Honorable Me?nbers of

the House of Keys.The Committee appointed cn the 13th April,

1920, in reference to the recent increase in the price of bread ha.ve the honour to report an follows:—

The Committee was received by His Excellency on the 14tli instant, and had a. very full discussion with him on the position—

(1) On being asked as to the possibility of increasing- the subsidy, His Excellency stated that hr; was against giving any further subsidy either in a limited form by confining the cheaper loaf to a limited section of the community ao being impracticable or by giving such a subsidy as would give a cheaper loaf to the whole of the community.

This, he considered, would only have the effect of eventually increasing the difficulties of the- position.

(2) With regard to stacks of flour in hand, His Excellency informed the Committee that a ret urn wa s being made, and would be completed, by the 15th April, which would show th'i exact amount of stocks held by the different bukers prior to the increase in price.

Up to the present the return of the stocks showed that there was nothing unusual about th*3 stocks that had been in hand.

The deputation then discussed whether the

Agricultural and Rural Industries (Amendment) Bill.— Return to Tynwald,— The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation,

496 HOUSE- OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 1920.

recent increase in price to 1b Id -was reasonable, and pointed out that the increase in the 1'i'ice of flour of 19’ 3d a Rick was almost met by an increase of 2Ad a 41b. loaf, but by the present price of Is 1.1 the baker was charging an additional 3!d, i e., a further id per loaf.

Assuming that out of a track of flour there are 90 loaves, and that each operative will bake (a moderate estimate) five sacks per week. This mean; per baker employed an additional payment to the master baker of £1 17s 6d; deducting proposed increase of wages per man, 14s; balance, per each operative employed £1 3; 6d, out of which the mooter baker would have to meet rny additional cost for heat, light, etc.

The Co ivmittee, hov ever, considered that tile; proposed price of is Id wa» too much, and had been informed that the 41b. loaf wras being sold in Douglas by at least one baker at present at Is; and, further, that during the last few days in various places in England the price had fallen to as low as lid, the fall being attributed to the effect of free competition.

It »■»? suggested that the price should be Is if sold in the shop over the counter, and Is Id if delivered; or, as an alternative, Is OJd all round, delivered or sold in the shop.

liis Excellency stated that he would consult with the master bakers with regard to this suggestion, but pointed out that, owing to decontrol, lie had no power to fix prices, but if neceonary bread could be brought under the Profiteering Act and detailed examination made in connection with the cost of its production.

The Committee considered it best to report at once the result of their interview, but li ake no recommendation with regard to an ii crca'(> in tile subsidy, as the members of the Committte are divided in opinion on its adv is a b i l i t y . S. N O R R IS .

J. R. CORRIN A. H. TEARE.R. 0. CAIN.

Wtli April. 1920. A. J. TEARE.Mr Norris; I have to move tlie adoption

of tlie report. I think the House is prepared to adopt it, or reject it. or amend it, without any long discussion. The committee are unanimously of opinion that 1/1 is too much for the 41b. loaf, to the people who buy it over the counter, as well as those who have it delivered at their doors. His Excellency has taken the matter up with the bakers, and 1 take it that, rn tin.' facts disclosed, it would be possible for steps to be taken to have the 41b. loaf reduced, to either Is OJd all round, or Is over the counter and Is Id delivered. On the question of the further subsidy, the matter was not fully discussed, and the committee were fairly evenly divided on the subject; but, as the House is aware, a resolution has been tabled bringing the matter fully before the House, and therefore T don’t propose at this stage to labour the

question. I content myself with moving the adoption of the report.

Mr A. H . Teare : I second it. The reference to the committee was a somewhat comprehensive o.ne. It was to review the situation generally. To my mind, there were conspicuous two questions. First, was the proposed price a reasonable one? And, second, could any assistance be given from Government Office to effect a reduction to the consumer? The report, as we have just heard it read, deals fairly conclusively with these points. In England, already the price has varied considerably. It commenced at from Is to Is 2d, but competition, and large output, in various big firms, has had its effect, and now we read that the price is down as low as lid . In Douglas it is an absolute fact that bread is actually being sold over the counter at Is per 41b. loaf. A large institution in Douglas purchases bread at Is OJd. We assume that bakers are not selling at Is per loaf for fun, or that they supply to large institutions for Is Oid except at a profit, and I believe that the suggestion that we make, that bread should be sold at the counter for Is, and delivered foils Id, is reasonable and fair. We were informed by a gentleman of experience, one of the lion, members for North Douglas, that SO per cent, of the bread baked in the Isle of Man is delivered. And so, in suggesting that bread when delivered should be sold at Is Id, we are giving every consideration to the baker, and giving him the higher price on 80 per cent, of what he turns out. This is an especially fair suggestion to the baker who happens also to be a confectioner, because that gentleman has the advantage that the Government subsidises flour for the purpose of manufacturing his cakes, which lie sells at a very much higher price, proportionately. Whilst I know this is a digression, I am still inclined to think that this practice of subsidised flour being utilised for cakes should be controlled. If a Government stamp was attached to every 21b. or 41b. loaf, and on these stamps, and them only, the subsidy was paid, there might be some means of dealing with this use of subsi* dised flour for confectionery, and so making an unjustifiable profit. There seems to be a. confusion in the public mind, which should be cleared up at once. There has been no reduction in the subsidy. The present subsidy of 24s per sack will continue. in England and here, and it would be well that the public mind should be disabused of any idea to the contrary.

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation,

HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 497

The price of foreign wheat has gone up by 19s 3d, and that represents, as the report states, an extra cost of 2id per loaf. Assuming that 90 loaves are produced out of each sack— I believe that in some instances 92 loaves are produced, if the flour is good, but 90 is a fair average— that represents a charge of 2Jd per loaf. The baker has to pay 68s 3d per sack, but the Government gives him 24s of a subsidy, and so. prior to this recent increase, the cost to him was 44s 3d per sack. I believe there is a difference of 3d per sack between the price of Manx flour and that of flour purchased in England. I have taken the trouble to see the invoices of both, and it is substantially correct, as gentlemen know full well, that 44s 3d is the price. A t 19s 3d extra, the cost is 63s 6d. Ninety loaves out of the sack means that the actual flour in the loaf, before anything is done to it, costs 8Jd. Then the baker has all the other charges— wages, yeast, fuel, and the rest, which he reckons at 4Jd per loaf, making the price up to Is Id. His Excellency some time ago appointed an arbitration or investigation board, of which you, sir, had the honour to be chairman, I believe, and then the price was fixed at 9id. W e must assume that that board arrived at a fair conclusion, on the evidence before it. If you take the 2Jd additional charges, based on the risen cost of flour, you have the cost of Is. The operatives lia.ve claimed an increase of wages of 14s per week. I believe it was suggested that 10s might be offered. I am not quite sure what the settlement was, but if we assume that they will be paid 14s extra, then if a man bakes five or six sacks per week, which is the usual production, and which means 500 41b. loaves per week, the increase in wages will be somewhere between }d and Jd per loaf. Then we have to consider that the baker, like everyone else, has additional charges in a variety of directions, which I have put down as ’¡d per loaf, making Is Old altogether. You see, these fractions of a penny are very small matters, but when you come to compute them in hundreds of thousands of loaves, they run into a goodly sum. I believe that the baker has a just claim for Is OSd per loaf, with the increase in the price of flour and materials of all kinds. Then, of course, he is allowed, or was allowed, to charge Jd for delivery. That brings it to Is OJd. A hundred loaves at Is 03d would come to £5 6s 3d. But suppose he delivers 80 per cent, of these loaves, as we are informed he does,

he would get Is Id, and for the other twenty Is. Taken on that basis, he would get for his hundred loaves £5 6s 8d. The alternative suggestion, that he sell them all round for Is Old, would give him £5 4s 2d. I have heard it stated by experienced bakers that they would rather have Is over the counter than Is Id delivered. I believe that the committee’s recommendations are fair and square. They are certainly worthy of consideration, and what is more, they are worthy of a triaL If a baker finds that under this suggestion he is losing money, then he has the remedy in his own hands, and I am sure the public will not object to the baker having a fair bargain. I hope the House will accept this view, and I hope the bakers will have the good sense to at least make an experiment in this direction, backed up as it is by the fact that bread is being already sold at Is. We have no,-competition, or very little, in the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Bakers’ Association is a powerful institution, and there is a small trust in operation, but if the public wish to have bread at Is per loaf, they know where to get it. The other question was that of the subsidy. The mover of the present resolution suggested that this subject might be discussed on a resolution which is to be proposed later. That resolution, to my mind, is purely a pious resolution, and should be discussed in another place, and not here. Probably it will come up there. The question is, whether we can afford any possible means of help. W e have to recognise that a certain section of the community is hardly hit— the middle class, who cannot complain, wlio cannot get an increase in wages, and cannot take other methods of increasing the amount they have to live upon. We all feel that if possible, some means should be devised of assisting them, but, as his Excellency pointed out, it appears to be impracticable to propose that any special section of the community shall be assisted. I want the public to be quite clear that i/he Government is now giving 3d, 3Jd nearly, to every one of us to purchase the loaf. Rich man, poor man, visitor and resident, all get 24s per sack, or 3Jd per loaf, and I believe the demand now is to provide 3d or 3Jd more. It is impossible. His Excellency told us that it is impracticable to make distinctions between sections of the community, and what is more, it is bad finance, it is building up a system which is evil and injurious. It was adopted in days of grave emergency, to meet a situation

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

498 HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 19120.

T l̂iich was of a most far-reaching and desperate character. Circumstances have entirely altered, and not only is this policy bad, but it is perfectly illogical and unbusinesslike that the hundreds of thousands of visitors who come to our shores, and have been paying Is Id over there, shall be made a present of 3d per loaf on landing on our shores. It should be clearly intimated that the Income Tax of the Island is paying this bread subsidy of 24s per sack. It has paid it, is paying it, and will continue to pay it until Tynwald by Act diverts the proceeds of Income Tax in another direction. One other observation I have to make is th is : Statements are in circulation that the rise in the price of bread will result in considerably increased demands for wages. The labouring classes are in the happy position of being able to do that, when other sections of the community, who cannot pass the burden on. have to grin and bear it. What will the increase mean? I put it to the members of the House with experience, gentlemen with families, that a workman’s family consumes on an average twelve large loaves of bread per week. That is a very high average— some consume more, and some less. I was speaking to a workman when coming to the train this morning, and he said, “ My wife and I have four growing children, and we use over ten loaves per week. A difference of 3d or 3Jd per loaf ■nail cost me between 2s 6d a.nd 3s per week.” Let it Be clearly understood by the House and by the public at large that the total cost to the average workman of the increased price of bread will be somewhere about 3s per week. And if demands for increased wages are made upon that basis, then we know exactly where we are. I must apologise for having taken up so much of the time of the House, but we think it is as well to put the House and the public in possession of the facts upon which they will be able to form a- careful and reasoned judgment.

The motion for the adoption of the report was carried.

Mr Corrin: I beg to move—In view of the recent rise in the price of

bread, this House is of opinion that the flour subsidy should he so increased as to enable the people of the Island to purchase the 41b loaf at not more than lOd

Mr A. H . Teare: Before the lion, member rises to propose that resolution, I would like an expression of opinion as to whether it is in order. An expression of the opinion of this House on a motion such as sug

gested will be entirely futile, as it deals with a financial ■question.

The Speaker: I think that this House has a right to discuss a, resolution like this, and express an opinion on this or any other question. At the sains time, my own view is that it would be much more profitable to discuss such a resolution in Tynwald. If the resolution which is to be proposed next Tuesday, that we go back to Tynwald, is carried, this resolution could then be discussed in Tynwald, and it would be a waste of time discussing it to-day, but if the motion that wo go back is lost, then we could discuss it in this House. The resolution might be adjourned till Tuesday.

Mr Norris: May I suggest that we should decide one way or another, as the question is a financial one, and cannot be raised in Tynwald without permission. This House is fully within its rights ill expressing its views on this question. W e can give a decision to-day on a question which may or may not lie raised in Tynwald. I do not think that it will be a waste of time to have the whole of the facts laid before us.

The Speaker : I rather gather from the lion, member for Ramsey that this important question, which affects the whole of the community, that it would he advisalht? if wo had the advire of the other branch in the discussion.

Mr Norris: That would not bring the matter any further as it cannot appear on the agenda, without leave.

The Speaker: I think that the lion, member should move the 'resolution, and then someone could move that the discussion be adjourned till Tuesday7.

Mr Ca.llister: I beg to call attention to the Standing Order that no business not on the agenda can be considered without the special permission of the House. I have not heard of any special permission in this case.

The Speaker: There is always a certain amount of latitude used in a question of this sort.

Mr J. D . Clucas: I think the lion, member gave notice at the last sitting. (Cries of “ Yes.” )

Mr Corrin : I beg to move the resolution. Tt has been said that this resolution is a pious resolution, and I agree to a large extent, as we know how helpless we are, and when I was drawing up the resolution I knew that anything we had to say about the subsidy would only be a pious expres

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

HOUSE OF K EYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 499

sion of opinion. But, at the same time, I think this House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this matter and setting out its views. It has been said that it is bad finance to increase the subsidy, but I should like to point out that the principle of subsidy is one that has been adopted for a long time in the Island in many different directions. If the practice of a subsidy is an evil one, then lion, members should protest against it being employed in other directions. We have a. subsidy for bulls and stallions, for the improvement of stock on the Island, we have a subsidy for the fish hatchery for the production of little fishes at Port Erin, and I take it that the present resolution —to increase the -subsidy for bread— is more important than any of these, because it is to subsidise a commodity in order that people may be able to rear better children, and give thorn a better chance of living. I move this resolution because we are faced with a. grave situation. The increased price of bread places a severe burden on all the people of the Island, and the poor are the people on whom the most severe burden falls, as the poor depend more on bread than any section of the community. The poor person is more a bread consumer than the rich, because he cannot buy other commodities as a substitute, and, after all, bread is the cheapest food he can buy. I believe that in the average family of the Island the increase in the price of the loaf means an increase of 4s a week in the food bill, and that, Mr Speaker, is a very serious problem to the bulk, of the people of the Island. I am not speaking particularly of the working people, as they have the means of demanding an increased wage to meet the increased cost of living. But there are a large number of people who have not that means, people living on small investments and small rents, people who were hardly hit from the very commencement of this terrible war, and who are just as hard hit to-day, if not more so, whose means of existence have not increased, and to whom the cost of living keeps on increasing. In the interest of those people, and the poor of the Island in general, this resolution ought to be passed. The method suggested in the resolution is a just one, ss for the welfare of Society it is the duty >f the strong to help the weak. This is not a new thing; all I ask is that you expend the sysiem already adopted in the in- crests of the community in general. It

lias been decided that the income from the Income Tax should go towards the cheaper loaf, so that those who can afford it, help to carry the burden, and those that pay the tax recover part of it by obtaining the cheaper loaf. I recognise that we must consider ways and means. How can we raise sufficient to meet the extended charge? I quite realise that it is a very serious burden on the finances of the Island. The present subsidy costs £50,000 a year, and this will extend it another £50,000, making £100,000 in all, and the question is, can we afford to spend £100,000 to subsidise bread ? AVe have to inquire as to the best means of raising the money. First of all, we have Income Tax. TJie old House reduced the Income Tax, and I think the first thing necessary will be to go back to the old Income Tax charge of Is 6d. Then the old House rejected a measure brought in to amend the Bill whereby the Island would get the revenue from the tax on English companies trading in the Island. I suggest that that Bill be reintroduced, and we will then have the means of recovering the Income Tax due to the Manx revenue by people living abroad. Another way of incrasing our revenue would be to increase our passenger tax. That would be a. tax entirely recovered from the visitor, who would also get the cheaper loaf, and we would recoup ourselves as far as he is concerned, in that way. Then we have in the Island no Estate Duties and no Stamp Duties, and if the necessity arises, we could tax bachelors. There are several important bachelors in the House, and if they were taxed they might follow the good example set them.I am not the least afraid that we will not be able to meet the increased expenditure that will be necessary when the Old Age Pensions and National Insurance becomes law, if we only put our heads together. Last year we had a surplus of £170,000. The question arises, if we do not increase the subsidy, what other course can we take? I take it we might get the price reduced a halfpenny, but that is hardly worth the trouble. I quite agree that the present method of production of bread is a bad and wasteful one, and that a less wasteful method might be found. In Ruslien, for instance, we have five or six bakers, with five or six carts, and five or six establishment charges, and that is what raises the price of bread to the present level. I quite believe that a more economical method could be adopted whereby bread

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

500 HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 1920.

could be sold mucli cheaper. Bread is being sold for lOJd and fid across the water where there are higher rents and rates to pay, and other heavier charges than we have here, and the high price here is due to the wasteful method of production. Nothing is being done to prevent that at present. We had an object lesson at Knock- aloe as to what could be done when 23,000 people, were provided with bread from a little bakehouse, with three double ovens and the employment of twenty men. There they fed 23,000, and it is an object lesson of how bread can be provided at small cost. I would like to^point out the effect of the increased price on industry. The effect will be to speed up the vicious circle. We know how wages follow indices, and prices follow wages, that they follow a dreary round, and become more vicious as times goes on, and the whole thing is speeded up. I think that we ought to fight to find an answer to the problem, as it is bad for industry, bad fol- wealth, and bad for the whole community. In the Isle of Man we have got along very smoothly. We have had no industrial disturbances worth speaking of, not like other parts of the world, where there have been revolutions and strikes. W e have got along very well in the Island and lived on good terms'with each other. It has been very rare that we have been brought to the brink of a strike, and not in one instance have we had a strike a serious nature. I don’t know whether that is because the unions have had good leaders, or. that the men and masters have been more reasonable, but I would suggest that' we do all we can to continue this state of things, and increase the subsidy, and let the workers and the poor have bread at the lowest price we possibly can.

Mr Alfred Teare: I beg to second the motion. From the remarks of lion, members it would appear that we are discussing the principle of subsidy, which they deem to be wrong. But if it is wrong, why continue to give the 24s a. sack ? It is only a matter of degree that we are discussing — the principle is the same whether we continue the subsidy as at present, or increase it. There was a. time when, if bread prices became high, the people of the Island could fall back on other commodities. There was an old saying that whatever happened, at least we can get potatoes and herrings ; but, Mr Speaker, I would like to point out that potatoes have reached such a high price now as to be almost prohibitive, and lier-

rings are a luxury; and, therefore, more than ever, the very poor and the working classes have to fall back on bread as their chief food. Can members of this House put themselves into the position of, say, a widow with five or six children, or of a working man receiving £2 a week, which is being paid by some employers, and ask themselves where are the extra coppers to come from for the increased price of bread.

M r A. H . Teare: Surely £2 a week is wrong.

Mr Alfred Teare: The Farmers’ Union at present pay £2 2s a week, and when they were asked to review the wages only a week ago, they absolutely turned it down. Members will see the position these people are placed in by the increased cost of the loaf. I think, with the mover of the resolution, that tlie subsidy should be increased in order to provide people with cheaper bread. Tf his Excellency will not increase the subsidy, then other means will have to be taken in on ... --..to -one people of the Island will be able to get a cheaper loaf than they have to-day. The mover of the resolution has drawn attention to the overlapping in production which takes place, and to the cheapness with which it was produced at Knockaloe Camp, and I think that the time has come when the production of bread should be taken over by the municipality or by the Government. As to the demand for increased wages to meet the cost, increased prices will follow, and if every workman gets a rise, the commodity that he produces -nail also rise in price. It will not only rise in price to the amount of increased wages, but more. The operative bakers are to get 14s a week increase, but to meet that the master bakers are getting 37s 6d, and if other workers get 3s, or 4s, or 5s a week increase, to meet the cost of bread, the employers of those workmen will get 10s a man in order to pay the 5s a- week increase in wages. I think that the only (right and proper way to meet the difficulty is to increase the subsidy.

Mi’ R . B. Moore : I rise to move the adjournment of the debate, because of the futility of the debate now being carried on. W e have had two addresses of great importance, but they certainly ought to be addressed to those who are responsible for the Executive Government of the Island. They have brought forward matters of the utmost importance, which may possibly solve the problem that has appeared tin- solvable, and which might, if laid before

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation,

ÖOÜSE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 501

his Excellency, as the responsible Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Island, when

Jie knows that we are willing to impose new taxes by Estate Duties and other means of raising the revenue, result in him reconsidering his decision. For myself, I consider the lion, members have made out a much more favourable case than things stand at present. The case for and against should be discussed in the presence of the person with whom lies the ultimate veto. It is an extremely important matter, as has been pointed out by my colleague for South Douglas, and we should all try and solve the difficulty. AVe know that it is not being dealt with in England, and the subsidy will not be increased there, but because of that there is no necessity for us to follow England. W e are not bound to follow them in their follies, though we are at liberty to pick out what is good from what they do. If we really wish to face the problem, then we should discuss it before the responsible Government. I understand that on Tuesday next a motion is to be moved that we return to Tynwald. If that is carried, we can discuss this matter in Tynwald, and, if not, then we can discuss it here. The amount of £100,000 is a very large one, especially as we are faced with an expenditure of £40,000 to £50,000 for Old Age Pensions, £4,000 to £5,000 for buildings, another large sum for agriculture, and another large sum for the Education Bill which is before us. There are big questions of finance facing us, and it is no good having fireworks here. The Governor of the Island has a right to Bee what we are prepared to do. I think we ought really to wait and see what the House m il do on Tuesday, and I therefore move that discussion be postponed to that Jay.

Mr A. H. Teare: I formally second the unendment.

Mr Norris: I hope that the House will lot adjourn the discussion of this matter, jut let us finish with it here and now. It s all very well for the lion, member to ay it is a pious resolution, but will we be my better in Tynwald? Has the lion, iiember for North Douglas any scheme to iring forward in Tynwald in view of our nancial commitments? The lion, member id not say so. W hat is the object of dis- ussing it before the Executive Govern- lent? His Excellency has discussed the latter with the committee, and the lion, lember had an opportunity of being on bat committee. W e laid this very point efore his Excellency. We know what his

Excellency has said, and we know what his Council will say. They will support his Excellency. They have done so time and again, and will do so again. The only hope we have is to approach the Governor with a reasonable scheme, and I hope later on to pledge this House to a reasonable, practical scheme to help a certain class of the community. Let us go to Tynwald with a clear policy. Let us pass a .resolution as to what we are going to do. W e know what his Excellency’ s views are. He has already told us at two or three interviews, and we know when we meet the other branch, that it will be to the same effect. The lion, member for North Douglas knows that. Is he prepared to move in the Tynwald Court that the loaf subsidy be increased? H e is fully conversant with the financial resources of this Island, and in face of them is lie prepared to move an increase in the subsidy? I submit he is not. I submit that this House should discuss this matter now. AVe can influence Tynwald just as much from this House as if the Executive Government was present.

Air Shimmin rose to speak.The Speaker: A motion has been pro

posed that the discussion be adjourned; it would be better if we discussed that before the discussion on the main question.

Mr Shimmin : May I not' speak in favour of the resolution ?

Mr J. D. Qualtrough : I move that the question be now put.

Mr Richard Cain protested.Mi' J. D. Qualtrough: I am simply mov

ing that the question of the postponement of the debate be now put. so as to save further time.

Mr A. H . Teare: If a motion that the question be now put is moved, it must be put.

Mr R. Cain : I am very much opposed to that, and leaving the matter over to Tynwald. I think that we are (responsible to the people of this Island, and the people have a right to look to us to come to a decision on such an important matter as the spending of £50,000. They look to us to come to a decision, and a decision in this chamber. I think that this is the proper place to bring on a motion of this sort and w.e should deal with the matter here this morning.

Mi- Kermode: I move that the amendment be put.

Mr J. D. Qualtrough : I second it.

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

502 HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 1$20.

The amendment that the debate be adjourned was then put and lost.

The division w as:— F o r : Messrs Dal- gleish, Kennode, Curphey, J. D . Clucas, Kermeen, Gill, W . Moore, A. H. Teare, P . B. Moore, and the Speaker— 10. Against: Messrs Callister, D . J. Teare, R. Cain, T. S. Corlett, Bridson, Corrin, A. Qualtrougli, Shimmin, Norris, R . C. Cain, A. J. Teare, and J. D. Qualtrougli— 12.

Mr Shimmin: To have a prosperous country people must be well fed. Whether a subsidy is a right or wrong method. I don’t know, but I do know that our people must have bread to eat. To people in the Island receiving n> weekly wage of £2 to £2 10s a week, the increased price of the loaf means from 2s to 6s a week increased expenditure. I have before me particulars of several families of from ten to twelve members, and for these people it is almost impossible for them to feed their children. A soldier who has returned home from the war has had to spend all his savings in food; such a thing ought not to be. For many years the old people of the Island have been robbed of their old age pensions. I estimate that they have been done out of £20,000 a year during the past ten years, which amounts to £200,000. This money is owing to the people who have had to maintain the old folk, and some part of what is owing ought to be expended in providing the increased subsidy. I see .no reason why that money, which we have saved, or withheld, should not be used at a time of crisis like the present.

Mr Richard Cain : I cannot support the motion. I do not consider that the Legislature would be justified in spending £50,000 more a year in providing a cheaper loaf for the visitor or for people with sufficient incomes to live in affluence. People who are workers who are not getting sufficient money to live have the cure in their own hands, and can demand sufficient money to pay their way like other people. If the workers of the Island receive increased pay, they will not suffer, and they have the cure in their own hands if they are not receiving sufficient money. It is quite impossible for the Government to expend a further sum in the way proposed in view of our huge financial commitments. As ■regards what was done at Knockaloe, I know tliat we in Castletown could brew all the beer that is necessary for the Island, many of the drapers could supply all the needs of the town, and it is the same with other trades, so that it is absurd to

use an argument like that unless you mean to close down a. number of tradesmen. Bakers in the Island know their business best, a.nd they consider that they cannot sell under Is Id, but I would like to point out that at that price they have a profit of £1 3s 6d a sack, which I think is too mucli, especially when the loat is being sold at Is in other places where rents and rates are much higher than in the Island.

Mr J. D. Qualtrougli: I think that the question is one that should be dealt with with the least possible waste of time, and that it is the duty of the House to intimate to all concerned that no further increase will be made in the subsidy. Personally I think that the principle of granting a subsidy is bad, but it is just as well that the people of the Island should know exactly what bread is costing. It is an economic question, which does not affect the Isle of Man very particularly^ but the whole of the British Isles. It is an extremely important question, and it is just as well that we should face it. It is caused by the shortage in Central Europe, and the effect of the exchange between Britain and the United States. The British pound in America at the present is only worth some 16s, and if we could devise some means of direct importation from America to the Island, we might benefit, as the Manx pound is still worth 20s. I do not know whether any scheme is possible or not, but it might be considered. W ith regard to the subsidy there is only one course for the House to adopt, and that is to refuse to increase it.

Mr Norris: There is no member of thisHouse or of the Legislature, I venture to Bay, who does not desire to bring the price of bread down to liiuepence and if possible below ninepencc. The price of bread at piesent is almost intolerable. I do slot know when its price was as high as it is to-day— Is 4d for a four pound loaf. It is certainly a very vital question for the people of this Island and in particular for those people whose income are limited—.-the new poor, if you are to call them so, people who are bound to live on small and fixed means. Working men can more or less obtain increased wages, but what I am conserved about is the large number of people in this Island of small means; now they are to obtain the loaf at the present price. | I do not know. There has been a suggestion that that particular class of people should be dealt with in a special way, while broad is at its piesent price; be- | cause the cause of the present price is

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

HOUSE OF KEYS, APR IL 16, 1920. 503

really the after-matili of war. It is the war that as brought bread to its pres .'lit jJJ'iee. It is the duty of this Legislature to say upon wihom the burden shall fall and to provide that them upon whom it presses most (hardly shall h? able to live in reasonable comfort and have their daily bread. This Legislature has recognised its duty in that respsct up to the present

' moment. It recognised that duty because io was recognised in England. The Isle of Man will always have to keep the subsidy going so long as it is kept going in England. If the British Government were to evolve any scheme for reducing the price of bread. I. ard T believe the majority of this House would tales steps to follo-.v on all fours. The cost of the subsidy it is true, comes-from the Income Tax, but the Income Tax payers in this Island do 'nut pay for the bread subsidy; they are paying only a proportion of tlio ordinary cost of the Government of the Island; the money is d:verted for the moment to this purpose. In any case the Income Tax payers arc being subsidised to the extent o.: 3d in every four pound loaf they consumed, while the person below a cenaln income, who neither drinks' nor smokes is not; paying a penny of the taxation of the country owing to the subsidy, 'i ot it is necessary that the present subsidy should be continued. But to as’; for another subs:dy here,. not granted in England, to put the Isle of Man in a privileged position is another question and a very serious one, especially considering our peculiar position, inasmuch as for half of the year hundreds of thousands of people come to this Island who aro getting the benefit of the subsidy, and we aro not getting any refund of the general subsidy from the visitors. Already we are giving our visitors threepence on every loaf, a.nd I admit he is worth threepence a loaf to us. The more visitors we get the better. But to ask the Island to pay 3d for every four- pound loaf and 6d for every loaf the well- to-do people in the Island use, including large numbers of the working classes— I say it is asking this House to do something which, in view of present demands and prospective demands on our resources, we cannot possibly do. I agree that the flour subsidy is wrong in principle. It was brought about by the exigencies of war; it is continued for that purpose, and it must be continued. But I could not bring myself to put extra, taxation, direct or indirect, for this purpose, knowing that we

are not only doubling the vote, but, with the visiting season in view, it will mean that the subsidy, instead of being £55,000 next year, on the present basis, will probably be nearer £65,000, and you put another £65,000 on top of that. Under what circumstances is this proposed? This House has just committed itself to Old Age Pensions and National Invalidity Insurance, and more costs for education. I made some calculations, and I think it can be proved. I suggest that pensions are going to cost the Island £35,000 a year. That is an inevitable expense which the Island is committed to. Then the House has done all it can to bring into effect Health Insurance, which will cost £7,000. Education, out of taxation, I do not think will cost less than £10,000 a year. Then the reconstruction of the visiting traffic is a vital matter. W e absolutely need, for advertising, as a minimum, a grant of £9,000, as against £3,000 before the war. W e have been doing nothing in that direction during the war, and owing to the new value of money, that is the smallest amount the Board of Advertising will require. The highways of this Island will before long come upon the national exchequer— as well as the ratepayers as such— for extra money. The harbours also require expenditure. Then we have another item which is absolutely essential this year— the relief of rates and of ratepayers. That also is part of the Government policy of the present year-—that for one year more, at least, relief of rates to a limited amount will have to be continued. I think we may assume that £14,000 will be necessary for that purpose. A committee was appointed and has gone into that question, and the report is ready, a.nd £14,000 will be required in the present year to give only a small portion of relief to the over-burclened ratepayer in this Island. Then there is relief for unemployment and relief works. W e are still in the midst of it. W e are all in agreement that something will have to be done in the following year. Shall we say £15,000 for that? To sum up, these absolutely pressing demands upon the Insular Revenue amount to £111,000, and they will have to be met. Then we have to bear in mind that agriculture is entitled once more to look forward to better development and to look to the Government of this Island for assistance. (“Subsidies!” ). Not necessarily subsidies, but encouragement. Does anyone say that the time is not long overdue when the fisheries ought to have

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

504 HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL id, 1920

some practical lielp from the Government of tliis Island, for the development of our resources, and to enable people to earn their daily bread? Tliat is the right policy to pursue. Let us help people to earn their daily bread. (Hear, hear.) Do not make an artificial price for bread when people are well able to work for it and pay for it. The House is also aware that there is an immediate increased expenditure in front of us for the Civil Service of this Island. There is another matter which I will merely mention. I believe the majority in this House has made up its mind that the matter of payment of members should be tackled at once. I think my colleagues, the hon. member for South Douglas and the hon. member for Rushen, will be with me when I say that the payment of members is one of the most pressing questions of the hour in this Island. (Laughter.) At any rate, the Legislature will have an opportunity of justifying that or not. It is one of those things that are in front of u s ; it does not mean much, but there it is. Now, Mr Speaker, with these questions in front of us, I am concerned about income tax. I do not think that it is the right that income tax should be imposed in this Island on a lower scale than it is imposed in England, even for the bread subsidy. On the other hand, I do not think the income tax can be increased for a bread subsidy of this character; the Island being a visitors’ resort, and these other things being involved, I do not think the income tax can be increased for that purpose. But there are other means of raising revenue. I think the income tax will have to be increased for these other

'purposes, and I think the amount of our indirect taxation will surprise hon. members of this House, and I hope no taxation will be put on this Island unless there is absolute need for it. (Hear, hear.) But first things must come first. That brings me to this point, and I must say that I would like this House to give some guidance to the Lieut.-Governor of the Island and the Executive. Can anything be done for those people with small fixed incomes ? I understand it is objectionable to the members of the Labour Party that there should be any distinctions made; they prefer that there should be a 9d loaf for everybody or a shilling loaf for all. I would prefer, if a well-defined and practicable scheme, which would be acceptable to them, could be formulated, and his Excellency could put before us a. scheme providing further relief to people of limited means.

I think this House would be prepared to proceed with it. But it involves a charge of “ charity.” If such a. scheme was brought forward I would do my best to have it brought forward into operation for people who need it, whose circumstances are straitened by the war, and who cannot recover the increased cost of living— people who are not employers nor employees. What are we going to do for them? The workers can and will recover the money, but there are others who cannot. My hope would be that the Executive should do something for those people within reasonable limits— £10,000 to £20,000. The well- to-do man would not come in, but people, say, under the income tax limit could. I do appeal to the Labour members of this House to co-operate in hammering out a scheme of that description to help these people— some scheme that would bring this relief of a lOd loaf to the people who need it most, and as far as the workers are concerned, they would take proper steps to recover the increased cost of the loaf by the increased value of their labour. In order to test the House, I would move as an amendment to the motion, in order that the Governor of the Island may see the opinion of the House—

That this House, in view oi the fact that biead is already subsidised in the Island to the came amount as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the Island as a visitors’ resort and the financial commitments of the House to large measures of social reform, is of opinion that it is impracticable and undesirable to further subsidise the loaf to tile whole community. Nevertheless it believes that the present maximum price of the four pound loaf should be reduced to one shilling delivered over the counter and Is Id delivered by van, and requests His Excellency to take stops accordingly; and, further, the House will be prepared, if requested by the Lieut.-Governor, to favourably consider any well defined and generally accepted scheme 'v>. ereby the price of bread could bd reduced to lOd to persons of small means.

Mr J. D. Clucas : I take it the hon. member moves that when the other amendment is out of the way.

Mr Nonris: That was defeated.Mr J. D. Qualtrougli : That was put and

lost.The Speaker: The House was discussing

the amendment that the consideration of the matter be adjourned, and, as I understand, some hon. member with a view to getting through quickly, moved that tlio question be now put— that is, the question with regard to the adjournment of the

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

éo trS E OÌ1 K EYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 505

debate. That was put, and it was lost, and then the House proceeded with the original discussion. What is now before the House is another amendment.

M r A. H. Teare : May I call attention to Standing Order No. 34, which says that a motion to suspend the Standing Orders shall not be carried unless two thirds of the House vote in favour. I ask that that motion be now put to the House.

The Speaker : There hast been some misunderstanding. The amendment before the. House at the time was that the further debate should be adjourned. Several members had spoken on that, and then some lion, member got up and moved that the question be now put. I took it the question was whether the debate should be adjourned. The debate went on, and that amendment was put and lost. But I certainly did not understand that the question be now put referred to the original motion. (“N o.” )

M r J. D. Qualtrough : My impressionwas that you took it to be the general consent of the House that the question be now put. As there was no objection, the amendment was put.

The Speaker: I was anxious not to stop any debate on the ' question of adjournment. After that, two members spoke, but the question was put almost directly afterwards, and it was lost.

Mr J. D . Clucas: You are ignoring the question of the lion, member altogether. The motion ‘that the question be now put’ is purely a formal question. If that is carried in the affirmative, then you would put the amendment first.

The Speaker : As a matter of fact, the motion 1 that the question be now put ’ was not formally moved. The debate showed every sign of directly terminating, *.nd did terminate. W e now have the original motion before thè House, and this motion which the lion, member for North Douglas has now made. Is that amendment seconded?

Mr Richard Cain : I second the amendment.

Mr Callister: I would like to support it, but I would like to hear it read again ; I do not agree with the last part. I think it is not quite fair; I think it favours a particular class. I f it was to cover all who are in need— whether workers, poor, or otherwise, I would agree with it.

Mr Kermode: Would it suit the hon. member to fix the “small means” under the Old Age Pensions A ct?

Mr Norris: Under the present income tax limit.

M r J. D. Qualtrough: I rise to oppose the amendment. It draws a sort of red herring across the real issue, but it does not bring us the slightest step ahead. I venture to say that the scheme which the hon. member for North Douglas propounds is absolutely unworkable. It asks somebody else to bring in a. scheme. This is not a new question. It was considered when the previous bread crisis arose, and it would be impossible for anybody to devise any scheme under which those who really deserve relief would either ask for relief or secure relief from the advanced cost of the loaf. If it is to be a choice between the amendment and the original motion, I prefer the original motion. The lion, member says that- Labour is already demanding more money in the ordinary way. He practically asks Labour to do that, and suggests a scheme which he cannot define to meet the case of the others. I think it would be very unfortunate if anything serious should arise, at all. Those who are in need— I have a good many peo-

• pie in my own mind at the moment— I am certain would not accept what they regard as charity from the community. Therefore, I oppose the amendment as being altogether unworkable.

Mr R. C. Cain: What- few remarks L have to make will be on the motion moved by the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Coi' rin. I am entirely opposed to the motion, which has been moved in a very reasonable manner by the hon. member. Perhaps every one of us would like to see bread remain as it is, if possible; but when we remember that over £55,000 has already been paid in subsidies, up to the end of March, I presume, we must not forget this, that for eight months the subsidy was at the rate of 18s per sack, and it is 24s for the whole of next year. There is only four months of this year paid at 24s. Is it reasonable to expect that the subsidy will be increased? W e shall be subsidising bread, and giving a gift of roughly Is each loaf if we make the subsidy that is now proposed, to people who are better off than ouirselves, who have to pay for it in taxation. I am not going to speak on the original question; I might be viewed with some suspicion. But the hon. member referred to bread which was baked at Knockaloe. I would like to ask the hon. member if that bread was baked under fair trade conditions, and was the alien labour engaged on it paid the Union rate

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

o06 HOUSE OF KEYS1, APRIL 16. 1S20

of wages. (“ He did not mention bread.” ) The inference was that a large number of loaves were baked, and how cheaply they were produced. The lion, member has referred to his own district. Quite right. But there are in his district a number of small men engaged in the trade, and the cost of delivery was great because the business was small. The lion, member is surely not in favour of monopoly, combination, and huge trusts? You are going to do away with individuality in trade and enterprise if you do that. I am free to admit that the charges are extraordinarily liigh. I admit that, but referring to wages, I got the wages of operative bakers in Liverpool from a member working at present in Douglas— a Manxman. He states that his wages in Douglas this week will be five shillings more than they are in Liverpool— that is, for three hours a week more work— so there is not a great deal of difference between here and Liverpool. The wages will be £3 10s for the lowest grade in Douglas this week, and £3 16s for leading hands. I cannot speak for other parts of the Island. It is impossible for this House to agree to a further increased subsidy. Personally, I think it was one of the greatest mistakes ever made to have inaugurated it at all; but that is only an opinion. I shall vote against the increase, because I think it is unreasonable to expect the people of the Island to find such a huge sum as this to subsidise people who are better off than themselves.

Mr G ill: Does that figure include the present increase of wages?

Mr R. C. Cain: Yes. A lot lias been said about having to pay the subsidy for visitors, and that it would cost Is a week for every visitor. To meet that, I suggest that we impose an amusement tax, and let the visitors pay for their own. If there are 450,000 visitors in the Island next year, a. sum of £11,250 would be raised — that is, if the visitors paid 6d each. They would pay that, and cousderably more, and I feel sure the amusement caterers in Douglas are expecting this kind of thing, and visitors who come here are surprised that the tax is not put on. I suggest we put on an amusement tax, and let it go to pay the subsidy on the visitors’ loaf.

Mr Bridson : Several lion, members today have suggested that Labour can obtain the requisite amount by getting increased wages. That may or may not be so. but the probability is that the increased wages

will defeat their own object by putting up tlu* cost of materials and commodities all round. I am not in favour of a subsidy as a regular thing, but in the present state of circumstances we must either subsidise bread or pay an increaed price. I think it is better to pay a subsidy than an increased price, unless and until we realise that the high price of bread is caused not by freights— as was the case in the war— freights are dropping, they are not going up any way— but leaving freights out of the question, there is still the adverse rate of exchange, and the only way of getting over that is to produce our own wheat, which is at present entirely neglected. AVe can grow a great deal of wheat here, and even at the pi'ice in England of 95s per quarter, or 47s 6d a boll, it would be cheaper than foreign wheat, and would help the exchange. If the Board of Agriculture wish to avoid having to pay extra income tax to meet the subsidy, they should suggest to the farmers that they should grow more wheat.

Mr R . Cain. 1 am in favour of Mr Xorris’ s amendment, that people with limited means might very well be provid’d with a loaf at a cheaper rate. It has !:e-.;n suggested by Mr Kermod? that it should lie limited to those persons who are in roceipt of the Old Age Pension, in which cas.' it would take in 1,400 people. If it was extended to those below the Income Tax limit, it would include mor?. There would be two ways of doing it. I do not think the lion, member lor Castletown was right in turning it down because oheie was no defined sebum? ready. It would be impossible to devise a scheme at two or three minutes’ notice. I think if the Tynwald Court were to form a committee, or if tile Governor were to appoint a Commission to consider the question, a scheme might be devised, whereby people, who were not sufficiently well off to pay this charge, might be supplied with the loaf at a (h.-aped rate. I am very pleased to ¿up- 1 ort Mr Norris’s amendment.

Mr Corrin: it is impossible for me to-ome here after lunch, and I would ask, if anyone is desirous to avoid the temptation to speak, that the debate might he concluded before luncheon.

Mr A. J. Teare: 1 have only 'wopoints. First, of all, the Lieut.-Governor told us it was impracticable to ucvis: any scheme to assist any particular class of the community. The second point is this— the lion, member for Castletowm proposed we might bring our «-heat direct

The Bread Subsidy.— Further Report from the Deputation.

HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, li>20. 507

t-o thn Island. On the occasion of the debate in Tynwald a year ago. I ventured to communicate with large ship-owners in Liverpool and they informed me that it is impracticable to get vessels into Douglas harbour.

Mr Corrin : I am sorry the debate h;.sbc-en so prolonged and that a certain amount, of time has been wasted. There is very little to r.ply to. Comparisons are made between the condition of things across the wat’r and in the Isle of Man, but they will not bear investigation. 'We in the Isle of Main are in a very strong position. Our Accumulated Fund, along with our investments, amount to more than our National debt, so that practically wa have no National debt. The National debt of England at the present fin e is, 1 believe, about 8,000 millions. Therefore, I think we are in a position to give furth -r assistance in this matter. I am strongiv opposed to any distinction being made with regard to the subsidy. 1 think it would be invidious and would lead to confusion. Who is going to discriminate? Who is going to make the selection ? The lion, member for Ayrp, Mr Cain, objects on principle to subsidies, but I cannot understand his position, because he is in favour of a subsidy in certain dilections. If the principle of subsidies is wrong, then it is wrong in other instances. The lion, member for North Douglas, Mr Cain, made reference to some remarks 1 made with ivspeit to the methods of baking bread at Knock aloe. What I meant to show was that by concentrating our production, by going about it in a systematic way, the cost of production could bo considerably reduced. Wo know that it costs a great deal to run shops, with rents, and rat^s, and so on. Where you can have men concertratcd in a large number-in a given place, you can produce at a far smaller expenditure than you can where you havo men divided into smaller groups. The tendency of the age is towards concentration. I am not suggesting that the Island should be handed over to trusts and combines. I suggest that the nation iis:'lf should take the matter in hand, or, failing that, a Co-operation Society should be formed to produce bread. From one end of England to tlw other, Co-operative Societies arc selling bread at one shilling and under. The lion, member for Castletown has made a very novel suggestion that wo should ship our corn direct from America. I suggest he should provide us with a schooner or two for the purpose. I

hope the Houso will pass this resolution by a very decisive majority.

The amendment «as put and the “ aiocs" had it.

The motion was put and the House divided. For, Messrs liridson Corrin, A. Qualtrough, Shiinmin, A . J. Teare, and the Speaker— 6. Against, Messrs Callisler, Dagleish, Kermod y Curphey, J. D. Clucas, D. J. Teare, R. Cain, T. S. Corlett, Ker- lueen, Gill, W . Moore, A. II. Teare, Norris, R. C. Cain, and J. D. Qualtrough 15. Motion lost.

Mr A. II. Teare: Would I he in ord'ria proposing another amedment.

The Speaker: No amendment is inoi der now. The motion has be?n pu1; to the House.

The House adjourned for luncheon.

THE EDUCATION BILL.The House resumed after luncli.Clause 38 provides that the Central

Authority shall become responsible for the secular instruction in public elementary schools not provided by the authority.

Mr J. D. Qualtrough: The lion, member for North Douglas, M r Moore, will not be here for some minutes and in his absence I am taking charge of the Bill. I don’t think there in anything in this clause which calls for comment. I move it.

Mr Bridson seconded.Mr W . Mooie : Would that include such

a school as the Grammar School?Mr J D. Qualtrough: The Grammar

School is not an elementary school.The clause was carried.Clause 39 provides that all elementary

schools provided by the Central Authority shall have a body of managers, consisting of not less than three appointed by the Central Authority; and that all schools not provided by the Authority shall have a number of foundation managers not exceeding four, and a number of managers appointed by the Central Authority not exceeding two. Schools may be grouped under one body of managers.

Mr J. D. Qualtrough : I move that. The House will notice that this clause deals with what are known as the sectarian schools. There are not many in the Island — four in all I believe— and they were established originally for two purposes, one of which is education, and the other the teaching of religious instruction of the sect

The Education Bill.

508 HOUSE OF KEYS, APRIL ,16, lÒàO.

with which they are associated. In this case, not more than four managers are appointed by the foundation, and two appointed by the Central Authority. Withregard to the latter part of the clause,it is anticipated, I think, in most districts to appoint a body of managers to cover a considerable number of schools, probably several parishes, so as to keep all theschools on the same level as far as possible, and to minimise the cost of working.

Mr W . Moore seconded, and the motion was carried.

Clause 40 defines the conditions under which the Central Authority shall maintain schools which have not been provided by them.

Mr J. D. Qualtrougli“: This is a long clause, and one upon which I dare say there will be some little discussion. It is, I venture to submit, a. very fair and equit- able arrangement between the owners of what are known as the sectarian schools and the education authority of the Island.I may preface what I have to say on this clause by 'remarking that nobody is particularly anxious to have sectarianism introduced into the Island in matters educational. We are all, I think, anxious that it should be excluded altogether. We don’t want to see in the Island any such bitter controversy as arose in England over the 1902 Act. Personally, I do not think that that will happen, because the conditions in the Isle of Man are very dissimilar from those which prevail in certain parts of England. There is not a single district in the Isle of Man where there is a sectarian school to which any child is compelled to go. In every other district in the Island there is an alternative school. My own convictions are that no child should be compelled to attend a sectarian school, and under the conditions which prevail in the Island, very fortunately, no child will be so compelled. In this clause, every safeguard is provided to secure that the secular education in such schools shall be of a standard sufficient to satisfy the authority which has charge of education throughout the Island. The teachers, apart from their religious qualifications, must be completely qualified in all the necessary branches of education. The consent of the Central Authority will be required to their appointment, and also to their dismissal. So that I think members will agree that there is little,* if any, loop

hole for evasion of the rights of the children to a. complete education. When we come to the clauses dealing with the buildings themselves, it is only right, I think, that the public authorities should keep the buildings which they are using for educational purposes, in good repair. Ordinary wear and tear should be paid for by the public authority. I don’t know that any- thing else arises on this clause; the lion, member for North Douglas has now arrived and perhaps he will be good enough to supply anything that is lacking in my introduction of this clause.

Mr R. 13. Moore seconded, reserving his remarks.

Mi' Callister: I intend to oppose this clause. I am entirely against any creed being taught by the State. I consider that, in these enlightened days, all schools should be supported by the State without any stipulations whatever. The mere handing over of the buildings is not sufficient justification for the Central Authority taking the whole institution over. The few old tumble-down buildings that these “ creedists” have to offea- are not sufficient return for the surrender of public rights. In many cases, I understand, these crumbling buildings are on the point of being condemned by the inspector at this very moment. To say that the State is to maintain these places for the sake of the few concessions that are to be made, does not appeal to me. I f any person or sect wants to teach a particular creed, it is for them to do it, not the State. W e can read enough to know of what has been going on in England under the Balfour Act, and we don’t want to repeat that here. When we are framing an Education Bill, let it be a free and a fair one. I know the argument will be used that it is for the benefit of the State that these creeds should be taught in State-maintained schools, so as to secure that the children get a. better education. I am not going to sell my birthright for a mess of pottage. W e don’t know the number of hours which will be given to religious teaching; I don’t think it is stipulated in the Bill. I am not arguing in favour of any denomination— AVesleyaii. Church of England, Roman Catholic, or any other; I say that our education should be of such a. character as to be free from any creed at all. I believe I am like a voice crying in the wilderness, and it may be that I am alone in my oppo- stion, but the time is not far distant w'lien

The Education Bill.

HOUSJE OF KEYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 509

the people will say tliey are not going to put up with this sort of thing, and sooner or later, it will have to be ended. It is said that there are only so-niany sectarian schools, and that all the children can go to some other school. What is to prevent any man who has money, and wants to go on with his fad, erecting here a school, and saying “ I have made provision for these children; I ask the Central Authority to take this building over” ? It is said that the Central Authority would not take over such new schools, but they would be unreasonable if they did not do so, according to the terms of the Act. They would ha.ve to make out a very strong case for a refusal. I think it is the beginning of an evil, and that at the very outset we should see that our educational system is free from a sectarian element of any kind.

M r A. H. Teare : I should like to congratulate the promoters of the Bill upon the admirable manner in which they have handled this vexed question of denominational schools. I believe the provisions of the Bill are wise, and deal with the situation in a broad and catholic spirit. But there is another aspect of the case which has appealed to me most strongly. The hon. member who has just, spoken has suggested that there should be eliminated any provisions with respect to religious teaching in the day-schools. I take the reverse view’, and believe that the time has come for the tightening up of religious instruction.

Mr Callister: I did not say “ religious instruction.” I am entirely in favour of the plain reading of the Bible in the schools. I said “ creedism.”

Mr A. H . Teare: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the hon. member, and I agree with him that the parent should not be compelled to have his children taught creeds of which he disapproves. But the parent has protection at present; he can withdraw his child from the school while sectarian teaching is being given.

M r Callister: It is a terribly hard thing to do.

M r A. H . Teare: The Roman Catholics in the Island, the Church of England, and the Wesleyans, have altogether four schools. The idea of the Bill is that in these schools religious teaching may be given in accordance with the particular faith with which the schools are identified.

After all. we must take care that we don’t interfere with the religious liberties of the people connected with these schools and these churches. I believe this Bill is an honest attempt to deal with this desire of the parents in a broadminded manner.

Mr Callister: It is feeding and fosteringit.

Mr A. H . Teare: If parents desire that their children shall attend these schools, and be brought up in that particular faith, they have a. right to have the soundest possible instruction in that faith. After all, wre are living in days when definite convictions upon religion seem to be the one thing, or one of the most important things, lacking in the stamina of the British nation, and the sooner the men and women, and boys and girls, of this country nf ours, get stronger convictions upon religious and moral subjects, the better for everybody, whether they are Catholics or Protestants. My view with regard to the general religious teaching in Board Schools-------

Mr R. B. Moore: May I suggest that this question does not arise on this section ?

Mr A. H. Teare: Is not this a suitable clause upon which to raise the question of religious teaching? If not, I will raise it on a later clause. I had purposed to suggest a newT sub-section to this clause, but if the hon. member in charge of the Bill assures me that I will have an opportunity later, I will defer it. I venture to suggest that a clause be added to stiffen up the religious teaching at present given.

Mr R. B. Moore: I think the hon. member can give notice of a new7 section later on, but it clearly does not arise here.

Mr A. H . Teare: I don’t wTa.nt to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but I do think we should know what form of religious teaching is to be given in our schools, and should be able to arrive at some more definite system than prevails at present. Teachers read the Bible and give instruction in religion, when they have very little knowledge of and faith in it themselves, and we want, if possible, to do something to secure that so far as religious instruction is given in the schools, it should be of the very best possible character. I will take the opportunity, at a later stage, to move a clause dealing with the subject.

Mr Norris: I should like to have elucidated one or tw'o aspects of this question,

The Education Bill.

510 HOUSE OF K EYS, APRIL 16. 1920.

before the mover replies. I think the House is in favour of the voluntary schools which now exist being brought into the regular education system. I think the time is past when denominational differences should be created on the administration of education. At the same time, I am confident that the people of the Isle of Man don’t want to pay for denominational education, and I would like an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that the four denominational schools existing are the only schools which will continue to exist at the public expense. Does the Bill secure that no other denominational school shall be brought into being in this Island ? (Mr J. D. Qualtrough : Yes.) I am very glad to know that it is so, though I am sure the House will desire to do justice to the existing voluntary schools, so long as they do their work efficiently, and so long, which is vital, as the people of this Island have guarantees that their children will not be compelled to attend such schools in order to get secular education. Does this clause secure that? If we are simply going to say that a child who attends a certain school for secular education shall have the right to withdraw during the period when religious instruction is given, that to my mind is not sufficient. I agree with the lion, member for Glenfaba on that point. If complete liberty to the parent is secured, I am in entire agreement with treating the existing voluntary schools in the way proposed.

Mr R. B. Moore : The lion, member for Glenfaba objects to creeds being taught at the State expense. Of course, he does not forget that creeds have been taught at the State expense ever since 1872.

Mr Callister: You are doubly subsidising it now— putting more coal on the fire.

Mr R. B. Moore: W e have had a little fire all the time.

Mr Callister: It is a regular furnace now.Mr R. B. Moore: The lion, member hum

orously says that it is a furnace now. But at all events, the principle is not new. Any school can become a recognised elementary school, whether provided by the School Board or by a voluntary institution, if it is kept efficient within the regulations for the time being in operation of the Board of Education. The voluntary schools have had grants from the Exchequer all along; but they have not had rate-aid. When the hon. member says he objects to these

schools having State aid, he really means that he objects to their having rate-aid, because that is the only thing that is new in this proposal.

Mr Callister: Personally, I would object to the grant as well as to the rate. But now is my opportunity to oppose an additional burden being placed on the public.

Mr R. B. Moore: That is the concrete proposal, that now these schools should be assisted out of the rates. There was an interesting meeting recently of the Douglas Free Church Council, where this question was discussed with a great amount of frankness, and some of the more ardent speakers said they objected to the denominational schools being placed on the rates. It seems to me that there must be some fallacy underlying that. When people say that, I always want to say, “ Whose rates?” If any person has a ground of grievance in this matter, it seems to me, looking at the thing impartially, that it is those who for fifty years have, out of their own pockets, because of their faith, paid for their own children being educated at their own denominational schools, and at the same time paid rates for teaching the rest of the children at the other schools.

Mr Norris: Not giving them religiouseducation.

Mr R. B. Moore: Religious education, too. (Dissent.) Yes, “ Bible teaching” ; for the Roman Catholics have as great an objection to unrestricted, unexplained Bible teaching as you have to the teaching of the Mass. Make no mistake about th at; we must do justice to their position. And we have taxed them ever since 1872 to teach “ Bible teaching” to our own children, while we have compelled them, because of our system, to bear the whole cost, barring the grants, of the education of their own children in their own religion. Looking at it quite fairly, if any person has a grievance, these are the persons. All that is suggested now, as I understand it, is that where they provide their own schools, and rebuild them again if it is needed— where they bear that extra burden, the amount which they contribute towards the rates shall be applied to the education of their own children. It is not expressed in so many words, but in substance that is how it works out. I think that that is not an unfair suggestion. If they are prepared to go to that extra expense, the State might very well say, “ W e are not going to tax you for other people’s cliil-

Tlie Education Bill,

HOUSE OF K EYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 511

My colleague, Mr Norris, wishes to be sure — and quite rightly— that 110 children in Douglas will be compelled, practically, to go to a denominational school. I have :iot got the figures for Ramsey, but I think I am right in saying that the Ramsey Board School will accommodate every child in Ramsey ; and in Douglas we have sufficient accommodation for all the children, and quite a large margin. Unfortunately, owing to the steadily-declining population of tlie Island, and further owing to the effects of the war, we have a good deal more accommodation now than we have children. 1

dren and make you pay for your own as well.”

Mr Clucas : They have to maintain the buildings.

Mr R. B. Moore : They have to put them in order in the first instance, and in England the first result of the Act was to close voluntary schools wholesale. Numbers of them could not stand the test, and were never recognised. They have to provide and maintain the school, and they hand it to us during school hours, and we apportion the cost of upkeep and cleaning as between ourselves and them.

Mr Clucas: A pretty substantial burden, too.

Mr R. B. Moore : It must be, in these days. Honestly— and I speak as_ a Free Churchman, and we have not a great many schools— I think the British Government drove a pretty hard bargain with the managers of the denominational schools under the Balfour Bill. They were in the position at that time that they had to take State aid or close, and they are getting pretty near that stage again. That is because the Roman Catholics, who are the poorest section of the community in Douglas, have had to pay hundreds of pounds every year for the maintenance of their schools, and, in addition, have had to pay a rate of Is 7id in the £ for the maintenance of all other schools in Douglas. I believe the time has come when we have to face the possibility of these buildings being handed over, and the whole cost falling on the ratepayers. If during the last forty years, the Douglas School Board had had to bear the whole of the cost of education which has been paid by the denominationalists, our rate would have been 5d or 6d in the £ higher, and I think we owe them something for it. The point that was set forth by the lion, member for Glenfaba, and incidentally mentioned by my lion, colleague, has of course to be kept in mind. I believe that at that Free Church Council meeting some very graphic speaker held up the possibility of the Island being flooded with Mohammedan schools. Well, the sections which purport to deal with that possibility are sections 42 and 43, which will come up in a minute. The intention of these clauses is to regulate the provision of new schools by any person. The first thing such persons have to do is to establish to the satisfaction of the Council of Education that the school is necessary. There are only two places in the Island at present where there are denominational schools.

think members may rest assured that it will be a very long time before we can see the prospect of any shortage of school accommodation in Douglas. It is well known that the Park Road School will be given up for elementary education purposes as soon as the new Secondary School is built, and there will be accommodation for 500 children more. I think the House v ill realise that in adopting this clause, we are attempting to do substantial justice to the denominational schools, and at the same time we are getting the great boon of one national system of education. The whole of the elementary education of the Isle of Man, in secular subjects at any rate, will come under one great system, and it is a fine guarantee to have, to know that they will all have to attain the same standard and achieve the same end.

Mr J. D. Qualtrougli (replying) : I really have nothing to add to what has been said by the lion, member for North Douglas. I was going to remind the lion, member for Glenfaba that there is distinct provision in the Bill against the erection of schools all over the place. There is no obligation whatever on the Central Authority to accept any school that is handed over to them. The lion, member for Ramsey would, I think, get the endorsement of the House in what he said as to the necessity of religious instruction both in England and the Isle of Man, instead of being interfered with, receiving a certain amount of strengthening and stiffening up, and whatever may be said about the educational work of the denominational schools, there can be no doubt that their religious instruction, at all events, is fairly efficient, and so far from interfering with it, we should, provided that the educational work done in those schools satisfies the education authorities, assist them so far as we reasonably can in carrying on a good work.

'■The Education Bill,

512 HOUSE OF K EYS, APRIL 16, 1920

The clause was carried, Mr Gallister voting “ N o.”

Mr R. B. Moore: Clause 41 provides that if the managers of a school wish to close a school they must give 18 months’ notice. This gives the Central Authority a right to carry on till further arrangements are made.

Mr J. D. Qualtrough seconded, and the clause was carried.

Clause 42 provides that no new school shall be recognised as a public elementary school unless approved by the Council of Education.

The clause was agreed to.Clause 43 provides that the Council must

decide if a new school is necessary.Mr Callister: Why are the Council the

determining factor in this case?Mr R. B. Moore: Why riot ? The Coun ■

cil is the administrative body. I am getting rather tired of Hearing the Council of Education slanged and slanged in this House.

Mr J. D. Clucas • Whom does he want to have as the authority?

Mr R. B. Moore: The Highway Board, I think. (Laughter.)

The clause was agreed to.Clause 44 deals with the foundation man

agers.Mr Richard Cain : Does the High School

for Girls in Castletown come under this clause ?

Mr R. B. Moore: No, only if the High School for Castletown becomes an elementary school.

The clause was carried.Clause 45 and 46, dealing with the

grouping of schools under one management and with the abolition of fees in elementary schools, were carried.

Clause 50 provides that endowments for the purposes of education not subject to a scheme approved by the Chancery Court, should vest in the Council.

Mr It. B. M oore: This proposal gathers into the Council of Education all unused educational endowments. There are, up and down all over the country, more or less dormant educational trusts. It is proposed that all these endowments which are not subject to a scheme approved by the Chancery Court, on January 1st last, shall be vested in the Council. The Council hope to be able to gather all these endowments

and use them for the interests of the town or parish for which they were originally left. Clause 51 provides that the Central Authority shall prepare schemes for the application of benefits of endowments to .districts for which they were originally made, and sub-section 2 of clause 51 provides that any money paid to a School Board for the purposes of a public elementary school, for which provision is to be made by the Central Authority, shall be credited in aid of the rate in the parish or district served by the school. These two sections, together, safeguard all endowments for the benefit of the district to which the money was left. The House will have in mind the Cloth- workers’ endowment at Peel, which will be used for Peel or the Western district.

Mr J. D. Qualtrough seconded clause 50.Mr Shiminin: I move as an amendment

that in place of the words “ shall have regard as far as possible to the interests of the town,” etc., there shall be substituted “ shall be used in the interests of the town,” etc. That will make it perfectly clear that the endowment must be used for the district for which it was left, and is a greater safeguard than is provided in the Bill.

Mr Callister: I have pleasure in seconding that.

Mr Kermode: I would suggest that the words should be “ shall be used in the town and district.” The words at present “ may be used for the town” might mean that it may be used in Douglas. The words I suggest will safeguard us, and provide that the endowments must be used in the town and district they were intended for. My reason for moving this is that we can provide for secondary education in the Western district. W e have in that district, as members are quite aware, a considerable income from endowments, and as I shall show presently, we have sufficient revenue in the Western district to provide higher education in Peel. W e have £2,155 annual income towards the running of a secondary school in Peel, and I maintain that is sufficient to run a good small secondary school. AVe have a building already erected, which would cost at the present time from £20,000 to £25,000. It was built entirely on almost the most modern secondary school lines, and the Central Authority could provide a school there immediately. AVe have endowments in the AArestern district at present that bring us in from war stock £256 yearly; from the Clotliworkers, £240 ; from property in Essex Quay, £ 1 3 ; from Consols

The Education Bil},

HOUSE 03T K EYS, APRIL 16, 1920. 513

(an endowment only recently discovered), £7 10s; a small field, £5 . These moneys are there, and can he used practically all for secondary education.

M i J. D. Qualtrough : Does that include the annual value of the building?

Mr Kermode: No, the buildings are entirely separate. W e take 80 pupils, 60 to pay 60s each, £180 ; a 4d rate, £376 ; which makes £1,077 10s with the endowments, and this, with the proportion to be found by the Government authorities, £1,077 10s, makes £2,155. So that we have practically sufficient to enable us to receive our due rights in the Western district. On the new Central Authority we will only have three representatives, and it is due to this House now to protect that district in such a way that the Central Authority will be compelled to proceed with secondary education in that district, and make it impossible for them to take these endowments from that district. I appeal to the good sense of the House to be fair-minded and just. If that is done, we will be perfectly satisfied that we can get a good secondary school in the district. There is another point. W e have in hand at present £223, balance of the rate