NATURE 



[February i6, 192: 



profit rather than a loss, but this is not the real 

 issue. The Committee ignores the main argu- 

 ment for afforestation in Great Britain— namely, 

 national security. This country, without an ade- 

 quate supply of timber within its own shores, is 

 exposed to great peril in time of war. During the 

 Great War the expenditure incurred on foreign 

 timber was 2oo,ooo,oooZ. more than if the prices 

 of 1 913' had prevailed, and the enormous cargo 

 space needed for such a bulky import 'endangered 

 our food supply from overseas, and at one time 

 brought us to the brink of starvation. The insur- 

 ance against such a calamity — 350,000/. annually 

 — is a trifle. No heed is given in the Report to 

 the cheapness of the afforestation, which is carried 

 out in many cases on leased land, no capital ex- 

 penditure for land purchase being required. The 

 Government in November last actually allotted to 

 the Forestry Commission an extra 250,000/. out of 

 the Unemployment Fund, which puts 5000 idle 

 men at work in replanting the woodland areas felled 

 during the war. The Forestry Commission has 

 acquired large areas of land ; it has entered into 

 many leases and contracts ; it owns millions of 

 seedling trees ready for transplanting; it has estab- 

 lished schools for woodmen and instituted research. 

 It is evident that the "scrapping" of such an 

 efficient service would result in an immediate great 

 loss of money and be a waste rather than an 

 economy. 



The section of the Report dealing with education 

 is of special interest in so far as it carries to ex- 

 treme limits that separation between the finance of 

 education and education proper which is the char- 

 acteristic tendency of the business man of to-day 

 when he considers such matters. The obvious 

 danger of this tendency is that finance comes to 

 be looked upon as the only thing which matters 

 in education, and this danger is particularly ex- 

 emplified in the Report. 



It should be clearly understood that the Report 

 is the product of business men accustomed to deal 

 w^ith affairs on a large scale, especially in respect 

 of railways and shipping. They are men who have 

 made their reputation mainly in transport services, 

 but apparently know^ little or nothing about educa- 

 tion from the inside, and, so far as we are aware, 

 make no claim to any expert or special knowledge 

 of the subject. For example, their recommendation 

 that children should not be taken into State-aided 

 schools until they have reached the age of six is 

 based, as they are careful to explain, upon the 

 opinion of others. Obviously they do not pretend 

 NO. 2729, VOL. 109] 



to understand the educational bearing of the quts 

 tion, and wisely throw the onus upon others whom 

 still more wisely, they carefully omit to name. 



All the same, we naturally expect them to sho\ 

 a masterly grasp of finance, and we are not diN 

 appointed. They handle figures running inti> 

 hundreds of millions with an ease and freedom and 

 a dexterity which cannot but provoke our admira 

 tion. Occasionally — but only occasionally — tht 

 lose their balance and their business acumen, am; 

 in their desire to cut down the Estimates, sugge>i 

 proposals which would actually increase the public 

 cost of education. A flagrant instance of this is 

 their recommendation to withdraw Parliamentary 

 grants from a certain type of secondary school, 

 regardless of the fact that local education author: 

 ties have helped to support such schools " because ii 

 was cheaper for them to do so than to set up 

 secondary schools of their own." Even a com- 

 mittee of business men can be too solicitous of the 

 Exchequer ! 



In the main, then, as regards education, the 

 Report deals with finance, and only incidentally or 

 by implication with education fer se. The task of 

 the Committee is to cut down the Estimates, and 

 the net result of the proposals, if adopted, would 

 be, as we have said, to reduce the education grant 

 by 18,000,000/. This is to be achieved by reducing 

 the salaries of teachers and making them contribute 

 5 per cent, of their reduced salaries for superannua- 

 tion purposes ; by increasing the number of pupils 

 for each teacher in elementary schools ; by limiting 

 the number of those granted free secondary educa- 

 tion ; by a reduction in the number of scholarships ; 

 by discontinuing the State scheme of scholarships 

 at the universities ; and by cutting down the annual 

 grant to the universities. In addition, the Com- 

 mittee recommends the abolition of the percentage 

 grant system, which it characterises as a money- 

 spending device. '" The vice of the percentage 

 grant system," so runs the Report, " is that the 

 local authority, which alone can really practise 

 economy in these services, loses much of its incen- 

 tive to reduce expenditure, especially when the 

 larger proportion is paid by the taxpayer through 

 the Exchequer." As a substitute, fixed grants or 

 grants based on some definite unit are recommended. 

 In this way the Committee hopes that the local 

 education authorities will be discouraged from 

 spending money on education, and is not ashamed 

 to avow this. No charge of wanton waste or of use- 

 less expenditure is laid against local authorities. 

 The danger of dissociating the finance of educa- 



