Sitting of 8 April 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GERMAN MISSIONARIES.
  Mr. HAILWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the great harm done to British interests in India and the Far East by the seditious efforts of German missionaries; and whether they are specially exempted from being deported along with other Germans?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As far as India is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for India to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on the 1st July last. I am advised that the situation is not changed in any way since that date.
  As regards the Far East, His Majesty's Government are aware of the political activities of certain of the German missionaries, though whether British interests have suffered great harm there from may be open to doubt. The exemption of enemy missionaries in China from repatriation is still under discussion at Peking, and His Majesty's Minister has been instructed to press for the expulsion of those who have rendered themselves obnoxious by their attitude during the War.

  EGYPT.

    CITIZENSHIP.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether an Egyptian is a British subject, and should enjoy in this country and in India the rights and privileges of British citizenship?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative. Persons who are recognised by the Egyptian Government as
    1824
    Egyptian subjects are, however, like natives of other British Protectorates, entitled to the good offices of His Majesty's representatives abroad.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that although we have annexed Egypt, although we have declared a Protectorate over it, that Egyptians are not thereby recognised British subjects?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; I understand that to be the position.
    Captain W. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not clear that the Protectorate does not mean annexation, and that Egyptians are subjects of the Sultan of Egypt and not of the British Crown?

    PROCLAMATION BY GENERAL ALLENBY.
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a further statement with reference to the situation in Egypt?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: General Allen by, the Special High Commissioner, has, in the exercise of the discretionary powers granted to him, issued a Proclamation to the following effect:
    "Now that order has been in great measure restored, I declare, in agreement with His Highness The Sultan, that there are no restrictions on travel, and that Egyptians who wish to leave the country will be free to do so."
    It is understood that a Ministry is in course of formation, and that a deputation of Ministers will shortly visit this country in response to the invitation already twice extended to them by His Majesty's Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will Indians who are able to leave India also be allowed to land in this country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for India.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the people who were originally barred from coming to this country now to be allowed to come here?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the terms of General Allenby's Proclamation, will include that.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about the riots reported to-day, in which several prominent Englishmen were killed in Abdin Square three days ago?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be glad if the Noble Lord will put that question down to me to-morrow; I have no official information of it.
    Mr. THOMAS: Would it be possible for the Foreign Office to give the House information with regard to this very disturbing matter, rather than leave it to be forced out by questions and rumours outside?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the right hon. Gentleman can suggest means by which that can be done, we shall be most willing to do it.
    Mr. THOMAS: Are not the means at the disposal of the Government itself if in their judgment there are matters of public importance of this kind? Would it not be better to report them to the House rather than wait for questions?
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Cannot you get one of your tame private secretaries to put a prepared question?

    CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now consider the question of discontinuing the censorship of soldiers' letters addressed to members of their own families?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The censorship of soldiers' letters will be abolished as soon as possible. Regimental censorship has been abolished except in areas where operations are still in progress.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman make representations so that the letters of Members of the House of Commons should now be removed from under the Censorship?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the time has yet come to remove that censorship; when it does come all the provisions attached to it will no doubt fall together.

    HUTS AND BLOCKHOUSES (IRELAND).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has
    1826
    yet had an opportunity of inquiring whether huts and blockhouses have been recently erected in Ireland by the military authorities, and shortly afterwards pulled down; whether many of the men engaged in this occupation have been refused demobilisation, although over thirty-seven, on the grounds that they are indispensable; and if he will give instructions for men coming under this category to be demobilised forthwith if they are only required for work of this nature?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understood this question was to be withdrawn or postponed?
    Mr. GLYNNE: I postpone it if the right hon. Gentleman wishes, but he did not write me to that effect.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will postpone it: I am writing to him on the subject.

    PORT OF RICHBOROUGH.
    Lieutenant-Colonel SPENDER CLAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the port of Richborough, in Kent, is now operated by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company on a costings basis; what control is exercised on, the expenditure; whether the employés are paid on a weekly wage or by time; and what are the average weekly wages of unskilled labourers in each case?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The port of Richborough is now operated by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company's Managing Committee on the basis of cost, subject to War Office instructions and audit. Employés are paid on a weekly wage at the local trade union rates. The average weekly wage of unskilled labourers is £2 19s. 1d.

    AERODROME EXTENSION (YORKSHIRE).
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Secretary of State for War what is the cause of the undue delay in paying the rent admited by the War Office to be due to the Rev. S. Howard Hall for land at Sherburn-in-Elmet, in Yorkshire, taken over for the extension of the aerodrome

    1827
    early in 1918, and whether he can hurry the payment of this debt, which has been repeatedly applied for?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that occupation was taken in this case under the Defence of the Realm Act, and therefore rent is not payable, but compensation is awarded in such cases by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. As regards the question of delay, I am informed that a claim in proper form was first submitted on 16th November, 1918, and that an amended claim was submitted on the 14th March by the solicitors acting for Mrs. Hall, who is the owner of the land. In forwarding this amended claim the solicitors did not complain of delay on the part of the War Department, but, on the contrary, regretted slight delay in consequence of their client's illness. There is, I gather, every prospect of the claim being settled now very expeditiously.

    MECHANICAL TRANSPORT.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the 882nd Mechanical Transport Company, Royal Army Service Corps, what are the total number of cars; number of cars of four-cylinder and 20-horse power; number of personnel, (a) drivers, (b) non-commissioned officers, and (c) officers; the total cost of rations, separation allowance, and consolidated pay; and the mileage covered for the month of March?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend is as follows:

    Number of cars

    194

    Number of 4-cylinder, 20 horsepower cars

    77

    Number of drivers (soldiers)

    107

    Women's Legion

    130

    237

    Number of non-commissioned officers

    50

    Number of officers

    11

    Total cost of rations, separation allowances, and consolidated pay for the above personnel £2,439 0s.

    8d.

    Estimated total mileage covered during the month of March—

    100,000 miles

    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Would it interfere in any way with the administrative efficiency of the supply transport if the whole of this work was done by a civilian administrative machine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, I do not think I could answer that question without more careful consideration than I could give it without further notice.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    MACHINE GUN CORPS RECORD OFFICE.
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the discontent which exists amongst the military personnel of the Machine Gun Corps Record Office at 91, York Street, Westminster, in reference to their demobilization; whether the majority of them are soldiers of three or four years' service who, after having been wounded or otherwise incapacitated, were posted there for duty; whether the majority of them have positions to go to and the commanding officer has been so informed, but so far only five out of about seventy have been demobilised; whether they are retained until substitutes can be found; is he aware that civilians who have applied for work as such substitutes have been turned away; will he cause inquiries to be made to endeavour to enable these men to be released; (2) whether he is aware that an Instruction was issued to certain record offices to the effect that, commencing on 1st February last, the military staff were to be demobilised at the rate of 10 per cent. per month, but that only five men at the Machine Gun Corps Records Office have so gained their release, whereas in the Infantry Records Office at London Wall, E.C., a considerable percentage of the personnel have gone, notwithstanding the fact that nearly the whole staff of the office is military; and whether he will endeavour to arrange that the various offices shall (subject to the exigencies of His Majesty's Service) be demobilised as far as possible on an equitable basis?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any discontent amongst the military personnel employed in the Machine Gun Corps Record Office. The instructions issued were not that 10 per cent. were to be demobilised from record offices per

    1829
    month, but that not more than that number were to be demobilised during that period—
    Colonel THORNE: That makes all the difference in the world!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The percentage actually demobilised has therefore varied according to the special circumstances prevailing at the moment in the various offices. The services of personnel in record offices are essential in connection with demobilisation as the actual work of demobilising the Army is the first consideration. Some record offices were in a better position to release men than others, more especially where there were a large number of military personnel employed. In the case of the Machine Gun Corps Records Office the military personnel amounted to approximately 15 per cent. of the entire staff, and as these men have experience of military work, more could not be spared before the month of February but a number were demobilised during that month and March. Circumstances are now such that the full quota of 10 per cent. can be demobilised this month. The majority of the military personnel employed at the commencement of demobilisation were wounded or incapacitated men. Some of these have applied to be demobilised; others have not; those already demobilised have been taken from such men as applied.
    A number of civilian clerks have been taken into employment since 11th November, 1918, but as only the applicants considered best qualified were selected there were consequently some rejections.

    OFFICERS IN FRANCE.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War whether it would be possible promptly to demobilise those officers still retained in France whose units have been cut down to cadre strength and who have consequently nothing to do, and whose retention causes heavy cost and is at the same time detrimental to their future careers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Personnel surplus to cadre establishment will be absorbed into other units affiliated to the same record office, to be sent for dispersal in the normal manner if eligible for demobilisation or to be retained if not eligible. Officers who are not required for the Army
    1830
    of Occupation or the military machinery of demobilisation are being released as rapidly as circumstances permit.
    Colonel THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made personal inquiry into the number of men who are simply fooling about at the present time in France?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is very remarkable how rapidly demobilisation is progressing in France. We are now within a very little of the limit that we have fixed for the Army there during the occupation period. It may well be that there are a certain number of men who have not been fully employed all the time, and whom we have not been able to bring home. We will bring them over as soon as we possibly can.
    Sir H. CRAIK: If I bring before the right hon. Gentleman a certain number of cases of officers who have absolutely nothing to do, will he hasten their demobilization?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Demobilisation is still going on at the enormous rate of 13,000 or 14,000 daily. We have only 200,000 to come; they cannot be very long.

    MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked what progress has been made in the demobilisation of doctors since 1st March last?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total numbers of medical officers released during the months of January, February, and March were 403, 1,071, and 1,787, respectively.

    9TH FIELD AMBULANCE (PRIVATE BRIGGS).
    Mr. HOPKINSasked why Private F. J. Briggs, No. 36793, 9th Field Ambulance, Guards Division, is still retained in the Army, considering that this man joined in September, 1914, and that he is not employed in demobilisation work?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the date of Private Briggs's enlistment is as stated, he would appear to be eligble for demobilisation, unless he is serving under pre-war conditions, and has not completed his term of Colour service. If he is eligible he will be released in due course.

    MILITARY MOUNTED POLICE (CORPORAL GRUNDY).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary for War if he will cause inquiries to be

    1831
    made as to the reason of the non-release from the Colours of Corporal R. Grundy, No. 6121, Military Mounted Police, who, as a member of the Yeomanry prior to August, 1914, has served throughout the War, in addition to being a tenant farmer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Coporal Grundy is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release. If his length of service is as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend he is eligible for release unless he is serving under pre-war conditions and his term of Colour service is not completed.
    Personnel of the Corps of Military Police employed with formations in the field or in garrisons, stations, and demobilisation units in the United Kingdom and overseas, are liable to be retained as part of the military machinery of demobilisation, even though eligible for demobilisation. Such men, however, are being released as soon as their services can be spared or they can be replaced.

    DISTANT THEATRES OF WAR (SPECIAL TREATMENT).
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War the result of his promised consideration of the provision of special treatment for men who have served in distant theatres of war and who, owing to exceptional circumstances, have had no home leave?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I can add nothing to my reply on Thursday last, in which I stated that large drafts had been placed under orders for Egypt and Constantinople. These will relieve a corresponding number of personnel who have served long periods in these theatres without leave. As regards Mesopotamia and India, no drafts can be sent to those places until climatic conditions permit, which will not be until August next at the earliest.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to read again his own promise to me on the Report stage of the Military Service Bill, where he said that this matter should receive consideration with a view to special treatment, if possible?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Mr. HURD: That is no special treat ment.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, we are sending out drafts as fast as we can form them to relieve a corresponding number of men.
    Mr. HURD: That is the normal course of things, is it not? There is no special treatment in that.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are not sending out drafts to the Army on the Rhine, for instance, to relieve the men who are due to serve there, but we are sending out drafts to relieve the men in distant theatres.
    Mr. HURD: The Rhine Army have had home leave; these men have had none.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was only trying to deal with the point raised that there was no special treatment in what we are doing.

    SHIREHAMPTON CAMP (WORN-OUT CLOTHING).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in connection with the complaint that soldiers demobilised from Shirehampton Camp are not allowed an exchange of worn-out clothing, he is aware that Private F. Jones, No. 235086, 2nd Troop, 73rd squadron, Royal Army Service Corp (Remounts), who was demobilised from this camp on the 14th March last, was refused an exchange for his cardigan jacket, underpants and socks, which he had been wearing since the 13th September, 1916; and whether he will make further inquiries into this complaint?
    Mr. FORSTER: In view of the large number of men passing through this camp daily it would be difficult to verify a statement of this kind three weeks after the event, but I will see what steps, if any, can be taken.

    ARMY HORSES
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for War the number of horses belonging to the British Army which have been sold in the United Kingdom, France, Egypt, and other theatres of war since the signing of the Armistice, and of that number how many were diseased and unfit for ordinary work; how much has the sale of these diseased and unfit horses realised; can he state if any and, if so, how many of these horses have fallen into the hands of bull-ring

    1833
    traders; and, if the sale of decrepit horses is still going on, will he take steps to stop it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that up to 28th March 187,539 horses and 56,044 mules had been sold alive at prices averaging over £38 each for horses and £34 10s. each for mules, and 28,008 horses and mules have been sold for meat at an average of over £21 10s. each. No animals unfit for work have been sold alive. Diseased horses have been destroyed.

    ACTING-PAYMASTERS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary for War if he is aware that a number of Civil servants have during the War been appointed acting-paymasters, with similar duties and responsibilities to those of commissioned paymasters; that application has been made by such persons for payment of the same service gratuity as is granted to commissioned paymasters under paragraphs 496 and 497 of the Royal Pay Warrant, and that this application has been rejected; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of civilian acting-paymasters have, in the public interest, been refused permission to join the forces while those who hold a commission in this country or abroad have benefited financially, he will reconsider the expediency of maintaining this distinction?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing on the 24th March. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of that reply.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I had a promise made to me that the grievance of these particular servants would be considered. Has that consideration yet been given?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think if my hon. Friend will study the answer to which I have referred he will see that we are considering whether or not it will be possible to give some kind of gratuity to acting-paymasters.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    TURKEY.
    Mr. HOPKINSasked if prisoners of war in Turkey had deductions from their pay to cover the advances made by the
    1834
    Turkish Government worked out at the rate of about 147 piastres per £; if money remitted to these prisoners was paid them at the rate of 125 piastres to the £; if the current rate of exchange during the period was between 400 and 500 piastres per £; and, if the facts are as suggested, what steps does he propose to take?
    Mr. FORSTER: The rate at which deductions were made from the pay of these officer prisoners of war was fixed monthly by the Treasury and was based on the rate at which the Treasury were able to remit funds to Constantinople. This rate was about 147 piastres to the £. I have no knowledge of any rate of 125 piastres to the £. As regards the hon. Member's suggestion that during the period 400 to 500 piastres were obtainable for the £, I think this can only refer to the local exchange value of the pound sterling and not to the rate at which funds could he remitted to Constantinople.
    Mr. HOPKINS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is the duty of the Government to protect these officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly. I will look further into the matter, but it appears to me logical that as the money in question was really in advance of pay the logical rate would be the rate at which the Treasury is able to remit funds to Constantinople.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is not the logical principle not to deduct more than the ordinary rate of exchange?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is the ordinary rate of exchange.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: Why should the officers suffer if the exchange is against them?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is a great difference between the rate at which the Treasury is able to remit, that is the ordinary rate, and the local rate which anybody who has a sovereign or a gold piece is able to obtain for it.

    GERMAN PAMPHLET.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a pamphlet, printed in English, which is handed to British prisoners of war when they leave the German camps, containing the statement that they entered the old Empire of Germany and left the new Republic, the newest and

    1835
    the freest land in the world, and that they saw so little of Germany's arts, sciences, model cities, theatres, schools, industries, social institutions, scenery, and the real soul of her people, akin in so many things to that of Great Britain; and whether he will take steps to see that similar pamphlets are not placed in the hands of the members of the Army of Occupation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I had not previously seen the particular pamphlet to which my hon. Friend has called my attention, but I am aware that efforts are persistently made, through both enemy and Bolshevik sources, to reach our soldiers with propaganda of various natures. Steps have been, and will continue to be, taken to prevent the dissemination and counteract the effect of such propaganda.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. SIMMasked the Secretary of State for War if he can give a Return showing the number of British prisoners of war in Germany who have not been traced; and if the relatives of missing prisoners are promptly informed of the results of investigations relating to missing prisoners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number on the Residue List of prisoners of war unaccounted for up to the 7th April is 1,896. Information received as to prisoners who have not been accounted for is communicated to the relatives if it appears to be reliable.

    PENSIONED OFFICERS.
    Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMASasked what number of those pensioned officers called up at the time of the country's need are still retained in the Service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I have no information as to the numbers, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that pensioned officers are being demobilised as quickly as possible and as soon as their services can be dispensed with.

    ARMY TELEGRAPH ORGANISATION (FRANCE).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that a large number of unnecessary telegrams are
    1836
    being transmitted over the military wires in France; whether, on 28th March, a telegram of about 100 words was dealt with, the subject of which referred to the transmission of a privately-owned dog from France to England; and whether he will institute searching inquiries into the necessity for the maintenance of the present state of Army telegraph organisation in France with a view to a drastic reduction, both in the interests of national economy and of the men who volunteered in 1914 and 1915 and who are being compulsorily retained with the forces?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of this, but inquiries are being made, and my hon. and gallant Friend will be informed of the result as early as possible.
    Sir F. HALL: If it will assist the right hon. Gentleman I will send him a copy of the message.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to see it.
    Sir F. HALL: I will send it.

    SEARCH PARTIES (GERMANY).
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKERasked the number of search parties now in Germany looking for missing men, the number of men found, and to ask that the names and units to which they belong should be published; and whether any evidence of men deceased has been ascertained?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Motor Ambulance parties searching for prisoners of war have finished their work. They found no missing men, but they found 121 prisoners of war who were known to be such. The names of all released prisoners, of war are published in the ordinary course, and the men's next-of-kin will also have been informed at the time of their discovery by the search parties. Evidence of death has been discovered by the search parties and has come to light from other sources also. Major-General Sir R. H. Ewart is at Berlin, and is engaged in making a systematic search of the German records.
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: Are we to understand that there are no longer search parties in Germany?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These motor ambulance parties have finished their general survey, and, of course, further inquiries will not be made.
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply refer to Austria as well as Germany?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the question I was asked referred to Germany only.
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman include Austria?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will furnish an equally reliable answer regarding that country.

    ARMY STUDENTS AND APPRENTICES.
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKERasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware of the hardship of apprentices who joined the Army at eighteen years or nineteen years of age, but after 1st January, 1916; and whether he will consider if they could be placed on the Reserve and enabled to fulfil their apprenticeship?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay on the 11th March, to the effect that students and apprentices are being treated on the same footing as regards demobilisation as other soldiers; their demobilisation is dependent on their being eligible under existing regulations.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ARMY PAY).
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked how many of the 113,305 Army officers now receiving full pay are also Members of the House of Commons, thus receiving two salaries from the public purse?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply which I gave on Tuesday last to a similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS,

    COMMUTATION (OFFICERS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked whether, in view of the discrepancy which exists between the terms of commutation of pen-
    1838
    sions of officers and other ranks, respectively, to the disadvantage of other ranks, he will arrange that the Royal Warrant shall be amended so as to provide that the rate of commutation per £1 of pensions shall be the same for all ranks?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 19th March last.

    SERVICE PENSION.
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked whether a soldier called to the Colours or who volunteered during the War, and who completes twenty-one years' Army service, qualifies for a Service pension; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of amending the Army Regulations whereby such patriotic service can be recognised?
    Mr. FORSTER: Such a soldier is entitled to a pension if, in addition to twenty-one years' total service, he has fourteen years' qualifying service as a private, or was continuously a non-commissioned officer for three years before the completion of his twenty-one years' service.

    WAR GRATUITIES.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if members of the Post Office Telegraph Service who enlisted as signallers on the promise of full civil and military pay are being deprived of their war gratuities, and will he take steps to rectify this?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Pontypool on the 20th March. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the answer referred to.

    DISABLED MEN (MEDICAL BOARDS).
    Major JOHN EDWARDSasked the Pensions Minister whether he will state the qualifications of the personnel of the authority that reviews the reports of medical boards on disabled men; whether, seeing that they review and sometimes, alter the assessments agreed to by medical boards, their qualifications are superior; and whether he will consider the advisability, from the point of view of depart-

    1839
    mental and medical economy, of doing away with this second authority for assessing disabilities?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I cannot usefully add to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 27th ultimo.
    Major JOHN EDWARDSasked the Pensions Minister whether medical boards in considering a disability have before them, in addition to the man's medical history, his conduct sheet as well; and, if so, for what purpose is the latter necessary?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The conduct sheet, as my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, often contains information of value from the medical point of view, and it is solely in that connection that it is examined.
    Major EDWARDS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that sufficient information is contained in the medical history of the man?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Some information is contained in the conduct sheet which is also valuable.

  REGIMENTAL PAYMASTERS.
  Captain HACKINGasked whether, in view of the fact that regimental paymasters still refuse to render statements of account when requested to do so by discharged or demobilised soldiers or by the next-of-kin of deceased soldiers, and also still refuse to allow such persons to view the soldiers' pay books (A Bs 64) without instructions from the War Office, which entails much delay, he will issue orders to all regimental paymasters that they should themselves so render these statements and allow the pay books to be viewed without waiting for written instructions from the War Office for each individual case?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of any such, refusals. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of any such cases, I will have them investigated.

  ARMY CANTEEN FUNDS.
  Mr. A. SHORTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, when a decision
  1840
  has been arrived at respecting the administration and application of the Army Canteen Funds, an opportunity will be afforded the House of discussing his proposals?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This question is still under consideration. I cannot think that a special day for its discussion apart from the ordinary opportunities of Army business is required.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that amongst the soldiers, who have contributed an enormous amount, there is a general desire that, at all events, the House should decide what should be done instead of being left entirely to the officials of the Department?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Questions relating to the time of the House should not be addressed to me. As far as I am concerned, I do not know of anything which prevents this matter being dealt with on the Army Estimates in the ordinary way.
  Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking the opinion of the soldiers on this matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am collecting information from every source available.
  Mr. SHORT: Are we to understand that this source of the rank and file is open apart from the commanding officers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to make a general proposal in regard to these matters that will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest the attitude which he proposes to employ to secure the opinion of the rank and file?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; certainly not.

  TUBERCULOUS DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are disused Army huts which would be of the greatest service to authorities who are responsible for providing institutional treatment for the large and increasing number of tuberculous discharged soldiers and that the Army authorities refuse to liberate these structures, thus preventing provision being made in the shortest possible time to avoid

  1841
  the housing of such men in their own homes at the risk of the rest of the family and also in many cases delaying treatment until it is too late to effect a cure?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that no applications for Army huts to be used to provide institutional treatment for tuberculous patients have been received by the War Office. The Army authorities do not refuse to liberate disused Army huts. All huts that are no longer required are reported to the Disposal Board, Ministry of Munitions, and disposed of under arrangements made by them. Such huts are prominently advertised in the daily papers. A considerable number of hutments are still required by the Army for demobilisation purposes and to accommodate units and equipment returning from abroad, but a steadily increasing quantity of huts is being released.
  Mr. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a small deputation to show that the facts are as stated in the question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be quite prepared to take it from my hon. Friend, and I am very disposed to accept his view, but I think we might see how things go before deciding on the procedure of a deputation.
  Major E. WOOD: Are these huts being sold by private treaty or by what method?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The War Office have nothing to do with that. They declare whether the huts or other articles are surplus and the Department of my right hon. Friend Lord Inverforth is solely responsible for what follows.

  HARTLEPOOL (BOMBARDMENT).
  Colonel BURDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the bombardment of Hartlepool on 16th December, 1914, was only the second occasion in the history of England that a British defended port has been attacked in daylight by an enemy fleet, that this was the first occasion on which a unit of the New Army, as well as the other troops engaged, had been under fire and suffered loss, that this was the only occasion on which British troops were called upon actively to defend their native soil, that at least one of the enemy cruisers
  1842
  was seriously damaged by our fire, he will consider the propriety of giving some special recognition to the troops engaged?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The gallant behaviour displayed on the occasion referred to has already received special recognition in the shape of the award of the Distinguished Service Order to the officer in command and one Distinguished Conduct Medal and two Military Medals to the non-commissioned officers of the battery which was in action.
  Colonel BURDON: As the recognition already given does not apply to the rank and file, will the right hon. Gentleman consider if their services also cannot be recognised?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been considering whether the War medal could be applicable, but it obviously raises very difficult questions, because I should have to make careful inquiries to see how far personnel engaged in repelling air raids and so on are likely to be entitled to it, and their dangers do not seem to have been greater than those endured by a very large proportion of the inhabitants.
  Colonel THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made personal inquiries about the two little popguns whose muzzles when they were manœuvring the guns about came right in front of the lighthouse?

  MESOPOTAMIA (MONUMENTS AND ANTIQUITIES).
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether any responsible and archæologically-qualified official in Mesopotamia is charged with the duty of protecting ancient monuments, and especially the partly excavated ruins of Babylon; and whether the glazed brick decorations and some other features of the Ishtar Gate and other buildings of Babylon have suffered, and are suffering, damage of a serious character?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): It was decided last autumn to restrict archæological operations during the winter of 1918–19 to preliminary measures for the preservation of certain specified sites. This work has been entrusted to a trained architect, attached to the Civil Administration for the purpose, acting under the advice of any archæologist sent out by the

  1843
  British Museum. With regard to the second part of the question, the Secretary of State has no detailed information; but he will make inquiry.
  Sir M. CONWAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether excavations were made during a long series of years by well-equipped expeditions maintained by the German Government, especially on the sites of Babylon and Samarra; whether a number of antiquities of a movable character recovered during those excavations fell into the hands of the British Expeditionary Force as prize of war; whether these antiquities are under the charge of the War Trophies Committee of the War Office; whether they were ordered to be sent to England to be handed over to the custody of the Trustees of the British Museum; and whether they have yet arrived in England?
  Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State is aware that researches were carried out by German archæologists in Mesopotamia before the War. Over ninety cases of antiquities, ready packed for dispatch to Europe, were recovered by the British Forces at Samarra. These cases, together with certain other items recovered in Baghdad, are now at Basra awaiting the results of expert examination. The question of their ultimate disposal has not yet been decided.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Have the claims of the British Museum been borne in mind?
  Mr. FISHER: Yes, Sir.
  Sir M. CONWAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether numerous casual excavations have been sporadically carried out in Mesopotamia by members of the Expeditionary Force and the objects recovered carried away by individuals, thus depriving historians of invaluable records; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to such activities and to provide that all objects of antiquity, by whomsoever found, shall be retained for national purposes and the place and circumstances of their recovery accurately recorded?
  Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State is not aware of the facts alleged in the first part of the question. The late General Maude issued a proclamation in May, 1917, declaring antiquities, objects of historical interest, etc., to be the property of the Administration of the
  1844
  occupied territories, and prohibiting all unauthorised removal or destruction. Under general routine orders, dated the 6th April, 1918, officers and men of all ranks were specially warned against the defacement or mutilation of ruins and at Baghdad and elsewhere the removal of bricks or other antiquities. The Secretary of State has no reason to believe that these orders have been disregarded.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether we have in Russia 20,000 troops, as stated by him in this House, or 140,000, as stated by M. Pichon in the French Chamber; and how the difference in estimating the totals has arisen?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: According to the report of M. Pichon's speech in the "Times," he did not state that there were 140,000 British troops in Russia, but that there were 140,000 in the East, and judging from the other figures given he was apparently referring to the Armies in the Balkans, Turkey, Asia Minor and the Caucasus. The figures which were given by me in Debate on Monday of last week are correct. I distinctly stated that the Army in the Caucasus was excluded, as it is not engaged in military operations nor is it in contact with any enemy.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary whether T. A. Ripper, a conscientious objector, who was arrested in January, 1918, is at present in Plymouth civil prison in a serious state of health; and whether he will have inquiries made, with a view to this man's release on health grounds?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The prisoner was released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act on the 24th ultimo. His ill-health was caused by his refusal to take food.

  DENATURALISATION (CAROLINE HANEMANN).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary why, in the "London Gazette"

  1845
  announcement of the denaturalisation of Caroline Hanemann, contrary to the form of other denaturalisation notices, there are omitted the date of naturalisation and the reasons for denaturalisation?
  Mr. SHORTT: The announcement in this case was in precisely the same form as in all other cases under Section 3 of the Act of last Session, that is, cases of enemy subjects naturalised during the War. In these cases the Committee have merely to answer the question whether it is or is not desirable to revoke the certificate: they are not required to give, and do not give, their reasons. The other denaturalisation notices to which the hon. Member refers are those in cases where a certificate granted before the War is revoked under Section 7 of the Act for special reasons such as disloyalty or dissaffection.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this lady, denaturalised since the War, was for some months in residence at Downing Street?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that, I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he will give the names of the persons who stood sponsors for Caroline Hanemann, now denaturalised?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is contrary to the ordinary practice to give the names of the four natural-born British subjects who acted as referees in naturalisation cases. I do not think there is any reason to depart from the practice in this case, or to add anything to the answer given on the 11th June last to a similar question.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Were the names not given in the case of Laszlo? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me that?
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not know.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: You should know.

  MOTOR OMNIBUSES.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary what powers his Department have over motor omnibuses in London and district; if they licence them and pass them as safe for the public; if they have any control over routes or fares; and if his Department has the same powers over motor omnibuses in all parts of the country?
  Mr. SHORTT: By the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, the Secretary of State is given power to grant licences for stage carriages, their drivers and conductors. This power he has by successive Orders delegated to the Commissioner of Police, who causes each vehicle to be inspected, and, if found fit, licensed for public use. Interference with the routes of omnibuses is expressly forbidden by the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867; but before licensing a stage carriage its fitness, for the particular route is considered by the Commissioner. The amount of the fares chargeable to passengers is in the discretion of the proprietor of an omnibus. The powers of the Secretary of State are confined to the Metropolitan Police District.

  MINISTERS' MOTOR CARS.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether or to what extent it was the custom that motor cars or other means of conveyance were supplied at public expense to Ministers as officers in the public service before the War; to what extent it was found necessary to do so during the War; to what extent it still continuous; what numbers of motors cars are now in use by officers in the War Office; and whether the supply and use of such motors at public expense can now cease and the officers be required to use the ordinary means of conveyance?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It was not the custom before the War to supply Ministers with motor cars at the public expense. During the War the position has changed, and for various reasons it has been found necessary to supply Ministers holding the more important offices under the Crown with motor cars at the public expense. The number of cars employed for War Office purposes at present is forty-three. The use of cars is restricted to work in connection with the public service. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that it would be in the public interest that the supply and use of motor cars for public officials generally, including officers of His Majesty's Forces, should be wholly discontinued. The whole question of the use of such cars, whether by Ministers or other officials, is now being considered by the Government with a view to its restriction as far as may be and to the establish-

  1847
  ment of a stricter control than has been practicable under the exceptional conditions prevailing during the War.
  Sir H. CRAIK: If when war conditions have ceased will the use of motor cars by Ministers revert to the custom before the War?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the questions which is now under consideration by the Government. At a later date if the right hon. Gentleman will put a question to my right hon. Friend no doubt he will make a statement on the whole matter.

  MILITARY DISCIPLINE.
  Sir F. HALLasked whether there is any regulation in existence which constitutes it a breach of discipline for a soldier or sailor to bring to the notice of the Member of Parliament who represents him any reasonable complaint or grievance which he is desirous of having inquired into?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Section 43 of the Army Act and paragraph 439 of the King's Regulations, which prescribe the methods of making complaints and obtaining redress of grievances so far as soldiers are concerned. I may say, however, that when any complaints or letters from soldiers sent to Members of Parliament have come to me the soldiers who sent them have been immune from disciplinary action, and I understand this was also the case as regards my predecessors in office.
  Sir F. HALL: Is that also to be taken as the attitude to be adopted by the Admiralty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is obviously not a question to be addressed to me.
  Sir F. HALL: I addressed my question to the Prime Minister.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BREAD SUBSIDY.
    Sir NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the correct cost of subsidies in support of wages or in the reduction of food prices involved in the Bread Subsidy, payments under the railway agreement, and the out-
    1848
    of-work pension payments; and to what extent will the purchasing capacity of wages be diminished after these subsidies are withdrawn?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of the Bread Subsidy is at present at the rate of £50,000,000 a year. Provision is made in the Estimates 1919–20 for £60,000,000 for payments under the Railway Agreement. The cost of the out-of-work donation is now about £1,250,000 per week.
    The Bread Subsidy amounts to about 6d. per week per head of population, and the effect of its withdrawal on the purchasing capacity of wages must depend on the future course of wheat prices. I am not clear on what grounds the purchasing capacity of wages can be held to be affected by the other subsidies.

    DOG BISCUITS (FLOUR).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Food Controller whether, in view of the present high price of dog biscuits to the high duty on flour, and of the difficulty of preventing dog owners from giving their dogs bread and thereby causing waste and cost to the public, he will consider the possibility of reducing the duty on flour used by manufacturers of dog food, or of supplying the inferior qualities of grain at cheap prices to such manufacturers?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): The licence duty payable by manufacturers of dog biscuits in respect of flour used for this purpose amounts approximately to the difference between the cost of flour and the subsidised selling price to bakers, and was introduced in order to prevent any increase in the bread subsidy being involved by the manufacture of an article of this nature. The question of reducing this duty is, however, under review.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can my right hon. Friend say that there is any inferior kind of flour manufactured for these biscuits?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My hon. and learned Friend made representations to me the other day on this point, and I am causing the whole subject to be brought under review.

    RATION BOOKS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Food Controller if it is proposed to continue the issue of food ration books on the expiry of the present ones in use by consumers; if so, if he can state for what articles of

    1849
    food it is proposed to issue coupons in the future; and when such new ration book will be issued?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No ration books will be issued after the expiry of the present books on 3rd May. The public should, however, keep their ration books carefully, as they will still be required for a time after 3rd May in connection with the rationing of meat, butter, and sugar. A further announcement on this point will be made shortly.

    HAY.
    Colonel BURDONasked the Food Controller whether he is aware of the great hardship caused to small dairy farmers by the present restrictions on the sale of hay, whereby the price is raised nearly 20s. per ton by fees to officials, and whether he can hold out any prospect of the abolition of these restrictions in the near future?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am afraid I do not understand my hon. and gallant Friend's reference to official charges. All charges permissible are set out in the Army Council Order of 20th August last governing the prices of hay and straw. The present restrictions on the sale of hay and straw will cease with the 1918 crop.
    Colonel BURDON: If I send the right hon. Gentleman the figures in question, will he look into the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly.

    SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS.
    Sir NORTON GRIFFITHSasked (1) what is the estimate of securities in respect of property of all kinds in other countries which have been sold by inhabitants of the United Kingdom for the purpose of investment in War Loan, and for the purpose of financing imports; (2) if he will state what was the estimated value in 1913 of securities in respect of property of all kinds in other countries, including the British Overseas Dominions and Colonies, held by His Majesty's Government and by citizens of the United Kingdom; what was the value in 1913 of securities in respect of property of all kinds in the United Kingdom held by foreign and Colonial Governments and residents in
    1850
    foreign countries and British Overseas Dominions; and what are their respective values at the present time?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information as to the amount of British-owned foreign and Colonial securities or of foreign and Colonial-owned British securities in 1913 and at the present time, nor as to the amount of the former released for investment in War Loans.

    SOCIAL POLICY (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress has been made with the preparation of the Return of public expenditure on various forms of social policy which formed, the subject of published correspondence with his predecessor; and whether he will, take steps to issue such a Return at as early a date as possible?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the matter is well in hand.

    UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES AND DEPOSITS.
    Mr. RENWICKasked whether there is any obligation upon bankers to make periodical returns of the unclaimed balances and deposits of cash and of plate or other valuables in their possession or custody; if so, what are the periods at which such returns have to be made; and whether there is any period at which it is obligatory on bankers to give notice of their possession of such unclaimed balances and other valuables to the next-of-kin of the depositors or to the Treasury?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. RENWICK: Are we to understand that no returns would be made or called for in the cases mentioned in the question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No returns are made.

  INCOME TAX.

    CONSTITUTION OF ROYAL COMMISSION.
    Mr. DENNIS HERBERTasked whether, in the constitution of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, any principle has been followed of giving

    1851
    representation on the Commission to bodies or classes of persons specially interested; if so, what interests Mr. Henry J. May represents; and whether any, or what, members of the Commission represent the interests of traders or of the Associated-Chambers of Commerce?
    Lieutenant-Colonel ROYDSasked whether there are any members on the Royal Commission on Income Tax representing trading associations; and, if not, whether he will add them?
    Sir WILLIAM SEAGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among retail traders at the composition of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, which includes representatives of the co-operative societies, but no representatives of the retail traders; and will he consider their claims for representation?
    Colonel BURNasked why a representative of the co-operative societies has teen appointed a member of the Income Tax Commission, in view of his statement that no trading association would be represented; and will he appoint a member of the Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association to the Commission, in order that their interests may be safeguarded?
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant the traders of the country the same privilege to be represented on the Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Income Tax as he has granted to the co-operative traders?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has evidently been a misunderstanding. No promise of the kind suggested in some of the questions was made by me, and it is obviously undesirable to increase the already large number of Commissioners, but in view of the widespread desire among Members that a representative of retail traders should be included in the Commission, I propose to make a submission to His Majesty to that effect.
    I venture to ask that hon. Members who have written to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and myself on this subject will be good enough to accept this reply as an answer to their letters.

    MARRIED PERSONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proceedings of the
    1852
    deputation to him on Thursday next, in connection with the Income Tax on married persons, will be made public?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter in which I shall be happy to comply with the wishes of the deputation, whatever they are.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAYMENT)
    Mr. LINDSAYasked under what authority the payment of the salaries of Members of the House of Commons up to 31st March was made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Salaries of Members are paid under the authority of the Estimate for the House of Commons Offices, as voted by the House and confirmed by the Annual Appropriation Act.
    Mr. LINDSAY: Has that Vote been passed in this Parliament or the last Parliament, and if only in the last Parliament will the Resolution have any effect?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the Vote has come before the House in this Parliament or not; but if not it must come in the normal course. It is customary to continue services without interrupting them until a new Vote is passed.

    METROPOLITAN WAGON COMPANY.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the capital of the Metropolitan Wagon Company before the War was approximately £1,000,000; that this capital was afterwards increased to the extent of £2,000,000 by way of bonus shares, making the capital £3,000,000; that subsequently the undertaking was sold to Messrs. Vickers for £15,000,000; and whether he can give an assurance that as respects the profits made in this undertaking the proper amount of Excess Profits Tax has been paid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that such a transaction has taken place. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from disclosing information relating to the liability to taxation of a particular taxpayer. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that the Commissioners will require that Excess Profits Duty be paid in all cases when it is found to be due.

    BRITISH COTTON-GROWING ASSOCIATION.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether the British Cotton Growing Association of Manchester is assessed to Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from furnishing any information relating to the liability to taxation of a particular taxpayer. The hon. and gallant Member may, however, rest assured that if any liability to the duties in question has arisen in this case, it has been duly dealt with.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to know whether the British Cotton Growing Association is or is not a taxpayer? I want to know whether this trading concern which is not paying any dividends and is subsidised by voluntary subscriptions is included in the taxpaying class or excluded from the duty to pay Income Tax? If excluded, why is it excluded when its competitors are forced to pay Income Tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to communicate his question to me in writing, in which case I will consider it further. There is a statutory obligation on the Board of Inland Revenue and the Income Tax Commissioners not to disclose information in these matters, and I am not clear that I have any right to disclose it or any right to obtain such information from them. Secrecy is observed even towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not sworn under the Taxing Act.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose the House has a right to know what persons or what bodies are exempted from paying Income Tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question which my hon. Friend will put to me in writing, and I will consider whether I am entitled to give the information which he seeks.

    POLICE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Captain SHAWasked the Home Secretary if he can say when the Committee dealing with police pensions, allowances, etc., are likely to present their Report?
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked when the Committee on the Police will report?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Committee have been asked to report as soon as possible, but their inquiry covers a very wide field, and I cannot say at present when it will be completed.

    ALIEN GOVERNESSES (PASSPORTS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether there are any rules or regulations now in force which prevent people in this country from engaging French or other friendly alien women as governesses or domestics; and, if not, why the Ministry of Labour are refusing passports in such cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Warde): Article 228 of the Aliens Restriction Order requires that any person desiring to obtain the services of aliens abroad for work in this country should first obtain the permission of the Minister of Labour. In administering this Article the Minister is mainly guided by considerations as to the extent to which the services required can be performed by persons already in the country. Where the chief purpose for which an alien is required is to teach French to the children of British people, the necessary permission is, as a rule, granted provided there is no objection on personal grounds to the alien concerned. But where it is clear that the alien is required mainly for domestic purposes, it is felt that having regard to the large number of women who have been discharged from work on War service, the applicant should be encouraged, where possible, to fill the vacancy with British labour. Permission to employ aliens from abroad is, therefore, generally refused in such cases.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Another form of protection.

    TAXI-CAB REGULATIONS.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether he can take steps to remove the present restrictions as regards taxi-cabs and other vehicles in railway stations in the interests of all the travelling public?
    Mr. SHORTT: Legislation would be required to alter the law with regard to

    1855
    taxi-cabs in railway stations. The matter is receiving attention, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation at present.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to consider the advisability of regulations to the effect that the driver of a taxi-cab going slowly along the streets and not plying for hire should have his flag covered?
    Mr. SHORTT: A police notice was issued in August, 1917, which said that a taxi-driver who is not seeking a hiring could cover over the "For hire" on his flag; but should he then stop and parley with a would-be hirer, he would be deemed to be plying for hire and liable to the penalties of the law if he refused to carry after parleying. I will consider the suggestion of transforming this arrangement into a regulation.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will put forward the name of William J. Skuse, Tan House Cottage, Yate, Gloucestershire, a discharged pensioned soldier, unable to follow his occupation of a quarryman, and trying to support an invalid mother, for a small holding of fifteen acres and the grant of £25; and to what authority such a man should apply?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Mr. Skuse should apply to the Gloucestershire County Council who is the Small Holdings Authority for the district in which he lives. It will be necessary for him to satisfy the county council that he has the necessary experience to cultivate a holding of fifteen acres, and that he also possesses some capital. Neither the Board nor the council at present have any funds to make a grant of £25 to the man in question, but application might be made by him to the Secretary of the King's Fund, Ministry of Pensions. As regards the financial assistance it is proposed to give to ex-Service men who intend to take up small holdings, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the provisions of the Land Settlement Bill.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Major E. WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can now state the total amount of land acquired and held by the Board and the county councils in connection with the settlement of ex-Service men on the land?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The total area, of land acquired by the Board, or agreed to be acquired by county councils, with the Board's approval since the 20th December last is 21,888 acres.
    Major WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that he has stated it is the intention of the Government to make provision for the advance of capital to suitable ex-Service men in the Land Settlement Bill, he will issue instructions that the contrary statement in the official pamphlet L. S. 2 should be corrected?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir. It is proposed to make the correction in the reprint of the pamphlet.
    Major WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the desirability of inviting the county councils to furnish a periodical return to the Board of the numbers of applicants for holdings, the amount of land held for this purpose by the county councils, the numbers of men accepted or approved for training, and the number actually settled on the land?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: County councils have already been asked to furnish the Board with periodical returns containing the information asked by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman state how often that return will be made?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I could not say exactly, but frequently anyhow.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether conferences have been held at the Colonial Office with the result that the official view has emerged to the effect that emigration in general from the United Kingdom should not, with certain exceptions, be encouraged by His Majesty's

    1857
    Government in any other way than by providing increased facilities for transport from one to another part of the Empire; if so, what is the nature of the facilities to be granted; will they include payment of travelling expenses; and, in that case, from what existing or from what new Grant will such funds be disbursed?
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to state the Government's policy, financial and otherwise, with regard to emigration, more especially as it affects those discharged sailors and soldiers desiring to settle with their families on the land overseas?
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked whether His Majesty's Government have come to any decision as regards granting State aid to ex-Service men desirous of settling in Canada; if so, what are the facilities given and to whom should application be made?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): His Majesty's Government have come to the following decision: Ex-Service men, who are accepted as approved settlers under any settlement scheme of the Oversea Governments, or can show that they have assured employment awaiting them and are otherwise acceptable to the authorities of the Dominion to which they wish to proceed, will be given free passages for themselves and their dependants to the nearest convenient port to their destination overseas. The same privilege, subject, of course, to the same limitations, will be extended to ex-Service women, i.e., women who have served in one of the recognised women's service corps, including for this purpose the Land Army.
    I should add that, in view of the prior claims of their own ex-Service men for resettlement, the Dominion Governments are not likely to be in a position to welcome any British ex-Service settlers before the end of the present year, even if shipping should be available for the purpose before that date. Applications from ex-Service men and women will, however, be received for a year from 31st December next or from the date of release from service, or if necessary for such period as may be found requisite as to afford them ample time in which to make their choice between the opportunities for
    1858
    employment and settlement available in the United Kingdom and those available in the British Dominions overseas.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the facilities to be granted to ex-Service men include payment of travelling expenses?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: The facilities granted to ex-Service men will be a free passage to the port nearest to their destination.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what authority is dealing with the matter in this country?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: It is being dealt with by the Colonial Office through a Committee dealing with overseas settlement.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand from that answer that the conclusion come to by the Empire Settlement Committee that a board should be established is entirely disregarded?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say, then, when the board which was recommended is to be set up?
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman state if there is any arrangement in contemplation between the Department and the Dominions by which a board acting on behalf of the Dominions will be set up to interview applicants in this country?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: We are in constant consultation with the representatives of the Dominion and Overseas Governments on this subject of the selection of suitable applicants.
    Sir C. KINLOOH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is or it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to set up a board as recommended by the Empire Settlement Committee?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: There is at present a Committee in the Colonial Office dealing with these matters which confers in Committee with overseas representatives. The question of setting up a Statutory Board as recommended by the Empire Settlement Committee can only be done by legislation, and, as the House is aware, there is a good deal of legislation before the House at the immediate moment.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES, CHELSEA.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will undertake that in any erection of temporary buildings at Burton Court, Chelsea, no trees shall be cut down?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner of Works is happy to be able to give the undertaking suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet.

    NEW PALACE YARD (CABMEN'S SHELTER).
    Sir P. GOFFasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of changing the present site of the cabmen's shelter in New Palace Yard to some other less conspicuous position, on the ground that its present appearance is an eyesore amongst the Gothic surroundings; and whether the shelter serves any useful purpose?
    Mr. PRATT: The desirability of changing the site of the shelter has already appealed to the First Commissioner of Works, and it is proposed to remove it to a site nearer the Colonnade, taking the opportunity to repaint and repair the structure. The shelter serves the purpose of providing cover and hot food for the cabmen waiting in New Palace Yard, and could not be removed without hardship.
    Sir P. GOFF: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my reason for asking the second part of the question is that many Members on several occasions have been unable to get cabs in New Palace Yard, although three or four were standing on the rank at the time and sometimes waiting there for over an hour, and I find in the regulations that two-thirds of all vehicles standing upon the cab ranks in London must be available for immediate hire?
    Mr. PRATT: I will convey that information to my right hon. Friend.

  MUNITIONS.

    EXPLOSIVES AT DINAS MAWDDWY.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the 197 tons of ex-
    1860
    plosives which were reported to have been at the Dinas Mawddwy magazine on the 12tn March last have now been disposed of; whether the 1,400 tons of other ex-plosives which it is proposed to store there have arrived; if so, when and from where were they brought; whether such explosives could have been stored elsewhere; and whether he will state what are the duties in connection with the storage of explosives which justify the employment of a superintendent, two clerks, and eleven workmen at a cost of £110 per month, in addition to the cost of the military guard?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The explosives in this magazine are in course of disposal, and will probably be cleared in a few days' time. The fresh stores have not yet been introduced. The new explosives are being brought partly from a brickworks magazine which must be cleared, and partly from another magazine which has to be given up. The staff at this magazine is being retained to meet the incoming stores. When this work has been completed the staff will be reduced to sufficient strength for caretaking purposes only.

    METROPOLITAN WAGON COMPANY (CONTRACT FOR "TANKS").
    Mr. ROSEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Metropolitan Wagon Company manufactured 80 per cent. of the tanks required during the War; whether he can state the terms of the contract; and whether, in view of the profits made by this company during the War, he is satisfied that no more than a fair price was paid?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): The company in question delivered roughly 71 per cent. of the total number of tanks manufactured during the War, but a considerable proportion of the component parts were supplied free to the company by the Ministry of Munitions. Six contracts were placed with the company at prices additional to the value of free issues, varying from £3,820 per tank in the first instance to £2,850 in the last, when fuller experience of production had been acquired by the manufacturers. It is not possible to say what was the profit made by the company on these transactions.

    EXCISABLE LIQUORS (DELIVERY).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the general Order of the Central Control Board, dated 10th March, modifying certain restrictions on the supply and delivery of excisable liquors; whether he can explain if Article 4 (2) is to be read as permitting the dispatch of liquor, if sold on a previous day, anytime before 12 noon provided it is dispatched from the licensed premises in a horse-drawn or motor van or lorry, but prohibiting similar dispatch by donkey-cart, a messenger with basket, hand-truck, bicycle or tricycle; and, if so, can he explain the reason for the discrimination against the latter methods of delivery?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The hon. Member's statement of the effect of the article in question is substantially correct as far as it goes, except that I know of no reason for supposing that the use of a donkey-cart is inadmissible.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Does he not realise the absurdity of an Order that compels delivery by motor or lorry from one street to another that might be conveniently carried out by a tricycle or an ordinary hand-basket?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think, in view of what the hon. Member says, the matter evidently requires further study.

    PETROL CONTROL BOARD (EMPLOYES).
    Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMASasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he can state what number of the 20,000 persons employed under the Petrol Control Board are still retained at the expense of the taxpayer, and for what purpose?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. The staff of the Petrol Control Department has never at any time exceeded 453 in number, and the actual number at present employed is 341. They are retained for the purpose of issuing Motor Spirit Licence Duty imposed by the Finance Act of 1916.

    INDUSTRIAL LIFE ASSURANCE.
    Sir O. PHILIPPSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when appointing a Committee to inquire into industrial life assurance, he will consider favourably the question of appointing as a member of such Committee a representative of the life assurance agents, of whom it is estimated there are about 80,000 in this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 27th March to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston.

    IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the approximate value of goods lying at British ports and also at foreign port which his Department has refused to licence although they have been ordered and, in many cases, paid for previous to the restrictions to import being imposed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The information desired by the hon. Member is not available in so far as it relates to goods ordered before the dates of the prohibitions. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of consignments actually paid for by the consignees in this country before the respective restrictions were announced, all such instances will be carefully considered, and if the facts alleged are established the consignments will be admitted.
    Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that applications have been made to his own office?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will refer me to a particular application that he is inquiring about, I shall be glad to look into it.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    TROOPS AND MUNITIONS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any estimate is being made of the cost involved in the transport of troops and munitions on the railways since the commencement of the War and which would have had to be paid to the various railway companies in the absence of the present system of Government control; and, if so, will he supply this information?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir; an estimate is being prepared winch will cover the cost of Government traffic, including the transport of troops and munitions.
    Mr. THOMAS: Will it be submitted to the House?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It will be made public.

  HOUSING.

    LOCAL COMMISSIONERS.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether local commissioners have already been appointed for nine out of the eleven districts under the Director-General of Housing; and whether, in the case of future appointments under this Department, it would be possible to invite applications by advertisement, and so allow to the large number of qualified engineers now in the Army or recently demobilised an opportunity of having their names and qualifications considered before appointments are made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): In making the appointments of commissioners special consideration has been given to the applications of men who have served in His Majesty's Forces. Of the ten commissioners appointed five are officers in the Army.

  INDIA.

    RIOTING IN DELHI.
    Sir J. D. REES(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the riots reported in this morning's Press to have taken place at Delhi?
    Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State received the following telegram from the Viceroy dated the 31st March:
    "Some rioting has occurred at Delhi on Sunday, 30th March. Many shops closed in sympathy with passive resistance movement against the Rowlatt Bills and some of mob entered railway station with object of compelling sweatmeat sellers to stop business. Station staff failed to eject mob. Police were called for and arrested one man, who was forcibly rescued outside station. Mob stoned police and military had to be sent for. Owing to threatening attitude of mob military were compelled to fire in Queen's
    1864
    Gardens and again, somewhat later on in the day, near Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk. Total casualties, as far as can be ascertained, five or possibly six killed and sixteen others wounded and now in hospital All quiet Monday morning, though large crowds remained in streets. Most of shops, except those in Chandni Chowk and large bazaars, have reopened. Military remain on duty in city."
    No further details have yet been received at the India Office. The Viceroy reported a few days rater that there had been no trouble elsewhere.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that telegram was received?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It has been here some days, has it not?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: But he has just said that "a few days later" no further information had been received. Why has it been kept secret?
    Mr. FISHER: No questions with respect to any riots have been addresed to me.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, we knew nothing of them.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 69.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

    BILLS PRESENTED.
    PUBLIC DEFENDER BILL,—"to establish the office of Public Defender," presented by Mr. BOTTOMLEY; to be read a second time upon Friday, 23rd May, and to be-printed. [Bill 56.]
    CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL,—"to amend the enactments relative to compensation for Criminal Injuries in Ireland," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    Government Works at Chippenham,—That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Tuesday last, namely:
    "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the conditions under which the Government works at Cippenham are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ROYDS: We all recognise the serious situation that has arisen with regard to housing and the need for a comprehensive scheme for providing further houses and improving the state of existing houses. We welcome the Government Bill as an earnest of their intention to deal with this matter. What we want is to provide as many suitable houses as possible, and as quickly as possible; and we have to consider whether the Government scheme is likely to bring that about, or in what respects we can improve it. I should like the House to understand my first point, namely, that the people on whom the Government are pinning their faith to provide the houses in the future are the people who have not provided them in the past. The people who provided the houses in the past have been the speculative builders. Mr. Burns, in his Local Government Report of 1914–15, stated that, out of over 5,500,000 working-class houses in this country, only 15,000 of such houses had been built by local authorities. Under this Bill you are practically entrusting this gigantic building scheme in the future to those people who, in spite of the encouragement they have received from Housing Acts, have only built 15,000 houses, and are doing little or nothing—nothing, I may say—to encourage and assist the people who provided the 5,500,000 houses. That is the situation, to put it plainly. You have also in the local authorities a body of persons who cannot be said to be enthusiastic about building schemes. You have a body who have no staff to deal with such schemes, who, for the most part, have no land, and who have little or no experience. You have also to bear in mind that in many localities there is a strong sentiment against the provision of houses by municipal authorities. That also was drawn attention to by Mr. Burns in his last Report. On the other hand, you have in the people who provided the houses in the past a body of men all over the country, in every town, in every
  1890
  village, ready, under certain conditions, to begin building as soon as materials are available. They have the land already in some cases laid out. They have roads made up. They have the building equipment, and, more than all, they have the practical knowledge of dealing with such matters. They have catered for the public in the past, and they are ready to cater for the public in the future.
  I think, and I feel sure the House thinks—that it is too great a risk to entrust these local authorities, and to endeavour to compel them, to provide all these houses, unless, at the same time, those who provided houses in the past are encouraged and given some assistance to proceed simultaneously to build. I do not think we are justified, or that we should be doing our duty to the country, if we ignored totally all those persons who have done the building in the past, and entrusted that building to an entirely new body of persons, who, notwithstanding the fact that Housing Act after Housing Act has been passed to encourage them to build, had only, up to two or three years ago, provided 15,000 houses. Of course, the private speculative builder can build houses very much cheaper. There is no doubt about that at all. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party, both spoke on this question of private enterprise, and they both said how necessary it was. I only want to point out there is nothing in the Bill to encourage it, except with regard to public utility societies and housing trusts, and in that connection neither public utility societies nor housing trusts have provided more than a very limited number of houses. They have provided a few thousand. I am not saying anything against public utility societies. I think the provisions in the Bill in their favour are very beneficial indeed, and I hope these societies will be made use of very much more in the future than in the past. But the fact remains that public utility societies have not provided houses in the past any more than have the local authorities.
  The next point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is this. A great deal has been said about an economic rent. It seems to be supposed that houses cannot be built unless an economic rent can be paid or ensured in some sort of way. It has never been exactly explained what an economic rent is,

  1891
  but I suppose what is meant is the net rent likely to be got for a house after all expenses, and which is about equivalent at the present time to 5 per cent or 6 per cent. It seems to have been supposed, and the Debate appears to have proceeded on the assumption, that houses have not been built in the past unless an economic rent could be assured. That is not the case.
  4.0 P.M.
  Houses in the past have been built in the main by owners either for their own occupation or for their employés or for sale. The economic rent has very little to do with the matter at all. Take, first of all, houses in rural districts. If an owner of an estate provides a mansion for himself and lays out £10,000 or £20,000 on it he does not consider, in doing that, whether he is going to get £600 or £1,200 rent for the house. He knows perfectly well that if he let the house he will probably only get £200 or £300 a year. He has at the back of his mind the idea that he will have first of all the comfort of living in the house, and if he sells the house he might get the money he laid out on it, or perhaps the greater part of it; but he never builds it with the idea of letting it at a so-called economic rent.
  Then take the farm. The owner builds farm buildings costing, say, £4,000. When lie comes to let that farm it never enters the head of the owner or his agent to say to the tenant, before he comes to consider the question of the rent of the land, "I must receive an economic rent for the cost of these buildings, say, 4 or 5 per cent. on £4,000." Then take the cottage, the building of which costs, say, £250. Does the owner of the property who builds that cottage say, "I will not build that cottage unless I am going to get £12 10s. a year rent"? He knows perfectly well that he is only going to get £5 or £6 a year. That is the situation in the country districts. Buildings, except in a very few instances are never built to return an economic rent. Come to the towns. The speculative builder has built 90 per cent. of the houses in the country. He builds houses, not to let, but to sell. If he does not sell the houses, and for a few years relies on the rents, the chances are that he fails. He can only go on if he sells the house. When you come to consider who owns the cottage property of this country, then the point will be
  1892
  quite clear. The value of cottage property of £20 a year in this country, before the War was put at about £900,000,000. From £650,000,000 to £700,000,000 of that property belonged to persons whose total possessions did not exceed £5,000. Therefore, it is quite clear that the working classes themselves have in the past found the money to build their houses, and actually they owned by far the greater portion of the cottage property of the country at the present time. The speculative builder builds the house and is anxious to find a purchaser. As soon as he does, that purchaser does not get 5 or 6 per cent., or an economic return for the house. He is anxious to secure a home and is content with less. If this War has brought anything home to people's minds, it must be the advantage of having a house belonging to themselves, and, if possible, a garden attached.
  House property in this country has never been built to give what is generally called an economic return. The economic return for houses is more like 2½ per cent. It is on that basis that house property has been built, and will be built in future, and I do not think, if proper arrangements are made, there will be very much difficulty about it, though at the present time there is a very abnormal situation. It may seem strange that the owner of house property is satisfied with the 2½ per cent. return on his cottage property, but, when you come to consider it, the bulk of money which is put into the property comes out of the savings banks, and 2½ per cent. is the return you get from the savings banks. We cannot get people out of their habits. They invest their money in the savings banks, because it is a very convenient method of putting it in and drawing it out, and they know that their capital cannot deteriorate. Not-withstanding all the attractions of the War Loan, with its 5 per cent., there has been a greater addition to the deposits in the Post Office during the War than at any previous time. They are satisfied with the 2½ per cent. on their house or home, as everyone in every walk of life is satisfied, because it affords them a home. They can see their property, and they think that their capital is safe, though they know very well that they will only get a very small annual return, if calculated on the basis of an ordinary investment.
  At the present time the working classes in this country have, I think, probably more money to invest than they ever had

  1893
  before, and there is a greater probability of their investing in house property if it is made easy for them to do so than it has ever been in the past. Therefore, the position of the speculative builder becomes comparatively easy, because he builds to sell. He builds a few houses and then sells them, and, if he gets his money back, goes on building again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford explained last night that houses have been built on a comparatively small floating balance. He put it at something like £25,000,000. The floating balance is continually moving on to new houses, and as they are built they are paid for by the sale or the mortgage of the houses. This has been stopped owing to the speculative builder not being able to get that supply of capital or floating balance in recent years. It began to be suspended before the War, and has come to a complete stop during the War, and all that is required is for some arrangement to be made to provide a floating balance again, so that the system may be restarted. I know that houses cannot be built for anything like the cost before the War, but everyone is paying double for everything else—clothes farming stock, dead or alive—everything. They do not hesitate to pay. Why should they hesitate to pay for houses which they need now more urgently than ever before? There are thousands of people stumping the country anxious to buy houses who cannot buy them. There is a tremendous demand for houses at the present time. You only want to see private enterprise of the speculative builders going, and those people will do in the future what they have done in the past.
  The Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) dealt with this question of economic rent last night. Though I generally agree with my hon. Friend's views on agricultural and rural matters, I cannot agree with him in this matter. I have explained that cottages have never been built in the past at what the House understands by an economic rent, and he was urging that cottages never will be built in rural districts unless a higher economic rent, as he calls it, was paid. The great advantage of people having houses in a village to-day is that they have got a home for themselves, there for all time. When agricultural labourers are getting old, from fifty to sixty years of age, are they to be turned out of the old home because they cannot pay these high economic rents? These cottages are let at
  1894
  a very moderate return, only the same return that almost all house property is let at, and these people are able to remain in their cottages. The last thing a man wishes is to be turned out of the home in which he has lived and where he has worked all his life. That is one of the main reasons why any proposal to have so-called economic rents in rural districts is out of the question. A most admirable leading article in this morning's "Times" referred to this very subject. In the course of the article it is said:
  "Surely other considerations besides annual return on rigid economic lines influence building in this country."
  Of course they do. All those considerations which I have mentioned. That is the view I have always held strongly. I want it to be made clear to the House, because I understand the suggestion in this Bill to the local authorities is that if they build houses, they should either lease them or let them. If they do, they will be in exactly the same position as the speculative builder. They will make a heavy annual loss. They will never be able to get an economic return. That is, the cost of the building, repairs, etc. If, therefore, they do build houses, I hope that arrangements will be made whereby they can follow the practice of the speculative builder, and sell those houses. At present, people desire to buy them at the earliest possible opportunity. By that means, and that means only, will a very serious and continuing loss on the building of these houses by local authorities be avoided. Then we have to consider—having satisfied the House, I hope, on those two points—how private enterprise can be encouraged to come in and assist in this great building scheme, because everyone must agree that private enterprise must be encouraged. But there is nothing in the Bill to encourage it. Private enterprise is severely handicapped by the land taxes of the 1909–10 Budget. I will not go into detail about them now. I have done so so often in this House that I am sure the House does not wish me to do it again to-day. They were dealt with yesterday. I would only remind the House that those taxes have shown themselves not to be a fiscal instrument. They have not met the expectations of those who passed them, and builders and experts in the matter are unanimously against them and in favour of having them repealed. I have here a report to which the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill referred yesterday.

  1895
  It is the Report of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for the Brightside division of Sheffield (Sir J. Tudor Walters), and on the basis of it I gather this Bill was largely framed. The Report tells us that there was a consensus of opinion amongst the builders and land valuers that the Land Taxes had seriously retarded the carrying on of their business. Evidence was given that these duties had arrested the development of building estates, had led to a diminution or withdrawal of financial facilities, and had also retarded investment in house property. I do not think I could find words which would convey my opinion better, or even as well, as those, and therefore I will leave it at that.
  There is one personal matter I must mention. I raised this question on the Finance Bill in June, 1918, when I moved an Amendment that the Land Taxes should be repealed, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the course of his reply, stated that housing was to be one of the first problems that would have to be undertaken by the Government when the War was over and the question of repeal of the Land Taxes must, whatever Government was in power, be seriously taken into consideration in connection with the war problems when they began to deal with them. They would first have to deal with the problem of housing on its merits and without any regard to old controversies. I assume that the Leader of the House still maintains that position. What is the first remedy I have to suggest? Private enterprise is severely handicapped as compared with the local authorities and others in regard to these Land Taxes. In fact, these taxes do apply to land or property owned or developed by public utility societies and housing trusts, and, in my opinion, it is very necessary, in the interest of these societies as well as in the interests of individual builders, that these taxes should be repealed; otherwise they will be a bar to the development of land not only by individuals, but by the societies.
  The second remedy I propose is this. Under Part III. of this Bill the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is improved. That is an exceedingly useful Act which ought to be more used than it has been. It empowers the local authority to lend money on mortgage to owners of small houses up to the value of £400. This Bill increases the amount to £500, and 85
  1896
  per cent. of the value of the house may be lent. That is a great assistance to private enterprise, because it will enable houses built to be sold. The suggestion I have to make is that a sum of money should be provided to enable these houses to be built so that they may be sold. What the builder wants is a floating sum of money to be advanced to him by instalments at a reasonable rate of interest while building is in progress. If you give him an advance up to 85 per cent. of the value of the house you will get the house built, and it will not be necessary for the local authorities to find the whole of the purchase money. They will be able to advance to the builder 85 per cent. of the value. He will be able to sell the houses, and with the proceeds he will pay the local authority back. Thus there will be no loss to the local authority and it will not have any houses left on its hands. A recommendation to that effect was made in the Report of my hon. Friend's Committee, where it is stated that witnesses who represented local authorities, public utility societies, workmen, builders, and property owners laid great stress on the financial side of the question. It was the opinion of many of them that the former methods of obtaining money for building purposes, largely discontinued during the War, were not likely to be resumed, and that for any adequate housing scheme to be carried out by the local authority or by private enterprise State loans would be a necessary condition. That Report is based on the opinion of the best experts dealing with this matter in England, who were called before the Committee, and the Committee advised that concessions in the nature of what I recommend should be made. Already, under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, advances are made to private owners to the extent of 85 per cent. of the value of the property when the house is finished. Why should you not advance the money while building is going on in order to secure the erection of houses? I can see no possible objection to that. It would involve only a small alteration of Part III. of the Bill, but it would make an enormous difference to the housing position, and that, coupled with the abolition of the Land Taxes, would, in my opinion, start private enterprise. I am not alone in holding that opinion. It is the view entertained by the builders of this country. We cannot take the risk of imposing on the local authorities

  1897
  the sole duty of providing these houses. They have never provided them in the past, and they are not likely to provide them in the future to anything like the extent required. We must therefore invoke the aid of those persons who have provided houses in the past, and who are ready and willing to build them in the future.
  Every village and every town is thinking of building a war memorial. What we have to do is to get houses built in this country as quickly as we possibly can, by some means or other, and, in my opinion, if a suggestion were made that private enterprise is going to be looked to to provide houses, a hint might well be given by the Government to the owners of land that they should as their war memorial build a cottage in the village here or there. I am quite sure that thousands would be glad to do so, and if they cannot afford to build cottages, I am quite certain, so strong is the desire of everybody to contribute something in the nature of a thank-offering, if they were given this hint, thousands of people would be only too glad to come forward and help build these cottages, to which soldiers and sailors and the most deserving of the inhabitants of the village or town should have a prior claim. A very large number of estates in this country are settled and the owners have no power to give land for cottages as a war memorial. But I suggest that in this Bill there should be a provision inserted—and, inasmuch as this is emergency legislation, it would be a quite reasonable provision—giving a landowner power to present a site for a cottage for the purposes of a war memorial, and I am sure no one would be more pleased that that should be done than the owners of the estates themselves. I hope the Government will take into consideration the few suggestions that I have made, because we cannot run the risk of ignoring or totally disregarding the habits of the people and the methods under which houses have been built in the past. If we are going to support a brand new scheme to put this duty on the local authority, which in the past has totally failed to provide houses, we are not justified in doing that without at the same time invoking the aid of those who have to the best of their abilities built houses for us in the past.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I must just say a few words on this Second Reading Debate, although the condition of my throat
  1898
  will make it a far from pleasant task and will compel me to limit my observations very much more than I otherwise would have done. The subject-matter of this Bill to which we are invited to give a Second Reading is part of the great reconstruction policy of the Government. It sounds a little dreary and dull to talk of such details as bricks and mortar, sites and prices, but at the back of these details there is a profoundly interesting human problem. The provision of the houses and the policy involved have to do with the health, happiness, and moral welfare of the vast majority not only of the men and women but of the children of these Islands. Therefore I venture to suggest that on a Second Reading Debate like this we ought to try and take a broad and sympathetic as well as a humane view of this great question. It would be quite easy to scatter huge sums of money, to give millions in doles and to advance millions in loans, but unless the policy under which this is done is a sagacious and clear-sighted policy, we might as a result of the expenditure of this money find ourselves, in very few years hence, in possession of the same dull and dreary streets, with the same monotonous surroundings, and we might in fact have a repetition of the rapid degeneration of our districts into slum properties. Therefore I invite the House to consider clearly and definitely what it is we want to do, and what is the real policy upon which we ought to embark. I suggest that this is a great opportunity for a commencement of the rebuilding of industrial England. Out of this terrible War some great opportunities are rising, and if we commence to do things on a scale and in a spirit which has never suggested itself before, I think, before making a beginning, before attempting to make up the shortage of houses, we ought to have clearly before us a broad, comprehensive, clear-sighted policy for rebuilding the industrial England of the future.
  I suggest that the first thing we have to talk about is what is the standard of housing we are contemplating. When we come to consider many of the details of the Bill it will be found there is very good reason for putting this first, because it must be remembered that this Bill is not something that has been discovered in the course of the last week or two. For the last two years close and careful attention and systematic and laborious investigation have been given to the matter, and recom-

  1899
  mendations have been made and policies have been indicated, so that the Bill only collects together the work that has been done and puts before us the machinery for carrying out a definite and considered policy. Therefore, I suggest that what we have to consider first is the standard of the housing at which we are aiming. Do not let us have any mistake about that. Do not let the local authorities set to work to emulate the jerry builder. Do not let us have the old mean streets, the old crowded districts, and the poor standards of housing. If the local authorities do not build all the hundreds of thousands of houses which some people expect them to—I do not expect them to do it; I do not think the local authorities are going to provide the great majority of the houses, although it is obvious the local authorities must step in and fill the present breach—let the local authorities, when they do begin, set up an adequate and considered standard of housing. Do not let us set to work to fill up all the little bits of spaces in the centre of our towns with badly planned small houses. Let us go right out into the suburbs of our towns and cities; let us have belts of new housing schemes round our towns, planned and laid out on lines that are spacious and generous in their conception and in their execution. If you take the population into the outskirts of the town, it is really not so expensive to build as in the centre. As I go through the crowded districts in London and in Lancashire the thought that comes to me is, "How costly this has been!" How costly in piling brick on brick and house on house, with streets all crowded together in a narrow compass. How much cheaper and healthier it would be if the population had been spread out on the outskirts of the town or city. With the reorganisation of transport, with the proper facilities for getting backwards and forwards, life would become a much simpler, happier and more livable thing than it is to-day. Therefore, I am most anxious that this great housing Department which is being set up, with its Housing Commissioners and its technical advisers, should have a clear and definite policy in which there is some imagination and vision, so that we shall have the right kind of planning and the right kind of housing. I am not sure that we ought not to commence our new programme of planning houses by hanging a few of the old architects and certainly a few of the old builders.
  Colonel THORNE: And some of the old local board members.
  Sir T. WALTERS: The House will remember the advertisement of a famous firm of soap manufacturers,
  "Why does a woman look old sooner than a man?"
  It is libellous to suggest that is true, but if it is true I would suggest the real reason is because the houses in which women live and do their work are so badly planned and deficient in all modern conveniences. I want this Housing Department, its commissioners and its staffs, to take care that the houses planned in the future are planned with due regard to comfort, convenience, and the saving of labour. I do not know why so many women are willing to do so much unnecessary work in the house. I am sure that men would have struck against it at once. I would suggest, in passing, that the Department should insist that every authority which has a committee to carry out a housing scheme should put two or three intelligent women on that committee, so that women may have a voice in the approval and consideration of the plans adopted for building in their locality. I do not want to labour this point of standard, but I want to impress most definitely upon the Local Government Board and the Housing Department that they must not carry out their housing scheme in a stop-gap or haphazard manner, but that it must be a well-considered, far-sighted, bold scheme, so that all over the country we may have something that means harmony and beauty as well as convenience. I do not mind much about beauty. We are not going to spend huge sums of money in ornamentation. Some of the ugliest things cost the most money, and some of the most beautiful buildings are cheap. The beauty of an industrial village does not consist in elaborate ornamentation, but in the harmony and proportion of the lay-out, in the symmetry, plainness and suitability of the buildings to the district in which they are found, and in building with materials of colours that harmonise with the surroundings, all giving some intelligent conception of the district in which you are building, and showing that you understand the proper use of local materials and their proper adaptation to local conditions. I suggest, as a result of some experience, that a good, well-planned and well laid-out suburb with convenient houses can be built more economically

  1901
  than the crowded dwellings in the town or city, with their expensive street making and all the rest of it.
  This is not a question, great and important as it is, that we should approach without any financial anxiety. To say that money does not matter, is to talk sheer nonsense. The whole social system must be based on some reasonable financial scheme. One of our statesmen of the past said that it was very desirable a man should have his head among the stars, but it was necessary at the same time that his feet should be on the pavement. Although I want these great ideals and desire that our houses should be things of beauty and attractive. I want the Housing policy to be carried out with a due regard to expenditure, to making both ends meet and to making it rest on some sound financial basis. I think I can show in a moment or two that the policy which is recommended by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside and the policy which is embodied in the Bill have a due regard to financial considerations, as well as to considerations of beauty and utility. Where does the financial difficulty arise? Why is it a question of doing anything at the present moment that is not based entirely on economic grounds? The answer lies in a nutshell. I suppose there would be no question at all about paying the increased rent that would have to be paid upon the building of a house now if it were at all to be expected that the increased cost of building at present was going to be a permanent increase, and that the cost was always going to remain at the high figure at which it stands to-day. To take one example, if it were perfectly clear that a house that formerly cost £200 and now costs £500 was always going to cost £500, you would have to face the music at once and say, "Yes, there is this enormous increase in cost. The matter must be put on an economic basis, therefore, we must double your rent." That is not the true position. The true position is that immediately building operations are commenced now the whole building industry is paralysed. There are the difficulties of obtaining materials, which all tend to inflate the prices to the modest proportion that is obtaining. Therefore, owing to the urgent social necessity of houses being built immediately, you are asking somebody to spend to-day £500 on building a house which, if he waited for five years, he would be able to build for £350, or £400 at the outside.
  1902
  That is to say, a house which cost £200 before the War will cost £600 now, and five years hence will be worth £400. Therefore if people are to build now, whether they be local authorities or public utility societies or private speculators, they are building on a wasting asset. They are spending £600 for something which is really only worth £400 when it comes to normal conditions.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the cost of labour will come down?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Or the cost of materials?
  Sir T. WALTERS: I do suggest that the cost of building will considerably decrease as compared with the present cost, within the next five or six years. [An HON. MEMBER: "The cost of labour?"] Yes, I will tell you why I think that labour will really be cheaper in its productive state. One of the great difficulties that meets those brave men who have come back from the Front in regard to resuming their old occupation is getting into running again. A man's productive capacity after passing two or three years in the Army is not what it was when he left his trade, and not what it will be when he has been at it again for another twelve months. There are the difficulties of organising and collecting your staff together. A builder is working now, not with his old organised, disciplined, and trained staff, but with a miscellaneous staff of men collected from all quarters of the earth. Therefore, assuming that the increased rate of wages we are paying to-day should continue, or even be increased in the next five or six years, I believe that when organisation has taken place output will be stimulated and increased and that your labour will really be cheaper—I think this is the proper way to talk about it—in proportion than it is to-day. If you had watched some of the building operations during the War, owing to defective organisation or to the fact that the State was the paymaster, you would have realised how difficult it has been for workmen of the best type to escape from the contamination that has resulted from the badly organised manner in which Government building has been carried on. That, however, is beside my point. If I am wrong, of course my argument falls to the ground, but the conclusion to which I have come is that building operations now are carried

  1903
  on at a fictitious price, and that it costs at least £150 more per house to build now than it will do in four or five years' time. Therefore, of necessity, the Government must step in to provide for this wasting asset.
  It is perfectly clear that local authorities cannot spend money on building at what is an unsuitable time from a business standpoint. They cannot build economically and bear the whole loss themselves. The public utility societies cannot build houses now on which they would certainly lose money in a few years' time, simply because the need of the community asks for it now. That is the reason why local authorities, public utility societies, and I think other forms of private enterprise should have some subsidy under present conditions. That is the basic principle of the financial side of the Local Government Board's scheme. They say to a public utility society, "If you will build houses now and within the next two years, while the demand is urgent and insistent, and it is not to your financial advantage to do it, we will give one-third of the expenditure." What the Government is doing is to present those who build with 30 per cent. of the cost. We are doing that because a house which costs £600 will only be worth £400 in four or five years' time. That is not a subsidy at all; it is only to provide against a wasting asset and taking care that the waste of capital which is incurred by one person for the benefit of another person, namely, the organised community, should be borne by the person who receives the benefit, namely, the organised community or, in other words, the State. That, to my mind, is the entire justification of the system of subsidies or grants. The same argument applies to local authorities. I am assuming an economic rent stated in plain English and adapted to the peculiarities of the situation in which we find ourselves. An economic rent is a fair interest upon the expenditure upon the house less the subsidy. Therefore, the business of the public utility society is to charge a fair rent upon the cost of the house less the subsidy. The subsidy must not go. to the shareholders in the public utility society. It must go to the tenant. The local authority in like manner does not charge a rent on the entire cost of the house. It charges a rent on the cost of the house less the Government Grant. The benefit of the Government Grant goes to
  1904
  the tenant. See what an important indirect effect that has because the rents of the existing houses which were built before the War will all be regulated in the future by the rent which is charged for the new houses, and if you were to charge for the new houses a rent based upon their full cost in these abnormal times up would jump the rent of the old houses. But if you keep the rent of the new houses down to cost less subsidy the old houses will only go up to that same figure. You will relieve the tenants of these houses of literally millions of money per annum.
  Therefore, I think the policy outlined in the Bill on the financial side is sound. It says, "As far as the local authorities are concerned we will find you the money to build and you shall pay the proceeds of a penny rate and we will pay all the rest." I know that is open to criticism from the standpoint of possible extravagance on the part of the local authorities. But this offer is only for a very limited period. It is only for two years, or three at the outside, and the building is all to be carried out under the supervision and control of the Housing Department. Then the Department says to the public utility society, "We give you this 20 per cent." I think the logic of facts is inexorable, and they must go on with the private builder as well. But the private builder must take his part in the great scheme for the whole of England that I have been trying to suggest. The private builder must not go and build just what houses he likes to build and get the State to help him. When the Government has made its complete housing survey and has got all its commissioners appointed, the scheme of town planning and the housing scheme in each district in the country ought to be carefully prepared. Many of them are already prepared, and then it is the business of the commissioner, if he is worth his salt—he has got his district to deal with, and he knows how many thousand houses are wanted—in consultation with the various local authorities to agree with them how many they should build. He is in consultation also with those who are forming public utility societies. He can apportion to them their share of the housing needs of the district, and then he takes the private builder. The private builder is not a criminal. He has performed a very useful work in the past, and if he has built a poor standard of houses it is because the public taste was low and poor. He has only built what people wanted. He does

  1905
  not love jerry-built houses. He wants a fair trade profit, and if the standard of taste is ripe for a good, well-designed house, the builder will do it, and the local builder and the landowner will all be taken into consultation and will all supply their portion of the housing provision needed for each particular district. I think the private builder should certainly have financial assistance and the local authorities should be very desirous of purchasing houses built by the local builder at a fair and reasonable price.
  I have a financial scheme which would have got these houses built quickly and would really have been better than the Government scheme. I put the problem to myself in this way. We are short of 500,000 houses, owing to the War and the pre-war shortage. We want 100,000 houses every year to provide for increased population. In the next five years we shall therefore want a total of 1,000,000 houses. Supposing I wanted to get that million houses really built quickly and regularly during that five years—and I am asking people to do it at a time when building is abnormally expensive, when they are building on a wasting market—what inducement do I offer? This is the inducement I should have offered. I should have said, "I am going to get out my plans for my million houses. I know exactly the districts in which I am going to have them, and I know the types and the plans, and to any man who will come along and provide me with the houses I want and let them at a rent I agree with him I will make a present of £100 a house, whether it be local authority, public utility society, or private builder." You would in that way have got the houses and you would have lost less money than you will now lose by building either through your local authorities or public utility societies.
  Colonel THORNE: Would you charge an economic rent then?
  Sir T. WALTERS: Yes. The economic rent I should have charged would be an agreed interest on the expenditure less, the gift of £100 a house. The tenant would have got all the benefit of the £100 and the man who built the house would only have made the ordinary trade profit. The tenant would have got all the benefit of the subsidy, you would have had your houses at once, you would have had competition for houses, and you would have had rents kept down not only by the
  1906
  subsidy but by the competition. But that scheme did not commend itself to the authorities. Therefore I pass it by. The basic idea of the proposal was to organise all your resources for house-building. For the purpose of munitions you had not only the great works, but the small engineers, and everyone you could get. You put them on good wages and got all you wanted. If you mobilised your resources for house-building in the same way, you would have got your million houses at a less cost than any other way. I believe the financial principles of the Bill are sound, but they want a good deal of alteration in Committee. I am sure we shall have to put the terms to the local authorities in a more definite position, with less risk of loss and some more inducement to economic expenditure. Taking the principles in themselves as sound, it seems to me that in Committee we can put in the necessary safeguards and give the necessary extension and amplification. The same with the public utility societies. I believe the main principles in the Government scheme are good, but you want some revision as far as the private builder is concerned, and I am certain the hon. Member who spoke last put his finger on one of the weak spots. We cannot get the supply of houses we want unless we bring in private enterprise. Therefore I am certain we must have some well-considered method by which, with definitely approved schemes of building, financial assistance can be given to the builder. There is no real practical difficulty in getting builders, either as individuals or in groups, to submit their schemes to the local district commissioners and the professional advisers of the Department, agreed rents being fixed during the period while financial assistance lasts. I hope we shall not be narrow minded. We do not want the shibboleths of any party. We do not want to be the slaves of any pedantic doctrines of the old Manchester school of politics. We do not want to be tied up by any opinion that we must get an economic rent. It is equally shallow and equally narrow to run to the other extreme and say we will not have any private enterprise at all—we will have nothing but municipalisation of the whole scheme. Every intelligent man in these times is a sort of combined Socialist and individualist. You must take the doctrines of both sides and apply the physic in just the proportion that the disease calls for. I

  1907
  am certain that in this matter of houses we must have all the methods. We must not be afraid either of socialistic or of individualistic methods. We must combine all the activities of local authorities, public utility societies, and private builders.
  I will now pass on to finance, and I will end on practically the same note on which I commenced. I do not want us to allow this supremely important question of housing to become a mere question for officials of the Local Government Board, for architects, builders, sanitary inspectors, and landowners. I want it to be a great, supreme, human question in Which all the people take an interest. I want the House of Commons to be interested. I am, sure the people of the country are interested. I want us to feel that in providing houses for the people we are engaged upon a great and supremely splendid task. I have sometimes stood, as other hon. Members have stood, amidst the ruins of the great cities of the ancient world, and in imagination I have tried to reconstruct those beautiful squares with their columns and their splendid architecture. I have been impressed with the manner in which the people who lived in those ancient cities loved them, with the local patriotism displayed and how they thought it a great thing to adorn and make splendid the city in which they lived. I wish we could catch something of that spirit in rebuilding our houses. Let us feel that it is a great and worthy task to make England beautiful and attractive and to make the dwellings of the poor things of beauty. I could go a step further than the cities of the ancient world and I could stand in some great cathedral of the Middle Ages and try to catch something of the spirit of those great men who designed it, and think of the reverent hands that laid the stone and bricks of the buildings. If the same spirit could be exhibited in building the humble dwellings of the poor we could build a great temple to humanity and our reverence would not be less acceptable to the Divine Being who is worshipped in those great temples.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: There is no subject which touches the interests of our people so deeply or so nearly as the subject now before the House. May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon his very eloquent and moving speech, and especially on his exordium in which he endeavoured to catch the spirit in
  1908
  which the great cathedrals were built and apply that spirit of the past to the provision of dwellings in the present. So far as I am concerned, I propose to deal very briefly with the matter—as I can see there are a lot of speakers. My subject is the simple question of rural housing. I will leave the industrial districts to others. I congratulate the Government upon this attempt to endeavour to deal solidly with matters which have been neglected far too long. In the rural districts the housing question is as acute as it is in the towns. You cannot get a house in the villages. I happened to be in our village only last Sunday. Two soldiers were there who had been married of late; during the War. Neither of them could get a house. Both were living with their parents. That is not the kind which we want for our soldiers who have fought our battles. In another part of my Constituency in Devonshire—it is rather an expensive constituency—there was a very good landowner who built some excellent cottages. These cottages have been bought by private owners and two cottages knocked into one, but the tenants, until the Rent Act, could be turned out. That, again, shows the real famine in the houses in our rural districts.
  There is one thing, however, why I am anxious to increase the housing supply in the country districts, and that is to give the agricultural labourers a chance under the Wages Bill. We cannot get a permanent solution of the housing difficulty in the country districts with rents at a shilling or eighteenpence a week. That is quite impossible. Agricultural wages have been increased. I hope that the agricultural labourer will get a wage to enable him to pay an economic rent, for I am quite certain that is the only solution. Whilst the Wages Board have increased the wages of the agricultural labourer by the decisions which have been given within the last twelve months, the labourer still is not in quite such a firm position as he would be if he had the alternative of another house to go to. The employer—I do not say many will—can refuse to pay. The labourer will have to quit the house and cannot find another. Therefore, that labourer is not in such a free position as he would be were another house available for him. I feel that keenly, because we recognise how much has been due to the agricultural labourer during the last few years.

  1909
  I want to come to the machinery of the Bill, and I will deal very briefly with it as regards the building of houses in rural districts. Local authorities in the country districts have not excited any great feeling of enthusiasm. We have recently had county council, district council, and parish council elections in the country. All I can say is that In Devonshire no dog has barked. Hardly a contest has taken place. There is very little interest indeed in these local elections. I wish there was more, because there is an enormous amount that could be done by the local authority. Instead of that, everybody seems to want to come to the Imperial Parliament and to superimpose himself upon it. Let me come to the rural district councils, which, as I understand it, will be the authority under this Bill. There are, according to the President of the Local Government Board, yesterday, something like 1,800 local authorities. Can we really believe that the rural district council will become an efficient housing authority in the next few years? I cannot for a moment believe it. At the present time the rural district councils are in great difficulties with their roads. They cannot even attend to them. Where are they to find the staff, the surveyors, architects, and so on, to render plans to the Government for the building of cottages in rural districts? I am gravely doubtful as to whether the rural district councils and those smaller councils will prove to be efficient building authorities. You may impose the duty upon them. You may pass the most symmetrical Act of Parliament. For all that, unless the authority has a staff, the capacity, and the intention, these houses will not be built. More than that, I am afraid if they are built by some local authorities that I know they will be built very expensively. There will not be that incentive to economy which we should have.
  Finance, which an hon. Member behind me yesterday rather scoffed at, after all, is the essence of the whole problem. We do not want to build houses at a price for which the tenants cannot pay the rent, after making allowance for the subsidy which has been referred to by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. Here, again, is the problem which we are coming practically up against. How do you propose to fix the rents for these houses in the rural districts? It is a problem which will go to the root of the whole housing
  1910
  problem in the districts, because, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down said, by the rent which you fix for these new houses, according to that scale, the whole rents for other property will rise or fall. Another point which I want to hear about from my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, whom I know takes so sincere an interest in housing is, Do you propose to-burden the new houses with the whole cost of the rates? That is a very important matter. Assuming that a house costs £500 or £600, as it will probably when built to-day, do you propose that that house shall be rated at its full annual value, based upon the present cost of building? That is a practical question which I should very much like to have answered, because these houses are so necessary that I want to make them as cheap and as easy to be built as possible and be let at as low rents as possible to the tenants who desire to occupy them. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give me some information about this. It is a question which goes right down to the root of the matter, because it will cost something like 5s. or 6s. per week for houses in some districts if the full rateable value is to be charged.
  Let us take the question of responsibility. I am rather afraid there are too many authorities, especially in the rural districts. There is the rural district council. I am extremely dubious about it being a good local building authority. Secondly, as I understand it, there will be commissioners. I understand that five out of the eleven commissioners have been appointed, and that they are Army-engineer officers.
  Mr. RAMSDEN: Ten have been appointed.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Well, I understand five have been engineer officers. I hope that these commissioners will be men who are skilled in their business. Highly as we regard the great services that Army officers have given, if they are most efficient men they certainly should have the preference; if they are not, I would rather pension them, because I am quite certain that these commissioners, if they are experienced men, will exercise a great influence upon building operations, especially in the rural districts, where public opinion is not so powerful as it is in the towns. Then, of course, the scheme comes to the Local Government Board. Has the Board really given full attention

  1911
  to all the difficulties that must arise? When plans from the rural district councils come to the Board they will come, I suspect, often in a very crude form. How is the Board really going to deal with them? Is it not possible to have some power in the district or board to deal with the matter? Take Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraph (c). In this we are told that the rural council has to provide the Local Government Board with this information:
  "Time within which the scheme of any part thereof is to be carried into effect."
  How is it possible for a rural district council to tell the Local Government Board when it will be able to carry its scheme into effect? It will depend upon a hundred circumstances. It will depend largely as to whether or not they can acquire the material. The matter of bricks and a hundred and one points is of vital importance. I have here the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Tudor Walters), and to me it is an astonishing one. Hon. Members ought to read it and see the enormous amount of material that will be required for building 300,000 houses—that is the statement here. It is perfectly fabulous. There is something like 23,000,000 square ft. of glass required; nearly 2,000,000 windows; 3,700,000 doors and frames, and of nails something like 4,500 tons. There are screws and thousands of things which I really had no idea went into a house at all. Can the authorities rely that they will have a regular supply of these things? Take the question of timber. Where is the timber coming from? Have the Ministry made provision for getting it for these houses? I assume some will come from abroad—from Canada, Sweden, and so on. Are we perfectly sure that those who have to send us this timber from abroad will not put up the price against the Government and the local authorities? I feel rather keenly and strongly that in such a matter as this the Government should take early steps to protect the building, whether it be by the local authorities or private building, against excessive prices for the materials. We have got, I understand, a Ministry of Supply dealing with this matter. What steps are being taken, or will be taken, to prevent profiteering in this housing material? To my mind it is really a serious matter because to-day, as I understand it, the control of bricks has been taken off. The price of bricks before the
  1912
  War was 24s. per thousand. To-day it is between 55s. and 80s. Each house requires from 17,000 to 20,000 bricks. I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to tell us when he replies what steps are being taken, if not by the Local Government Board, by the Ministry of Supply, to prevent building materials being put up in price against the Government and against the local authorities.
  The public utility societies, to my mind, have in the past and will, I believe, in the future perform a work of enormous national value in regard to housing. Is the Government really treating these public utility societies with quite the same liberality as it should do in order to encourage them? The President of the Local Government Board said yesterday that he was prepared to allow them to increase their dividends from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. With the present financial provisions adumbrated in the memorandum circulated by the Board, it is quite impossible for these public utility societies to get anything like 5 per cent., or even 4 per cent. A gentleman who is very competent in this matter has supplied me with some figures. In the case of a public utility society the subsidy would be an amount equal to 40 per cent. of the annual charges on the total capital raised in respect of the approved scheme. This has been worked out. Taking the house to be let at a weekly rental of 9s. 6d., exclusive of rates—if you include rates it would be 14s. or 15s.— taking that house at £600, the Government proportion is £450, and the society's portion £150. The loan charges on £450, which is the Government's portion, at 6 per cent., would be £27 a year. The repairs, management, insurance, and bad debts would amount to £6 3s. 6d., and the total would be £33 3s. 6d., and the rent £24 14s., leaving a loss of £8 9s. 6d. The Government Grant would be 40 per cent. of the £27 and interest on the £450, making £10s. 16s. Therefore, the disposable balance would be £2 6s. 6d., or just a little more than 1 per cent. interest. I would ask my hon. Friend to persuade the Treasury to be a little more liberal in regard to these public utility societies, because if I take the case of a house of 7s. 6d. a week there is actually a loss.
  I have great faith in these societies, because I believe they will be far more economical than the public authorities. Government building up to the present has not been economical. You may go down to Chepstow, and there you will find

  1913
  that the cost of houses has gone up enormously. We do want these houses, and I certainly would not rule out the private builder but give every encouragement to private enterprise, and do anything to get the houses. Having made these criticisms in no hostile spirit, I wish every success to the Government measure, but I do hope we shall get some more satisfactory arrangement in regard to the provision of houses in rural districts.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I feel I am particularly in need of the indulgence of the House if the true definition of a bore is a man who will persist in talking about what interests him alone when he ought to be talking about what interests other people. It seems to me that the circumstances in which I am placed incline me to his category. I have not previously intruded upon the deliberations of this House, being conscious that as a representative of a very small constituency, I had small claim to request the attention of the House when there were so many new Members representing vast constituencies and having enormous majorities. Many of those new Members have confessed to the somewhat rash promises which they made to their constituents during the process of their election, and some of them told us that they had been parties to a kind of general promise of a new heaven and a new earth. They did not stand alone in that respect, for there had been a promise held out in the newspapers ever since the beginning of the War that after the end of the War we were to have an entirely new and happy country,
  "Where the rich man loved the poor man,
  And the poor man loved the great,"
  and so forth. As we look around, I think we can scarcely say that the millennium has exactly arrived. We have authentic information of its approach, but we do not yet see it. This Bill is the first definite introduction of a measure which appears to me to have any reality in it as tending to produce the happier conditions to which we are all looking forward. But this new world which we have been promised is not one that can be enacted by Acts of Parliament brought into existence in this way, but it must exist in the minds of men. We have been told, and we have learned from childhood upwards, that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and until that new world comes into existence in the minds and hearts of men it cannot come into existence in any material sense.
  1914
  All an Act of Parliament can do is to register advances already made in. the-minds of men.
  There was a good deal said in the earlier Debate about the needs of the labouring and wage-earning classes getting more of the good things of this world. A better share of the good things of this world is what we all wish the great masses of the-people to possess, but when it comes down to the point of discussing what the good things of this world were, I was surprised to find that in the minds of the bulk of hon. Members the good things of this world consisted in higher wages and shorter hours of labour. Really, neither higher wages or shorter hours of labour in themselves are a good thing for this world and money is no good unless you know how to spend it, and time is no good except to those who know how to use it. If you give people good houses you are giving them at any rats one of the good things of this world, but I look to this Bill as a very small instalment indeed of those good things. The character of our people within my own lifetime has visibly and completely changed in many important, respects, and we have become very much more a social people than we were. We have become very much less individualist people than we were. It is remarkable that at a time when this socialistic spirit is spreading in the masses of our people, and I think rightly spreading, that the first measure of a definite kind should be one of so strongly an individualistic character for providing an enormous number of houses, for nothing is more individualistic as a private or a separate house.
  What is the reason for this? What is at the back of this desire for better housing? It is nothing less than our unfortunate British climate which we want to shut out. It is the British climate that is at the bottom of all this. If a miner came out of the mine near the Bay of Naples the circumstances of his life would be totally different, and he would not be asking for houses of this description so much, because almost any kind of a house would do in a climate which did not drive you indoors, and which was not so much subject to wind, rain, snow, and fog as the British climate provides. I am not saying one word against the necessity of improved housing, but it seems to me that the provision of cottages and residential houses is a very small part of the housing that the modern world

  1915
  requires. I know in the town near where I live, when I pass through the streets after working hours, I find them absolutely crowded with people walking up and down for the purpose of social intercourse, and they have nowhere else to go. Now, twenty-five years ago they had no such habit; but now that habit has grown, and the people of almost all parts of England, and certainly those of the South of England, have taken to the habit of walking up and down the streets in great numbers, and for hours together, for the purpose of social intercourse. Nothing is being done to house that social intercourse.
  This Housing Bill considers really only the final exit of the family from the day's work and their refuge for the night in a home that will protect them from the climate. Nothing is done and nothing is said about what seems to me to be a far more important question than housing, and' I mean the housing of the social life of the people in their multitudes. I think it has been stated that the increase of wages to the miners will amount to something like £40,000,000 a year. Incidentally, I doubt whether that is the amount of the increase; but, assuming it is, I hope it will have some effect in adding to their comfort. Give me that £40,000,000 a year to spend for them and I can do a great deal better. The hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite, to whose interesting speech we listened with so much wrapt attention, spoke of the great cities of antiquity and of their provision for the glory as well as the comfort and entertainment of their populations. I should like to take a deputation of miners to the city of Rome and show them the baths of Caracalla. Why not erect in every mining centre something of the same kind? For £40,000,000 one could cover the country wtih these things. Why not have, not the holes in which the English people bathe, but magnificent warm pools, as I have seen them in some foreign resorts, with floating chess boards and card tables, where people can disport themselves in nice warm water in comfortable surroundings. Adjacent to that let us have a large comfortable room or hall from which the British climate is excluded, with a beautiful floor, where it would be possible to dance, and where I would have a band playing, not once a week, but four hours a day. I would have a picture gallery, and a restaurant, or canteen if you like, where
  1916
  men and their families could feed or drink a cup of tea or even a glass of wine together. I would have a crêche where children could be left while their parents enjoyed themselves. I would have a great library attached where they could read. I would have a cinema which should show, not ridiculous pictures, though now and again I would give a turn to Charlie Chaplin, but the kingdoms of the world and the glories of them, and I would have a great big human house for housing, not the individual family, but great assemblages and corporations of men. If you came out of a mine and found that sort of thing waiting for you, mining would not be such an abominable occupation. If after six hours in the mine, men found that they were provided with twelve hours' comfort in such a place it might possibly, to some extent, compensate them for the inconveniences of their work.
  We have listened to wonderful experts on this question of building. I cannot pretend to have that intimate acquaintance with local conditions of building, and so forth, which have been shown by so many hon. Members, but at the same time I do claim that I have some personal experience of cottage building. The local authority where I live told me that twelve cottages were wanted in the parish, and so I set out to build two at the cost of something like £750. When they had cost £1,500 I stopped, and wondered whether I had not better wait for the present Bill, but it did give me some idea of the nature of the problem. The trouble was that I attempted too considerable an artistic invention. At the same time I do hope that when the country blossoms out with these 500,000 cottages a very serious effort will be made to prevent them being 500,000 eyesores. The hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) the other day accused the countrymen of Shakespeare, Milton, Tennyson, Chaucer, and all the great poets, and the country of the builders of our great cathedrals, of lacking in imagination. In the past we have not lacked imagination. Whether that accusation is true at the present moment or not, it is not true of the past. There are abundant proofs at the present time of the widespread imagination of our people in the past. It is not merely that in the past we built cottages, but we built the best houses that exist in the world from the time of Henry VIII., or indeed earlier, down to the end of the eighteenth century. We not merely

  1917
  built the finest big houses, but we built the most beautiful cottages that you will find anywhere in the world. Anyone who is familiar with the type of design in England from North to South and from East to West and who goes abroad and motors over foreign countries and sees their cottages will realise how immeasurably better, generation after generation, have been our cottage builders than those of any other country in the world.
  If the Government would place at my disposal a sufficient number of motor cars I could take hon. Members down to the county of Kent and show them over 150 cottages which were built in the fifteenth century which to-day are as strong and as sound and as well constructed and as wisely planned as any cottages of any country in the world. We have a splendid tradition of cottage building, and that tradition is mainly based upon local taste and the local habits of the people. Every part of the country has its own type of cottage, every part of the country uses its own materials, or did use them, in its own way. When I hear of 8,000,000,000 bricks being provided for the purpose of building all over England, I shiver with horror at the appalling prospect of these brick cottages being put down in stone, cobble, and timber-building countries. I hope whoever is charged in the different parts of the country with oversight, will see that the local system of building is adhered to, that the local materials are used, and that the local style is followed.
  We must, however, not merely build houses and great institutions, which are equally wanted, but we must enthuse into the texture of our people once more that which they formerly had, namely, a better notion of the art of living. We talk of the art of architecture and of the art of painting, but the highest of all arts is the art of living, and that is an art which has been very largely lost by the people of our country and particularly by the people of our manufacturing centres. They have lost all notion of the art of living, and how to use the ordinary materials of their everyday life in a manner that is in itself delightful and that is in itself pleasant. We can only introduce and cultivate that art of living by seeing that the surroundings of life in our towns—the country will mainly look after itself—are as beautiful as it is possible to make them, and that is not the business of the individual, but of the social unit, the social organism, the
  1918
  municipality, the Government, or whatever it may be. If municipalities put themselves into the hands of committees of taste, as they are always liable to do, you never arrive at any good result. It was once my evil misfortune to be on a committee that was instructed to criticise designs for a public building. They were abominably bad designs and that most of us recognised, but when the committee got to work upon them they made them infinitely worse. Taste does not reside in any committee. It resides in the single human head, and there only. I do trust, therefore, whoever is chosen in different parts of the country to look after these cottages, that they will not be merely the design of a royal engineer or of a surveyor, but also of a man of known good taste, who may be trusted to look after the great interests of the public in this matter of art.
  Mr. CAIRNS: I am sure we are much obliged to my hon. Friend on the left (Sir M. Conway) for his lecture. Shakespeare once said, "Thrice is he arm'd that hath his quarrel just." We are on the side of justice, and justice is on our side. I come from a mining community, and in one of our villages there -are forty-four one-roomed houses. And there is a mixed company in those houses. There are 2,120 two-roomed houses, and 4,181 three-roomed houses. Sometimes in a one-roomed house we have a father who meets with an accident in the coal-pit and he is laid on a bed in the kitchen. That room is more dangerous to the man's life than the accident. The family are there in that one room, the mother and perhaps two or three children—and the air becomes vitiated on account of the shortness of space and the lack of ventilation. The way hon. Members have been speaking reminds me of the character of Rip Van Winkle. They seem to have been asleep. They talk about Naples and Rome and do not know their own country. These homes in our mining villages are the hotbeds of fever, and sometimes the fever bred there gets into the castle and the palace. It sometimes reaches the least expected places. We spend through our insurance committees large sums of money for the purpose of sending tuberculosis cases to sanatoria. Would it not be far better, instead of spending the money on sanatoria, to spend the money in building better homes for the people?

  1919
  We want to get at the cause and not merely at the effect of these things. In the days of Queen Elizabeth every ton of coal that we produced in the county of Northumberland was taxed Is. for the purpose of making a promenade on the Thames. In 1348 we first started to sink pits in the county of Northumberland, and some of the houses that our people live in now probably were built then. It does not follow that the oldest houses are the worst or that the newest are the best. I can go with reverence into a cathedral just as much as the hon. Gentleman opposite, who clasps his hands and looks to heaven and wishes for the spirit that was in the men who built the cathedrals to be transferred to the House. In some of the houses that our people live in there are children from five to ten years of age, and adults and children are crowded into one bed. This is in civilised Britain, in the richest country in the world. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister wanted money, I was one of the men who went to cinemas and gave lectures and speeches, and when they wanted recruits I was one of the men who went to the cinemas and the street corners recruiting. Our men have gone to the extent of 400,000. The Prime Minister said that the men were coming back to a land worthy for heroes to live in. Is a house of one room worthy for a hero to live in? Is a house of two rooms worthy for a hero to live in? Our men never asked for exemption. They went to the battlefields and fought like every other hero belonging to this country. It is said that there is a shortage. There is no shortage. There is a plenitude of everything. Brick works have been standing idle for four years, and with a little bit of encouragement called money and a little touch of sympathy, the brick works can be set at work again this week, and thousands of millions of bricks can be manufactured for 300,000 houses and a million houses. Men are asking me every day when we are going to commence building. I congratulate the President of the Local Government Board and his doughty lieutenant for engineering this Bill. It is going to be the Magna Charta of housing, and woe to the men who stand up against it.
  When I was first married I got what was called a colliery house. There were eighty-four persons who had to go to one w.c. I was born in a house with one room and a
  1920
  garret and there were seven of us. I had two sisters, who had each twelve children in two rooms downstairs, and they were never summoned for any immorality or wrong-doing. That is how the miner and his family have to live. I want to say on behalf of my class that in the year 1872–3 there was an inflation in the selling price of coal. Owing to the Franco-Prussian War, they were not producing coal in France and Germany, and prices of coal were inflated and our wages were inflated. Our mothers and wives bought better furniture, but the better furniture only exposed the old antiquated place they were living in. The men got a bit more money, and they thought they would join a building society for the purpose of building houses. But coal is a fluctuating thing, and the prices rise and fall and the men's wages rise and fall accordingly. Thousands of our men joined building societies in 1873–4 and bought their own houses at the price of £300, £400, and £500. But in 1875–6–7 prices declined and they lost their houses. The money which they had earned by hard and dangerous work in the coalpit they lost on account of the prices going back. The working classes to-day have a different taste from that of our grandfathers. Our grandfathers and grandmothers may have been more moral than we are, but the schoolmaster has been abroad since 1870, and our people have been taught to have better taste. They believe in better food. They believe in better homes. One hon. Member last night said he had built many houses for his workmen on a sort of co-operative movement between himself and his workmen. I stand here as president of the Northumberland Aged Miners' Homes. We have built 200 houses for our workpeople when they become sixty years of age, and we allow them to live there rent free. There is only one reason why we have not 400 houses, and that is because we have not got plenty of money.
  6.0 P.M.
  In the county of Northumberland we are looking forward to this Bill becoming law. I should like to direct the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the fact that there is one company there which bought an estate of 150 acres for £5,000, and when they were asked for an acre of land they asked £500 per acre, although they only paid £5,000 for 150 acres. I want the President of the Local Government Board to get to the bottom of that. The chief cause why the Northumberland workmen, in 1875 and 1876, lost

  1921
  their houses was not the price of bricks, because bricks were 30s. a thousand, but it was the cost of land. It was because of the exorbitant price of land. It is no use landlords in this House talking about generosity. We do not want their generosity; we do not want their charity. We are only out for justice. A lot of this land has been stolen in the past. We do not want to steal it. We want to pay a fair price for it, and we do not want to call upon heaven nor upon the other place to help us. We want a municipal Moses to lead us out of slumdom into the sweet fields of Britain. We want to get away into the country, where the birds are singing, where the trees are waving, where the grass is emerald, and where the air is pure and sweet. That is where we want to be. I do not want to be considered unkind, and I do not want to expose anybody, and if I had a horse and I could buy him the best corn and put him in the best stable, I would do it; but I have seen stables not far from here and I have seen stables the country, stables with mahogany stalls, much better, much cleaner, and with better atmospheric conditions than the homes of the poor. I have seen piggeries built better than the homes of the poor. I have seen dog kennels better than the homes of the poor. Some time ago we had a man ill at one of our collieries, and the doctor said that if he had been taken away to the Royal Victoria Infirmary at Newcastle, or some other place of the kind, he would have got better, but the home surroundings were so bad and the air so vitiated that he died. I was never anything but a workman. There are two classes of workmen—there are workmen who work with their brain, like the Prime Minister or the Minister for War, and there are workmen who work with their hands. There is plenty of material, of land, and of everything to make this new Britain and to have in the country houses with beautiful gardens, fine children, happy old men, and contented old women. We always said that Britain would win the War. If Britain and her Allies could win a War like this of such gigantic proportions, and provide the men, munitions, and money to do so, then surely we can build all the houses that are necessary to house the people of this country of ours.
  Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: In rising to offer some friendly criticism of this Bill, I do not intend to spend any time dealing
  1922
  with the extent of the problem or of the evil effects arising therefrom, or as to the necessity of dealing with it at once, because on those fundamentals there is now no difference of opinion. The last three eloquent speeches we have heard approached the subject from what I may call the ideal point of view. I propose to offer a few words of criticism of the methods adopted by the Bill for meeting the admitted evil. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in his speech introducing the Bill, said that the problem that the Bill disclosed is distinctly a two-fold one. First of all, we have to make up the deficiency in working-men's houses caused by the War, and variously estimated at from 300,000 to 500,000 houses. Secondly, there is the problem of remedying the unsatisfactory character of much of the housing accommodation already in existence. Those two problems are so distinct and so different in character and magnitude, and affect such different classes of the community, as to justify, in my opinion, a different principle in the way in which they are looked at and dealt with. The first of these is an admitted emergency, and must undoubtedly be met and overcome at once, because, for all its size, the provision of new houses which are wanted is an admitted problem. The other problem, the inter-related problem of defective accommodation, unhealthy surroundings, and overcrowding, is a problem which is infinitely greater, and which it will take decades to overcome, and which, indeed, will never be entirely overcome until the economic condition of the masses, and the standard of living and of happiness of great sections of them, have been improved. That cannot be looked for except as the result of a long period of educational and social training, coupled with economic prosperity, throughout the country. Again, the first of these problems will in effect deal with the housing of one section of the working classes only, that is to say, with the aristocrat of the working classes, the skilled and highly-paid artisan, because it is only that class of man who will have the chance, even with the subsidy which the local authority or the State proposes to supply, of occupying the new houses which it is proposed to build. The second part of the problem is with the lowest classes of all, the least efficient and the worst paid, and in fact with those we have been in the habit of calling the submerged tenth.

  1923
  I wish to address myself to the difference in principle between those two parts of the problem and the difference which, therefore, I imagine should govern the methods, and particularly the financial methods, to be adopted. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the methods adopted must be mandatory and compulsory, and that there must be local and national financial aid in both parts of the question. What I would desire to urge is this, that the financial aid to be given by the State should be better defined if it be possible in both cases, and, secondly, in the case of the emergency provision of new houses that it should be limited to the meeting of that emergency. There are two points incidental to each part of the problem to which I will refer before I deal with the financial question. The first is, that I note a period is to be allowed for the preparation of schemes by every local authority in the country. The right hon. Gentlman in his speech, I think, said that the schemes would only be called for where a case appeared, but I see no qualification of that kind in the Bill, and I take it that every authority must make a survey and produce a scheme within three months of the passing of the Bill, and that that applies to both parts of the problem equally. There is a point where I fancy a marked difference between the two parts of the problem leaps to the light at once. It might be possible in the case of the provision of new houses to do this in three months, but even there I am exceedingly doubtful about it. It is certain that the local authorities would have in many cases no easy task to ascertain to what extent present needs are likely to be permanent. That will be especially so in districts like my own Constituency of Spelthorne, in Middlesex, the rural parts of which have in a great many instances been utilised for munition purposes. The ultimate destination of the factories, and HE on, is not known, and cannot be, until it is certain how far new industries may be Btarted. Whether three months will suffice or not in the case of the provision of new houses, I am strongly of opinion that not three months, nor twelve months, will suffice to make the necessary survey of the existing housing accommodation and its defects, quite apart from the schemes necessary to remedy those defects. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a survey already made, by
  1924
  which he found that there were 70,000 quite unfit houses and 300,000 seriously unfit, and that refers to one quarter of the area of working-class houses alone. If those houses are typical, that shows that there are 1,500,000 defective houses. I think the House will be disappointed if it looks for the gigantic problem so disclosed to be surveyed and even the worst cases set out in schemes in less than a much longer period than that which the right hon. Gentleman indicates in his Bill. In this connection I should like to welcome Clause 11 (b) permitting local authorities to adapt existing houses into flats for the use of artisans. I look upon that as most important among the Clauses of the Bill from the point of view of the urban and suburban housing problem. In the case, for instance, of a large number of existing residences round central London, it would afford useful housing accommodation and prevent that area falling into the decay into which parts of it are rapidly falling. I hope that this means of utilising existing buildings in urban areas will be put by the right hon. Gentleman's Department into the forefront of the Government policy and exhausted before cutting up open green areas in the vicinity of London. I hope also it will not be thought necessary by the Board to provide many cottages alone as workmen's dwellings on the outskirts of London, as, if we do, the amenities of the Home Counties might be destroyed to the great loss of the working classes themselves. Combined dwellings and allotments for those who can use them will, I trust, be an integral part of the policy which will be pushed forward by those in charge of the Bill.
  Let me say a word or two with regard to the financial provisions of the Bill, upon which, of course, depends the success whether of the effort to produce the new buildings wanted or the much bigger problem of dealing with the deficiencies of the existing housing accommodation throughout the country. The financial scheme of the Bill is that the whole of the undetermined liability to loss, less a rate of Id. in the £ is to fall upon the State. These financial provisions are printed in italics in the Bill and that, of course, gives automatic warning of the expenditure of national money. But I fail to find either in the Bill or in any estimate to what extent we are likely to be involved or the limits within which such losses may be put by the State. I understand that

  1925
  the right hon. Gentleman promised, when he spoke yesterday, that a White Paper would be published in which many of these things, would be stated. With all deference, may I say I think it is a very great pity that the White Paper could not have been published with the valuable information it would contain before this Debate took place. My effort to grasp the meaning of the Bill would have been much facilitated if the contents of the two circulars, one to public utility societies and the other to local authorities, could have formed part of the Bill, or if they had been published in some way by which Members could have obtained them. One of those circulars, that to the local authorities, was not published as a Parliamentary Paper at all. I had considerable difficulty, first of all, in learning that it existed, and secondly, in getting hold of it. I do think it is a pity also that this Bill could not have been published as a complete Bill in itself, that is a codified Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had only followed the example of those who prepared the Bill of 1890, which was a codified Bill, including all the previous legislation, in a simple, comprehensive, understandable measure, it would I think have been a very great benefit to many people, and certainly to myself. I said a moment ago that there were no financial estimates either in the Bill or in Government publications.
  Of course the right hon. Gentleman will point to the extreme difficulties of getting such an estimate, and those difficulties must be admitted, but I am not quite sure that they will give much consolation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is trying to bring the finance of the nation back to somewhat more normal lines. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out a few days ago that in effect Budgets were largely made by the House itself on such occasions as this, before he had any opportunity of influencing the matter from the financial point of view. My suggestions with regard to the question of finance are these. I think that, in the first place, it would be desirable that the financial provisions binding the State and the local authorities to subsidise the production of new houses—and now I am limiting myself entirely to that first aspect of the question, that emergency' aspect of producing the new houses, the necessity of which has been created by the War and partly by legislation which just preceded the War— should be either limited definitely to a certain number of years or to a certain
  1926
  amount, at the end of which number of years or of the expenditure of which amount, when the present emergency is grappled with, the whole of this part of the problem might be re-examined. I know the right hon. Gentleman referred to a period of seven years in his speech, after which this would be revised, and the whole results of the seven years' operations would be gone into and we should see where we stood. I did not follow exactly what was meant to happen at the end of the seven years, whether what was going to be revised then was simply the financial operations that had taken place during that period or whether a definite term of seven years was put after which it was not expected that the emergency operations should continue. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us a little more about that particular point when he replies.
  The House will appreciate not only the magnitude but the implications of the enterprise that it is embarking upon in this matter. The passing of this Bill means the disappearance of the use of capital and business enterprise in the provision of houses for the working classes. Several hon. Members speaking from the other side of the House to-day have suggested that in some way private enterprise might still run side by side with the means provided by this Bill, but personally I do not see how it is possible that that can take place unless the Bill is entirely altered. Private enterprise will, for good or ill, not enter the field again while the provisions of this Act remain in force, although under one Clause, I think it is Clause 14, the authority may lease any land that they might have taken to a private individual for the purpose of building houses for the working classes. As there is in the Bill no provision permitting the authorities to make grants, in the first place, or even to make loans, and certainly not to undertake any part of the losses to private individuals acting under this Clause, these private individuals will not build in competition with the Local Government Board on the chance of making subsidies out of the assumed inexhaustible financial powers of the State. Private enterprise is and must be dead during the existence of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the hope that private enterprise would rise again, but if he really means that to happen he will have to keep something in the Bill to keep it tem-

  1927
  porarily alive at any rats during the seven years period, and I hope that on consideration he will find it possible to do so. This Bill represents—and I admit that it is bound to be done in this particular way or something very much like it for the emergency part of the problem—a complete revolution in our way of providing houses. It is ancient history that 95 per cent. of the houses of the working classes were produced by private enterprise before the War, and I am not going to defend for a moment the way in which some hideous working-class districts have been built up during even late years by private enterprise. That has not been entirely the fault of private enterprise. It has been partly the fault of the various authorities of the country, partly the fault of the electorate who did not take, the trouble to elect authorities who would use the powers they had got, and partly the fault of the Legislature which did not give the local authorities sufficient power, and certainly no power at all to look after the amenities of housing. They gave certain powers with regard to by-laws, but no far-reaching powers which would enable them to exercise an influence over the kind of houses that were produced for the working classes. But to my mind the danger is that the State, by embarking, if there be no limit, upon a scheme of supplying working-class dwellings to meet an admitted emergency, may engage itself in the liability permanently to subsidise one section, the best-off section, of one class of the community. That is the danger I see upon the first part of the Bill, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it quite clear that this is an emergency business, and to provide for the emergence of private enterprise in some shape or form after the emergency is met.
  Just one point on the question of economic rents, which was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. I was glad to see in the note to the local authorities, and to hear in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that rents should approximate as nearly as possible to the economic level. I believe myself that there are some sections of the working-class population whom circumstances 'may even now permit to pay something near an economic rent, even for new houses; but if the local authorities are led to believe that it must necessarily follow that rents must be fixed at less than the economic figure, and rate and State aid is relied upon,
  1928
  then the country will be faced with great dissatisfaction amongst those sections of the population who occupy the old house and pay an economic rent for those old houses. I think that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to bear in mind, because there is no doubt that he will be setting up, by the provision of the new houses, a privileged class of some kind. The right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench yesterday suggested that that privilege might be given to soldiers, but it will never be given to returned soldiers per se. These new houses will all be occupied by the élite of the working classes, by those who are best able to pay for them. There will he competition for the new houses of a sort, just as there has been in the past, and we shall find, as is perhaps quite right, that the skilled artisans will be the men who will occupy the new houses to be built under this Bill. I should like to say one word to the more direct representatives of the working classes in the Labour party here. The great trouble we have been in and are in now is partly due to the heavy rise in the cost of building, and I would here like to ask Labour to do its share. I know from the evidence of my own experience of a lifetime that the reduction in the output of labour engaged in building has had a material influence is the rise in the cost of building, and consequently in the rents that have had to be paid. The case of the bricklayers is, of course, a classic one. The bricklayers not so very long ago laid 900 bricks a day, but now the output, for one reason or another, is reduced to something between 300 and 400 a day. See what that means on the cost of building. Nobody will grudge the fall in output caused by the reduction in the hours of labour, but the fall in output is not altogether due to that. It is largely due, not to mere selfishness or indifference-alone, but also to the mistaken belief that reduction in the output per hour or per day benefits other workers. I think we are entitled, if public funds are to be given to subsidise housing for the working classes, to ask labour to revise its standpoint on this matter and to take a reasonable share of the burden.
  One more point, and that is as to the financing of the second great part of this enormous problem. I have been speaking of the first or emergency part, dealing with the provision of the new houses now necessary, but as to the clearing of the

  1929
  slums and the provision of houses to take their places, that is quite a different matter. The problem is much larger, and in fact it is a gigantic one, as the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the other day show. It is a result of failure on the part of the nation long before our time to recognise, as social changes slowly took place, what their effect would be, and the present and future generations, I realise, must shoulder the burdens if a healthy population is to be produced. It is quite different in another respect from the emergency problem. It refers to the poorest class of the community, those least able to help themselves, and those mostly in need of assistance of ail kinds, and it certainly will not be cured without the co-operation of many factors—educational and economic as well as housing—for a long period of time. I believe that nothing really substantial will be done in this branch of the subject until the full extent of the situation and of the financial effort necessary is ascertained and the nation faces the problem in all its aspects. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will complete his survey of the whole field and come to the House again with the whole problem disclosed before we enter upon unknown gigantic liabilities in a piecemeal way. At present, the Bill, while fairly clear in the matter of the provision of the emergency houses, is rather nebulous as to the way in which the bigger problem is to be attacked. The provisions for reducing the cost of acquiring slums and for improving the procedure will, no doubt, be something, but it will fail to cure the evil unletes enormous sums of public money are spent, and in connection with this I think it would be idle to suggest that a penny rate will touch the fringe of the question. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for that, for such a widespread and deep-seated evil, so dependent for its existence on many different causes, is not going to be remedied in a hurry; but, having got a real estimate of its extent, let us face it on broad principles, with the full recognition of the long continued effort it will entail in many fields of national endeavour.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: If I intervene for a few moments in this Debate, it is because I represent a large cosmopolitan constituency, some areas of which are deeply interested in, and will be profoundly affected by, the provisions of this Bill. I have listened to a great many of
  1930
  the speeches which have been delivered, and which certainly cover an enormous quantity of ground. Some of them, if I may say so with respect, have been more in the nature of Committee criticisms than of Second Reading discussion, and some of them have been, I might almost say, Third Reading speeches, or jubilation speeches, on the great moral object which this measure is supposed to attain. One distinguished hon. Member told us that he obtained much of his inspiration in connection with this measure in sojourning in the ruins of the ancient cities and in meditating in the cathedrals of the Middle Ages. Another hon. Member took us up into such realms of imagination as to make us wonder really whether this Bill has its proper name, and whether it really is not a measure for the introduction of the millennium. We were told that we had to get rid of the British climate—a point which the right hon. Gentleman apparently overlooked in drafting the measure. We were told that every house ought to have a Roman bath attached to it, with floating chess-boards and packs of cards to pass away the time, with reading rooms, libraries, Jazz bands, and Charlie Chaplin cinemas, and a variety of other things.
  I have stood at times, like my right hon. Friend, in the old cathedrals of the world, in those meditations which come to all of us in these circumstances, but I put all these reflections for one moment on one side, and I look upon this Bill as one dealing with, several aspects of the great scheme of social reconstruction with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, and, put shortly, it seems to me that the essence of the Bill is this. It being universally admitted that the housing problem is one of the greatest problems with which we have to deal, and all the old permissive powers which existed before this measure, and all the private enterprise, for which the hon. Gentleman behind me pleaded just now, having absolutely failed, the word "shall" has to take the place of the word "may" in connection with this housing problem, and in future, whether this Bill be the best means or not of doing it, the local authorities, compelled and assisted by the Government, shall take this great problem in hand. That being so, I am not at all alarmed by the argument that it may mean the death of private enterprise. Private enterprise in connection with the housing question stands tried and hopelessly condemned. [An HON. MEMBER:"

  1931
  "No."] Real private enterprise, such as the provision of decent homes for the workers by the proprietors of large estates and large works, will never be killed by any Bill; but, so far as the speculative builder is concerned—well, I will not even say, "Peace to his memory." I hope this Bill means the end of him.
  I therefore approach the subject in the spirit that this measure is directed especially to health, the view being that it is quite useless to introduce legislation dealing with physical disease whilst you leave rampant and untouched the state of things which is creating and promoting that disease at the very root, that is, in the homes of the people. And it is equally useless to look to any of those bodies on whom the responsibility has rested in the past. I refer incidentally to the London County Council. That body has had a special plea put forward in this House, I think, for a farthing rebate off the penny rate, which it will be their duty to contribute to the cost of this scheme, because the rateable value of London is so great. I take it the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is that you have not to consider the rateable value of any area, but you have to consider the needs of that area, and when I find the London County Council even now by its own scheme has only allocated three and a half millions of money for the housing problem of London, which means building at the outside some 7,000 houses, and its own memorandum considered there are at least 25,000 houses in a bad and uninhabitable condition, then I say those facts alone justify the right hon. Gentleman in practically taking the measure out of their hands.
  There are one or two aspects of the matter with which I shall venture to deal very shortly. There is, first of all the question of what is called the economic rent. That word "economic" crops up in almost every speech of every student of public affairs. It is a cold and hollow, and even meaningless word. You cannot get an economic rent out of building houses for the working classes in the existing condition of things. I do not share the optimism of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that even in five or six years time labour will become so much cheaper, or production so much greater, as to make it possible for us to look for any better prospect of economic rent than we have to-day. The housing of the workers of
  1932
  this country is a part of national insurance, just as much as is the provision of the Ministry of Health, and there has-never been—it has been admitted, I think, in this Debate—any desire on the part of even the speculative builder to build houses for the working-classes-except that he could sell them the moment he built them. He knew they would not last long enough, for one thing, to get an economic rent, and, in addition, he know that the houses had been run up in a reckless manner. Therefore, we have to face. this fact, that you cannot expect to get any return for your capital in the ordinary sense in respect of this class of property at present. The men who own it to-day are rarely ever heard of. Their agents and collectors are the only people the tenants know of. I could quote hundreds of cases of my own knowledge where the tenants have pleaded to be allowed to have even a little distemper provided for them to do their own cleaning of houses, and they have never been able to find out who their landlord is. I could give pictures from my own Constituency and other parts of the country—to which, in some other capacity outside the House, I have sent commissioners during the past six months —so appalling as to startle the soul and spirit of this House. Nothing which the right hon. Gentleman told us about Essex Street, Shoreditch, is comparable with the condition of affairs which has been brought to my notice. I do not want to harrow the feelings of the House, but I could give the name of a street in which you can find to-day in one case a dead child and a child born yesterday, and in the same room, a father dying, two other children in the hands of the doctor, and five other children living. That is not very far from Shoreditch. Throughout the whole of the country one can find pictures just as bad.
  Whilst this condition of things exists, I say, do not let us waste our time about economic rent. These things are far too distant. Let us be practical, and realise that everyone in this House is pledged, and certainly the Government is pledged, to the constituencies to get rid of slum-land once and for ever, and to make this country fit for heroes to live in. Whatever the cost may be, I am going to be unorthodox enough to say that it is not going to worry me for a moment. There will be plenty of money. The Prime Minister will be back, I hope, next week, and he is going to bring us £10,000,000,000

  1933
  from Germany. That is common ground. How can we spend the money better than in rebuilding the ruined homes of England? Apart from that, if we can find £6,000,000, £7,000,000, and £8,000,000 a day for the War for several years—and we should have gone on doing it for a long time, if ultimately, owing to efforts not entirely those of politicians, the War had not come to an end—if we can do that, we can find a few hundred millions, and when the Budget comes on I hope to have the privilege of endeavouring to indicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer where he can find some new resources of revenue which he dare not touch at present, and which are always kept hidden from his eyes, so that we can find all the money that is necessary, and which it is our bounden duty to find. Therefore, I say, so far as the cost is concerned, that does not trouble me.
  There is one other question. This is a practical criticism. Under this Bill, power is taken to acquire any land necessary for the purpose, and all kinds of machinery are to be set up for ascertaining the value. Amongst other things, I observe a continuance of the system, which, I hope, will come to a close on the return of the Lord Chief Justice from America, and on the resumption by him of his judicial duties. I see that the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and some eminent civil engineer, or someone, are to be the authority for choosing the valuers, or something of that kind. I say, just in passing, that I do not think the Lord Chief Justice who is making his full contribution to extra-judicial functions, should have to discharge this duty, and I do not think the Master of the Bolls, with all his eminence—I am not quite sure who he is at the moment, but I know who he will be after Easter—I do not think by his calling, training, and temperament, he is the man to interfere in a matter of this kind. But it is not so much the machinery as the principle of valuation. What do you want a new valuation authority for? I sat in this House in 1909, and I watched many Members literally shout themselves hoarse when the measure was passed which set up a wonderful machinery for valuing the land of this country, and, whatever the faults of that machinery were, it has this advantage: the valuation was made for the purpose of taxation, and therefore it follows that the object was to put the highest value for taxation purposes consisently with the marketability. What
  1934
  that machinery cost to the nation is common knowledge, but when the War commenced it had almost completed its labours, and you have in existence to-day the most comprehensive valuation of every piece of land in the country. Why not take it and act upon it? Why have a post-war valuation? All land, I think I may say, has appreciated enormously in value since the War. If you subsidise bread, if you give an artificial price to wheat, oats, barley, and all the rest of it, and give an enhanced value to any kind of industry, land naturally rises in sympathy, and if the right hon. Gentleman throws over the valuation made under the 1909 Act, and sets up a new authority, I am absolutely certain the valuation made by that authority will exceed by some millions the one at present in existence. That is not the way to begin the financial part of the scheme. No post-war valuation should be on slum dwellings. It is, to my mind, straining things to an absolutely unjustifiable extent to say to a man, "You have so far neglected your duty that we have brought in mandatory powers to put things right, but we will forgive you and connive at your misdeeds to the extent of throwing over the existing valuation and making a new valuation on a post-war basis for your benefit." There is only one reason—I speak subject to correction, I do not say from the Law Officers of the Crown, because they are not here, I am my own lawyer—why that cannot be easily overcome. The valuation made under the 1909 Act is a secret valuation. It cannot be published, I suppose, without Parliamentary enactment, but three lines put into this Bill in Committee would easily overcome that. Whether it is made public or not, there is no reason why this valuation should not be made available to whatever authorities require it for the purpose of arriving at a decision.
  I am not now going through the Report I have at my side, showing the appalling nature of the evil with which we have to deal. It is the most blasphemous comment upon all our protestations of the War, that we were fighting for a better world, for the freedom of the peoples, for the little nations, and all the rest of it, that we should, I believe, be the worst country in Europe from the point of view of the character of the dwellings of the working classes and the lower strata of workers in this Kingdom. I remember very well, during a recruiting speech which I was making in the early days of the War, that

  1935
  a poor, half-starved, pinched-looking workman, with a scarf round his neck, waited to speak to me after the meeting. When I saw him, he said "I have been listening to you and your appeal for recruits, and all the rest of it. Will you answer me this question?" Then he said, "I am living in a room with my wife and five children. We have not a pane of glass in the windows. They are stuffed up with paper and rags. The floor is tumbling to pieces, rain comes through the roof, the staircase is creaking and dangerous. Other families, equally situated, are all around us in the building. We have not sufficient food to keep our bodies and souls together. Now, tell me, sir, what difference it makes to me whether the Kaiser is to rule over England or the present King I hope I am not less ready than the average Member of Parliament in dealing with a conundrum put to him on the public platform, but I confess I had to give up that problem, and I am almost ashamed to say that the reflection went through my mind that whatever the other disadvantages, under the German system of municipal government that man's room would not be allowed to remain as it was for a single day. I say, we must face the facts, and we must emerge from the War with the determination to make this country a purer, cleaner, and a better place to live in. I very heartily and sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gen-tkman on the earnestness and the alacrity with which he has set himself to work, at least to redeem some of the principal pledges which brought the Government into office.
  Major BIRCHALL: I rise with a little trepidation to address the House for the first time as a Member. It would be quite impossible, as the hon. Member for Hackney has said, to exaggerate the importance of this subject, and I hope I shall not be making any undue demand on the attention or patience of the House in the few remarks I shall make. Although it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question of housing, I think it will foe agreed that the problem does not stand alone, and that if housing is to be successful it is absolutely necessary that it should be combined with a Transport Bill, such as we have already had introduced; and, furthermore, that the Health Bill, which has been introduced, will be utterly incomplete without the Housing Bill. So, we may regard the three great subjects of
  1936
  housing, health, and transport as the great triple alliance, upon which this Government is at present depending, for the welfare of the country. While the three subjects of housing, health, and transport are intermingled so closely and so necessarily, there is yet another great social subject which is bound up with them. It is not, perhaps, so obvious, but still quite as important. It is education. I think sometimes, when I have seen our Education Acts which have been passed again and again, that we have not really gone to the root of the matter, and that we have tried to educate children and their brains without paying due respect to their bodies and health. A great deal of the educational problem is not so much what children learn in the school but what conditions they live under when they are at home. If, by this Bill, we can improve the homes of the children, we shall be doing a very great deal for education itself. The great bugbear of educationists is the child, who is not actually mentally deficient, but who is not quite all there, and who is not capable of appreciating the character of the education given in the ordinary elementary school. A great deal of that partial feeble-mindedness is due to the conditions under which the child lives at home, and unless we remove the conditions we shall do; very little towards educating such a child. When we remember not only the worst conditions that have been described again and again, but even the drab monotony of the better houses in which the poor live, we shall find a reason for the condition of these children who come to school. If the house in which the people live has its duties towards the school, the school has its duties towards the home. It is not much good putting up these houses, which we hope will be put up, unless the people are taught how to make these houses into homes. There is all the difference is the world between a house and a home. The house may be the most beautiful architectural building in the world, but it may be absolutely useless as a real home unless people are educated and know how to make a home of it. Therefore, the education of the people, and especially of the girls, in home-making is a part of this great social problem which we must never forget, and which will assume more and more importance.
  But the question, to my mind, is very much one of the conditions of the country. If we look back, the history of this housing problem is one full of discouragement.

  1937
  We have had enthusiasm again and again, and yet we have nothing but failure to look back upon. Those who look back even to the year 1890, when the first Housing of the Working Classes Act was passed—by the way, is it not rather a pity that we cannot find a better title for this Ball, and that we should be now reduced to calling it: "The Housing, Town-Planning, etc., Bill." Would not the "Provision of Homes Bill" or some title of that sort be better, more explicit, shorter and more intelligible. But let that pass. If we look back on the history of the Housing Bills we shall see that every ten years there has been enthusiasm for housing. In 1890 there was the first Act. In 1899 there was an Amending Act, extending the first Act. In 1909 there was a further extension; and here, in 1919, apparently, we are further extending the Act again.
  Is there anything in the condition of the country to-day which leads us to hope, after what we have been doing for the last thirty years and what has proved, on the whole, a gigantic failure, that we shall do better now than in the past. Mere enthusiasm will not do. We have got that, I am sure, in this new House of Commons; but that is not sufficient. I remember very well, in 1900, that the then Prince of Wales went down to open the Boundary Street area. There was a great flourish of trumpets when the London County Council opened that area. They cleared a slum area of fifteen acres and turned out 5,719 people; they rebuilt the district, and rehoused 5,524 people, When the inquiry was made, however, only eleven of the old inhabitants had returned to the new premises. The whole of the others came from outside. The rest of those who had been turned out went into slums in the surrounding areas and made them worse. A more utter failure than, the Boundary Street area scheme it would be difficult to find. Is it at all likely that we are going to do any better in the future? There was, at one time, a great outcry in favour of model dwellings. I could take hon. Members to some so-called model dwellings, some two or three miles away, which are a model of everything that is bad. I could show them a building six storeys high round four sides of a square. There is a very small courtyard in the centre, and yet in that courtyard there is another huge block of builidngs six storeys high. Into some of those rooms in the
  1938
  centre block never a ray of sunlight comes from one year's end to another; yet children are living in hundreds in that centre block, and they have to drag from the bottom to the top of a public stairway, which is never closed at night and is, naturally, in a most disgusting condition in the day. Attempts at closing have been made, and on one occasion, I think, the magistrate at Worship Street was taken down there and shown the place, but instead of closing the area he closed one room, and it is as bad to-day as it was twenty years ago, Twenty years ago I was acting as a voluntary sanitary inspector in Bethnal Green. A fortnight ago I went back there—I had not been back there since—and I found, to my horror, that the condition of that borough was almost as bad to-day as it was twenty years ago. Practically nothing has been done—I think one area has been cleared—to improve the housing. I think every Member of the House would have been pleased to see, a few weeks ago, that the Queen visited that district. I am sure her influence and her sympathy will go a very long way towards arousing public interest in the matter. We cannot neglect it. The history of the last thirty years has been a history of failure. Are we going to do any better?
  7.0 P.M.
  In conclusion, I want to suggest a few reasons why I think we can look forward to something better in the future, to something not based on mere enthusiasm. In the first place, there is the effect of the War. I think the War has given a new sense of proportion and value when we set the private individual interests against the interests of the State or nation. It has often been maintained that individual interests must give way when they are contrary to the interests of the State. We have gone a step further than that now, and I think we see now that not only is the individual responsible for not being a nuisance to his neighbour, but that as far as possible the individual owner has the duty of helping and assisting and being a benefit to his neighbour. May I give the House an instance of what I mean? During the recent War those tenants or owners who failed to farm their land satisfactorily could be dispossessed and others put in the place. That is exactly an instance of what I mean. The same thing refers to housing. Those who are incapable of using their land to the best advantage have no right to be there.

  1939
  These views, while they may have been held for many years by some people, are now held very generally. It amounts to this, that the country as a whole has come round at last to the great Christian ideal that property, power and talents of all kinds are given us as a trust to be used for the good of other people But that must apply all round. If the landlord who abuses his trust is not only to be pilloried but to be punished, the workman who abuses has trust must also be pilloried and punished, and the man who holds up his land to the disadvantage of the community is no worse than the worker who in building indulges in the practice of ca'canny, or limits the output, and in that way is not using his powers to the best of his ability. That is one of the lessons that we have learned during the War.
  The second lesson which the War, with all its death and destruction, has taught us, is the value of life. We have learned that the greatest asset of the country is the lives of the people, and we have seen where in one street 3 per cent. of the children only die under one year of age, and in a street less than a mile away 15 per cent. of the children die under one year of age. In the great majority of cases that is preventable. If it is preventable then, in God's name, let us prevent it, and let us preserve the lives of the country, the greatest asset of the country! A policeman or protector of property is in evidence in every town in the country. How many times do we see the protector of child life, who should be just as common or more common? Then we have learned that national interests must always take preference as against private interests, we have learned the value of child life, and we have learned the value of home life. Anyone who has been in France or with our men abroad would agree with me that the one thing our soldiers wanted and appreciated was a letter from home. They cannot be very proud of some of the homes to which some of these soldiers come back. I have in Bethnal Green watched the hovels to which some of these men come back, and I have renewed the vow that if I could do anything to improve that terrible state of affairs I would do so. The home life of the country is, perhaps, one of the most important assets the country has got, and there are not wanting prophets who, dur-
  1940
  ing the last few years, have said that the home life of England was suffering and disintegrating. It may be partly due to the fact that the houses which formed the homes were unfit to live in, were such as no man could be expected to remain in, and everything was done in those homes to drive men away instead of keeping them there. When the soldiers come back they will want a better home than when they went away, and they will get it if this Bill passes.
  I have just enumerated what I believed to be advantages which we have over those who in the past tried to solve this problem. There is another. The vote has been given to women. In my Constituency in Leeds this question is the one above all others about which the women are keen. They are determined that something shall be done to improve the dwellings of the people. If there be opposition in the country—there is not much in this House—to this Bill, we shall want the help of the women to carry it through. There are three changes made by the Bill itself. For the first time we have not to say to the local authorities, "You may do this," but we say, "You must do it.'' That is a long step. We are going also to subsidise local authorities.and help them with their expenses. District councils are very cautious bodies as a rule, especially those in the country, and as long as future expenditure was unknown they refused to embark on it. Now that they have been told that they shall not spend more than a penny rate, I believe that they will act gladly. They believe in the limited liability principle and will act accordingly. Lastly, the Government has decided to bring in what is an absolutely essential concomitant of the Housing Bill, that is a Transport Bill. It may be that other projects have failed because they were not accompanied by transport facilities, but to-day we may go forward with more hope than we ever had before in this matter.
  There are two or three practical suggestions, some of which have been made before. In the first place, the problem is urgent. There is no hope of getting our first houses for six months or perhaps more. What are we to do meanwhile? Every day more and more men are coming home demanding houses. Every week the houses in existence are getting worse and requiring more repairs. I can speak from experience because I have houses which I would like to put into repair if only I

  1941
  could get some other accommodation for the tenants. But that is impossible. I would ask the Government if they could distribute these huts? I believe if they were distributed throughout the towns and villages of the country they would go a long way temporarily to solve the problem. It is said that they will cost £250 each. That may be so, to turn a hut into a perfect dwelling, but if for temporary purposes they can be loaned to local authorities they might solve the immediate problem which is before the country, of national over-crowding. With regard to country houses, houses for agricultural labourers, it is perfectly certain that we shall do no good unless those houses in some way or other are earmarked for the use of the country; otherwise the sole result is to attract the weekender or others to live there. In my opinion, the agricultural labourer will not be able to pay more than 6s. or 7s. a week, and the cheapest, house which we are likely to be able to build will cost 12s. a week. So that there will be a considerable loss on the house. But do not let us mind that. You cannot expect to get an economic rent at the present moment and you must regard it as a national insurance and pay for it in that way.
  Let us also be quite sure that at any rate in the country every house has a good garden. We have heard a great deal of allotments. The only objection I have to them is that a man has to go to them and he may have to go half a mile. It is very much better if the allotment comes to the man. Let allotments belong to the house and they will be better used, and, especially in the country where land is comparatively cheap, there should be no more than four houses to the acre. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this Bill. I believe that we are giving by this measure a very real chance to the children of the country. I believe that we are taking a very great step towards the re-discovery of the home life of the country, and going a very long way towards the reconstruction which everyone of us desires, and we can all unite in wishing that the foundation stone of this measure which was laid yesterday and today may be well and truly laid.
  Mr. SEXTON: Before entering upon the merits or demerits of the Bill, I must refer to a question which was raised by the last two speakers. They appealed to the working classes
  1942
  to prevent any limitation of the output which in their opinion increases the cost of building. I join issue with both, of them here. There is no one, more than, a responsible trade union leader, who deplores any hanging back on the part of workmen, but I must respectfully enter a protest against hon. Members in this. House and out of it taking every opportunity to endeavour to saddle all the evils of industrial life on the back of the workman on the assumption that he is not working fairly. The initial responsibility, if there is any limitation, must begin not with the workman, but with the employer. The limitation of output, if there is any, goes farther back than the workman. I am old enough to remember the time when an employer said to his workman, "Now, my lad, you go on and do your best; put out as much as you can, and the more you earn the more you will have." The workman took him at his word, and he went on and increased the output, but he was earning big wages, and the employer looked upon the big wages, and he envied the big wages. The result was that the employer cut down the tariff and expected the workman to produce the same output at 25 or 30 per cent. less wages. That was the beginning of the trouble. From that day to this workmen look with suspicion and distrust upon any suggestion coming from the same quarter. So if there is any sin it is not original with the workman. The original sin rests upon the shoulders of the man who started the job. I hope we have got over that. I hope we shall give the country a chance to get on her feet again, and that all these things will be wiped away—that all these lines of demarcation and trivial matters will disappear, and that there will be increased production as far as possible, which will be reciprocated, I trust, by employers in the country generally.
  I wanted to say that before I dealt with the general principles of this Bill, which I may say is heartily welcomed by the Labour party. I look upon this Bill—and I want to give even the devil his due—aa another attempt on the part of the responsible heads of the Government to "deliver the goods" as promised. We have got a Ministry of Health Bill—an excellent measure—we have a Ways and Communications Bill—another excellent measure— and now we have this Bill. I think there is proof that the responsible heads of the Government are anxious to get their Bill through, and it will not be the fault of

  1943
  those who sit on this side of the House if they do not. But I am not sure about the material behind the right hon. Gentlemen. I am not sure whether they will succeed in getting their Bills through in the form in which they were originally introduced. My one complaint, however, is as to the delay. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill deplored the delay. I remember the Prime Minister telling us at the beginning of the Session not to be impatient, as the Government were going on with this Bill, and had already given an order for a considerable number of windows and doors. We were told last night by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, "I can assure the hon. Member we are getting on, and we have given an order for 5,000 million bricks." But they have not yet commenced to build. We have got the bricks, doors, and windows, but unless the right hon. Gentleman intends to build castles in the air we must have something more substantial. We want the land upon which to put the bricks, doors, and windows. That is the fly in the ointment. The land Clause of the Bill constitutes the fly in the ointment with which the right hon. Gentleman deludes himself and the House generally. If I have any quarrel with the Bill at all it is in that regard. It leaves the evil of land monopoly untouched. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for one thing, and that is when he gets hold of the land he absolutely abolishes the horrible leasehold system, which is a cause of the existence of slums.
  What I am myself most concerned about are the congested areas in our big cities and towns. How are you going, in view of the high prices of land, to limit the number of houses per acre? It cannot be done. I repeat that the leasehold system has created the slums, because property-owners, having to pay big prices for the land, and having a lease on it for only a limited period exact during that period the highest possible rents and at the same time allow the property to deteriorate. This Bill, in Clause 8, lays it down that the compensation to be paid for the land, including any building thereon, shall be the value at the time the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building by-laws for the time being in force in the district. That means that the buildings are to be ignored, and only
  1944
  the existing value or market value of the land is to be paid for the purchase. But it is the putting of the building on the land that increases its value. I have been bombarded in the same way as other hon. Members, with letters, and documents from various vested interests calling attention to certain points laid down by the Prime Minister in his Bristol speech. These points are: (1), I am more concerned and afraid of vested prejudices than I am of vested interests; (2), take no man's property from him; (3), pay him full value for what he has got; (4), you cannot build a nation on dishonesty; and (5), security must be given for all invested capital. I subscribe and endorse every one of these sentences. They were sent to me by the Property Owners' Association asking me, when the time came when real property was attacked, to bear them in mind. I am going to do that, but in a quite different way from that intended by these gentlemen. I contend that this Bill under Clause 8 does everyone of these things that these gentlemen are afraid are not going to be done. A man who builds a house creates something. He puts it on the land and adds to the value of the land. The man who owns the land creates nothing. He sits tight, and watches the community and the builder put up the houses on the land, and at the end of seventy-five years he comes along and pinches the houses. If that is not morally dishonest, I do not know what is.
  I want to deplore, if I may, what I hope is a temporary degeneracy of the Prime Minister. I say I hope it is only temporary. I am one of those who, seventeen or eighteen years ago, sat at his feet, and in this very House, as a temporary colleague of his, I was a member of a Committee appointed to endeavour to settle the terrible Penrhyn Quarry dispute. I have beard the mountains of North Wales resound with his pristine, vigorous eloquence. I do not believe, as other people do, that he has lost all his idealism. I believe his aberration is only temporary, and when he is convinced of the fickleness of the jade he is attempting to woo at present he will return to his old love with all his accustomed ardour. In this matter I "sigh for the touch of a vanished hand, and the sound of a voice that is still." I know something about this question. We have in Liverpool made heroic attempts to get over these difficulties, and we have been face to face with insurmountable difficulties. We have yet in

  1945
  Liverpool, in spite of all our efforts, culs-de-sac rejoicing in such euphonious titles as Rose Hill, the Lovers' Walk, Drinkwater Gardens, Paradise Street, and the rest of them. The only sign of horticulture or agriculture in some of these places is a decayed cabbage leaf. We have the Drinkwater right enough, for there is a common tap in the middle of the cul-de-sac where all the community drink, and as for Rose Hill, we have the stench pipes running up besides the windows. We have, too, cellar dwellings in Liverpool. I know something about them. I have lived in them. Men have to when they are employed at the docks. They are the only dwellings they can obtain very often, and there they have to live, in a fœtid atmosphere, with no backyard, with wet clothes hanging over their heads, with the whole place reeking of soapsuds from Monday morning till Saturday night, and yet for these places they have to pay a rent of many shillings a week. In Liverpool we get eighty houses to the acre, not twelve, and ground rents are paid to the ground landlord, ranging from 30s. to £4 per house. Behind the very walls of the Art Gallery at Liverpool, behind the very frame of a celebrated picture by Holman Hunt, a slaughter of the innocents is going on every day of every week, in filthy slums built on land owned by a Noble Lord in another place, who put up his rents 25 per cent. only last week. Does anyone wonder that the iron enters the soul of the working man when he thinks of these things?
  Let me put this concrete case. We had in Liverpool at one time a place called Kirkdale Gaol. That was built out of bricks made from the clay dug from a field opposite, of which the annual value was about £3 per acre. I understood that the erection of the gaol increased the value of that to £2,000 per acre. A short lease was given on that valuation to a man who was to dig the clay out of which to make the bricks to build the gaol. The bricks were made, the gaol was built, and a big quarry was left. Word was sent round to the manufacturers in the surrounding districts to come and dump all the rubbish into that quarry and for every load dumped 6d. was charged by the landlord. When it was filled up the land was sold to the jerry builder to build houses at a valuation of £2,000 per acre. Mark the sequel! The gaol in due course was pulled down. I remember as a boy seeing them put up the scaffold on which they hanged the men
  1946
  outside at the time when public executions took place. The bricks from the scaffold, and the bell which they used to toll at executions, were used for the purpose of a chapel which was built and which was attended by the land jobber and the jerry builder, who joined lustily in singing the Doxology—
  "Praise God from whom all blessings flow."
  What was the result? Eventually we had to apply to the Local Government Board for £7,000 to erect an infectious diseases hospital to accommodate the victims of this horrible iniquitous thing. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that while we welcome this Bill and support its principle it is time that he took his courage in both hands, and that the Government did so too. It is said that this is purely an experimental stage, but I hope the experimental stage is over. The experiment proves the necessity of doing away with the system which is responsible for the evils that have been mentioned in the House to-night. I am not blaming the landlord. He is a creature of circumstances. If I were a landlord I should probably do the same thing he has done. I am not blaming the men. Some of them are the best fellows I have ever met. One of them in particular is a personal friend of mine, and I hope always will be. I do not blame the men, but the system which allows an individual to do this kind of thing. The system certainly wants changing. I have touched upon one or two points in order that the right hon. Gentleman may see that we are as anxious as he is in this matter. When the Prime Minister talks about vested prejudices, I should like it to be conveyed to him that if there are prejudices existing they are at least well-founded and that there is some justification for their existence. The President told us last night that it might be possible to put tramways down which would convey the men to the suburbs. There is not a rail laid on the tramway system that does not run up the value of the land alongside it. May I give another instance? I am a member of the Liverpool Tramways Committee. We applied to the local landlord for a small strip of land, not wider than this House and not a quarter of a mile long, in order to lay a double track, with a junction. The price we had to pay was, I think, £7,000. How can you expect to house people under a system of this character? You cannot repeat Port Sunlight. The philanthropy of Lord Leverhulme and Sir

  1947
  W. P. Hartley has made it impossible to extend that system beyond the garden suburb. Every garden city enhances the value of the surrounding land, and that is how the vicious circle runs. While I welcome the Bill as a good instalment, I do say we have further to go than this Bill. It is true that patriotism does not end with war. The sons from the baronial hall and from the slums have fought together and died together to save this land, and I hope that the same spirit which animated them will animate us in order that we may save the position when the War is over.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): It is with considerable regret that I intervene just now in the Debate, because I know there are many Members who desire to speak and whose views we should have liked to hear. Unfortunately, we have only until 8.15 to get the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am certain the House will agree that however desirable it may be to have a full discussion now, we have had a full day and a-half of Debate, and we are particularly anxious to get the Second Reading to-day in order to set up the Committee on the Bill. We have already had to postpone the Second Reading. Probably the House will agree that we should get the Second Reading now, and it is only for that reason that I rise to clear up some of the points raised. May I say how much I regret we did not hear my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Sir A. Boscawen) who was to have taken part in the Debate. We who are interested in housing know how much he has done in preparing the ground for a Housing Bill. Indeed several Clauses in this Bill were taken absolutely en bloc out of the Boscawen Bill. Housing reformers owe a great deal to him for all the preliminary work he has done in the past. I, therefore, regret we have not had an opportunity of hearing his views this afternoon. My task is a very pleasant one. I was asked to wind up the Debate and deal with the criticisms. It is pleasant, because it is mainly one of clearing up a few doubtful points, inasmuch as hardly any criticism has been levelled at our proposals. In fact, I am absolutely amazed not only at the warmth of the reception accorded to our Bill, but at the quarters from which that warm reception has arrived. From almost
  1948
  every quarter hon. Members have got up and with almost the same voice they have blessed our proposals. The fact of the matter is that the War has made us face facts, and one very nasty fact we are up against, each one of us in our own constituencies, is that the conditions of our housing are a disgrace to a civilised country. We have just been through an election, and during that election all of us, whatever party we represented, asked the electors to return us in order that we should be able to build a new England—the sort of country for which the men who had fought gave up their lives, the sort of country they wanted their children to live in—a very different country with very different conditions from those they had known. We had a vision before us. In the past many have been criticised for being too idealistic and visionary. This Bill and the other measures of transport, land acquisition, and land settlement are going to be instruments which will enable us to convert that vision into a practical reality.
  I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the President on the second success he has had with big measures. He seems to have a peculiar aptitude for dealing in a non-controversial manner with what would normally be considered most controversial politics. The Bill we are now considering proposes to deal with the homes of the people. If the vision many of us had before us and the vision for which our men have laid down their lives is to be converted into a reality, then our children—no, not our children, but our contemporaries, will have an opportunity of living in very different homes than those in which our forefathers, our fathers, and we ourselves had to live. The question of the homes of the people is essentially a woman's question. We all of us experienced the great interest which during the election the women electors took in the problem of housing. After all, they understand as no man can possibly understand the problems of home and what maternity in less than half of one room means. The wild animal, when she gives birth to her young, seeks privacy and seclusion, but many women in this civilised and wealthy country have been deprived of that privilege of privacy and seclusion to which they were entitled. The women of England also know the difficulty of rearing a healthy family in crowded surroundings. They know, too, the awful havoc upon the morality of young girls which is wrought by the

  1949
  housing conditions and overcrowding, the huddling of men and women, boys and girls all together in inadequate housing accommodation. We are very apt to talk of the problem of our fallen sisters. Is there any man or woman who faces the problem of our fallen sisters who is prepared to say how much responsibility is due to the woman and how much responsibility is due to the circumstances and conditions in which she has had to live? There are very few women who are born bad, and if we are honest we must realise that we all of us, individually and collectively, have a grave responsibility for the bad housing conditions, because bad housing is a real factor in the production of immorality. The way in which to assist our fallen sister is not to provide her with rescue homes, but to provide her with a decent, clean, healthy home in which she can live.
  The main point which has worried some hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate has centred round finance. They wanted to know what the cost would be and whether we were going to be economical. Around finance hangs the question of the rents, and the attitude which the biggest authority, the London County Council, may take up, and around finance hangs also the future of the building trade. We are all agreed that it is absolutely essential that we should not be wasteful or extravagant. The War has cost so much that no one, whatever he wanted to do, would be justified in anything like extravagance. My right hon. Friend is the last man to spend 1d. unnecessarily, because he wants to get more money for the development of his health services. The more economically and the more wisely he can spend the money allocated and earmarked for housing, the more he will have to devote to the development of those health services which are so essential. Let me deal with finance under two headingls—first, the expenditure in building, and, secondly, economy in the management of the houses after they have been built. My right hon. Friend has already set about reorganising the Local Government Board. He has set up a special Housing Department. He has selected the best Civil servants to assist him in the administration and in framing this Bill and in dealing with Amendments, which will be put down. He has brought in the best experts he could from outside. He has also appointed eleven Housing
  1950
  Commissioners. We believe they are going to assist enormously. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) talked. of the crude plans which small local authorities were apt to put forward. We hope these Housing Commissioners will assist the local authorities in preparing their plans—not interfere with them, but assisting them—so that when the plans come up to the Local Government Board, instead of being what he calls crude they will be ready for approval. These Housing Commissioners will have on their staff architects, surveyors, and other experts to advise the local authorities in the preparation of their plans. We want the houses to be economical, but we also want them to be good. We want them to have all modern conveniences. We fully realise the importance of good sanitation and all modern methods. We are doing all we can for the local authorities. I have here a copy of a manual prepared for their guidance and assistance, when they are preparing the layouts and their site and town planning Our object is not to be bureaucratic, not to interfere, but to have available expert assistance for local authorities when they want it. We are setting up a special system of costing. We are trying to get standard specifications. We are going to scrutinise every penny, and by careful scrutiny and scanning from the centre we shall be able to see in any particular locality if the local authorities are extravagant, and we shall be able to compare the cost and the plans of one area with those submitted by another authority, and we believe in that way we shall be able to effect real economy and to prevent anything like extravagance in the erection of houses.
  Economy in management depends very largely on the rents which are charged for the houses that are going to be put up. The amount which the State will have to contribute will depend very largely upon the rents which are charged. I want to explain as clearly as I can, in order that the House may understand, the way in which we propose to deal with this question of rents. There are two extremes. There is, first of all, the pre-war rent of this type of house, and at the other extreme there is the rent which would have to be based on the present cost of setting up the houses. In between there are two other rents. There is the rent, a little higher than the pre-war rent, which is fixed by the Rent Restriction Act. Below

  1951
  the top rent is what I may describe as the economic rent of 1927. Our problem during the seven years from 1921 to 1927 is to get rents gradually up, so that in 1927 they will be economic rents. Various committees have looked into this. They are unanimous in saying it is not in the interests of any class or section of the community to have charity rents. They are all agreed that we want as soon as possible to encourage private building. The way to develop and encourage private building is to have an economic rent as soon as possible. I believe there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding with regard to the future of private building. We do not contemplate that the 1,800 local authorities will set up a staff of builders, carpenters, architects, and surveyors. We shall ask the local authorities to use the present builders. We want to use all the present builders and their staff. We do not want them to come in as speculative builders but as contractors. We want to use every builder we can. The limiting factor is not going to be bricks, as some hon. Members appear to think. So far as we can see, it is going to be shortage of skilled labour. Men in the building trade have been killed during the War, and men have not entered the building trade. We earnestly hope that hon. Members opposite will assist us in increasing the amount of skilled labour which will be available.
  So our proposal is so to fix rents that we shall arrive at what we all desire, namely, an economic rent in 1927. We shall first of all carefully scrutinise the rents charged by local authorities in 1921, and we shall be able to check the rents charged in one area by those normally charged at present in that area, and also by those which are being asked in the other areas, so that soon we shall get a very fair idea what the correct rent ought to be. We propose to adjust the State subsidy towards meeting the deficit at two periods—at the beginning and at the end of what we call the provisional period. In 1921 we shall prepare a balance-sheet. We shall make an estimate of the rents and the various outgoings, and if, with the produce of the 1d. rate, there is a deficit which cannot be met in 1921 by the rents, we shall meet it by a State subsidy, which will be a fixed amount during that period of seven years—the provisional period. If rents go up
  1952
  during these seven years, the local authority and the ratepayers will get the advantage through a reduction of the 1d. rate. Similarly in 1927 we shall have a final adjustment. We shall calculate the amount coming in from an economic rent in that year, and we shall see what the produce of the 1d. rate is, and if there is any deficit we propose to meet it with a State subsidy, and the State subsidy which we fix in 1927 will be a fixed amount for the remaining period of the loan. If rents go up, the 1d. rate will go down. If rents go down, the deficit will have to be met from the rates, but the State subsidy will be fixed in 1927 for the rest of the period of the loan. It is rather difficult to understand, and I hope I have made the position clear. Summing up, our policy and proposals are these: We want in 1927 to have an economic rent for these houses, because we all agree that charity rents are bad. Secondly, we want the increase during the seven years 1921–27 to be gradual, so that we arrive at the end of the period at what will be then an economic rent. In rural areas we want the same principle to be aimed at, namely, an economic rent, and we want the fixing of rents in rural areas to be settled in co-operation with the Wages Board. Lastly, the State subsidy which we fix in 1927 will be a fixed amount calculated to meet the difference between the cost of building now and the cost of building in 1927, when we hope conditions will be normal. That is our policy, and we hope everyone will assist us in carrying it out. After all, housing is a national problem. We are going to work through the local authorities. We do not want to be bureaucratic and run it all from Whitehall. This housing question, if it is to be dealt with satisfactorily must be dealt with by the local authorities, the elected representatives of the people, as well as by a Government Department, and we want every man and woman to assist us through public opinion, in carrying out the policy I have sketched.
  Mr. CLYNES: Has any estimate been made of the administrative cost of the system of State subsidies?
  Major ASTOR: I am afraid I cannot give any figure. The total cost will depend partly on the cost of building houses—I do not know what the cost will be—and partly on the number of houses which are put up and again we do not quite know what the total will be. I had rather

  1953
  not be pressed to give any figure because it would only be a guess, but we are going to make every effort to be as economical as possible in the machinery which we must set up and we believe we shall be able to effect considerable economies by decentralisation and by the excellent advice which the Housing Commissioners will be able to afford us.
  8.0 P.M.
  I come next to the question of London. We want the help of the London County Council and the London authorities just in the same way as we want help from all the other local authorities throughout the country. What is the charge at the present time levelled against the Local Government Board by some members of the London County Council? Their first charge is that we have broken faith with them in view of the offer made to them over a year ago. It is quite true that on behalf of the Government my right hon. Friend's predecessor did make an offer to the local authorities which was not accepted by the overwhelming majority of those local authorities. Because it was not acceptable it was withdrawn. The present plan was put forward and has been generally accepted by the local authorities. The London County Council has not incurred any cost under the previous proposal. It has not lost anything by the alteration, the change in the nature of the financial offer put before them. The second point the London County Council makes is that the second offer means a greater burden upon the rates of London. That may be, but even of this I have my doubts, because it depends upon the number of houses put up. At all events, we propose to treat London, the authority of London, exactly on the same terms as we propose to treat all the other authorities. We think it a fair offer that London should bear the same burden as every other authority in the country. Why did we make a change? Because the previous offer was inadequate. It was before the country for eight or ten months, and I am not giving anything away when I say that when my right hon. Friend went to the Local Government Board there were hardly any schemes either for houses or for sites. During the last fortnight we have approved as many schemes for sites as were approved by the Local Government Board during the whole of last year. At the present rate we shall in six weeks have approved of as many schemes for houses at the end of next fortnight,
  1954
  working as rapidly as we are doing, and assuming the schemes are submitted as rapidly as they are now being submitted, as were approved in the whole of last year under the previous offer.
  It is no good telling us, as a Noble Peer has done recently, that under the previous offer 150,000 houses would have been put up. We do not want 150,000 houses. Our own estimate, our own figures, inadequate as we believe they are, are for 400,000 houses here and now. So what is the good of telling us that the local authorities under the previous offer were prepared to put up 150,000 houses?
  Let us look at some of the special points in connection with London, because there are special points. The first point is that before the War the population in the London County Council area was diminishing. The people to an increasing extent were removing outside the London County Council area. I hope they will continue to do so.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are coming back!
  Major ASTOR: So that a large section of working-class dwellings would require to be put up in the neighbouring areas. That involves that particular local authority in some considerable expense. They require to look after the education of the children of the people who go there. The larger the number of people that leave the London County Council area the greater does the burden tend to be on the neighbouring authorities. We should encourage this principle of housing the people of London outside the London County Council area. Lately, in returning by aeroplane from a trip to Paris we saw, as we came over, that in the South of England the sun was shining, and we saw the bright countryside. As we approached London, I saw a mist ahead. The nearer London we got the thicker the mist became. When we got to London it was a thick fog. What we want to do is to encourage the people of London not to live and sleep in the fog, but to go out into the fresh air outside London. What an argument it is to tell us that because the produce of a 1d. rate in London would amount to £180,000 that, therefore, it is unfair to expect the London County Council to spend that amount! But what we do not yet know is this: What are the needs of London? The London County Council tells us that they want to spend £3,500,000. What, how-

  1955
  ever, we want to know is an estimate of their necessity, not what they desire to spend, or think ought to be spent. What are the housing needs of the people—quite a different proposal! We also find fault with the proposal of the London County Council to undertake a certain expenditure over a period of seven years. We are asking other authorities to put up the houses in the next two or three years. Why should not the people of London have their houses provided in the next two or three years? Next, there are three alternative authorities that can deal with the housing problem of London. First of all, there are the Metropolitan borough councils. Secondly, there is the London County Council. Thirdly, there is what I may call the authorities connected with Greater London. As far as possible we want to have the needs of London dealt with as a co-ordinated whole. What we say to the London County Council—what I say now is—we want to know what you propose to do to meet the needs of London. I refuse to believe that the greatest authority in England will not give my right hon. Friend the same response as other authorities have given. I refuse to believe that the London County Council will not meet their housing obligations in the same way as other authorities in the rest of the country. I believe, and sincerely hope, that we shall get that assistance in London that I know we are going to get from the authorities in the rest of the country.
  I think I have dealt with the main points raised in the Debate, though there are many others I should have liked to deal with had there been time. I will only, however, say one thing—I will not deal with the matter in detail—in relation to the criticism of hon. Members as to the basis on which we propose to acquire land. I hope they will realise that the basis on which the land is acquired is really dealt with in the Land Acquisition Act. Clause 8 of this Bill really only deals with slum property. I hope they will bear this in mind—for I have not time to go into it now—and study the basis set up in Clause 8 in connection with the proposals made in Sections (2) and (4), I think, of the Land Acquisition Act.
  Hon. Members during the Debate have referred to the high cost involved in our proposals. I have tried to explain to the House the steps which we propose to prevent anything like
  1956
  waste. It is no good, however, for me to say that this housing scheme which we have put forward is not going to be expensive—is not going to involve the expenditure of money. We are going to deal with this housing problem adequately. We want the assistance of every authority. We want to decentralise as far as possible, for that is the whole essence of democratic government. When we talk of expense and cost let us realise that everything is comparative, and let us measure the cost of our housing proposals by the cost of Bolshevism to the country and the cost of revolution. The money we propose to spend on housing is an insurance against Bolshevism and revolution. What is the cost to the country of industrial unrest and strikes? You have only to realise the conditions under which many men and women live to realise that unrest is fully justified. You have to measure also the cost to the community of having thousands of C 3 men and women. When we realise what these people have done during the War, in spite of so many of them being C 3 men and women, we ask is there any limit to what the people of this country could do if they were an A 1 people?
  Insanitary and unhealthy surroundings and the problem of venereal disease cause and help to make C3 men and women, and I regret to say C3 children. Have you ever tried to realise the cost and the loss to the community of the girl who has been driven from slums and by surroundings on to the streets, and who, after infecting a number of men, has been driven into hospital? If we can only assess values truly, if we can only assess the value to this country of an A1 population and assess the loss of having C3 men and women and children, I believe the House will agree that our housing proposals are cheap, that the best way of arriving at national solvency and happiness and contentment is to sweep away the slums which are a disgrace to this country, and I sincerely hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not only allow us to have the Second Reading now, but that they will support us in Committee in opposing all attempts to weaken the fundamental proposals of this Bill. If they do that we shall be doing a great deal to make a new and better country for the great people that live in it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PENSIONS FOR MOTHERS.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, pensions adequate for a healthy and useful life should be paid to all widows with children or mothers whose family breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pensions to be provided by the State and administered by a committee of the municipal or county council wholly unconnected with the Poor Law."
This Motion deals with a subject which has never been discussed in this House before, and I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has used the best and strongest argument possible in favour of accepting this Motion. He has explained that under bad housing conditions it is impossible to rear a nation of A1 men and women. If the boys and girls have not the opportunity of being well fed and clothed you cannot expect to raise a nation of A1 men and women, and consequently I am somewhat encouraged by the remarks of my hon. Friend to think that he and the Government are prepared to give a sympathetic consideration to this Motion. I have just said that this question has never been discussed in the House of Commons before, but it is not an impracticable proposition. We have evidence from the other side of the Atlantic that it has been put into operation there with great success, for in twenty-five States in the United States out of forty-eight there is a system of mothers' pensions in operation. That is to a large extent the result of the good work done by Judge Neil, who came over to this country at the invitation of a number of associations that have been giving some consideration to the question of mothers' pensions. Those associations have made inquiries into the present method of dealing with orphan children, and investigations have shown that the present system is not a good one, but, indeed, that it is a bad one, and consequently we of the Labour party are taking this opportunity of inviting the Government to take up the question of the payment of mothers' pensions.
1958
Some people may say that there is no necessity for the payment of mothers' pensions. I have heard people say that it is the duty of every man responsible for bringing a child into the world to make proper provision for the maintenance of that child. It is absolutely impossible for the great bulk of the working men and some of the professional classes to make proper provision for their families. Let me illustrate the position of the skilled worker. Suppose a man who is a skilled workman getting good wages gets married at the age of twenty-seven or twenty-eight, and sometimes earlier. He has a family of three, four, or even five children. That man may die, say, at the age of forty, leaving a widow and children. The man may have spent all he had saved furnishing the home. As a prudent man probably he would be a member of some friendly society and probably a trade union as well. When he dies there is the funeral or deaths benefit of £10 from the friendly society and £10 from his trade union, and he may have insured his life for 4d. or 6d. per week, and there may be £20 insurance money, and his widow would receive; altogether about £40. Now how far is that going to help the widow to bring up a family of four or five children? She cannot do it. This is the position of nine-tenths of the skilled workmen in the country. If the skilled workman cannot leave his widow in a position to maintain her children in decency and comfort, then something better than we have now ought to be done.
Let me go a little bit further, and illustrate what to my own knowledge has happened in two or three cases within the last few years. I have in mind the case of a man whom I knew pretty well, and who died when thirty-six years of age, leaving a widow with four children, three of them being under four years of age. The widow was expecting to become a mother again. He had insured his life for £100, and when the whole of the funeral expenses were paid there was £84 or £85 left for the widow. She, being in the state that she was, was unable to obtain work of any kind, but she kept the home on—perhaps she was not wise—believing that when she was fit to keep house again she would be able to make a living by taking in lodgers or letting a room. Unfortunately, when she was well enough to do housework, her money was gone, and the letting of rooms and the taking in of

1959
lodgers did not materialise. She sold some of her furniture, and eventually she stored as much furniture as would furnish two bedrooms and one living room and went to another part of the country and got work in a munition factory. She had been weakened owing to the struggle that she had had to make both ends meet and to keep her children decently clothed and fed, with the result that the dust and the hard work and a cold brought on rapid consumption. She was in her grave sixteen months after her husband died. The baby only lived four or five weeks after she died, and there was nothing for the children but to be taken into the workhouse unless someone was generous enough to come forward and maintain them. As a matter of fact some of her relatives did adopt some of the children, and they are in a good and comfortable home. Another case which occurs to my mind is that of a widow with five children. After her husband died she took in sewing and endeavoured to the best of her ability to maintain her children, denying herself all the luxuries of life and sometimes the necessaries of life. Two of the children won scholarships to a higher-grade school, but the mother's health, owing to the privations which she had undergone, broke down, and they had to be taken away from school and sent out to work to enable the mother to get nourishment and to keep the home going until she could work again.
I submit that this ought not to be in a highly civilised country like this. There is more than that to be borne in mind. Children who are brought up under such conditions have not the opportunity of developing the best that is in them. They have not the opportunity of becoming A1 men and women, and, if we wish to have a nation of A1 men and women, then the Government will not only have to subsidise houses, but they will have to subsidise mothers who are unable to maintain their orphan children in decency and comfort. It is said that there are some excellent institutions. There are, but the girls and boys brought up in the best of those institutions I am inclined to think are simply machine-made. They are brought up to a pattern; they have not an opportunity of developing the best that is in them. Many of those institutions are managed in the best possible manner, but they are not homes. A mother understands the temperaments of her children, and she
1960
knows when to give way and when to be firm. Unfortunately, generally speaking, those who look after the children in these institutions are always firm. A mother understanding her children always does her utmost to bring out the best that is in them, and she endeavours to encourage them and to bring out the individuality of the child more than they do in institutions. In my opinion, the fact that the mother does this makes better citizens of them. They are a better asset to the nation, and the only thing wanted is that the mother shall be placed in a position which shall enable her to bring up her children decently and in comfort, to make, them so far as she possibly can forget the loss of their father. We want the State in this case to take the place of the father.
I do not suggest that there ought not to be some supervision in connection with the payment of pensions to mothers. There would have to be supervision. While we recognise that a mother's love is the best love in the world—there is nothing like it—we have also to admit that there are some mothers who forget that they are mothers. Therefore, the State would have to be satisfied that the mothers' pensions were being well spent. Some people say, "Look at the cost of it." Personally, I have not made any estimate of the cost—it is the principle that I am concerned with—but surely after the way that we have raised money in the last four and a half years, I will not say to destroy life, but to safeguard civilisation, we can find money to give pensions to mothers. It is estimated that with £20;000,000 per year reasonable pensions could be paid to mothers, but do not let hon. Members run away with the idea that if it does cost £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 a year the money is lost, because money spent in this way, if it is paid out of taxes, will save the rates. I am told that it costs two and a half times less to keep a child in its own home under its mother's care than in an institution. Therefore, from that standpoint it is economy to see that the children are well fed, well housed, and well clothed. I am also informed that at the present time it costs 20s. per week for each child maintained, housed, and clothed at some of the Metropolitan Poor Law schools. If it costs 20s. per week to keep a child in those schools, I venture to suggest that if £3 per week were paid to a widow with five children it would maintain them quite as well, and probably better, and they would be happier in every respect in their

1961
own homes than in those Poor Law institutions, and we should save money on the deal.
From that standpoint alone, in my opinion, it is practical economy. The State recognises that it is the duty of the State to maintain the orphans of soldiers and sailors who fell in the War. I may be dense, but I cannot see any reason why, if a man who has been working in a munition factory and whose life has been shortened by long hours or by contracting some disease, leaves a wife and little children, that that widow and those children should not be recognised in the same way by the State as the widow and children of a soldier or sailor who has fallen in battle. It is no use trying to make A1 men and women of the sons and daughters of soldiers who have been killed, and at the same time to say that the children of the artisans who die shall not have the same chance. Therefore, seeing that we recognise our responsibilities to the children of deceased soldiers and sailors, I claim that we have a perfect right to ask the Government to recognise, in the interests of the State, and with the object of making better citizens, that pensions should be paid to widowed mothers. In my opinion, and this is the opinion of a large number of people who have interested themselves in the methods and systems of public institutions, very often some of these institutions are a stepping-stone to the prison or the reformatory. We know that neglected children meet with temptations in the streets, which lead often to immorality. We know that the children of a woman who is compelled, owing to the fact that she is a widow and has not sufficient money to keep herself and her children and has to go out to work, are neglected. That means that the home is neglected, and if the children are running wild in the streets we all know what that means. The woman who is left in such circumstances such as I have suggested is very often herself driven on to the streets to lead an immoral life in order to maintain herself and her children, and eventually she deserts the children and leaves them to go into public institutions.
On the ground of humanity, with the object of making the best of our human assets in this country, with the object of reducing crime and immorality, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give a promise that if he cannot accept this Motion he will accept the principles contained in it. The children of women placed in the circum-
1962
stances I have mentioned would, if pensions were given on the lines suggested, be able to lead a healthier and happier life than at the present time. What we really want is to see the children of a widowed mother placed in exactly the same position as the children of a man and woman living next door. We do not want a position to arise in which the children next door can point to the children of the widow and say, "Your mother is receiving parish relief." We want the State to recognise its responsibility and to provide the money required for the maintenance of the mother and children in the way suggested. These children, if they are given opportunities for making their way in the world, will relieve the State of the maintenance of the mother when they become old enough to work. Therefore, I claim that from every standpoint, moral, physical, and intellectual, and also from the standpoint of economy, it would be wise on the part of the Government to adopt the principle contained in this Motion.
I do not want to depend upon illustrations which I know myself to be true, but I would like to refer to letters written in response to a leaflet issued by an association which has taken considerable interest in this matter. There are any numbers of letters, but I will only read one. It is dated, London, 13th January, 1919:
"My own case is one of many. I was left with four little children under four years six years ago. Since then my health was bad. I have been forced to part with some of my little ones, and even now it is a grief to visit them in Poor Law schools. Certainly they are looked after, but they have not a mother's love or home comforts which are essential to a child's, happiness and health. I have proved myself the difference in the two children away and the two I work hard to keep; one has only to look to see which are the happier. My husband done his bit for his country years ago, but if ever I wanted assistance in illness I am told, if my husband were serving, it would be different. Surely his children have as much right to live as any others, but apparently because they have not a father they must not expect to get a place in the world. But I have to be father and mother, and while I live I shall fight to give my little ones what they have a perfect right to—a happy home."
There are other letters in a similar strain. That letter proves what is really thought by the women who have lost their breadwinners. Whilst we are dealing with many social subjects that ought to have been dealt with years ago, whilst we recognise that all these social reforms and problems of reconstruction cost

1963
money, I also recognise that this scheme will cost money. If the spending of millions upon better houses—and I agree to the fullest possible extent with the argument in favour of the Housing Bill—is justified, let the hon. Gentleman realise that unless he does something for these widows they will not be able to live in these better houses, but will have to continue to live in the slums in the cheapest houses they can get. Let it be remembered also that these women are the prey of the sweater. The sweater makes bargains with these women, knowing that they cannot refuse to accept any price that is offered to them for doing certain work. I am fully aware of the trades boards, but the trades boards do not reach to every nook and cranny in the slums of this country. If we are to build houses fit for men and women to live in, let us, at the same time, have pensions for mothers, and make the boys and girls who come from the homes of these widows fit men and women of this country.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: For the second time I crave the indulgence of the House. I had to go to the mines at a very early age and I had to finish what schooling I got in that severe university of practical experience, the mine. Therefore, I hope hon. Members will give me a little sympathy when I am dealing with so important a matter as this. I desire to associate myself with the eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend. This is the most human case that could be put before the House. It is for the children of this nation that we are pleading now. I believe it was the Prime Minister who said on one occasion that we could not expect to build up an A1 nation with a C3 people, and I entirely agree. The children of the nation are its greatest asset, and I know of none greater The ravages of the War have to be made good, and we can only do that by bringing up a sturdy race of British people, and we have got to commence with the children. There is an old saying that God helps those who help themselves, but the widow and her children are placed in such a position that it is impossible for them to get beyond a state of poverty and want. There can be no good reason shown for this. Why should the wife and children of an honest man who has done his best for his nation be called upon to suffer penury and want? The duty of the State is to see that those children have a decent chance in life, and
1964
a chance equal at least to that of the children of the ordinary worker. From my experience as a guardian of the poor, I desire to bring two instances which came under my notice before the House. First of all, let me take the case of the children who have lost both father and mother. There the guardians adopt the children and become father and mother to them. Boards of guardians who know their duty are not contented with placing those children in barracks of whatever description. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are some schools where good work is being done, but, after all, home life is something that would tend to make better citizens than even barrack life. My experience as a guardian is that once you invoke the aid of the Poor Law, as we know it now, in after life the people come back again to it, and we want if possible to avoid that position. Where the children are adopted there is usually a committee of the guardians charged with the duty of looking after them and of seeing that the best is being done for them, and I desire to say here that some good results have accrued from the action of guardians in meeting the difficulty in that way.
But what of the children of the widow, or of the wife of a man who has been incapacitated from work by disease or accident? The mother goes to the guardians and she is told that because she is under sixty years of age and able bodied no relief whatever can be given to her, and that she must work. But that does not seem to be sufficiently cruel for the Poor Law, because instead of giving to the mother as in the other case some 7s. 6d. or 10s. per week per child, she is only given 2s. or 3s. per week with which to bring up three, four, or five children as the case may be, and that is a totally impossible task for any woman to undertake. Very often prior to the death of the father the parents lived in a decent house with the rent probably a little high, and oftentimes in my own hearing guardians have told mothers that they must get cheaper houses, so that the few shillings given to them may enable them to lead a miserable existence. Thus the woman is driven from a good home into the slums with all her children, and the result inevitably is that instead of being brought up as good citizens they become subjects for sanatoria or industrial schools or reformatories and prisons and in the case of the girls far worse than death. That

1965
is the position to-day in highly civilised England as to the treatment of the children of the fatherless. I desire to do what I can to remove that stain, and I plead with the House and with the Government to at once set about this work. Sometimes the bitter thought has crossed my mind when dealing with these matters, that it would have been better for the children if the mother had died also, because then something would have been done for the children, whereas under present circumstances the mother and children are left to drift into penury and want on every conceivable occasion. There have been instances where the authorities have taken the children from the mother and have placed them in cottage homes at a cost of something like 19s. per week per head, when those institutions were first opened. I believe that the figure to-day is anywhere from 15s. to 16s. per week, and that is made up of 5s. for food and clothing, 5s. for redemption and interest and 5s. for management. It would have been far better to have given the mother and the children that money than to send them to any home. Under those circumstances the children would have had the advantage of parental control. As a magistrate I have had the experience of seeing children brought before the court for some little delinquency. The presiding magistrate, who may be kindly enough in his way, may speak of them as badly trained children, but he forgets that the mother has to work from early morning till late at night to get the wherewithal to keep the children. The mother may be told that she ought to see to it that her children are better boys and girls, but what control can she exercise over them when she is away from morning till night working? But the most tragic thing of all is the after life of these children. They have no chance whatever, but immediately on attaining the age of fourteen at the very outside they must find some work to do, because any relief from the guardians then ceases, and they are bound to take the most menial occupation that is offered, drifting into blind alleys, and finally landing into that class that this country knows to its detriment is far too crowded, and becomes a menace in the time of depression—I mean the class of the general labourer—and this is the position of these children all the while. I could detail other matters, but I do not wish to weary the House. The help that is necessary should
1966
be immediately given, and I beg of the Government to start this good work at the very earliest opportunity. I ask the endorsement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board of what we are seeking, for, after all, the tragedy is of so great a character that it requires every assistance that is possible to be found, for the sake of saving these children to the nation. In conclusion, I believe, and I am sure that both hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree with me, that once this nation has learned to give this help at the time when it is necessary, when it has enacted that godlike law of the brotherhood, aye, and the sisterhood, of its citizens, then I believe, will evolve that nobler, that brighter, and that new England that we are all desirous of securing.
Major P. MALONE: I am glad that the first word I am speaking in this House since my election is to be spoken on behalf of the widow and children. I thank the Mover of this Motion for having brought it forward, because it has given me an opportunity of discharging a pledge that I gave to the people in my district on a similar Motion. I had it in my address as a measure for immediate consideration. As a magistrate and as chairman of my bench, I have had several cases brought to my notice which showed me clearly that something in this way was required. I have had experience also as a charity trustee of the division and as chairman of the school board. Therefore, these cases have come to my notice numerously and frequently, and I sincerely hope that this House to-night will pass this Resolution and that the Government will take it in charge and see that it is carried out without any further delay. I would only point out that the Poor Law institutions to which these children would have to go are not popular in any part of the country, and I hope they never will be popular. I hope that the Government will take over these institutions and see that the children are properly cared for. There is one other claim whereby these children should get the support of the State. Assuming that this mother struggles to bring up her children—her boys, for instance—until they are eighteen years of age, what does the State do on that occasion? In the case of an emergency such as we have recently gone through it comes in and conscripts those boys and makes them do their duty, and rightly too. But, at the same time, I hold that it is the duty of the State to see

1967
that the children in the State are properly looked after, and I thank the Mover of this Motion for having brought it forward.
9.0 P.M.
Lieutenant - Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: There are a very few words I wish to add, because the two speeches of the Mover and Seconder have so fully and eloquently dealt with the subject that there is very little left to say. But I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for having brought this matter forward, because I have long had it at heart, and I am pleased to think it is now brought within the range of practical politics. For several generations we have staunchly and mechanically pursued the creation of wealth and imagined that human welfare was bound to ensue. But now, thank goodness, we have reversed the process and placed the emphasis on the human welfare, and if I were asked to describe in a sentence what we are doing in this House now, I should say we are trying our best to humanise and Christianise our industrial system. I am thankful to say that we have met with a great measure of success, and nobody rejoices more than I do that large categories of workers are now receiving an adequate standard of life. But there are large categories of people in this country whom we have done very little good to at the present moment. There is what used to be called the residuum, there is the sweated worker, the sweated woman and the stunted child, the casual worker, and the man who is poor simply and solely because the poverty of his parents has condemned him to poverty, and few will, I imagine, feel disposed to dissent from what William Morris once wrote:
"If civilisation does not aim at giving some share of the happiness and dignity of life to all the people that it has created it is simply an organised injustice, all the harder to overthrow because supported by such a dense mass of commonplace comfort and well-being."
There is no more pitiful person in our society than the widowed mother, who perhaps when her husband was alive was in fairly comfortable circumstances. If she is left with three or four children she has three sorrowful alternatives. She must either institutionalise her children, or she must pauperise them, or she must work herself to the bone in order to keep them alive. As a matter of fact, she generally breaks down under the trial, and she is in effect the most sweated worker in our midst. This scheme which the hon.
1968
Member for Westhoughton has brought forward is, I consider, based first of all on the principles of justice, reason, and sound national economy. It is based on principles of justice, because what is there more unjust than that a woman, simply because she is poor, should have her children taken away from her? It is based on principles of reason, because what is more reasonable than to suppose that the influence of the home and the influence of the mother is ten times better for the child than the influence of any institution, however well managed? And it is based on sound national economy, because there is no greater fallacy than to suppose that it is to the national advantage that children should be brought up ill-nurtured. As a matter of fact, if you analyse the inhabitants of our asylums, our prisons, and all the great unemployable casual workers, you will find that nine out of ten in their early youth and in their childhood have been underfed and neglected.
As for the details of the scheme, it is, I understand, proposed that the scale of pension should be somewhat similar to what is given under the Army Regulations for separation allowances—that is, 16s. for the mother, 7s. for the first child, 5s. for the second, 3s. 6d. for the third, and 3s. for each additional child. The hon. Gentleman who moved this said it was impossible to give any exact estimate of the cost, but I have been told that if widows only are given a pension the cost would come to some £10,000,000. Of course it would be greater if you added the deserted wives and their children, and also the wives of men who are incapable of working. It is not a large sum, and against that there will be something to write off in respect to the widows under the Poor Law and the children in reformatory schools. I believe we know very little indeed about the number of widows either in receipt of out-relief or in workhouses, which, I cannot help thinking, is somewhat a reflection on the Local Government Board. All we do know is that an outdoor pauper, whether adult or juvenile, costs some £7 17s. 6d. a year, whereas a child in a Poor Law school in the Metropolitan area used to cost £37 a year and now costs £52 a year. I do not see why one should not assume, also, there might be a reduction in the number of children in our reformatory schools.

1969
One of the strongest reasons for the wonderful popularity of this scheme in America is that they found a large percentage of delinquent children were children of fathers who had died. I noticed the other day that the Corporation of Glasgow instituted an inquiry into juvenile delinquency in Glasgow, and they found it was to a very large extent caused by the dreadful neglect. It seems commonsense that if you give back to the parent the children, there will be less juvenile delinquents in the country, and, what is more, give the mother time to look after the child. Of course, a good deal of the success of such a scheme as this would result from the supervision you gave to it. What measure of ill-success has attended this scheme in America is due to the fact that they have not got such good machinery for supervision as that which is available in England. In America the supervision is to a very large extent left in the hands of the Juvenile Courts. I think we can do better than that. In this country we have, for instance, health visitors, school attendance officers, children's care committees, maternity and infant welfare committees, and, if the Poor Law is reformed, we shall have home assistance committees, so that there is no need in this country, at all events, to set up special machinery for the carrying out of this scheme.
There is only one more point to which I would allude. I saw a criticism in the "Morning Post"—I think it was this morning—in which it was said that it would lead to great extravagance because the cost would be borne by the State and the administration would be by the local authority. As a matter of fact, the scheme proposes that 25 per cent. of the cost should be borne by the local authority, so that the local authority would have a considerable stimulus to carry out this scheme economically. All I can say in conclusion once more is to thank the hon. Member for having brought this forward, and I do most sincerely hope the Government will give it a favourable consideration and bring in legislation at no very distant date to carry out the idea of the scheme.
Major O'NEILL: If this Motion were to go to a Division this evening, I should certainly vote for it. I do not wish to bind myself to the exact terms of the Motion, because, as the hon. Gentleman who introduced it stated, this is a matter
1970
which has never before been brought in a practical way before the House of Commons, but it seems to me that the principle of this Motion is incontrovertibly beneficial to the country. What is it really that is aimed at by this? It seems to me that what we are asking for is a system of pensions to cover the case of a widow and her children who do not at present come within the Workmen's Compensation Act, and for whom, at present, the State, or even local authorities, make no provision. Hon. Members who have spoken have referred in eloquent terms to the immense value of the home to the children of this country. I think it was His Majesty the present King who on one occasion stated that the strength of England lies in the homes of her people. Never was truer words stated, and I do think it is a most melancholy and depressing thought when we consider the case of these widows whose husbands do not come within the Workmen's Compensation Act. The woman has just lost her husband. She is distraught by the grief and anguish of his death. Then, in addition to that, she suddenly finds herself in a position to be unable even to support her children, whom she may love as truly as she loved her husband that is gone. What can she do but put them out in some institution or other. Institutions are excellent in their way, and I do not wish to say a word against them, but institutions are impersonal things, and no institution, however well managed, or with whatever amount of care and thought it is carried on, can, under any circumstances or under any conceivable conditions, replace the home as a suitable place to bring up young children. In my opinion, sooner or later, this reform is certain to come. The mere fact that the women of the country now have the vote makes it certain that its advent will be brought much nearer, since this Parliament was elected on this franchise, than it ever was before in the days of former Parliaments. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion referred to the visit of Judge Neil to this country. I think his visit did a great deal of good in helping to bring this question before the country. Judge Neil is an American judge, and he came to this country, as far as I understand, to put before it and to explain the system of mothers' pensions in the United States of America. I believe that thirty out of the States of the American Union have

1971
already adopted the system of mothers' pensions and with very beneficial results, as the Noble Lord who has just spoken has stated. Judge Neil, as well as visiting this country, went to Ireland, and visited Dublin, Belfast, and Coleraine. As representing an Irish constituency, I should like to give the House a few figures in regard to this matter in Ireland. In 1916 the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland cost £1,400,000. I am taking these facts from a pamphlet issued by the Irish branch of the Mothers' Pensions Society. Widows and children accounted for a large proportion of this expenditure. There were 4,000 children in Irish workhouses, 2,500 boarded out, and 1,000 in Poor Law schools. Industrial schools cost £176,000 per annum; reformatories, £90,000. In addition, the Irish asylums contain large numbers of women, many of whom may possibly have found their way there owing to the hardships and the deprivations which they suffered by being placed in this impecunious position by the death of their husband. In 1916, £123,000 was spent by charitable institutions in dealing with the children who were left destitute in this way. I feel that it is most important, at any rate as far as it affects the welfare of many poor persons in Ireland, that this reform should come about at as early a date as possible.
I cannot, of course, refrain from referring to the cost in this matter, and no doubt the cost will largely figure in the speech from the Government Bench when it comes to be made. Nobody realises more than I do the vital necessity for economy at this moment. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution rather adopted, I thought, a point of view which the other day was deprecated by a colleague of his, the right hon. Gentleman the late Food Controller. He said something to the effect that with all the millions that had been spent in this War surely the comparatively small number of millions which this reform would mean was of little consequence! I do not want to approach it in that way, for I think the feeling that, because we have spent millions in the War, it does not matter what we spend millions on now, is one of very great danger to the financial future of the country. We must consider this question to a great extent from the point of view of cost and the point of view of economy. We know, first of all, that if pensions for mothers were introduced they
1972
must mean, by the very nature of things, a saving in the poor rate and in charitable donations which are at present given. Generally, I think, another saving could be made, and should be made at the earliest possible moment, by the more economical administration of Government Departments in general. Out of that, at any rate, you could provide something towards the institution of this pension. There is one aspect of the matter, possibly it will not appeal altogether to the hon. Gentleman who moved and seconded this Motion, of which we should not lose sight. I mention it purposely, after having referred to the question of economy, because I want all avenues of approach to this question to be considered. I am going to mention the possibility that this scheme, or at any rate some part of the scheme, may be put on a contributory basis. I have before me the copy of a resolution which was unanimously passed in September of last year by the National Conference of Friendly Societies. That resolution was in the following terms:
"That this conference considers the provision of annuities for widows and children of persons who have died from sickness to be an essential factor in any scheme of national reconstruction, as well as a necessary preliminary to the constitution, on a sound basis, of a Ministry of Health, and urges on the Government the necessity of preparing and bringing into operation a scheme providing such annuities. The conference would remind the Government that there is already in existence for the successful carrying out of this great object a complete and efficient administrative machinery in the registered friendly societies and approved societies."
That, of course, is a resolution in favour of a reform of this nature based on a contributory system. With regard to that I have had furnished to me some figures. These figures are not strictly actuarial, but they have been worked out by one of the miners' benefit societies from their experience in paying pensions to widows of men who have died as the result of accidents in mines. This may, at any rate, be some rough guide as to what a contributory scheme would cost. To pay an annuity of £26 to each widow there should be a total weekly contribution of 11¾d. For an annuity of £6 10s. for each child under fourteen there is a contribution of 3¼d. Then they had a grant of £30 to the parents or next-of-kin of a single man or a widower leaving no dependants, with a contribution of 1¼d. They loaded the weekly contribution, in order to dispense with the waiting period, with 1¼d., and the total joint weekly contribution was

1973
1s. 7d. If a contributory scheme were introduced the total contribution should be so loaded that the payment should come into operation even though the man died the very day after introducing these provisions, so that there would be no having to wait so many weeks after contributions had begun before anybody was paid a pension. Taking that weekly contribution figure of 1s. 7d., it might be divided something as follows: 10d. to be paid by the person, 6d. by the State, and 3d. by the employer. Of course, I do not stick to these figures, but I think that it would be extremely foolish to rule out the system of contributory pensions altogether as being impracticable and impossible, because many reforms have come much later than otherwise they would have done, simply because those who were anxious to get them, in their natural desire to get everything at once, threw away opportunities of getting something a great deal less more quickly.
Earlier in this Session I put a question on this matter to the Leader of the House. I asked him whether the Government were prepared to introduce a scheme of State-aided pensions to widows with necessitous children? and his reply was that it could not be done. In a supplementary question I asked whether the matter could not be made part of the general scheme of reconstructional reform, and the reply was to the effect that the matter had been carefully considered, and that, at any rate, for the moment it was thought to be impracticable. I shall await with great interest the reply of the Government upon this matter to-night. Surely we are entitled to expect great results from these pensions when they come. There are many people who opposed the old age pensions, yet I do not think that there is any man to-day, in whatever part of the House he may sit, who does not realise that the system of old age pensions has proved an inestimable benefit to the old people of this country. I consider that this scheme of pensions when it comes will prove of equal benefit in this case, and perhaps even more important, for it is not to the old people we have to look for the future of the country, but to the younger people, including these young widows, and, above all, to the children of the country who will be the men and women upon whom the country must depend for its future greatness and power. This is, in my opinion, a very important reconstructional reform, and I think it will do as much as, if not
1974
more, than any of the reconstructional proposals which have come before this House, to bring about that better state of contentment and comfort of the people that promised land, which we were told we were to look for, and which we hope to obtain as a result of all the sorrows, sacrifices, and horrors of the great War.
Mr. REMER: The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) said that this Resolution was tending to Christianise the legislation of this country. I hope that that is so. If all legislation is to be approached by this House in the spirit of Christ, we shall not have many controversies when it is a question of beneficial projects coming up for discussion. I would like first to bring before the House a case which came under my notice in the very early days of my association with a big works. One of the workmen was killed. He left a widow with six children. The eldest of them was eight years old. As the House will readily understand, a widow in those circumstances has a very poor chance of earning her living. She has to rely entirely upon what I may term charity. This woman received the workman's compensation, but it was utterly inadequate to maintain her even with the bare necessities of life. A subscription list was opened for her benefit. I think that the workmen in the works itself subscribed £150, and altogether, including what the firm subscribed, there was something like £300 subscribed for her. She invested that £300, foolishly as I thought at the time, in a shop. The shop was a failure in a very few years, mainly through her bad business methods, and she was practically destitute again.
What chance is there for a woman of that kind? I see very little prospect of any chance for her in life. In giving that case I think I make it clear that I am in favour of the principle of this Resolution. I think that Labour Members opposite, if they detest anything, detest charity, and I detest it also. We want to try to get to bedrock, to get rid of this charity, to do something which will get away from the feeling which they have when they have to come to rich people or people who have money or to their fellow workmen—for there are no more charitable people than fellow workmen. Time and again I have found that fellow workmen have come to their benefit and given as much as 6s. out of their weekly wage, which they could ill-spare, to the destitute funds,

1975
and if the rich people gave in proportion to what the poor workmen give, there would be a great deal more for charitable institutions given in this country. In order to get away from charity, I do not think that the Resolution does exactly what hon. Members opposite are desirous of doing. In place of the Poor Law they are submitting a committee of municipal and county councils. I ask them to consider whether such a committee would not in a very short time be just as objectionable as the Poor Law is at the present moment, and whether there might not be that spirit of inquiry into the circumstances of the person to which they object, which is so detestable from my point of view as much as from theirs. And also that there is a certain amount of taint—the taint of the Poor Law is the phrase to which they object—there is just as much objection to the taint of a pension as there is to the taint of Poor Law. I am trying to put forward an alternative scheme which, I think, would forward the views that hon. Members have in mind.
I feel as strongly as most people on this point, and have been in correspondence with the Pensions Minister upon it. But that is not the particular matter I wish now to refer to. As many hon. Members are no doubt aware, I am a keen advocate of profit-sharing, and in my own works I have a profit-sharing scheme administered by a committee. I believe something in the nature of a works committee which will provide these pensions out of the profits which are made is a more desirable thing to be achieved. If you have a works committee meeting at frequent intervals to discuss all matters which are pertinent to the works and to the welfare of the workers—their pensions and their salaries, and what is still more important the true interests of the firm, in that way we might achieve all that we desire in the matter of production. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) in an earlier debate this evening mentioned the question of production, and said what was absolutely true, that in certain cases employers had not done their duty, and therefore the workers were suspicious of them. I am sure that if we had in every works a Workers Committee to discuss not only the question we are debating to-night, but also other questions connected with the works, it would be to the advantage not only of the works, but also of the workers. When one gets to the bedrock of the
1976
matter it is clear the interests of the workers and employers are identical. I am deeply in favour of the principle which underlies this Resolution, and shall vote for it if it goes to a Division.
Major BIRCHALL: I wish to support the Resolution, and I cannot help thinking it is a very happy coincidence that this Resolution should have come on to-night, following as it does a two days' Debate on housing, and I can only hope that the Minister in charge will be able to accept the Motion as a sort of coping-stone of the structure which we began to raise this afternoon. Earlier in the day we were discussing the provision of decent houses. This Motion provides for the keeping together of families which would otherwise be scattered but which may inhabit some of these houses. My main reason for supporting the Resolution is that we must keep the families in their own homes as far as we possibly can. In the days of Aristotle the whole idea of the State was based upon the household. Although children may be better fed and better clothed in Poor Law institutions, if they cease to be members of families there is lacking a very important feature in their bringing up. It is to the interest of the country that children should be brought up in their own homes, and, though it may cost money, I believe it would prove a good national investment. We fail to realise what for the mother is the main work of life. It is, or should be, the bringing up of her children. Unfortunately, children are too often looked upon as a sort of byproduct, and it is considered by some people that the main work of the women is to go out, perhaps, to earn a miserable wage or, at any rate, to follow some occupation in life other than the bringing up of her children. In the case of widows and deserted mothers, and mothers whose husbands are in prison, it is very often impossible for them to carry out that main object in life simply because they have not the wherewithal to do it. If, however, this Motion is carried and put into operation, the necessary money will be provided.
There are certain objections which have not been quite sufficiently emphasised to-night. In the first place, there is the great difficulty about illegitimate children. In America these children are allowed to receive pensions, but it is stated—I do not know on what ground—that very few applications are made in respect of them. This is, of course, a matter which requires to be very carefully dealt with. We do not

1977
want to encourage illegitimacy; we want to do all we can to avoid it. Secondly, there is undoubtedly the danger that these pensions may have the effect of depressing wages by enabling women to go out and work for lower remuneration. But I think that difficulty is absolutely met by the minimum wage laid down by the Wages Board. Lastly, there is the objection raised very frequently that in the case of deserted mothers there would be collusion, and so long as the woman could draw a pension the husband would take care not to come back. I cannot help thinking that this danger is exaggerated. At any rate, it could be met by a suggestion I will venture to make. We have learned a very great lesson from what has been going on in connection with the old Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and, more recently, with the war pensions committees—I mean the bringing together by means of friendly visitation and friendly interest people of leisure with those who are receiving pensions and who want advice or help. This bringing together of the leisured women of the country and their poorer sisters in a friendly but not a patronising way, with the view of helping them as friends, has done an immense amount of good in this country. It has tended to break down that great class barrier which everyone of us wishes to see destroyed at the earliest possible moment, and I believe that if these pensions are granted they should be accompanied by a system whereby payment should be conditional on a regular visitation of the recipient by friendly visitors to be approved by the authorities, the visitation to be to the home of the widow or mother with a view of helping and advising her and standing by her in her trouble. That would, I think, be a good safeguard against abuses which might otherwise grow up.
Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I should like to join with hon. Members in congratulating very heartily indeed my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Wilson) on using his success in the ballot to bring forward this question to-night. As has been indicated already, we began the day by talking of methods to provide the house, and we are ending it with considering how we can maintain the home. We cannot have the home without the house, and the house without the home is but an empty shell. I desire to associate myself most warmly with the proposal. It has been my privilege to meet Judge Neil. All who
1978
have met him must have fallen under the fascination of his charm. We are not dealing with a matter which has not already been carefully considered. We are also dealing with one which has been put largely into practice. We shall be doing wisely if we follow our sister country across the sea and treat mothers here as they have learned to treat mothers there. In legislation and administration the nearer we can get to nature the better and the further we go from it the worse. It is not only the husband and wife that God has joined together. The mother and the child are even more closely joined. I do consider that they should never be put asunder if it is possible to keep them together. The object which this proposal has in view is to maintain that natural union, that the mother may look after the child, and that the child shall not be sent to the care of some institution. I should be the last man to depreciate the work of our various institutions—I know how carefully and humanely they are managed—but an institution at its best can be only second best. We want for the child the very best that can be provided, and that is the home. It has been said tonight that the child is the country's greatest asset. We ought to guard that asset and enshrine it in the home, which is its proper place. If we follow those lines, we must do that which is most beneficial to the race. I should like to say a word in regard to the economic aspect of the matter. We must consider that. I do not attempt to urge the question from the standpoint that, as we are spending so much in other directions, we can spend a little more still. That cumulative process would simply ruin any nation. I look at the matter from the practical standpoint. That is the spirit in which Judge Neil himself has brought it forward. If you talk with him you will learn that he is a very practical man indeed, not a man governed merely by sentiment. He says that it is not only the better and the safer way in which to treat children, but also the more economical way, and that, in the long run, instead of this costing the nation more, it will cost the nation less. Those are points which it is the duty of the Government to look into. The Motion before the House does not give any details. We are not discussing a Bill; we are discussing a great principle. If we can make the principle such that the Government is bound to accept it, it is the duty of the Government to go into all

1979
the details and produce them in the form of a Bill. The subject-matter before us, therefore, is purely the principle involved in the Resolution. It is because I believe in the principle, and that we are bound to adopt it in the interests of the children and of the race, and because in the long run it is more economical for the nation, that I desire very heartily to support the the Motion.
Mr. T. W. BROWN: In a few words I desire to associate myself with the principle of the Motion that has been proposed. The hon. Gentleman who moved it set out in detail many of the advantages which must result from its adoption, and with those various advantages I am in entire agreement. I believe that the wealth of the nation consists in its sons and daughters. I believe also that there never was a time when the work of the nation in that sense required so much care, so much attention, and so much fostering as it does at the present time. For that reason I would strongly support any measure which would tend to the elevation of race, which would tend to the improvement of the children, and which would tend to give the children of this country a better start in life than they have now. While agreeing that our great institutions which are interested in child-welfare are well-managed—perhaps as well-managed as they could be in the circumstances—everyone must admit that there is nothing on this earth that can take the place of a mother's love and a mother's care. Those children who have to be brought up and started in life without the fostering influence of a mother start with the greatest possible handicap.
I do not wish, nor do I intend, to elaborate the various points made already on this Motion. I only desire to point out a great evil that exists—not, prehaps, so much in this country as in other countries—that is, the desire to check the growth of families. It is an evil that is very much felt in some parts of the Continent. It is greatly deplored there. It is to be deplored that it has been noticed also in this country. No doubt to some extent part of the cause of that desire to check the growth of families is the feeling experienced by the most prudent of men that before a man may have his position in life established, before he can have sufficient means to provide for the welfare of his family he may be cut off and leave his family penniless. After the great War
1980
through which we have passed everyone admits that we ought to have in this country a period in which there should be large families. One of the results of this measure, if it should become law, would be that that fear and that dread which does operate in a great many cases would be removed. Therefore, for that reason, in addition to the others already mentioned, I am strongly in favour of the principle enunciated in this Motion. I would also like to say a word about the question of the cost. No doubt we shall hear before this Debate closes particulars of what any scheme of this kind would cost. But I am of opinion that you cannot measure with any reasonable degree of accuracy what the money cost of a scheme of this measure would be, because once you have it in full working order with the benefits which must accrue from it, you will have a great decrease in the cost of Poor Law administration, in the cost of our asylums, and, more important still, in the cost of criminal administration, because the mother, having the time to devote to her own children, her sole interest being their welfare, not having to drag herself away from them day after day to work for a poor wage in order to keep them alive, will devote her attention to seeing that they get a proper upbringing, and are not allowed to stray into paths where temptation is likely to meet them. But whatever the cost may be, we have learned one lesson during the past four or five years, and that is not to think too much of money, and whatever the cost of this scheme may be, whether it costs £20,000,000 or double that amount, if only half the results which have been foretold to-night ensued, we are all agreed that it would be very cheap at the price. I am glad to have had an opportunity of associating myself with this great social measure, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some encouragement to hope that in the near future it shall take practical form.
Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to add a word or two on behalf of what I consider to be the neglected mothers of Great Britain. It takes, perhaps, one who is associated with the upbringing of large families to realise to the very full how seriously handicapped are the mothers, more particularly those from the poorer classes of this country. We all have recollections of our own mothers' periods of anxieties in our upbringing. Those who are responsible for the rearing of families are

1981
unduly handicapped in every possible respect throughout the whole of their career. In the first place, wages are not based upon responsibility. The single man and the married man without a family receive the same return in wages for services given as does the parent with, say, eight or nine children, none of them of an age when they are ready to seek employment. You will quite appreciate, I am sure, the difficulties surrounding the mother under such circumstances. It means, as has too often happened, the parting of one large room and the mixing together of opposite sexes, because the income of the home is not even sufficient to pay the price of a fairly decent house, let alone the purchase of really decent food and the provision of really decent home comforts. What can you expect to arise from that? Need you wonder at the condition of your slum areas because you drive the parents into seeking cheap, dilapidated, closely confined, unhealthy, insanitary dwellings, herding together in large numbers, and there you keep them. Picture, if you can, the anxieties of a mother under these circumstances. The man leaves it. He seeks some change elsewhere. The mother is with it the whole of her time. Picture, if you can, those anxious moments when a cough develops amongst the little children. There is no ability to provide medical attention, and even good medical attention would be stultified by reason of the bad housing that you have driven them to in consequence of lack of income. The cheap quack doctor and the cheap chemists' mixtures do more harm than good to a child. You wear away prematurely all the vitality that the mother is capable of. You give her restless nights and careworn periods through no fault of her own, and then when they rear their families you call the males of eighteen a State commodity. You claim them as belonging to the State. They must shoulder a rifle and fight in defence of the country that declined to give adequate protection to their mother, and assistance to them when they were unable to make provision for themselves. If the children belong to the State, let the State accept and embrace its responsibilities.
10.0 P.M.
I approach the matter rather from the point of view, Is it right that you should make generous provision to the mothers. responsible for the rearing of a large family? Every hon. Member will say "it is quite right; it should be done; we will
1982
accept in principle anything that tends that way," but when the crucial period comes it is always cost. If it is right, if it is only just, you must be generous in your treatment of the mother who is responsible for the rearing of these children. The cost to my mind ought never to weigh in the balance with the life of a child. The larger families are found amongst the poorer inhabitants of the country, where they have the least of resources to make provision for the increased responsibility. Large families are not general amongst the well-to-do. It is not to the poor people that you need to preach about the restriction of families. It is amongst those people who do not want children. You will find the large families and the greatest degree of suffering amongst the poor. I think in connection with our Ministry of Health you will find ample repayment for any expenditure caused by generous pensions to mothers. I do not want you to be inquisitorial and to want to know this, that or the other, or as to whether Jack or Fred ought not to be out at work. I do no want to play upon the exploitation of a boy's earning capacity. I want you to be generous enough to make provision which will free the home from any anxiety as to where the next meal is coming from. Assuming, for a moment, that there is a man who will not accept to the full his responsibilities, that ought not to count against the mother and the children. Deal with the man in some other way. Certainly, however, make some provision for the mother, for with her is the responsibility of bringing up the family. I know that there is at present a good deal of propaganda going on—and I do not blame some of it—which asks, Why should the parents bear a responsibility that brings with it pain, misery, and suffering by having an increase in their family? A logical mind certainly would dictate to one on those lines: "Why should I accept a responsibility for which I am unable to make provision?" But the nation will suffer. Why should you expect families of ten, twelve, fourteen and more to come into the homes of working-class people and give to them full responsibility and liability of rearing all those children when you know very well that it only means prematurely shortening the life of the mother or the father? I do not mind whether any other nation has or has not undertaken to make this provision. That is not part of my argument, which

1983
is, Is it, or is it not, right that until industry recognises the great responsibility the State should make good any deficiency occasioned by the acceptance of the principle? I can suppose a man speaking to an employer of labour along these lines. He would probably say, "You have established a minimum rate of wages." Often, however, a young single man of vigour and muscle is more profitable to the employer. He certainly receives the standard wage. The married man, whatever his responsibilities may be, is of no concern in that connection to the employer. He accepts him as a piece of profit-making machinery. He employs him because it pays him, and because industry cannot accept that responsibility the State ought to do so.
I am convinced that the mothers of Great Britain should really from now onwards receive greater consideration than has hitherto been their lot. One does not want even good charitably-disposed persons to go to their houses and make inquiries as to their means or as to whether they provide this, that, or the other! We want to establish as a matter of right and justice what the State owes to the mothers of the children. I hope, and I feel almost certain, that the Government will not only say through their official mouthpiece that they endorse the principles of the Resolution, and will do their best to give fair and favourable consideration to it, but I want them boldly to say that in addition to the great scheme of reconstruction of the Ministry of Health, in addition to housing, they must also come along with mothers' pensions. For the mothers will be the greatest missioners in promoting a more healthy nation than it has hitherto been the good fortune of this country to claim.
Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I wish, first of all, to congratulate the last speaker on his vigorous advocacy of the Motion, and, if I am not mistaken, he himself is a fine proof of the fact that to be one of a large family is no handicap in life. Like several other speakers, I desire to put before the House the reason for the faith that is in me with regard to this Motion. I think most of the arguments for it have been put quite clearly. The Motion itself and the substance it contains are in the nature of a novelty in this country, and I think it behoves those who support it to be quite clear about their position. There has been for some
1984
time in this country advocacy of mothers' pensions, but may I first of all say that I think the Mover of the Motion has been well advised in bringing forward his proposal in a somewhat conservative and reasonable fashion, and I have heard it put forward from platforms in a much more general and wider sense.
Of course we shall be told that this is a very socialistic proposal. I agree with one speaker who on the cognate subject of housing said we were all socialists now and also all individualits. In other words, we have to take the difficulties which face us and find the best solution we can, unfrightened by the bogeys of socialism on the one hand or individualism on the other. We have to bear in mind that there is being spent on this relationship of the widow and child in this country a vast deal of money, and that people who are administering that money are exceedingly uneasy because they have come to the conclusion either that they are spending too much or not enough.
I hold in my hand a whole sheaf of resolutions discussed at guardians' meetings all over the country dealing with the amount of money that is being spent on widows' and children's allowances, and there is clearly an uneasy feeling amongst them that the problem is not being properly tackled. Therefore, when it is suggested that we are by this Motion incurring on behalf of the State, or suggesting that it should be incurred, an entirely new responsibility, bear in mind the responsibility already exists, and that the present methods of dealing with it are unsatisfactory. It is not as if we were plunging into the arena of entirely new expenditure of a kind that is at present unprecedented. All we are doing is that you have got the problem, and you have admitted the burden, and for heaven's sake deal with it in a reasonable fashion and shoulder the burden like men. The problem is already with us, and we are trying to deal with it, and we are doing it very unsatisfactorily.
The second point is that motherhood is the greatest profession in the world. It is a miserable state of things if we accept a theory of life which forces a mother who has tried to live with insufficient support into the factory while she bears the responsibility of bringing up a young family, and that is the backbone of the case. There are many others interested in schools for mothers, and in all the work which has been pursued with in-

1985
creasing activity during the last few years of trying to improve the health of the mother at the time of the birth of her child and afterwards, seeing that the sanitary conditions are good, that the mothers understand the best methods of bringing up their children, and that the old stories of the defence in many slaughter cases, "Oh, well, we gave it the best we had; we gave it what we had ourselves; we gave it a little of father's beer, and so on," and the ignorance which that kind of statement exhibited and which was quite common in the Police Courts some years ago can no longer exist. I have been long enough in public life to remember the great fight that we had to secure the health visitors. The great efforts made by the health visitors and the schools mothers have enormously reduced that great bugbear, high mortality in the first twelve months of life. We have seen the mortality of children under twelve months go down from 200 per thousand to under 100 per thousand, and I am in hopes that we shall soon in our better areas have the better state of things which you get in some of the favoured towns abroad, where during the first twelve months of childhood life practically no deaths occur at all. It is no use developing activity along those lines unless we are also prepared to do something along the lines of this Motion. It is no good giving information, or assisting mothers at the time of the birth of their children, or assisting the children themselves during the earlier stages of their lives, seeing that they are well nourished, well cared for, and well washed, if we force the mother, the natural guardian, into the factory to earn money. Therefore, unless we are prepared to go this length, all the effort that is now devoted to preventing this infant mortality is waste effort.
Somehing has been said about the sanctity of the home, and a great deal has been said about the necessity of children. History repeats itself. There is nothing new in the world. It is only a hundred years since the country was going through much the same tragedy of a prolonged war as we have witnessed during the last four years, but with this difference, that the agony of war was infinitely more prolonged then. The legislature of those days deliberately went in for a process of encouraging the youth of the community, and, as children were the object aimed at, it was immaterial for
1986
this purpose whether they were born in wedlock or not. In fact, you had to carry it a step further, because in the case of children born out of wedlock there was no natural supporter, and therefore a much larger grant had to be given in the case of illegitimate children than in the case of legitimate children. It had this curious result: that parents who would otherwise have married did not marry because they got a larger grant by not going through the marriage ceremony. That lasted until the reform of the Poor Law in 1830. It is perfectly obvious that those who advocate this Resolution, or many of us, would be strenuously opposed to any state of affairs like that. I did not hear the Mover's speech, I am sorry to say, but I take it that would be his attitude. This is a Motion of principle—it is not a Motion of detail—and I think it is desirable to utter that word of warning, because certainly, as far as I support the principle of the Motion, I wish to make it quite clear that a danger of that kind must be avoided. Subject to those two or three small points, I am wholeheartedly in favour of this Motion. This is a Motion to deal with an admitted evil. For heaven's sake let us deal with it like men, and not in the halfhearted way we are dealing with it at present.
Mr. SPENCER: I only desire to intervene for one purpose, seeing that the question has been dealt with so fully, and that is to emphasise the importance of the child itself. I am quite sure that a pension is a misnomer in this connection; it is to be an endowment of motherhood, and motherhood suggests home and children. I know of nothing which is undermining the British character at the present time so much as the decline of home life in Great Britain. Any evil which tends to affect the home life of Great Britain is affecting the national character, and we shall be doing a great harm to the children of this country and to the national character if we do not take into account the circumstances of the home life and the influences which surround the child, and which can bring out the best part of its possible life. You have the child with all the possibilities of manhood and womanhood. There are two ways a child can go. It can go upwards or downwards. I think we can discover more as we go along that the organism is subject to its environment almost absolutely up to ten years of age, and if you surround the organism

1987
with influences which tend to affect the moral fibre of the child, it will inevitably go down. Otherwise, it is invested with rich veins of intellectual skill and character, and if we bring to bear upon the child life the right influence we may develop the latent possibilities of the child which may become of service to the nation. It is for us to turn our attention to this great question of motherhood, associated as it is with child life, and so that we can save the children from moral degeneracy and from losing the possibilities of the home life in the way I have indicated. For these reasons, I hope the Government will give their support to the child life of the country, which is so subject to moral influences.
Major ASTOR: The discussion we have had has ranged over a wide field, and I think the speeches have shown that, even though this House consists entirely of men, we have not only sympathy with but knowledge of the problems connected with maternity and child life. I do not propose to go into the various aspects of the question that has been raised or to attempt to do justice to the importance of the subject. The House is dealing with various aspects of social reform and social reconstruction, and they are all in a way interlocked. The House is not satisfied with dealing with one measure, or even with two Bills at the same time. In my own Department we have had to-day four separate Bills in this House, and my right hon. Friend and myself have had to divide ourselves between the House and two Committees upstairs dealing with Housing and with the Scottish Ministry of Health and Registration of Nurses. I only mention those to show the multiplicity and complexity and interrelationship of the problems, as well as the rapidity with which as a House we are trying to deal with them. Unofficial Members opposite have the advantage over us, that they can select a particular Bill to which they can devote their attention on any one day, and they also have the advantage, as far as we are concerned, of being able to select a particular subject. The Motion proposed this evening contains four general propositions. The first is that pensions should be paid and that those pensions should be adequate for a healthy and useful life. The Motion proposes that all widows with children and all widows with incapacitated husbands should be entitled to get those pensions. It is also
1988
provided in the Motion that all the money to meet the necessary expenses should come out of the Exchequer. The fourth proposition is that this money should be administered by some local body unconnected with the Poor Law. The exact nature of the body is not defined, but I think I know what hon. Members have in mind, but that is not a sort of term which can go into an Act of Parliament. Hon. Members have shown real sympathy towards the proposal, and I have been struck with the amount of sympathy coming from every quarter of the House to the general proposition contained in the Motion. We realise and appreciate the lessons of the War and the value of life, and of child life, and of motherhood. Anything connected with motherhood, maternity or child life meets with a ready response. The War, too, has added abnormally to the number of widows, and in connection with that a very real problem presents itself. The widow of a man who was killed in the War gets a pension, and in a few years you will have widows of men who fought for their country, and who, perhaps were wounded while fighting and died after the War. You will find those widows possibly not getting any contribution from the State, and alongside them you will have the widows who are receiving money from the State. That at least brings us face to face with a real problem which has got to be grappled with in time.
I want to agree to the general principles of the proposal, but I really do not want to do anything which may be described as hasty or ill-considered action, or to use any terms or phraseology which might limit our freedom of action subsequently. I should like to have discoursed, as other hon. Members, on motherhood and child life and all it involves, whereas it is rather my task to be the devil's advocate and put some of the practical difficulties before the Members of the House, not in any way of side-tracking or killing this Motion, but merely so that hon. Members should be able to assist us in dealing with the difficulties. Here are some of the questions which I would put to those who have brought forward this Motion. Some of them they have touched upon and others they have avoided altogether. First of all, do they suggest the giving of pensions to all widows, to all mothers, irrespective of any income which might be derived from other sources, and do they propose to consider at all the earnings of the woman? My next question is, do hon. Members

1989
suggest giving a flat rate or do they suggest giving a varying contribution from the State, varying with the number of children, varying perhaps with the age of the children? Do they propose to make these grants unconditionally or subject to conditions—that is to say, that the grants or pensions should be withdrawn under certain circumstances? Some hon. Members, speaking earlier in the evening, have spoken of the ill-effects of too much inspection, but they will probably agree that some measure of inspection is necessary and essential. There are two other questions I want to ask. I assume they would give pensions to mothers with young children, say, under sixteen? On that assumption, do they propose that these pensions should be stopped when the children arrive at the age of sixteen? Because if they do they are contributing towards the maintenance of a woman during that period of life when she would be able to earn money for herself, and they would be stopping the contribution when she is older and therefore less able to add to her income. Then another question which I would like to put is this: Do hon. Members suggest that the pensions should be continued after these ladies reach the age of seventy, or do they suggest that the pensions should be stopped then or diminished? These are merely queries which I am putting which bear materially upon the total cost.
Then, as regards funds, I gather from the terms of the Motion that they propose that the whole of the funds should come from the State. Hon. Members are doubtless aware that there are two other ways in which the money could be collected. It could be collected either entirely from the State or partly from the State and partly from the rates, or partly by contributions. These are three alternative ways in which the money could be collected. There are advantages and disadvantages of having contributions from the rates. The advantages are not negligible. You want, certainly, local administration, and our experience is that if you have local administration, if you decentralise the administration of that sort of services, there is a considerable advantage, in order to get proper economical working, in having some contribution from the rates—not necessarily a large contribution, but, at all events, some contribution from the rates. Then is it proposed to exclude any classes of widows or of mothers? Is it suggested that women who are separated
1990
from their husbands should be included? Is it suggested that women who have been deserted, or that mothers of illegitimate children, should get these pensions? These are merely points which will have to be considered. For instance, there is the problem of illegitimacy. There are some people who would go so far as to say that if you gave these pensions to mothers of illegitimate children you would be diminishing the morality of the country. I am not sure you cannot put forward a stronger case on the other side. After all, the illegitimate child starts at a great disadvantage, and anything which we can do to make its lot easier ought to receive our very careful consideration.
Then the Motion says nothing about the central Department which should be responsible for the supervision of the administration and the spending of the money. There are three alternatives, so far as I know. You might either put the scheme under the supervision of the Ministry of Health on the ground that improved health was the main result you anticipated from these proposals; or you might put it under the Board of Education on the ground that the children assisted were mainly under sixteen; or else, as I understand, there are advocates for putting the supervision of the scheme in the hands of the Ministry of Labour. It is quite evident that if these contributions were given to women who are in employment, irrespective of their wages, it would have a direct bearing on the problem of unemployment. At the present moment industry alone bears the burden of bringing up a man's family. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] To a very great extent. When discussing the living wage we usually discuss it in terms of a sum that will enable a man to bring up his wife and two or three children in decent circumstances. Almost every year the Stats takes over an additional share in assisting the man in the upbringing of his family—the feeding of school children, maternity service, and so on. All that assists a man in bringing up his family, and gives him a greater power of spending such earnings as he gets from industry for the good of his family and their general maintenance. I have mentioned those three departments because neither the Mover nor the Seconder gave us any indication, so far as I remember, of the central authority which they contemplate should be responsible for the general administration of the

1991
scheme. The hon. Member opposite, in moving the Resolution, put the total cost, I think, at £20,000,000.
Mr. T. WILSON: I did not estimate the cost. I cannot say whether it would cost £25,000,000 or £50,000,000.
Major ASTOR: The only figure the hon. Member put before the House was £20,000,000. The Noble Lord put forward the tentative figure of £10,000,000. I have seen estimates put as high as £50,000,000, so that there is a considerable range between the £10,000,000 and the £50,000,000. It is extremely difficult to arrive at a correct estimate, because we really do not know enough about the occupation of hundreds of thousands of widows in this country. At the time of the last Census there were 1,200,000 widows under the age of seventy. I am afraid I cannot tell at all the numbers that were getting Poor relief or the amount expended in this form. Out of this 1,200,000, 900,000 belonged to what we call the industrial classes. Of this 900,000, 300,000 were returned as being in employment. We have very little information as to what the other 600,000 were doing; where they got their income from; whether they were in permanent or casual employment; and whether they had dependants and to what extent they assisted them in maintaining the home and contributing towards their income. Four hundred thousand had children under sixteen years of age. There were 800,000 children, including motherless children, under sixteen years of age.
If I were asked to put forward any sort of figure, I should say that probably 80 per cent. of the figures I have quoted might be eligible, and if the pension were given on the same scale as the war widows' pension, the total involved would be something like £25,000,000. I am not going to say that that would be an unwise or an extravagant sum. But I would say this, that at the present moment we have got to decide which of the various social measures which we consider necessary are most urgently needed. Hon. Members have said, "Oh let us do this, because we have been spending money at the rate of six millions a day during the War." It is because we have been spending money at that rate that there is now the difficulty with which we are faced—the difficulty of the extension of credit, and also that we have to meet the bill. We have been spending money, and
1992
now we have to begin paying it off. We require a great deal of money for the various proposals—housing, health services, and all those other great measures—which are now before the House. We have got to be very careful that we do not do anything, either in this proposal or in any other direction, which would delay measures which the Government, and probably the House, might agree were essential at the moment.
The House agreed, at a quarter past eight this evening, without a Division, in accepting the Housing Bill. It did so because it was a measure which had been framed after mature reflection; after almost meticulous examination; after consultation with experts outside, representatives of local authorities, and with Members of this House who were specially qualified to advise us on this side. We were able, because we had gone into our housing proposals carefully and in detail, to come to the House with complete confidence and ask hon. Members to pass the Bill on the Second Reading, and to support us in getting it through in detail. I only mention that because the scheme which is before us this evening cannot be looked upon as having been put before the House after anything like the same consideration or matured and detailed examination. Hon. Members, I am sure, will agree to that. I need not enlarge upon the advantages of preserving the home. That is one of the main reasons for advocating the proposal before us. Some people would be inclined to say that in many cases even a bad home is better than no home. As far as possible we want to do all we can to maintain the home life, not to break up the family circle, not to scatter the family, and because of that the proposal before us is particularly recommended. Hon. Members are aware that a Report has been published concerning reforms of the Poor Law. The Government have in principle accepted the proposals of what we call the Maclean Committee. We have got to be very careful in considering a proposal like this, to consider it in connection with the reform of the Poor Law. We have got to avoid overlapping. We have got to consider these questions as a whole.
What I want to put before the House, summarising our attitude, is this. The Government realise that there is a real problem which ought to be dealt with. I cannot pledge myself, and I am not authorised to pledge the Government, to

1993
the specific terms of this Motion. If I were to do so it might limit our freedom of action in dealing with this matter, and it is not desirable to do that. What I will say is this: We will examine this question, and the problems associated with it, when we examine the Poor Law reform. We are pledged to deal with that. It is probably the next big thing we have got to deal with after the housing. We are pledged to the Maclean Report, which involves what is called the break-up of the Poor Law, and when the Government consider this, the problem of widows and of assistance to fatherless children must at the same time be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. One of the best ways of dealing with these problems is as soon as possible to reform the Poor Law. It was quite obvious from listening to the Debate that many hon. Members have devoted considerable time to the consideration of this question, and I hope that if they have concrete proposals or suggestions to put forward they will let us have them. We will examine them gratefully and sympathetically. We want, in framing our proposals, to have the advice and assistance of Members of this House with special knowledge and information. I will only say, before sitting down, that in our opinion this is a problem which ought to be dealt with, and should be dealt with as soon as possible.
Mr. ADAMSON: On behalf of the party which I represent, I desire to express our appreciation of the sympathetic way in which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has dealt with our proposal on behalf of the Government. We fully recognise the difficulty which he is in, in not being able to pledge the Government to the specific terms of this Motion. I do not think, at the same time, that that should prevent the Government and the House from allowing the Motion which has been moved and seconded by my hon. Friends from being passed. In the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the House had been dealing with four separate questions to-day—
Mr. ASTOR: Affecting my Department?
Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, and that amongst four was a large housing measure. I desire to remind him of the fact that numerous Motions dealing with this question of housing have been passed by this House, and that those who were responsible for those Motions did not hold the Government bound, though they
1994
allowed them to pass to the specific terms of the Motion I do not think that during these two days' discussion the Government have ever been reminded of the terms of any one of these Motions. This present Motion simply deals in broad general terms with the question of mothers' pensions, and my hon. Friend will not look for the Government when they come to deal with this question putting it in the special terms of this Motion. I also desire to express our appreciation of the support which has been given to this Motion by Members in all parts of the House. The unanimous support which has been accorded to it will carry a measure of hope into many homes in the land. A few days ago I said in another connection in this House that Parliament was a great Welfare Supervisor for the nation. In no phase of our national life are our efforts in that capacity more necessary than in the homes of the people. In these homes mothers are really training citizens of this country—the future men and women who are to carry the burden of Empire. The mothers in our homes are not rearing and training children for themselves; their work is being performed for the whole nation. Therefore, in our opinion, the nation should be responsible for providing the wherewithal to enable these mothers to faithfully perform the task which we expect of them. We have had this discussed to-night in broad, general terms. The difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has brought before us are all difficulties that can be dealt with when we come to deal with this question in detail. I do not think that they are difficulties which should occupy very much of our attention to-night. I am certain that in no part of the House will a more ready response be granted to his appeal for the closest co-operation and for giving the greatest measure of help in order to deal with this question when we come to examine it in detail than will be granted by Members of the Labour party. As a matter of fact, I believe that Members in all parts of the House will readily co-operate with the Government in dealing with this question. The greatest asset that any nation can have is well-trained, healthy boys and girls. The spending of money — whether it comes from the Treasury direct or from the rates is immaterial—in securing the rearing and training of healthy men and women, well

1995
able to bear the burden of Empire in their day of generation, will pay the State. I thank the hon Gentleman for the sympathetic manner in which he has referred to the Motion, and I can assure him that we appreciate to the full the difficulties, and when we come to deal with the matter in detail we shall not be too critical whether or not the Government proposals are in exact accord with the terms of our Motion, any more than the House has been during the discussion of the Housing Bill because it did not conform to the exact terms of the many housing Motions which we have discussed formerly.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): While everybody in the House must appreciate and agree with all that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) has said about the necessity of this question, and the importance to the State of bringing up the future generation, I cannot agree with him that if these words are accepted the House is not pledged to any real principle, and that it is only a question of detail. Let me point out to the House one thing. There is no doubt that the House desires, so far as possible, that any mothers' pensions should be divorced from any question of the Poor Law. Everybody wants that. But at the same time one has to take into consideration the amount of money which the State possesses. It is impossible that every widow, however rich, should be entitled to the pension. If you pass these words, in order to avoid anything like the Poor Law taint and anything like personal investigation, you are pledged to the principle that every person, however rich, is entitled to this pension. That may be right or wrong. It may be that in order to avoid the Poor Law taint this House would desire that everyone, however rich, should be entitled to this pension. The House cannot possibly say that there is no principle involved in that, and therefore, while everyone entirely appreciates and I am sure sympathises with all that my right hon. Friend has said, while everyone desires that every person who requires assistance to bring up children as healthy, strong citizens should get the assistance, still at the same time you must take into consideration what it is going to cost the nation, and therefore the result is that we have to decide which is the more important: that you should impose on the State the cost of giving to
1996
every single widow with children and every person, however rich, whose husband happens to be incapacitated, a pension or that you should set up some tribunal which is to say whether in any particular case a pension is to be or is not. That is not a mere matter of detail. It is a matter that requires very careful consideration.
Mr. ADAMSON: I said we were dealing in this matter with a broad general principle, and that we could deal with the matters which have been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Astor) when we come to consider questions of detail.
Mr. SHORTT: But I say this is a matter of principle. Is every widow, every woman, whose husband in incapacitated, of right, without any consideration to her means, to be entitled to a pension?
Mr. ADAMSON: No.
Mr. SHORTT: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but, according to the wording of this, she would be, and if you allow it in the case of widows' pensions you have to apply it to the case of every pension. If you are going to remove the taint of the Poor Law by saying that everyone is to be entitled, no matter what her means, as it does not stop at widows' pensions, it does not stop at any payment given to those who require assistance to be useful citizens of this country, and it is a matter of great principle. I am not expressing the slightest lack of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. I appreciate and sympathise with them, but I am only pointing out— [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you propose?"]. It is not for me to-night to propose anything, but if you pass this you are pledged to one principle and not the other. If you pass these words the House is pledged to the principle that every widow, no matter how rich, every woman whose husband is incapacitated, no matter how well-to-do, is to be entitled by going to the county council or the post office, or wherever it may be, to draw a pension as of right. That would involve a burden upon the State which no one of my hon. Friends would propose. We cannot accept these words, but the Government accepts the principle behind them, and hopes something of the kind may be done.
Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: This is just one of those cases where I am

1997
perfectly sure the majority of Members feel that their hearts take them in one direction and their heads in another. All of us, in our hearts, would approve the principle of the Motion, but surely our heads tell us from the point of view that has been expressed both by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Astor) and the Home Secretary that there are such questions not of detail but of finance—
Mr. TYSON WILSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) said it did not matter whether the money was drawn from the National Exchequer or from the local exchequer. I differ entirely. After all, if it is drawn from the local exchequer you do, at any rate, preserve the interests of local life. I shall never forget a most admirable speech made a few years ago by Mr. Asquith when he received the freedom of his native town—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

HOUSING, TOWN-PLANNING, ETC. [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, Town Planning, and the Acquisition of Small Dwellings—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjourned at Two Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  ART TREASURES, GERMANY.
  ART TREASURES, GERMANY.
INCOME TAX.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  ROYAL COMMISSION.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  COLD STORAGE, DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  COLD STORAGE, DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
IRELAND.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS' RESIDENCES (GEANTS).
  SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS' RESIDENCES (GEANTS).
  FLAX (GRADING).
  FLAX (GRADING).
  ROYAL NAVAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, STIRLING.
  ROYAL NAVAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, STIRLING.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  ARMY OFFICEES ON FULL PAY.
  ARMY OFFICEES ON FULL PAY.
  1914–15 STAR.
  1914–15 STAR.
  MESOPOTAMIA AND PALESTINE OPERATIONS (DISPATCHES).
  MESOPOTAMIA AND PALESTINE OPERATIONS (DISPATCHES).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PURCHASES IN GERMANY).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PURCHASES IN GERMANY).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS' CLOTHING (CONTRACTORS).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS' CLOTHING (CONTRACTORS).
  LEGION OF FRONTIERSMEN (PAY).
  LEGION OF FRONTIERSMEN (PAY).
  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS (PAY).
  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS (PAY).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (C. BARCLAY).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (C. BARCLAY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (STAFF-SERGEANT HARRIS).
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (STAFF-SERGEANT HARRIS).
  OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
  OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
  IRON-ORE (SHIPMENTS).
  IRON-ORE (SHIPMENTS).
  WAR MEMORIAL MUSEUMS (WAR MATERIAL).
  WAR MEMORIAL MUSEUMS (WAR MATERIAL).
  POLICE FORCE, GRETNA.
  POLICE FORCE, GRETNA.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CASUALTIES DEPARTMENT (LIEUTENANT STEPHENS).
  CASUALTIES DEPARTMENT (LIEUTENANT STEPHENS).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (PROTECTION CERTIFICATES).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (PROTECTION CERTIFICATES).
INDIA.
  STEAMSHIP ACCOMMODATION.
  STEAMSHIP ACCOMMODATION.
  SERVICE MEN (MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS).
  SERVICE MEN (MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL).
  LONDON ARTERIAL ROAD.
  LONDON ARTERIAL ROAD.
  TRADE MARK "UNIS."
  TRADE MARK "UNIS."
  HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  PAPER IMPORTS.
  PAPER IMPORTS.
  IRON SUPPLIES.
  IRON SUPPLIES.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (LADY CLERKS).
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (LADY CLERKS).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (APPOINTMENTS).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (APPOINTMENTS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS DEPAETMENT).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS DEPAETMENT).
  SKERRIES ISLES.
  SKERRIES ISLES.
  OIL-TANK STEAMERS.
  OIL-TANK STEAMERS.
  SHIPPING FREIGHTS.
  SHIPPING FREIGHTS.
  CHINESE REPUBLIC (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
  CHINESE REPUBLIC (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
Baron Finlay of Nairn, having been created Viscount FINLAY—Was, in the usual manner, introduced.
LORD ASKWITH.
Sir George Ranken Askwith, having been created Baron ASKWITH of St. Ives, in the County of Huntingdon—Was, in the usual manner, introduced.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DOMINION TROOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to move the First Reading of a Bill to enable the competent Courts in the United Kingdom to entertain matrimonial proceedings in respect of certain marriages contracted during the war by members of His Majesty's Forces domiciled outside the United Kingdom.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question; Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the object of this Bill, as its preamble states, is "to make provision for the maintenance of such forces of the Crown as may be required to meet exigencies arising before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty." The Military Service Acts expire at the ratification of peace, or rather on the date officially declared to be the end of the war, which must by Statute be as nearly as may be at that time. At that date all men who come under the operation of those Acts, or who enlisted for the duration of the war—and this embraces, of course, the great bulk of the
170
men—would be entitled to their discharge. In view of the imminence of peace it is therefore obviously necessary, both for the defence of the Empire and for the discipline of the troops themselves, to make our future arrangements as soon as possible. The Bill before us retains in the Colours such forces as may be necessary for the transition period, when war is merging into peace; and this Bill must be looked upon as a provisional measure, and must not in any way be confused with the arrangements that may be necessary for the establishment of an after-the-war Army.
This Bill in itself does not state the numbers, nor does it define the precise period for which the men to whom it applies will be retained. It gives power to the "competent authority" to decide that any man, or class of men, to whom the Bill applies may be retained for a further period of service with the Colours, but not longer than April 30, 1920. At that date, if the men were still with the Colours, they must be discharged with all convenient speed, but in no case at a later date than three months after April 30, 1920. The "competent authority" may retain these men, or part of them, for a shorter period, and at the expiration of that shorter period they are again entitled to immediate discharge. April 30, 1920, therefore must be looked upon as a maximum period, and the Bill is drawn in this way because it is hoped that it will not be necessary to retain this large force with the Colours, under the operation of the Bill, until so late a period as April 30, 1920.
In the Bill the "competent authority" is defined as the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council. The men to whom the Bill applies must be in actual service at the end of the war, and their term of service must expire either at the end of the war or before April 30, 1920. "Actual service" is defined in the Bill to mean Army service in the case of the Regulars, or embodied service in the case of the Territorials. There are two exceptions to this general statement, one stated in the Bill and the other not stated in the Bill. Officers, as your Lordships may have noticed, are not included in the Bill, and the reason is a very simple one. Their conditions of service are governed by Royal Warrant and not by Act of Parliament. Again, there is a surplus of officers; in fact, more officers are ready to remain with the Colours than are really

171
necessary for the size of this Army. The second exception is stated in the Bill—that is to say, soldiers of the Regular Forces serving on a pre-war attestation are exempted from the provisions of the Bill, "pre-war attestation" meaning, of course, the usual seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve.
The question has been raised why these Regular soldiers should obtain this measure of exemption while civilians, who have been taken from then civilian occupations and have served as long as two or three years with the Colours, are retained. One has, of course, great sympathy with the civilian soldier who is anxious to return to his pre-war occupation; but with regard to these soldiers whose service is expiring and who are excepted from the Bill, your Lordships will remember that most of them represent that Army, or rather the remnant of that Army, which sustained the full shock of the German hosts, flushed with the violation of Belgian neutrality—that Army which turned so fiercely on their pursuers at the Battle of the Marne and shattered the whole conception of the German General Staff of the fighting qualities of a retreating Army. I hope your Lordships will feel that they have "done their bit," and have earned their release.
There is another omission—shall I call it?—from the Bill, to which I should like to draw attention. Immediately on the signing of the Armistice no more civilians were called up under the Military Service Acts. Your Lordships will notice, therefore, that no provision is made, and no power is taken under the Bill, for calling up boys of eighteen who otherwise would have been due for service as they arrived at that age from November 11 last. May I say one word on the policy which excepted these boys? That is a point to which sufficient attention has not been paid by those who criticise this Bill on the ground that it is setting up a permanent system of compulsory service; because it is quite obvious that, if that had been so, you could not have omitted the boys who were coming of age and were ripening for military service. The reason they were omitted was that it was hoped that this Army, or at any rate a large portion of it, might not have long to be retained with the Colours, and as these boys would take some time to train they might perhaps be hardly trained before their services were required no longer. I need not add that it is very necessary to
172
have trained men on the Rhine and in the other portion of the Army of Occupation.
I now come to Clause 2, which deals with transfers. Since 1915 transfers in the Regular Army—and in the Regular Army, of course, I include the New Armies—have been governed by Section 1 of the Army (Transfer) Act of 1915. This Act is limited for the period of the war. Thus when this Bill comes into effect—and its effect is from the end of the war—no new transfer can take place under that Act. This subsection provides that soldiers who have been transferred under that Act cannot claim the rights of re-transfer while this measure lasts, but must be retained in the corps to which they have been transferred. The section which applies to the transfer of Territorials has, on the face of it, rather a wider application, but, as a matter of fact, transfers among Territorials are effected by Orders and Regulations under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Acts and do not depend upon the direct action of these Acts themselves.
Subsection (3) is an important and interesting subsection. It extends the provisions of the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Acts, 1915–16. These Acts operated wholly in favour of the soldier. They permitted the military authorities to avoid sending a man to prison who might have committed an offence in a state of extreme fatigue or under sudden panic, and who might redeem his character if he were given a chance by the suspension of his sentence. If he subsequently misbehaved, the sentence might be put into execution, but if he retrieved himself by gallantry and good conduct his sentence could be, and was, altogether remitted. The general experience has been that men who have been treated in this way have recovered their good positions and have earned the total remission of their sentences. The Acts of 1915–16 were somewhat narrow in their application. They applied only to cases of penal servitude or imprisonment and to cases occurring overseas. This Bill removes the requirement of active service; it extends the power of suspension to sentences passed at home, and applies to the sentence of military detention as well as to cases of imprisonment and penal servitude.
Clause 3, subsection (2)—I have already dealt with the interpretations—deals with

173
the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act of 1917. This Convention between the Allies gave the choice to men of military age who were the subjects of one Ally resident in the country of another Ally either to return to their own country or to enlist in the Army of the country where they resided. The men so enlisted are exempted from the provisions of this Bill. I should like to draw your. Lordships' attention to this general remark connected with the Bill. It refers not so much to the present as to the end of the war, and it retains with the Colours those men who are in actual service at that precise moment. It does not interfere in any way with the process of demobilisation which at the present time is proceeding.
Let me say one word upon the processes of demobilisation. There have been two systems in force, one proceeding on the industrial and the other on the service principle. After the Armistice, men were demobilised not according to their length of service but according to their value in industrial life. This system was undoubtedly the more beneficial of the two from the point of view of the country itself. "Pivotal" men and men engaged in essential industries returned to their own country and proceeded to rebuild the machinery of trade and manufacture, and to provide new berths for the men returning from service in constantly expanding industries. I think there can be no doubt that as between the two systems it is most unfortunate that the first system should not have been adhered to. It was unhappily the case, however, that this first system was very difficult and complex to work. The selection, for instance, of the "pivotal" man caused some difficulty. The definition was not very clearly made out, and it did not—and this is the most important thing—appeal to the sense of justice of the average serving soldier. Many of the men who were last taken from industrial life, at a time when towards the end of the war the military necessities were absolutely paramount, would, of course, be the most useful men in promoting a return to industrial life, while the men who had borne the whole burden and heat of the day could not understand why those men who had served for the eleventh hour should be the first to be released. As the result of these difficulties the second system was set on foot.
174
The second system was based, not upon industrial needs, but upon length of service. It was decided that all men who had not been called up—and I lay stress on the words "had not been called up"—before January 1, 1916, should be retained, while all those who had been called up at a previous date to that should be demobilised. I ought to add that the industrial system or the industrial priorities were, and have been, observed as far as possible consistent with military necessities in the demobilisation of the men who were called up before January, 1916. To this general rule as it appears in the Army Order there are certain exceptions—there are some compassionate cases; men over thirty-seven years of age, and men who have over three wound stripes. The reason for the fixing of that date was that it would provide the 900,000 men which was fixed as the number to be retained in the Army of Occupation with the Colours. This system was simple, was easily understood, and it has worked well and given general satisfaction.
During these months, therefore, demobilisation has been going on at a rate which is now faster, now slower. Your Lordships have no doubt followed the figures published week after week as to the numbers of men and officers who have been daily and weekly discharged. No doubt you will be interested to have the latest figures, which give 70,729 officers and 2,264,199 other ranks; while 47,000 officers and 550,000 men of other ranks still remain to be demobilised. Demobilisation is not, of course, running at so rapid a rate as it was. The average rate has slowed down from about 38,000 to 12,500 per day as regards men, but it has increased in the case of officers by about 200 per day. The cause of this slowing down is due to the fact that the bulk of the men at home and in France have been dealt with, and that the flow from other countries has slowed down owing to difficulties of transport. Those who are still retained in the Army at home and in France have to perform duties in connection with remounts, cars, demobilisation machinery, and dispersal stations, but they are being demobilised as rapidly as possible. The troubles in Egypt have delayed the flow of men from Egypt. There remains, then, these numbers still to be demobilised. This will allow us to retain about 960,000 men, which in the opinion of the Government, after very long and careful consideration, was fixed as the

175
number it was necessary to retain in the Army of Occupation owing to the disturbed state of Europe and the great interests which require protection. I do not wish to weary you with figures. I have all the figures here, and if any noble Lord wishes to have them I shall be quite ready to give them in detail.
I should like to make one observation about these figures. The Army of Occupation has oaten been confused with the Army of the Rhine. The term "Army of Occupation" includes all soldiers wherever stationed with the Colours—Forces at home, in Ireland, on the Rhine, in France and other theatres, and British troops in India. The actual Army on the Rhine consists of ten divisions, and, with its line of communication troops, amounts to 264,000 men. It may be interesting to note that these ten divisions of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine have, so far as the Infantry is concerned, been organised as far as possible on a territorial basis. There is, for instance, a Lancashire division, a Highland division and a Lowland division, and the country has generally been grouped for these ten divisions. Another interesting point in connection with these ten divisions is that out of ninety battalions of Infantry no less than sixty-nine are young battalions, composed of men about nineteen years of age. Only twenty-one, therefore, of these battalions are composed of older men. Whatever may be the feeling of the older men who may not wish, naturally, to be retained in military service, there is no doubt about the feelings of these young battalions, or what are called "boy battalions." Whatever the feelings of their parents may be, there is no doubt, from all reports, that they are enjoying their sojourn on the Rhine.
I do not know whether it is necessary—perhaps it is not—for me to go into the details of the expenditure of this Army. But I should like to call attention to one particular point, and that is the large amount provided for in the Estimates for 1919–20 for the Army and Air Force—the stupendous sum of £506,000,000. More than half is accounted for by terminal and non-recurring charges which have become necessary for the winding up of the war. One more point. A large number of these troops—about 120,000 in France and Belgium—are engaged in the work of salvage, which is recovering an immense
176
amount of equipment of every kind left behind by the Germans. This no doubt will be sold as time goes on, and will constitute a large deduction from the general cost of the Army.
I notice that there is on the Paper a Motion for rejection standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Buckmaster). I do not know on what particular ground the noble and learned Lord wishes to reject this Bill—whether it is on the ground of some alleged breach of pledge given at the General Election. I understood that the noble and learned Lord was rather a latitudinarian in the matter of pledges; it may therefore be that he wishes to reject this Bill upon other grounds. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with any quotations as to statements made at the Election—perhaps that is rather a matter for another place—but I should like to read one statement among many made by the Prime Minister on this subject. He said—
"Whether you will require conscription in the future in any shape or form depends, not upon the opinion which I express here on this platform, or which any other political leader expresses upon any other platform. It will depend entirely upon the terms of peace."
I think that no definite pledge as to any abolition of conscription can be extracted from that statement of the Prime Minister, or front any other statement that he made upon that subject. There was no doubt a great deal of criticism, as we all know, at the Election on the question of conscription, but I think that it was directed far more to the establishment of a permanent system of conscription than to any necessary methods which the Government might have to take in order to gather in the fruits of the war.
There has also been very severe criticism—though limited from the point of the number of those making it—in another place, but there again I think the criticism was not so much directed to the present measure as to a fear that this Bill was in itself an earnest and a first step towards a general system of conscription. This Bill, as appears in every portion of it, must be looked upon as a provisional measure, and in no way and in no sense as a permanent one. The chief point raised in this criticism has been whether it would not have been possible to obtain these troops by some other system than conscription, and whether you could not have relied upon the voluntary system for them, I

177
put it to your Lordships that when you have to obtain so large a number of men (even if you could have got them by a voluntary system), it would have been impossible to build up those men into so big an Army as was required at a time when demobilisation was going on of the existing Army all over the world. The difficulty of constructing and putting together the present Army under the present system of demobilisation has been enormous, and if you had had super-added to that the duty of building up an Army of the same size, and training it at the same time, it would have been far beyond any military resources which we could have commanded. War-weariness and the desire to get home would have made it impossible, without that Army melting away altogether, to have presented the alternative to the soldier and given him the free choice either of saying that he would go home or of staying in the Army of Occupation. Indeed the efforts that have been made, and that have been considerably prolonged, to obtain the men for a voluntary Army show how impossible it would have been to have obtained this large Army by any voluntary system. Moreover, the first use that must be made of the new Army that is being secured by the voluntary system must be to relieve the Territorials in India and other forces of the Army of Occupation which are in our permanent garrisons.
May I say one word about what is being clone, and has been done, under the system of voluntary enlistment in order to deal with this point? First of all, you have the enlistments for what may be called the permanent after-the-war Army on the long or normal engagement—seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve—which is open to men between the ages of seventeen and twenty-five in the case of untrained men, and up to thirty years of age in the case of ex-soldiers. Between the dates of January 15 and March 29, 11,877 were enlisted from civil life, the average for the last five weeks being 1,348. If these numbers are maintained, the total enlisted at the end of the year will reach the outside limits that can be taken without producing unsound recruiting conditions. Prior to the war the annual requirements were something like 33,000, and if you took more than, say, double that number this year—assuming, of course, that your establishment is no more than the pre-war establishment—you would have not only
178
to close down recruiting probably in the next year, which would have a bad effect, but it would be impossible at the end of the seven years, when these men were due to go into the Reserve, to replace them for the Army of that time. Moreover, it is obvious that untrained recruits are of no use for the Army of Occupation, and this business of building up the two systems at the same time would have produced difficulties which it is almost impossible to contemplate. Again, these enlistments on the seven and five years basis are not what is wanted for the Army of Occupation. What you want for the Army of Occupation are, if you can get them, men enlisted for the shorter period; otherwise the system would be an extremely wasteful one.
What, then, has been done under the system of shorter enlistments since the Armistice? I do not want to enumerate all the efforts that have been made; I want to allude only to two or three of the schemes which have been put forward for obtaining men under different conditions of service. Serving soldiers may re-enlist for periods of two, three, and four years, if they are of A and B1 medical class and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, and they get, according to the period for which they re-enlist, a bounty varying from £20 to £50. I must call your Lordships' attention to this, as bearing on its usefulness immediately for the Army of Occupation, that they will get (and very naturally) a period of furlough varying but running up to four months before they come back to the Colours for their periods of training. Besides these men, serving soldiers who are demobilisible—that is to say, the men who entered before January, 1916—can volunteer for one year's extra service if they wish. Only 6,000 men have been obtained under the one year system from the Army of the Rhine. These two separate systems of recruiting to which. I have alluded are open to serving members of overseas forces. Then there is the question of the men of long service extending their period of service. Again, this recruiting is open to men in Class Z of the Army Reserve; that means soldiers and disembodied men of the Territorial Forces—roughly speaking, men who have been demobilised. They may re-enlist for two, three, or four years if between the ages of eighteen and thirty-seven. These conditions of service have been circulated in innumerable leaflets, and every effort has been made to bring them to the notice

179
both of the serving and of the demobilised soldier. What has been the result of all these efforts? After all these efforts there have been obtained as new recruits and re-enlisted men only some 70,000, showing that the gap between the men that you require for the Army of Occupation and the men you can obtain by voluntary service is immense. And you have not got all these men, because a great many of them are already on furlough and will not be ready for some time to come to be organised into units and sent to take the place of Armies of Occupation or garrisons abroad.
I have further figures, with which I do not wish to trouble the House, as to the pay, because it may be contended that, if you offered more pay, you could get more men. I was only going to give one set of figures to your Lordships which may be interesting, and those are as to the emoluments, including pay, clothing, food and lodging, of a private of the Infantry of the Line with the Army of the Rhine. He gets an equivalent of 50 s. a week, or £130 a year, and if he is married and has two children he gets the equivalent of 81 s. a week or £211 a year; and, of course, correspondingly greater amounts for corporals and sergeants. Therefore, I do not think it will be contended that those emoluments of the soldier, including, of course, his pay and other conditions, compare badly with what he would be getting in civilian life.
I have shown, therefore, that if these large numbers are necessary—and they have been found to be necessary after very prolonged investigation into the circumstances of the case—it is absolutely necessary to get them by the voluntary system, and that if you do not pass a measure of this kind, when the peace is signed and the end of the war comes you will have no power of retaining that very large Army in different theatres where they are now engaged as Armies of Occupation. If, therefore, the measure was refused it would lead to the complete disbandment of the Army when the declaration of peace comes, and it is hardly necessary to point out what would be the effect on the enemy as regards the keeping of those peace conditions if such a terrible eventuality were to take place.
Unfortunately, as in the financial, so in the military sphere, war does not at once merge into peace. There is a No
180
Man's-Land which has to be crossed, a river of tribulation before you can tread the Elysian fields of peace. The nation has laboured mightily; it has arisen victorious from the long travail of this giant contest: let us not in one moment, perhaps by inaction or by a relaxation of necessary vigilance, imperil the garnering of that great harvest which at so stupendous a sacrifice we have sown and have reaped. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move, "That the Bill be read 2a this day six months." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that whatever disagreement your Lordships may feel with some of the statements that I may think it necessary to make in the course of making the Motion which stands in my name, there will be no disagreement with my feeling that this Bill has been explained by the noble Viscount with most unusual ability and skill. So far as it is possible to make its provisions plain, I am sure you will agree that he has succeeded. I wish I could add that, as far as I am concerned, he had succeeded in making them acceptable. But in truth it seems to me that the noble Viscount in introducing this Bill leas treated it rather as a matter of course, and has not recognised that a measure of this description not only runs counter to the long tradition of this country, but that it is hostile to the feelings and opinions sincerely entertained by a very large body of the people at home.
The noble Viscount said that he was unaware upon what ground my objection to the Bill was based, and I can at least remove certain of the objections that he suggested. In the first place, I certainly do not intend to base any arguments upon the fact, the undoubted and indisputable fact, that the introduction of this Bill is in direct and flat defiance of promises made by responsible members of the Government at the General Election. It is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships with the consideration of that matter, for the simple reason that the justification given by the Secretary of State for War when these objections were urged was that those responsible Ministers of the Crown, when they made these promises, did not, in fact, know what they were talking about.
But in truth the objection is irrelevant, as the noble Viscount was kind enough to say. I hold latitudinarian views on this matter. I think that if a promise is made at an Election to do something that is wrong, the offence lies in making the promise and not in breaking it. So also I think that if a Government found that in the interests of national safety they are bound to do something which at an Election they thought they would never be called upon to do, they are compelled to take the course which they believe to be the only one by which the national safety can be safeguarded. It might be that under different conditions their course would be to appeal again to the country; I do not suggest that in the present case such a course is open. And therefore I will not say I make no complaint, but I certainly do not rest any criticism of this measure upon the fact that, its introduction does suggest an indifference to electoral promises which I hope is not common in our political history.
Nor do I object merely upon the ground that this is a measure for compulsory service. I have always taken the view that the question of compulsory military service is one of expediency and not one of principle; and I never hesitated when the first. Military Service Bill was introduced to give it my support, because it seemed to me it was only fair that when more men were needed there should be some attempt made to distribute and equalise the burden which was assumed with such pathetic eagerness by those men who in the early stages of the war came forward in numbers to place their lives between this country and the foe. I therefore have no objection to the Bill upon that ground.
The real objection to the measure is this—that it can only be justified upon the ground of strong and compelling circumstances; and I must say that there was little that I heard from the noble Viscount—except, indeed, the last few sentences in the latter part of his speech—to show that any such strong and compelling circumstances had arisen. For what is this measure? In order to ascertain its scope it is necessary to read it side by side with the Army (Annual) Bill which will be before your Lordships' consideration later, and you find that this is a Bill that places in the hands, not of His Majesty's Government, not in the power of the Crown, but in that of a "competent authority"—
182
head, it may be, of the War Office, or of the Navy, or of the Air Service—to direct that men shall be compelled to remain with the Colours up to a total limit of 2,650,000; and all we know is that it has been suggested that the total number who will be required for the Army will be 900,000, while for the other Services I do not think the numbers have been specified.
I suggest that in order to justify such a proposal it is necessary, in far greater elaboration and detail than the noble Viscount has given us, to show for what purpose these forces are required, and why it is that some other provision than this extraordinary and extensive provision is not made at the present time. I know it is said, "We are still at war, and you must treat everything exactly as though the war were still on foot." That argument does not appeal to me. It is perfectly true that technically we are at war; but does anybody doubt that if the terms of peace were signed to-morrow the position would remain absolutely unchanged? Is there anything that would be altered in our naval or in our military or in our air preparations by the mere fact that peace was signed? The German ships are in our harbours; the German guns are in our country towns; the German aeroplanes are in our parks. Since November 11 I have seen no reference to one act of hostility between the Forces. There has been no shot fired and no group of men gathered in menace and danger for the last five months. For all practical purposes the war ended on November 11; although I agree that it is easy to say that no war ends until the terms of peace have been signed.
This Bill proceeds upon the footing, not only that the last five months may be ignored, but that when peace has been declared some great and unusual emergency will demand the presence and occupation of a vast body of troops—put at the limit by the Secretary of State for War of 900,000 men—for the purpose of safeguarding our interests at home and abroad. What I think the noble Viscount ought to have shown us was for what purpose are they to be used. We have had some information upon this matter given to us by the Secretary of State himself. In the first place, he said that none of these men were to be used for Russia—
VISCOUNT PEEL: Except the small force that is there now.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Let me read what he said—
"There is not the slightest truth…that we want this Bill for conscription for keeping 900,000 men with the Colours because of Russia…If there was not a single British soldier in Russia, or if it was possible by a gesture to withdraw every single British soldier from Russia, or if there were no such place as Russia, I should still be standing here introducing this Bill…Russia has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and this Bill has nothing whatever to do with Russia."
It seems to me perfectly impossible to use language more plain and emphatic than this. That there is a force in Russia which will be subject to this Bill, if it is not removed before the termination of hostilities. I agree. But that is a comparatively small and unimportant matter.
I want to point out, as far as the position in Russia is concerned, that the Secretary of State for War has done his best to satisfy us that the condition of Russia has nothing whatever to do with the need for the introduction of this Bill. Is it then the necessity for garrisoning the vast number of places abroad which we have under our control? It does not seem to me that it is. The Secretary of State for War said—
"Our policy is to create with all possible speed a volunteer army for the garrisons of our Empire. No one has ever dreamed of using conscription for such a purpose. No one has ever dreamed of taking men by conscription of the ballot and sending them off to distant tropical stations in all parts of the world for long periods of foreign garrison duty."
Then what is it that is at the back of the Bill? As far as I can understand it was disclosed by a statement—not made by the noble Viscount, who, possibly knowing how tiresome and fatiguing figures are, did not give us all the figures upon this point—but as far as I can understand the original need for this Bill was to support an Army on the Rhine which, when this Bill was introduced, was fixed at a figure of 420,000 men, and still remains, I think, at a figure of about 340,000.
VISCOUNT PEEL: 264,000.
LORD BUCKMASTER: And 120,000 on the lines of communication.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I correct that statement? The 264,000 includes the men on the lines of communication and the Army of the Rhine. The 120,000 are not technically on the lines of communication, but are engaged in salvage work in France and Belgium.
LORD BUCKMASTER:The noble Viscount will forgive me if I say that, though I accept that absolutely as the present view, when this matter was formerly discussed that was not the view put forward. According to my recollection, the 120,000 men were on the lines of communication. At any rate you have an Army which amounts to something like 420,000 men in France, and the idea and purpose of it are these. The men are required because, when terms of peace have been arranged, they are to be there to form a part of a vast Army of Occupation for the purpose of enforcing those terms. The thing that struck me when I heard this—and I have never yet heard an explanation of the objection which rose at once to my mind—was this. Why was it that, when this Bill was introduced and in all the discussions that have taken place upon it from first to last, I have never found any reference to our Navy? Why cannot our Navy help us to secure and obtain the enforcement of the terms of peace? Our battleships could occupy the German ports in twenty-four hours; they could re-impose the blockade at a moment's notice, and could bring a pressure to bear upon Germany (if it were needed) far more terrible, far more intense, than you could enforce by a large Army of Occupation on their frontiers.
But if, indeed, this Army is required for that purpose, is there anybody who thinks for a moment that the term of twelve months which the Bill creates is the term during which the necessity will exist? The terms of peace are not going to be concluded in twelve months. Whatever will happen when terms of peace are declared will exist twelve months after, and so far as I can see for further periods of twelve months after that. So far as this Bill depends for its necessity upon our providing an Army of Occupation to secure the enforcement of the terms of peace, I myself have been wholly unsatisfied that any such necessity has ever been made out; and I must say when you realise that included in this Bill there is provision for an Air Force which is to be supplied at a cost of £67,000,000—more than the Navy cost before the war—and that that is further to be protected by the expenditure of £140,000,000 upon the Navy, making a total expenditure upon the Army, Navy, and Air Force for the ensuing twelve months of a sum which not only greatly exceeds the total amount of income avail

185
able in this country before the war for all purposes, but is within a measurable distance of the total National Debt at that moment—it is not surprising that people are anxious to receive some greater and better satisfaction as to the urgent need in the nation's interest, not for a Bill, but for this Bill, which provides on the face of it power to secure a standing force of 2,650,000 men.
My Lords, I find myself quite unable to accept the view that any such necessity has been made out. I have no doubt that it will be said that if the need is not there the power will not be used. Still at the moment we know it is contemplated that the power should be used to the extent of 900,000 men, and I should like to know what security there is that it will not be used for any further purpose. The competent military authority, in whose hands alone under this Bill there rests the power of determining what Army is to be created, is a man of great capacity, a man of most restless and versatile energy and unconquerable will, and of the most vivid and most illimitable and elusive vision of any politician of recent time. It is into his hands that you commit the control of this vast measure; and if we are to be told, as it is possible we may be, that we have overlooked the fact that the War Cabinet or some other Government body will have the final word, I can only say, in answer, that we have seen the inefficiency of that control hitherto, and we have found already, when dealing with a matter only second in importance to this measure—namely, the matter of finance—that that control is nothing but a sham. It is not surprising, therefore, that we feel a little uneasy when we not only see this Bill departing from old well-established form and precedent in the manner in which the power is created, but when we find the Bill giving such vast authority into the hands of people defined under the pleasant phrase of "competent authority."
I could not help being struck by something which the noble Viscount said at the end of his speech about the inability to raise an Army by voluntary methods. If a sufficient force cannot be raised upon a voluntary basis, it is plain that this nation must be supported by other means. But does the noble Viscount realise what it means, that of your vast Army of 900,000 men you are only going to have a mere handful who are serving willingly? My
186
Lords, we entered this war with a great purpose. The purpose was to substitute justice for violence, and to give to all the troubled nations of the world something in the nature of a permanent peace. That permanent peace cannot be made merely by the numbers of the men that you include in these measures. It can only be established and made secure by the fairness and justice of the terms themselves. Nothing else can guarantee the future safety and security of Europe.
I have never pretended to friendly feelings for the present Government. I have not attempted to assume approval that I did not feel. I think that this Government were returned to power in an hour when England had lost her reason, and I believe that their action has gone a long way to weaken the one thing in which we must have faith if we are to be able to survive the troubles which lie ahead—I mean the soundness of our Parliamentary institution. In the introduction of this Bill the Government, I am certain, do not conceal from themselves that they are acting in a way that causes immense dissatisfaction and discontent in the country. It is of no use promising that the Bill will not endure. It was promised in the first instance that it should not be introduced. And the Bill is, as your Lordships know, a Bill which runs counter to the fixed and firm traditions of this country, which has always been opposed, in all the changing scenes of its political history, to the constitution of a vast standing Army, and those traditions date back centuries to the time when England first set the seal of her dominion on the sea.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I had not contemplated taking part in this debate, but the manner and tone in which the noble and learned Lord opposite has addressed your Lordships seem to me to suggest and almost to compel some reply from this Bench. I own that when the noble and learned Lord addresses us I sometimes feel as if the Judge was seated upon the Bench, and a number of cowering criminals were awaiting at his hands the sentence of doom. It does not need the majesty of the Law Courts or the impressive paraphernalia of the Bench to enable the noble and learned Lord to produce that impression. The severity of his accents, the moral fervour of his tone, can always be implicitly counted upon,

187
and are not wanting this afternoon in one of the least effective eases in which they have ever been employed. I do not believe that the case which the noble and learned Lord has endeavoured to make this afternoon found any responsible echo in any quarter of your Lordships' House. I believe he was speaking for a small and insignificant minority, consisting of little more than himself; and, great as is the weight which we attach to anything coming from him, I find my withers entirely unwrung by anything which he has said.
What is the substance of what the noble and learned Lord has said? We had from my noble friend behind me a singularly clear and business-like exposition of this Bill, and, I think, a quite adequate statement of the reasons for which it is required. The noble Viscount ended up his remarks by saying that this Army was to be maintained for the objects and in the manner described, in order to reap the harvest which has been sown at such a sacrifice of blood and tears. That is a general statement which we all know to be true, and I should have thought that it would be unnecessary to analyse it; but the noble and learned Lord is not satisfied, and in the remarks to which we have just listened he said that no necessity had been made out to his satisfaction. "For what purpose," he asks, "are these forces needed? What are the strong and compelling conditions which cause this Army to be required? "I wonder if in a few sentences I can satisfy him. It is easy to say that an Army of 900,000 men—amounting almost to a million—is a great and prodigious force, and that small islands like these, even with our world-wide Empire, cannot at the termination of the war require the continuance of any such armed strength. I think that when the noble and learned Lord said that the war ended on November 11 last he spoke in terms of confidence which I, at any rate, would hesitate to employ.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am not dealing with the mere technical question of whether the conclusion of an Armistice was tantamount to the cessation of the war. Technically speaking, we are at war now; practically speaking, we are not. But is the noble and learned Lord so sure that the war ended on November 11 last? Is he so sure that conditions of war may not be revived? I am not, my Lords.
188
If I look to the future of Europe I see clouds hanging over the horizon. I see clouds that might at any moment burst upon us in a form not essentially dissimilar from that which we have seen and suffered during the last five years. And to tell me that no justification for the maintenance of this Force can be found because the war is at an end and is not likely to be resumed, is to tell me something which, from what I know, I am unable to believe.
But putting that on one side and assuming that my criticism on the point is ill-founded or pessimistic, let us see exactly to what purposes this Army of 900,000 men is to be devoted. Some of the figures were given by the noble Viscount who sits behind me. For instance, there is the Army of the Rhine—264,000 in number. Does anybody in this House seriously contend that that Army is not required? Would anybody here propose to withdraw a single regiment, a single platoon, of that Army, which is your only guarantee, absolutely your only guarantee, for getting your terms?
LORD BUCKMASTER: What about the Fleet?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble and learned Lord says, "What about the Fleet?" There are a great many parts of Europe not accessible to His Majesty's Navy. I am under the impression that it was Shakespeare who once thought that Bohemia had a seaport, but I hope the noble and learned Lord does not share that geographical illusion. There are, at any rate, a good many parts of the world, where trouble is likely to occur during the next few months, which are not accessible to His Majesty's Fleet.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I was referring to the Army of the Rhine, if the noble Earl will forgive me.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: If the noble and learned Lord thinks that trouble is likely to break out in Germany and that it can be composed by the entrance of His Majesty's Fleet into the ports of the Baltic and the Northern Ocean, without an Army of Occupation, he holds a view which will be shared by no military or naval critic. The Navy would not suffice. But how unreal the point is. You are objecting to service. Apparently, however, the noble and learned Lord is willing that

189
the sailor should be called upon to continue his service in order to enforce terms upon Germany, but, merely because a man has the misfortune to be a soldier, and a conscribed soldier, he is to be free from bearing his share in the national effort. I have stated the strength of the Army on the Rhine. I, at any rate, would not be responsible for diminishing it by a single man.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then there is the garrison of this country—176,000 in number. There is the Salvage Corps in France, the numbers of which were given by my noble friend—namely, 120,000—engaged in collecting, for the purposes of disposal and business-like sale, all the immense amount of stock that has been accumulated in that country. There are also the garrisons of India and Aden. The: noble and learned Lord seems to think that we could dispense with the 70,000 or 80,000 British soldiers who have been kept there hitherto and who are required to be kept now in those countries. There are the garrisons in the Middle East, in the Caucasus, in Syria, and in Palestine.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Mesopotamia.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am glad to hear the noble Earl mention Mesopotamia. As every noble Lord knows, Mesopotamia has been recovered from the Turks and conquered, and is now being administered and restored to a prosperity such as it has not known for centuries by the fostering hand of British officers and the British Army. Among the decisions of the Peace Conference there is none which I regret more than one which was reported the other day, to send a roving Commission to the Eastern parts of the world in order to compose the rival ambitions of different States and Powers in the Middle East. That Commission will, to my mind, be more disposed to unsettle than to settle, and, observing the effect it will have until it has reported—which, viewing the immense range of country that it has to cover, is not likely to be for many months—it is essential to maintain our garrisons. We cannot, at a moment like this, strip Mesopotamia of its garrison. We cannot, leave Palestine Syria—
190
the fate of which is still undecided—without the Force that conquered them and now holds them, and it is absolutely certain that for the next year all the Forces that are now there will have to be maintained intact. There are at the present moment 30,000 troops in Mesopotamia, and, in the conditions which I have described, it would be quite impossible to reduce the number. So much for the Middle East. There is the garrison of Ireland. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would like to withdraw it. If he will propose to His Majesty's Government a policy which will enable us to withdraw the 40,000 troops in Ireland and successfully to administer that country, he will confer upon us the greatest favour that even he has ever rendered to public life.
There is a small force in Northern Russia. The numbers were given by my noble friend as 20,000. We hope to withdraw them. We shall withdraw them at the earliest opportunity. There is still a force of 10,000 in Italy, and that also will be withdrawn. If you add together the whole of the figures which I have given to your Lordships, the total is 860,000 men, and from this you have to deduct 268,000 who are really non-combatants, because they are employed on dispersal centres, transport, care of remounts, etc. So that really for the purposes of keeping the Empire safe and holding what we have taken after the war, and what we are bound, at any rate for the time being, to hold in order to secure the adequate fulfilment of the provisions of the Peace Treaty when that is concluded, we are retaining an Army that does not exceed 650,000 men.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that, whether the numbers be great or small, he has no confidence in us. And why? Because there is a certain statesman of illimitable powers, of enormous capacity, and almost incomprehensible resources of danger at the War Office; and really in describing the Secretary of State for War the noble and learned Lord employed, and almost exhausted, a vocabulary not less fertile than that of his victim. Apparently the danger consists in the fact that there is a Cabinet incapable of keeping Mr. Winston Churchill in order. The noble and learned Lord, with myself, was a member of a Cabinet of which that illustrious statesman was a Member. I cannot recall that he exerted himself particularly in the task of keeping in order

191
this unruly member; but whether that was so or not, I utterly decline to admit that all virtue went out of that Cabinet, and all capacity for administrative or executive authority disappeared from us, when the noble and learned Lord left our midst. I think the Cabinet can look after themselves, and that the noble and learned Lord need not be particularly afraid that they will be led astray by one whom the noble and learned Lord himself was unable to keep in order.
What does the noble and learned Lord really think we are after? Why should it be to the interests of any Party, or Government, or individual, to keep up a conscript Army in this country longer than is required? We all of us know perfectly well the common sentiment against conscription. Most of us share it. I, perhaps, do not feel quite as strongly as most, because I have always been in favour of it. But we know that the feeling generally in this country is against conscription, and would naturally be, particularly after an Election when so many speeches were made, so many undertakings given (which would be expected of any Party or Government) to revert as far as possible to normal pre-war conditions. What is it that prevents us from doing so? The noble and learned Lord thinks there is some maleficent purpose about it. Is it not conceivable that we may have the interests of the country at heart? Is it not just possible that we may feel that only by keeping these men can we reap what the soldiers have won for us? That is the simple fact of the case. And so far from believing that either in the Army or in the country is there any feeling against the position we have been compelled to assume on the matter, I believe on the contrary that if we had acted in any other way we should have been held up to general condemnation.
Pray do not suppose for a moment that there is any particular desire on the part of His Majesty's Government, or any member of it, to send British troops here, there, or anywhere. But I have been struck by this fact. During the past four or five months, since the Armistice was concluded, Europe has been and still remains in a very troubled state. There are many rival ambitions which it is difficult to compose; there are many struggling States whose future is not yet assured; there are many hopes and many
192
promises which still remain to be fulfilled. Believe me, my Lords, that cannot be done without some display of military force; and, surprising as it may be to the noble and learned Lord and some of his friends, it is remarkable that in almost every corner of Europe where these doubts and difficulties occur it is for British troops that the demand is always made.
At the present moment you have a position of affairs in Vienna of a very serious description. Rebellion has broken out in Hungary, and Budapest is at this juncture in the hands of a so-called Bolshevik Government. Vienna, in its apprehension of a similar fate, turns to whom? To us—"If you will only send 10,000 British troops we can guarantee that the situation will be saved. "Why British troops? Because "they are troops we can trust; they have no interest to serve; no territory to seize. They know how to behave." If it is a question of the future of Fiume, disputed between the Italians and the Yugo-Slavs, what is the first request that is made? It is a request to send a battalion of British troops, because then "we are certain nothing wrong will take place." If it is a question of the occupation of Montenegro, claimed by Serbia, and still in the hands of the Peace Conference, what is the first suggestion that is made? A request comes to the British Government to occupy Montenegro as "in your hands we are safe." These are casual illustrations that come to my mind as I am speaking, and I could give out of the history of the last four or five months numbers of occasions on which this has occurred.
I do not say that we respond to these invitations with avidity. We are often unable to do so, but, believe me, the ability to respond to them when the occasion is proved is a source of moral strength to ourselves, and it is a guarantee of the peace of the world that you desire to re-establish. I apologise for having intervened in this debate, but I hope in the few words I have used I have given your Lordships reason to think that there is substantial justification for the particular increase of men asked for by His Majesty's Government; and I believe that if this debate were read, as so few of our debates are, outside, the general sense of the public would be not with the noble and learned Lord but with the noble Viscount who has introduced this Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have listened with attention to the speech of the noble Earl, and I am bound to say that if some of the arguments he has used were the only arguments for this Bill my sympathies would be entirely with my noble and learned friend, with whom, on some points. I ant compelled to differ. The argument of the noble Earl was based upon the great value of the British Army, as we have it, not for any purposes which definitely came to an end with the conclusion of the peace terms, or the maintenance of the peace terms when they were attained. He held out a vista of flings that might happen, and happen without limit in point of time, for which we should have to maintain an Army such as we have at the present time. If that had been the object of this Bill I should have held a different attitude towards it from what I do now. I am in favour of this Bill because of its time limit—a year hence. I think everything ought to be accomplished within that period, and if it is not we may have a great deal to say when the time comes. In the view of the noble Earl there was no time limit fixed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am most loth to interrupt. Surely the whole of my argument was directed to prove the necessities which exist now, and are likely to exist for the next twelve months.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: And for a great deal longer. The noble Earl pointed out all sorts of trouble which might arise in the Near, and even in the Far, East. We were to be the guarantors of the world. I have protested ever since I have been in Parliament against the opinion that we were to be called upon to keep up an immense naval force and an immense military force, for the simple reason that we cannot do it. For that reason I was against the noble Earl in his campaign for compulsory service and his advocacy of Lord Roberts's Rill. I considered that the voluntary system, with the splendid quality of troops it gave us—you saw it in the Expeditionary Force, and you could not have got them from any compulsory short service—that this small efficient Army, with our Navy, was the weapon of this country. The sort of Army we have now is not the one I look upon with any favour. But although that is so, and although I agree with the noble Earl in his general conclusion, there is yet another point on which I think he said
194
something which he might have said more convincingly, at least to my mind. Why is it that we cannot rely upon sea-power to bring this war to an end? I have another reason which is not that of the noble Earl opposite, nor does it let me agree with my noble and learned friend. The instrument and the only effective instrument of sea-power is the blockade. Until we get rid of the blockade I, for my part, see little chance of things settling down in Russia and Germany. If you can feed the people—if, in other words, you can relax the blockade—and restore them to normal conditions, then only it appears to me can there be a reasonable probability of the disturbances in Government which are now taking place coming to an end. To overcome Bolshevism you must make it possible for the lot of the people to be improved.
Why do I agree with this Bill? I agree with it—and I agree very emphatically with it—because I think that it is absolutely necessary. The terms of peace, after all, are at present nothing more than the Armistice which has been obtained by force of arms. The terms of peace are not yet agreed. I think that they will be agreed, but nothing can so make them likely not to be agreed to as the absence of military force. We got the Armistice by force of arms, and I do not like to contemplate what would be the attitude of the Central Powers, which are watching us with the closest attention, if they saw a failure of this measure and the disappearance of our Army. It. is for that reason—because I think this Bill is a necessity—that I support it. About its technical details I do not think there is much to be said. The competent authority in this case is the Army Council, and you must leave it to that body which is cord rolled by the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. Parliament itself in the ultimate result has the power.
What is important is that you have a prospect under this Bill of keeping up the Army. It was suggested—I do not think that it was very strongly suggested—by my noble and learned friend that you could keep up this Army without compulsory service. I believe that to be a wholly and totally mistaken idea. If this Bill does not become an Act the Army that you have got will very quickly disappear. It is a common delusion to think that if men are given sufficient inducements

195
they will re-enlist. I have had bitter experience of that. Before 1906 there were those who held that view, and they passed an Act altering the terms of military service under which the soldier was to enlist only for three years with the Colours, and to be able to re-engage for as much of the remaining nine years as might be required. We had to pay the most extravagant terms to get even a sufficiency of men to reengage; the state of things was appalling. There were in those days 156 Battalions of the line. They had shrunk down, some of them, to a very low figure indeed—500 and 600 men. It was my painful duty to reduce eight of those Battalions because it was simply a farce trying to keep up more than 148. We could not from voluntary service and even with this bounty keep up a strength of 148 Battalions. I remember well Sir Charles Douglas, one of the most competent men of business the War Office contained, saying to me, "I cannot, whatever means are put into my power, raise another Division, and I cannot keep 148 Battalions up to strength. You cannot do it on a voluntary system only, because you have a certain very limited stream, and immediately after war that stream shrinks down until it becomes little more than a trickle."
I have no doubt at all from the experience of those days that unless the present terms of compulsory service are kept you will find your Army disappear. Suppose that all you wanted was the Army of the Rhine—roughly a quarter of a million men. You have not the smallest chance of obtaining anything approaching that under any system of voluntary recruiting. I listened to the terms which the noble Viscount opposite detailed to us. Those are the terms upon which the War Office is endeavouring to re-engage men. They are promises which make the mouths water of those who were accustomed to the old condition of things. We should have treated them in those days as utterly extravagant terms, and they are certainly terms which the nation would not listen to except under the greatest stress. Yet what have they succeeded in getting? 70,000 troops and 6,000 men engaged in armaments. Unless therefore this Bill passes the Army will melt away. I have no doubt at all about that.
If that is so, we come back to this question, whether the Army is necessary. To my mind the peace terms—the terms of the Armistice and the peace negotiations
196
as they are going on now—make it necessary that there should be an Army of something like this strength. I should be apprehensive of a change of attitude on the part of the Powers with whom we are negotiating if, in the making of peace, we did not have this Army. Those Powers have to submit to the Armistice terms which were the result of victory of the Armies of General Foch and Sir Douglas Haig. Under these circumstances, and speaking for myself, I am quite unable to take the risk of contributing to anything which would make it likely that those Armies would disappear. Therefore I am glad that my noble and learned friend, who acts wisely in these matters, is not pursuing his Motion to a Division. For the rest, I entirely agree in the criticism which be made of the circumstances under which the Bill comes to us. It was surely within the capability of men of good sense to see, when the Armistice terms were arranged and a General Election was taking place, that if those Armistice terms were to be translated into peace terms a considerable time must be taken up. The consideration of the peace terms, it must have been known, would take a good while, and that in the meantime an Army of maintenance would be required. The Government also must have known that what was necessary would involve compulsion. They knew, too, that their negotiations were likely to take some considerable time. One knows something of the attitude of the people of this country towards compulsion in normal times, and I think that the Government would have been wise to have said a little more than the one sentence which the noble Viscount was able to produce as some warning of what might have to be done.
The whole of the trouble we have had arises through the people having been led to expect that compulsion was at end. They have been led to expect something which could not be brought about. War is a tremendous and a serious thing, and it brings consequences in its train that you cannot conceive. It would have been infinitely better, and it would have been right and practicable, to have said that this Bill was a Bill which must be looked forward to at least as probable; and because that has not been said we have got all this trouble. But that is no reason for objecting to the Bill. I myself think the Bill a military necessity, and for that reason, if there were a Division, I should vote for it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have but little to add to what has been stated in the course of the debate. The noble Earl who leads the House spoke of the small following which my noble and learned friend behind me is likely to possess or to claim upon such a question as this. That statement is in one sense accurate, but not, I think, in all senses. It is quite possible that in dwelling on the particular point on which he laid emphasis—namely, what he conceived to be the extravagant number of men asked for in this Bill, and still more in the Army (Annual) Bill which is to follow (the vast number of 2,600,000 men)—my noble and learned friend may not attract great sympathy in this House, or indeed; in some respects, in the country. But on the general question which was alluded to by the noble and learned Viscount who last sat down—namely, that of the extreme disturbance of mind produced in the country by the continuance of the system of conscription for a period considerably beyond that which they believed and were led to expect—I venture to think that my noble friend has a very large following, if not in this House, at any rate in the country.
It is worth while for those who study this question to look back at what happened at the end of 1915 and the beginning of 1916, when compulsory service first became necessary and the necessity was pressed in Parliament. Some noble Lords will, I am sure, recall the extreme difficulty which the Coalition Government of that day found in placing the matter before the country and in working their measure through Parliament. At one time it was touch and go whether the whole Labour Party of that time, including many of those who were most staunch all through the war in supporting the national cause and in recognising the necessity of complete and ultimate victory, would not finally decline to admit the necessity for introducing compulsory service. There are certain principles ingrained in the British people against which it is useless to argue, which in their expression may sometimes appear exaggerated, or even unreasonable, but which, when they are contravened, demand the closest and most delicate care by those statesmen who have to undertake the task. Of such is the ingrained dread of priestcraft which for so many years prevented statesmen of all parties from mitigating the terms of the Coronation Declaration made by the
198
Sovereign and so offensive to many of his loyal subjects. Of such also is the ingrained mistrust of the system of compulsory service in this country, dating, as the noble and learned Viscount behind me stated, from the historical dread entertained through so many centuries of the existence of a standing Army here. And it is that dread which has been at the bottom of the opposition to this Bill, which, though apparently so feeble in both Houses of Parliament, yet exists, as I am certain the Government will recognise, in no small degree throughout the country.
I was interested to notice, when the noble Earl who leads the House observed, "Who would suppose that the Government could be suspected of being likely to persevere with a system of conscription in peace time, for it was well known that no Government would dream of proposing such a thing?" that the noble Earl's observation did not raise a single cheer in any quarter of the House. I think that if your Lordships' House was full, and a vote was taken, it would probably be found that a very large majority of your Lordships would be in favour of some system of conscription. How a vote in another place would go I have no means of knowing, but I cannot follow the noble Earl the Leader of the House in dismissing this fear as one which is entertained without any reason by the Labour Party and by a great mass of people throughout the country, simply because, to the best of my belief, there is a powerful element in the country who would be glad to see a system, not of military training, but of compulsory service forming part of our ordinary law.
My noble and learned friend considers that the provision to be made by this Bill far exceeds the necessities of the case. He did not dwell on the tremendous figure of cost which has to be regretfully faced, nor did he dwell on the not less serious element of the abstraction from labour of so vast a number of able-bodied men, many of them skilled men, at a time when every ounce of labour is needed for the reconstruction of our industrial system. But my noble and learned friend laid stress on the neglect, as he considered it, to utilise our sea power sufficiently for the present necessities. It may be that, as the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Haldane) said, it would be difficult at this moment to apply our sea power to put

199
necessary pressure upon Germany on the ground—as I think he desired to state—that it was too formidable a weapon, working through the blockade, to apply at this moment. But I confess that I have never understood, and I have never heard an explanation given, why in the early days of the Armistice more use was not made of the Fleet and less of the Army.
Why, at the early moments on the conclusion of the Armistice, when it was necessary to put severe pressure upon Germany and the blockade was being actually maintained in its utmost rigour—why at that time it was considered necessary to send so large a contingent of troops to the Rhine and not to use the Fleet at the German ports, is a matter which I have never understood. I think the omission to do this is regrettable for this reason, that sending so large a force to the German frontier and beyond seemed to imply a lasting obligation on our part to take an equal share with the Continental Powers—our Allies—in maintaining order on the Continent of Europe. I ask, For how long is that obligation upon us to be presumed to last? It is, of course, an entirely new obligation due to the fact that, by the paramount necessities of the case, we were compelled to put every man in that we possibly could, and to play, so far as our population and the necessary needs of war industries permitted, an equal part on the Continent of Europe with our Allies and with the United States. The country was proud, of course, to undertake that duty because it was necessary for Europe to be free. But we are entitled to ask now, For how long is that obligation to be presumed to rest upon us?
It is thoroughly germane to the present Bill to ask that question; because I am convinced that the mistrust with which this measure is looked upon in many quarters is largely based on the belief that it cannot be regarded as a final measure. The noble Earl who leads the House informed us that he had based all his arguments on the foundation of this necessity ceasing by April 30 next year. The final discharge of the men, if I remember rightly, is three months later—in July, 1920. A great many people doubt whether that expectation is likely to be fulfilled; and if it is not going to be fulfilled, or likely not to be fulfilled, they would greatly prefer to be told so now, and not to
200
be told in the early part of next year that the "fruits of victory"—which appears to be the fashionable phrase—have still to be garnered in, and that a year or two years more may be required for the purposes of that harvest, with the concomitant necessity of maintaining a compulsorily raised Army
There is a feeling—and His Majesty's Government ought to recognise it—that the truth about the situation and the probabilities of time future has been doled out in somewhat too small doses, not merely during the General Election, but habitually; and the country would greatly prefer to be told what the worst possibilities of the case may be presumed to be rather than to be gratified with the most sanguine expectations which His Majesty's advisers are able to entertain at the present moment. That is one matter which I think disturbs the public mind at this moment—namely, the probability, as people suppose it, that even this is not really likely to be the conclusion of compulsory service. It is also felt, as I believe, that the longer you continue your compulsory system the worse your chances of returning to a simple system of voluntary enlistment.
May it not be that, if during the next twelve months your Army is largely composed of men who would greatly prefer to leave it if they could, recruiting will tend to go back rather than to go forward? As those men become demobilised they will be surely the precise opposite to good recruiting sergeants. May they not at any rate tend to discourage enlistment generally? It may be that it is altogether impossible now to provide the necessary force by voluntary enlistment. I agree that this very possibly is so. I am not quite certain that if at the moment of the Armistice an appeal had been made for a year's more service you might not have secured an adequate force without the necessity of continuing compulsion. That is one of the things which obviously can never be proved either way. But I ant sorry that the attempt was not made straight off instead of being deferred, as I think it was, for something like three months, when the chances obviously were becoming less.
I have nothing to say about the disposition of the forces, except this, that when the noble Earl who leads the House mentioned the necessity of still keeping a force in Mesopotamia, to which he obviously

201
obtained the agreement of all your Lordships, I am sorry he did not mention that a very large proportion of the forces occupying Mesopotamia were. Indian troops, instead of giving, as he did, the impression that the force was entirely British. That is, of course, merely by the way.
In conclusion, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down in supposing that my noble and learned friend will not desire to divide the House on this occasion. It is clear that an attempt to reject a measure of this kind, whether successful or unsuccessful—and of course in this case it would be unsuccessful—would be likely to be misinterpreted outside the House. Therefore I could not advise my noble and learned friend so to act. His design in placing this Motion on the Paper was, no doubt, to make it quite clear that he does protest strongly against the main provisions of the Bill, and in so protesting I have no doubt that he represents a larger body of opinion outside than would appear here if he were to divide the House upon it.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I think the Government are to be congratulated on having observed a principle both in this Bill and in the Army Estimates which hitherto has been more honoured in the breach chat in the observance. I refer to the principle that your military strength and organisation should be based not upon a certain form of enlistment, or upon what, sum of money is provided, but upon the necessities of the case. Before the war we had an Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men. Nobody knew why that number was chosen. We had a Territorial Army of fourteen Divisions, nobody knew why. It might just as well have been thirteen or fifteen. One reason was that with a certain sum of money provided and a certain form of enlistment called the voluntary system, those were the maximum numbers that we could expect to maintain. Nobody admitted that truth, because it was really the fact that the Army was to all intents and purposes, I won't say little better than a sham, hut entirely inadequate for the purposes of War.
The noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill said something about conscription—about the immense unpopularity of conscription in this form or of compulsory service in any form which
202
I think is perfectly true. But it does not follow that, because a thing is unpopular, it is necessarily unnecessary. He appears to regard it with almost superstitious hatred as a kind of device of the Evil One, used by Germany in the present war for her own nefarious purposes. As a matter of fact, conscription is nothing of the kind. It is a form of service absolutely inevitable under modern world conditions. So long as there is the slightest chance of war, nations will put into the field the whole of their able-bodied manhood, and if they will do that you cannot prevent, them taking the precaution of training that manhood in time of peace.
The noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill is at least to be congratulated upon having improved on the arguments used in another place, in that he based his objection on the international situation and not merely on a general objection to conscription as such. I was very interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's objections on that ground, because we should all like to know a little more about the international situation, and he omitted to tell us anything about it. I think a good many of us have been trying to find out what the international situation is, and we know nothing, and as far as I can make out the Government know very little about it. It is possible that the European statesmen settling the affairs of the world in Paris know something, but if so, our diplomacy has not become sufficiently open to let us know what is going on. If the noble and learned Lord had told us that the number of 900,000 which we proposed to keep up was altogether too great in order to deal with the situation, and if he had described exactly what the situation was, and what he thought the dangers were, his argument would have been a good deal more convincing; but as a matter of fact we. do not know anything about these dangers, and if we did the only people who could possibly know what was necessary to provide against them are the expert advisers of the Government.
The noble and learned Lord was evidently prepared to see our present Army fall to pieces altogether on a given date a few weeks or months hence. He has offered us no alternative whatever. He said the number of 900,000 was too great. Perhaps he will inform us how many men we do want. If ten divisions on the Rhine are too many, how many divisions do we

203
want? Nor has he told us that voluntary service will provide a sufficient number of divisions. He has told us that in order to justify such a measure as this you must have very strong and compelling reasons. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has given us what, I think, will be generally agreed as being very strong and compelling reasons. But there is one point which the noble and learned Lord has ignored altogether. He has ignored what will happen if Germany refuses to sign the peace terms. He apparently thinks that the Navy can compel Germany to observe the peace terms and to pay indemnities but as the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, has shown us, it is impossible for our battleships to steam up the Rhine, and we have certain obligations to our Allies which the noble and learned Lord appears to ignore.
I confess I am very surprised that the noble and learned Lord should have used this argument, because it is always surprising to find that those who are always most fervent in the cause of humanity, and who regard anything in the nature of oppression and repression with horror, advocate means of bringing Germany to terms which are peculiarly abhorrent, for the first effect of a blockade is always felt by the women and children of the country upon which it is imposed. Of course, it is always possible to impose terms by a blockade provided you can depend upon getting an ordinary stable Government in Germany. But you cannot. It is quite possible that the Government of Germany may become Bolshevik—we heard only yesterday that the Government of Bavaria had become Bolshevik—and in that case she will do exactly as Russia has done. The Government and Government troops will commandeer all the foodstuffs and the rest of the country will be starved, and your blockade will have no effect whatever on the Government. There is one other point which the noble and learned Lord made. He said, "You do not want these numbers to garrison your Empire." I was very surprised by this argument also, because I should have thought—
LORD BUCKMASTER: I said the Secretary of State for War had said so.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I admit you do not want these numbers to garrison the Empire. But I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord should apparently not have contemplated our
204
obligations to the various smaller nations of the world, especially the Armenians. Although these Forces are not required to garrison our Empire they are required to garrison distant parts of the earth, and there are various subject races in Syria, Armenia, and Mesopotamia, which are entirely dependent on the garrisons of those countries. The noble and learned Lord used certain arguments which were used in another place by Labour Members. He said that this measure was absolutely out of touch with modern democratic sentiment. That was said in another place. It was pointed out that it was an anachronism in view of the new era we had all been promised and that it was inconsistent with such ideas as that of the League of Nations. I have not been able to discover what connection there is, under present conditions, between this idea of the League of Nations and reduced armaments. It appears to me that if you are to establish the League of Nations you want much larger armies than you have ever had before. That is generally admitted.
I think it is conceded by everybody—we are really not on controversial ground on this matter—that no settlement of Europe is possible as long as there is the blood-stained Government in Russia, which is nothing but a blot on civilisation and a disgrace to humanity. The first thing you have to do, before you can establish the League of Nations, is to make all nations think alike. The only way by which you can bring about this idea at all is by meeting the situation in Russia. But the noble and learned Lord does not contemplate sending a single soldier, whether compulsorily enrolled or voluntarily enrolled, to suppress Lenin and Trotsky. I do not know what method would be employed by those most fervid in advocating these ideals—whether they would try to humour the wild beast or whisper soft nothings in the ears of those who are oppressing the people of Russia. I would also point out to the noble and learned Lord that we have obligations in respect of smaller nations, which have always been regarded as the peculiar property of the Liberal Party, such as Poland, Bohemia and Jugo-Slavia. I do not know how we could protect them unless we sent troops for the purpose.
I have always been somewhat sceptical about this ideal of the League of Nations and the various democratic phrases such

205
as the "self-determination of peoples," "making the world safe for democracy" and so on, not because I do not admire them—in fact, I admire them so intensely that I think they are too grand and too noble and too beautiful—but because I felt fairly certain that those who were most anxious, or at any rate professed to be most anxious, to bring that about were not willing to lit a finger in order to do so. I must say that events have justified that opinion. It seems to me that a good many of those people who advocate these ideals are quite prepared to leave these smaller nations which I have already mentioned, in the middle of a world engulfed in anarchy, between the dangers of Bolshevism on the one side and the danger of on the other. I suppose it is due to that old illusion of which we heard a good deal before the war that "Force is no argument." I should have thought that after the experience of the last five years there would be few people to be found to repeat that phrase.
There is one attitude of mind against which all. reasoning is impossible, and that is the attitude of mind which believes that all these difficulties, all these problems, can be solved, not by military strength, not by showing that you are determined to employ force in order to attain what you are absolutely convinced are the principles of justice and right, but which believes that these principles can be established by phrases and by formulas; and it does seem to me that the opposition to this Bill is primarily the result of that attitude of mind.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the three noble Lords who have addressed the House from the Front Bench on this [the Opposition] side made something of a grievance that conscription had not been mentioned at the Election by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. It appeared almost as if these noble Lords had felt that they themselves and their Party had backed conscription, an unpopular policy, and that the Coalition had gained votes by objecting to it. That is hardly the case. What I think actually happened at the Election was that the country distrusted the policy of what I may perhaps call the "Wee Frees," the "unrationed" Radicals, because they did not feel that that Party was prepared to reap the fruits of victory. That, as I understand it, is why the country voted
206
for the Coalition. Whether conscription was necessary or not, they voted for the Coalition in order that the victory which we had won in the field should be also won in the Peace Conference. It is obviously quite impossible that you should win that victory in the Peace Conference unless you have an Army and a Fleet behind you with which to carry out your decision.
It has been said, "Why don't you do this with the Navy?" My noble friend who has just sat down dealt with that question to a large extent. I would point out that the Navy failed to win the surrender of the German Fleet until our Armies were beginning to move forward. It was the result. of our victories on land and the strength of the Army moving forward which compelled the Germans to hand over that Fleet, because they knew that if they did not do so they would either find the Armies of the Allies at their ports or the British Fleet waiting outside. Quite obviously if our Armies had not gone forward it is possible the Germans would not have handed over their Fleet, and nobody is mad enought to suggest attacking an armed harbour in order to get out the Fleet which is inside.
The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition remarked that we had undertaken the obligation to maintain law and order on the Continent, and then proceeded to say that this was an entirely new obligation. Several of us—I in my humble way tried before the war to show the noble Marquess that that was not the case, and pointed out that we were responsible, in the same way as other countries, for the maintenance of the neutrality of Belgium. If the noble Marquess now says that he wishes this country no longer to undertake that responsibility, then I can understand the remark that the obligation is a new one. Personally, I thought it an old one, and an obligation that was sealed by treaty. He went on to ask how long this undertaking was to last; "how long shall we be responsible for the maintenance of order"? Surely we are responsible for that undertaking as long as we remain in the Alliance, or as long as we remain a part of the League of Nations. As I understand the League of Nations, it will be a League which will compel the maintenance of law and order throughout the world. It will insist that every member of the League is to find sufficient force to see that order is maintained, and so long as we remain a member of that League so

207
long shall we have the responsibility of finding the necessary force to see that order is maintained.
It may be asked why should we have this Army of 900,000 men, and is there any hope of it being reduced? The noble Duke and also the Leader of the House have already dealt with the point why these 900,000 men are required, and I think no member of this House will question the number as being too great. Several of us would be much more inclined to ask whether it is large enough. Many of us have for some months felt some anxiety in regard to the troops in North Russia, and some of us have also been none too happy in regard to the conditions in Egypt and India. I have a letter from a friend of mine in Trans-Caucasia, which shows only too clearly how inadequate are our forces there for carrying out the policy of law and order, which we have known so long as the Pax Britannica. Is there any hope of this force becoming less? I think unquestionably there is, because as we manage to get law and order established it will require smaller forces to maintain it. It will obviously require less forces in Palestine, Mesopotamia, and on the borders of Persia, and we hope it will require less forces in the Army of the Rhine. And why in the Army of the Rhine? For this reason. Although we shall require an Army to see that the terms of peace are carried out by our enemies, we intend as one of the first items on the peace programme, as I understand it, to see that Germany and our other enemies are compelled to reduce their Army to a figure which we think is adequate, and no more than adequate. At the present Germany has, I believe, the last two or three year classes of troops still mobilised; therefore they have actually a larger Army than in pre-war days. It may be that recently they have demobilised more troops, but I think I am correct in saving that their Army is larger now than before the war began. When we have compelled that Army to be demobilised, and have taken away rifles, and guns, and the other equipment necessary for war, we shall be able to see that our terms are obeyed by Germany without having to keep a large Army to enforce them.
I want to say a few words about this Bill. If the Government had shown more courage I believe they would have found
208
less opposition to the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has heard this, but if he will make inquiries he will find that it is true. One of the causes which tended to unrest in the military camps in England was the stopping of the recruiting of boys of eighteen years old. I happened to be born on November 11, and were I twenty years younger than I am I should have escaped being conscripted under the Military Service Acts. But my noble friend opposite, who may be a year or two older, might have been called up two or three years ago, against his will, sent to France against his will, compelled to fight in France against his will, and retained there in the Army by this Bill also against his will. I, on the other hand, being a little younger than himself, would escape conscription altogether.
It is said that with the increase of volunteers in the Army and with the smaller numbers we shall require this time next year, it is not worth while calling up boys of eighteen years old. I do not agree with that statement, and I will tell your Lordships why. You can train a lad in four months to become a sufficiently good recruit to join an established battalion. You still have a number of old soldier battalions in France, and it would have been perfectly possible to call up lads of eighteen years, give them a four months' training, and send them to join these battalions. You require, roughly, about 400,000 men in France. It is not a question as between compulsory service and voluntary service. It is merely a question as to what that Army should consist of. Is it to consist of men of thirty years of age skilled in their trades, who would have been of great value if they were released and sent home, and of men who were perhaps the owners of a single business, whose wives have a bard struggle to keep that single business going? Or is it to consist of these eighteen year-old lads, such as we saw in Hyde Park recently, admirably trained and obviously as healthy as boys can be; boys who have benefited enormously by the military training they have received, and who would be withdrawn from the labour market without anything like the same loss which is caused when you keep skilled men in the Army as at present? Quite obviously, from the point of view of the trade of this country, it would have been better to send out these boys of eighteen rather than detain men of an older age in the Army.

209
There is no question that the move would have been popular. It is obviously unfair that a. man, or a lad, because he happens to be of a certain age before a certain date, should be conscripted to the Army, and somebody who is a few days younger should not be conscripted at all. It would have been popular in the Army and outside, because employers of labour and trade unionists would have been glad to see those who had done their bit in France allowed to come back; it would obviously have been popular with wives and families if the older men had been released. I do not, however, propose to move an Amendment in this sense, unless I see some possibility of support from His Majesty's Government. And for two reasons. The first is that you have the power to conscript men under the Military Service Acts at present in force, and all you would do by putting Amendments into this Act would be to continue the power of conscription between the time of the ratification of peace and April 30 next year. In my view that time is going to be extremely short, because personally I am one of those who believe that it will be many months before peace is ratified, and I am very doubtful whether there is much advantage in this Bill. I think that the ratification of peace and the determination of this Bill will be very much the same thing. The second reason is that I do not believe any good purpose can be served by moving an Amendment in this House which is certain, with the Government majority, to be rejected in the other House.
I would like, however, to ask one or two questions. What is meant in Clause 1, line 5, by the "competent authority"? Under the definition the "competent authority" is said to be the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty. The question arises whether they will have the power to delegate their authority to say a junior officer in charge of a detachment, who might thus be able to exercise this power instead of the Army Council or the Head of the Navy. My second question is whether this authority will be exercised in regard to individual men or in regard to classes of men. You may have Major X saving, "Sergeant-Major Brown shall be retained in the Army because he happens to be valuable to me." Or does this clause merely mean that the Army Council shall retain in the Army men who were below the age of thirty-five or thirty-four, or whatever the age is, as the number is reduced.
210
I propose to put clown two Amendments for the next stage of this Bill. I was rather surprised that none of the noble Lords who have spoken rather in opposition to this Bill have drawn attention to these particular points, because I have not the faintest doubt in my own mind that both of them tend towards the unpopularity of voluntary service. The first is this. Your Lordships will observe that in Clause 1 the power to keep men in the Army will not apply to men of the Regular Forces serving on a pre-war attestation, but will apply to Special Reservists and Territorials who are serving on a pre-war attestation. Only the other day the Secretary of State for War made an admirable speech in regard to the Territorial Force. I speak with some feeling on this subject. Under a scheme which was produced by Lord Haldane I happened to have been what I call a double-barrelled man—that is to say, a Regular officer and also a Territorial—so I counted as two in regard to numbers. It happened that I ceased to be a Territorial when the war began, because I thought, quite rightly, that I should probably see very little of the war if I remained a Territorial. The Territorial battalion to which I belonged was sent out to India in September, 1914, and it is there now. It has been there four and a-half years, and it is by no means the only battalion sent out under similar conditions. It is quite obvious that if you are going to make exceptions to this Bill, the Territorial Army and the Special Reserve have every right to be excepted just as has the Regular soldier. I can realise the difficulty of bringing the Territorials home through the Red Sea in the hot weather, and therefore I suggest that we should except from the operation of this clause both men of the Regular and of the Territorial Forces, but that the proper authorities shall have the power to make an Order and lay it. on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if they show by that Order that it is necessary to keep these Territorials for a further period abroad, and if neither House objects to that, the Order shall be allowed to have effect, and the Territorials shall be kept abroad for the further period. If the necessity should arise the competent authority will thereby have the power to retain these men, but they will have to show that there is a necessity for so doing. Therefore, instead of having a mere verbal statement, like those which we constantly have, we shall have the matter put upon a

211
proper footing. I hope and believe that I shall get the support of noble Lords in this matter.
There is yet another Amendment which I intend to move. Personally I do not think that voluntary service is either the best or the only way of raising an Army. But I do believe in giving voluntary service every chance. What has tended to prevent recruiting for the post-war Army more than anything else is that the War Office have kept the power to transfer a man from one regiment to another without his consent. Men join their county regiment, and if they are transferred from their Territorial battalion without their consent they are very much annoyed. Sometimes they are transferred backwards and forwards, and they greatly object to that. But they especially object to be transferred from their own county regiment. Of course, when the war was at its height this could not easily be avoided. A certain number of men who went into the Artillery and the Engineers and other services were Class A men, and when we got extremely short of Class A men these men had to be transferred without their consent to Infantry regiments, and they were replaced in their old regiments by men of a lower category but who nevertheless were quite fit to do what was required. Moreover, when some battalions had heavy casualties it became almost impossible to send reinforcements from the same county regiments, and therefore a whole mass of recruits had to be sent to make good the gaps in battalions. At that time such a thing was unavoidable. But that time has passed now, and I think that all transfers from one corps to another without a man's consent should cease.
VISCOUNT PEEL: From to-day?
EARL STANHOPE: From the passing of this Bill. Obviously there must be a certain number of transfers, and there may be cases, possibly in India and elsewhere, where a battalion has such a low establishment that it may have to become part of other establishments, or its members put into different regiments. Therefore we may not be able entirely to abolish the power of transfer from one regiment to another, but I think that, as far as it is possible to do so, transfers should cease. In this particular case I am going to propose that both in regard to subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2 transfers shall
212
cease as from the passing of this Bill. It may be possible that the noble Viscount may require some modification of it, and that, of course, the House will be ready to agree to.
I desire to emphasise that the power to transfer men who are joining the Army voluntarily at this time from the regiment they have chosen to another regiment is doing more to injure recruiting than anything else. I can give your Lordships an illustration. There is a certain body of men which I know, in which a lieutenant-colonel and 240 men have all expressed a desire to go out to British Columbia to take up land. It is obvious that if you had approached those men and had said, "We intend to hold you together and to keep you in one battalion; we do not propose to transfer you to any other battalion without your own consent," a very large number of them would probably have taken on for further service on the Rhine or elsewhere. I am sure the comradeship of the trenches which is still so strong in the regiments now being disbanded would have enabled the Government to get more recruits if they would abolish that system of transfer which at present exists.
I very warmly support this Bill. I am quite convinced that compulsion is necessary; whether this Bill is necessary or not is another matter. It entirely depends on how far you have optimistic views as to the early conclusion of peace. But at any rate I quite understand that His Majesty's Government cannot gamble on peace being long delayed, and that is not a question for any one of us. I therefore fully agree that they are right in bringing forward a Bill of this character.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think perhaps a word ought to be addressed to your Lordships from amongst those with whom I sit before this debate closes. I should first like to congratulate your Lordships upon the speech which has just been delivered by my noble friend, because he brought to the discussion an intimate knowledge of the subject and an attention to details which—although I do not say so by way of criticism—was perhaps absent from some of the speeches even of the eminent members of your Lordships' House who preceded him. I earnestly hope that the Government have taken due note of all that my noble friend

213
has just said. There are many topics there which deserve their most careful consideration.
Turning to the man part of this debate I confess I reecho the advice which was delivered by the Leader of the Opposition to the noble and learned Lord who was to have moved the rejection of this Bill that he should not proceed to a Division. I really think that the noble and learned Lord is almost alone in his opposition to this Bill in your Lordships' House. I do not think, if I may say so respectfully, that he can even reckon the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, as a wholehearted supporter, for I observe that in his speech the noble Marquess did not really sustain the argument of the noble and learned Lord. The noble Marquess no doubt criticised the Bill, but he seemed to recognise that it was inevitable. I go, of course, a great deal further than that, but at any rate that is a considerable concession.
The noble Marquess said that voluntary enlistment might have done if it had been started in proper time, but he recognised that it would not do now. He thought that the Navy might have been effective if we had not had an Army of Occupation at all, but now that we have got an Army of Occupation I presume he recognises, as all other noble Lords do, that the Navy would not be sufficient the refore we are really in the presence of an all but unanimous feeling that His Majesty's Government ought to be supported in this Bill.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition recorded—I do not know whether with satisfaction or not—the phenomenon which he said he had observed that it was no good arguing with the people of this country about conscription. I am not going to advocate conscription as a permanent policy; it is a matter which requires very great consideration. But I do not agree with the noble Marquess that you must despair of convincing the people of this country of anything which is really for the public good. That is not the way to approach them. Whatever is necessary for the safety and honour of our country we must attempt to convince them of it, and it is but a futile method of public life to enter upon a controversy of that kind by saying that it is no good to argue with the people about it.
I must admit that I think this Bill would have had an easier passage but for certain
214
indiscretions which were committed during the General Election. I do not want to press too far the quotations which have been made, but undoubtedly for some reason or other those who were responsible for the management of that Election front the point of view of the Coalition seemed rather to have lost their nerve at a particular point in the Election and begun to pledge themselves to all sorts of things which I think now they probably rather regret. The truth was that the country was overwhelmingly in favour of the Coalition, and for the reason which has been stated by one of my noble friends to-night: they wanted a Government which could not only win the war but which could conclude a favourable peace, and they were determined to be united behind that Government. And all that the Cabinet had to do was to stand forward and offer to make a favourable peace, and no pledges of any kind were necessary and if they had made no pledges, or hinted at no pledges—because it did not really amount to a pledge; it would not be fair to the Government to say that they were pledged against Conscription—they would have been on far stronger ground now.
I believe that this Bill is absolutely necessary for the reasons which were stated by the noble Viscount the Under-Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate and by the noble Earl who leads the House. But I should be glad, I admit, that any possible mitigation of its hardships could be favourably considered. It is from that point of view that I specially recommend to the consideration of the Government the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. These grievances which are felt, and felt acutely, by the Territorial Force, ought to be met if they can be met. I do not pronounce any definite opinion until we have had the opportunity of seeing my noble friend's Amendment and discussing it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will reply later.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was anxious that the noble Viscount should know how much we felt in these matters. And let me say that he knows quite well—because we have already bad the opportunity of debating it in this House—how deeply all your Lordships feel the hard case of the Territorial troops in India. I might incidentally mention that India is not the only place where these hard cases occur.

215
I should very much like, if the noble Viscount replies, that he should tell us, if he can, something about the troops in Mesopotamia. How soon may it be expected that the white troops in Mesopotamia will be relieved, especially those who are Territorials? I know that it is a mixed force there, largely composed of native Indian troops, and it may be that the Government intend to relieve the white troops as soon as possible. If that were so I think it would be a source of great satisfaction in many quarters.
I have very little more to say, but I should like if I may to impress upon the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, the gravity of the warning which was delivered an hour ago by the Leader of the House—let him not think that the war has necessarily come to an end. The Government has said that. That concludes the question. Surely even the noble and learned Lord himself cannot any longer contend that it would be anything but folly to disarm this country in the face of a warning such as that delivered by the responsible Leader of your lordships' House. I feel sure that there really is nothing left to say because everything else sinks into insignificance beside that warning. Anybody who listened to the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland would have realised the hopelessness of doing without a striking military force at such a moment as this. My noble friend is, of course, an expert in these matters. He speaks from an intimate knowledge, from the closest study of strategical considerations extending over many years, and he tells us—what hardly requires to be told—that the Fleet without a military force would be powerless to enforce the views and interests of this country in case of emergency. I do not mean to say that it will be necessary to use that force, but you must have it; and, indeed, it is the existence of the force which is the greatest security against any difficulty.
Supposing the noble and learned Lord had proceeded to a Division. Let me suppose (what is absolutely impossible) that your Lordships had supported him. Would he be satisfied with that result? Would he not have been absolutely certain that it would have produced a feeling of satisfaction amongst the politicians and the soldiers of the Central Powers? Would he not realise at once that he could not have done anything which would be more
216
certain to produce a revival of their hopes, of their strength, and of their efforts? It is obvious, of course, that it would so happen. Therefore it never could be that your Lordships would reject this Bill. It never could be that the noble and learned Lord would have gone to a Division, not merely because he knows he would have been defeated but because in his heart, I am convinced, he would not wish to win. Consequently your Lordships have but one course—namely, to do what you have done throughout this war, to support the Government in those necessary military measures which are in the interests of the country, and to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not think that at this hour you would wish me to go into the general considerations which have been so interestingly discussed by noble Lords or to deal with some of those points dealt with by the noble Duke. I think I shall be more interpreting the wishes of your Lordships if I reply to the specific points so clearly raised by my noble friend Lord Stanhope. There were, I think, four points, and I will say two or three words upon them if I may, because it may save time later. The noble Lord discussed very thoroughly the question of the calling up of the eighteen-year-old boys who had come to the conscription age since November 11. I have stated the reasons, rather shortly perhaps, which the Government gave for not calling up those boys. The noble Earl knows very well that this can be done at any time under the Military Service Acts.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Whether an Amendment of that kind would be in order or not I am not saying, but it is clear that there would be no need for any Amendment to this Bill if the boys were called up, because they would at the time when this Bill comes into operation be in actual service and be retained under its provisions. The next point with which the noble Earl dealt was, who is the competent authority and how far can that authority be delegated to junior officers? He took the case of how far that applies to individuals as well as to classes. It might apply to individuals in this case, and in this case only I think, that when certain classes were ordered for demobilisation there might be particular

217
individuals in certain theatres who for the moment could not be spared and sent home forthwith, as is indicated in the words of the Bill. That duty would not be delegated, as my noble friend suggests, to a subaltern in charge of a draft, as I think his phrase was. In no case would the duty be delegated to anyone below the rank of General Officer, which would prevent any of the small indignities to which the noble Earl refers.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid it would not abolish the small individual cases.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend will see that there might be instances where at the moment it would be impossible immediately to demobilise members of a particular class who had been ordered for general demobilisation.
EARL STANHOPE: It would not be the general rule?
VISCOUNT PEEL: There would be no general rule at all. It would be only in specific and carefully-guarded cases, and the interests of particular individuals would be well looked after. A further point was that the noble Earl was not satisfied with those of pre-war attestation only being excepted from the Bill. He wanted to except Territorials, and alluded to the case of the Territorials who had been in India from the beginning of the war. That is a case with which I am sure everybody must sympathise, and the Army Council has expressed its views very strongly on that subject. It was my duty only a few weeks ago not only to express the thanks of the Army Council for the work done by those Territorials but to undertake that when the new Army is formed one of their first duties will be to release, after the hot weather, the Territorials in India. An Amendment such as my noble friend suggests would, however, be quite inoperative. Take the case of the Territorials called up after 1916. There are very few of these because, as my noble friend knows, very few enlisted On the Territorial attestation after January, 1916. But how could you exempt them? You could not give special leave to exempt that small class as against the other men called up about that time; because you would be thus giving them a special privilege which I am sure the noble Earl will not ask to be given to them.
EARL STANHOPE: My Amendment would be with regard to the men serving in the Army prior to August 4, 1914.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They would be released under the Army Order of January 29. It is clear that all those who joined up till 1916 are to be demobilised, and are now being rapidly demobilised under the Army Order; consequently no Amendment is necessary. The only reason why the Territorials are left in India is on account of the physical impossibility of removing them, not that the Army Council do not want to demobilise them or have no right to do so.
The fourth point of the noble Earl was as to transfers. I asked my noble friend especially whether he referred to transfers taking place before this Act had come into operation—that is to say, at present; or to those which might be affected after the Act came into operation. I do not think there is any necessity for such an Amendment, because what happens is that this Transfer Act, as I think I explained, comes to an end when peace is declared, or when the war is declared to come to an end, and after that no more transfers can take place.
EARL STANHOPE: That may be eight or nine months hence.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is what you can do under the Act. I asked the noble Earl if he wanted transfers to cease now, and he said, "No."
EARL STANHOPE: "From the passing of this Act," I said.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not a question of the passing of the Act, but when it comes into effect. I do not know whether he draws a distinction between the passing of the Act and its coining into effect.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: An Amendment would be wholly unnecessary if it dealt with the date as from the Ac coming into effect, because no more transfers could then take place. If, however, he asks this definite question, whether transfers shall cease to take place when this Bill becomes an Act, and before it comes into effect, I am compelled to give him a negative answer, because, with the reconstitution and demobilisation going on at the present

219
moment, and other difficulties, it is impossible to form these new units without some amount of transfer. I am sorry to give the noble Earl an answer of this kind, but I think it would be very difficult to move an Amendment to this Bill which would have that particular effect. That is the best reply which I can give to the four points.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble and learned Lord move?
LORD BUCKMASTER: No.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would like me to go through the clauses of the Bill in detail at this hour, or would prefer that I should deal with the matter at a later stage. At present I will content myself with merely moving that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I only want to raise two small points on this Bill. The first is that the Bill is brought in at a very late period. As the noble Viscount knows, and as your Lordships know, this Bill must come into operation before the end of the present month, and as I understand that the House is likely to rise early next week we shall have very little opportunity of considering the rather important changes in the Army Act which are proposed to be introduced. I suggest that this is a Bill which might be first introduced in this House and then sent to another place.
The only other question—to which I do not expect an immediate answer—arises on Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that it gives powers to examine houses, and so on, with regard to the supply of carriages and animals, and as your Lordships know only too well, your horses were commandeered at the beginning of the war and were given up very willingly. They were commandeered
220
in most cases below their value. The sum of £80 was given for a high-class hunter which, whatever it might be worth for the Army, you could not buy in the market for double the price. If you are going to commandeer, I think that motors and tractors should also be liable to be commandeered. In what I am going to say Artillery officers may not agree with me, but I think that in the future field guns will probably be drawn by tractors of the farming and ploughing type rather than by horses. You will no longer see batteries galloping into action; and I suggest to my noble friend that he should consider whether the word "carriage" in the Bill will really cover the question of motor cars and possibly tractors.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I just say, upon that, that this clause refers not so much to commandeering as to making a list, classifying and inspecting. I do not know whether the noble Earl wants his motorcar inspected.
EARL STANHOPE: I want it put on the list, as well as horses.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time. It takes away the statutory power that has existed since 1847 which prevents soldiers being allowed outside of barracks on nomination and election days.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT SLOUGH.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, I beg to move that the Message of the House of Commons on Tuesday last be taken into consideration,viz.—
"That it is expedient that a Select Committee of Five Members of this

221
House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to inquire into the conditions under which the Government works at Cippenham are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken."
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth concur with the Commons in the said Resolution.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of April 3.]

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY.
Petition of the London Electric Railway Company under their Common Seal, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to empower the London Electric Railway Company to construct a new subway and for other purposes, together with, a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and refereed to the Examiners.

CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A relating to Private Bills he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Com
222
mittees, appointed William Howard Winterbotham, Esquire, of the Royal Courts of Justice, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature, as guardian or protector of the infants, Henry Samuel Littleton Clowes, Legh Algernon Clowes, William Josceline Clowes, John Ernest Clowes, Henry Nelson Clowes, Margaret Violet Louisa Clowes, Mary Adelaide Clowes, Lucy Hyacinthe Clowes, and St. John Legh Clowes, named in the Bill, to represent such infants before the Committee on the Bill.
SOUTH SHIELDS GAS BILL.
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS PROCEDURE.
Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.