THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21264, 19 February 1931, Page 10

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

SCHOOL AGE BILL. SECOND READING DEBATE. (United .Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, February 17. In the House of Lords Lord Ponsonby, moving the second reading of the School Age Bill, described it as a small step forward on the educational ladder and an attempt to break down the barrier which for many generations had been purposely preserved in order to keep the workers in subjection through ignorance. Cries of “No! Withdraw!” He said he did not believe the Opposition really opposed the principle of raising the school age. “ The expansion of education produced a Labour Party, that is why you hesitate to carry it further,” he said. Viscount Hailsham, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said the only motive was stated in Mr Snowden’s House of Commons declaration that, however desirable reforms might be, the country could not at present afford them. THE DEBATE ADJOURNED. LONDON, February 17. (Received Feb. 18, at 5.5 p.m.) The Archbishop of York regretted that Viscount Hailsham had taken a lead “ from the rising hope of the stern, unbending Tories.” The main principle of the Bill was the raising of the school age. If they rejected the Bill it would be inferred that the Lords were opposed to that principle, “By the age of 14 people begin to read, but the cultivation of taste does not begin. It is true that the greatest social and political peril is the cheap newspaper, and the root thereof is the limited education of the people. If they had more education they would not read them. As it is we condemn them to be victims of such influence.” The Bishop of London, supporting the Bill, claimed that the Anglican Church had been the pioneer of education in England for centuries, and at present churchmen were paying £IO,OOO a week for it. The people must be educated. The debate was adjourned.