Sitting of 31 October 1918

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Garw and Ogmore Gas Provisional Order not confirmed; remaining Provisional Orders confirmed] [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Gas Provisional Orders Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Stirling Gas Provisional Order not confirmed; remaining Provisional Orders confirmed] [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Smith Estate Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Benefits of Invalided Seamen and Soldiers) Amendment Regulations (Scotland), 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:
Medway Conservancy—Copy of Statement of Accounts of the Conservators of the Upper Medway for the year ended 31st March, 1918 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    CHINA.

      GERMAN INTERESTS (SHAMEEN).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what procedure will be necessary after the new Trading with the Enemy Regulation has been drafted in China before the leases of the buildings now occupied by the German consulate, bank, post office, and trading firms in the British Concession on the Shameen will be terminated; and what period of time it is estimated will be required before the Germans will be turned out of the British Concessions in China?
      The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I have now received and approved a summary of the draft Regulations, and have instructed His Majesty's Minister at Pekin to issue them as "urgent" under the China Order in Council. When this has been done the procedure will be for orders to be made by His Majesty's Minister vesting the properties in question in the Custodian of Enemy Property in China. It is impossible for me to say how much time this will require, but I am giving instructions that there must be no avoidable delay.

    RUSSIA.

      ALLIES AND BOLSHEVISM.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the letter, dated 4th September, 1918, addressed by Monsieur René Marchand, French Attaché to President Poincaré; whether he is aware that this letter has been published in Russia, Germany, and England, and that it alleges the Allies to have been led by their mistakes in Russia to fighting Bolshevism instead of fighting Germany; and whether he has information confirming M. Marchand's statement that the present Soviet Government grows stronger the more it is attacked by the foreign foe?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the rest of it does not, therefore, arise.

      ARMENIANS AT BAKU.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give any information concerning the position and progress of Armenians who are co-operating with Russian Soviet forces in the neighbourhood of Baku?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IMPRISONED.

      STATEMENT BY LORD ROBERT CECIL.
      Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many British subjects are in the hands of the Bolsheviks imprisoned in Petrograd, Moscow, and other parts of Russia, and particularly whether he has information that John Richard Holdcroft, a British subject of Moscow, was arrested by the Bolsheviks in August last and was incarcerated in the Lubianka prison and subsequently in the Bontyrka in Moscow; whether he was still so imprisoned on the 1st October when Mr. Lockhart's party left Moscow, and that his two daughters of twenty-two and twenty-three years of age are left without means or protection; and what steps the Foreign Office proposes to take to protect British subjects from incarceration or murder at the hands of the so-callel Bolshevik Government?
      Lord R. CECIL: I regret that I am unable to state the precise number of British subjects remaining in the parts of Russia controlled by the Bolshevik authorities, and that I have not been able to obtain any further information about Mr. Holdcroft other than that which my hon. Friend has been good enough to give me. The number of British subjects remaining in Moscow and Petrograd is considerable, but the number of those actually in prison is believed to be small.
      Negotiations are being carried on through the Netherlands Minister in Petrograd for the repatriation of all British subjects who wish to return, and for what it is worth M. Litvinoff, who was recently exchanged for the British officials in Moscow and Petrograd, and who should reach Moscow within the next two or three days, stated that he would do all in his power to induce his Government to enter into an agreement for the repatriation of the British subjects still remaining there.
      In the meantime every effort is being made to ameliorate their position, and a
      1580
      consignment of food is being sent out from this country through the Netherlands Minister in Petrograd, to save them from starvation. His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the anxiety which must be felt by the friends and relatives here of those remaining in Russia, and no effort will be spared either to secure their repatriation at the earliest possible moment, or to mitigate their sufferings until such time as their release can be effected.
      We have already publicly informed the Bolshevik leaders that should any further acts of violence be committed against a British subject, His Majesty's Government will hold the members of the Soviet Government individually responsible, and will make every endeavour to secure that they shall be treated as outlaws by the Governments of all civilised nations and that no place of refuge shall be left to them.
      Mr. PETO: Can the Noble Lord tell us why it was that M. Litvinoff and his associates, who had no diplomatic status in this country, were released until all British citizens in the hands of the Bolshevik Government had been released from incarceration?
      Lord R. CECIL: I fully recognise the legitimacy of that question. We were anxious to obtain the release of all British subjects as soon as possible, and we were advised that it was very important to get out the British officials at the earliest possible moment, because if they had suffered any violence it would make the position of the remaining British subjects even worse than it was before. We had an opportunity of obtaining the release of a considerable number of British officials of various kinds and others connected with them, and we got out as many as we could in exchange for M. Litvinoff and his associates who were sent back. We were advised that that was on the whole the wisest course to pursue, and I am satisfied myself that it was. It would not mean any lack of sympathy with the remaining British subjects, but we believe on the whole it was the safest course even for them.
      Mr. PETO: Will the Noble Lord tell us this a little more precisely? Supposing the representations of M. Litvinoff are not made or receive no attention at the hands of his Government, what other steps does he propose to take to vindicate the rights of British citizenship; and can he

      1581
      say whether already negotiations are in process with the Allied Governments for making any protests we make really, actually, practically, and immediately effective?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of these questions, which require a considered reply.
      Mr. PETO: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment.
      Mr. KING: Does the Noble Lord agree that M. Litvinoff had no diplomatic status when he was in constant touch with Mr. Leeper, and was allowed to receive telegrams in cipher? Does the Noble Lord, in spite of this fact, say he had no diplomatic status?
      Lord R. CECIL: I think there is no doubt that he had no diplomatic status any more than Mr. Lockhart in Russia had any diplomatic status.
      Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that we have a hostage in M. Litvinoff's wife?
      Mr. KING: Has he not also children they could take as hostages?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Notice ought to be given of these questions.

    IRELAND.

      FLAX.
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the yield per acre of flax grown in Ireland in 1915 was for Munster 35.2 stones and for Ulster 29.9 stones; in 1916 Munster 29.2 stones and Ulster 25.2 stones; whether, as the only obstacle to the full development of the industry in the South is the want of factories for retting and scutching, he will say what steps he proposes to take to get assistance for the South of Ireland to delevop this industry; (2) whether a Grant of £1,280,000 has been made to the English Board of Agriculture to encourage the growth of flax in England and a guarantee of £600,000 to flax-spinners in Belfast to help flax production in the North; will he take steps to secure for the South of Ireland, which is now growing flax in considerable quantities, factories for deseeding, retting, and scutching; (3) whether he is aware that the Fibre Corporation has at present in
      1582
      the South of Ireland over 4,000 tons of flax that they are anxious to work and finish it in the South; that, owing to having no factories, they must send it all to Belfast, the carriage alone costing £12,000; and will he take steps to secure from the Treasury assistance to establish in the South factories in which this work may be done?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): The figures as to flax yield in Munster and Ulster, respectively, are correct. The area under flax in the South of Ireland has increased considerably in the last three years, but the lack of proper local facilities for deseeding, retting, and scutching are a serious handicap. The Fibre Corporation have done and are doing good work both in the North and South of Ireland. I understand they have 4,000 tons of flax straw in the South of Ireland, and if they are obliged to send it to Belfast the cost will probably be the sum mentioned in the question.
      The Department of Agriculture have no detailed information as to the financial assistance to flax growing in Great Britain, but understand that a guarantee of the amount mentioned has been given in connection with the flax spinning industry in the North of Ireland. The question of providing proper facilities for dealing locally with flax straw has been engaging the Department of Agriculture's careful attention for some time, and representations have been made to the authorities concerned.
      Mr. LINDSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1916 the acreage of flax grown in Munster was 773 and in Ulster over 89,000, and was the Government guarantee of £600,000 only given after the linen trade had guaranteed £200,000?
      Mr. SAMUELS: My hon. Friend has given me these figures. I have no information on the matter, and if he wishes inquiries made I must ask him to put down a question.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government Department encouraged farmers in the South of Ireland to grow flax, and owing to the burden of carriage it is impossible to grow this flax unless there are some local factories for the purpose of saving it?
      Mr. SAMUELS: The answer intimates that these matters are all under consideration.
      Mr. FLAVIN: We have heard that about a hundred times, and we are waiting for the Government to do something practical.

      SEED POTATOES.
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in numerous cases throughout Ireland local authorities have been forced to bring labourers who got seed potatoes last year to the County Court in order to compel them to pay; whether these proceedings could be avoided by allowing three instalments to be made of the loan payable in three years; and whether he will take steps to arrange for an instalment system?
      Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend is aware that prosecutions in certain cases have taken place, but he sees no necessity for making any alterations in the conditions on which these loans are granted.

      POLICE PAY.
      Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish Government have taken any steps to increase the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and, if not, whether having regard to the increased cost of living and seeing that these forces have, under very trying circumstances, remained loyal and faithful, their demands will be attended to?
      Mr. SAMUELS: It is hoped to introduce the promised Bill very shortly.

      WORKMISTRESSES (WAR BONUS).
      Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the claim of workmistresses appointed under the National Board of Education to a war bonus has been considered; and, if so, with what result?
      Mr. SAMUELS: Workmistresses in national schools have been in receipt of a war bonus Grant of 2s. per week since 1st July, 1916. The question of the provision of an improved war bonus Grant is at present under consideration.

      FISHING INDUSTRY (S.W. COAST).
      Mr. O'LEARYasked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to establish telegraphic or telephonic communication between the islands of Cape
      1584
      Clear and Sherkin and the mainland and thus give an impetus to the fishing industry off the South-West coast of Ireland?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The provision of telegraph and telephone facilities at Cape Clear and Sherkin Islands has been considered on several occasions, but I regret that the small amount of business likely to be transacted would not justify the heavy expense which such provision would involve.

    INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

      BELFAST PRISON.
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give information concerning the outbreak of an epidemic among prisoners in Belfast Goal; how many cases have occurred; and whether the deficiency of nursing, medical, and dietary requirements have been met?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday. The most recent information is as follows:
      The number of cases of influenza that have occurred is 118. Of these nine patients have been removed to extern hospitals on the recommendation of the medical officer to the prison. The large majority of the remaining cases are suffering from a mild type of the disease and satisfactory treatment for them is available in the prison. Medicines and special dietary have been prescribed where necessary in individual cases, and where special nursing is required the patient is removed to an extern hospital. The medical officer has already secured the assistance of two other medical men as well as of Professor McKisack, M.D., consultant, and there is no reason to think that the cases are not receiving all proper attention.
      Mr. KING: Have any deaths been occurring?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I have no information.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry—it is a very short point?
      Mr. SAMUELS: I am sure that I shall have the information by telegram to-day.

    BANK DEPOSITS (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland wheher he is aware that the Irish joint stock banks and savings banks hold on deposit a sum of more than £110,000,000; can he give the average interest paid on such deposits; and will he say why no public effort by poster or meeting is made to attract some of this money to the various War Loans?
    The JOINT FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I am aware that the deposits in banks in Ireland are considerable. In accordance with the general arrangements with banks, the main Irish banks do not now pay more than 3 per cent. interest on ordinary deposits. Meetings have been recently addressed, both at Dublin and Belfast, by the Chairman of the National War Savings Committee, and arrangements for a poster campaign are being made. The Irish banks have undertaken to advise depositors to invest in War Bonds.

    EARLY CLOSING ORDERS.
    Brigadier-General McCALMONTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether definite days of the week were mentioned in the recent Early Closing Order regardless of the different market, fair, and early closing days arranged in different towns in agricultural districts; whether he has received representations on this subject; and whether, without allowing any increased consumption of fuel or light, the Order will be modified?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Representations in the sense indicated in the question have been received, and are under consideration.
    General McCALMONT: Are we to understand that the Order stands until they have been considered?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Yes.

    TEACHERS' PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that certain of the Irish national teachers who were compelled to retire on small pensions based on pre-war scales and conditions were compelled to apply for outdoor relief or otherwise become a burden on the ratepayers; and whether, having regard to their services, their present condition
    1586
    in their old age, and the increased cost of living, together with the fact that all Civil servants' demands for a war bonus have been granted, their just claim to a war bonus would be favourably considered?
    Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend is not aware that any retired national teachers have had to apply for outdoor relief. Civil servants in receipt of pensions based on pre-war salaries have not had their pensions increased. The principle is one of wide application, and it is not practicable to consider separately the claims of any particular class of pensioners.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many resolutions he has now received demanding the withdrawal of Regulation 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. CAVE): About 600 such resolutions have been received at the Home Office.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in response to this extraordinarily large number of resolutions?
    Sir G. CAVE: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Regulation 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Act has been condemned by the most representative conferences of women; whether his attention has been called to medical opinion; that the Regulation has been discredited as a public health measure, and that the presence of infection cannot be proved or disproved by examination; whether he is aware of the number of women against whom no charge could be established, who have nevertheless been arrested, imprisoned, and remanded for examination under this Regulation; and whether the Government is now prepared to take steps to annul this Regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: The question, which is one of extreme difficulty, is being considered by a strong Committee upon which both sexes are represented, and the Government must await the result of their deliberations before taking action.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can my right hon. Friend say when this Report will appear?
    Sir G. CAVE: I should think certainly next month; I hope so.
    Mr. KING: In view of the large number of people who will have their votes to decide this question, is it not to the interest of the Government to take the inevitable step as soon as possible so as to get as many votes as possible?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is more in the interests of our soldiers than of the Government.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the Report of the Committee?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think there will be any delay.

    ENEMY ALIENS.

      COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to prevent the return to this country after the War of the aliens with their dependants who have been repatriated or deported during the present War, and also to prevent the entry of further undesirable aliens in the future?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division on the 21st of this month.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Atkin Committee on Naturalisation of Aliens has held any and, if so, how many sittings; and how many cases have already been considered, and with what result?
      Sir G. CAVE: The Committee over which Mr. Justice Atkin presides have held eight sittings, and have had under consideration 128 cases referred to them under Section 3 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918. When the considertion of the cases under Section 3 is completed, I propose to ask the Committee for a Report upon them, and the Committee will, I understand, then proceed with the cases falling under Section 7.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many cases have been considered by the
      1588
      Sankey Committee on Aliens; and of that number how many have been interned and how many have been repatriated?
      Sir G. CAVE: The Committee over which Mr. Justice Sankey presides have held a large number of sittings, and have considered about 3,200 cases. Of these about 300 have been interned and about 220 recommended for repatriation. When the consideration of the cases is concluded, I propose to make public a full statement showing the reason for any exemptions granted.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many cases have been dealt with by the Bankes Committee, and with what result.
      Sir G. CAVE: I understand that the Committee have already dealt with a large number of cases. They will complete their review as quickly as possible, and present a Report to the Prime Minister.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has any action yet been taken under this Committee in any of these cases in Government offices?
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say without inquiry of all Departments, but the Committee will report to the Prime Minister—not to me.

    COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS.

      WERNHER, BEIT, ECKSTEIN COMPANIES.
      Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Sir Lionel Phillips, the head of the Wernher, Beit, Eckstein group of companies, invested £800,000 in Prussian bonds just before the War; and whether, in view of this fact, Sir Lionel Phillips will be again allowed to speak in Trafalgar Square in aid of the War Bonds campaign, as he did on 14th October?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have no information as to the allegation in the first part of the question. As to the second part, I understand that Sir Lionel Phillips, as a prominent representative of one of our Dominions, was invited to speak on Overseas Day in Trafalgar Square. I see no reason for intervening in the matter.
      Major HUNT: Were not the majority of his co-directors Germans before the sinking of the "Lusitania," and is that the sort of man who is to be allowed to speak in Trafalgar Square? It is an insult to the people?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not know whether the first statement of the hon. and gallant Member is true or not.

      MOND NICKEL COMPANY.
      Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what correspondence passed between the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, and the Board of Trade concerning the allotment by the director of that company of 17,775 shares between the 6th September and the 9th December, 1914, to enemies resident in Germany; whether the Board of Trade issue a licence to trade to the directors of this company authorising them to allot any of these shares; (2) when the Board of Trade first became aware of the allotment of 17,776 shares or any shares by the directors of the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, to enemies resident in Germany between the 6th September and the 9th December, 1914; (3) if he will state the names of the officials who were responsible for authorising the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, in 1914 to register 17,775 shares in the names of enemies resident in Germany; what were the reasons which induced the Board of Trade to authorise such registration; (4) at what dates were the shares in the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, held by enemies resident in Germany, vested in the Public Trustee; when and to whom were they sold by him; and what are the names of the two enemy shareholders whose shares have not been so vested or sold?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): The only correspondence between the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, and the Board of Trade with regard to the allotment or registration of shares in the names of enemies, is that referred to in the answer given to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch on the 21st October. The earliest record in the Board of Trade of any information on this matter is an interview with the secretary of the company on the 3rd December, 1914, but there may have been some previous interview of which no record is available. The ground on which registration of the shares in the names of enemies was authorised was that, as soon as the arrangement entered into before the War was completed by such registration, all dividends on the shares to which enemies were entitled became payable to the Public Trustee, and the enemy interests were put into a form which could
      1590
      be dealt with conveniently, while no-benefit was conferred on enemies. The authority was given by the Board of Trade.
      The enemy shares were vested in the Public Trustee on the 11th October, 1918, and I am informed that they were sold by him on the Stock Exchange on the 16th October to numerous purchasers. The shares which have not been sold owing to the holders being reported to be dead are those registered in the names of Brandholt and Wuth.
      Major HUNT: Do I understand that the Board of Trade did not authorise this company to allot any shares to enemy aliens?
      Sir A. STANLEY: My reply necessarily is fairly long, and if my Hon. Friend will carefully read it I think it covers the points he raises.

      CHROME ORE (ETTLINGER AND COMPANY).
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the firm of Ettlinger and Company still hold the exclusive right to sell on the Continent chrome ore produced by British companies; and, if so, whether this arrangement is sanctioned by his Department?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I understand that the agreement under which Ettlinger and Company have the sole agency for the sale of certain Rhodesian chrome ore in France and Switzerland is still in existence, but that owing to these supplies having been requisitioned by the Government the firm is not now dealing in chrome ore. No sanction has been given by the Board of Trade to the agreement.

      GEORGE SCHWARZ (SHARES).
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if the shares recently held by George Schwarz (whose address is registered as care of the Metal-lurgische Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), in the firm of Dillwyn and Company, Limited, Swansea, have been dealt with in any way by the Public Trustee or other Government office or whether they are still the property of Mr. Schwarz?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The shares in Dillwyn and Company, Limited, registered in the name of George Schwarz were vested in the Public Trustee for the purpose of sale on the 4th October, but he reports that he has not yet been able to effect a sale.

      ETTLINGER AND COMPANY.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has exercised the powers conferred on him by the Non-Ferrous Metals Act in regard to the firm of Ettlinger and Company; and whether he has used his powers under Section 8 of that Act to ascertain the real ownership of the shares formerly held in that firm by undoubted enemy aliens?
      Sir A. STANLEY: No application for a licence under the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act has been made by Messrs. Ettlinger and Company.

      DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT.
      Sir R. COOPERasked whether any steps, if so, what steps, have been taken to dispose of the shares held by the Disconto Gesellschaft in the Chrome Company, Limited?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, Sir; the shares held by the Disconto Gesellschaft in the Chrome Company, Limited, have been vested in the Public Trustee and sold by him.

    SIR EDGAR SPEYER.
    Mr. E. CECILasked what steps are being taken to remove the name of Sir Edgar Speyer from the roll of the Privy Council and to cancel his naturalisation; and when decisions will be arrived at in both respects?
    Sir G. CAVE: The question of the revocation of the certificate of naturalisation granted to Sir E. Speyer is to be referred to the Committee over which Mr. Justice Atkin presides. If the certificate is revoked, Sir E. Speyer will cease to be a member of the Privy Council. I cannot say when it will be possible to complete the case, but it will be conducted with all due expedition.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conditions of the conscientious objectors working under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors at Peewit Camp, Cawburn, Uphall, West Lothian; whether he is aware that eighteen men
      1592
      who are employed in the manufacture of manure are at present crowded in two tents and that there is no convenience for the drying and cleaning of the men's clothes which the nature of the work renders filthy and ill-smelling; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to providing sanitary conditions?
      Sir G. CAVE: These men have been housed in tents in summer and in a lodging house in winter. In view of the distance of the lodging house from the works, a but is being built for the men and will be completed this week.
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the war and peace situation, he can yet see his way to put an end to the continued imprisonment of conscientious objectors and grant them a general amnesty?
      Sir G. CAVE: No Sir. The release of these men from prison would leave them subject to the obligation of military service, and it would not be right to relieve them from that obligation, while it is still binding upon our soldiers who are in the field.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that as soon as hostilities have ceased, there will be an opportunity of releasing these men? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot give any assurance to that effect.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. COTTONasked who are the present holders of the office of Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; how many, respectively, are civilians, military men, and promoted police officers; and what are the qualifications, from the point of view of police administration, of General Horwood, who has been appointed to succeed Sir Frederick Wodehouse?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police are:

    Major Sir Frederick Wodehouse, who is retiring, and will be succeeded on the 1st November by Brigadier-General W. Horwood,

    Mr. Basil Thomson,

    Mr. F. L. D. Elliott, and

    Mr. F. T. Bigham.

    1593
    The three last-mentioned are civilians. Brigadier-General Horwood was employed for four years as chief constable of the North-Eastern Railway, which employment he left on mobilisation for the present War, and has been for three years Provost-Marshal on General Headquarters in France. He has also had a considerable experience in an administrative capacity in a Government Department.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the Government consider the policy of in future appointing civilian officers to this civilian force?
    Sir G. CAVE: There have been for some time one soldier and three civilians in those positions.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has not General Horwood secured a reputation as an exceptionally able and energetic officer?
    Sir G. CAVE: I believe that to be so.
    General McCALMONT: Does not the rank and file consist largely of ex-soldiers, and is there any reason why the officers should not consist largely of soldiers?
    Sir G. CAVE: That will be even more so after the present War.

    OIL BORING (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) On what date was the policy embodied in the agreement between the Minister of Munitions and Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, of 10th September, 1918, decided upon; and whose was the decision;
    (2) Whether any licence to bore for oil has been granted, and to what person or corporation, other than that embodied in the agreement of 10th September, 1918, between the Minister of Munitions and Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited; over what area or areas;
    (3) What was the latest date on which applicants for licences to prospect and bore for oil were informed by the Minister of Munitions that the grant of such licences would be considered, and requested to submit to the petroleum executive geological data with reference to the areas on which they proposed to drill; and
    (4) On what date the boring tackle and plant of Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, arrived in this country?
    Captain BARNETTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in accordance with the agreement of 10th September, 1918, between the Minister of Munitions and S. Pearson and Son, Limited, particulars of fifteen areas in the United Kingdom suitable for petroleum boring have been confidentially handed to him by that firm; whether he can disclose without breach of such confidence the approximate size of the said areas; whether they are about 100 acres each in extent or counties or groups of counties; whether it is a fact that no particulars of such areas are to be divulged either now or at any time while the agreement remains in force; and, if so, what public advantage is expected to be gained by this secrecy?
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the combined effect of the Petroleum Bill and the agreement of 10th September, 1918, with? Messrs. Pearson and Son is to deprive every landowner in the United Kingdom of the right to bore for and get petroleum or to grant leases to any boring companies other than Messrs. Pearson; and whether the further effect is that Messrs. Pearson and Son are to have the sole right to obtain such leases, with the result that all petroleum areas in the United Kingdom will be placed at the absolute disposal of one firm, and all competition will be shut out?
    Captain BARNETTasked the Minister of Munitions (1) in reference to the agreement of the 10th September, 1918, between himself of the one part and S. Pearson and Son, Limited, of the other part, under which that firm obtains the exclusive right to bore for and get petroleum in the United Kingdom until £1,000,000 of public funds shall have been expended by them in such work, whether that agreement or any other document contains any provision which would enable the Government to put an end to the agreement in the event of S. Pearson and Son neglecting to continue the work or to expend the whole of the amount; and
    (2) whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken in reference to the validity of the agreement of the 10th September, 1918, with S. Pearson and Son, Limited, and especially as to the Clause under which the agreement is not terminable until the £1,000,000 provided by the Ministry of Munitions has been spent; and whether, having regard to the fact that

    1595
    the expenditure of this money is at the absolute discretion of S. Pearson and Son, Limited, the effect is to enable one of the contracting parties to extend the duration of the contract in perpetuity?
    Sir W. RUTHERFORDasked the Minister of Munitions (1) why the agreement of 10th September, 1918, between S. Pearson and Son, Limited, and himself, which provides for the expenditure of £1,000,000 of public money in boring for petroleum in the United Kingdom, contains no clause as to who shall sell and receive the proceeds of the petroleum produced; and whether the absence of such a clause is due to the fact that neither party to the contract expects petroleum to be obtained in this country on a commercial scale;
    (2) with reference to the contract of 10th September, 1918, between S. Pearsn and Son, Limited, and the Minister of Munitions, why the function of approving drilling areas has been assigned not to the Petroleum Executive but to an individual; and
    (3) whether he is aware that under the agreement of the 10th September, 1918, Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, do not contract to spend one shilling of their own money on boring operations or in the purchase of machinery, but that the whole of such operations and the monopoly right of acquiring machinery and appliances at Government expense is vested in Messrs. Pearson and Son until £1,000,000 of public money has been spent?
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Minister of Munitions (1) whether the Ministry has considered what arrangements shall be made to refine the crude oil obtained by Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, under the agreement of 10th September, 1918; where the refinery or refineries are to be situated; who is to carry out the work; and whether this is to be a separate monopoly, or if it is considered to be covered by the terms of the agreement in question; and
    (2) what guarantee there is that the firm of S. Pearson and Son, Limited, may not part with the benefits acquired by them under the contract of the 10th September, 1918, to firms or companies under alien control, or that these benefits may not thus pass into the hands of those who may use them in a manner inimical to the interests of the British Empire?
    The PARLIAMENTARY and FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The principle of the policy embodied in the agreement with Messrs. Pearson was approved by the Government in March last. No licences under Regulation 2AAA of the Defence of the Realm Act are yet in force.
    No date for the submission of applications for licences has been fixed, nor is it intended that any shall be fixed.
    Messrs. Pearson ordered boring, tackle and plant in America in the summer of 1917, and the first shipment reached this country on 7th July, 1918. The remainder has arrived at intervals, as shipping facilities permit.
    Particulars of fifteen areas in the United Kingdom suitable for petroleum boring have been handed confidentially to the Secretary of State to the Colonies. The agreement provides that the divulgence of particulars cannot be considered until the passing of legislation necessary to protect the fields against indiscriminate drilling.
    Following on the rejection by the House of royalties in the original Petroleum Production Bill, an undertaking was given that no licence would be permitted which allowed the payment of a royalty. Subject to this provision and to geological evidence being satisfactory to the Committee on Geology, and to the area selected not being one already appropriated or licensed by the Government, any landowner can be granted a licence to bore on his own land or can lease his land for that purpose.
    The agreement provides that the petroleum managers must use their best endeavours to prove the existence of oil, and commence production, so that the nation may have the benefit of such production at the earliest possible moment. If this were not done the agreement would become voidable.
    The agreement was drafted and approved by the Treasury Solicitor.
    Messrs. Pearson are acting as managers for the Government, and any petroleum produce will be at the disposal of the Government.
    The function of approving the first fifteen drilling areas was assigned to Sir John Cadman, the Director of the Petroleum Executive, and to the Geological Advisory Committee of that Department.

    1597
    Messrs. Pearson as managers for the Government have no monopoly rights, and the machinery and appliances are the property of the Government and not of Messrs. Pearson.
    The arrangements which the petroleum managers, acting on behalf of the Government may make for refining crude oil are under consideration, but have not yet been decided.
    No change of agents can be made without the consent of the Government.
    Mr. WRIGHT: In view of the fact that this agreement involves an expenditure of a million of public money, an amount which has never been before this House, which has had no opportunity of considering it, is the right hon. Gentleman able to say when a day could be given for discussion by this House of this agreement?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will communicate the hon. Member's question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Captain BARNETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately the size of the areas, whether they represent hundreds of acres, counties, or groups of counties?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot say. The question will not be considered until after the Act has been passed.
    Captain BARNETT: If there are thirty areas in the United Kingdom, and they are sufficiently large, does not that constitute a monopoly?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already said that they do not constitute a monopoly.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the monopoly being retained by the Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no monopoly created.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When is it proposed to bring in this legislation?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Bill has passed this House, and has gone to another place.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is that so?

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Mr. COTTONasked the President of the Board of Education whether service in a Canadian or Australian school by a
    1598
    certificated teacher who afterwards returns to service in England will be allowed to count as qualifying service under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot commit myself on this point till the matter has been further considered in consultation with the Treasury.

    ROYAL NAVY.

      TEMPORARY NAVAL OFFICERS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state what provision has been made for the payment of the gratuity to temporary Naval officers on demobilisation similar to that payable to temporary Army officers of corresponding rank?
      Mr. BALDWIN: This question is still under consideration.
      Colonel YATE: Is there any chance of the consideration having any result?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I think so.
      Colonel YATE: Will it be settled before the election?

    MUNITIONS.

      PLACES OF REFRESHMENT.
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is now able to give the excess of expenditure over receipts in the working of hostels, canteens, and other places of refreshment and recreation erected by or taken over by the Ministry for the financial years 1916–17 and 1917–18; and have the figures arrived at been submitted to the Auditor-General and Comptroller of Accounts?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for having postponed this question. The accounts for canteens under the direct control of the Ministry will be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General this week. They show the following net deficits:

      For the period to 31st March, 1917

      £68,000

      For the half-year ending 30th September, 1917

      £46,000

      For the half-year ending 31st March, 1918

      £29,000

      In considering these figures it is necessary to remember that the number of canteens was only sixty at the end of the

      1599
      first period, seventy-seven at the end of the second, and ninety-one at the end of the third. The percentage of the net loss for each of these periods was 20.23 per cent., 13.78 per cent., and 6.43 per cent. respectively. The accounts for the hostels are not yet ready, but special efforts have been made to complete them.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the facts be circulated in a White Paper?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: They are circulated.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will take the discussion on separation allowances on the Motion standing on the Order Paper to-day—
      "That this House condemns the new increased separation allowances on account of the fact that no increase is made in the allowance to wives; that no distinction is drawn between childless wives married prior to 14th August, 1914, and subsequently; that such increases as are made to the allowances of childless wives are within the discretion of the Minister of Pensions; that the increased allowances for wives and children do not keep pace with the increased cost of living; that the allowances to dependent parents are inadequate and that generally the basal payment to all classes of dependants is such as not to admit of an adequate scale of pensions in the event of the death of the sailor or soldier on whom they are dependent."
      Sir G. CAVE: We will take it on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
      Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mrs. Davis, 106, Peabody Cottages, Lordship Lane, Tottenham, wife of Sergeant F. Davis, No. 94202, 158th Labour Company, British Expeditionary Force, France, has not received her separation allowance for a month owing to the fact that her pay book was recalled and seems to have been lost; and whether he will take action immediately?
      Mr. FORSTER: On the 24th instant Mrs. Davis called at the War Office, and stated that the new book of allowance forms issued for her had not reached the post office for payment. Action was at once taken and a duplicate book was issued to Mrs. Davis on the 28th instant.

      IRISH GUARDS (MRS. CORNALLY).
      Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Pensions Minister whether he has received any communications from Mr. E. L. O'Brien, area organiser, Dublin, South respecting the widow Cornally, widow of Private Cornally, of the Irish Guards, who-was given a pension on her own account and that of three children; whether he was informed that owing to her pension book not being received at the post office, Hazel-hatch, from the pension office, Baker Street, London, she has received no pension since the last quarter's payment; whether he is aware that Mrs. Cornally repeatedly wrote for redress, but did not receive even an answer to her letters, and that the woman has died practically of starvation, accelerated by influenza, and that one of the three children also died, whilst a second is dying, and the third has been taken to the workhouse to be cared for; and if inquiries will be made into this case and steps taken to prevent a repetition of such an occurrence?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I regret to learn the facts to which my hon. Friend calls my attention. The form of life certificate which should have been given to Mrs. Cornally in the first week in September by the postmaster at Hazelhatch, Dublin, contained instructions that it should be returned to Pension Issue Office within eight days, as otherwise payment might be delayed. It never reached the office, and a break in payment resulted on the first of this month. Mrs. Cornally should, however, have obtained assistance from her local committee, who are authorised, in cases of this kind, to make advances while the payment of pension is in suspense. Inquiry is being made of the committee as to whether Mrs. Cornally applied to them, and what action they took. The committee are also being asked to make arrangements for the welfare of the surviving children. I may add that a letter from Mr. O'Brien, which is dated 15th October but which, being improperly addressed, did not reach the office until two days ago, is the only communication which can be traced as having been received.
      Mr. J. O'CONNOR: What is the cause of this miscarriage of post? Why did the fully stamped letter not reach her?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot explain miscarriages in the Post Office. I can only say I greatly regret the circumstances, and am having inquiries made.
      Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know at the earliest possible moment the result of the inquiries?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly.

      TRAINING OF LIMBLESS MEN (IRELAND).
      Mr. MacCAWasked the Pensions Minister whether any training is provided in the North of Ireland for limbless men; and, if so, in what district?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Several schemes of training suitable for limbless men are in operation in the North of Ireland. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a list which gives in detail the information he desires.
      Major NEWMAN: Are there any similar institutions in the South of Ireland?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; there are certain training schemes in the South of Ireland, and I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a list if he desires.

      FULL PENSIONS DURING INCAPACITY.
      Mr. FALCONERasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that numbers of soldiers discharged from the Army with a pension in respect of disablement in the highest degree have had their pensions reduced while they are still totally disabled, and that many of these soldiers are being certified by their doctors as wholly incapable of work by reason of their war injuries and are receiving benefit under the National Health Insurance Act after their pensions have been reduced; and what steps he proposes to take to see that discharged soldiers are not deprived of their full pensions until they have regained a measure of working capacity sufficient to enable them to maintain themselves with the help of their reduced pensions?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that men who are still disabled in the highest degree have had then pensions reduced, and if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases on which he bases his statement I will have inquiry made. I may explain
      1602
      that machinery has been devised to meet cases in which it is represented that an erroneous assessment has been made, or that a man has become materially worse since his last assessment; and further, that by accepting medical treatment provided by the Ministry a man can automatically increase his pension to that appropriate to disablement in the highest degree.
      Mr. FALCONER: If I furnish the hon. Gentleman with examples I have received, will he consider devising some general scheme which will prevent innumerable cases of this kind from being continued?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have already said machinery is in existence, and it is simply for the hon. Member and his Friends to take advantage of it. I will, of course, consider cases brought forward.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say if his Ministry have applied to the approved societies to find out in how many cases approved societies are paying total disability pensions after the man has ceased to draw disability pension from the Ministry?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will my hon. Friend kindly give notice?

      TUBERCULOSIS (OFFICERS).
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Pensions Minister if any and what special pension is granted to an officer who has contracted tuberculosis by exposure on active service and who, after treatment at a sanatorium, has been retired from the Army on half-pay as totally unfit even for light duty; and if he will say what is proposed to be done in such cases to put these officers on the same level as other sufferers from active service in war?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the officer is on half-pay, his treatment is a matter for the consideration of the War Office. I have no power, to deal with officers on the half-pay list. When the officer is retired on account of the disability, he receives retired pay and such medical treatment as his case requires from the Ministry of Pensions on the same conditions as officers retired for other disabilities.
      Sir A. FELL: Do I understand the Minister of Pensions has nothing to do with the additional pensions granted to

      1603
      officers who retire through the loss of a limb or an eye or a lung; that it would not come within his Department?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Certainly; when a man is retired from the Service altogether he gets retired pay from us, in addition, it may be, to a wound pension, but until he has retired from the Service we cannot deal with him; and an officer on half-pay is still in the Service.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does that mean that an officer on half-pay has to pay for all further treatment himself? If he needs treatment in a sanatorium will he have to pay himself?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is clearly a question which ought to be addressed to the War Office.

      ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (CORPORAL NAGLE).
      Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Corporal John Nagle, No. 9006, Royal Irish Rifles, who joined in 1916, and was recently wounded in France, had been in receipt of £40 per year and was just beginning to be a help to his mother, who was dependent on him, when he joined, and that he had made the usual allowance of 3s. 6d. per week out of his pay to his mother, which was increased by the sum of 1s. 5d. per week dependant's allowance; and, having regard to these facts, if any inquiry will be made into the case and the scheduled scale of dependant's allowance, together with all arrears, be granted?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave him on the 6th March and the 10th July, 1917. A special allowance of 5s. a week is now issuable to the parent of a soldier who has attained the age of eighteen, and who enlisted before the age of twenty-six. Application for this allowance can be made either by the soldier or by the parent, who can obtain the necessary form at any post office.
      Mr. SUTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish this in the papers so that people will know what is really being done, and be able to apply?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will consider if anything further is necessary.

    TRADE UNION CUSTOMS.
    Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the uncertainty and unrest among trade union workers owing to the failure of the Government to introduce legislation to redeem legally the pledges given in respect of the restoration of trade union customs; and if he will state whether legislation has been prepared and, if so, when it will be introduced?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot add anything to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for York on the 17th of October last.

    WAR BONDS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the investment by the public in the various War Loans is being maintained at a satisfactory figure; and, if not, whether the Government have power under the Defence of the Realm Act to regulate or prohibit in the daily Press the growing number of advertisements of furs, diamonds, and such like articles of luxury which divert from investment in the War Loans the spare cash that is now so plentiful?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that the total subscriptions to War Bonds have not recently reached the total desired. I would once more lay stress on the vital importance, which is in no way diminished by recent events, of investing all available money in War Bonds. I am advised that the answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the Government take the necessary powers under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The question was whether the Government have power under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I am advised that they have the power, but I do not offer any opinion as to whether it is practicable or advisable to use those powers.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons were assessed to Super-tax in the financial year 1917–18 and in the current year, respectively; and what were the gross

    1605
    amount of the sums assessed and the gross amount received and estimated on these assessments in these two years, respectively?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member will find the latest available information regarding Super-tax assessments in the recently published Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in his next Budget take into account the hard cases of Civil Service pensioners pensioned under the Superannuation Acts, 1834–1914, in connection with Income Tax rebates?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Income Tax liability of a Civil Service pensioner is governed by the rules applicable to taxpayers generally, and the statutory reliefs (graduation, abatement, etc.) are, of course, available to him. There is no ground for any differentiation in favour of this particular class of taxpayers.

    RAILWAY SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Income Tax charged to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund for each of the financial years 1913–14, 1914–15, 1915–16, 1916–17, and 1917–18, and also the amount of any refund made in each of those years?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from giving information of the kind asked for in the question in regard to particular taxpayers.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardships suffered by the superannuated members of the various railway superannuation funds, a large proportion of whom are in receipt of very small annuities, owing to the diminution of the purchasing value of money; and if, seeing that new and important points have arisen in connection with these funds from the economic and financial changes of the time and the special relations now subsisting
    1606
    between the Government and the railways, he will sympathetically consider a reasoned statement of the whole case which those intimately interested are desirous of submitting to him?
    Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The present Government control of the railways does not involve financial or administrative connection between the Government and railway superannuation funds, and I fear I am not in a position to intervene.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      CHEVRONS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he will explain why airmen are not permitted to wear chevrons for service?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The Air Council have very carefully considered the question of chevrons, and the conditions of service in the Royal Air Force have been found to make it impossible to conform to the practice adopted either in the Navy or the Army without inflicting injustice.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does that order mean that members of the Air Force are not entitled to wear these chevrons?
      Major BAIRD: They cannot wear them with the blue uniform.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it the fact that officers and men who have served in the Army and France, and have earned the chevrons, are now compelled to take them off?
      Major BAIRD: The men who were engaged in the defence of London, and did night work, but did not go overseas, would not be entitled to wear the chevrons, but the men engaged in anti-submarine work would be entitled to do so. If we adopt either the Navy or the Army principle inevitably great injustice would be done.
      Mr. HOGGE: May I ask what steps the Air Ministry are going to take to induce airmen to utilise the new uniforms if they know that by using them they cannot wear these chevrons?
      Major BAIRD: As far as the men are concerned, the uniforms will be issued in

      1607
      due course; and as far as officers are concerned, they will get the new uniforms when the old ones are worn out.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I repeat my question whether officers and men who have earned their chevrons with the Army in France are compelled to take them oft when they join the Air Force?
      Major BAIRD: I have answered that question. They cannot wear the chevrons with the new Air Force uniform.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why not—they have earned them?
      General McCALMONT: Is there any reason why the War Office should not issue orders that men serving in Air Squadrons should be entitled to chevrons?
      Major BAIRD: That is a matter of opinion. The chevrons were given for service overseas, and service for home defence in London is not overseas.
      Sir C. HENRY: Can the hon. Gentleman say definitely why, when they get the new uniforms, they have to abandon earned chevrons?
      Major BAIRD: I endeavoured to answer that. It is because the terms of service in the Royal Naval Air Force entitled men to chevrons which would not entitle them in service in the old Royal Air Force and in the Flying Corps in the past, and therefore the chevrons would have a totally different meaning.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will call attention to this matter again.

      WOMEN CANDIDATES.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that candidates for the Women's Royal Air Force were asked to appear before a selection and medical board in the Technical College, Glasgow, in August last; that those who passed were instructed to give up the positions which they held at which they were earning their livelihood and proceed to Eltham on 27th August; that 180 arrived there on that date, and that in ten days 150 of these were given railway warrants and returned to their homes; if so, will he say what compensation he proposes to pay these women for their expenses incurred and loss of situations; and whether anyone has been censured in his Department for this transaction?
      Major BAIRD: Twenty-two candidates were chosen by selection boards held at Glasgow in the month of August for appointment as probationary officers of the Women's Royal Air Force. The terms of the appointments made it clear that those who accepted them were subject to confirmation in their rank after a period of training. Candidates whose selection was not confirmed received pay during their period of probation, and were supplied with free railway warrants to their homes, and it is not proposed to make them further payments by way of compensation. The numbers attending the course at Eltham were as stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Limehouse on the 21st instant.

      MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
      Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the principles laid down in the Medical Advisory Committee's Report, 1917, are now being carried into practice; and what progress has been made?
      Major BAIRD: A reorganisation of the medical arrangements of the Royal Air Force is now being considered in connection with the appointment of a successor to the medical administrator.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does that mean that the Medical Administration Committee which was established in consequence of my hon. Friend's Report has now been done away with?
      Major BAIRD: This Committee under the new arrangement will not be administrative, but will carry out advisory functions.
      Sir W. CHEYNEasked whether the medical administrator of the Air Service has resigned; if so, why; and what arrangements are being made in regard to a successor?
      Major BAIRD: The resignation of the medical administrator originated in a difference of opinion between himself and the Medical Administrative Committee in regard to their respective spheres of responsibility. The appointment of his successor will be made public at an early date.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has this appointment been offered to any officer at present?
      Major BAIRD: The appointment is under consideration, and an announcement will be made.

    NEW BUSINESSES.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among the traders of Luton at the recent grant of a licence to open In the town a new business that will compete with established businesses that are temporarily closed down because the proprietors are now serving with the Colours; and if he will take steps to prevent the granting of such licences in future?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Representations have been received on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend. The information before me is not quite complete, and I have called for a further report. I will communicate later with my hon. Friend.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      FEEDING-STUFFS.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Food Controller (1) the nature of the arrangement come to with cake crushers and others for the supply of feeding-stuffs to Ireland; whether the directions given by the Ministry in this connection are being complied with; if not, what steps the Food Controller proposes to take to have these directions carried out; (2) whether priority certificates for the supply of feeding-stuffs are being issued to stock owners in Great Britain; whether the allocation under these would absorb the total supplies available; and whether the effect has been to reduce the quantity coming to Ireland?
      The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Manufacturers of cattle cake have been instructed that they may ship to Ireland through the usual trade channels 50 per cent. of the cakes and cake meals which they shipped in 1916. The complete fulfilment of this plan has been hampered by the demand for feeding-stuffs to meet the priority certificates which are being issued to stock owners in Great Britain until 17th November, 1918, when the cattle rationing scheme will come into operation.
      1610
      In view of the prevailing shortage of cattle feeding-stuffs and the unusual difficulties attending distribution, it is difficult to avoid an appearance of local and temporary injustice not only as regards Ireland, but in respect of different districts of England. Care will, however, be taken to redress the balance and to secure that every area receives its fair proportion, whatever that may be.
      Colonel WHELER: Is, the right hon. Gentleman aware that 50 per cent. of the 1916 allowance of feeding-stuffs is to be permitted to be exported to Ireland, and how does that affect the position with regard to English cattle rearers and cattle dealers, who, I understand, will only have 70,000 tons of cattle feeding-stuffs against the 300,000 which they had last year?
      Mr. CLYNES: The reply is not inconsistent with yesterday's answer.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that small traders in different parts of Ireland dealing direct are unable even to the present moment to receive any supply?
      Mr. CLYNES: The position no doubt leads to injustice in some cases.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the small traders get the same facilities to obtain their percentage as the larger traders, because the larger traders are getting a monopoly of the cakes.
      Mr. CLYNES: I will be glad to give full consideration to that aspect of the case.

      MILK PRODUCTS (EXPORT).
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Food Controller whether the Anglo-Swiss Nestlé's Condensed Milk Company is still being allowed to export their milk products manufactured from English-produced milk to Paris for the use of the civilian population?
      Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. The export of Nestlé's condensed milk to Paris for the civilian population was stopped as from March, 1918, as the whole output of this product is needed for our own use.
      Mr. WRIGHT: Is the Hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday last condensed milk was sold in shops in Paris to the civilian population?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of that, and I should be glad to have any information about it.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WAGES).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to give a reply to the letter addressed to him by the Dockyard Members Parliamentary Committee on 29th June last, dealing with the position of surveyors of stores agents?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The letter my hon. Friend refers to related to the petitions of the mechanics employed on the examination of stores in His Majesty's dockyard, and was dated 29th July. The matter has been under consideration in connection with the petitions received from the class of employés on whose behalf the letter was written, and also a petition from the recorders. A reply will be sent to the petitioners and to my hon. Friend at an early date.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an answer—four months is a rather long time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Four months is an exaggeration—it is three months I think.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a petition from agreement workmen employed at His Majesty's dockyard and establishments at Gibraltar referring to an increase in wages due to the higher cost of living and the fall in the rate of exchange; whether he is aware that these men state that, notwithstanding the £1 war bonus, they are nearly 20 pesetas worse off than in pre-war days; and will he state, if the petition has been received, the nature of the reply sent?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A petition of the nature referred to was received, and a reply was sent in Admiralty letter of 13th September approving the payment in pesetas of 75 per cent. of emoluments not exceeding £300 a year, at the rate of 25 pesetas to the £1, and 50 per cent. of any emoluments exceeding £300 at the same rate. I may add, for the information of my hon. Friend, that the war increases in wages for the employés in question now amount to 23s. 6d. a week, and that the 12½ per cent. on earnings is also paid in their case.

    ADMIRALTY SUPPLIES (GROMETS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a Glasgow firm is paying its workers for making gromets to his Department 6s. 8d. per 1,000, which enables expert needlewomen to make only about 10s. 8d. per week, while all other firms are paying 20s. per 1,000; if so, whether this lower wage has the sanction of his Department; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to bring the wage up to a non-sweating level?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Nothing is known of the matter, but if my hon. and learned Friend will furnish particulars, inquiries shall be made.

    GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether several German U-boats flying flags of truce have returned unquestioned to their bases; and, if so, if he will explain why they were allowed to escape?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as Admiralty information is concerned the report appears to be without foundation.

    LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (STAFF).
    Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the discontent existing among the members of the London telephone staff owing to the unsatisfactory conditions of employment, which have led to a number of resignations; and whether, instead of appealing to subscribers not to make full use of the telephone service, he will hold an impartial inquiry into the administration of this Department?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am aware that a number of resignations have occurred. They are due to various causes. An increase of pay has been awarded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, and a claim for an increased war bonus is at present under consideration by the board. All reasonable complaints are carefully inquired into, and a deputation has been received by my right hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL BENEFIT).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether an official estimate has been formed of the number of insured persons whose medical benefit will lapse as the result of Circular 242 X.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): For the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member's question on Monday, no insured person's medical benefit will lapse as the result of the Circular referred to. It is quite impossible to form any estimate as to the number of persons whose right to benefit may be affected by fluctuations of wages due to war conditions.

    RAILWAY TRAVEL.

      SEASON TICKETS.
      Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the refusal to renew the season ticket held for seventeen months by the Rev. H. B. Bishopp, vicar of Frogmore, St. Albans, who is engaged upon work in connection with our soldiers involving frequent journeys to London; and will he state the reason for such refusal?
      Sir A. STANLEY: My attention has been called to this case, and it has been explained to Mr. Bishopp that the Board of Trade are not in a position to overrule the decision given by Mr. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C., in such cases.

    SHERIFFS-PRINCIPAL (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland what are the other duties which sheriffs-principal perform in Scotland beyond the decisions in cases appealed to them from their substitutes; and on how many days in the year are they called upon to fulfil these duties?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): It is not possible by way of question and answer to give an adequate reply to the first part of this inquiry. I have more than once indicated the nature of a sheriff's duties to my hon. and learned Friend and I would refer him particularly
    1614
    to my reply to his question on 28th February, 1917. As regards the second part of the question, the duties are current and not allocated to specific times and seasons.

    DERBYSHIRE WAR AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the indent for necessary funds applied for by the Derbyshire War Agricultural Executive Committee in September has yet been approved and the funds forwarded?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): Applications for funds have been received from time to time from the Derbyshire Committee, including applications in September last. The Board have remitted such sums as appeared to be necessary to meet actual requirements. If the Derbyshire Committee need further funds, a fresh application should be made to the Board, in the manner and accompanied by the particulars prescribed in Departmental Regulations.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Have not these particulars already been forwarded to the Board?
    Mr. PRATT: I cannot say.

    ABSENTEE SOLDIER.
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private N. G. Swift was handed over at Selby, Yorks, on 28th October, as an absentee of one day; that his plea was that he was fed up with being sent out again and again; and that this soldier joined up at the age of seventeen and has now served over four years, having earned the Mons ribbon, three blue stripes, and five wound stripes; and will he say if this soldier had been at any time offered Home service as a relief?
    The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Inquiries are already being made into this case, and I will acquaint my Hon. Friend of the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    SILVER BADGE.
    Mr. COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a time-expired Territorial who

    1615
    has served in France does not receive the silver badge, while it is given to a man who serves for a few weeks in a labour battalion and thereafter spends several months in hospital prior to discharge; and will he give the reason?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on the 16th October to a similar question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland.
    Mr. COTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.

    SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL (ALCOHOLIC RATIONS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the consumption of malt liquors and of wines and spirits by officers and other ranks, respectively, in military, war, territorial general hospitals, and hospitals established by the War Office in Poor Law institutions in the London district during the period 26th January, 1918, to 22nd February, 1918, and during the period 23rd February, 1918, to 29th March, 1918, taken out on the basis of 100 patients per day?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 23rd October to his request for similar information.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that these facts are actually circulated by medical officers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In the answer I stated that to obtain these facts would throw a great deal of labour upon the staff of the hospitals, particularly now when they are overworked.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly get these figures? I can assure him they can be obtained?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend must have seen them.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: No.

    UNFIT SOLDIER (ARMY SERVICE CORPS).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has
    1616
    now concluded his inquiry into the case of Private J. J. Barron, No. 07289, Army Service Corps; and whether, after four recommendations for discharge as unfit for service, this man will now be discharged?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has also written to me on this matter, and I regret that my inquiries are not yet complete, but, as I stated on the 21st October. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    GENERAL ELECTION.

      PAPER AND PETROL SUPPLIES
      Sir HENRY DALZIEL (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of the persistent rumours of a coming General Election having any foundation in fact, he will at once take steps to secure that a sufficiency of paper and petrol will be available for candidates?
      Sir A. STANLEY: As regards paper, arrangements have been made to supply to each candidate at fixed prices a certain quantity of paper in two qualities; one suitable for election addresses, etc., one for handbills or leaflets; also a polling card and one envelope for each voter. The paper, etc., will be obtainable in fixed amounts in respect of each 4,000 voters in a constituency, and pro rata for any fraction of 4,000 voters.
      The total cost per 4,000 voters will be (exclusive of printing) £11 16s. 9d.
      Applications should be made to the Controller of Paper 23, Buckingham Gate, S.W.1, who will furnish all details, and will supply vouchers for use in obtaining the supplies.
      With regard to petrol, as I have already stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire on 17th October, arrangements have been made under which every bonâ-fide candidate and his election agent will be entitled to obtain a motor spirit licence for the purchase of a limited quantity of petrol and a special permit enabling each of them to use a motor-car for the purposes of the election. Applications for such licence and permit must be made by the election agent, and forms for this purpose will be obtainable from the registration officers. The permit and licence will be valid from the day of the issue of the writ until the day following the close of the

      1617
      poll. The allowance of petrol will vary, according to the size of the constituency, from 10 to 80 gallons.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: I merely wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether the arrangements for the supply of paper will involve any charge on the Exchequer?
      Sir A. STANLEY: No, Sir.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend, having regard to these elaborate regulations, whether we may take it now that the election will be immediately announced?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to give an answer to that question.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my right hon. Friend in his reply mean to imply that only one posting will be permitted, as only one envelope is provided for?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, the regulations make provision for one envelope for each voter.
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed allowance of petrol in the big agricultural constituencies is wholly insufficient, and can he see his way to double the allowance in all necessary cases?
      Sir JOSEPH WALTON: Is the supply of envelopes and paper immediately obtainable?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, Sir.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will my right hon. Friend say at what date the applications for paper are to be made?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Now.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the election to be immediately?
      Mr. TERRELL: May I ask for an answer to my question?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I agree that the allowance cannot be considered a liberal allowance, but I am sure the hon. Member will realise there is a very serious shortage of petrol. I have done the best I can to secure as liberal a supply as conditions will permit.
      Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see his way to cut down the allowance of petrol in the towns, so that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must not debate the question now.
      Mr. DILLON: In connection with this matter of petrol, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that petrol is being recklessly wasted and spilt about by the military authorities?
      Sir S. COLLINS: May I be allowed to-ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can make arrangements with the Air Ministry for Members to fly?
      Mr. BRYCE: Seeing, from the replies of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the difficulty in this question of any attempt to get accurate replies from the electorate, will he represent this aspect of the case to the authorities?
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman aright that the prices are fixed for each 4,000 electors no matter what the size of the electorate may be, and that those who have very large constituencies will have to pay at the same rate for the supplies?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: Will the newspapers be allowed extra supplies of paper for election issues?
      Sir A. STANLEY: No provision has been made for extra supplies of paper for the newspapers.
      Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask whether the Government will try, even at this late hour, to prevent this unnecessary expenditure and waste of a lot of public money on a General Election, and instead divert that money for the housing of The poor?

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the date of lodgment with the Land Commission of the purchase agreement forms of the estate of H. J. B. Clements, at Manorhamilton, county Leitrim; and the cause of delay in this estate being vested in the tenants, and when it was probably to be vested?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The purchase agreements were lodged in June, 1906. A number of questions relating to turbary and other matters had to be settled before the purchase money of this estate could be advanced under the Land Purchase Acts. The Estates Commissioners hope to be in a position to advance the purchase money and vest the holdings in the purchasing tenants early next month.

    Education Act, 1918.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Order made by the Board on 8th August fixing appointed days for certain Clauses of the Education Act, 1918, is not published as a Parliamentary Paper or obtainable by purchase; and whether, in view of public ignorance of the operative portions of the Act, he will issue in an accessible form some instructions or information on this matter?
    Mr. FISHER: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this matter. Wide publicity was given to the Order through the Press and by circulation to local education authorities, but I will arrange for it to be placed on sale.

    BILL PRESENTED.
      PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN)
      BILL,—"to amend the Law with respect to the capacity of Women to sit in Parliament," presented by Lord ROBERT CECIL; supported by the Solicitor-General and Sir Laming Worthington-Evans; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
    TITHE BILL.
    As amended, in Committee, to be printed. [Bill 103.]
    SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    As amended, in Committee, to be printed. [Bill 104.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I inquire what Orders will be taken to-day, and what will be the business for next week?
  Sir G. CAVE: We shall not be able to-day to take the first Order—Police Pensions' Bill—Second Reading. After the Motion for Adjournment is disposed of, we will take the following Orders:—No. 2 (Bastardy Laws Amendment Act (1872) Amendment Bill—Committee), No. 3 (Loans—Incumbents of Benefices—Amendment Bill—Lords—Committee), and, if time permits, No. 6 (Licensed Stockbrokers)—Ireland—Bill, Second Beading).
  Next week the business will be—
  On Monday we propose to take the further stages of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, the Tithe Bill, the Second Reading of the Police (Pensions) Bill, and the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Bill.
  On Tuesday there will be the Irish Debate.
  The business for the remainder of the week will be announced on Monday.

  ALLIES AND TURKEY.
    ARMISTICE SIGNED.

      STATEMENT BY SIR G. CAVE.
      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any announcement to the House about Turkey?
      Sir G. CAVE: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would ask leave to make a statement which I know will be of interest to the House. Some days ago, General Townshend was liberated in order to inform the British Admiral in Command in the Ægean that the Turkish Government asked that negotiations should be opened immediately for an armistice between Turkey and the Allies.
      A reply was sent, that if the Turkish Government sent fully accredited plenipotentiaries, Vice-Admiral Calthorpe was empowered to inform them of the conditions upon which the Allies would agree to
      1644
      a cessation of hostilities, and to sign an armistice on these conditions on their behalf.
      Turkish plenipotentiaries arrived at Mudros early this week and an armistice was signed by Vice-Admiral Calthorpe on behalf of the Allied Governments last night, and came into operation at noon to-day.
      It is not possible as yet to publish the full terms of the armistice, but they include free passage for the Allied Fleets through the Bosphorus to the Black Sea; the occupation of the forts on the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus necessary to secure their passage; end the immediate repatriation of all Allied prisoners of war.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is any authority for the armistice terms that were published in the newspapers this morning, and, if not, how they came to be made public?
      Sir G. CAVE: These statements are wholly unauthorised, and on the face of them obviously incorrect.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: are they not on the face of them also obviously ridiculous?
      Mr. BLISS: When may we expect the terms of the armistice to be stated?
      Sir G. CAVE: It is not possible to state when the full terms will be announced.
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I, in a single word, say with what extreme satisfaction we have heard of the cessation of hostilities with Turkey and of the terms which have been secured.

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: The announcement which has just been made from the Front Bench rather leads one to desire that, before we enter on the discussion of separation allowances, Members in various parts of the House could have expressed the satisfaction which all of us feel in hearing the statement of the Home Secretary. I could have desired that others of more representative position than myself in the House should have had the opportunity of expressing even at more length than my

  1645
  right hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman) has done the general satisfaction of the House. I am perfectly certain, when we recall all the incidents in connection with the campaign in Gallipoli, and all the sufferings of our soldiers, both from home and from the Colonies, in that campaign, it fills everyone of us this afternoon with a very deep sense of satisfaction to hear that at length Turkey is out of the War, and that this country has been able to impose conditions upon her which, I hope and trust, will lead to a very speedy settlement, so far as we are concerned. There is another point which would have been relevant at once on the Adjournment were it not that we have proceeded to discuss separation allowances—that is the extraordinary and ridiculous statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I take it from the answer he has given this afternoon that a statement in regard to the General Election in the country cannot be long delayed, in view of the fact that even the prices of envelopes with which the candidates are to be supplied have been considered to the minutest detail by his Department. We shall be interested to hear in the forthcoming week the grounds on which a General Election can be taken.
  4.0 P.M.
  There is one question which will interest, not only the Government but all condidates—that is the question of the treatment by this House, because, after all, this House is responsible for the treatment of the wives and bairns of our serving men in both Departments. It is that point that I shall address myself to very briefly this afternoon. Up to the present there have been seven separate attempts adequately to deal with this question of separation allowances, and at the last it is, in some details, still quite unsatisfactory. I propose to deal with the matter under the three heads which arise naturally in a discussion of this kind, namely, the allowance which is paid to childless wives, the allowances which are paid to wives and children of serving men, and the allowances which are paid to the mothers of apprentices. On the first of these subjects, the question of the childless wife, the position at the present moment is as follows: Whereas the woman on scale is entitled to 12s. 6d. a week, she may on application to the local
  1646
  war pensions committee have that pension increased up to 19s. on certain conditions. I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to, at any rate, one of these conditions which does not affect my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Admiralty so much as it affects the Ministry of Pensions. Previously the childless wife was entitled to the extra allowance when she could show proof that she was unable to work or unable to obtain employment. A third condition has been added by a Circular issued by the Ministry of Pensions, and the extra money is now available in the case of a childless wife who is unaccustomed to work. I made a futile effort at Question Time, and also on the Adjournment two days ago, to ascertain what the phrase "unaccustomed to work" means, and I wish now to ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, when replying to this Debate, to say whether the definition of the phrase given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions is one which also obtains in his office. This is a point of very serious importance to hundreds of thousands of women throughout the country. On the Adjournment on the 29th of October I raised this question with my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Pensions Ministry, and I said to him:
  "Suppose a local committee had the problem as to the wife of a workman who had been accustomed to work all her days inside the man's house and she fell within the category of a woman accustomed to work. Does it refer to domestic employment of women or apply to employment outside her home?"
  I want to direct the attention of the House particularly to the rely given to that question by my hon. and gallant Friend. It was to this effect:
  "I cannot lay down any definition as to where the work is to be done. The point was, Was the woman accustomed to work or not?"
  Then he drew for the purposes of argument a certain analogy which raises a most important point. He said:
  "There are, I think, 400,000 soldiers' widows during the War."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): No.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What I did say was—and it was reported wrongly—that 400,000 wives had been married during the War to soldiers.
  Mr. HOGGE: Of course I am not responsible for what appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not previously made any correction, but in any case it makes no difference, because in the next sentence my hon. and gallant Friend goes on to say:
  "The great majority of these women were in work before and there is no reason why they should not go back. But there are a certain number of women who, owing to their social position, owing to the fact that they have never been accustomed to work in any way whatever, and—it may be owing to ill-health—never have worked either in their homes or outside them and in such cases where it is clear they have not been accustomed to work, they will be entitled to the allowance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1918, col. 1428.
  That means this, that you are going to draw a distinction between a woman in a social position who is married to a serving sailor or soldier in this War as against the position of the wife of a man who comes within the category of the working classes. I want to have it settled this afternoon whether the definition given by Ministry of Pensions is the definition upon which this extra half-crown, making 6s. 6d. extra for the childless wife, is to be administered or not, and I want my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office to answer categorically the specific question, namely, whether the 6s. 6d. which is added to the childless wife's allowance is to be an allowance as a matter of right if she complies with three conditions, namely, that she is unable to work, or unaccustomed to work, or unable to work if she has to change her residence in order to obtain that work. If my right hon. Friend can dispose of the Ministry of Pensions and tell us it is quite wrong and that the War Office, which is responsible for the administration of the allowance, is going to pay that money as a matter of right, then we shall have reached a point in this Debate which is possibly the most satisfactory point yet reached. By means of that addition of 6s. 6d. to the allowance to the childless wife the allowance has been raised to altogether 19s. per week. But most of us agree, and I hope I shall be able to prove before the Debate is finished that at any rate a minimum of £1 a week for the wife is the figure which we ought to aim at,
  1648
  and which, indeed, we have been aiming at throughout the several discussions we have had on this particular matter. The childless wife will get 19s. on certain conditions as a question of right.
  On that point it is perhaps convenient at this stage to state quite briefly once more the general arguments as to why we think this amount of money is inadequate. I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House, and I will not therefore go into detailed figures, but I propose to read from "The Board of Trade Gazette" certain Board of Trade figures regarding the increase in prices during the period since the outbreak of War. The relevant figure is 118 per cent. increase at the month of September, 1918, over August, 1914. That figure of 118 per cent. increase is a figure which applies to food prices only; it does not take note of any other item, and if other items are taken into account then the figure is somewhat reduced, becoming 110 instead of 118. Previously the Board of Trade produced—and I should like either the Financial Secretary or the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to deal with this point—a rather interesting figure as to the probable percentage of increase if you take into consideration the amount of rationing required under the coupon system and the general scarcity of food. The figure quoted by the Board of Trade becomes, in view of those considerations, not 118 but 52 per cent., so that whichever figure you take, whether it be the larger figure of 118 per cent. or the adjusted figure of 52 per cent., it is perfectly obvious that the existing payments have not kept pace with the increased cost of living. The dependants of our sailors and soldiers are practically the only class in the community who have not got the increased amounts that they are entitled to during the course of the War. The most recent industrial strike that we had in this country—or rather, a movement that might have developed into one of the most serious strikes—did deal with this question. The House will remember the last railway workers strike. Hon. Members will remember the terms on which it was settled. They will remember one of the terms was that in addition to the increase obtained by the strike an arrangement was made by which further increases of wages were to come along according to the increased cost of living. And these changes were to be automatic. In the case of the dependants

  1649
  of our sailors and soldiers no one can allege that the Government have adopted that plan, and if the matter is looked into as I have suggested it will be found that the increases given by the State to women and children are still unsatisfactory.
  The second class of dependants is the class of wives with children. Wives with children have had the children's allowances increased, I must freely admit, to a considerable extent over the original figure. But still I do not myself think that they are quite enough, although the Government have been more generous in that particular than in any other. But they have not yet touched the allowance to the wife herself, and I should like to know the defence on the part of the Government for increasing the allowance to the childless wife from 12s. 6d. to 19s. and leaving the allowance of the wife with children still standing at 12s. 6d. I suppose the argument may be that the case is covered by the increased allowance to children and it is hoped by that increase the wife's position will be improved. But if the figures are examined in detail it will be obvious that that is not the case. In order that we may know where we are perhaps the House will allow me to give it one or two figures on this point. On the 6th October—the day before the most recent increases came into effect—the allowances for children were roughly these: 7s. for the first child, 5s. for the second, 3s. 6d. for the third, and 3s. for the others. An arrangement was made by which an increase, to come into force on the 7th October, was taken back by the Government and revised, and as that increase was only in existence for a few days I do not trouble the House with the figures. But I come to the position as it will exist in January next year, when the new allowances come into force—I am taking the scale as announced in the papers. For the first child the allowance will be 10s. 6d. If there are two children it will be 9s. 3d. each. If there are three children 8s. each, four children 7s. each, five children 6s. 5d. each, and six children 5s. 9d. each. These are the new rates, and if my right hon. Friend will look at the figures he will see the difficulty in defending the descending rate of the scale. It means that the first child gets an increase of 3s. 6d., and if there are two children the increase for each child is only 2s., or 1s. 6d. less in each case. If you go to three children the increase is 4s., or 6d. less than you get for one. If you go to
  1650
  four children it is 5s., or 1s. 6d. less than for one. When you come to five children it is 6s., or 2s. 6d. less than for one, and when you come to six children the increase is 7s. I should like to hear my hon. and married Friends contending in this House that if they had six children to keep at home they could do it on double the amount that they could keep one. I should like to hear the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Civil Lord or the member of the War Cabinet who is now present (Mr. Barnes), who is a representative of the Labour party in the Cabinet, defending the position whereby if any of them had only one child he should get 3s. 6d. extra, whereas if he had six children and he happened to be fighting at the front, and his wife was looking after the children at home, that he would consider a 7s. increase was enough for the six.
  I will tell the House why I think this is an absurd arrangement. I wish the Government would really keep in mind the whole ambit of this question and look at the dilemma they are likely to find themselves in. They have agreed to raise the allowances to the figures I have mentioned as from the 1st January, 1919. Compare the position of a wife with six children and a widow with six children on that date. Suppose the husband of the wife has been killed in the War. As a wife prior to her husband being killed she was in receipt of the sums that I have mentioned—that is, 10s. 6d. for the first child, 9s. 3d. each for two, 8s. each for three, 3s. for four, and so on—but the moment she becomes a widow, instead of getting 10s. 6d. for the first child, she only gets 6s. 8d., and instead of getting 9s. 3d. each for two she gets less than 6s. each. The pension rates for six children are 6s. 8d. for the first child, 5s. for the second, and 4s. 2d. for every other child, so that the Government are immediately faced with the dilemma on the separation allowance paid to these children with the fact that they are prepared to give more to the children of a soldier whose father is alive than they are prepared to give to those children when he has paid the supreme sacrifice. A woman with six children, her husband being alive, will receive 7s. increase a week, and when her husband is killed and her children are fatherless she will only get the lower rates.
  The third category is that of the dependants, and that is a vexed question

  1651
  which has often raised discussion in this House. The first suggestion of the Government was that the parents of apprentices were to receive a flat rate of 5s. up to the age of twenty-one, and not over twenty-three. I am glad to acknowledge that the Government has altered the age-limit, and that the 5s. will now be paid in the case of all boys who are eighteen and not over twenty-six; and I acknowledge quite frankly that the extension of the limit of the age will fairly cover practically every case. There may be an exceptional case or two, but I think that is a just and generous recognition of the criticisms of some of us in this House; and I wish to thank the Government for extending the age limit. On the question of the amount, however, I am afraid I must say a little by way of criticism. The amount is only 5s., and when you consider that amount in correspondence with the amount previously awarded to the dependants of the lad who has joined the Army, you will at once be confronted with any number of anomalies. I will mention one.
  Before this was possible no dependant could get an allowance from the Government without a contributory allotment from pay. We will assume, for instance, that the boy joined up in 1914, and that his mother's dependency was assessed at 4s. 10d. Now, in order to get that 4s. 10d., the lad has to pay 1s. 2d. compulsory allotment from his pay. If he contributed, as most of them do, an allotment of 3s. 6d., an extra 2s. 4d. in that case is added to the allowance, and the mother draws 6s. 10d. During the course of the War the Government took over the whole question of separation allowances by carrying over the allotment where a separation allowance was attached, so that in this ease the 4s. 10d. would be paid entirely by the Government, which included the compulsory allotment of 1s. 2d. A woman in that case would only be eligible to-day on this new flat rate scale to the payment of an extra 2d. a week, although in the assessment there was included the compulsory allotment of the soldier. I would like to point out that this flat rate basis is not quite fair to the mothers who have their allowances now based on a sum which included the compulsory allotment of the soldier. I hope the House sees that point, and that it will receive some consideration.
  1652
  The governing point in all these three categories upon which I have touched quite lightly is this, and I want to-repeat it once more. What seems to me to worry the Members of the Government so much is the fact that the whole Pension Warrants are built up on the basis of separation allowances, and the 12s. 6d. payment, which is the bedrock taken in separation allowances, governs largely the widow's pension in the Pension Warrant, the widow's pension scale being 13s. 9d. It always seemed to me that what is making the Government reluctant to deal generously with separation allowances is the dread and fear that if they increase that payment they will have to revise all the Pension Warrants; but, in any event, they will need to revise them. I have already pointed out that, comparing a wife and children with separation allowance with a widow with children and a pension, the sums now are not comparable; in fact, the disparity is so great that, after we have settled this question, the next question we shall have to address ourselves to is that of an increase in the Pension Warrant. I have covered in skeleton outline the three categories for which we are still seeking increased allowances.
  The fourth and last point I want to make is one which does not deal with the amounts, but the date of payment. The increases to be paid to childless wives and dependants take effect, I understand, on the 1st November, but the scale payments to wives and children does not come into effect until the 1st January, 1919. I noticed a little sinister note—perhaps I ought not to use that word—or, rather, a qualification, shall I say, by which it appears that even on the 1st January those payments might not be made owing to administrative difficulties. Consequently, the position is that, even on the 1st January, those wives may not look forward with certainty to the payment to them of those sums.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): They may not get them on the day.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why not? This Government claims to be a "do-it-now Government," and if these payments are due on a certain date, why cannot it be done? What this House feels is that those payments should be made at once. We object to the prospective nature of these increases. We want those increases raised;

  1653
  but, apart from that question, I think the feeling in the House is that there must be no delay in the payment, and that these payments must not be put off to the 1st January. If this Government can make, as they have told us they are making, adequate arrangements for a General Election, even down to fixing the price of envelopes per thousand, it is much more important that they should make adequate arrangements now for paying the wives and children of the men who are making a General Election possilble what they are entitled to, and we strongly object to the payment of these allowances being put off until the 1st January. There are a great many other points of detail which could be raised in a Debate of this kind on the Adjournment, but I think the House really wants to make an improvement upon the general lines of the three categories I have mentioned, rather than to worry about details, and if my hon. Friend representing the Government announces as a result of this Debate that the childless wife shall receive a rate up to 19s., and if he can announce an increase in the allowance to a wife with children, and if, in addition, he can announce, as I hope he may, an addition to the 5s. flat rate, that will be meeting public opinion along the main lines of criticism, and it will be doing something to provide what, I think, is very necessary, and that is adequate and complete treatment for the wives and dependants of our serving men.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think we are all agreed in regard to the clear statement which the hon. Member opposite has given us with regard to this complicated question, and I think I should be consulting the convenience of the House if, without going over his points, I say I think there must be general agreement with the changes he has proposed with very great moderation. His distinction between the wives under the two circumstances seems to me to be an unfair distinction that will require a good deal of justification from my right hon. Friend opposite. There is one point in the arrangement on which I desire to speak which has been impressed upon me by deputations I have received, and which appear to me to be particularly hard and indeed unfair, I mean the postponement of the payment of these small allowances to these needy people to the 1st January. If the House will only think of that point hon. Members will see that it is particularly unjust and, under the circumstances
  1654
  that are likely to exist in the near future, it will be even worse than that. Supposing the peace arrangement of which there has been a happy announcement this afternoon go forward. Supposing we have peace with Austria, and with our greatest enemy of all within a few weeks? The tendency will be to make the circumstances easier in two or three months hence than they are to-day. It is quite unfair to ask these struggling people, who have to deal with hard circumstances and to pay high prices, to wait two or three months before they get the benefit of the additional allowances promised by the Government. Exactly the opposite course should have been taken. There ought to have been retrospective consideration given to them. I feel that is the point most open to criticism, and I am sure that it would give the greatest satisfaction outside if it could be met. I agree, generally, with all that has been said by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hogge), but on this point of postponing the increase for two or three months, I hope that many Members on both sides of the House will express the opinion that the increase should be given immediately to tide these poor people over circumstances which are very serious.
  Mr. TOOTILL: Like the last speaker, I want to express my personal obligation to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). I have taken a deep interest in this matter from the inception of the dependants' arrangements with a desire to make our fighting men more contented. Really the State ought to be the guardian of their dependants while they are absent from home. The State has taken the wage-earner from the home by law, and, therefore, by law the State ought to make adequate provision for the maintenance of those who are left at home. I have always felt that the inadequacy of the allowances made to the wives, widows, mothers, and dependants of our fighting men must tend to reduce their moral and their powers to beat the enemy and to do their duty as fighting men. On two occasions I have been to France, once upon the direct request of the late Lord Kitchener and a second time this year. I have seen horrible sights of devastation on the battle fronts, and, having seen what our men are enduring for the sake of us here at home, I feel that this House ought to rise to the occasion and to see that no one suffers unduly because of all that they are doing for us. I have always looked

  1655
  upon this question from that standpoint. I believe that the fear that these men have that those at home are not being properly cared for and provided for, has a very discouraging and deterrent effect upon them. When demobilisation comes, and these men return to their homes and hear all these reports regarding the greatest possible privations suffered on account of the inadequacy of the allowances, I fear that discontent will arise, and will hamper and impede the development of reconstruction matters. I have all along been anxious for the promotion and development of national unity. It has been my theme from the beginning of this War. If the Government had realised the position, and had dealt with this matter practically and generously, nay, justly, as they ought to have done, I believe that a lot of the industrial discontent would have been avoided.
  The Government have not seen that these poor people have had sufficient to keep the wolf from the door. The taxpayers of the country, as far as I have been able to judge, are quite willing that the Government should undertake this financial responsibility in a more generous spirit. I have not forgotten the very dramatic style in which my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, presented his petitions. I suppose it was the Scottish way. I have a petition which I have not yet presented, but which has been got up by the élite, so-called, or by the leading taxpayers in my Constituency, demanding increased allowances, expressing their obligations for what has already been done, and referring to the feebleness of the attempt that has been made to meet the new conditions of things. I feel that enough has not been done, and that there will be grave and serious complaints in the workshops and in the homes in regard to this matter. If the Government had really been anxious to promote industrial unity and civil concord and peace, they might have doubled the £16,000,000 without it being considered excessive. Like the last speaker, I feel that we are to a large extent indebted to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh for the close study he has given to this subject, for the indefatigable exertions that he has put forward in straightening the matter out, and for the public interest that has been created by his endeavours. I believe, if the Government adopt a more generous policy in this
  1656
  matter, that they will have the general approval of the taxpaying public; and I agree with the last speaker that instead of making these increases prospective, they ought to make them retrospective.
  Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: Some of us who are interested in pensions, and who represent the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau, have gone into this matter with some care, and have put down a Motion, perhaps in not quite such sweeping terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and perhaps animated by a different spirit. We feel, first of all, that we ought to recognise that a very considerable advance has been made, and, so far as it has gone, we gladly welcome that advance. But there are a good many lacunæ still in existence, and a good many points which still merit criticism. We hope that the representatives of the various Departments concerned, who sit in such close and formidable phalanx on the Front Bench, may be able to give our criticisms some consideration. A good deal has been said about the childless wife. I remember some of the deadliest criticisms of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh being concerned with the position of the childless wife. She has now got consideration, but she has got consideration in a rather curious way, and I am afraid it is a way that is bound to lead to difficulties. The memorandum which was read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th October, refers to the fact that the behaviour of the local war pensions committees is very unequal. We know in another connection that the Minister of Pensions is bringing in a Bill, which many of us are considering closely, for making the work of all war pensions committees more effective and, I trust, more equal on good lines. It is admittedly the fact that the work of the war pensions committees is unequal. Some committees are good, some are indifferent, and I am afraid that we must admit that some are bad. You are putting on the war pensions committees a burden which, I am afraid, will make their work even more unequal, because you are giving them a discretion and, at the same time, a direction which it will be extremely difficult for them to interpret. The memorandum points out that:
  "the Grants for the childless wife are to be paid as a matter of course in every case where

  1657
  the woman is unable to work, was accustomed to work, or where she is unable to obtain work without change of residence."
  We know that there has been a little cut and thrust at Question Time over the meaning of those words, and we have got so far that "unable to work" means unable to work, but not very much further. I am afraid when we impose that burden upon the war pensions committees, admittedly unequal in administration, that one of two things will happen. Either you will get great differences as between one local war pension committee and another—they will try to carry out what they conceive to be the proper definition of "unable to work," and some will interpret it one way and some another—or, what is much more likely, they will give it up as a bad job and will vote the 6s. 6d. in every case. I think the proposal puts a wrong onus on the war pensions committees. They have, admittedly, a very difficult job. Regulations are issued to them day after day in vast quantities. They are usually understaffed, as their members are at the War and a scratch staff has had to be constructed, and they are working under immense pressure of time and place, and to impose upon them a burden of this kind seems to me, to put it lightly, very unfortunate. I am disposed to think, unless the Government can evolve some better definition as to the kind of case where the 6s. 6d. is to be granted and give some definite direction to committees, they had much better have a flat rate altogether. As it is, we are almost inviting the war pensions committees to disregard the Government direction and to vote the 6s. 6d. on every occasion.
  There are one or two other points in the proposals which are a little on the narrow side. For instance, in the case of two children in a household the raising of the rate by 2s. is a very small amount. I was in Salford last week and I saw a good many people with grievances about pensions. In one case, a grandmother was looking after her two grandchildren, whose mother was dead. She was in the position of a parent towards them and she was getting 16s. 6d. They were nearly fourteen. She says, quite rightly, she cannot feed two strong children on 16s. 6d. a week at present prices. The Government is raising it to 18s. 6d. There, again, I am disposed to think they certainly have not erred on the side of generosity. I know the administrative difficulties, but I would
  1658
  urge the Government, in view of the great pressure in the poor areas and in view of the great rise in prices, to bring these Clauses (b), (c), and (j) into operation before 1st January next. If the main thing can be brought into operation on 1st November I should have thought we might look forward to a little more expedition with regard to (b), (c), and (j). On behalf of the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau Executive Committee we gratefully accept the advance made, but we think there is still room for improvement with regard to the separation allowances.
  Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am in accord with all that has been said in support of increased allowances except that I think previous speakers have not gone as far in pressing the Government as-they might have done. I believe Governments never yield except under the-sternest pressure of the Division Lobby. All appeals to sympathy, justice, righteousness, or any of the nobler virtues, fall on deaf ears on the Front Bench. I shall be supported in that by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), who now represents what is left of the Opposition. Being in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, I hope he will endorse what I say. I raised this question in August, 1914, and I always face it from the point of view of the soldier and his wife as a most essential portion of the community in time of war. I would appeal to the Front Bench to face the facts as they are to-day. The general position now is quite different since our last Debate on this question—the collapse of Bulgaria, the collapse of Turkey, the splendid news which we have heard to-day, the impending collapse of Austria-Hungary, and the notorious fact that the Germans and the Allied Powers may be at this very moment discussing the terms of unconditional surrender of the Hun hordes. That alters the whole situation in reference to the payment of allowances and pensions. We have reached our maximum direct war expenditure. It never can be as much again as it has been in the past on direct war affairs. It ought never to be forgotten that the future of this country—its stability or otherwise—depends upon the dependants, the bereaved of sailors and soldiers and those who come back, mutilated or in good health, and unless the Government grants reasonable increases in these allowances there is not a sailor's or a soldier's dependant who comes within the ambit of our Debate to-day who will not come back

  1659
  to civil life with a grievance, and, as I think, a justifiable grievance, and being in that state of mind which will make him more inclined to face and to fight Governments than to come back to the routine and possibly the monotony of civil life. I appeal, therefore, to the Government to view the question from the new point of view. We are not now dealing with the state of things in 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917. We are dealing with the question on the very eve of demobilisation, at any rate in so far as a very large portion of our forces is concerned.
  The soldier also has a grievance always present with him because of the almost grim contrast between his own and his dependants' position and that of those who have stayed at home in industrial occupation and their dependants. If a man wants an increase of wage to-day he threatens to strike and gets it. It is to no one's interest to stop paying wages now. All concerns practically being controlled, the increased cost does not come out of anyone's pocket except the taxpayers. The soldier was limited in the first part of the War to a shilling a day, with allotments deducted by compulsion, and later to 1s. 6d. a day. He suffers in the main as no home worker ever could suffer. His dependants are the worst clothed, the worst fed and the worst housed members of the community now. He knows that, whether he is in the deserts of Egypt, dying of malaria in Salonika, or dying, as they are even now, by the thousand a week on the French Front. The soldier has another grievance by contrast. He is fighting shoulder to shoulder and just as well as American and Dominion and Colonial troops. The Colonial and American troops are paid three or four times as much as he is. Their dependants are treated not too generously, but with a generosity which makes the efforts of this Government or preceding Governments not only mean but contemptible. My view is that the people of this country are just as willing to treat the bereaved of the men who have saved the country, and the dependants of men who have come back and the men themselves who come back, as generously as any soldiers who have served in this great war are treated by any country in the world. That is the soldier's view as well as mine and he will have a just grievance until his view, which I think is also the country's view, is met by the Government. It has always
  1660
  seemed to me so singularly out of touch with the real soldier and sailor who have been fighting and dying but happily winning the war.
  I submit that with these facts before the Government the time has come for them to deal with these questions in a more generous way, and not to take the cold, official pre-war view of the soldier and sailor. In those days the soldier could be and was often treated with contempt and neglect. I am glad to see we have the first Pensions Minister and a member of the War Cabinet here, the only member of the War Cabinet, I believe, who has not gone to some front or other in an aeroplane. I am glad one member of the War Cabinet is left to look after the home front. I would point out to him that now we are dealing with a nation in arms and not with an army of old contemptibles as in pre-war days. Your treatment of soldiers and sailors and their dependants now will be to me at any rate an index of your capacity to deal with all these reconstruction problems we hear so much about. Take the case of the childless wife. Recently, she received a grant under certain restrictions—an increase of 6s. 6d.—but she could not get it unless she could prove that she was unable to work. I will go into the Lobby if I can get anyone to help me in opposing this system of dealing with the childless wife. You discriminate between the wife of a poor man and the wife of a rich man. The men themselves are sharing common troubles and risking a common sacrifice. I object to this differentiation. It is a mean and an unworkable discrimination. To leave it to the discretion of the local pensions committees to decide whether or not a childless wife should get the 6s. 6d., is to make the administration of the whole pensions scheme uneven, uncertain and unfair. The only solution is to make this a flat rate and raise it to 19s. 6d. That is not in my mind adequate to meet not only the increased but the increasing cost of living. There is no sign that the cost of living will decline for months or even years after the War. This discriminating increase of 6s. 6d. to the childless wife cannot be maintained if the Government is really desirous of treating fairly this very large and well deserving class of the womanhood of the country.
  5.0 P.M.
  I take one further point, the question of the widow and her children in contrast with married wives and their children. The first child of a widow gets 6s. 8d.

  1661
  The first child of a wife gets 10s. 6d. according to the new scheme. How can you justify that difference? The three first children of a widow get 15s. 10d., while the three first children of a wife get 24s. How can you justify that difference? On the contrary, the difficulties of a widow are greater than the difficulties of a wife. She has lost her man in the War. These pensions never take into consideration the irreparable loss, the broken heart and the lessened opportunities of the boys and girls The pension is as cold as the tombstone over the dead soldier so far as these things are concerned. Here is a mathematical difference which you cannot justify. I insist—and I will go into the Lobby if I can get one Member to follow me or help me—upon the allowance to the widow being raised here and now to 24s. for her first three children, on an equality with the promised amount to be given to a wife on the 1st of January. You have given a flat rate of 5s. to the permanent dependants of soldiers between eighteen and twenty-six. I submit that that is inadequate. I think you should at least add to that 2s. 6d. I think it is obvious on the face of it that most of these young fellows have gone from their homes at the very time when their parents in many cases had spent the last farthing on their education or on their apprenticeship, and there is no incoming revenue from the lusty youth who has been killed in the War.
  Here are my points, and I hope the House will support me and that we shall compel the Government to toe the mark and do justice. I ask that the 6s. 6d. to the childless wives be made a flat rate, that the three first children of the widow be given 24s., equal to the rate now given to the first three children of the wife, and that the 5s. given to the parent dependants of soldiers between eighteen and twenty-six be raised to 7s. 6d., and that the present allowance to the wives be raised at least 2s. 6d., making it 15s. Remember that this allowance to the wife has not been increased since the War. That point is often forgotten. It is true that the 3s. 6d. which was under compulsion deducted from her husband's pay—one of the meanest deductions in the history of the War—has been added to her original 9s., raising it to 12s. 6d., but that is a hopelessly inadequate income having regard to the pressure in her home, and in every home connected with the soldier's dependant. I think that all these increases
  1662
  should start, not from the 1st January of next year, but should start now, so that at the earliest possible opportunity grievances affecting hundreds and thousands of homes and influencing the minds and attitude of millions of soldiers should be remedied. We can do it now, and I hope the Government will be in accord with my views. I submit that a just grievance is a most certain cause of unrest, and that that grievance falls as it does in this case upon the homes of the noblest in the land. It should be the first duty of a Government alive to its opportunities to remedy these grievances. To fail to remedy it is a challenge to these gallant men who are coming back, and I for one will accept that challenge if thrown out, and will support sailor or soldier against this or any other Government who have failed to realise their duty and to remedy just grievances which command redress.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I should like to emphasise a number of the points which have already been laid before the House with considerable force by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and subsequent speakers. The gratitude that some of us have expressed, in the words of the Resolution on the Paper, is accompanied by lively anticipations of favours to come, which we shall expect as a result of this Debate. The whole of the points which were brought forward by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I think, met with general acceptance. The fault of all these lists is that there are inequalities of treatment which confuse and irritate women who are living as neighbours in the same street and men who are fighting side by side and facing death side by side. These differences are inexplicable as well as confusing, and I wish the list could be made so that such differences could be avoided. The only way to do it now is to raise the lists in several respects. In regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Hamar Greenwood) that the 12s. 6d. does not represent a rise and that the 3s. 6d. which was formerly deducted from the husband's pay has been taken off, I may say that the 3s. 6d. was very often sent back by the wife to the husband in certain circumstances. In regard to the question as to payment being made now or on the 1st January I hope that even if financial arrangements cannot be made so that the actual money will be paid over now I trust that when it is paid over it will be made to date from

  1663
  the 1st November. It may not be possible now to commence the payment for this week, but I think you ought to let it accrue from this week. At the present time people are suffering from lack of that money, and it would ease them to know that it is coming. The fact that they know now that it is coming rather increases the feeling of poverty.
  Strong representations have been made to me from Bury, particularly in regard to the childless wife. The widow has more than the childless wife. The wife has to keep the house going for the husband. She has to keep the door open, and when he comes on leave he sees her in the condition in which the 12s. 6d. enables her to live. What about his home-coming when he comes back wounded, disabled and discharged? He sees then the comparison between his home and other homes. I have received word from a chaplain of talks with the men when they come back from visiting their homes. There is a very sad feeling when they find the difference between the way in which their wives and their children are living and the way in which the wives and children of their mates who have stayed at home are living. Of all cases this is one in which there ought to be no niggardliness. Looked at merely financially this is one of the cases where the allowance will come to an end when the man returns. Let him at least feel that his wife and children have been treated as well as any others. The point has also been fairly well developed as to the children of widows receiving less than the children of wives. The children of widows cannot look forward to the father coming home and raising the general status of the family. The soldier may come back, and he may look forward, say, to becoming an overseer or getting some other rise in the industrial world. There is no great hope of that kind for the widow and for the children of the widow. If you do not wish or if it is not desirable to raise the allowance, at any rate let them have a war bonus. We are hoping in a little while that the prices will come down, and I cannot help thinking that very probably there has been in the minds of those who were fixing the allowances for the children of widows the thought that these allowances may go on for years.
  In regard to the increase given to the childless wife on certain conditions, I am sure these conditions will cause a great
  1664
  deal of heartburning, involving investigation into personal questions. I am told that it is arranged that this increase shall practically be given in all cases. Then why not have made it a flat rate? In regard to the apprentices' allowance, I think apprentices have been very badly treated from the very beginning. What of the apprentices who volunteered and went at once? They went by the thousand, if not from the borough, at any rate from the district, which I represent. Because they went, the allowance to their dependants is that of an apprentice, whereas the dependants of those who stayed behind are getting higher allowances. Again, this means that mothers living in the same street are getting a greater allowance than others. I understand there are certain cases where a basis has been adopted by the Special Grants Committee of considering the increases of wages in the trades in which soldiers were employed since their enlistment. That increase is taken into account, and not the status of the man as he was in 1914, but the rate of wages which he would have been getting if he were in his trade at the present moment. Much more ought that to apply to apprentices. The apprentice has gone, and his mother is now receiving 5s. In the case, say, where a man was receiving 36s. in 1914, if he is now receiving 50s. the wife may get more; but if the son were working, he would be an adult now, and would get that 50s., and it really does seem to me a very strong claim in some of these cases. I am told particularly, of course, of the widows that something extra certainly is due to them, and I think my hon. Friend put it very mildly when he put it at 2s. 6d. May I press a point that I think has been laid before Ministers before, and it is that there should be a statement given to all these women as to the supplementary sums they can obtain. It is said that if you send a summary that misleads them. Well, do not send a summary; send a statement of all the supplementary moneys that may be obtained, with an indication of where the proper forms of application and proper conditions can be obtained. I sincerely hope when the Minister speaks he will be able to satisfy us on some of these points, particularly the widow's children and the wives of the soldiers who are coming back. I cannot help feeling we have been a little dilatory; I do not like us to have reached the end of the War, and still to have this feeling that we

  1665
  have to be hammering away, perhaps not so vigorously as the hon. Member who has spoken from the other side (Sir Hamar Greenwood), but with the feeling that we have not quite adequately dealt with these people whose sons and husbands are doing so nobly for us in the field.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir Hamar Greenwood) started his most admirable speech by making some reflections on the Government. I am afraid it is a very old text, and whoever turned to Hansard during the past three or four months would have some material on which to support the general propositions laid down by the hon. Member for Sunderland. We have been told it is necessary to economise, and then we were told that some increase could have been given. We are now discussing the second scale issued within a few weeks of the one before, and that scale, still inadequate, has been accompanied by various memoranda about which some comment has been made this afternoon. The first point that has received the attention of hon. Members is the position of childless wives. There may be good reasons why there should be a substantial gulf fixed between the allowance given to the childless wife and the allowance given to the wife with children. It may be said it is an exceedingly bad policy for the Government to give allowances so large as to encourage a very large number of women who could work, and whose work is necessary to refrain from working. Well, there may be something to be said for that, but there is nothing to be said for keeping the scale at its present level of 12s. 6d. or for allowing it to be supplemented by the method proposed in the memoranda. What is the method? A woman entitled Co the scale, the flat rate of 12s. 6d., contends that she ought to get her 6s. 6d. extra. Now who settles it? The local pensions committee, and as my hon. Friend who has just spoken comments quite accurately, the local pensions committee has either to inquire or discriminate or to refuse to inquire and give the flat rate of 19s. Now, if the local pensions committee inquires and discriminates as to whether the woman is able to work or not—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not discriminate!"] It discriminates as to whether a woman is able to work or not—if my word included the other thing I had no intention—what I mean is if the local committee
  1666
  has Mrs. A. in front of it and Mrs. A. says, "I cannot work and should not be asked to work, therefore give me 19s.," the local pensions committee has to make inquiries about her, and as a result of the inquiries has to make up its mind whether the 12s. 6d. shall be granted or 19s. There is nobody who can visualise the actual process of that operation without standing aghast at the proposition that it should be made a way of settling whether 12s. 6d. or 19s. shall be paid. The members of the committee will find it a hopeless task. In 90 per cent. of cases they will give it up, and the result will be that to all intents and purposes a flat rate will be paid.
  I do not know if my right hon. Friend's face means that he expects that that should be done, but it is a very bad way of doing it. Why cannot we have a flat rate? If it is his expectation that a flat rate will be paid why not have it in any event? The sum of 6s. 6d. is far too big to be the subject of a settlement by the local pensions committee. If there is any substance in my idea I think we understand whether we reject it or not on consideration. If there is anything in the Government idea that the scale of payment to a childless wife ought to be supplemented either by work or by a further Grant, even then the scale of payment should be above 12s. 6d., because, in that way putting less importance on the decision of the local committee, you will give the local committee a much less impossible task to perform, and there will be some rational discrimination made between woman and woman. I do hope the Government will abandon the idea altogether and give a flat payment to the childless wife that really represents the responsibilities she has to shoulder while her husband is abroad. The other point is the date. The point has been made in a previous Debate, though it was not made, I think, to-day, that while the Government admits that its scales have been inadequate by improving them, it has no business to postpone the date when they come into operation. Again I think one knows what is in the Government's mind. It is a tremendous task to change a scale; we all admit it. One has again only to visualise the enormously complicated and cumbersome machinery Ministers have to work in connection with pensions and separation allowances, and so on. Yes, but that is no answer. You admit your

  1667
  separation allowances are inadequate. Very well, then, if they are inadequate then the women, whilst they are waiting for the machine to get on its new gear, so to speak, are suffering, are being screwed down, are bearing a burden which you yourselves admit they ought not to bear, and in many cases it means debt. I have heard of cases—the other day I had them given me from my own Constituency—where women who are honest and honourable and doing their best, who were not extravagant, who were good housekeepers and doing their duty to their children and their homes, cannot make ends meet on the present separation allowances in relation to the price of food and the general cost of living.
  What is the plain, logical, common-sense position to take? The Government has stated that in January they are going to increase allowances, and in the meantime these women, from the beginning of November—and, in fact, a little bit earlier, but at any rate, from the beginning of November to the beginning of January—have got to go on with this pile of debt constantly increasing and making it more and more difficult to extricate themselves from it. This question of the date, therefore, is not one of Government convenience. If it were their case would be absolutely unanswerable; it is a question of justice to people who at present are not getting adequate consideration at the hands of the Government. Therefore I press the Government to reconsider this question of date. They have no excuse for postponement except administrative difficulties, but administrative difficulties are not sufficient justification for postponing a just obligation to other people. If there is any trouble about it I think perhaps the local war pensions committee might be asked to assist in that respect, but I make no proposal at all. I ground myself on the simple statement of justice that if the Government owes something to these women, it ought to pay its debts now and not postpone them for two months. A great deal has been said with which I quite agree about the differences between the treatment for one, two, three children and so on. I want to make a much simpler question of the scale. The scale is inadequate right through. Whatever its grading may be—it may be good, bad or indifferent—the scale is inadequate. In October, 1914, the Government issued its first considered scale, because the scale
  1668
  before came from the other days, but when the War broke out and the new conditions of warfare forced the Government to take a totally different view of its obligation from what had been taken in the pre-war days, one of the first things the Government did was to sit down and consider what the proper scale of separation allowances ought to be. That came into force on 1st October, 1914; it was in force from the 1st October to the 8th November, 1914, according to the official statement. I am quite content to take that as a basis. Now, since then, money has deteriorated in value, and what the Government has to do, and I should like to know why it has not done it, is to pay to-day the 1914 scale as a real payment, paid pound for pound, not nominally but taking one pound as an equivalent for a demand for goods in the market. I, therefore, want the Government to tell us why it is not paying the childless wife a sum of money to-day which gives her precisely the same command in the market as the 12s. 6d. which the Government paid her on 1st October, 1914.
  I confess that it is not a simple proposition, but I think that it is perfectly fair. If there had been a trade union of wives they would have seen to this, and if the soldier were in the position of the engineer and could organise to enforce his demands, his wife and children would have been better looked after. Since 1914, according to the "Board of Trade Gazette" for October, because there has been an increase during the month of September, the increase is not 118 but 127 per cent. But there is something else to be taken into consideration. A very competent housewife with whom I was discussing housekeeping accounts said to me the other day: "The difficulty with you men is this You get your Board of Trade figures and you imagine that they tell the whole story. They do not, and I will give you a definite instance. Not only have prices gone up, but qualities have gone down," and when you get a working-class woman as this was with three children to shod and clothe, the cost has not gone up simply in accordance with the increase in price of a pair of boots, but more pairs of boots have to be bought in the twelve months in order to keep the children shod in the same state of efficiency as that in which they were shod in 1914 before the War broke out.
  It is the same with clothing. It does not wear so long as it used to, and so on.

  1669
  Therefore, if one takes the Board of Trade figures, one is well within the mark in saying that an increase of separation allowance to the Board of Trade scale would barely represent the money from the purchasing point of view that was paid in 1914. But what do we find? The wife in 1914 got 12s. 6d.; she is now getting 19s. I will give the 6s. 6d. One hundred and twenty seven per cent. is 27s. 6d. She is so much the worse than the woman with 12s. 6d. in 1914 by the difference between 19s. and 27s. 6d. under the present scale. A wife and one child in 1914 got 15s., under the new scale she will get on the 1st of January next 23s. The purchasing value of 15s. in 1914 is represented now by 33s., so that there is a difference between 23s. and 33s. The wife with two children got 17s. 6d. in 1914. The present value of 17s. 6d. is 38s. 6d., and she is only going to get 31s. under the new scale. The wife with three children got 20s. in 1914. The present value of 20s. is 44s., and she is only going to get 34s. 6d. I give the final case that was taken. The wife and four children got 24s. in 1914. The present value of that is 48s. 6d., and she is going to get 40s. These differences are much too great, because it is not money—one cannot emphasise that too often—that people want. It is the power to buy something for people to wear and consume. From that point of view, the new separation allowances, when they come into force in January, though nominally very much bigger than the allowances in 1914, in reality are very substantially below that level.
  I do not know why the Government did not carry out the 1914 scale. If it had done that, it would have acted very reasonably to soldiers' wives and children; but, until it does that, we cannot consider that it has acted fairly. Everyone who is in touch with social work of a philanthropic kind, or any other kind, with the visitation of working-class districts, with the admirable body of women who are doing social welfare work in our munition factories, and so on, and is in touch with doctors, must know that the separation allowances for the last two years have been totally inadequate, and that in a great many cases, in spite of the increases, those allowances do not place the soldiers' wives and families on the same level of comfort that they enjoyed in 1914, and I beg the Government, as to the childless wife, regarding the date and the scale itself, to reconsider
  1670
  the whole matter generously and not to be backward in improving it if it can possibly be managed.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Before I come to details, I may make one or two general reflections. In the first place it must seem ungracious, whatever your reason may be, not to say "yes" to any request which any responsible person may make here on behalf of the wives and children of the men who have so loyally and so patiently defended us all. I have that feeling, I frankly confess, in all these Debates. I do not pretend that you can measure and repay in money what these men are doing for us, but you are bound at least, heavy though your other commitments may be, to make all the provision within your power for the care of the women and children of these men, and I do think that it would be entirely unjust and unfair to say that the three succeeding war Governments and the House of Commons throughout the War have not tried sincerely to discharge their duty in this respect, and have not tried to reflect in their measures the deep sense of obligation to our fighting men under which the country rests, and which the country is sincerely anxious to recognise. I would like to say this further, if I may—and I have been in touch with this question since before the War—that these men and their families owe a very great deal to the House of Commons, which has done no greater work during the War than that represented by the constant solicitude and inquiry which it has devoted to this particular problem. None of the Governments would have been allowed, even if they so desired—and it would be grossly unfair to say that the suspicion of that desire has ever arisen—to forget this problem for moment.
  I am bound also to say this: Departmental administration has been kept up continually to a high mark with the assistance of the House of Commons. Having said that much, I want to say one thing further. It must not be imagined, because a man sits on the Back Benches of this House, that therefore, while he is always palpitating with interest and solicitude concerning this problem, anyone who happens to be sitting on these benches at once becomes a hard-fisted curmudgeon, devoid of human sympathy and interest in this problem. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir Hamar Greenwood) rather suggested that. It is not true. The truth is that we all, wherever we sit, try to do our best in

  1671
  dealing with this problem. It so happens that I have been fortunate enough to have had a hand in the preparation of all these schemes from the beginning of the War since the 4th of August, 1914. The first scheme, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, revolutionised the pre-war provision. That was prepared at the instance of the then Cabinet by the then financial member of the Army Council and the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury and myself. The White Paper of the 9th November, 1914, upon which my hon. Friend bases the comparison which he draws, wiped out the old "on the strength" qualification for the wife of the soldier, a provision which ruled out all except a mere handful from any separation allowance of any sort, and gave no State pension to the woman unless she had been married to her husband "on the strength." It introduced for the first time a separation allowance in the Navy. It gave assistance to fathers, mothers, sisters, and other dependent relatives for the first time, and it improved out of all recognition the disability pensions and the widows' and orphans' pensions.
  I was very, glad to hear my hon. Friend recall that document to us, for, remembering the paltry pre-war precedents which we had before us to go on, and remembering how impossible for us it was to forecast the situation with which ultimately we should be confronted, I look back upon this document even to-day with feelings of the liveliest satisfaction. After discussion it was sent to a Select Committee, of which the present Prime Minister was chairman, while the Leader of the House was a member, and of its six members four are now members of the War Cabinet. That Committee discussed the whole matter for six months, and it improved the scheme of separation allowances for children which had been suggested in the White Paper of the 9th November and the scheme of widows' pensions. With regard to children's allowances, I would like the House to recall their history from that point. They have been increased twice since that date to meet the increased cost of living, and they will be increased again from the 1st of January next. The figures are worth looking at. As the discussion has turned mainly upon the soldier's wife and family, I am sure that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) the Financial Secretary to the War Office will not mind if I
  1672
  take those figures and deal with them. The Navy rates are lower, for reasons which have been stated in this House many times. Let us begin with the scale of the 9th November, 1914. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester quoted the figures. Take children first alone. The scale began—first child 2s. 6d., second 2s. 6d., third 2s. 6d. and fourth and succeeding children 2s. each. That was amended as from the 1st of March, 1915. It was amended again as from the 1st of January, 1917. It was amended again as from October this year, and by the way, my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) seemed to drop that improvement altogether from his calculation. It was amended again in October, 1918, and these are the figures now: For the first child under fourteen, 9s. 6d., as against the original 2s. 6d.; the second child under fourteen, 7s., as against the original 2s. 6d.; the third child under fourteen, 3s. 6d.; and the fourth and succeeding children, 3s. We come now to 1st January, 1919, for children under fourteen, and the increase for the first child is to 10s. 6d.; the second, 8s.; the third, 5s. 6d.; and the fourth and succeeding children, 4s. Similar improvements have been made in the scale for motherless children. I will come to the case of the childless wife later. Taking the soldier's family together, and compare what they received in November, 1914—that is my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester's own test—with the increase in January, 1919. My hon. Friend took the standard figures set forth in she OFFICIAL REPORT of November, 1917, and 1914, and he examined the State's Grants throughout; but, in addition, the State has shouldered the soldier's contribution of. 3s. 6d. The hon. Member for Leicester bases his case on the standard of 1914, and compares that with what will be the amount on 1st January, 1919.
  Mr. MACDONALD: I referred to the family income which the State declared to be necessary.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; but here is the provision made by the State in November, 1914, and here is the provision which will be made on 1st January, 1919, and I think I can show that, by comparing the one with the other, the increases have not fallen far short of the increased cost of living. In the first place, there is the 3s. 6d. from the soldier's pocket, and, if

  1673
  we are to ascertain what the State is doing, these are the figures as they stood in November, 1914, wife and one child, 11s. 6d.; to-day, in October, the scale is 22s., and on 1st January, 1919, it will be 23s.; wife and two children, November, 1914, 14s., now 29s., and on 1st January, 1919, it will be 31a.; wife and three children, November, 1914, 16s. 6d., to-day 32s. 6d., 1st January, 1919, 36s. 6d.; wife and four children, November, 1914, 18s. 6d., to-day 35s. 6d., and on 1st January, 1919, 40s. 6d. I am not adding to that the provision for the London allowance, and I am not assuming any contribution from the father; but the soldier's 3s. 6d., shouldered by the State, I think has been overlooked. Although the State has taken over the 3s. 6d., many of the men have allowe their contribution to go on. As far as the State contribution is concerned compared with 1914, the increase is round about 100 per cent., and on 1st January, 1919, it will be 100 per cent. precisely in the case of the wife and one child, and above 100 per cent. in every other case. I think the figures show as a result, first of all, of the inquiry by the Select Committee and of the inquiries by what was called the Carson War Cabinet Committee, and by what is called the Barnes War Cabinet Committee, which is still sitting, that the State allowance does keep pace with the cost of living. Hon. Members may say that we have not quite achieved our purpose, but I do submit to the House that a very real effort has been made to see that the State allowance keeps pace with the cost of living. Then there is the local pensions committee working through the Special Grants Committee of the Ministry of Pensions. They are not giving charity, but are making supplementary allowances and, in one way or another, they are disbursing at the present time wholly from public funds about a million and a half of money per year.
  6.0 P.M.
  Then there is the Civil Liabilities Committee, that gives assistance in respect of contractual obligations exceeding 12s. a week, for rent, insurance premium, hire purchase, and so on. Their present annual commitment is about £5,000,000 (Army and Navy), including assistance to officers—probably far more to officers than to the rank and file. As regards this, my view is that these poor people really do not get to know fully what assistance is open to them. Recently the Ministry of Pensions have done a most useful piece
  1674
  of work in circulating a leaflet with the "ring paper," stating in simple terms what additional allowances or grants people may apply for. Two points have been raised to-night; the bringing forward of the January scheme and the further raising of the allowances. As regards the former, the Chairman of the War Cabinet Committee is here. He will, I know, consider it. As regards the latter, I can give no undertaking. As regards the childless wife, take the wife of a private and corporal. She commenced the war with 9s. a week, and the allotment concessions made it 12s. 6d. The new rule makes it 19s. if for any reason she is unable to work. If she is strong and active and able to work, the State is glad to avail itself of her services at the current rate of wages, and many, of course, are glad of occupation which not only helps to meet the needs of the day, but is a merciful distraction from the ever-present anxiety inseparable from the absence of the husband in the field. I have here a copy of a Circular issued to-day which gives the precise regulations with regard to childless wives as follows:
  "The intention of His Majesty's Government is that the supplement under this Regulation, so far as childless wives are concerned, shall be treated as an addition to the flat rate allowance to meet the increased cost of living, subject only to the condition that it shall not be granted if the applicant is earning, or in the opinion of the local committee, is able to earn. The test of inability to earn will be interpreted as before, that is, a wife who is unaccustomed to work should not be required to do so, nor should a wife be expected to change her residence because suitable work is not available within a reasonable distance of her residence. A childless wife is entitled to an allowance under this Regulation, notwithstanding that she is in receipt of a Grant from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department."
  I cannot think that the provision made merits the severe criticisms that have been passed upon it in some quarters. I do not take the slightest objection to what has been said my by hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the grant to the first three children of wives, and the first three children of widows?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid it is quite impossible at the moment to go into these complex and multifarious schemes, but points like that raised do not after all touch the heart of the problem. I

  1675
  know how hardly the present prices press upon these poor people, and undoubtedly if the War goes on we must watch, as we always have done, and be ready to come to the House, as may be necessary, with such proposals as shall seek to shield them as far as possible from hardship. We cannot relieve their minds from the ever present anxiety concerning their husbands which war inflicts upon them, but we must do all we can to see that they are protected from harassing apprehension concerning their own daily needs and those of their children.
  Sir HENRY HARRIS: I think the Government are entitled to thanks for the new separation allowances. They certainly represent a very considerable advance on the previous scale as we can realise from the fact that their total estimated cost exceeds £16,000,000. But though we express our approval of what has been done I do not think that can prevent us from offering criticisms upon what we consider to be those respects in which the proposals fall short of what is necessary and just. My first general criticism is that I wish the Government would not deal with separation allowances by fits and starts. That is really the only language in which to describe the matter. We have a new scale of separation allowances which came into operation at the beginning of this month, and now we have new rates, some of which are to come into operation at the beginning of next month and some at the beginning of January. The reason for the new increased rates were just as cogent a few months ago as they are now, while the inconvenience of increasing separation allowances at short notice is very great. Local committees are often criticised, but they are often put to very great difficulty by what takes place. They have to reassess a large number of cases because of increased separation allowances, and I do think that that ought to be taken into consideration. Local committees have to meet with a good deal of prejudice, but I would point out the impossible position in which they are at times placed by the Government. Look at the position. To-morrow the new allowance for childless wives comes into operation, and the committee rooms are crowded with the applicants. My committee awaited but did not receive any official instructions on the subject. We were very interested to fee them, but we had not up to yesterday. I really must
  1676
  say something about the position of the childless wife from the point of view of the local committee. The position which the Government took up in August last, as I understood it, was that the rate of allowance to childless wives should be fixed at a point which, while it did not compel the childless wife to seek employment, offered a strong inducement to her to do so, and that the flat rate should be supplemented through the instrumentality of the local committees.
  The flat rate was to be supplemented where the wife was physically unfit or unable for other reasons to take employment. I agree that if that could have been done with all round equality little injustice or hardship would have been inflicted, though the amount of the grants was 4s., and not the 6s. 6d. now proposed. But, as has been recognised, the administration of local committees is very unequal, and it is unequal not only because the local committees may not have always realised what they could do, or may have been inefficient in some cases, but it has been unequal because there is much room for much difference of opinion as to what are the reasons which justify a woman in saying that she cannot work. I know that after a good deal of practical experience. The Government have tried to meet that difficulty by their new proposal, and the Ministry of Pensions is issuing a Circular calling the attention of the local committees to the alterations in the Regulations dealing with this problem as approved by the Government. It is pointed out that the grants to childless wives "are to be paid as a matter of course in every case." If it stopped there, it would be quite simple, but the Regulation goes on, "where the woman is unable to work or unaccustomed to work or where she is unable to obtain work without change of residence." I am bound to say I think that the Government has given away the whole position. It seems to me that it is extremely difficult to decide if a woman is unaccustomed to work. Take the case of two sisters, one of whom goes out and the other stays at home and works there. I object, also, to the introduction of this "unaccustomed to work" regulation, because it seems to me to be entirely contrary to the spirit of the time, when everyone is working, whether peer or peasant's daughter.
  Mr. ALDEN: In this case, it is an advantage to be unaccustomed to work.
  Sir H. HARRIS: It is; but I do not think that anybody wants to claim that advantage now. I think that the Government will have to fix a flat rate, which should not be so high as to be an encouragement to women not to work, as we want every able-bodied adult, man or woman, to work in these times. That flat rate should be supplemented where the woman is physically unfit to work, so as to bring her up to the pre-war standard of living, I do not want to go into the details of the question as to whether the present scale of separation allowances is adequate or not. It always seemed to me that, in order to settle that question, you would require to sit around a table and argue it out, and that it is not a subject you can very easily argue in the House. Let me deal for a moment with the matter from the general point of view. Flat rates are sufficient in some places and for some classes, but they are not sufficient in every place to maintain the pre-war standard of living. Curiously enough, the price of food seems to differ in different places. It is of course intended to meet that difficulty, and to a large extent it is met by supplementary allowances. Some people, I think, do not know how much can be done by those allowances. Take the new Regulation which enables local committees to make grants in respect of contractual liabilities up to 12s. per week. That has not come really into full effect, and I am quite certain a great many people never would have thought of applying to the Special Grants Committee who are now applying to the local committees and are getting help in consequence. But, unfortunately, these supplementary allowances are hedged round by over-elaborate and some-what complicated regulations, and I think more might have been done on the part of the people administering them. I do ask the Government whether they could not try to make it possible to remedy the inequality which must arise in connection with the flat rate by making the procedure more simple and by instructions to the committees. The Ministry of Pensions, instead of trying to establish bureaucratic central control, ought to try to help the local committees, to instruct them, and to assist them in every way, and thus endeavour to remedy these in-equalities which are bound to arise when you have to deal with a flat-rate system. I hope that the Government will take into consideration the criticisms which have been offered to-day.
  Mr. SUTTON: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has delivered a very glowing speech about what was paid at the commencement of the War and what is being paid to-day. It is perfectly true that great improvements have been made, and increases given but to my mind those increases are not sufficiently large. Take the case of the flat rate for the wife of 12s. 6d. My right hon. Friend said that the Government allowed 9s. at the commencement of the War, and that the husband contributed 3s. 6d. Now, the Government are allowing the full 12s. 6d. It is true there is the increase of 3s. 6d. on the 9s. from the Government, but remember that is in four years, and that is nothing in comparison with the increased price of commodities which has occurred, at least during the past three years. The husband may be 3s. 6d. better off, but you have to remember that many of these men have to purchase articles where they are stationed, and these articles, during the first two or three years, have increased for them as well. Even food. I have heard soldiers say that many times they have had to go to the Y.M.C.A.s and other places and purchase a certain amount of food, because, perhaps, they might not have been able to get sufficient, and so had to spend a certain amount of money. Therefore, if that 3s. 6d. has been sacrificed to themselves. I believe they have had to pay extra on the tobacco and food which they have had to purchase. To my mind, the 3s. 6d. allowed at the present time to the wife is not sufficient. Twelve and six-pence! I stated in the House some little time ago that it was said that these people could get a certain amount from the Civil Liabilities Committee; that in thousands of cases these people have been unable to keep their homes on by means of the 12s. 6d. which they have received; and they have had to go into lodgings, either with their parents or with someone they have known. The result is that the civil liabilities people and the local pensions committee have come to the conclusion that these people ought to exist on the 12s. 6d., seeing that they have not now a house of their own. But, if these people had been able to get a reasonable separation allowance, there would have been no need for them to have broken up their homes at all. Therefore, I contend that more than 12s. 6d. ought to be paid. While I am mentioning that, may I say,

  1679
  as a member of the executive committee of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, that only this week we have been pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the executive committee on this question of separation allowances and pensions for widows and for wives and also for children. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the statement that he had made by these figures was quite sufficient, and that there was no reason for meeting the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. We have decided again this week to press him to meet us because, at the annual conference at Southport, a resolution was passed asking the Government to increase the separation allowances to the wives beyond 12s. 6d., for an increase for the children, and for widows and orphans as well, when the husband had been killed. The Trade Unionists of this country feel very very strongly indeed on this matter. I contend that instead of 12s. 6d. being paid, even to the wife who has children and is going to get an increase for those children, that she herself ought to have more than that, although she is going to get an increase—a very small increase to my mind—for any children she may have.
  With reference to the childless wife, there you have the 12s. 6d. Many hon. Members have spoken about the additional 6s. 6d. if the wife is unable to work. I have had complaints, and I suppose other hon. Members have had complaints about people who go round visiting these women and who, when they have got into the house and have seen perhaps a nice, comfortable home, clean, have said, "It looks as if you were not needing very much now." But, if they had seen a house which was really not so clean and tidy, then perhaps the visitors would not have twitted them with looking respectable, or something like that. Complaints have been made many times, and I unhesitatingly say that instead of putting in this condition, "If unable to work," that these people ought to have a right to the additional 6s. 6d. beyond their 12s. 6d. The husband is unable to send any additional money because he has to pay extra for commodities, and the Government ought to be reasonable and to add this additional 6s. 6d. without the conditions as to whether the wife is unable to work or not. What do we find? There are many many women, childless wives of
  1680
  soldiers, who have been unable to work, and who have had to turn out to work on purpose to augment the paltry 12s. 6d. which is supplied them. Many of them have broken down, and many of them have applied, after breaking down, to the local pensions committee and have been refused assistance, because they have been told that they ought to continue work. Many of these women are under doctors; they have not been accustomed to working in the past; and their health has given way. Yet, because they may have worked at one time, perhaps six or twelve months ago, it will be said now, "You are able to work again, and you are not to have the additional 6s. 6d." My contention is that the 6s. 6d. ought to be paid them as a right, and that this condition ought to be excluded altogether.
  Take the minimum separation allowance for unmarried soldiers and sailors. A friend of mine, unfortunately, has just lost a lad. He was an apprentice. When he enlisted, early on in the War, he contributed 3s. 6d. to his parents, and the Government added 1s. 5d. to that 2s. 6d. Unfortunately, that lad has now been killed, and about three or four weeks ago the Government offered 3s. 6d. a week for a pension. The man came to see me—he is a man I have known for twenty odd years—and he has put in an appeal for more than 3s. 6d. I take it now that what he will get will be 5s. I signed his paper as a magistrate for the 3s. 6d. only last Monday evening, because he was told to accept that until the matter had been further considered. I contend that as the pension, when anything happens to a person, depends on the separation allowance, and that as this case, like tens of thousands of others, happened at the commencement of the War, when no perspective value had been taken into account for the unmarried soldier or sailor, that something more than the minimum pension of the minimum separation allowance of 5s. a week to dependants ought to be granted to these people. What is 5s. a week in these days? One hardly knows what to say about it. Therefore. I trust the Government will consider the advisability of increasing that 5s. to something like a reasonable figure, because, even if it were increased to 10s., it would not be worth much more than 5s. was a few-years ago. These people have made great sacrifices, and tens of thousands have been receiving nothing at all who ought to have been having something. A

  1681
  large number of boys paid their parents out of their wages, and when the boys enlisted the parents did not apply for any separation allowance. Thousands of these lads have since been killed, and the parents have made great sacrifices, but the Government has not contributed anything towards the parents during the last three or four years. I hope something will be done in this direction. I will not say much more, with the exception of this: The matter has gone on now for a long time; those of us especially who live in working-class districts are simply pulled out of the house by people constantly coming to us and pleading poverty on account of the small allowance made to them, either in separation allowances or in pensions. Therefore, I appeal to the Government, as this may be the last time that we shall be able to appeal to them on this question of separation allowances, after the good news that we have heard this afternoon, and if the news that we are expecting to hear before very long with reference to Germany comes. I do hope that this will be the last appeal, and that the Government will be manful enough to give decent separation allowances and pensions to those who need them in future.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: In dealing with this question we ought never to lose sight of the broad distinction which exists between our fighting men on the one hand and the men who live in safety at home and draw large wages—larger than they have ever drawn before—on the other. Let us remember that these men who live at home can themselves bring forward their own grievances and complaints; they can urge them and enforce them. They can agitate for an increase of wages, and so on; they can organise for an increase of wages, and they can, and sometimes—I fear too often—strike in order to enforce their demands. As for the fighting man, he does not strike, except strike the enemy. He cannot organise and agitate, and therefore we, as Members of this House, are bound to regard ourselves as trustees for him, and to see that whatever is right and reasonable and just is done. There is another point of vew from which we should look on these fighting men. Let us not forget, what I think sometimes people who live in safety at home are a little bit inclined to forget, what we owe them. But for these men on land and sea and in the air this country to-day would have been destroyed and ruined. Most of
  1682
  us, I dare say, would have lost, possibly our lives, certainly our freedom, and certainly the freedom of our country would have been lost for all time. That should not be forgotten, and to-day, when we see victory in sight, when we have heard the news that has been announced this afternoon, and look forward to that which may be announced within a short time, is it not an additional reason why we should remember the claims of these men, and that we should err, if we do err, on the side of generosity to these men to whom we owe everything by which we live and exist in this country?
  I am not going to repeat those arguments which have been used on both sides of the House this afternoon. There are, however, one or two special points to which I wish to draw attention very shortly. The first point is one which I think the Financial Secretary to the War Office would have to deal. It is the question of deductions which are made from the soldiers' allowances when they go into convalescent homes. I have to-day received a letter from the York Branch of the National Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors drawing attention to this point. They tell me that when a man is sent for convalescent treatment at Harrogate, 17s. 6d. is deducted from his allowance of 27s. 6d., for the reason that there is no hostel or convalescent home at Harrogate. They have to go into private billets, and, under these circumstances, instead of having 7s. deducted from their 27s. 6d., as would be the case if there were some hostel into which they could be received, they have 17s. 6d. deducted. If the facts are, as I am informed they are, I hope my right hon. Friend will see that this is put right.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): What my hon. and learned Friend is referring to is the man's pension. He is quoting the case of a discharged soldier. I am afraid I have nothing to do with that.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope there is someone here who has something to do with it. Perhaps my hon. Friend, who represents the Pensions Ministry in this House will bear it in mind, for if the facts are as I have stated, it appears to me to be a grave injustice, and one which ought to be remedied, and the remedy ought to be made retrospective. The mere fact that there is not a hostel in this particular place into which a man can be received

  1683
  surely ought not to prejudice the position of the soldier who is entitled to this convalescent treatment. Therefore, I do urge my hon. Friend to look into that and see it is put right. There is another point to which I wish to refer, and this may possibly be a matter for the President of the Local Government Board, but as he is not here to-day, I hope that one or other of my hon. Friends sitting on those benches will bring the matter before his notice. It is the matter of pre-enlistment income. In the case of grants made by the Civil Liabilities Department, as also in the case of allowances made by the local pensions committee, the maximum amount that can be granted, at any rate in many cases, if not in all cases, depends upon the amount of pre-enlistment income of the soldier. Now the strange thing is that in the case of the local war pensions committee grants, they estimate the pre-enlistment income on the basis of what it would have been on the 1st January, 1918, that is to say, upon a very much larger estimate than if they had estimated the actual pre-enlistment income when the soldier enlisted, say in 1914, 1915, or 1916, and so on; but in the case of grants made by the Civil Liabilities Department, as I understand it—and I am so informed by one of the Commissioners—the amount of the grant which they can give is limited by the consideration of the man's actual pre-enlistment income, in other words, the income which he had in 1914 or 1915, or the date at which he enlisted, which would be far smaller than it would have been in January, 1918. This is, to my mind, a grave injustice to the soldier. If anyone ought to be favoured, the man who en- listed in 1914 or 1915 ought to be in a better position than the man who enlisted in 1918, but, so far from that being so, the fact that he came forward voluntarily long before he was compelled to come forward, gravely prejudices his position, and makes the amount of grant given to his wife or dependants considerably less than it would have been if he had abstained from early enlistment, and had enlisted at a later date. I trust that one of my hon. Friends will convey that to the President of the Local Government Board. I have not the slightest doubt that if this matter comes to the War Cabinet—and I am glad to see a member of the War Cabinet here—they will be able to exercise their authority over the Treasury, or whoever is for the moment the obstructing body, and see that this is put right.
  1684
  There is another point in connection with these grants which are made by the Civil Liabilities Department to which I should like to draw attention. I have been informed that it would be far better if these grants were made weekly or fort-nightly by means of a paper, just as allowances are made. Many of these poor people cannot afford to wait a considerable time, and it is really a matter for consideration whether it would not be consistent with economy and efficient administration if these grants are made either weekly or fortnightly, as the case may be. There is one other point, and it is this: in my own experience—and I am sure it is shared by many other Members of this House—a very large number of these poor women—wives, widows and dependants—really do not know what their rights are, especially in regard to the supplemental allowances. I have received myself scores of letters in which they appear to be under the impression that all they are entitled to is what you may call the flat rate. They know nothing about special grants—or did not, at any rate, until recently—which they can get from the Civil Liabilities or the further grants which they can get from other sources. Would it not be possible to give some more publicity, so that they may know their rights better? I am told that in some cases a sort of notice is put up in the back of the post office, or in some place where you can, of course, read it if you look for it, but in a place where, I undertake to say, ninety-nine out of every 100 women would never dream of looking for it. Would it not be possible to ensure that such publicity is given as would secure that they shall know, not the full details of the rights they have as regards supplemental allowances, but that there are such things, and then they could go to their local pension committee and find out exactly the extent of their rights? I think that is really worth doing. It ought not to be an expensive operation, and it certainly would be a substantial relief to women who are, we all know, very hard pressed at the present moment owing to the absence of the wage-earners. Those are the main points, which I do not think have been touched upon, which I should like to bring to the attention of the proper authority, and I trust my hon. Friends will see that, if they do not fall within their own particular province, that they are brought to the attention of the proper authority.
  Mr. WILKIE: I have not troubled the House very much of late, being very much engaged in the war—the industrial war—and on this occasion I should like to say a few words on the question which we have been discussing this afternoon, even if I have to repeat some of The arguments that have been used. At the end of 1914 the representatives of the then Government came to some of us and asked us to go over the different counties for volunteers. I addressed scores, if not hundreds, of meetings. We# asked those representatives of the then Government whether, if we advised men to volunteer for the Army, we could tell them that they and their dependants would be properly attended to, and that there would not be a repetition of what happened in the late wars of our country, when some of our maimed soldiers had nothing left for them but the poor-house and the unemployed list. We were assured that everything would be done for those who volunteered and for their dependants. I am continually getting correspondence that that pledge has not been carried out by the Government. This afternoon it has been proved conclusively that pledges have not been carried out, and, therefore, I was very sorry that my esteemed Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, with his usual ability, could not give us something more than he did, and I hope that one of my colleagues from the North will be able to give us a little more.
  I have been inundated lately with resolutions and letters innumerable all about adequate provision for the widows and orphans of the men who have sacrificed their lives for us and the country. So strong has been the feeling amongst the women of the North that they have not only sent letters, but the other week they sent a living epistle in the shape of a very strong deputation of women from the North, and especially from Dundee and further North, who complained most bitterly of the treatment that they had received. The supplemental allowances are not only unsatisfactory, but as administered are worse than they might have been. Certain local war pensions committees do not meet the people's requests with any sympathy. We think there ought to be more sympathy, and that these cases should be dealt with with more humanity than the mere haggling of the market which is going on. I have been before the Committee on Production, and I believe if I had been appealing to them to-day
  1686
  they would have given us a far better reply than we have had from the Government, although we generally complain of what they give us. On that occasion it was proved, after inquiry, that what cost £100 in the way of the household requirements of a working man in pre-war days, is now costing from £200 to £500. As has already been stated in the Debate, not only have prices gone up, but the quality of food, particularly, has deteriorated very much, and we are not giving the human machine that sustenance that is required to carry out its work. Some of our people have been working for month after month 90 and 100 hours a week, and they are breaking down. This necessitates their coming upon our sick funds. It is at the request of the Government that they are trying to do this hard and extra work. We hear a lot about the different rates, but it seems to me that there should be some simpler method adopted.
  When you are dealing with claims from other people there is never the same difficulty put up in this House as when you are dealing with the case of the workman. The widows and children of the men who have fallen should be put on the same basis as allowed for the dependants of those who are serving now. It is something beyond all common sense that if, at our request and for our sakes the lives of soldiers have been given, that their widows and children should be treated in the way they are. It is not incongruous, I hope, to suppose that the Front Bench should see that this state of things is remedied. My anxiety is, the unrest being so great and the feeling amongst certain working-class families so strong, that unless you meet this matter in not only a just but a generous spirit, there will be greater trouble. I do not think it is fair that we should allow this state of things to go on. Of course, I quite know the difficulties on the part of the Government. I have not had long years' experience of administration of a great trade union not to know the difficulties of administration. Still, I say our Government Front Benches are put there for the very purpose of getting over these difficulties; of meeting the position in which we are placed. We pay them for that very purpose. For a long time we have been in a very perilous position. I trust we shall have news to-day that it is intended to get away from that perilous position—to get us back to something like the normal.

  1687
  Everywhere matters are strained; and in our trade union meetings one does not get the same consideration as one used to get in view of all the difficulties and possibilities of the situation.
  Take the question of the allowance for the children. Those of us who have had to administer the funds on this restricted basis are somewhat surprised that there should be this differentiation of 10s. 6d. for the first child (for, I suppose, that is what it is going to be at the beginning of next year), and 5s. 9d. for the sixth child. That is reversing entirely the procedure of some Continental countries. My idea of the Government is that they should rather encourage large families. It is the families of the future, the children now, that are going to make our country again. Instead of this reduction of income it ought to be the other way about, as we understand is the case in certain other countries where they give a bounty for large families. This—large families—will be the safety of the country in the future. I trust, for the safety of the country and justice for all concerned, that we shall entirely wipe away this differentiation, and that there will be given to us a far simpler thing to be calculated by the workers as well as by accountants. The great difficulty, I think, is that the promises given have not been fulfilled. I do plead with the Government to see that these promises are fulfilled fairly and even generously under present circumstances. I trust we shall soon get back to giving the workers better food and less of these terribly long hours. That will be good for the nation. As the Prime Minister said the other day: "You cannot build up an A1 Empire with a C3 population." There would appear to be much need for the Ministry of Health. There should be sufficient money for the widows and children so that the latter may be brought up healthily, for in this lies the safety of our country. I have supported the Government in every one of their measures to see the War through, and I want to make a request to them to fulfil the pledges I have made on their behalf and in their name, and to see that they are generously fulfilled. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to-day paid a tribute to our men and to our lads who have gone to France. Nothing that we can do, nothing the country can do is too much by way of repayment to them and their dependants. As has been
  1688
  well said, "Do for them whatever you may, you cannot do too much"—and this for the credit of our land!
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Before the Debate is ended there will be, I think, the expectation that something more will come from the Front Bench than so far has come from the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite caught the spirit of the Debate. Of course, we all give him credit for feeling like the rest of us in this matter, and for having a deep interest in the people for whom we are pleading. Still, I do not think he has quite caught the spirit of the Debate, for we believe at the present time, whilst there is an advance, it is inadequate to meet the requirements of those concerned. Just take one point. Here we are at the end of October, considering a scheme, which has only been in force a month. I quite appreciate the smile of the Financial Secretary when I put the matter that way. It is extraordinary, but what does the scheme suggest? It suggests a want of prescience on the part of the Ministry in not seeing that their scheme, put forward in the Recess, would meet the requirements for a longer period than a month. I most sincerely trust that we shall have something from the Ministry of a better character than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. There has been some amount of confusion in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen, and some of the remarks show a want of information. There are some hon. Members who have spoken who are not perhaps so conversant with its work as I am, seeing I am a member of the Civil Liabilities Committee. The hon. Member for South Paddington spoke of the extra power of giving money which the local pensions committee now have. I quite agree they have it, but it is not a new amount of money they are giving. They have not been given a power which enables them to augment the allowances existing previously. It is simply a transference of the smaller sums that used to be granted by the Civil Liabilities Committee for purposes, which I will explain in a minute, to the local pensions committee.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I did not question that. My point was that a great many people go to the local committee who would not have thought of going to the Civil Liabilities Committee, a rather alarming body.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I am very pleased to hear it, but it hardly bears out my idea

  1689
  of the principle which hon. Members will see when the Report comes out, or of those who have been on the Civil Liabilities Committee. I quite agree that many have advertised themselves, and it has been found out where the Civil Liabilities Committee was. One of the strongest reasons for the transference of which I have spoken was to meet the point put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for York, who asked for it to be dealt with. It has been dealt with. I want to give the Local Government Board full credit for that. When these cases were dealt with previously by the Civil Liabilities Committee those concerned were, with the rest of the larger cases, paid once a quarter. It was felt that in respect of the smaller sums, say, those that had been fixed at 12s. weekly, that there was a demand—and we knew that, for we had practical experience in Committee—from those recipients to have their money more frequently than once a quarter. Very many cases came up where there was a large quarterly life assurance that we paid for the person concerned. This was a quarterly demand. A cheque from the Civil Liabilities Committee meets that all right. But where you had cases of people who had to meet a weekly rental, the difficulty was quite different. Unless they came to terms with their landlords to accept the rent when they received their remittance, there was very grave difficulty indeed. For that reason the whole of the smaller cases up to 12s. per week were transferred from the Civil Liabilities Committee to the local pensions committee, so that they can be more easily met. First of all, the smaller cases can be met and inquired into more thoroughly by the local pensions committee, who are conversant with circumstances of the localities; also when the payments are made weekly instead of quarterly it meets the requirements of the recipients very much better. This point needed to be cleared up.
  In regard to what has been done by the Civil Liabilities Committee as a whole, the Members of the House, I believe, will be, before long, in possession of some information. Perhaps then some criticism will come that more money has been spent by that Committee than they like to think of. It quite reaches the figure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, and I think I can inform hon. Members that it will go on. There was one other case put by the hon. and
  1690
  learned Member for York—and it is as-well to clear these things up, because some of them came before the Committee in the earlier days. Take the rate of salary or wages paid in those days. Since then, however, wages have gone up, and I know that, certainly two of my colleagues sitting in this House and myself, have given consideration to the rise in, wages, and if there was a case brought before us at one of the panels where the man had enlisted some considerable time ago, and had not then put in a claim but only recently had awakened to the fact that he was entitled to apply, we have given due and full consideration not to the wage he was getting at the beginning, but to the relevant wage he would have been receiving at the present time, and any allowance was framed on that basis. Where, of course, the Committee are bound by certain regulations laid down, we cannot get outside them.
  7.0 P.M.
  Before I conclude let me say that I do hope the Government will be able to say something about the apprentices, for whom I would plead, and for whom I did plead before there was any allowance whatever given. We are glad to think an allowance is now made of 5s. per week to the dependants. But I know of an enormous number of cases where in connection with the skilled trades great sacrifices have been made by the parents to keep their boys at these trades, knowing that in the course of a few years they would be in the position of earning good wages, and that they would be a source of benefit to their parents. The parents were making an immediate sacrifice for the boy's interest, and, in view of his subsequent life, and also on account of some benefit that might accure to them when the boy came out of his apprenticeship. I do think that 5s. a week is a totally inadequate sum to meet cases like this. I have in my mind the case of a widow. She had several sons. They are all in the Army. The older ones are married, and, naturally, their allowance goes to their wives. In these cases she is entitled, I think, to some more consideration than she gets, when you consider that her son was just out of his apprenticeship, that he was a skilled artisan, and that he was really keeping her and maintaining the home after the father died. I trust that some further consideration will be given to these cases. One point more. Let us sweep away the

  1691
  anomaly with regard to the childless wife. Make your flat case undoubted for all cases where the woman cannot do any work at all. Take only one standard, if you are going to make any allowance, and that is the standard of physical incapacity. Do not make qualifications. Those you are making now are an insult to the industrious and thrifty woman. You say certain people cannot have this increase because they are industrious and work; while certain others whom you assume never have worked, and it may be do not want to work, can have the 6s. 6d. Yet the industrious sister who goes out to work has to put up with all the inconveniences attending her work. I trust that that case will be met. We are on the eve now, as we hope, of brighter and better times. The news which we have had leads us to look forward with some satisfaction. This may be the last time the Government will be called upon to revise the allowances which have been revised so many times, and I hope that they will deal with the claims now made with generosity to those now fighting. If we have not dealt so well with those in the early days of the War—in 1914 volunteered—who we remember marching through the streets on their way to the Front, who readily left their occupations when asked to do so by the country, who were volunteers and not conscripts, I say, if we did not deal with them as fairly as we should have done, let us get rid of that slur with regard to the men now in the Navy and the Army, and at any rate deal generously by them.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speeches which have been made this afternoon in the House must have convinced the Ministers on the Government Bench what a widespread feeling there is with regard to the anomalies in the scale recently announced. It is an easy matter on the eve of an election to allow a Debate of this kind to degenerate into a kind of Debate which any man who has any feeling of responsibility would deeply deplore. But I think it must be apparent to the House that when the Chairman of the War Pensions Committee in the House and the Secretary of the War Pensions Committee—both of them men who by their action in the past have showed their great desire to avoid the question of pensions being exploited for party or electioneering purposes—when they combine
  1692
  with others from every part of the House in pressing on the Government one or two anomalies which can be removed, and ought, in my opinion, to be removed, it must, I say, be apparent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), who I believe is going to speak very shortly, and to his colleagues, that it is something a good deal more than merely wishing to voice the opinion of constituents, to whom an appeal will be made at an early date. I therefore trust we shall keep this discussion as it has been maintained up to the present at a high level.
  The feeling which has been aroused with regard to the scales issued recently is by no means new. There have been many changes made since the War began. They have all been changes for the better. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty laid great stress on it, as he was quite entitled to do, but it is doubtful whether the great advances which have been made have kept pace with the increased cost of living. To press the increased cost of living as a reason for increased remuneration may not be fair in every case. Indeed, one can imagine a good many cases where pensions may be granted in which that claim plays a comparatively insignificant part. But in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the increased cost means the difference between good and bad living. The people in ninety-nine per cent. of the cases are living on a very small margin, and any slight increase in the cost of living affects them far more than it does those in a better industrial or social class. The case, therefore, for increased allowances, as they have been raised first of all in 1914, then in 1915, then in 1917, and once this year, has been fully justified on the increased cost of the necessaries of life. That is the justification for making the total very much greater than it has been, and far more than any of us anticipated when the first Ministerial Committee sat on the subject of pensions.
  But that is not the whole case. The problem that arises in all these pension cases is that you have the recipients living alongside each other. They are in adjoining houses. They buy their goods at the same co-operative stores or shops. Their children go to the same school. They get their clothes from the same clothier. They get their boots at an ever increasing cost from the same bootmaker,

  1693
  and when the amount available for one woman is much less than that which is available for another, each having the same number of children to look after, it is little wonder that we, every one of us, get from our constituents by scores, and in some cases by hundreds, letters protesting against inequalities which the Parliamentary Secretary deplores as much as we do. My right hon. Friend says there must be anomalies under any scheme. May I suggest one, however, which has not yet been justified by the Government. It has been referred to again and again this evening, and I hold that the House is entitled to some explanation of it. It is the case of the wife with three children and the widow with three children. I understand that my right hon. Friend when he spoke did not give a full justification for this anomaly. What is it?
  I have looked up the table published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 17th October, and I find that the wife with three children will be entitled on the first day of January to 36s. 6d., whereas the widow with three children will only be entitled to 29s. 7d. Let us see what happens in their case. The two women are living side by side, one still has her husband, she hopes he will return when the War is over. She gets 36s. 6d. with which to keep her family and home together. The widow next door, with no prospect of a returning husband, and who, if she be at all provident, is probably paying something into her club, co-operative or friendly society, gets only 29s. 7d. with which she has to keep, feed, clothe and educate her three children and maintain her home. It is a problem, and I doubt whether it is one which can be solved with success. In any case, one woman has six shillings more than the other, and you cannot justify the difference to them. The cases put to me from my own constituency are exactly of that description. Mrs. Smith writes to tell me that Mrs. Robinson next door, who has not been deprived of her husband is actually given by the State 6s. more than she herself receives. What justification can the right hon. Gentleman give for that? I have heard all sorts of excuses given. One is that 29s. 7d. is to be more or less a permanent charge, while the 36s. 6d. will pass away in course of time. That can be no justification to the widow. She has less prospect than the wife. I can understand it is a perfectly good Treasury point put by one of the ablest Permanent
  1694
  Secretaries to the Treasury that we have. But we ought to adopt a more humane view than is adopted by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and I would urge my right hon. Friend, with his great influence in Government circles—he sits in the Inner Cabinet, which can override the Treasury—I would urge upon him to point out to his colleagues the feeling in every part of the House that it is impossible to justify the difference in the allowances made to the widow with three children and the wife with three children. I put that case because it is one which has cropped up very often, and it appeals to every one of us. I will not go through the other cases which have been mentioned this evening, but I want to say one word on the question of date.
  As has been pointed out by many Members of the House, the justification for increasing the scale is based on the increased cost of living. If it was almost impossible for a woman to keep her house together and to maintain her children in good health and sufficiently nourished to withstand epidemics, such as we are passing through now, because of the high cost of living when the scale was adopted, it certainly is no justification for postponing the scale until the 1st of January. If the woman is now finding it impossible to make both ends meet, she is having to borrow here or there, to buy "on tick," as they say in the North, or to pawn, and she is getting more and more into difficulties, and, as the months go by, the trouble hanging round her neck is becoming intensified. The justification again for this is, I have no doubt, a purely Treasury one. I speak as an old Secretary to the Treasury. I do not like to see the national money flowing too freely through our fingers. But in this matter we are showing a degree of economy almost of parsimony which has not been shown in a good many other cases. There is not the least doubt about it that the trouble which will arise owing to this sort of economy is going to be very widespread throughout the whole country, and my main reason for rising now is to press on my right hon. Friend not to dismiss as merely superficial feeling or as formal protests the cases put forward this afternoon. We all of us are likely to be met with very strong social movements in various parts of the country immediately peace has been declared. We are just on the verge of going into an election where, with all the temptation that comes

  1695
  from electioneering, we may find great waves of feeling may secure for unscrupulous candidates a success which they do not deserve. If that be the prospect, let the Government do this. Let them wipe out now, before the election, the anomalies which exist. Let them get rid of the demand, that the new scale should come into force at once before the election is over. Let them start with a clean sheet so that men of all parties may say with regard to the discussion which has taken place to-day, that after a general expression of opinion, we have arrived at a more or less general agreement. If they do that they will do more to purify the contest into which we are now entering than by any other administrative scheme.
  Mr. BARNES (War Cabinet): In the first place I would like to say how heartily I associate myself with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down as to the high level of the appeal that has been made to us on these benches this afternoon. I have listened to a good many speeches, and there is no disguising the fact that what has been said has come from the heart of the speakers, and I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we have been moved by those speeches, and they will receive every consideration. Let me take the points which have been raised in order. First of all there is the childless wife. If is not the strongest by any means of the arguments which have been used to-day, and it is not the strongest case that has been put up against us. Nevertheless, I will take it as it is. There are altogether about 400,000 childless wives, and I think I am right in saying about 390,000 of them have been married during the War. The bulk of them, probably 99 per cent., have never set up any home and have never lived with their husbands beyond a week or two or a month or two, and therefore from a purely compassionate point of view it is not a strong case. May I point out that ninety-nine out of every 100 of them are at work, and are therefore getting 12s. 6d. a week plus their wages, which may be said to amount to about £2 a week. All our public offices are full of childless wives with 12s. 6d. per week plus their wages. I know the difficulty. It would be said that you are paying 12s. 6d. which is not sufficient to keep them, but it is sufficient to enable them to work for less than a standard rate of wages. Even that does not apply to the childless wife, because she is in a position to demand a
  1696
  standard rate of wages and she gets it, so that the childless woman as regards 99 per cent. of them is doing fairly well. I know there are exceptional cases which require an alteration in the scale and to which objection has been raised, but although a good many objections have been raised, I have not heard a single suggestion by which the arrangement made could be better.
  Mr. HOGGE: There is my Resolution.
  Mr. BARNES: I have not read it.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is on the Paper.
  Mr. BARNES: The only suggestion which has been made in the nature of what is alleged to be an improvement in the arrangement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) who suggested that it would be simpler to say that every woman who was-physically incapable should get 6s. 6d. Look where that would carry us. The woman who was not physically incapable but who might be 20 miles away from any work would not get the 6s. 6d. I can assure hon. Members that we really have in our minds giving that 6s. 6d. instead of the 4s. which has been previously given, and not merely to give part of it as the 4s. which has been given at the discretion of a local committee, but to give it as an additional flat rate supplement, and all that has to be done by any woman who applies is to show either that she is not working because she has been unaccustomed to work. By working I do not mean that she might be working at home, and therefore deprive herself of this assistance. Not at all. What we have in mind is that she is not earning, and if she is not earning or is in the region where she cannot earn or has been unaccustomed to earn in the most generous interpretation of the phrase—if she can show one of these conditions she can claim from the pensions committee as a right 6s. 6d., in addition to the 12s. 6d.
  Mr. HOGGE: You do not say that in the Circular.
  Mr. BARNES: I do not know what is the matter with the Circular which says that this case shall be treated on a flat rate, and if the applicant is earning or in the opinion of the local committee is able to earn. That does not mean working at home, and it simply means the woman shall not be earning wages, and if she is

  1697
  not she is entitled not only to a part of the 6s. 6d. but to the whole of it. With all due deference to those who have pleaded the cause of the childless wife, I can hold out no hope of any revisions so far as that case is concerned.
  Mr. ALDEN: Will the local pension committee have the right to say to the childless wife, "You are not working at present, but in our opinion you ought to work. Therefore go out to work or you do not get it?"
  Mr. BARNES: I do not think the committee would be justified in doing that. We want to make it clear, and I have sufficient confidence in the local committees to believe that they are going to give a generous interpretation of this provision if they get a lead from this House. Let me say that I believe these local committees form one of the best bits of machinery created during the War. For my part I am sorry to believe that the Pensions Department is going more or less in the direction of substituting bureaucratic control for local control. I am afraid things tend in that direction without anybody intending that they should, and for my part the more I have to do with bureaucracy the less I like it. The next point which was made by my right hon. Friend opposite was in regard to the date. I was sorry to hear him declaiming against the Treasury in that direction, for I can assure him that the Treasury have had nothing at all to do with it. I think there is a good deal of justice about the proposal as we have made it. I have had compiled some figures with a view to ascertaining the cost of living, as from the last revision of the scale which took place in July. What are the facts? Unfortunately, there are different bases upon which to calculate the increased cost of living, and, as a matter of fact, there are four distinctly separate bases. There is the increase in regard to certain selected articles of food, the increased cost based upon current dietary, the increased cost of selected articles of food, and then, in addition, clothing and rent. There is also the increased cost of living, reckoning the current dietary and the cost of rent and food. Therefore, there are four separate bases, and I take the one which I think is the fairest, and that is the actual increased cost of living on the current dietary and standard of living generally, and this shows that 13 per cent. is the increased cost as between last July and this month.
  1698
  What are the increases in the scale which is now before the House? If you take the woman with one child in July last, and then compare that with the new scale coming into operation on the 1st January next, you get an increase for that woman of 19 per cent. If you take the woman with two children you get an increase of 26 per cent.; a woman with three children 29 per cent., and with four children you get an increase of 30 per cent. That is, taking the family as one unit, and comparing the scale not in operation now, but which was in operation up to July last and up to the past few weeks. If you compare that with the scale on the 1st January, my right hon. Friend can see that we have allowed a considerable amount towards the increased cost of living betwen now and the end of the year. That at all events is the justification, and it is an explanation from one point of view of the adoption of the 1st January as the date. But that was not the reason why we fixed upon the 1st January, and we should like to have made it earlier. We were told by all those who were mostly concerned that administratively it was impossible to carry it out before the 1st January, because millions of forms had to be printed and other arrangements had to be made and therefore they could not possibly bring it into operation before the first of next year. Having ascertained that we could not bring it into operation before 1st January, we made up our minds that we should anticipate the increased cost of living that would take place before that date, and that does a good deal to justify the date standing as it is. All the Members on the Treasury bench, and indeed, in every part of the House, are sincerely desirous of bringing it into operation, or, at all events, making the payments come into operation as speedily as possible, but it cannot be done because it is administratively impossible to make the payment until the beginning of next year.
  I think, however, I can say, without holding out any undue expectations or giving anybody away, that what has been said this afternoon by pretty nearly every speaker who has taken part in the Debate from all sides of the House will be put, I am sure, by myself and my colleagues to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as soon as we get him back again, and inasmuch as he always gives the most sympathetic consideration to these matters, it is quite possible that he may arrange, althougn

  1699
  the arrangement cannot be made until the beginning of the year, that it might then be made retrospective and we shall endeavour to persuade him to take that course in reply to the many representations which have been made, and thereby enable these poor women who have suffered so much for us to get a Christmas box and a good start for the New Year. Let us take the scale on the whole. I want to take it from the point of view put by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), namely, the State's liability and what the State has been doing as from the beginning of the War. The scale became operative on 1st November, 1914—that is, four years to-morrow. The wife with one child got 15s. per week, and, as has already been pointed out, 3s. 6d. of that was paid by the man himself, the State paying 11s. 6d. The sum payable under this scale, when it begins to operate, is 23s., which is an increase of 55 per cent. Obviously, it may be argued that it is not as much as the increase in the cost of living. But what is the increased cost of living? All sorts of statements have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) took some figures and showed the increased cost of living to be 119 per cent.
  Mr. HOGGE: I took the Board of Trade figures.
  Mr. BARNES: Knocking something off for rent, it came to 110 per cent. I have had official figures supplied to me based upon tour different calculations. First, the increase in the cost of selected articles comes to 129 per cent., but if you take the actual dietary it is only 89 per cent. Taking it on the total, including rent, clothing, etc., it is 120, and if you take it on the actual dietary, including rent and clothing, it is 95 per cent. It may be said that 55 per cent. is considerably below any one of those figures, and that is quite true.
  Mr. KEATING: Up to what period is that?
  Mr. BARNES: From July, 1914, to October, 1918. If you compare one scale with another, you get this result. The woman with on? child in 1914 got 15s. per week. The soldier at that time got 7s. per week, and 3s. 6d. of it had to be paid to his wife. Adding the balance of 3s. 6d., you get 18s. 6d. as the total paid by the State. To-day the State has not only shouldered
  1700
  the responsibility for the allotment, but, in addition, has increased the soldier's pay by 6d. per day, and if you take the family as the unit you get these results. The woman with one child now gets altogether 23s. If you add to that 10s. 6d. soldier's pay, the increase is from 18s. 6d. to 33s. 6d., which is 82 per cent. If you take the total liability of the State for the woman with two children, you get 97½ per cent. If you take the woman with three children, you get 100 per Cent., and if you take the woman with four children you also get exactly 100 per cent. That deals only with the Army. If you deal with the Navy, the percentages are considerably higher. I merely mention that to show that we have honestly tried to keep pace with the increased cost of living. With the exception of the revision of the scale in July which was overdue, I think, on the whole, that the revisions that have been made have fairly well kept pace with the increased cost of living. It has been said that workmen have got increases in wages, and special reference was made to the railwaymen, whose pay, with the addition given a little time ago, has been increased 120 per cent. on the pre-war standard. I wish, with all my heart, that we could! make the soldiers' wives and dependants and the soldiers themselves, who have done-so much for us, at least as well off as any of these people who have stayed at home and had fairly soft jobs, but we have to get all these things from the Treasury, and the Treasury looks very closely at them. I do not think anybody has demanded that we should go beyond the increased cost of living, and I submit that we have fairly well met the increased cost of living in the revised scale now under discussion, and I mean the increased cost of living at the beginning of next year.
  We have the utmost sympathy with the suggestions that have been made that the woman who has a hard struggle at the present time and who may have got into debt in order to keep the wolf from the door shall have a little additional money at Christmas in order to wipe off that debt. I say, again, that we should put that forward with all the emphasis that we can. I am reminded of the case of the widow with three children as compared with the wife with three children. I would ask hon. Members to remember that we are now dealing with a scale that has just been revised. The pensions scale may also be revised, or, if it is not revised, some

  1701
  steps may be taken, in fact, I think I am in a position to say, some steps will be taken more appropriate to the position there, in order that the widow with three children may come up to the level of the wife with three children. My hon. Friends will see that the two things are not altogether comparable. We all hope that the separation allowances will be wiped off in a year or two, but the pensions will go on for a long time, and the cost of living may come down. I think I am in a position to say that we are now putting forward a scheme for a bonus—I think it is a flat-rate bonus—to apply to all pensions having regard to the increased cost of living at the present time as compared with the price when the scale was fixed. We are trying to get that put on to the pension to compensate for the increased cost of living, and I hope that we shall get it through.
  Mr. HOGGE: Before the election?
  Mr. BARNES: I do not know about before the election, but I have every reason to believe that we shall get it through, and, if I had any doubts about it, those doubts have been largely removed by the many expressions of opinion to-day.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: We have had very conciliatory speeches from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty, but unfortunately these poor women with large families cannot live on sympathy. What they want is the hard cash. We have had to-day actuarial calculations of the increased cost of living based upon four different systems, and varying, I think, from 89 per cent. to 125 per cent. during the last four years To these people for whom we are pleading, the women and the children to whom these separation allowances are paid, these actuarial calculations have no value. Their actuarial calculations are based upon the prices which they have to pay to the grocer, the bootmaker, and the various shopkeepers in their localities. Therefore, though what the right hon. Gentleman has said may to a certain extent be soothing to Members of this House who are accustomed to deal with figures in ah actuarial way, they will not be soothing to the masses of the people in the country, particularly as the ordinary person will at once fix upon a point which has been overlooked by the two right hon. Gentlemen. They take as a basis the allowances
  1702
  made in 1914, but we all know that the allowances were inadequate in 1914. I do not think that either of the two right hon. Gentlemen or any Member of this House will say that the allowances which were fixed in 1914 were even at that time more than a poor subsistence allowance. They would not even then enable a Woman to clothe and house her children decently and bring them up healthily and comfortably and in such a manner as the children of our Empire should be brought up. Therefore, the whole of these actuarial calculations are based upon false premises. In addition to that, all these increases, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, have been belated. On one occasion, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty has to-day had to confess, he went a little before the band, but in regard to most of these allowances the Government have been a long way behind the band. I do not suggest that it was possible for them to make the alterations week by week, but none of these increased allowances were given until they were dragged by the protests of Members of this House. We have on this subject been what may be termed the ginger group, and the Departments which had this matter in hand badly needed ginger. However, every one of these allowances was belated, with the result that there is an accumulated debt owing to these people because they have never really had all they were entitled to. There have always been some arrears. That has been going on for years. If you were to make actuarial calculations you would find you are still very much behind the times. When we say that the cost of living has increased by so much and the allowance has been increased by so much, and the difference after all is not much—it is only 20 per cent.—what does that mean to the family life of these people? Twenty per cent. is 4s. in the £. It does not sound much when you discuss it as 20 per cent. Even if you say it is only 10 per cent. that is 2s. in the £, and when these people go to the shop to buy it makes a great difference whether they have 18s. or 16s. Therefore we must not camouflage the real facts of the case by these not very helpful calculations. To the people of whom we are speaking a shilling is a matter of very great importance, and the lack of it is not made any the less severe by the fact that you call it merely 5 per cent.
  Now there comes the point of when the increases are to be paid. The right hon.

  1703
  Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) said it was administratively impossible to make these increases, which were known to be overdue, before a period of two months. I can hardly take him seriously. If that is the case he ought to apply some ginger to the Departments concerned. I will guarantee that there are plenty of men of business in the country who, if they had had this put before them as a possibility two months ago, as it must have been before the Department, would have taken such steps as to make it possible to begin these payments on 1st November, because during these two months these people will be short of money. It is a kind and generous thought of the right hon. Gentleman to say the payments will be made retrospective, and that, although they might not handle the money until 1st January, it will come in the nature of a Christmas box. I am delighted to hear it, but in the meantime these people are at a disadvantage, and certain things are going to happen. One is that between this and 1st January it is likely that a great many men will be demobilised, and would it not be nice if they came home to contented wives instead of to wives who are blackguarding the Government and Members of Parliament for not having done their duty? I am not thinking of myself. I was quite honestly thinking of the soldiers coming home. It is true that many of the soldiers' wives are earning money, but a great many of the factories which are employing these women are likely to be closed down between this and 1st January. I believe if I were to ask the right hon. Gentleman—I will not do anything so indiscreet—he would not dispute the fact that many people are to-day being dismissed from various factories, or that steps are being taken to reduce the employment of those factories, and therefore tin possibility of the earning power of the wives of the soldiers is going to be reduced between now and 1st January. Therefore I urge him, if it is possible, not merely to promise this increase retrospectively, but to make it from the earliest possible date, and we all know what can be done and that where there is a will there is a way.
  The right hon. Gentleman made the very interesting statement that out of some 400,000 childless wives only about 100,000 had been married prior to the War.
  Mr. BARNES: I have no figure. I said there were 400,000 childless wives, and the great bulk of them had been married during the War—probably 390,000.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: The right hon. Gentleman's information is that the number of childless wives who were married before the War is small. In that case it would cost very little to treat them liberally. His argument was that the childless wife, married since the War, who had only been with her husband for a short time, was not entitled to any very great consideration. But inferentially the wife who was married before the War is entitled to more consideration. Why not give it? You would remove a certain amount of ill-feeling and heartburning. I have never been one to stir up trouble in any of these matters. I have always endeavoured to smooth matters over. But there is only one real way of smoothing matters over and that is to remove real grievances. Imaginary grievances can be talked out. People can be educated and expostulated with and made to see the folly and error of their position, but real grievances can only be removed by redress. I urge the Government to take into immediate and serious consideration how they can best take prompt steps to remove grievances which exist, and to enable our men to return to contented wives and properly fed and clothed children.
  Mr. ALDEN: I wish to deal with the question whether the allowance has increased together with the increase in the cost of living. Let me take a definite case of a wife and four children. She gets 35s. 6d. She tells me that she had to pay this week 22s. 6d. for boots. If in addition you deduct 7s. 6d. for rent there is very little left for food. You may say a wife ought to have prevision enough to be able to spread the cost of boots over a certain number of weeks or even months, but many of these women are living actually from hand to mouth. My knowledge of the matter is obtained from seeing these women every Saturday night. I sit in a room and listen to the stories they have to tell. If you take any of these four scales of the increase in the cost of living which have been given us to-night and apply it practically in the district in which you are working, probably it does not come out according to your own previous thought. In many localities the prices of many things vary considerably. The Board of Trade figures, however carefully they

  1705
  may be gathered, do not really represent the actual facts as they present themselves to the ordinary working-class families in a poor district. They have to give more than the Board of Trade figures really represent, and the money is simply poured away. The women say, over and over again, "No sooner do I break into a sovereign than it has disappeared." I do not believe the Government has gone scientifically into this question of the cost of living. I should like to have an examination dealing scientifically with the question whether the food actually provided and sold is of a certain definite quality, and whether people can live upon what they are able to purchase with their allowance. I think that would open the eyes of a great number of people who have not really lived with the poor or understood them, or judged them in a satisfactory fashion. I believe the actual allowance to enable people to live comfortably and satisfactorily ought to be not less than £1 per woman and 10s. for each child. If you were to give them that and then live with them and help them to spend it, it would only just about go far enough.
  8.0 P.M.
  The difficulty is that there are very few of us capable of placing ourselves in the position of those who have to spend these comparatively small sums. The average man in the House, even the average Labour man, is under the disability of not having to consider every penny. He spends out of, at any rate, a little surplus, but these people are spending out of what is not really a sufficiency. If anything happens to deprive them of a few extra shillings, if any illness comes into the house, they have to deprive the children of the food they require. It is no good making speeches. I would make every Pension Minister and every man who is responsible for allowances, while he is administering, to spend one week every month with a family which has to make both ends meet. It is not necessary to say they are unsympathetic. We are living in a different world altogether, and when you get people saying, "For God's sake get me a larger allowance or I shall commit suicide," as a woman said to me the other day, you begin to see that there must be something behind it. People may plead no doubt this woman could have saved a little here and there and been a little more careful.
  1706
  The real truth of the matter is—and I have gone into hundreds and hundreds of these cases, I see twenty or thirty every Saturday night—they cannot make both ends meet and they are pawning and selling everything they possess. Then the husband comes on leave and sees the condition of the house. He sees that his wife and children have been driven from four or five rooms into two rooms, and he says, "This is how the country treats me. This is what I find when I come back." I know every hon. Member has had this kind of experience, or, at any rate, anybody who has really taken any trouble in regard to this matter. I hope very much that the concession that has been made or promised that the 1s. extra per child shall be made retrospective will not be broken, but that it will be a definite promise and will be kept. I hope very much, at the same time, that the Government will remember that there ought to be automatic increases in the separation allowances in accordance with the increases in the cost of living. There ought to be some arrangement by which every three months increased allowances should take place in accordance with the increases in the cost of living.
  I do not wish to labour these matters any more, but I should like to say something in connection with the question of supplemental allowances, which is a very important matter. There are many other points which I should have liked to raise. Would the Pensions Ministry and those responsible for the allowances publish a little booklet of four or five pages putting the principal facts clearly and succinctly—not all the details, but the principal facts—and let that booklet be sent to the local war pensions committees, telling them that everybody who calls should have one of these little booklets to which they might refer? These people, in most cases, are not responsible for their ignorance. We have not educated them, we have not cared for them, we have not looked after them as we ought to have done, and when people can hardly read or write it is not their fault that they are ignorant in regard to these questions of allowances. The thing ought to be made as simple as A B C. Why should it be necessary to explain to them things which are perfectly understandable if they had their facts clearly put before them? In many cases I have had very great difficulty in understanding what this woman or that family

  1707
  was entitled to. I want this booklet which will contain all the principal facts placed in their possession, so that when a woman goes to the local war pensions committee she will have this booklet handed to her certain pages will be pointed out to her, her case will be considered, and she will be able to read the book at her leisure and see if she is entitled to anything more. I do not Earths local war pensions committees are responsible for what I am about to say HOW. Sometimes it is the officials and sometimes it is a case of being overdriven, but you have sometimes to wring out or force out the information, the very opposite ought to take place. When people are in the position of these women and children, almost on the edge of starvation, the information should be thrust upon them, and should not have to be forced out. If there is any possibility of giving them any extra money, for God's sake give it to them at once. I do not believe that the Minister is unsympathetic. I do not believe the Front Bench is at all unsympathetic. I do not believe that the appeal ought to be made ad miseri cordiam but ad justiciam. I believe they want to do justice. There are hundreds and thousands of cases in which the people concerned are ignorant in regard to their rights, ignorant about their claim, and ignorant as to the way they should proceed. I want the machinery provided to enable them to get justice. That is what we ask for. We do not ask for any other consideration. We ask for justice for each individual case, and I am sure that the thing that will do more than anything else to give justice is information given in a simple, succinct and clear fashion. I hope that if no other suggestion I have made is adopted this suggestion will be accepted.
  Mr. C. PRICE: I was very glad to find that a Gentleman spoke from the Front Bench on this question. I want to say quite frankly after the way in which many of our big leaders, Prime Ministers, and ex-Prime Ministers, Chancellors of Exchequer, and ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer went about the country in the early stages of the War appealing for an enormous number of people on the recruiting platforms, that when we compare their campaign at that time with the work they do in order to see that these men and women get their full allowances, it has filled me with very great dismay. Accordingly,
  1708
  although we have only had one speaker from the Front Opposition Bench, I welcome the fact. May I say how greatly we all rejoice at the position of the Allied cause in different quarters of the globe? All our hearts are filled with gladness, and the fact of that gladness should cause us to be more careful than ever to see that the rights of our fighting men at home are not suffering in their absence.
  I want to refer to a subject which has not been referred to before I think I referred to it the last time I spoke on this matter. It is the fact that no disabled soldier has a legal right to claim his disablement allowance. I think that is grossly unfair. When men enlisted as volunteers they knew quite well in many cases the conditions about pensions. Of course, a great many volunteered for service without thinking of what they or their wives and families would get; they were carried away with enthusiasm, and enlisted regardless of consequences to themselves or families. Therefore, one does not blame these people. We have been told that the allowances are very generous in comparison with those given in the old days; but the fact remains that there is no legal right at this moment recognised by the Statute that a man can claim his disablement allowance. That is absolutely unfair, and it becomes more unfair if you remember that the men who volunteered did so with their eyes open. You have now passed a law conscripting them. You force men to go to the front, and yet the man whom you force to go to the front has no legal right to claim from the State his due. He comes back, and he has lost a limb or he is blind. You forced that man to go to the front, he has been subjected to the terrible condition of things there, and brought home, as I have seen many of them, in a pitiful state, and yet that man cannot go to a Court of law-and compel the State to pay him what he is entitled to. That is absolutely wrong. It is wrong to leave that matter in the discrimination of any individual When the man has had his disability allowance assessed, the State should be forced to pay-that, and the man should have a legal right to go to any Court of law and compel the State to pay him that allowance.
  It is our duty to see that the allowances are adequate, and I am glad to welcome the statement of the right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). Let me

  1709
  refer to a statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. He showed what had been done in order to meet the increased cost of living. He thought that the House on the whole had done fairly well. I do not think so. I think you have allowed very grave discontent to arise in the minds of many women in this country. My hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) and I attended a meeting in Edinburgh, and I have never attended a meeting where there was such passionate feeling of resentment because of the way the Government have treated this question. There is an enormous amount of discontent and sour feeling about it. Take the case of apprentices. You have allowed apprentices to be employed in the Army, some of them for four years, and although the State has had their service during that time, in the fighting ranks the State has paid nothing for them. You have allowed that to go on for four years. Many of these apprentices have been killed. I think it is criminal neglect that these things have been allowed to go on, therefore I cannot congratulate the Financial Secretary and say that this House has been fully alive to what should have been done. There have been a great many figures quoted showing the increased cost of living. The last time I spoke on this subject I gave figures as to the increased cost of living in poorhouses in Scotland. There you are dealing with feeding of people on a large scale and they buy at the cheapest possible price. In Paisley the average weekly cost per head has increased from 11s. 4d. in 1914 to 18s. 8d. in May, 1917. The right hon. Member for Black-friars said there has been an increase since July of 13 per cent. The figures I have quoted are only up to May, 1917. Therefore, these increases show the additional allowances have not been wholly adequate I have been questioned in regard to these figures as to what they cover. Whatever they cover they were on the basis of 1914 prices and the increase is on precisely the same basis as the basis of 1918. Therefore they show what the increase has been.
  In regard to the position of the childless wife, the right hon. Member for Black-friars said there were something like 400,000 childless wives, and that 390,000 of them belonged to husbands who have married since the War began. That only leaves 10,000. I should like him to verify that statement, because I have very grave doubt about it. I do not like to question his statement, because I believe he made
  1710
  it in perfect good faith. However, in view of the fact that we have a citizen Army now, I should like to have that figure verified. I have grave doubts whether it is correct. Assuming that it is correct, why in the world do you want to have all this bother about 10,000 women? Why cause all this disturbance with local committees which have to deal with these people? I want to remove from the local committees the patronage which is in their hands. It is not worth while to leave these 10,000 women all over the country to have to go before these local committees or to be examined by them. It tends to the creation of discontent amongst them as to the character and type of the people who are employed to visit them in their homes. In regard to some of the paid officials, there has been very grave objection. At Aberdeen reference was made to the fact that there you have an inspector of police, if not a sergeant of police, and it is said that these men in making inquiries made their inquiries as if they were making a criminal investigation. Some of the people are promoted or recommended by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and many of the people chosen for these posts have not been the most suitable people to visit the homes and to make recommendations. I want to remove this sort of work from the local pensions committees.
  I would urge the necessity of a circular being issued showing everybody what they are entitled to. I know cases where the local committees have not given persons that to which they were entitled. In one case a man who was an agricultural labourer was entitled whilst learning a trade to an allowance of 27s. 6d. a week. He was entitled to that allowance, but the local committee said that he was only an agricultural labourer before the War and that he ought to live on 20s., and they made that allowance. That was absolutely wrong, and it is an illustration of how necessary it is that these people shall be fully acquainted with their rights. I sincerely trust that the 1st January will be abandoned. There is nothing more disheartening to people than to know that in two months time they will get something they ought to get. It is wrong to keep them waiting that length of time, because the fact has been recognised by the State that they are entitled to the increased allowance and that increased allowance should be given at once. Another point is this. Something should be done, when we

  1711
  revise these figures, for the soldiers of previous wars. Take the miserable pittance given for some of the Crimean and Boer War veterans. I think something should be done in view of the increased cost of living to revise the amounts which we give to these men. I strongly commend them to the Government, and hope that now that they are revising the allowances, they will revise those given to men who fought in former wars, and who did as much to defend the country as any of those who are fighting at the present time.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The Motion deals with a real grievance, a grievance that is causing a very large amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country. Even supposing the increased allowance was paid before the 1st January I am strongly of opinion that it would not remove the dissatisfaction in the country. There is evidence of that dissatisfaction everywhere. I need hardly remind hon. Members of the very large associations of discharged soldiers and sailors that are being formed everywhere. Not only have we associations of discharged soldiers and sailors, but we have very large associations of the dependants of our soldiers and sailors. The reason why these associations have been formed is that they feel that they are not being treated fairly and justly with regard to separation allowances and pensions. In addition to these indications every Member of the House is receiving numerous letters regarding these, questions. Resolutions have been passed at many of the recent Labour conferences, asking that the Government should deal in a more generous spirit with the soldiers and sailors and their dependants. During the course of the discussion we have had a very interesting statement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). My only objection to that statement is that I think that he began from a wrong basis. If he had begun from a proper basis, his statement would not have taken on such a rosy hue as it did, taking the basis that he did for the interesting set of figures which lie gave to the House. I would have liked, if he had been present, to have reminded him that he himself in the early days of 1915 was strongly of the opinion, and gave expression to that view, that the wives of our serving men ought to be paid at least £1 a week. If that was necessary in 1915, when one takes into account the large increase
  1712
  that has taken place in the cost of living since then, there is little wonder that we have manifestations everywhere of dissatisfaction with the treatment that has been meted out to our soldiers and sailors and their dependants. I put to the members of the Government who are present this question. Do they think that that is the treatment that the men who enlisted in such large numbers, voluntarily, at the beginning of the War, expected their wives and families to get while they were fighting the battles at the front? Of course not. They expected quite different treatment. I believe that what they expected was—and, so far as I am personally concerned, it is what I claim on their behalf—that their dependants would, at least, be placed in the same degree of comfort as the families of those who were more fortunate in being allowed to remain at home.
  Another question is, what do they think will be the effect on our men when they come home, realising, as they must do, that their dependants have not been treated fairly? We talk a great deal in these days about the difficulties of the period of reconstruction. These difficulties will not be lessened by the effect of that treatment on these men when they come home. Again, I refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-friars. He pointed out that there were certain difficulties that stood in the way of the Government giving as much as they themselves would like to give, and I think, if my memory serves me right, he said that the chief difficulty was in getting the consent of the Treasury. Why should that be a difficulty? The Treasury and all the members of the Government ought to-realise that the first charge upon the State funds ought to be the giving to our serving men and their dependants a proper standard of living, a standard of living that would at least be equal to the standard of living of those who remained at home.
  Very little has been said by those who have replied on behalf of the Government about the position of the dependants of our unmarried soldiers and sailors. There, I think, you have as much dissatisfaction as with regard to the position of the wives and children of the married man. You have all sorts of sums being paid to dependants of men who are rendering equal service to the country. Within recent months I have sent on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer several lists made up of the sums paid to the dependants

  1713
  of unmarried soldiers from certain Scottish parishes. In these lists the sums range from the lowest figure, 3s. 6d. per week, to 37s. 6d. With such variations as these paid to dependants of men who are rendering equal service to the country, I do not think that anyone can expect anything else than a seething mass of dissatisfaction as the result. Not only have you these variations, but you have in some cases different sums being assessed in the separation allowances granted to the dependants of our unmarried soldiers by the various authorities. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is not present, because I wanted to bring before him a case which was brought under my notice a, very short time ago. The local pensions committee, when they considered this claim, assessed the liability in this particular case at 18s. per week. The pensions officer assessed it at 13s. 6d., but when both reports were sent on to the naval authorities they only saw fit to grant 6s. 6d. per week. With all these things going on in connection with the payment of separation allowances it is not to be wondered at that we have such a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction being expressed throughout the country.
  In conclusion, I not only hope that the Government will at a very early date carry out the increases that they have already agreed to, but that they will see their way again to go further in this matter and, if possible, to grant a far more substantial increase than we have as yet had any indication of. I think that where the Government went wrong was that they started in 1914 on far too low a basis. The separation allowances that were granted then were not by any means adequate to give the dependants of our soldiers and sailors the same degree of comfort as was enjoyed by the families of those who remained at home. That is where they went wrong. And, in order to remedy that initial defect, what they require to do is to give a much more substantial increase than has been granted up to the present time.
  Sir J. WALTON: Of one thing I am certain. That is, that the whole nation at the present time, when victory is ours, and when the magnificent work that has been accomplished in every one of the fighting areas in different parts of the world by our gallant men is going to mean a great advance in world freedom, and in a promotion of those principles of humanity
  1714
  and justice, greater than the world has ever known before, the whole nation will practically be of one heart and mind in acting not only justly but generously by the wives and dependants of our soldiers and sailors in the matter of separation allowances, and especially in the provision of adequate pensions for the dependants of those who, unfortunately, have lost their lives for the country. I happen to represent a district in which, at the outbreak of war, thousands of men flocked to the Colours, the great influx being that of coal miners. A finer type of soldier, and a braver and a more gallant set of men never assisted in defending the liberties of the country. They did not hesitate for one moment because they were in employment in which they were earning anything from £3 to £5 per week, but they volunteered and accepted 1s. a day to go and fight for their country. In those cases—and there are thousands of them—the present provision, both in the matter of separation allowances and of pensions, is miserably inadequate, and does not by any means do justice to these men.
  But there is another view of the case. These men, who I understand as privates to-day in the British Army are receiving a pittance of only 1s. 7½d. per day, are fighting alongside comrades from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, who are receiving 4s. 6d., 6s., and even 7s., a day. How can there be that amount of satisfaction and contentment in the breasts of our soldiers, who, after all, are only human, in view of this enormous disparity of pay? I met to-day Australian soldiers who told me that some were getting 6s. a day and others 7s. a day, only 1s. being kept back from that, the balance being for their own personal expenditure, and their wives were receiving 2s. per day and 7d. for each child. I was told also by a Canadian, that they received $1 10c, or 4s. 6d. a day, that is $33 a month, that $20 were sent home to their wives or to be banked for their own personal future wants, and that they have $13 a month left to spend while they are under arms. Their wives in Canada receive £5 per month, and the children from £1 to £2 per month, according to their age. New Zealand is on a par with Australia; and I submit to the House that this enormous disparity must breed considerable discontent, and that our men, who most patriotically and gallantly volunteered to serve their country, will, when they come home, in view of these

  1715
  facts, certainly not be of the same un thinkingly patriotic mind that they were at the beginning of the War.
  Let us take the case that has been mad by the Government. They tell us that a wife with three children will on the 1st January next, or possibly slightly earlier—I hope, at any rate, that they will get it from the 1st December, so that it may come into force before Christmas—receive 33s. 6d. per week. The husbands of these wives, in thousands of cases in my district, were bringing into the home £4 and £5 a week before they volunteered for service. I say, therefore, that the amount of the allowance is hopeless and insufficient. I do not entirely believe in the flat rate. The wife of an agricultural labourer with three children receiving 36s. 6d. a week, with no husband to keep, is in a different position; and as one of them said, "I never was so well off in my life—so much a week, and no husband to keep; I hope the War will go on for a long time." That was her view of the case; but though, at any rate, the wife of a husband with 36s. 6d. a week was never so well off in her life, in all probability, when the increased cost of living is taken into account, yet that does not apply to miners and others who volunteered, and who were earning high wages. We are told about the childless wife. Assuming that she gets the full 19s. a week, I think, in the case of a woman who is not able to work and earn money, that the amount is wholly insufficient. When you turn to the widow, the poor woman whose husband has given his life for his country, she is to have the paltry payment of 13s. 9d., and her children, forsooth, instead of being paid 10s. 6d. for the first child, is to receive 6s. 8d., instead of 8s.; for the second, 5s. 8d., instead of 5s. 6d.; and for the third 4s. What possible justification can there be for such a differentiation? The widow has lost her great breadwinner for ever. The wife whose husband may live, and who is fighting, may soon have the joy of welcoming him home, and the day of trial and tribulation will be past. Not so the poor widow who has to continue to receive only 30s. Id. Yet she has three children as against the wife of the soldier who is receiving 36s. 6d. I rejoice to know that some glimmering idea of the injustice of this amount to widows and dependants is coming home to the Government, because I think they hold out the hope of a
  1716
  further bonus to be added to the pension, so long as the present increased cost of living remains far beyond the pre-War cost of living. All I can say is that the Government will begin to realise how widespread is the indignation and discontent of the people throughout the country with the present condition of things. I have had hundreds of communications from my own Division on the question of separation allowances and of pensions; and, if there is one thing above another that we as a nation should aim at, if we are to make a rapid recovery after the War, if we are to have a reconstruction scheme carried out on lines which will create happiness and contentment throughout the land, and cement class with class; and if, by experience, educationally, and in every other way, we are to achieve prosperity greater than ever known before, it is that we must lay the foundation for it in just and equitable treatment of the dependants of soldiers and sailors, and especially in the case of the widows, whose husbands have given their lives for their country.
  Mr. JOWETT: I listened with very great interest to the statement made on behalf of the Government by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Although he is not here, I should like to make some remarks in reply to what he said, not by way of criticism, but rather for the sake of ascertaining the correct situation in regard to the position of this matter of separation allowances and pensions. If the Financial Secretary to the War Office would care to deal with my points he could, so far as they are points of substance, deal with them quite as well, I have no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. The foundation, as I understand, of my right hon. Friend's statement was that the increases which have taken place since If 14, were, at least so far as large families are concerned, 100 per cent. advance on the 1914 separation allowance. He did not claim that the increase was anything like commensurate with the increase in the cost of living, for as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Macdonald), the increase in the cost of living was 127 per cent., and the Government only claim, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that the advance in the case of large families has been equal to

  1717
  100 per cent. I think that gives the case away, because large families compare best from the point of view of increase. The small families and the childless wife Are far more out of proportion to the increased cost of living. To my mind, the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's case points to the necessity of something in the nature of a revision as the cost of living increases from time to time. It is useless to say that an increase has been given when that increase has not the same amount of purchasing power in the country that it would have had formerly. It is going in a vicious circle. All the Government has got to do is to give an increase in separation allowance and pension, and so on, and an increase of wages where trade unions are strong enough to demand them, and then inflate the currency by printing innumerable quantities of "John Bradbury's," so that the people cannot buy the same amount of food. The public is given the idea that there has been a concession which, by an increase in food prices, is more than taken away. That I say emphasises the need for revision regularly so as to bring the allowances and pensions into line with the actual cost of living. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester mentioned the fact that the increase in the cost of living was far larger than the increase in the separation allowance. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty said, "Oh, but 3s. 6d. of that was the soldier's own allotment." I really cannot understand a man of the ability of my right hon. Friend making use of such an argument. He knows, nobody better, that that 3s. 6d. was taken over by the Government not as a concession to soldiers' wives but as a method of increasing the soldier's pay. Having given it as an increase of soldier's pay the Government are not justified later on in counting it as an increase of the separation allowance. As has been pointed out it was necessary for a number of reasons to increase the soldier's pay, and surely the argument that it was at the same time an increase of the separation allowance cannot hold water.
  My right hon. Friend pointed out that there is the local war pensions committee and the civil liabilities committee and that those supplement the allowance. That is perfectly true, but as has been very clearly emphasised in this Debate the local war-pensions committee and the civil liabilities committee have not given the amounts which they ought to have given, or
  1718
  immense number of persons who were really entitled to receive grants and allowances from those two bodies have never received them. The Government now say "we are going to make all that clear, and we are going to issue a Circular which will indicate to the person who is really concerned what that person is entitled to," but may I ask the Government what are they going to do about those persons who all this time have been deprived of the money that belongs to them? It was the duty of the authorities to see that they got that money and nothing has angered me so much during this period in dealing with people who were dependants of soldiers and sailors, as the fact that the ignorance and innocence of those people have been taken advantage of. Even Members of Parliament had very great difficulty with all the rules and regulations in picking their way through them and in getting those bodies to give the money which it is now advertised that the persons have been clearly entitled to all along. I would ask the Government what in common honesty are they going to do about the arrears. Are those persons to be entitled to claim the arrears because it is their money? Let me now refer to the question of the child- less wife and the supplementary allowance. I noted the announcement that the regulation was to be worded in such a way as to make it clear that the supplementary allowance of 6s. 6d. per week was to be paid as a matter of course to persons unaccustomed to work. Will my right hon. Friend recollect what that means. It means that the wives of men who are not of the working class will never have their cases inquired into because they have not been accustomed to work, and as a matter of course they would get the 6s. 6d. per week. But the workman's wife, because she is the workman's wife, must have an inquiry as to whether she has been accustomed to work, or is unable to work. Take it from me, there is going to be a terrible trouble about this if you put it into operation. Times are not now what they used to be; people are not putting up with these differentiations between different classes as was the case years and years ago, and the demand will be made that all shall be treated alike. The working man who took his wife out of the factory and deliberately, having taken her out of the factory, kept her out of the factory, and who looked upon her house work as being her real work and sufficient

  1719
  work for her—and any woman who keeps a decent home for a working man clean, tidy, and wholesome, of four or five rooms, does not need to work anywhere else but there; it is sufficient for her—if such a working man, who took his wife out of the factory and never intended her to go back there, has been taken into the Army, and if, when his wife goes and asks for the 6s. 6d. supplementary allowance, she is told that she has been accustomed to work, then there is going to be trouble, and I warn the Government that there will be trouble.
  I will say no more about the general question except this, that I wish to associate myself with the general criticisms that have been made. I think that there should be periodical revisions to adjust the scale to the cost of living. But I want to make one or two special points which have not, so far as I am aware, been mentioned in the course of this Debate, and I have sat almost continuously through it. The first relates to the question of apprentices. The 5s. flat rate, I would suggest to the Government, should be amended in such a way as would allow a datum line to be taken into consideration as is the case in regard to some other portions of the scheme. For instance, the earnings that the soldier would have been making at a given date could be taken as a sort of standard and the amount from time to time revised on that line, so that it should not be merely a flat rate of 5s. But that is not all. I want to bring up the case of pensions, quite apart from the allowances. In this connection may I just quote from a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT when the flat rate for apprentices and secondary school scholars was stated in answer to a question in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said—this was his written reply—
  "This—"
  the basis of pre-war dependence—
  "is felt to be a great hardship from the point of view of parents of the lad who early joined the Colours, and the hardship is accentuated by the fact that pension on the soldier's death depends on the allowance his parents drew while he was alive. But so long as pre-enlistment contribution is maintained as the basis of the parents' allowance the grievance cannot fully be remedied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1918, cols. 1821–1822. Vol. 108.]
  Let me just call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact, that here is contained by inference—I do not think that can be denied—a promise that the
  1720
  pension of a soldier who prior to the War was an apprentice, or secondary school scholar, or in receipt of progressive wages, shall be allowed as a matter of course, because it is used actually as one of the arguments for creating a flat-rate system. But in answer to questions put by myself it has been stated from the Front Bench, by the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions, that only in cases where parents have been in receipt of special hardship allowance is the pension allowed, I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) is aware of that fact or not, but I do put it to the Government that it is a most unfair condition that, having conceded to the parents of apprentices the right to a separation allowance, it should follow as a matter of course that there should be a right to pension—whereas the right to pension depends on whether or not the parents have been able to get from the local war pensions committee a special hardship allowance. That is one point to which I wish specially to direct the attention of the Government.
  9.0 P.M.
  Another point, of a special kind, relates to the provision in the Royal Warrant regarding widows who re-marry. Sometime ago I had occasion, to send to the Pensions Ministry a case where a mother whose son had been killed had not received a pension, and the ground on which she has been refused the pension was that she had re-married. If my right hon. Friend will draw the attention of his colleagues to this, and will ask them to read the Royal Warrant, they will there see it definitely and distinctly stated that the disqualification to pension only applies where a remarriage is after the death of the soldier and during the time that the pension has been drawn. This case, that I have in my mind, which I sent up to the Pensions Ministry, was a case where a soldier, a lad, had been killed, but whose mother had been re-married fifteen months before the separation allowance ceased. She had been drawing separation allowance, after her remarriage, for fifteen months, and yet, although the Royal Warrant does not cover the case at all, she is refused a pension because of her remarriage. She did not remarry after the soldier's death. She did not remarry while she was drawing a pension. She remarried while the soldier was serving, and actually drew a separation allowance as a

  1721
  dependant for fifteen months. What does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions tell me in answer to my last inquiry? In substance, this: That the Royal Warrant was not very clearly worded, and therefore it would have to be amended—amended to cover a case that has already occurred. I think it is a perfect scandal. It is a shame. These things are continually coming up. One of my complaints against the Government is that in these petty things the different Departments—the War Office, the Ministry of Pensions, and the rest of them—seem to think it is a triumph to save for the Treasury 1s. or 2s., or some other small amount at the expense of some poor person. Savings are affected in many cases because dependants and pensioners are not aware of the amounts to which they are entitled. But every Department ought to look upon it as its duty if any dependant or pensioner is not aware of his or her right, to draw their attention to the fact that they are entitled to more, and to give it to them. That is the honest way, and I that were done land others would have less need to trouble the Department. I have no wish to complain of my right hon. Friend, who is very courteous to me. I know I have given him a great amount of work, but I should have given him less if there were a greater desire on the part of the Department to help these people and to tell them what is due to them, without leaving it to such as myself to worry it out of the Department.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I wish to endorse what my hon. Friend opposite has said, that dependants should be told exactly what they are entitled to. They do not know what they are entitled to, and if some pamphlet were issued with definite instructions regarding the procedure to be adopted, it would simplify the work of the Department, and also that of Members of this House, and the people who are directly interested. I think my hon. Friend who has just spoken did not put the case quite fairly when he said the increase of pay to the soldier was really not an increase at all. It is an increase. If a mother has been drawing 12s. 6d. per week allowance for her son, and 9s. of that has been paid by the nation and 3s. 6d. by the son, and the Government take over the whole burden of 12s. 6d., and pay the soldier 6d. a day extra, certainly that must be an increase of pay to the soldier.
  Mr. JOWETT: Does my hon. Friend realise that previously that 6d. was given to the soldier? It cannot be given twice.
  Mr. WILSON: I am quite satisfied that where a son in the Army has been allotting 6d. a day of his pay to his mother or father, and that is now paid by the State, there must be an increase in pay. We cannot get away from that fact. I would like to support what was said with regard to the position of apprentices who joined the Army. I am certain the Government are not doing what is right by them. I made an appeal to the Government when the Royal Warrant was under discussion, in the first week of August or the last week in July, to make the same allowance to mothers of boys of eighteen as to mothers of boys who have attained the age of twenty-one. At that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it could not be done. He refused to do it. Then I appealed to him, at any rate, to take over the responsibility of paying the 3s. 6d. a week which the boys allotted to their parents. I am glad to say that since then the Government have changed their mind and agreed to pay the 3s. 6d. a week. I suggest that there ought to be a flat rate paid in the case of all those who joined the Army at seventeen or eighteen years of age who have attained the age of twenty-one, raising the allowance to not less than 8s. 6d. or 9s. a week. It is only fair that the parents of those soldiers should have an increased allowance. During the early months of the War quite a large number of boys from sixteen and a half years of age upwards joined the Army. A good many are still living under twenty-one years of age who have been serving at the front two or three years or more. They are only entitled to 3s. 6d. a week—from 1st January. I understand it will be 5s.—but the least that the Government can do is to pay 8s. 6d. or 9s. in the case of lads who have been serving for one year, two years, or three years.
  I want to make a complaint also against the system—it cannot be changed now, I am aware—of differentiating in the allowances paid to parents regarding the earnings of sons. It is causing an immense amount of dissatisfaction and discontent in the country, the fact that Mrs. Jones has a neighbour next door who is drawing 30s. a week for a son who was earning high wages, while she is only drawing 3s. 6d. or 5s., because in the one case the son happened to be a miner, whilst in the

  1723
  other the son was an apprentice, the parents having made immense sacrifice to give the lad a good training, it might be, in a profession. Therefore, I say this differentiation in the amount of the allowance is not justifiable. I am hoping that if it is possible to review the situation, the Government will give a more generous consideration to cases of the kind I have mentioned. I also want to refer to another matter referred to by an hon. Member opposite. That is the decisions—and this applies, I believe, more particularly to the Admiralty than to the War Office—and I should like to bear my testimony to the very courteous and generous mariner in which I have been met by the right hon. Gentlemen in the cases I have brought to their notice—of the Board of Admiralty when there has been a dispute between a pensions officer and the pensions committee in regard to the amount of dependency.
  What has happened in two or three instances in my district to which my attention has been drawn? Even though the pensions officer differed from the pensions committee, and was in favour of a smaller amount then the Committee of the Board of Admiralty has decided in favour of a sum even lower than that recommended by the pensions officer. I do say that the authorities ought not to ignore the recommendations of the local pensions committee. Personally, I have more confidence in the decisions of the local pensions committee than I have in that of the local pensions officer, after investigating these complaints. Very often we find the members of the local pensions committee are fully acquainted with the whole circumstances of the case. I say that either the Admiralty or the War Office that ignores the recommendations of the local pensions committee, preferring those of the local pensions officer—I do not say that the pensions officer is not right, but his judgment may be at fault, and very often is—are taking the risk of causing a discontent might be avoided. In the case I have just mentioned, the Admiralty insisted upon assessing the amount of dependency which was placed at 1s. 9d. by the officer, and 3s. 9d. by the committee at 1s. per week. Even if the pensions committee had erred on the side of generosity it would have paid the Government—that is, the Admiralty or the military authorities—to have taken a higher Valuation. I do
  1724
  appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in every instance be possibly can to take the most generous view of the recommendations made by the pensions committee. I have before admitted that he has taken a generous view in cases brought to his notice. After all is said and done a contented public and contented parents and dependants ought to be a point specially to be taken into consideration when deciding the amount of allowance to be made on behalf of soldiers and sailors. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what I have said.
  Mr. FINNEY: I am not going to say very much, but I do wish to associate myself with the general discussion on the Resolution before the House. One advantage in discussing this matter is the fact that everybody in the House, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, in the Government and out of it, I believe, are imbued with a spirit of sympathy, and wish to do the utmost possible in all these cases of dependency. I am bound to say, so far as I am concerned, that from the right hon. Gentlemen I have received every courtesy and consideration in all the cases I brought under their notice. After all, however, it does seem that there is something lacking. There is a great deal of discontent in the country on this question. Very hard, very pitiful cases, in some instances, are brought to our attention, and we cannot help feeling that it would be to the interest of everyone concerned if these pensions and allowances were put on such a footing that the people receiving them would be able to pay their way and look after their children and keep the home going, at any rate, on something like the level it was when the soldiers went away to fight our battles. As a matter of fact, when the recruiting was taking place and everyone was trying to do his best to raise an army adequate for the demand made upon it, we all said—everybody said—that the wives and children that were to be left behind would have the utmost consideration and that adequate provision would be made for them. I am sorry to say that in many cases which have been brought to my attention I could not honestly say that adequate provision has been made. Some of these cases have been of a very heartrending character. They are calculated, not only so far as I am concerned, but in the case of everyone acquainted with the

  1725
  facts, to arouse a great deal of feeling and anxiety as to whether the best was being done under the circumstances.
  I happen to be associated with a society that represents 700,000 or 800,000 men. Their delegates quite recently have met together, and this was one of the subjects that received very serious consideration this subject as to whether the allowances were adequate for wives and children, widows and parents, and dependants of all kinds. It was felt by everybody that these allowances were not sufficient. Pensions, it was said, were not always forthcoming according to expectation. Many of the people concerned were allowed to live and get along as best they could for weeks, and in some cases for months, without any income at all. They have had to sell their furniture, deplete the home of odds and ends of furniture, in order to provide food for themselves and their children. I am certain none in this House, or in the Government, or out of it, or elsewhere, desires that. There must be some misunderstanding or miscarriage in cases of the sort. That is the conclusion I have come to. So far as the allowances themselves are concerned, anyone who has had the misfortune—shall I say, of being compelled to live on a very inadequate income has some experience in these matters. We know what it must have cost the soldiers' wives to live on the allowances made to them from time to time. I do not know how they have managed to keep their homes going and their children fed and clothed. As a matter of fact, the amount would have been scarcely adequate in the past when the sovereign purchased more than half as much again as now. The pound sterling to-day does not represent anything like 30s. in pre-war times. How then do we expect these people to live, and to meet all the increased demands upon them, the higher cost of food and clothing, and all other things? How do we say, that we are keeping the promise we made to these people when recruiting for the Army? HOW can we say we are helping them to keep the home together in the condition it was when the husband and father first went away? It does not seem to me we are doing that.
  I refer to the fact that the representatives of 600,000 miners—and the miners are not alone in this business, for the representatives of other trades and industries are affected to the same extent and in the same way—have been trying to
  1726
  bring this matter to the attention of the Government with a view to increasing not only the pay of the soldiers, but the allowances for their wives, children, widows, and dependants. We were very hopeful that our representations would have been listened to and dealt with in a more generous spirit than has proved to be the case. As a matter of fact, I believe I am right in saying that we have received an intimation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the opinion of those whom he represents, the scales proposed are adequate. That has caused great disappointment to our people; they feel it very acutely, and they would like to have an opportunity of laying before the right hon. Gentleman the facts of the case. Of course we are bound to admit that at this moment it may not be possible for him to meet us for some days, and incidentally I may express a hope that the mission in which he is now engaged on the Continent may prove entirely successful and satisfactory to all of us. But at the same time we want to secure contentment in the minds and homes of the people. We want the wives and children of the men who are fighting our battles to be contented.
  What can be said of a case of this sort? Take a family in which three or four sons have enlisted and gone to the front. Two were killed in action; another lost his legs. A few weeks ago the fourth son was killed. The father is getting old and infirm and cannot follow his work. There are four children under fourteen years of age. What would hon. Members say if they were informed that in a case of that sort all the allowances that had been paid had now been stopped and nothing is being given at all to the mother? Must not such a state of affairs breed disappointment, dissatisfaction and discontent, as well as aggravation in the minds of all who become acquainted with the facts? Let it be borne in mind that the miners, when the War broke out, volunteered in very large numbers, and many youths of sixteen years of age volunteered and went to the front. It was not expected then that the War would have continued for so long a period. But at the time they went the boys were assisting their parents to rear the younger children. Had they remained at home, by now they would have been taking their fathers' places in the colliery and been receiving adult wages, and probably getting from 15s. to 16s. a day. These lads, many of them, probably, would have taken their wages home and added it to the

  1727
  common fund, keeping back only a few shillings as pocket money. But now those youths are away, and their parents, after having done their best to rear them, are prevented from reaping the advantage of their maturer years. Naturally we think the Government ought to try and meet cases of this description. They ought to give them more generous treatment than they are doing. I suggest further consideration should be shown to these people. I have felt it my duty to associate myself with the discussion which has taken place to-day on this question. We are here in no sense antagonistic to the Government, but we take this course because we wish to assist Ministers in realising the importance of this question. When the time comes we shall have to face it in the country, and it would be very unfortunate indeed if the wives of the men who are fighting at the front were allowed to lapse into poverty and to have their homes broken up.
  Now I come to the question of the discharged soldier. One or two cases have come to my notice which convince me that justice is not being done. I have, here the case of a man discharged from the Army on account of physical unfitness for military service. Representations have been made to the authorities with regard to him. He has a wife and several children, and an effort has been made to get some allowance for him. At the present moment he is in the depths of poverty. We have been trying to get his case investigated in order to find out who is responsible for the unfortunate state of affairs. I do not think it ought to be possible for one of our soldiers who has given his best to his country, who went away strong and hearty, who has done his best, but who through failing health has been returned to his home and family a wreck, to be without any income. It is from this point of view I wish to add my little quota to the pressure, if any is necessary, brought to bear on the Government to do their utmost to make adequate provision for the dependants of our soldiers. We have heard a good deal about percentages and of comparisons with the original scales. They sound very big, but when one gets to know the basis on which we started, one is bound to confess it needs increases to the extent of some hundreds per cent. to provide anything like a satisfactory allowance. We want these people to be content under the
  1728
  pressure of adverse circumstances. We want them to feel that however badly things may have turned out for them, yet as far as the country is concerned, the Government is prepared to do everything possible to lighten their burdens and ease their minds, making them feel that their sufferings and sacrifices have not only been in the interests of a great and good cause, but are fully recognised by the powers-that-be who realise what they have done to help their country in its time of need. I hope that the representations of the Labour Members will have due consideration from the Government, and that it will be found possible to increase the allowances.
  Mr. BOLAND: The Government must have been impressed with the strength of the case brought forward for Great Britain, but I wish to speak for a few moments for my own country, because this is a question which also affects Ireland. I cannot speak specially for the great cities which have provided a large number of men for the Army, but there the conditions are well known. There is great want of employment, and the cost of living has been so great that the scale of allowances is not considered satisfactory. I want specially to draw attention to small towns such as those in my own Constituency. Whatever may be said about the agricultural prosperity of Ireland, whore the farmer has his own pigs and poultry, and is able to make a livelihood; in the case of the towns, where you have the wife or sister or dependants of the soldier, there is not the employment which you have in Great Britain. We have not got any great munition works or employment arising directly out of the War, in the same way as you have in Great Britain, and what happens in the country towns and places like Kenmare is typical of what is happening in other parts of the South of Ireland. There you have no employment arising out of the War, and yet the cost of living has gone up in such a way that the scale of allowances are inadequate to keep the dependants of the soldier.
  Take the mere rise in the price of turf, because coal is not to be found there. The cost of turf has gone up four or five times the cost of what it was before the War, and that is the only sort of fuel which these people can buy. In regard to the price of eggs and fish, although the people there are living in a country where those

  1729
  articles are produced, economic laws operate as they do everywhere else, and the price is not defined by the origin but by the price obtained in the big markets of England and Ireland. These unfortunate people have had this enormous increase in the cost of living and this very great increase in the cost of fuel, and I hope that the representations that have been made as to the necessity of an increase in these allowances will come under the consideration of the Government I agree that as the War has gone on by degrees the Government have increased the scale, but the increase has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living, and I hope we shall have a definite promise from the Government that without any further delay they are now going to increase these allowances.
  Mr. COTTON: Early in this discussion a fully deserved tribute was paid to the tone that had been given to the Debate. I hope I shall not fall below that level during the time I shall occupy the attention of the House, but as a new Member I find myself rather in a quandary. We are told in the Press that the General Election is imminent, and apparently the electors are to be asked to give a blank cheque as a token of gratitude to the men who have won the War. If I go down into my Constituency and represent that point of view to the working men and women who form the great majority of the electors, what am I to say on that point? If I ask who won the War they will say, "We won the War, not the politicians, but our boys who went to the front and fought. And what have you done for them?" What sort of answer am I to give? I have sought for enlightenment from the speeches made this evening by the right hon. Gentlemen who are members of the Government, and I am bound to say frankly that I can derive very little instruction from them. In common, I suppose, with all Members of this House I have been during the short time I have been a Member inundated with letters of complaint with regard to separation allowances and pensions. How am I to answer them? Am I to present them with the actuarial calculations which were shown us to-night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes)? I am afraid that they will not carry much conviction to
  1730
  the mind, for instance, of the working woman whose letter I hold in my hand and who writes:
  "I am a wife with six children. How can I bring them up and how can I struggle along on £2 5s. a week to keep my six children? if you will count up the money you will find I have 6s. for each of my children to provide food, boots, and clothing. Do you think yourself you could keep children well on that money?"
  She has also said that her six children are actually waiting for boots from the National Boot Fund. She wrote three weeks ago and got no reply, and she cannot afford to pay the price demanded for the boots out of the money she receives. It is no good my going to her with the actuarial calculations we have had given us to-night. Her answer is plain. She says, "My husband has gone to the front, and if he had stayed behind he would be making his £5 and £6 a week, and if that were not sufficient he would have means for getting more. What is more, he is content to go there and do his duty." Does all that not make the obligation all the greater upon us? I am bound to say that the more I consider this question the more I feel convinced that we have not, in respect of the dependants of our soldiers and sailors done what it was incumbent on us to do. The idea seems to have been that the soldiers and the sailors were there, and that it was sufficient to go by degrees increasing the separation allowances. Apparently it was considered that the more important class of the community were those who had stayed behind engaged on munitions and other occupations of that kind.
  I do not in the least wish to say that those who have worked in our munition factories have not deserved well of us, but I do not think they have very serious ground for complaint. I maintain that the wives and dependants of those who have fought for us and won our present victories have not received consideration on the same scale as the men who have remained behind. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions has left the House because I wish to make an observation, as perhaps this may be the last opportunity we shall have in this House of speaking on this matter, with regard to the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. I should like to call attention to the constant complaints that I have been receiving with regard to the inspectors and the system of inquisitorial

  1731
  visiting that seems to take place. The complaint made to me is, "This is done on the old charity society methods, and, so far as we are concerned, we do not want any of it." I can promise for myself, and I think for most Members of this House, a very warm time when the General Election comes along with regard to this and other kindred matters. Why is it that in nearly all the cases that come under notice the grievance is based upon the making of a mistake by the officer or committee concerned? Why is it, when that mistake is brought to the notice of the Ministry of Pensions, that it takes weeks, and sometimes months, before it can be rectified?
  I have a case here which I want to bring to the notice of the House, because I am afraid it cannot be said to be an exceptional case. A reservist was called up, and, after a certain amount of service, he was discharged as he was suffering from tubercular disease of the kidneys. Although he was entitled to the full amount, by some official stupidity, he received only a pension of 3s. 6d. per week. Afterwards he went into hospital, and when it was discovered that he would have to pay 1s. a day for his maintenance, his pension was raised in a fit of generosity to 7s. per week, in order that the 7s. might be deducted for his maintenance. The net result was that his wife and family received nothing at all. It was only a few days after I was elected a Member of this House, in July last, that I brought the case to the notice of the Minister of Pensions, but I was not able to get it settled until October, and during the whole of that time this man's wife and family were left entirely without any sort of pension or allowance. When in the month of October I succeeded in extracting a letter from the Ministry of Pensions to the effect that the man was entitled to his full allowance, and that they regretted that a mistake had been made, the back payment only dated to 31st July, the date upon which the matter was brought to the notice of the Ministry of Pensions. Why in that case and in many other cases cannot the back payment date from the date of the discharge of the man from the Army? Surely, if he is entitled to this allowance or to this pension at all, he is entitled to it from the day of his discharge.
  1732
  The Ministry of Pensions will never serve a useful purpose until, first of all, they are able to provide officers and clerks who understand the mysteries of the Royal Warrant. Probably I am putting that rather high, because I doubt if there are many people in the world yet born or many people who will be born who will ever be able to understand the mysteries of the Royal Warrant. If that is so, the very best thing that can be done is to recast the whole procedure so that the ordinary person can understand it. In what position does a man find himself on being discharged from the Army? He has to apply for his pension. If he does not apply it is considered that no notice need be taken of it. When he does apply, his pension dates from the date of his application. No useful purpose will be served by the Ministry of Pensions until the whole question of pensions is put upon a statutory basis. There must be no giving of pensions at the whim or discretion of the Minister. The pension must be the right of the man and his dependants. Why should it not be so? The State has taken the man away from his occupation and from his wife and family. The man's health suffers shipwreck in the service of the State. He is injured fighting for the State. I say that he is entitled as a right to compensation for the services that he has rendered.
  If a man is dissatisfied with the pension which he receives, to whom is he to appeal? To the very person who has decided against him. Is it to be wondered at, after cases of this kind, after cases of inequality in the matter of separation allowances such as have been brought to the notice of the House this afternoon by many speakers, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the benches opposite, that there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country, and that people in every house to which you may go and in every assembly of working men and women are saying the same thing? "There has been a great deal of talk and much profession of sympathy, but there has been next to nothing done, and whatever has been done has been done at the eleventh hour when peace is in sight, and when the whole thing as far as separation allowances are concerned may very soon come to an end altogether." The prevalence of that kind of public opinion is not satisfactory. It is not pleasant, and it is not confined to the wives and dependants

  1733
  in this country. Talk to a soldier when he is home on leave, and he will tell you exactly the same thing. The feeling of many of these men is that the square thing has not been done by them. They went to the front relying upon promises that their wives and dependants would be the care of the Nation. They find that it is not so. They find that they are not able in the homes to live as self-respecting human beings ought to live. It is impossible to imagine anything more ridiculous than the scale of some of these separation allowances, and some of these pensions that have been awarded, and yet we are to meet these people who are angry and justifiably angry with actuarial calculations! Talk about offering a stone to people who ask for bread. Those of us who feel strongly about this matter had expected more this afternoon from the Government than we have received. I am bound to say, having listened to the greatest part of the; Debate, that I shall find it very difficult indeed to go to my Constituents and to say that I have come away from this Debate with the feeling that everything is being done for these deserving people that ought to be clone for them.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I want to refer to the case of those young men who were apprentices or students at the beginning of the War, especially those who were in colleges preparing to be teachers. The flat rate of 5s. which is going to be allowed in respect of these young men does not meet the case at all. In many of these cases the parents have made extreme sacrifices, especially in sending their sons to college to be trained. In many cases they have borrowed money and put a strain upon themselves which they could not afford for long, and just when the young men were coming to the point at which they would begin to earn some money they were taken for the Army. The parents do not complain of that, but they complain that they are not helped a little more generously in bearing the financial strain that is thrown upon them. In very many cases by this time those young men would have been earning very substantial salaries as teachers and would have been able to allow their parents £1 a week, or something of that sort, and would have been taking over the burden of the debt which they had contracted. The 5s. flat rate is quite inadequate, and I hope it will be reconsidered. I earnestly press upon
  1734
  the Financial Secretary to the War Office that some means may be found of helping the parents who have made these great sacrifices and find themselves in this unfortunate position. I am aware that if they are in actual want they can apply to the local war pensions committee for assistance, but I do not think that meets the case at all. There might, perhaps, be a rule made that they can send in an application to the Civil Liabilities Commissioners and show that by this time their sons would have been earning a considerable sum and would have been helping the family and thereupon they should get a much more adequate grant than the 5s. a week without having to prove that they are actually in want.
  10.0 P.M.
  Another point I want to dwell upon is the lateness with which this increase has come, and especially the fact that it is deferred to the 1st January. I understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) to say that some advance had been made in the pension rate in anticipation of a further rise of prices, but I could not follow that at all in his argument. On the contrary, even setting out the figures in the most favourable way, as he did, taking the whole family income, including the soldiers' pay, and taking the lowest figures of the four different ways of calculating the increase of prices in the most favourable way for his own case, I could not see that he showed there was anything in the recent advance which could be described as being in anticipation of any future advance. He was quite right when he spoke of the July revision as having been overdue, and I am afraid that is the criticism one must make upon all the revisions of allowances and allotments throughout the War. They have all been too late, and I am afraid the one we are now having is coming too late. If it had come six months ago it would have fairly met the case. I am quite aware that in the nature of things an interval must elapse between the time at which the figures are revised and agreed upon and the advance is actually paid but that ought to be met when they begin to pay them by paying them a little above the figure which at first might seem to be justified by the rise in prices, the reason being that the people have been waiting for months during which they have accumulated debt, and it is necessary that something above the bare cost of living should be given them to pay off that debt. I am

  1735
  quite aware the right hon. Gentleman said something about a Christmas box. I do not know what he meant by that. It-does not convey to one's mind the idea of a very substantial sum but I hope it is going to be a very substantial sum, and I would suggest that it would be far better to give it in the form of an increase in the allowance, either permanent or spread over so many weeks, than to give it in one lump sum. I give all credit to Ministers for having tried to do what was right in regard to these allowances. They have a very heavy duty not only to the soldiers, but also to the country, and it must not be forgotten that there was always a danger, if the War continued, that we might have come to the end of our financial resources, and therefore it was right for Ministers and for Members of the House to remember their responsibility to the country and to the War which we were waging. But now, happily, we seem to be in a much better position and are free from all anxiety in the matter of our financial resources coming to an end before the War comes to an end, and therefore there is the more reason why we should remember the other duty, which has always been there, and which has to be balanced against our duty to the country, and that is our duty to the individual family whose man was engaged in carrying on the War. The time has now come when Ministers can afford to deal with this matter generously.
  Mr. KEATING: Like all other Members of the House I have had a great many letters on this subject. I have no reason to complain of the lack of attention which has been given to the matter, but there are several criticisms which I think it my duty to offer as to the existing state of things. The total amount of allowances and pensions is, in my judgment, absolutely inadequate to the needs of the people in receipt of them, and the authorities who are responsible for meeting the obligations of the Government in this connection have adopted a rather unsatisfactory plan by first of all telling the people concerned that they are going to increase the pay of the soldiers by 3s. 6d. and, instead of giving that 3s. 6d. to the soldier himself, they have said it would be very much better employed if it was given to the dependants, and then as the cost of living has increased they have run away on the excuse that already they are in receipt of 3s. 6d. which ought to be put against the
  1736
  increased cost of living. I do not think that is quite playing the game. At all events it has created a great amount of indignation in the minds not only of the dependants themselves but of those of us-whose duty it is to complain of that sort of thing.
  I wish to submit one or two other points. Take the case of the discharged soldier. I have several cases in my mind in connection with my own Constituency. The discharged soldier is entitled to certain benefits under the Royal Warrant. The Royal Warrant may be, in the official mind, as clear as crystal, but the unfortunate discharged soldier is in a very difficult position in regard to it. I must confess that I am in the position alluded to by one hon. Member when he spoke about the mysteries of the Royal Warrant. The Royal Warrant is a perfect mystery to me in some of its effects. I have seen instances of men in my Constituency who responded to the call in the proper spirit and sacrificed their personal interest. These men having done their duty become the victims of neglect on the part of the authorities, who say that they are entitled to certain rights and privileges under the Royal Warrant, but it takes months and months to get anything like a clear reply as to what those rights and privileges are. In one case I was three months before I was-informed what was the position under the Royal Warrant of a private on whose behalf I had made application, and I was then told that he must take advantage of something else. That criticism ought not to be allowed to be possible. These men are entitled to be treated in a proper way. It is a great mistake and a great injustice to them and a great reflection upon those who are responsible for it to put these men, who have given everything for their country, into the position of beggars to get their rights.
  Take the case of a widow who has lost her husband in the War. I have cases in mind. Take the case of educated, cultured, and ambitious women who are anxious that their children should be worthy of the father who has died for his country, and become an honour to the family. Their allowances are utterly inadequate. It seems to me that the authorities do not take into consideration that aspect of the lives of dependants who are left without the means for the proper education of their children after their husband has been killed. It is true that after a considerable

  1737
  amount of trouble I was able, through the courtesy which I received, to get from the authorities a gratuity for the education of the children in one case. That is not a criticism that ought to be possible. I ask the authorities not to neglect the dependants of the when who have done their duty and to put them into a position of being beggars, but chat, on the other hand, they should give to them the benefits to which they are entitled by virtue of the services rendered at the front. I heard one hon. Member to-night compare the pay and allowances of the American, Australian, and Canadian soldiers with the allowances made to the soldiers of this country. It is very much to the discredit of the authorities in this country, and the primary burden rests upon us to see that this is remedied. It is our duty to see that our men and their dependants are not in a worse position than the men or the dependants of any countries who are associated with us in this fight. I hope the authorities will bear in mind the point I have raised, first, as to the disabled soldier; secondly, the widow who has to educate her children, and also the other points I have raised. I trust that these criticisms will not be ignored, but that the authorities will do something to see that the injustices are rectified in the future.
  Mr. KILEY: I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Finsbury when he spoke of the discontent amongst our fighting men at the treatment meted out to their dependants. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Pensions the case of two sisters, one who had married a soldier serving in the British Army, for which she would receive a separation allowance of 12s. 6d. a week, and the other, who was married to, say, an Australian soldier, and who would receive £2 2s. per week. There may be most excellent reasons why two sisters, living perhaps in the same house, may be receiving in the one case 12s. 6d. because she had married a British soldier, and in the other case £2 2s. per week because she had been fortunate enough to marry a Colonial soldier. No wonder the British soldier feels dissatisfied as a citizen of the greatest and wealthiest country in the world that his wife receives such a small sum in comparison with the sum paid to the wives of Colonial soldiers. I bring this point forward because I want the Pensions Minister to be in possession
  1738
  of it along with other facts when he approaches the Treasury. For that reason only I intervened in this Debate.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not propose to go over the ground which has been already covered by my right hon. Friend who has spoken from this bench. The points to which attention has been called are thoroughly well fixed, I think. My right hon. Friend who presides over the Cabinet Committee has promised that the representations that have been made in the Debate shall be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be considered, and it is obvious that I cannot carry the matter any further. I should be very glad if the hon. Member who spoke last would tell me which of the Colonies it is that gives so handsome a separation allowance as £2 2s.
  Mr. KEATING: Australia.
  Mr. FORSTER: I was not aware that anything approaching that was given by Australia. The matter was looked into by the Cabinet Committee in the course of the autumn, and the information we were able to obtain was that it did not approach that figure. Possibly it may have been a direct contribution made by the husband. If the hon. Member will give me further information, I will enquire into it.
  Mr. KEATING: I shall be very glad to do so.
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, speaking of the supplementary allowance, with special reference to the flat rate of 6s. 6d. to the wife "unaccustomed to work," laid great stress on the necessity for equality of treatment in the matter of wives belonging to—what shall I say?—to different social strata. I entirely agree with him that the administration of these supplementary allowances should be absolutely equal, and that there should be no social distinctions. I quite appreciate what my hon. Friend says as to the possible misinterpretation of the wording of the phrase "unaccustomed to work," and if we can find words that would better express what we have in view—our intention has been made abundantly clear—we should not hesitate to adopt a different phraseology. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool found it difficult to believe that the administrative difficulties of bringing these allowances into operation before the 1st

  1739
  January were insuperable. I can well understand that anyone who has not made himself familiar with the difficulty of administering allowances by the million can have no conception of the difficulty of making any rapid change in the amount of the allowance that is issued. In the case of these allowances the flat rate allowances are paid by means of books, or forms, through the Post Office. These have to be printed. Some time ago I was anxious to get an amendment made in the books printed, and I was told that it would take at least three months. If we amend the amount in the flat rate payable in these books, either we shall be unable to amend them by the end of the year, or we have got to get a printed form. It is physically impossible to get that done under present conditions before the 1st January, or in time to issue them before the 1st January. It is for that reason that the administrative difficulty is so considerable. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) has promised to consider whether if these allowances cannot be brought into payment earlier, they should not be made retrospective to, say, the 1st November, or some other date, in order that, at any rate, by the beginning of the new year the wife should have some accumulation of funds in hand.
  If we wore to decide that they wore to be payable from the 1st of November, we should inevitably create great disappointment, because we could not get the money into the hands of the people for whom it is intended, owing to the difficulties which I have indicated. The result of that disappointment would be—I have known it to happen before—a perfect torrent of correspondence pouring into the pay office, and another torrent of correspondence flowing from the constituencies to Members of this House, and from them to my unhappy self. The result is that we should all become congested with quite unnecessary correspondence, and the necessary work of making payments would suffer. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett), and several other Members, were anxious to know if full information as to their rights could not be given to the wives, families, and dependants of soldiers by some means or other, so that they may be put in the position to claim from the local pensions committees the allowances to which they are fairly and properly
  1740
  entitled. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions says that a paper is being sent out with the ring papers, so that it will come directly into the hands of all those who are in receipt of these allowances, pointing out to them their rights under the new proposals. I hope by this means, as well as by the attention which this Debate will no doubt attract throughout the country, that they will become fully aware of what they are entitled to. The House ought to bear in mind when it criticises what is termed the flat-rate amount of the separation allowance that it is criticising an allowance which we all agree is insufficient in certain cases. We have got to remember that this is an average allowance based upon the needs of town and country alike; and it is quite obvious that in certain urban areas, where the cost of living is considerably higher than elsewhere, an allowance that may be sufficient for rural districts is not enough.
  In order to supplement the allowance where it is shown to be insufficient, we have introduced a scheme of supplementary allowances; and we have got to judge of the scheme as a whole, not by reference to the flat rate only, but taking into due consideration the amount which is given out of public money through the supplementary allowance. And when we are asked to compare the provision made for soldiers' families to-day with that which was made in 1914, I think, in justice to the proposals of the Government and to the good intentions of the House, that we should remember that in 1914 there were no grants from the Civil Liabilities Committee and no supplementary grants from the War Pensions Committee. When you are criticising the present scheme for falling short of the increased cost of living, I think that is a material fact we ought to bear in mind. The views repeated in this Debate will be communicated to the Government and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by my right hon. Friend and by myself. They made certain proposals, and we recognise, and no one more fully than I do, that it is for the House itself to decide these matters. Let me remind the House that this subject was under discussion last summer. Responsibility in matters of this kind rests with the House of Commons, it does not rest entirely with the Government. The Government may make proposals, and if the House thinks they

  1741
  are insufficient it has the right to say so, and it has been evident in the Debate this afternoon that the House does not feel that its intentions are met. We make no complaint at all. We are just as anxious, Heaven knows, we who are responsible in any way for the administration of the Army, as anybody else, that there should be the fullest and fairest provision made for soldiers and their families. On the last occasion to which I refer I pointed out that the result of the increase raised the level of the separation allowance in the case of less well-paid wage-earners above the level of the standard rate of wages which used to be earned in civil life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the War?"] No, not before the War. Take the case of the agricultural labourer, whose wages were fixed within the last few months, at a level actually-lower than the rate of separation allowance which his wife will get when he is claimed as a soldier. I pointed out the difficulties which might ensue upon the man's return, and I was criticised with some ascerbity for my rather niggardly views. I am not afraid of criticism. I have now been a Member of this House for a great many years and criticism does not break anybody's back. But I felt it my duty to point out to the House that there was this element in the scale of separation allowances even as they stood at that time. I felt bound to point that out to the House of Commons, because the responsibility for ultimate decision rests with the House of Commons. The House of Commons, after listening to what I had to say, did not consider that the point outweighed the advantages of giving a further increase, and it was because the House then insisted upon a further increase being made in the provision which the Government has proposed that we are now debating the new and reconsidered scale which was fixed at that time. I do not know that I can say more. We have already shown our willingness to endeavour to meet the views of the House of Commons on one occasion, and I have no doubt that we shall make a further effort to do so in the immediate future. I hope, when we do come to the House of Commons with the results of our revision, that we may be able to arrive at a general agreement.
  Mr. JOWETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reply regarding the point as to pensions of soldiers, who at the time of being enrolled were apprentices
  1742
  and scholars in secondary schools, with progressive wages? There is great hardship in their case.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): Pensions in these cases as my hon. Friend is aware, are only paid if there is hardship. Pensions for parents now are only paid on two conditions, namely, pre-war dependence—which there clearly is not in these cases—or if there is hardship. As a consequence of this flat rate for separation allowances, a flat rate for pension is now being established on the same lines, and I hope will come into operation very shortly.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LICENSED STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill promoted by members of the Dublin Stock Exchange for the purpose of removing an anomaly which relates to their Exchange. Under an Irish Act of 1799 there was a restriction imposed as to brokerage or commission on the sale or purchase of any Government stock or securities, and that applies only to the Dublin Stock Exchange. Recently it became necessary to make a change, and it was found that that could not be done except by Statute. The Bill does not affect anyone except those licensed under the particular Act which created the Dublin Stock Exchange, and it provides that the rate may be fixed by rules made by the Exchange and to be approved of by the Lord Lieutenant. I understand Members for Dublin are quite willing to agree with the passage of this Bill and that there is agreement about it for both benches from Ireland.
  Question put, and agred to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. J. Hope.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IMPRISONED.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. DILLON: I wish to ask when the Government really propose to take the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill. It is extremely inconvenient that the Government have put the Bill down from day to day, while Irish Members are here who are interested in it. We do not know whether the Government intend to go on with it or when they propose to take it.
    Colonel SANDERS: The Chief Secretary will be back on Monday, and he will then be consulted about the most convenient date on which to take the Bill.
    Mr. PETO: I desire to raise a matter, and I shall do so as shortly as I can, which arose at Question Time to-day, on a question that I put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Firstly, let me apologise to the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) for having put him to the inconvenience of returning to the House from a function which, I am sure, all hon. Members would have been glad if he could have stayed to the end of, as it was in honour of our gallant Eastern Allies, who have played such a distinguished part in this War. But I think he will agree with me that this question, concerned with a territory mid-way between our own and that of Japan—Russia—is one which, in its relation to the vital question of British citizenship is really worthy of more attention than was possible to give it at Question Time. To put the House in possession of facts which the Noble Lord knows, I want to read the relevant parts of a letter I received two or three days ago from the brother-in-law of one of these unfortunate British citizens who is still, as far as I know, incarcerated, under the most terrible conditions, in one of the prisons of Moscow He was there when the Lockhart party left and, so far as I could gather from the Noble Lord's reply to-day, the probability is that nothing has intervened to alleviate his position. The relevant part of the letter is as follows:
    "From friends that have just arrived with the Lockhart party from Russia I learn that a brother-in-law of mine—John Richard Holdcroft—a British subject, of Moscow, was arrested by
    1744
    the Bolsheviks in August last, and was still under arrest when my friends left Moscow, i.e., the 1st instant. Holdcroft was arrested without warning, and on the pretext of being a 'capitalist.' For two days his daughters did not know where he was. For some time he was kept in the 'Lubianka' special prison, along with the unfortunates who were being executed nightly. The victims intended for execution were in the same room as Holdcroft. Between 1 and 4 a.m. the room door would be opened, a Red Guard appear, call out certain names; the victims taken to a basement and there shot. Under the circumstances, Holdcroft's feelings can be better imagined than described. His daughters were allowed to take him food every two days, though not to see him. Means of washing and sanitation were practically absent. Later, he was transferred to the 'Boutyrka,' another prison in Moscow, and there herded along with murderers, thieves, etc. He was still there when my friends left, and all the efforts of his daughters and friends to secure his release were unavailing, the reply of the Bolshevik authorities being that they intended to keep him as hostage. The position of Holdcroft is a horrible one as well as that of his two daughters, girls of twenty-two and twenty-three years of age, respectively, who are left without means or protection, their mother being over here and seriously ill."
    The Noble Lord's reply to my question contained very definite assurance and comfort to Britons and Members of this House and, I hope, to those outside the House who value British citizenship, and who realise that this is one of those things that we have always been able to stand up for and that Great Britain has hitherto always, with her long arm, been able to reach the people who infringe the rights and the liberties of British citizens wherever they may be. The last part of the reply I received was as follows:
    "We have already publicly informed the Bolshevik leaders that we will hold them personally responsible for the lives of British subjects in their power, and we shall not hesitate to take any retaliatory measures open to us in case of injury to them."
    On that there are two points I want to put to the Noble Lord. First, I want to ask him why it is that since this particular man and other British citizens have been incarcerated without trial, under no law, in the most horrible conditions since the 1st August, it is only now that we have taken steps, as he says, publicly to inform the Bolshevik leaders that we shall hold them responsible? Next, I want to ask what he means exactly by retaliatory measures open to us in case of injury to them. Surely illegal and cruel imprisonment under the conditions which were described in the "Times" to-day by its correspondent, who had endured them for thirty-six days, whereas it is now ninety days that this particular British citizen

    1745
    has endured these conditions—surely that is injury sufficient to make the British Government take every step in its power.
    Then I want to ask the Noble Lord as to how this public announcement has been made. How can we be sure at the present phase of the War that the people who are directly responsible for the arrest and continued imprisonment of British citizens in Russia know that just so soon as the long arm of Great Britain can get at them we shall exact the full measure of penalty that we are entitled to exact from those responsible, whether they are the nominal Bolshevik Government of Russia at present or any of these Red Guards, or other persons who act for them in these matters? I would also like to ask the Noble Lord how long we are going to wait before we find out whether the representations M. Litvinoff has promised to make to the Bolshevik Government are ever made, and, if made, whether they are effective. It is not necessary really for me to point, out to the right hon. Gentleman—because he is much more familiar with these aspects of foreign affairs than I am—that the surrender of Turkey alters the whole situation. We can now get straight through the Black Sea with our fleet and into direct communication with Moscow from the south in a very short space of time, And what are these Red Guards? What is the present state of military preparation in Russia? I say that any righteous threat, any clear pronouncement that Great Britain is not going to see its citizens incarcerated illegally in any country by that country, if made at the present juncture, not only to these Russians—if they are Russians—who are responsible, but to the whole world, that we shall not tolerate from the Bolshevik Government or from any other Government the incarceration of our citizens, it is bound to be effective. Throughout the history of Great Britain—the Noble Lord knows much better than I do—this has always been a thing we could rely upon British citizenship, although an intangible possession, has been one of the most valuable, most vital and highly prized possessions of every British citizen. I remember vaguely reading there was a case, with which I am sure the Noble Lord is much more familiar than I am, of a gentleman—I think Greek by origin—who was called Don Pacifico, for whom, in spite of his name, and shadowy claim to British citizenship, the British Government threatened to go to war for far less
    1746
    than what has been inflicted on British citizens in Russia. We have arrived at the victorious conclusion—or almost arrived at it—of the greatest war that has ever been fought, and I say at this moment the Noble Lord's task is an easy one to see that these rights of British citizenship are upheld, as they have been in the past. The question raised in the supplementary question this afternoon is as to the official status, if any, of the emissary of the Bolshevik Government in this country, M. Litvinoff. There is no question here of any Ambassador. Perhaps the Noble Lord would refer to this in his reply, and tell me whether I am right in saying that from the very nature of the case this Government is what the Soviets call a capitalist Government, one that they do not acknowledge and wish to destroy, and that this M. Litvinoff could not have been an Ambassador to this country, and must have been—what everyone knows he was—an emissary of the Bolshevists to spread their creed throughout the population of this country, if he could—to do all he could in that direction. From the nature of the case, this seems to me to be obviously true.
    In conclusion, I would ask the Noble Lord if he has heard of the organisation which seems to be addressing itself even, I find, to Members of this House? I refer to the Peoples' Russian Information Bureau. I have had, I think, no less than three leaflets this week from them, and at the end of the covering letter it says: "I trust you will be able to give publicity to it by all the means at your disposal." I fear I may be accused of giving publicity to it at the present moment. My excuse for doing so is that many of these leaflets are extracts from letters to newspapers and things of that kind, and on the face of them, have obviously but one object—to palliate and gloss over the crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated daily in Russia, to show these inhuman monsters in a very sentimental light to the populace of every country that these leaflets may reach. I cannot understand why we permit these things to be spread about in this country; having got rid of M. Litvinoff, why we allow other people to carry on this work. This aspect of the case, if it is rather outside the province of the Foreign Office, he might at all events look into, for it certainly is not unconnected with foreign affairs. I trust he will be able to give us some reassurance on the

    1747
    matter for which I have troubled him to come this evening, namely, what practical effect he can give to this public announcement that he referred to, when that announcement was made, and, further, to define the steps he proposes to take to render British citizens immune from the terrible ordeal through which our fellow-citizens are undergoing now in Russia. I felt I ought not to let the evening go without letting the House know, so far as possible, what is now being done and has been done for the last three months in these ghastly cells, where twenty persons were crowded into a space 20 ft. by lift., without ventilation or sanitation, food or exercise, accusation or excuse, except that they were said to belong to the capitalist class, be they British or not, and that they are held there as hostages.
    Brigadier-General McCALMONT: I would merely ask the Noble Lord whether it is not a fact that amongst the British subjects left in Petrograd there is at least one Britisher who was actually an employé of the British Consul, and that was not with Mr. Woodhouse; and, if so, is it not possible to take official steps in the case of this gentleman to expedite his release, seeing he was, through illness, left behind and could not join Mr. Woodhouse's party?
    Mr. KING: I am rather surprised at the absence of the hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman) because he took part in the questions on this subject and made the striking suggestion—one somewhat in line with the speech we have just listened to—that Mrs. Litvonoff should be arrested. I intimated to the hon. Member for Enfield that I should raise this question, and I am sorry he is not present. I have had since Question Time an opportunity of seeing Mrs. Litvonoff and she authorises me to say that she is perfectly ready at any moment to go as a hostage to Brixton Prison. She asks one condition and that is that her baby at her breast—two months old—and her young child, two years of age, should be allowed to accompany her and her nurse as well. She is willing under those circumstances to go at any moment the Noble Lord likes to the prison in which her husband was incarcerated. Perhaps hon. Members do not know who Mrs. Litvinoff is. She is the daughter of a very eminent British scholar now dead, and her uncle has been knighted by the present
    1748
    Government for his services to the country. Another uncle of hers is, perhaps, the most eminent newspaper correspondent which this country has in the United States at the present moment.
    I should not have referred to this question at all had it not been that the Noble Lord in his answer used the words "retaliatory measures." He ought to explain what he means by those words. If British subjects suffer in prisons in Russia treatment against which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has so spiritedly and rightly protested, what are the retaliatory measures to be taken here? Are Russian subjects to be imprisoned in this country, without trial and unjustly? Very well! Mrs. Litvinoff is ready to go at once. If they are shot, are we to shoot Russians here? When the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) says we must declare that we will exact a full measure of punishment and retribution does he mean that if a British subject is shot there a Russian must be shot here?
    Mr. PETO: No, my words were clear. We can exercise retribution on the people responsible for shooting British subjects.
    Mr. KING: How can we get them? Are you going to make another expedition into the centre of Russia to get somebody or other who has shot somebody else? I hope that this War is going to end, and that when it does end let there be an end also to bitterness, misery and vindictiveness. Let them be forgotten, and rightly so. These protests against men in prison without trial leave me rather cold, and why? How many people are there in prison in Ireland to-day, I believe entirely unjustly, and certainly without any trial? They are in prison because somebody has said they are guilty of complicity in a German plot, although there is scarcely a person in Ireland who believed it and there is not a Minister who knows anything about the evidence believes it. And yet this alleged complicity in a German plot has sent many men and women in Ireland to prison, and there they remain. While that goes on in Ireland I think there is a good deal of cant and humbug about the protests of the "Times" newspaper, and such Members as the hon. Member for Devizes. In judging Russia you cannot judge her by the same standard as other countries. Who are these men who unfortunately have got supreme power in Russia?
    Mr. PETO: Czechs, Letts, and Chinese.
    Mr. KING: They are the men whom our gallant and noble ally the Czar sent to prison by the thousand in the days when a few people in England were raising a protest, and when the hon. Member for Devizes had not one word to say against thousands of distinguished Russians being sent to Siberia; he had no protest to make when men were being shot down by hundreds, when the gallows were put up in Petrograd and other districts in Russia and they were hung without trial.
    Mr. PETO: British subjects?
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: No, Russian subjects, who have just as much right to live as Englishmen. We must have had a protest against this tyranny and injustice in Russia under the Czar, but we never said a word as a nation, but we belauded and bespattered this wonderful Czar for his great and noble gifts. We hailed him as an ally and a defender of small nationalities, and when he falls there is not a word of sympathy, and not an effort was made for his family or his friends. There are soldiers who fought for the Czar in this country to-day in beggary who come and appeal to me, and ask me to put their case before the Foreign Office, and when I send their names in to the Foreign Office not even an acknowledgment is given me. I say, therefore, that I am entitled much more than the hon. Member for Devizes to stand up for liberty, dignity and rights, because I show justice to all classes and causes. I protest against injustice wherever it has been committed, whether by the Czar or others, and I protest against the violent methods of the Bolsheviks now. But I have some sense of equality and perspective, and when these men get in power what do you expect of them. They have sown the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind, and whereas we did nothing to mitigate the terrors under the Czar we hold up our hands in horrow now. I say that there is a great deal of cant and humbug about all this talk that is going on about the Bolshevik terror being the worst terror that the world has ever seen. It is not so bad as the terror under the Czar, not nearly so many men have been killed in cold blood by the Bolsheviks as by our noble ally the Czar, and, if we protest against injustice, brutality, the rule of force, and the absence of law and order in the one case, let us
    1750
    protest against it in the other. If we are silent in the one case, let us be, if not silent, at any rate, patient and fair-minded in the other.
    I am going to conclude by an appeal to-the Noble Lord not to trust M. Nabokoff any longer. For over a year we have been supporting with money, favour, and privilege the old diplomatic representative of the Czar. So long as we do that, and do many other things of the same character, we cannot but expect the suspicion, dislike, and distrust of the Bolsheviks. Before the Bolsheviks came in, M. Nabokoff was recalled. The Foreign Office kept him here, paid him, and gave him all sorts of privileges, with access to the Prime Minister whenever he likes to go? What can you expect of the Bolsheviks when you treat a scheming, interfering man in that way, paying a Czar's Minister to plot schemes against the present Soviet Government of Russia? I must appeal most earnestly to the Foreign Office and to the Noble Lord to have done with M. Nabokoff, and I appeal all the more earnestly because there has lately come to this country copies of his private correspondence. I have no doubt that the Noble Lord has received a copy of it as I have, and we now know what this M. Nabokoff thinks of the people in the Foreign Office. I take only one extract. On 1st July, 1917, in his letter, No. 547, M. Nabokoff complained of the "narrow-minded Conservatism"—these are his words—"of Curzon, Milner, Carson, and Balfour," and wont on to say that "the activities of the Prime Minister's colleagues are undermining Russia's faith in English sincerity." That is what M. Nabokoff says behind the back of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is rather remarkable that he says that the activities of the Foreign Office are undermining faith in English sincerity. That is what he said a year ago, but what he said then has actually come true. Our policy towards Russia has undermined Russian faith in English sincerity. In this secret correspondence of M. Nabokoff which has lately been published, he pays a tribute to the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) and to the Prime Minister as straightforward men of a very different calibre from the others I have mentioned. It is only fair to the Noble Lord, many of whose qualities I most sincerely admire, that I inform the House of this interesting divergence of judgment which M. Nabokoff

    1751
    makes between the Noble Lord and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I hope I may have the opportunity, on the next Vote of Credit, of returning to the question of M. Nabokoff and his revelations.
    The ASSISTANT-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I do not propose to insult the House by dealing with the curious farago of observations to which we have just listened. The matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) is a very serious one, and merits the closest consideration of the House and the Government. Nothing could exaggerate the hardship of the cases to which he refers. My own belief Is that probably when we know the whole history of what is now going on in Russia, what we know now will seem a pale shadow of the actual truth. I said I would not refer to the other hon. Member (Mr. King), but I must say this. He spoke with vehement condemnation of the evils of the old regime. I am not going to defend many of the acts of the old Imperial Government, but it is only fair to say that as far as our information goes, the amount of blood which has been shed by the present so-called Government of Russia greatly exceeds anything that went on under the Imperial Government, and not only so, but there has been no kind of pretence of justice or of certainty. People have been arrested for absolutely no reason.
    Mr. KING: As in Ireland.
    Lord R. CECIL: Men of all nationalities, British, Italians, French—every nationality—have been thrown into prison, and treated, as described for instance in this morning's "Times" by a German who has just come back, with the greatest brutality and the greatest torture. In addition to that there has been an amount of casual murder and brigandage going on practically throughout the whole of European Russia.
    It is relatively a small matter that the wealth and industry of the country have been absolutely destroyed, that thousands, not impossibly millions, in the near future, will be actually starving because of the reckless destruction which has gone on of all the means of subsistence in Russia. I speak on the spur of the moment without actual facts before me, but I can assure
    1752
    the House that on the information given to me I am not exaggerating in the least degree what has gone on. When you think of that it is very difficult to have patience with the kind of apologia put forward just now. I need not say that everything the Government can do they are only too anxious to do to relieve the terrible hardships which these people are undergoing and to get them out of Russia. It is not true that we have done nothing; on the contrary, the matter has been before us and we have done everything that seemed to us possible to secure their release for many months past. The warning and menace that I read out to the House earlier this afternoon was issued several weeks ago, and we still believe that sooner or later we shall be able to execute that threat.
    We do not withdraw from that in the least degree, but the difficulties, as I think the hon. Member will recognise, are very-great. He complains that we did not move quickly enough. That is not quite true. It should be remembered that for many weeks, for many months, we have been practically cut off from all direct communication with Moscow and Petrograd. The postal communication has gone a long time, and the telegraphic communication has been cut off for a long time both to Petrograd and Moscow. We can only communicate, and that spasmodically, through the representatives of neutral Powers. These are the only means of communication, while I have nothing but the warmest praise for what the representatives of neutrals have done to assist our citizens. Of course, the hon. Member will recognise that having to communicate through channels which are not at our command, limit to some extent the active steps that we can take. The hon. Member suggested, as I understood, that we might land an expedition in the south of Russia and march on Moscow.
    Mr. PETO: I think that we might make it perfectly clear to the Bolshevik Government that it is open to us to take that step and that we can effectually do it, and quite quickly if necessary.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know about quickly. That would be a military matter on which I cannot venture an opinion. Of course, it is physically possible, and I do not exclude any step which is possible. For obvious reasons I do not wish to exclude them, but I do not think that it would be fair to the House or to the

    1753
    country to suggest that it would be a very easy operation. The difficulties are prodigious. The difficulties of communication would be enormous, and at the end of four years of the greatest War which we have ever been through in the history of the world it would be a very difficult process to go to the country and suggest an expedition to Moscow to carry out even a just object.
    There is another difficulty which, I think, we must bear in mind. The hon. Member spoke of the Soviet Government of Russia, but it really is very misleading to talk of a central government in Russia at the present moment. If you have a quarrel with an ordinary civilised country you can approach the Central Government. You can threaten the Central Government on various points, but in the present condition of Russia, the amount of connection between the Central Government, if it may be so called, sitting in Moscow, and the outside of Russia is of the slightest possible description. It would be almost true to say that each town has a Government of its own, with a very slight connection with the Central Government, if any. Many of them have thrown off all connection. Therefore, you are in face of a situation which is exceedingly difficult to deal with; a situation in which, for all practical purposes, the bonds of ordinary society have been absolutely destroyed, and you have something very like anarchy existing throughout Russia.
    I merely mention this to show the great difficulties we are under in dealing with
    1754
    the situation; and, though I do not for a moment suggest that because these difficulties exist, therefore we should not take action, yet I do ask the hon. Member and his friends to consider these difficulties when they are inclined to criticise what we have been able to do. We have, after all, been able to get out a considerable number of British subjects; we are making every possible effort, by every channel at our command, at this moment to get out every other British subject we can. We will not shrink from anything within our power with that object. We do unquestionably mean to execute justice on these people who have committed these outrages, if and when we get them within our power; and if there is any form of pressure—I am not afraid of the word "retaliation" in the least—if there is any form of retaliation or pressure which we have the least reason to believe would be effective with the object of releasing them, we will not hesitate to make use of those means. I am afraid I cannot say more than that at the present time. I must ask the hon. Member to believe in our sincerity and in our desire to help our fellow countrymen, and, in considering the great difficulty of our task, to be as patient as he can in the circumstances.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes alter Eleven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.

WAR.
  LEASEHOLDERS.
  LEASEHOLDERS.
GENERAL ELECTION.
  ENLISTED CIVIL SERVANTS (CANDIDATURE).
  ENLISTED CIVIL SERVANTS (CANDIDATURE).
  ABSENT VOTERS (ADDRESSES).
  ABSENT VOTERS (ADDRESSES).
  IMPRISONED CANDIDATES (AGENTS' INTERVIEWS).
  IMPRISONED CANDIDATES (AGENTS' INTERVIEWS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SWEETMEATS.
  SWEETMEATS.
  OATS.
  OATS.
  BRIGHTON ALLOTMENTS (WATER SUPPLY).
  BRIGHTON ALLOTMENTS (WATER SUPPLY).
IRELAND.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  TURF CHARGES, DUBLIN.
  TURF CHARGES, DUBLIN.
GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.
  IRISH MAIL STEAMSHIPS.
  IRISH MAIL STEAMSHIPS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  THRICE-WOUNDED SOLDIER.
  THRICE-WOUNDED SOLDIER.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS (HONORARY RANK).
  TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS (HONORARY RANK).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND).
  MESOPOTAMIA FORCE (PETROL).
  MESOPOTAMIA FORCE (PETROL).
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, HAVRE.
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, HAVRE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  HOSPITAL TREATMENT (PRIVATE KIRBY).
  HOSPITAL TREATMENT (PRIVATE KIRBY).
  SILVER WAR BADGE.
  SILVER WAR BADGE.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  ARMY PAY.
  ARMY PAY.
  ARMY CONTRACTOR, CAPE TOWN.
  ARMY CONTRACTOR, CAPE TOWN.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (DISCHARGED MEN EMPLOYED).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (DISCHARGED MEN EMPLOYED).
MUNITIONS.
  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (PERMITS).
  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (PERMITS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  RUSSIAN MEDICAL STUDENT.
  RUSSIAN MEDICAL STUDENT.
  RAILWAY FACILITIES (STRANRAER AND LONDON).
  RAILWAY FACILITIES (STRANRAER AND LONDON).
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY (MINIMUM CHARGES).
  ELECTRIC SUPPLY (MINIMUM CHARGES).
  STEAMSHIP "LEINSTER" (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
  STEAMSHIP "LEINSTER" (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
  SALT (EXPORTS).
  SALT (EXPORTS).
  PRISON SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  PRISON SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  BLOCKADE (EXPORTS TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  BLOCKADE (EXPORTS TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  DAMASCUS.
  DAMASCUS.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN STAFF).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN STAFF).
  Civil Servants (Unestablised Service).
  Civil Servants (Unestablised Service).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  INCOME LIMIT (WAR BONUS).
  INCOME LIMIT (WAR BONUS).
PORTSEA ISLAND GAS BILL.
Read 2a.
AN ARMISTICE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I have an announcement to make which I think will be heard with interest by your Lordships. It is to the following effect. Some days ago General Townshend was liberated in order to inform the British Admiral in command in the Ægean that the Turkish Government asked that negotiations should be opened immediately for an armistice between Turkey and the Allies. A reply was sent that if the Turkish Government sent duly-accredited plenipotentiaries, Vice-Admiral Calthorpe was empowered to inform them of the conditions upon which the Allies would agree to a cessation of hostilities, and to sign an armistice on those conditions on their behalf. The Turkish plenipoteniary arrived at Mudros early this week, and an armistice was signed by Vice-Admiral Calthorpe on behalf of the Allied Governments last night and comes into operation at noon today. It is not possible as yet to publish the full terms of the armistice, but they include a free passage for the Allied fleets to the Black Sea, the occupation of the forts on the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus necessary to secure their passage, and the immediate repatriation of all Allied prisoners of war. Your Lordships will, I am sure, understand that I am not at present in a position to add any further details to this general announcement.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MIDWIVES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SPECIAL COMMISSION (BELFAST PRISON) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING AFTER THE WAR.
EARL GREY EARL GREY had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—(1) How many (a) urban, and (b) rural authorities have put forward definite building schemes in terms of the Local Government Board circular of March 21, 1918, and how many houses are provided for by these schemes; (2) whether local authorities are experiencing any difficulty in acquiring the necessary land; and (3) what assistance His Majesty's Government propose to offer to facilitate the erection of houses by other than local authorities.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, had I realised when I placed on the Paper the Question which stands in my name that your Lordships would be called upon to consider a Housing Bill which, I understand, received a Second Reading in another place on Monday, perhaps I should not have asked to occupy your time today; but the extraordinary news which we have listened to today and recently as regards the war brings this question of housing into the very forefront of the matters which we must consider without any delay.
Another point which I think makes this Question not inopportune is the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill last Monday in the House of Commons. The President of the Local Government Board no doubt found himself in a very difficult position, in that he had to try to reconcile two irreconcilable elements. I should like to call your attention to two passages in his remarks which I quote from Hansard. In trying to free his Department from the imputation that they had committed this country to an enormous expenditure of money

941
without having received the sanction of Parliament, he used the following words—
"I said that the Treasury had promised, so far as they could promise, to give to the county councils the terms which they had entered into with other local authorities. That could not possibly take place unless it was embodied in a Bill, and when it came to be embodied in a Bill then this House would have the fullest opportunity of considering whether or not that should be sanctioned."
It is quite true that this remark applied to a Bill which is not before your Lordships, but the circular which was issued by the Local Government Board to local authorities on March 21 is in exactly the same position. It promised, as far as the Treasury could promise, to assist them with the disbursement of certain moneys, and until that has been confirmed by a financial Resolution in another place the promise is not a legally binding one.
Having tried to safeguard the position of his Department and to refute the charge of having committed the Government without authority, the President of the Local Government Board went on to deprecate the criticism of the general housing policy of the Government. He said—
"During the last month or two I have been busy going about the country endeavouring to persuade local authorities that the offer of the Government is final."
Now, it is quite impossible that both those statements should be true. If I may say so, I think it is a bureaucratic attempt to run with the hare and course with the hounds. As a matter of fact, the situation surely is that whereas there is no actual legal liability incurred, yet the country is pledged up to the hilt to the expenditure of a certain indefinite sum of money which has been variously estimated at anything from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000. I submit to your Lordships that it is one thing for a Department to pledge the country to such an expenditure in time of war for the purposes of war; it is an entirely different matter to pledge the country to that expenditure after the war is finished even if it is to remedy a defect which has largely arisen out of the circumstances of the war. Bureaucracy during the war is no doubt necessary, although it is hardly tolerable. I thought we were all pledged to knock it on the head as soon as we possibly could after the war. Therefore I submit that we ought to insist upon this position being regularised without any delay.
Mr. Hayes Fisher then went on to draw a rather pathetic picture of the disappoint
942
ment he felt that he had been given no opportunity of outlining his ideas; and he said that he had been very much surprised that he had not been called upon, as he was longing for an opportunity to put his ideas before the House, but nobody asked him to. And I hope that the Question which the noble Lord will shortly answer will give him the opportunity of affording us some of that information which Mr. Hayes Fisher was anxious to impart.
The Government policy falls into two sections, the first dealing with the building which it is proposed to do through the medium of local authorities, and the second through the medium of other agencies. If I may deal with the first section, that through local authorities, I think in the first place that the President of the Local Government Board is to be congratulated upon having come to a decision as to what his policy was going to be as long ago as last March; I do not know whether there were any other Departments in which preparations for the reconstruction period were so far advanced at that time. But it will be within the recollection of noble Lords that the Ministry of Reconstruction appointed a Panel, which was presided over by a member of your Lordships' House, to consider this problem of housing after the war, and the Panel presented to Dr. Addison a Report—I speak subject to correction, but I think it was as long ago as last January, or at all events in February—which Report no doubt was in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board some time before he issued the circular of March 21. It is rather noticeable that, if you compare the Report of the Panel as laid on the Table of this House in August with the circular, you find that there is no resemblance whatever between the policy of the Local Government Board as embodied in the circular of March, and the recommendations of the Panel. And, thirdly, we find that a Scottish Committee of Inquiry, which corresponded with the English Panel, in considering this subject came to conclusions which, on broad lines, were almost identical, though differing considerably in detail. It does not follow from this that the Local Government Board were wrong in the policy that they adopted, but it does constitute a very strong prima facie ground for submitting their case to the closest scrutiny; and it is impossible, when one does that, to come to any other conclusion than that the policy which was adopted in March was

943
very largely, if not entirely, influenced by the Treasury. Mr. Hayes Fisher has admitted so much himself, and we know, on his own authority, that neither his first proposals nor even his second proposals were accepted by the Treasury. Therefore when we find, in a matter of this overwhelming importance—the future housing of our people—that the policy of the Treasury has overridden the policy which commended itself on purely housing grounds to those who are best qualified to judge, we may surely not unfairly claim that the Treasury should justify the grounds upon which it came to that decision.
I have no doubt that the Treasury will make out a very strong case that it was quite impossible to contemplate, at the conclusion of the war, an expenditure running into such large figures as £100,000,000 to £200,000,000. But that is not really quite a fair comparison. What I should like the noble Lord to tell us is, what is the difference in cost between the policy proposed to the Treasury in the first instance by the President of the Local Government Board and the policy which he adopted finally at their instance. It is probable that the difference in cash to be found by the Treasury would not amount to more than, perhaps, £20,000,000 or £30,000,000. On the other hand, when you come to consider what the object is and what the effect of good housing may be, I suggest to your Lordships that this saving might be the most extravagant action which His Majesty's Government has ever taken. There is the difference between content and discontent, as has been answered in other countries lately in terms of life and death. And there is no branch of our social life, there is no question connected with health, no pain, no misery, nothing of that nature which is not aggravated by bad housing or alleviated to some extent by improved living conditions. Therefore I claim that in this paramount question of housing we cannot quietly accept the ruling of the Treasury as being the final word in this matter, even though it has received the endorsement of the War Cabinet.
I pass from the manner in which proposals have been put forward to the country to that of the measure of the success they have achieved. My first two questions really are connected with that first branch of the subject—building
944
done through the local authorities. The extent to which criticism has come from competent housing authorities all over the country, and the uniformity with which that criticism was directed to certain points, makes it very important that we should examine it very carefully. The critics have generally centred on three points. First, that the Government proposals put a premium on delay, because the loss incurred in building is expected to become smaller as the period of building gets further removed from the war; and as a proportion of the loss has to be paid by the local authority, therefore the longer they put off building, the smaller is their loss likely to be. Secondly, there is no incentive to economy; and, thirdly there is no safeguard whatever that the houses which everybody considers essential will be built within the specified time.
Mr. Hayes Fisher gave certain figures in another place on Monday which, I have no doubt, were intended to still this criticism. He said that 1806 local authorities had been asked certain questions; 1,676 of them had sent replies; 1,379 of them had admitted that houses were required within their area—your Lordships will note the declining scale—1,036 intimated their willingness to build, and finally many (that is the word used by Mr. Hayes Fisher) were actually making plans and had selected architects and sites. I think those figures really conceal far more than they reveal to us, and unless we are placed in a position of very much fuller information we cannot possibly judge whether the criticisms which have been directed against this policy are justified or whether they are not. Even at the best I would ask your Lordships to observe that only 1,036 out of 1,806 local authorities—less than two-thirds—have declared themselves as willing to build. As for the others who had already embarked upon making plans and selecting architects and getting sites, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that those are acts which cannot be undertaken without incurring expenditure. Therefore if the local authorities are being encouraged to incur expenditure it is very difficult to see how the President of the Local Government Board can maintain that Parliament will be free to repudiate the policy when the Bill is introduced to them for discussion.
I now come to the other section, which deals with building through channels other

945
than local authorities. We had hoped to have heard many months ago what policy the President of the Local Government Board proposed. It is eight months since he made up his mind on the larger question. We had his own testimony to the fact that 95 per cent. of this building was done in this country before the war by these other channels, and I think that it was not unreasonable to hope that he would have made up his mind as to how he was prepared to recommend Parliament to assist them, sooner than this date. Yet we find, although he had the opportunity of stating them, that he informed the House in another place that his further proposals would come forward in another and much larger measure, and that that measure would not necessarily be produced this session, or even, possibly, to this Parliament. Therefore we are to sit down and wait for an indefinite period before we are told what measures are proposed.
In connection with this, there is a rather curious passage in Mr. Hayes Fisher's remarks. He said that he would welcome debate, and added—
"I should welcome it because then I should be able to say what the local authorities are willing to do, what public utility societies may be expected to do after the recent terms which have been offered to them by the Government, what groups of employers (large colliery owners, factory owners, landowners and people of that kind), may be expected to do, and to a certain extent what schemes are on foot to help private enterprise to come once more upon the scene."
This gives one the impression that the Local Government Board must foster a very large number of schemes on a series of different lines by private enterprise; but the sentence that particularly interested me was the one in which the President said he wished to see what utility societies "might be expected to do after the recent terms which have been offered to them by the Government." What are those terms? When was the offer made? Where was it made, and to whom? I confess that I have seen no public report of any general offer of the assistance that the Government propose to give. It is true that in the course of speeches in the country Mr. Hayes Fisher has made certain statements of what help he thinks ought to be given; but if there is to be a general measure of assistance given, the right place to make such an offer, if you wish to ensure its reaching everybody it should reach, is in Parliament, and in as much as
946
it entails expenditure of public money there is surely no other place where it should be made, so that, in the first instance, we may ascertain that Parliament is ready to endorse it.
As regards the schemes of private enterprise, I cannot help suspecting that the President of the Local Government Board has in mind a deputation which he received from the Federation of British Industries in September. This federation is a body which someday no doubt may wield a very great power in this country. It is true that they appointed a committee to go into ideal housing conditions, and that that committee adopted a memorandum. This memorandum contemplates a federation of all the big producers of building materials, and big employers of labour, and all trade unions. It contemplates an organisation which it will take years to create, and which in no circumstance could be expected to produce or facilitate schemes during the next twelve months or two years. After that deputation I happened to see the secretary of the committee which drew up that report, and I asked him how many firms he knew of who were preparing to build and were ready to build on the lines of the memorandum which his federation presented to Mr. Hayes Fisher, and his answer was that they had not approached any firm; in fact, he did not know of any firms. Their idea was merely for the future, to try and outline an organisation which might facilitate building in the future. But he did not know any firms at present, and as a matter of fact I was able to tell him of several firms in the north who would be prepared perhaps, to consider building on these lines. If, however, the President of the Local Government Board is relying upon the memorandum drawn up by the Federation of British Industries, I am afraid that he is liable to incur very great disappointment.
I will say one more word, and it is regarding the extreme urgency of publishing at once, without the slightest delay and in the most public manner, the way in which the Government are prepared to help public utility societies and other private enterprises. I have been for a good many years a director of the Co-Partner Tenants' Society which built Hampstead Garden Suburb, and which has built suburbs in areas within the jurisdiction of other of our large cities, such as Liverpool and Manchester, and which also

947
for a long time was in negotiation with Newcastle. Our experience has been, without any exception, that even when negotiations are proceeding in the most friendly way, and when the corporations are anxious to arrive at an agreement with a public utility society, the negotiations are inevitably protracted. Many months are lost if you are to attempt a big building scheme. You have to come to an agreement with so many different committees, all of which sit probably once a month. Very likely the education committee to the local authority will refuse to consider the scheme until the road committee has approved of it, and probably the education committee sits a day before the road committee. There are endless delays. Our experience is that probably a whole year can pass in bringing a big building scheme up to the point where you are ready actually to start building. If you do start building before you are ready, trusting to luck to settle details after you have begun, you get delays which increase the cost enormously, and friction springs up almost at once.
What we say has, I think, been proved—that the social life and development on the properties of public utility societies produces much more contentment, much more freedom, a much higher sense of civic duty than can be found on estates which are muncipally developed; and I think that the Government ought to make a great push to do all they can without further delay to assist the formation of such companies.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble Earl, in his Notice on the Paper, has asked that a representative of His Majesty's Government should answer certain specific questions, and I will do my best to reply to those. But the speech of the noble Earl travelled rather wide from the particular subject on which he asked for a reply. His speech was very largely a general criticism of the housing policy of the Government. I am not going to complain of it, but if he would put down some Motion on the Paper corresponding rather more closely with the speech which he delivers I think it would give the representative of the Government some opportunity of fully considering the matter and giving him a full answer.
948
The noble Earl made certain criticisms and paid certain compliments to the President of the Local Government Board. I am very glad that he recognised all the work that that great official and his Office have already done in connection with housing. I think the criticisms that he made on my right hon. friend can be easily dealt with. I understand that his complaint was that the President had gone about the country saying that certain terms which had been offered to the local authorities were final terms, and he attacked him on the ground that this was a hard bureaucratic attitude, entirely forgetful of the influence or the power that Parliament itself might exercise upon those terms. I confess I see no weight in such a criticism. It is obvious that any demand for money must be presented in due time to Parliament. But what would anybody think of a Minister who had not made up his mind what money he was going to ask from Parliament? It is his duty, of course, to decide what those terms are to be, to present them to Parliament, and to stand by them; and on the very point on which the noble Earl was speaking—namely, the necessity of preparing their schemes as quickly as possible—it is highly important that the local authorities should know at once what financial aid, whether by loan or assistance, they are going to receive from His Majesty's Government. I consider that, on the contrary, the right hon. gentleman would have contributed very much to the delay of which the noble Earl complains if he had not at an early stage given to the local authorities an indication of the financial assistance that they were going to receive.
Part of the noble Earl's speech also consisted in a criticism of the Treasury, and he suggested—I confess I do not know on what ground, and he did not give any evidence at all—that the Treasury had been cutting down certain schemes which had been proposed by the President. I think I must leave the Treasury to answer the charges made against them. Anyhow, the noble Earl produced no evidence of his charge, and therefore it is extremely difficult to answer.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is highly probable.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Two other points, I think, the noble Earl made. One is that no incentive to economy was given to the

949
local authorities. I confess that I am rather astounded to hear a charge of that kind. The President of the Local Government Board is, of course, attacked on both sides. There is one school of thought, very strongly represented in the House of Commons, which suggests that all the loss is to fall upon the State in connection with this building of houses. The other, to which apparently my noble friend belongs, says the contrary—that to do this, as he very wisely observes, would be to give no incentive to the local authorities to build cheaply. But the proposals of the right hon, gentlemen are that one quarter of the loss should be borne by the local authority, with the very aim and purpose of assuring that these houses are to be built more cheaply. I confess, in face of this, that I do not really understand what is the gravamen of the criticism of the noble Earl.
As regards the question of delay, I think he suggested that no time-limit was fixed within which the houses are to be built. That really was a strange demand. Is the noble Earl aware of what is going on? Is he unaware of the tremendous shortage of material and the uncertainty as to the supply of material, of where we are to get wood, of where we are to get cement, and all the other materials for building? Is he aware that during the last year or two all the local authorities have had a great number of duties cast upon them with very much depleted staffs? And yet he asks that at that time, or a few months ago, a strict time-limit should be put on the local authority within which these houses should be built.
EARL GREY: No; to produce plans.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I say that a wholly impossible and impracticable suggestion is made on that point. I think the noble Earl suggested that there is no compulsion that these houses should be built. I do not know what degree of coercion he wishes to apply to local authorities. I do not know whether he thinks that local authorities are going to refuse to build these houses, or whether he suggested such a lack of patriotism and lack of activity on the part of the local authorities that such coercion is necessary. I think it is very unfortunate, as regards the scheme, which must be taken in hand by these local authorities, if the suggestion is made at this early stage that some extra coercion should be put upon them. And though I confess
950
I am dealing with a matter quite outside the Question put by the noble Earl, I must remind him that at this very moment there is a Bill already introduced and read a second time in another place, by which, if these rural districts and other authorities do not show sufficient activity in the building of houses—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a very limited number of houses, which they build for their own employees only.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think the noble Marquess knows the contents of the Bill. The provision is that if the local authorities do not do their duty in providing a sufficient number of houses, others will be called in to supply the deficiency. The noble Marquess is referring to another portion of the Bill. So that if coercion is necessary there is a degree of coercion. Moreover, the whole of the country has been divided into twelve districts, which are supplied with inspectors, who are constantly going round helping the towns and advising the local authorities in every way they can. These local authorities know the conditions of their own districts and the immense importance of supplying houses therein; they have the strong incentive of knowing that business cannot be carried out in their own districts unless houses are built, and I think it is very unfortunate if the noble Earl suggests that they will not do their duty.
The noble Earl asked me certain specific questions, and I will try to reply to them in detail. In his first Question he asks how many (a) urban, and (b) rural authorities have put forward definite building schemes in terms of the Local Government Board circular of March 21, 1918, and how many houses are provided for by these schemes. The number of local authorities who have now before the Local Government Board definite building schemes intended to comply with the terms of the circular of March 18 last is 82 (8,726 houses) made up as follows: Boroughs, 26 (4,325 houses); urban districts, 36 (3,301 houses); rural districts, 22 (1,100 houses). There are also 162 other schems of local authorities before the Board, most of which will no doubt ultimately be revised so as to comply with the terms of the circular; and if this is done a further number of 8,726 houses will be added to the number that I have already quoted. In addition to these schemes it is well known to the Local

951
Government Board that there are something like 350 local authorities who are acquiring land for the purpose of these schemes, and that those local authorities are rapidly proceeding with the preparation of these schemes. Those authorities include such large places as Southampton, Brighton, Stockport, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Bristol, Rochdale, Swansea, and Plymouth. If you examine the replies to the set of questions which was sent out with the Board's letter of July 28, 1917, and further information generally received, these replies indicate a willingness to provide something like 240,000 houses, which, giving five persons to a house, would provide, as the noble Earl will see, for a large portion of the population.
There has been and must necessarily be, as the noble Earl has pointed out, a certain delay. One cause of delay has been that the local authorities have been encouraged in certain quarters to suppose that they were going to get better terms from the Government than the Government has decided to give them, and naturally as business men they were rather reluctant to begin on those terms if they thought they could get better. Therefore it is important to remember that it has been announced that the terms put forward by the Government are final terms; and that, if known, will cause these schemes to come forward in greater numbers than before. I have already alluded to the difficulties of the local authorities owing to the multifarious war duties they have had to carry out with their already sadly depleted staffs.
Another matter which has caused certain delay and hesitation has been the waiting for the Reports of the Committees. One Committee—the Tudor-Walters Committee—has just reported on the provision of dwellings for the working classes and on methods of economy and dispatch in the provision of such dwellings. Further there has been the waiting for the Report of the Carmichael Committee set up by the Ministry of Reconstruction on the supply of building materials. So that to some extent and in some places the local authorities have treated the matter, in addition to one of uncertainty owing to the war, as one which might perhaps wait; and I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Local Government Board, of impressing on the local authorities the neces-
952
sity for dealing urgently with the matter now. I would add that the number of housing inspectors has been recently doubled, and their activities are know all over the country. So much for first Question of the noble Earl.
In his second Question the noble Earl asks whether local authorities are experiencing any difficulty in acquiring the necessary land. The information that the Board has does not go to show that the authorities are experiencing any difficulty in the acquisition of land. The Board understand that five local authorities have found a difficulty in obtaining land, either on account of refusals to sell or of the hesitation of landowners to grant an option for a long period. Six others, without making any special complaint, have made inquiries as to the existing powers for the compulsory acquisition of land. In addition, 11 authorities have complained of the excessive price demanded for land; and attention has been drawn to their powers under Section 2 of the First Schedule to the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act of 1909. The noble Earl is probably aware that under that section the local authorities have a very easy and rapid procedure by which they can obtain possession of land, but they are not all aware of the powers they possess under the existing law.
I think it would interest the House if I were to give some account of the replies of no less than 1,645 local authorities to the question included in the form of return enclosed with the Board's Circular Letter of July 28, 1917, the question being, "Could sites for the erection of the additional houses required, suitable both as regards condition and cost, be acquired by the local authority by agreement without material delay?" I think this bears very closely on the question asked by the noble Earl. Some 1,164 local authorities—71 per cent.—replied to this question in the affirmative—that is to say, that they had no difficulty; 339–21 per cent.—did not answer the question; in 75 cases—4 per cent.—the answer was doubtful; while only 67 local authorities—a little under 4 per cent.—have returned a direct negative. So, generally speaking, I think it may be said that the local authorities in an overwhelming majority of cases have not found any difficulty in acquiring land.
I come now to the third Question—What assistance His Majesty's Government propose to offer to facilitate the erection of

953
houses by other than local authorities. The noble Earl dwelt, I thought, with much force on the great advantage there would be in having schemes dealt with by these public utility societies, with one of which he has, as he says, been long connected. This question has been to a large extent, and is still, under the consideration of a committee known as the Hobhouse Committee; and I ought to give the House the terms of its reference. They were, "To consider and advise on the practicability of assisting any bodies or persons (other than local authorities) to build dwellings for the working-classes immediately after the war, whether by means of loans, grants, and other subsidies, and whether through the agency of State or Municipal banks, or otherwise."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When was that Committee appointed?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have not the exact date, but I understand that its Report—which is the important thing—will not be long delayed. Meantime, while the Committee was sitting the President of the Local Government Board received a number of deputations from various societies, and so on, and he thought it better to make a statement as to the terms which the Government were prepared to give to these public utility societies. I am sorry if it is the case, as the noble Earl rather suggested, that sufficient publicity has not been given to these proposals, but they have been published freely in the Press, and it is regrettable that they have not come more generally to his notice. I think it will be valuable, therefore, if I state—although they have been published, and stated by the President—what those terms are. They are based, of course, on the terms which were promised to the local authorities, and if I state them first and show the difference between those terms and the terms offered to the public utility societies I think it will make the matter rather clearer.
The offer to the local authorities was that the Government would advance the whole of the loans where the local authority cannot borrow upon as good terms in the open market, and the period of repayment would vary from twenty to thirty years. The Government would pay 75 per cent., or three-quarters, of the estimated deficit as agreed in the revenue account for
954
the transition period of seven years; then at the end of seven years there is a valuation by an independent valuer, and the difference between that valuation and the amount of the loan properly outstanding is determined, and the Government shoulders three-quarters of the loss. Those are the terms offered to the local authorities. The same terms are offered to the public utility societies with two alterations. One is that instead of the varying terms granted to the local authorities for land, buildings, streets, and so on, there should be an equated period for the loan of fifty years, and that the Government instead of advancing the whole of the money should advance 75 per cent or three-quarters of it, leaving the remaining 25 per cent. to be raised by shares or otherwise. Those, then, are the terms offered by the Government to the public utility societies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What about the loss?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said that all the other terms were exactly the same as those which were offered to the local authorities. The loss is borne in the same proportion in the case of public utility societies as in the case of local authorities. The only remaining point is as regards assistance to other forms of private enterprise which, as the noble Marquess knows, is a far more difficult thing to settle. As regards that, I am sorry to say that all I am able to announce is this, that, the Government is awaiting the Report of the Hobhouse Committee which is dealing with these matters, and which, as I have said, I hope will shortly report. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will consider that I have given a full answer to the three questions which he has put.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, my noble friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of National Service has given a discreet answer to the Questions of the noble Earl, but it is the official answer, and it seems to me that at this moment we are living in such a rarified and artificial air of officialism that we think that when a scheme is drawn up and approved by the Local Government Board the houses are built and the people housed. I happen to be chairman of the Building Trade Committee for the metropolitan police area, and I can assure my noble friend that both masters and men are united at this

955
moment in cordial detestation of Government Departments, and have even passed on part of that feeling to the local authorities. They ask to be relieved to a great extent of that bureaucratic interference and control which they say is playing havoc with their trade. What has been the history of the building trade—and you cannot carry out this scheme without the building trade. It is not only a matter of Committees and Reports. The state of the building trade is a very serious one, and nothing can be done unless you can secure sufficient labour and an adequate supply of raw material. At the present moment the building trade is denuded of raw material. I am told by those competent to speak that the only supply which exists in this country to any extent is the supply of slates. All the rest of the stocks have been practically exhausted.
I will, if I may trouble your Lordships, tell you something about the history of the building trade during this war. The building trade received no protection or consideration at the commencement of the war. It is the greatest outflow trade for the Services of any trade in the country. It lost 50 per cent. of its man-power at once, and it was considered that in the building trade it was not necessary even to retain the pivotal men, as they are called—the overseers, and those upon whom the labour of the great mass of workmen depends. They have had none of the pivotal men restored. Therefore at the present moment the building trade is utterly incapable of carrying out any contracts on a big scale, either for the Government or for the local authorities. I do not attribute what has happened to the Ministry of National Service, nor do I attribute fault for it to the military authorities, because the building trade itself at the beginning of the war did not consider that there would be much scope for its development.
Then came the sudden demand of the Government itself, which raised up edifices here, there, and everywhere for the accommodation of the myriads of clerks and officers who now serve in the new Departments of State. Therefore they were called upon for labour, and had to obtain it by calling in men who had been looked upon as incapable in the old days and many of whom even were in receipt of Poor Law relief, and by obtaining assistance from contingents of foreigners and in other
956
ways; but unless the pivotal men in the building trade are released at the earliest possible moment you may have all the plans drawn up which you like by local authorities and the Government, but nothing can be done. Therefore all the talk of drawing up schemes in the gay fashion to which we are accustomed in both Houses, without reference to the industrial conditions which prevail, is the mere spinning of cobwebs in the air.
Then as to the raw materials. The priority of trades and industries is not yet settled; that is to say, the priority in which they are to receive consideration in regard to transport from countries overseas. Unless the building trade is supplied with enough to make up the enormous gaps in its foundations, of course nothing can be done at all. In regard to labour, it is calculated that the building trade will require not only to make good the outflow during the war, but to have 30 per cent. beyond its pre-war man-power in order to carry out on any scale at all the schemes which are now being drawn up with so lavish a hand by local authorities. Unfortunately, too, it is not likely that you are going to have the best schemes, because to my knowledge architects' offices also have been drawn upon for the greater part of their man power. It looks as if we were going to have a system of official waste on a most profligate scale. I do not know whether that is so, but my strong feeling is that while committee after committee is appointed in order to arrange these things on a symmetrical plan, very little regard is had to the expert opinion of the trade. The Building Trade Industrial Council has been made up on the Whitley plan, and I would far sooner have the opinion of that council than all the reports which have been presented by these reconstruction committees.
My own view accords with that of my noble friend Lord Grey in regard to the means by which the re-housing and better housing of the people should be effected. I do not believe that municipal or local authorities employing direct labour will be able to carry this matter through with any measure of success. Nearly all the examples point that way. In the long run you must trust to the building trade, and to private enterprise, which, before the war, supplied 90 per cent. of the houses of the country, rather than to these fine-drawn and elaborate schemes of the official mind.

957
Therefore I appeal to my noble friend—I will not say to drop his official manner, because it becomes him so well—but when he gets away from the House, to apply himself to the actual facts of the case and to put himself or the Department for which he speaks in touch with the National Industrial Council of the trade, and to listen to masters and men who want to forward the great work of putting the living conditions of the people in a better state, but who think that they can do it far more effectively themselves than merely by the cast-iron Orders either of the authorities at Whitehall or even of the local governing bodies throughout the country. If I can impress upon your Lordships the need of coming to grips with reality in the matter and not just trusting only to reports and official answers, then I shall be quite satisfied.
I venture to say so because I have, I suppose, got something of the trade sense of the builders, through coming in contact, as I do, with both sides so often in connection with the governing body of Greater London. These Committees are Committees of equal panels of employers and employees. They are able to speak for both masters and men, capitalists and workmen, and they are of one opinion, of one mind only, that the more the matter is left to them, and the less you depend on inspectors and controllers, the better it will be for the country at large.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peel expressed some surprise that the Question of Lord Grey had led him into a criticism of the policy of His Majesty's Government. One would think that Lord Peel had only taken part in the debates in your Lordships' House since yesterday, for I do not think I remember in the whole course of my experience any Question put by independent members of your Lordships' House with reference to the policy of the Government which did not lead them into a certain amount of criticism there upon. But, though I think the criticism of Earl Grey was fully justified, and though perhaps I shall have a word or two of criticism myself to offer, I desire to say in the first instance that I associate myelf with all that my noble friend behind me said as to the services which have been conferred upon the country by Mr. Fisher.
I have no desire to blame Mr. Fisher unduly for any misfortune which may have
958
happened to the housing policy of the Government. Mr. Fisher is in a very difficult position. He is not—very few people are now—in the Cabinet. And he is, of course, tightly controlled—he must be—by the Treasury and by Treasury considerations. He has a very difficult task to perform. But although I do not criticise Mr. Fisher, yet I must say I have a few words of criticism to make on the housing policy of the Government. Lord Peel, as he always does, made a very good speech, and, if I may say so respectfully, I thought he did very well, considering the amount of information he had on the subject. Of course, he is not fully informed on the subject.
One of the great difficulties of the debates in your Lordships' House is that the Ministers who answer for the several Departments have, as often as not, no knowledge of those Departments themselves. There are a few exceptions. One or two Ministers actually belong to the Offices for which they reply, but the ordinary rule is that a Minister replies who has nothing to do with the Office which he is commending and defending. Consequently, of course, Lord Peel will realise that it is not anything personal to him if I criticise some of the remarks which he made. The real thing is that we are in earnest on this side of your Lordships' House—those of us who have spoken. We are profoundly anxious about this housing policy of the country. It is a long tradition of the Unionist Party to promote the proper housing of the people. Act after Act has been passed by Unionist Ministers and Unionist majorities and therefore there is nothing surprising if we, having inherited the traditions of our forefathers, should be very anxious for the practical working out of a housing scheme.
What my noble friend criticised was the fact that these proposals are inchoate. They are incomplete. And why are they incomplete? Because the Government have not produced the Bill. That is what they should have done. Where is their Bill? My noble friend opposite talked about the "little Bill" introduced by Mr. Fisher in another place. Mr. Fisher himself said that it was a little Bill and only a small part of the subject; that it dealt, with county council employees' houses, and with powers to be given to county councils in default of action by the minor local authorities. That is the whole

959
Bill. He did not pretend that it was the policy of the Government. Why should we not have the policy of the Government in the form of a Bill? What was there to prevent it? The Government have had months to consider it—I was going to say years. My noble friend Lord Burnham, very properly, spoke in a sort of despairing way about the Committees which have been set up. I am not surprised at his feeling. Committee after Committee has been appointed. I had the honour to preside over one, and there were several others. We all reported, but nothing has come of their work in the way of a Bill. What is the good of a policy except in the form of a Bill? No one really knows what is actually proposed until they see it in black and white. Generalisations are no use. How can you expect the local authorities to act except upon black and white proposals in the form of a Bill? They do not know what the proposals are.
My noble friend said, How shocking to talk about a time limit! Why is it shocking to talk about a time limit? Are people of this country to remain without houses for an unlimited time? Is it really to be the policy of the Government that they are not going to see that within a limited period the working classes of this country, who have been deprived of houses because of the war, shall have that deficiency set right? Of course, they must have a time limit. I do not say that the provision must be entirely inelastic. Probably the Government in their Bill, if they ever produce it, will have a provision under which, for cause shown, in specific circumstances which can be defended the time limit should be extended. But that primarily there should be some time limit within which these houses would be erected scents to me to be elementary.
Then as to money, my noble friend said that the local authorities were entitled to know what money would be provided. Certainly, but it should have been in the form of a Bill—that is to say, it should have been in a form which, having been sanctioned by Parliament, left no doubt either of its finality or of its certainty. Then the local authorities would have known upon what they ought to go. Now, my Lords, this is an emergency policy. I do not want to go too far into the subject this afternoon, but let me say at once that in nothing I am going to say am I going to touch upon what may be called the per-
960
manent housing policy of this country; it is a very big subject, a very interesting and very important subject. But that is not what we have to do with for the moment; we have to do with the emergency policy—that is to say, with the deficiency, which may be 300,000, but may be 500,000 houses, which have to be made good as soon as possible after the war, and which have become requisite because, and only because, of the operation of the war. That is the problem, the emergency problem.
Now, what have the Government ascertained as to the actual figures? What have they been able to do? They have made an effort, and they have had a certain amount of correspondence, but nothing in the way of definite promises from the local authority seems to have come of it. I think it was in 1917 that local authorities—I speak without having verified it—expressed their willingness, generally speaking, to erect something like 240,000 houses, a very large number. What are the definite policies, in the shape of plans, which, in consequence of the correspondence, the Government have obtained from the local authorities? Some 16,000 houses—that appears to be the total; 240,000 was the vague intention expressed by the local authorities, but when you come to definite plans as the result of the Local Government Board action, 16,000 is all. I cannot compliment my noble friend opposite upon the efficiency of the Department which, for the moment, he represents.
My Lords, the Government must go to work in a much more businesslike manner; they must ascertain the deficiency of houses—they ought to have done it long ago—and if they cannot ascertain the extent of the deficiency of houses in detail by voluntary methods, they must do it by compulsory methods. Parliament is entitled to know, Parliament is entitled to have from the local authorities this report as to what the deficiency of houses is. My noble friend representing the Local Government Board—I do not suppose he was speaking his own opinion—shrinks from compulsion. He seemed to think it was a shocking thing that there should be compulsion applied to local authorities in the matter of the provision of these emergency houses. Our law simply reeks with compulsion, upon this and many other subjects, in respect to the relation between the Central Government and the local authorities.

961
Take, for example, the Small Holdings Act. That Act in many respects affords a very useful analogy with the housing problem, very munch less important probably, but covering many of the principles which present themselves to us in respect of the housing problem. What was the plan adopted The plan adopted was to call upon the local authority to provide small holdings, but to have in reserve a compulsory power if they did not provide them. And that is the method you will have to pursue in respect of this emergency housing problem. It is no good trying to avoid it; you had much better say, from the start, "we are going to ask you to provide these houses, but if you don't, very well, we shall have to apply some coercive method." It is not because we like compulsion. We, especially those of the political Party with whom I have always had the honour of acting, have always avoided compulsion as far as possible. But when you are presented with a problem like this—that in consequence of the war there is a deficiency of 300,000 houses, at the very least, in England and Wales—then it is absurd to shrink from compulsion. Of course, you must apply compulsion if the houses cannot be provided by voluntary negotiation.
It is always a very difficult thing, this relation between the Central Government and the local authorities. You want to stimulate local effort, but, on the other hand, you want to maintain central standards; they must come up to a certain point, both as to numbers and as to equity. Those are the essential things. In stimulating local effort you do not want that local effort to be grudging; you want the people to help you with their hearts as well as with their hands, as it were; and you want to produce an appeal to local patriotism, to local statemanship, if I may use, such a phrase. Where, among local authorities, are you to find local statesmen
And this brings me, any Lords, to one of the main differences between the policy of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, and the policy of the Local Government Board. We were of opinion—and I confess I am still of opinion—that you will not find the requisite amount of local statesmanship in the minor local authorities. Of course, there may be exceptions; you may find, here and there, a very progressive minor local authority who will provide all the necessary local
962
patriotism and all the necessary local statesmen. But I believe this, so far as the country districts are concerned, to be the exception. If you mean to have local statesmanship you must not go to the district council, but to the county council. The county council has been, if I may venture to offer my own opinion, in our local administration a most conspicuous success. No doubt county councils have made mistakes; county councillors, like every one else, are human. On the whole, however, the administration of county councils has been a great success. In a large number of counties the administration has been very energetic and entirely uncorrupt, and that is saying two very important things. And I would urge the Government, even at this stage of the proceedings, to reconsider their determination to trust so much to the minor authorities. I do not want for a moment, of course, to run down the minor local authorities; many of them contain members of great public spirit. But on the whole they are not sufficiently important, and not sufficiently able to free themselves from influences which are much better avoided, to make them absolutely reliable in a question of this kind. These matters should go to the county councils.
I turn to the other part of my noble friend's speech, the question of the encouragement of private enterprise. My noble friend Lord Peel reminded us of what we no doubt ought to have been aware of before—the terms which have been offered by the Government to these public utility societies in order to induce them to take their share in building. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time in arguing the case of the public utility societies, because I do not believe there are two opinions on the subject. Everybody is convinced that if these public utility societies would take a large share in this reconstruction it would be a very good thing. I do not pretend that I think they can take, relatively, a very large share; the problem is so huge that it really is beyond the capacity of the public utility society to deal with, except to a minor extent. Still, to whatever extent they can be used these public utility societies should be encouraged. What is the encouragement which my noble friend and the Government have offered to them? They are not to be treated quite so well as even the local authorities. Whereas the local authority is able to borrow the whole of the capital from the State, the

963
public utility society is only to borrow three-quarters of the capital. I do not dwell upon that point so much as upon another. Under the proposal of the Government three-quarters of the excess loss—and I will explain in a moment what I mean by excess loss—is to be charged to the taxpayer and one-quarter to the ratepayer. I mean by the excess loss the extra cost which building involves above the normal cost—the extra war cost.
VISCOUNT PEEL: What do you call the normal cost, may I ask?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not called upon to define it, because it is of the essence of the Government's own proposals. The way that the Government calculate it is the way that my Committee calculated it. They take whatever is the value at a period after the war—I think seven years—and the difference between that value and the value which it costs immediately after the war is struck out from the main cost. I call the main cost the normal cost. That difference is written off as a bad debt. Three-quarters of it is charged against the taxpayer and one-quarter against the ratepayer. That I believe to be the Government proposal. My noble friend says we propose to apply exactly the same plan to the public utility societies. He may think that this is very fair. The weakness of his proposal is that it will be entirely ineffective. How can you expect the public utility society to bear 25 per cent. of this dead loss? Why should they bear it? After all, public utility societies confer a great benefit upon the country. They come forward and devote a great deal of time and effort and energy to help in the solution of the problem, but they are a commercial organisation. They are out to make a dividend. Of course, they will not bear 25 per cent. of this excess as a dead loss. The thing is absolutely futile and will not work. It may be that it has a plausible appearance of fairness, but it is wholly and totally ineffective, and the Government may spare their breath in making the offer. I do not believe that it will be availed of, though it may be in certain special cases where a large firm employing a great number of workmen are anxious to house them and are willing to take advantage of these terms, writing off the loss as part of the cost of their work. In a case of that kind, no doubt
964
the proposal may be availed of, but not in the case of a society like the Garden City Society, which comes forward to the community and says, "We are prepared to give a great deal of thought and energy and effort to the erection of garden cities, but we are not going to incur a dead loss." Of course, such societies cannot avail themselves of this offer.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Does the noble Marquess suggest that the Government, in the case of public utility societies, should bear the whole loss, whereas in the case of local authorities they should only bear three-quarters of the loss? If so, what would be the incentive to economy in building?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I was saying was that the Government plan was useless. It is no good asking me what I should propose.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought your suggestion was that the Government should bear the whole loss.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had not said so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That was a natural inference.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What my noble friend is thinking of is this. He probably did me the honour of reading the Report which I signed. In that case we proposed that the whole of the excess loss should be borne by the central authority, but both in the case of the local authority and in that of the public utility society our plan would have been effective. Of course, it may be open to other criticism. I am far from claiming that our proposals were infallible. The point of my observation to the Government now is that their offer to the public utility societies is futile. If they intend the public utility societies to take part in this building reconstruction they must find another plan. That is the point of the observations which I ventured to address to the House.
I should like to say one word more. After all, you must treat even this Government as to some extent homogenous. The Departments must to some extent be considered to be responsible one for the other, and when we observe the action of the Wages Board I think that we are driven

965
to doubt whether there is any real intention to encourage private enterprise. In regard to rural housing, I should like to draw Your Lordships' attention especially to one point. As your Lordships are well aware, the common case—the more common case than any other—is that the houses of agricultural labourers are let rent free as part of their emolument. It is not so everywhere, but it is so in a very large number of cases. Wherever this practice prevails the Central Wages Board, I believe, have ruled that these rent-free houses shall be counted as the equivalent of 3s. a week. It works in this way. Let us say that the wage of the agricultural labourer is fixed, as it is in my own county, at 32 s. a week. If the labourer has a cottage rent free, then he is given 29 s. cash, and the balance is held to be made up by his rent-free cottage. That is a most disastrous decision, because a good cottage is worth a great deal more than 3s. a week; indeed, at present prices it is probably worth about 7s. a week. Observe the difference. If a labourer has not a rent-free cottage, then he receives the full 32 s. in cash, but out of that, if the rent of his cottage is an economic rent, he has to pay 7s. a week for it. But let us put it at something less than 7s. a week in order to be moderate. Let us say 6s. a week rent for his cottage. He would then have 26 s. in his pocket after he had paid his rent and his friend over the way, who had a rent-free cottage, would have 29 s. in his pocket, so that one labourer has 26 s. a week and the other 29 s. a week. The situation is intolerable. That cannot go on. The labourers will never endure it. Think of the result.
What is going to happen to these Government cottages which we are now engaged in debating? Suppose they are let at their proper value, at 6s. or 7s. Then the labourers who live in them will consider themselves abominably treated because their cash wage is 3s. or 4s. less than that of their friends who happen to live in rent-free cottages on some landowner's estate. That, as I say, is an impossible situation, and I am afraid what will happen is that the local authorities will be driven to charge, not the proper rent, but the 3s. rent, and the balance will be a loss which will have to be paid by the ratepayers. I need not tell your Lordships what an awful vista opens out, because, once you get a system under which the ratepayers are going to part pay the rent, there is no
966
reason why that should stop. Of course there will be an agitation that the payment shall increase until finally the cottages will be held rent-free, the rent being provided by the ratepayers.
I need not say that this would have most disastrous consequences, and among other disastrous consequences it would put an end for ever to any hope of help from private enterprise. No private enterprise would henceforth be able to compete. Here you have the State building first-rate cottages, cottages that you cannot better, and letting them for 3s.—far below their value—or for nothing at all. And every landowner would know that henceforward it was impossible for him to build upon anything like economic conditions. Yet it is a commonplace of the whole of this housing problem that until economic rent can be restored the cottage problem cannot be solved.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to my noble friends in all parts of the House for that encouragement, for I was afraid I was being too long. But I do desire to impress upon the Government that if this decision of the Wages Boards stands then they may say good-bye to any assistance from ordinary private enterprise. They are destroying it. I said just now that if you take the Government as a whole you must interpret their sincerity by the action of their Departments. Perhaps that was unfair, because I am not quite sure that the Wages Board is a Government Department, and the Government may not be responsible for its action. I do not know how that is.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): It acts under Statute.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then the Government are not responsible.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Oh, certainly, because they are under Statute.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then if they are responsible I must ask my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to use all the influence of his great position to secure an alteration in that. I would far rather that the nominal wage should be much higher if we could restore the proper economic balance of the wages and the rent. Unless

967
that is done, all our efforts to encourage private enterprise in the building of cottage property in the country are doomed to disappointment.
I trust that the Government will think of all these points. I hope that they will take immediate steps to ascertain, if necessary by compulsion, what is the actual deficiency of housing in each part of England and Wales. I hope they will bring in their Bill, their main Bill, not next session, or next Parliament, but now. It must be ready. They must have determined on their policy. I hope that they will reconsider their attitude towards the public utility societies and devise, if possible, some machinery under which they can take their share in providing houses. Lastly, I hope that they will use their authority with the Wages Board in order to get a reversal of what I consider the disastrous decision at which they have arrived. I do not deny that the housing problem is a very difficult one. It is a very difficult one. The Government have a great difficulty in front of them, but they also have a great opportunity, and they ought to value that opportunity and rise equal to it in every respect.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I wish, before the Lord Privy Seal rises, to put one concrete point to him in illustration of what my noble friend has just said. Certain points have come under my notice, and, without troubling your Lordships with a reiteration of what my noble friend has said, I will merely give one or two instances of where the Wages Board have failed. We have in Our county, in Surrey, thickly-populated districts like Croydon, and they have actually fixed the rent for cottages in the rural parts of Surrey, which are as remote from Croydon as any part of Yorkshire, at the same rate as they have fixed them just outside the town of Croydon. Actually this occurred outside the town of Croydon. Just before the Wages Board fixed these rents a carter was engaged at so much a week and his rent, the house being rent-free. The carter now gets a large increase on his wages, he pays 3s. a week, and he has sub-let one room of the house for 10 s. a week.
I would give another illustration of what occurred in my neighbourhood in Ireland. In Ireland the local authorities have very large powers for building labourers' cottages, and in order not to entrench on
968
the rather exiguous wages before the war they used to let them at 1s. a week, although the cost of the ratepayers was 5s. a week. In one cottage to my knowledge, now that munition wages have come and a great increase in other wages besides, there are living at this moment a father and three sons, who between them are drawing in wages between £800 and £1,000 a year, and who are living at 1s. a week in a labourer's cottage which has cost the ratepayers 5s. a week.
Just one other point which I want to put, and which I am sure the Lord Privy Seal will appreciate. You cannot deal with this question satisfactorily, grave as it is, if you put it entirely upon local authorities. And remember that the position of private owners who want to improve their cottages has been rendered very difficult by the war. For five years practically they have not been able to obtain labour or material to do what they wish. They have arrears to make up, and besides, I freely admit, the type of cottage is much below what modern requirements demand. I ask the noble Earl to remember that this difficulty will be enormously increased if the Government has a great scheme going on before the supply of materials has risen to its old level in the next three years, and that the difficulty in which the private employer is will be enormously increased if you now handicap him by telling him that he must not charge an economic rent Those are points which I know have only to be put to the commonsense of the Government. This question should no longer be dealt with piecemeal, but the whole effect of the legislation which the Government anticipate carrying should be studied.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this debate has very much enlarged its area, the Question on the Paper having been almost entirely of a statistical nature. I do not complain of that. But I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Salisbury that it would be well if he would put down on the Paper in a week or a fortnight's time a considered Motion which will raise all these points, which will give notive to all the Departments concerned—and there are many—so that we may have a comprehensive debate from all the inter-acting points of view which this housing problem raises. My noble friend and relative Lord Midleton just now told us a story about an opulent family in county Cork the father

969
of which is a munitioner, and about an astute carter in some remote parish of Surrey who is sub-letting his house. That arises out of the Wages Board question. It is no use trying to discuss it, however, unless one has the Board of Agriculture representatives warned and prepared to deal with the point. The Local Government Board clearly cannot expect to be taken to task over the sub-letting of a cottage, or over the misuse of the Labourers Housing Acts in Ireland.
Then I suggest that. Lord Salisbury should raise the very important question of policy to which he referred to-night—namely, the reconsideration of the duties of minor authorities. He wants to entrust much more to county councils than is proposed under the small Bill which is now being considered by Parliament. That is a very large question. I myself am not at all sure that the county council is necessarily the best authority to take the initiative in housing; and I am far from certain that the very large county council with which I am well acquainted would be at all anxious to be entrusted with such a duty. Whenever anybody is in trouble he says "Put it on to the county council." The work of these councils is becoming overwhelming, and if heedlessly Parliament, adds very much to their labours you will find that the excellent work of these great councils will be seriously imperilled.
I cannot help feeling that Lord Salisbury in particular—who is always looked upon by those on this Bench whom he is criticising as a very optimistic person—somewhat underrates the difficulties of the situation. Nobody this evening, for instance, has referred to the financial difficulty. But the Treasury, in order to carry out what most people would consider a moderate housing scheme, may have to find anything from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000, according to the value which you put upon the new cottage. That is not negligible. And the Treasury would be culpable if it assented off-hand to any commitment so gigantic without the most careful investigation. It is not merely the provision of the money. You cannot treat a grant for housing in isolation; it has to be considered in relation to the whole question of the National Debt, the whole question of refunding, the whole question of repayment of War Loans, the whole question of incidence and interest; and it is far from a simple problem, necessary as rehousing is,
970
that we are placing before the authorities of the Treasury.
There is another difficulty to which I think insufficient attention is paid. Lord Burnham pointed out to us that the pivotal men of the building trade had been withdrawn. That, of course, is so. But the difficulty is not that the pivotal men are absent; a far greater difficulty is that the pivotal materials of building are absent. If all is well we can get back every pivotal man we want in three months, perhaps less; but the raw material is a very much more formidable proposition.
LORD BURNHAM: I said that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, the noble Lord certainty said that. But in relation to that I wish to point out why I think Lord Salisbury unjustly blamed local authorities for not having prepared plans. The Local Government Board has by its inquiries asecrtained that something between 200,000 and 300,000 cottages can be expected, but that plans for, I think, only 18,000 or 20,000 have been prepared. Well, local authorities say to themselves, "Are we quite sure that we know in what particular part of our area the housing is to be required? Until we know that we do not prepare plans. When are we going to get our raw materials? As soon as we see our raw materials—shall I say within six months—we will have our plans ready in good time." Local authorities therefore, must not be hastily blamed because they have not everything cut, and dried. No self-respecting architect cares to sit down and draw the plans of a house today which he knows will not be erected for two, three or four years. He knows, that the conditions change, that the arts change, and that the sciences change. He says, "I will have my plans ready for the time when I know that building is an effective operation in view."
This, again, is the reason why one must not be too stringent about limits. Lord Grey scolded us because the Local Government Board had not been rigid enough about imposing time limits. It is no good imposing time limits unless you mean to enforce them; and it is no good pretending that you can enforce them unless you can guarantee to the local authorities the materials with which they are to carry out their schemes. It is no good saying that because the slates, and the drain pipes,

971
and so on, are not there, therefore you will extend and extend and extend; you will do more harm than good by that sort of thing. In the difficult circumstances which exist we should act unwisely by bringing undue coercion to bear on local authorities. Lord Burnham has a profound disgust of local authorities. He says, "Leave them out and allow the building trade—"
LORD BURNHAM: No.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend will read his speech tomorrow morning, and he will find it so.
LORD BURNHAM: I want them to consult with the building trade, particularly with the Industrial Council.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have no doubt that all agencies will be enlisted to meet this great difficulty. But it is not merely public housing schemes which are defective. I would remind your Lordships that the shortage of artisan houses did not begin with the war; we carried perhaps two and a-half years shortage into the war when the war began; so that it is very large and very serious. But for every house that the public authority has to build I would engage to say that private individuals have to build one and to repair three; so that the public housing side of the question is by no means the chief aspect of the problem. And of course, as my noble friend reminds me, it is not merely dwelling houses; it is factories, it is the extension of farms, it is the repair of industrial buildings, all over the country, which have fallen into arrears. The work therefore, is enormous.
How are we best to accomplish our need? I suggest to your Lordships that so far as the domestic housing is concerned, with which we are dealing entirely this afternoon, it will be unwise to trust too much to coercion. The Local Government Board occupies a delicate and a responsible position in relation to local authorities over the country. It would be fatal if at the outset the Local Government Board—which, notwithstanding criticism, enjoys the confidence of local authorities—were to approach these authorities with a threat, or with coercion, rather than approach them with a very much more potent influence—that is, trying to co-operate, to assist, to encourage, rather than to
972
threaten with punishments if there be default. There will be default. We recognise that default is inevitable. But on the whole I am sure that the public authorities are most anxious to do their duty. But some patience has to be exercised. Until the problem of raw materials can be faced we shall pass through a difficulty of very great stress in the whole of the building trade; but with patience, if the organisation be maintained, if during the interval strenuous efforts are made so that when building materials are available they shall be promptly, and effectually used. I am convinced that at the subsequent stage, which may or may not be long—personally I do not think it will be long, as already indicated to-night—we shall be able to make very marked progress and make good the arrears that everybody I am sure sincerely deplores.

EMPLOYMENT OF GERMAN PRISONERS.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether Lord Newton was correct in saying on October 16 that he was not aware that any German prisoner of war was employed in this country in a coal mine, whereas many British prisoners are employed in both coal and salt mines in Germany; whether any German prisoners, and if so how many, are employed on the surface of British coal mines, although it has been stated that the language difficulty presents almost insuperable obstacles to their employment; whether any communications that have passed between His Majesty's Government and the miners' representatives will be laid before Parliament; what is the total number of German combatant prisoners of war now in Great Britain, and what number are in regular employment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset of my remarks may I express the satisfaction, which I am sure we all of us felt, when we heard the announcement made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House this afternoon, that British prisoners in the hands of the Turkish Government will be promptly released. I am sure we all entertain the hope that this will be speedily followed by a similar release of our prisoners elsewhere, and of all those who

973
have suffered so much at the hands of our enemies.
The two first portions of the Question standing in my name on the Paper bear closely one on the other. On October 16 Lord Newton, in charge of the Department connected with our prisoners, said that he did not believe that any German prisoner of war in this country was engaged in work in coal mines. About the same date in another place an answer was elicited by Colonel Yate from Mr. Hope, that German prisoners had not hitherto been employed in coal or salt mines as, apart from the difficulties of language which would prevent them understanding the regulations, British miners were unwilling to work with them; but that if a way could be found of overcoming the difficulties it would certainly be taken. Those two difficulties seem to me to be very paltry.
First of all I understand on good authority that, as regards the language difficulty, German prisoners are employed at the top of the mines, and in every case in which German prisoners are employed this language difficulty must present itself and can be overcome. We do not hear any difficulty about the Germans employing our prisoners, and the history of every country shows that it is quite possible to employ prisoners in spite of the difference of language. Then comes the second reason given—namely, the unwillingness of miners to work with German prisoners. Here, again, it is a very natural feeling on the part of miners, and I do not suppose that, in any other calling or occupation in which there are German prisoners employed, those of our own countrymen feel any special joy in working with them.
But I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what is the position of this question. We may say that by the mercy of Providence, except for those cruel personal losses which have occurred in almost every home in this country, this country has been spared the ravages and misery of war to an extent to which not even neutral countries in Europe have escaped. The great masses of the people of this country have really enjoyed greater prosperity than at any other time in our history. Last winter for a short period there was a certain lack of food. Now we are told that during this coming winter there may be a distinct privation; that it may be necessary for all classes to curtail their ordinary requirements as regards the
974
warmth of their houses and their lighting, and so forth; that the shortage of coal is very great, and it is essential that our Allies who are fighting with us and our Armies abroad should be supplied with as much coal as possible; and that therefore the private individual in this country must diminish his own personal requirements. This is the first instance in which we in this country have really felt privation.
On the other hand, the Coal Controller has appealed earnestly to the miners of the country to increase to the utmost the output of coal A statement was made the other day in the Press showing that this appeal had been partially met, but I know on my own personal knowledge that in Scotland the average days were only eleven in a fortnight, and consequently the great portion of our mines were lying idle. It is in face of that demand of the Government, that the coal output of the country should be increased to the utmost, that I ask the third part of my Question—namely, what discussions have taken place between the Government officials and the miners or their representatives. If it is possible, I should think it would be very valuable if the documents—if the communications have been in writing—could be laid upon the Table. If it is not possible, then I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have approached the miners or their representatives as to whether they will allow German prisoners to be employed in the mines, and, if there has been a refusal, whether any reason has been given for that refusal. I should like to have a specific answer on this point. Experience shows that, throughout the war, while they have been very bold in dealing with individuals or small sections of the community, the Government have been very timid when coming up against any organised body of labour; and therefore we are rather suspicious that the Government have not done their best to secure the employment of German prisoners in our coal mines. I do not believe myself that the great body of miners are one whit less patriotic or worse fighters abroad than any other class of the community. If only they are appealed to, and if the Government point out the necessity of a certain course of action, then I believe they would loyally respond. That is the obect of the third portion of my Question—to know exactly what has taken place between the Government and the miners or their representatives.
Now may I make a short digression with reference to the debate which took place on Tuesday, I think it was, in another place. I believe that most of your Lordships will share my feeling of regret at seeing how very vigorously the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was attacked on that occasion. In the many discussions which have taken place in this House on this question noble Lords have testified to the zeal and energy which Lord Newton has displayed in the discharge of his duty on behalf of our prisoners of war; and if I may make a personal remark it is this, that I believe these attacks are far more due to his at times rather rugged demeanour than to anything else. I believe that that demeanour has been misinterpreted as indicating on his part a lack of feeling and sympathy with our prisoners, whereas I know for certain that no person in the kingdom has been more desirous of doing everything possible on behalf of these unfortunate prisoners of war.
The criticisms in the other House chiefly centred upon the fact that the noble Lord had not indulged in reprisals. To my mind it would be perfectly impossible for any single Minister to entertain the idea of entering upon a course of reprisals. Such a policy, such a notable departure from our national characteristic of never inflicting cruelty on innocent persons because of the desire to punish a guilty person, would be absolutely foreign to all our traditions. Moreover, a policy of reprisals could only be entered upon by the Government as a whole and not by a single Minister. In the earlier stages of the war one Minister did venture to give utterances to a desire to enter on such a policy. We know what a dismal failure that was. I very much question whether such a policy at any time would be successful. Only recently there has come out a French book, written by M. Dufour, showing what happened in the case of French prisoners—that retaliation was inflicted by the Germans in a camp specially formed for reprisals so as to punish the offence of what the Germans considered to be improper treatment of German prisoners. Whether it is a sound policy or not, at all events it could not be the action of a single Minister to undertake it. The noble Lord, from the very moment of assuming office, has always been insisting that prisoners of war in this country should be employed to the utmost extent. That is not exactly a policy of reprisals, but it is certainly a policy which is the reflex of the
976
action taken by the German Government in regard to those prisoners of ours whom they held. We know under what cruel circumstances our prisoners have been forced to work in salt mines and coal mines.
The employment of German prisoners in mines would be entirely in accordance with international Agreements and The Hague Convention, and yet our Government, in these days where every pound of coal is required, hesitate to employ prisoners in this manner, which would be of benefit and advantage, and perhaps of absolute necessity to our successful carrying on of the war. I, therefore, maintain that the noble Lord, in his action throughout his conduct of affairs in wishing to get prisoners employed, should have had greater support from noble Lords in this House and certainly from members in another place, who are in a better position to force the hand of the Government in this direction. I trust that this afternoon there will be some Peers here who will follow up this argument and try to insist upon the Government meeting our necessities and taking action for the employment of German prisoners of war. I need not dwell upon the last portion of the Question which stand in my name, as it speaks for itself, but I hope that other Peers may take part in this debate. I now beg to move for Papers.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think there can be very little doubt that insufficient use has been made of German prisoners of war, in spite of the great shortage of labour from which this country has suffered in so many directions. What is the reason of this reluctance to use these prisoners? Has the objection arisen from the War Office in finding guards for them, or has it arisen, as my noble friend has said, from the miners or other trade union bodies? And if objection arose from those bodies, could not a strong appeal have been addressed to them to bear any inconvenience and put aside any natural objections which they might feel, for the sake of the good of the country as a whole?
It cannot be said that the employment of these prisoners would in any way interfere with the interest or with the privileges of the trade unions. It could not lower their wages. It could not give rise to unemployment. I should, therefore, like to ask the noble Lord, who I know is as anxious

977
as anybody can be to get work out of the prisoners, what is the real objection to using them in many ways which are possible. There may be technical objections; there may be objections as to what the prisoners might do if they went below, which make it impossible or undesirable to use them below ground; but there must be on the surface an enormous amount of work which prisoners can do, and if the objection arises on the part of the miners or the people who work on the surface against working in contact with German prisoners, then, where gang labour can be employed, that difficulty could be got rid of.
This question now is much less important than it was some time ago, because the war is rapidly drawing to a close, and we feel this more than ever after the announcement that has been made here today. But still, I think we shall always deplore the fact that, while our prisoners have been worked to death under the lash of the most brutal slave-drivers in the world, their prisoners over here were pampered and kept almost in luxury and not employed to do the work which in my opinion might very well have been imposed upon them.
THE ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, perhaps without being unduly irrelevant, and in view of what fell from my noble friend opposite, I may be allowed to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the consideration with which I have always been treated in this House. I think all noble Lords, or very nearly all noble Lords, will give me credit for having done my best for the benefit of prisoners in a somewhat difficult situation.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD NEWTON: With regard to the Question on the Paper, I propose only to deal with that relating to employment in coal mines, and not to enter into the larger subject of the general employment of prisoners, because I observe that there is a Motion on the Paper in connection with that matter next week. As to the Question on the Paper, I find that the statement which I made the other day is absolutely accurate. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that it was an under-statement, because I find that there are literally no men employed, not only in mines, but even on the surface of mines at the present
978
moment. This matter, I am informed by the Coal Controller, has been frequently discussed with the miners' representatives, and I believe that he and they are both of opinion that important questions of safety arise in the case of the employment of these prisoners underground and on the surface and anywhere near the shaft of the winding-engine. Negotiations are still proceeding, I understand, with these miners' representatives.
Both noble Lords asked me a definite and categorical question, and I am quite prepared to give them a categorical answer. They both asked from what direction the opposition proceeded; did it proceed from the War Office, or from the miners themselves? I am informed that the opposition arises from the miners' representatives themselves, and what their reason may be for their attitude I am not aware of. But I gather from the Coal Controller that the negotiations with these officials are not yet completed, and that he has hopes that they will abandon their present attitude with regard to the utilisation of German prisoners, at all events in development work. That, I presume, means the boring of fresh pits and work of that description. These negotiations were oral, they are not completed, and I am instructed to say that therefore there are, of course, no Papers which can be presented to Parliament.
I confess that, speaking for myself. I share the surprise which has been expressed by previous speakers that this question has not attracted greater notice already. The House is aware that there are thousands—I could not say how many exactly, but thousands certainly—of British prisoners who are employed under intolerably hard conditions in German salt mines and coal mines, where they receive abominable treatment; and it is a most extraordinary thing to me that at this moment, when a vast number of people are clamouring for a retaliation in some form or other, nobody seems to have suggested what appears to be the very obvious course, that German prisoners in this country should be made to do the same sort of thing which British prisoners in Germany are called upon to do. Why this matter has escaped notice for so long I am unable to say, but I hope that it will not be lost sight of.
In regard to the final portion of my noble friend's Question, the total number of German combatant prisoners in this country is 97,060; of these, 58,746 are in regular

979
employment. This leaves a balance of, approximately, 38,000 men who are not employed in regular work, and I am informed that this large discrepancy is to be explained as follows. Of the 38,000 whom I have quoted as not being in regular employment, 5,500 are officers; 10,500, approximately, are non-commissioned officers; there are 10,000 men in hospital; there are 3,000 who are unfit for heavy work and are employed merely upon camp duties in consequence of their physical condition, and there are 10,000 men who have recently been brought over from France and who are at the present time being distributed to various centres for agricultural and other work.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is as disappointed at the character of the answer he had to give concerning the coal mines as are most members of this House. After all, the fact that there was going to be a shortage of coal is no new question. It has been known to the authorities and proclaimed to the people for a considerable time. Yet after months of planning and scheming as to how to reduce the consumption of coal, light, and other things, we are told that this matter has been the subject of negotiations, is still the subject of negotiations, and that there is a hope that something may ultimately come of it. It is not, I confess, a very encouraging answer. There is no suggestion that there is any particular reason to believe that anything has happened in these negotiations which would make the hope more immediate than it has been at any time in the last three or four months. We are told that they are reasons of safety urged by the miners' representatives against the employment of German prisoners in any occupation connected with a mine. There is no suggestion made to us what those considerations of safety are. It is very easy to imagine them in connection with underground work, but it is not so easy to imagine them in connection with work about a mine which may not even be in immediate proximity to the mine.
The net result—it is not the noble Lord's fault in any way—the net result is that I honestly do not think his answer takes us one inch further than we were when we came down to the House this evening. We knew before—and I wish to emphasise it as much as I can—that Lord Newton has not only done his best in every direction
980
for our prisoners, but he has consistently advocated the employment of German prisoners where they could be employed in this country, apart from the employment of them on agriculture. This is a question which strikes one as most vital in this country, and I cannot share my noble friend's optimism as to conditions in regard to coal being much easier because of what has occurred. I think they will be equally hard for some time to come. As regards coal, his advocacy has not produced any result at all. I do not wish to exaggerate, but at the present moment we are on a very limited output, with certainly some hardship, and perhaps even suffering, to the poor as regards coal, and we are wasting, or not using, an element of labour without the smallest explanation being given to us of what the real reason is for it, except that the miners' representatives so far have not consented and there is no indication that there is any likelihood of their consenting.
I do not wish to press for it tonight, but I think we had really better know the worst. Is there really any hope that we shall have the consent of the miners to the employment not only of German labour but of any labour which is available to increase the output of coal? Because that is the question. You want to get what labour you can in order to get coal. I am afraid, from what he said, that the noble Lord cannot give us any hope. This is no new question. The time has come when the Government ought, in this House or in another place, to tell us how we stand in this matter. It is very urgent and very important, and touches the whole population. And, while expressing what I feel is our appreciation of all that the noble Lord has done, I would ask him whether we are to be told at any time what chance there is to employ the labour of Germans or Austrians, or any other labour, which will increase the output of the coal which is so urgently wanted, not only for ourselves, but for our industries and for work abroad.
LORD BERESFORD: I am sure your Lordships were delighted with what I may describe as the wholesome speech of the noble Lord opposite. He has now told us what we believed all the time. He has done his best for the prisoner, we all know that, but he has failed to do what he wished to do. It has not been his fault, but the fault of the Government for not backing him up. We know perfectly well that ever

981
since he has been associated with the Prisoners' Department, and indeed before, he has pointed out the necessity of employing German prisoners. For my own part, I would have employed them and got the last ounce out of them, when we think of the cruelties our men have endured in the salt mines and chemical works of the enemy. With regard to coal, we are going to be short of coal for six years after the war, perhaps, judging from what has happened after every other war. All the world will want coal for heating and industrial purposes, and I should like to ask whether it is a fact that the mines are lying idle for two-thirds of the week. We are going to have a serious time on this question in this country, far more serious, I think, than that of food. The people have been most loyal and have backed up the Government, they have not growled or grumbled over the food; but it will be a very different thing if you are short of coal in the winter, because that will not only affect cooking, but it will affect heating, and the poorer children, the poorer families, will get starved on account of the want of coal, And if it is the fast that our mines are lying idle for two-thirds of the week the Government ought to grapple with the question at once. I respectfully differ from my noble friend Lord Sydenham when he spoke of prisoners. He thought the war would be over soon. I do not agree with him at all; I respectfully differ from him entirely. I do not think the war will be over anywhere near soon as long as the Junkers and the Kaiser exist. They will go on fighting, and until we get over the Rhine we shall have to continue until we fight them to their knees. I do not think it is right of anybody to make optimistic speeches now. We shall have to go on with the war, in my opinion, for some considerable time.
LORD SYDENHAM: I only said that it was drawing to a close.
LORD BERESFORD: I do not even agree with my noble friend there. However, the real point that I think your Lordships would like to get more information upon is in regard to the output of coal. I regard the position as most serious for the reasons I have given, and if some one on the Front Government Bench would answer the question directly as to how long the coal mines are lying idle at the present time I should be much obliged.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity, having read of the attacks made upon my noble friend Lord Newton with regard to his conduct in relation to prisoners, of bearing my testimony to his work. I should like to say how much obliged I personally am towards him for what he has done with respect to the release of prisoners. I think that he has displayed great energy in this matter, and the attacks that have been made upon him personally are most unjustifiable. I took occasion to say at a meeting that I attended some months ago—which my noble friend opposite will recollect—when attacks were made upon the noble Lord, that I wished to bear testimony to what I knew at that time was being done by my noble friend Lord Newton. Before then, and since, my noble friend used his best endeavours to get these prisoners released.
With respect to the use of German prisoners in coal mines, I understand that there are objections to their being so employed. I think, therefore, that one of the most important things that we could do, in order to get the coal which is required for the commerce and industry of the country, and for the war, is to induce the Government to recall some of our own miners from the Army, and put them back to their own work in the mines. I understand that these gallant men have been fighting so vigorously, and are so desirous of being in at the end, that they are very reluctant to return to their work in the coal mines. They think that they are doing their country a greater service by continuing to fight, as they have been doing, so gallantly. At the same time, I am of opinion that the practical way of getting more coal is to bring back the men, who have been in the habit of extracting coal from the earth, to their own occupation. Of course if they will not come back and insist on fighting until the end, I suppose they must be allowed to do so, but with the Americans sending men at so rapid a rate as they are now doing, and in such large numbers, surely 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000 of our own men who are miners might be recalled from the Front in order to do this very essential work for the country. Not only is the coal required for ourselves, but it is no less urgently needed by our Allies.
LORD WITTENHAM: My Lords, there are only two or three observations that I should like to make. I thought that we

983
were discussing whether it was advisable to employ German prisoners in coal mines, and not whether we should bring back our own men for that purpose. I will confine myself to the former proposition. My noble friend Lord Newton produced some figures regarding the German prisoners who were employed. He gave a figure of about 40,000. Then he proceeded to whittle that down, and very rightly so, because the officers have to come off, and so, too, have the sick men and others. I was finally left in a state of doubt as to how many German prisoners would be available even if the British miners approve of the policy of employing them in the mines of this country. It is a question of quantum. How many are there?
LORD LAMINGTON: There may be many miners employed in other occupations who might be taken from those occupations and put to do work in the mines.
LORD WITTENHAM: I agree. I should like to know at what the men to whom the noble Lord now alludes are occupied. They may be doing quarrying, or they may be engaged in some other occupation of a very important kind, not perhaps as vital as coal-mining, yet of a very important nature. Another question that I should like to ask the noble Lord in front of me is this. A fortnight ago, when this matter was before this House, the noble Lord described it as in his opinion a ridiculous anomaly that British prisoners should be employed in German coal mines and that German prisoners should not be employed in British coal mines. Does the noble Lord still think it a ridiculous anomaly? If he thought it a ridiculous anomaly a fortnight ago, I respectfully venture to ask him whether he represented it to the powers that be as such? His opinion is very important, because he is the high official who has control, or at any rate he has control to a great extent. Has he represented to the Government that in his opinion it is a ridiculous anomaly that German prisoners, if there be any available, should not be employed at work in coal mines in the country, and if he has suggested to the Government that it is a ridiculous anamoly what reply did they give to him? Have they pushed his opinion aside? We are entitled to know, because it is the Government that we are after this afternoon. Have the Government pushed
984
his opinion aside, and if so why? If the noble Lord feels himself able to reply to those questions, which I put to him with the utmost respect, I shall be grateful.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my noble friend who has just spoken is suffering from a delusion not altogether uncommon in this House, that I am a much more important person than I am in reality. As a matter of fact, no recommendations or advice from me, as far as I know, would carry any weight with the proper authorities. I am merely a spokesman, and I have no authority to recommend that persons should be employed in any particular direction or in any occupation, but I have taken upon myself frequently, although it was outside my duty, to suggest that German prisoners should be employed preferably to leaving them idle. It was a very long time before any of them were employed. For the first six months or so of the war I do not think that any work was got out of the German prisoners, and it seemed to me, if I may say so, such a scandal that I took upon myself frequently to bring it to the notice of the authorities. I got myself very much disliked in consequence in various quarters.
With regard to the other question put to me, I should like to make it quite clear that there are not a number of men available to put into the coal mines at this moment in this country. I accounted for all the men in this country. If men are really wanted in the coal mines, if you are determined to employ German prisoners in coal mines, and if the objections to which I have alluded are overcome, there is nothing that I know of to prevent a large additional number of prisoners being brought over from France for the purpose. There must be at the present moment considerably more than 150,000 prisoners in France, and although they no doubt are all occupied in some way or another, it seems to me quite conceivable that they could not be put to any better use than that which has been suggested this afternoon.
LORD BERESFORD: The trade unions object.
LORD NEWTON: I am informed that the miners object, but I am unable to give the noble Lord the reasons for their objection. There must be means of ascer-

985
taining what they are. I should have thought that they would have been ascertained long ago in another place.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MRS. BESANT AND INDIA.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an imitation postage stamp has been issued by Mrs. Besant bearing her effigy, with the legend "Interned for God and Country"; and whether letters and papers on which this stamp has been placed for propaganda purposes are allowed to be transmitted by post in India.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in recent years a custom has grown up of attaching stamps with various devices, more or less beautiful, to envelopes passing through the post. That plan serves three purposes. In the first place, the sale of the stamps helps the funds of the public bodies which the device represents. In the second place, the object is very widely advertised; and in the third place the recipient of the letter receives the information that the sender approves and is supporting the particular object. I have seen one of Mrs. Besant's stamps. They are extraordinarily well executed, and at a short distance they are practically indistinguishable from an ordinary postage stamp. To people in India they would seem almost exactly like the stamps of the Government. This stamp bears Mrs. Besant's image, and round it the words "Interned for God and Country." I need hardly say that those words are not true. Mrs. Besant, who had grievously offended against the law, was interned for a brief period in her own comfortable bungalow at Ootacamund by the order of the Madras Government, and was then quickly released by order of the Viceroy in order that a favourable atmosphere for the visit of Mr. Montagu might be arrived at.
Now, the effect of selling and circulating this stamp in India must be this. It would help the funds of the Home Rule League; it would suggest that the President of the Home Rule League was the rival or the equal of the Sovereign, to whose effigy the masses of India have grown accustomed on their stamps; it would intimate that Mrs. Besant was a martyr to what she has called the "brutal bureaucracy"; and, lastly, it would inform every recipient that the sender was a supporter of the Home Rule League. It is impossible for any one
986
who has not lived is India to realise the extraordinary credulity of the people, and also the amazing quickness with which they attach meaning to symbols of all kinds. That stamp could be made to serve exactly the same purpose as the mysterious chupatties which were circulated just before the time of the Great Mutiny. It would signify to the people who saw it, who are very ignorant and cannot read or write, that some great change was impending, and it would increase the unrest which I am sorry to say is developing too rapidly in India at the present time.
As an instance of a trivial and silly suggestion, I may recall the first rupee coined in India after the Coronation of His Majesty. It bore the King's head and shoulders, wearing the collar of the Order of the Indian Empire. That collar has elephants on it at proper intervals. The design of the stamp was made by an Austrian of the name of Sachs, and one of the elephants looked exceedingly like a pig, especially when the coin became a little bit worn. That rupee was at once regarded with intense dislike and suspicion by all the Mahomedans, and a new design had to be prepared for another coin.
The Indian post is a wonderful institution. It is probably one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest, in the whole world. All over India a closed letter goes for a halfpenny, a card is sent for a farthing, and the newspaper rates are extraordinarily low. One result of those low rates in India is to facilitate the distribution of seditious matter, and any one who has read the Report of the Rowlatt Committee will understand that the amount of that kind of matter in circulation must be considerable. For advertising purposes, therefore, the Indian post must be a most convenient medium, and it is impossible to exaggerate the harm which this stamp might do if it is allowed to circulate. Your Lordships are doubtless aware that Mrs. Besant's dupes in India have been led to believe that she is a supernatural being, connected in some remote way with the Indian Pantheon and sent to this world with a mission to release the people from the chains of British rule, and it is her artful application of Hinduism to politics which has made her influence in India so extremely pernicious. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that this stamp is not now allowed to be circulated through the post of India.
May I be permitted to take this opportunity of saying one thing more? The Secretary of State has personally informed me that he did not permit Mrs. Besant to see any early draft of his Report. She did apparently go to Delhi from Calcutta after the tour had ended, and this fact no doubt gave rise to a certain amount of doubt. She saw the Secretary of State at a garden party, but at that interview nothing transpired with regard to the matter in the Report. I was misled by the categorical and direct statement in New India that she had been allowed to discuss an "earlydraft" of this Report. That statement in her paper must have been quite inaccurate, and my conclusion that she was permitted to have some special negotiations with the Secretary of State was therefore unjustified, and I most gladly withdraw it.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I regret that I shall not be able to give any very wide reply to the Question that has been put by my noble friend. I will tell the noble Lord all the facts in my possession. The Secretary of State learnt in November, 1917, that this Home Rule stamp was being sold at 1-pie, bearing the effigy of Mrs. Besant surrounded by the words, as I understand, "For God, Crown and country" Interned June 16, 1917." And on three sides of the stamp the words "Home Rule" appeared in five languages. We also had information a short time afterwards that these stamps had found their way to Singapore on newspapers posted from India. Since that date—November, 1917, and possibly the subsequent month, no further information regarding this stamp has come to our notice in this country.
The noble Lord explained to the House the harmful effect that a wide circulation of stamps bearing this effigy and with this inscription upon it would have, especially in a country like India. No doubt, if there was such wide circulation, I think the noble Lord would be correct in the inference that he would draw from such circulation. But I have tried to become further informed since the Question was put down by my noble friend in regard to what notice might have been taken of it in the Indian Press, with which we are furnished in the India Office, during the period that has elapsed since November,
988
1917. I have not been able to discover any allusion to it in the Press. I have also inquired of some of those who formed the Secretary of State's Mission to India last year, and who travelled all through India, whether they heard anything of this stamp or of the effect that it might be having in the country; and in every instance where I have made the inquiry I have been told that they have heard nothing about it. Neither I nor they have had the advantage that my noble friend has had of seeing one of these stamps.
I think your Lordships will agree, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree, that a matter of this character is one that lies within the competence of the Government of India to deal with itself. It is a matter in regard to which the Secretary of State would not exercise any intervention, and one which he would feel satisfied could be left to be dealt with adequately and efficiently by the Government of India, if that Government felt that the circulation was widespread, or if they felt that the circulation was doing harm to law and order and to government in India. Therefore, that being the case, the Secretary of State did not feel that the matter was one in which he need intervene, so no inquiry as to what action had been taken was made from this country.
I may add in conclusion—because this is really all I can tell the noble Lord at present—that directly this Question was put on the Paper I had a telegram of inquiry sent to India, and I shall be very glad to give the noble Lord such information as may be possible on the receipt of the reply to that telegram. If there is any further information as to what course has been taken, as to what effect the stamp has had, I hope to receive that information by telegram in the course of the next few days, and will certainly impart the contents of it to the noble Lord. I think that this will be in his judgment a satisfactory answer to the Question that he has put.
LORD SYDENHAM: I have to thank my noble friend for the answer he has made. I am very glad to hear that he has made this inquiry, because it is clear from what he said that, at least in 1917, this stamp must have had a pretty wide circulation. It would be quite impossible for the Government of India to estimate the harm

989
that stamp was doing—nobody could do that—and certainly the Indian papers would be the most unlikely to draw attention to it. But if the fact is that this circulation has been large, then the harm has been done; and though it will not show at the present moment, you cannot tell in a country like India how far it has gone, and what results may not show themselves.

PRIVATE BILL.
[From Minutes of October 30.]

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; real 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.