Sitting of 30 June 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords],
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Stourport Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Nuneaton Corporation Bill [Lords],
St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Lanark (Bothwell Division), in the room of David Henderson Macdonald, esquire, deceased— [Colonel sanders.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS,

  COAL (INCREASED PRICE).
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the estimated deficit falling on the public exchequer for the year commencing 1st July next in coal sold at to-day's prices, after taking into account the concessions made on the recommendations of the Sankey Commission; and how much per ton will it be necessary to increase the price of coal at the pit's mouth to prevent loss falling on the taxpayer?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Mr.Mackinder)
  580
  on the 4th June, in the course of which he indicated that the estimated deficit for the year commencing the 16th July next is £46,600,000, and that an increase of about 4s. 6d. per ton in the price of coal would be necessary to meet the deficiency.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is it a fact that since the War the price of coal has gone up 10s. 6d. already, and is this 4s. 6d. in addition to that figure?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will try and find; out, and let the right hon. Gentleman. know.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    ROLLING STOCK
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of rolling stock transferred to France during the War, the amount since returned to this country, and the present number of trucks and wagons in use on British railways as compared with August, 1914?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that during the War some 460 locomotives and 30,000 wagons in addition to certain passenger stock have been sent to France.
    The amount returned to this country, some of which probably has not yet been received by the Railway Companies from whom the rolling stock was taken, is, I am informed, some 400 locomotives and 3,000 wagons. The greater part of the stock returned is in need of extensive overhauling and repairs before it can be brought into use.
    The total number of wagons owned by the British Railway Companies in 1914 was about 750,000, and in January, 1919, the number was about 720,000. A large number of these are awaiting repairs. As regards private owners' wagons, the number of these before the War is believed to have been roughly some 700,000. There has no doubt been a reduction in the number available for use on the British railways, but I cannot give the figures.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the others will be restored to this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is great shortage of railway goods wagons in this country; that in some docks it is impossible to get goods cleared because of such shortage; whether the Railway Executive Committee has made any arrangements to meet these complaints; can he state if any new trucks are on order, and if any have been delivered during this year; if so, how many; and can he state if any trucks have yet been returned from France to this country; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the shortage of railway wagons and of its effects. I am confident that the Railway Companies are doing their best to improve the situation, but I cannot say how many wagons are on order or have been delivered. I understand that some 3,000 wagons have been sent back from France, and that the majority of those received by the Railway Companies need extensive repairs before they can be brought into use.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the railway wagon builders are working at full speed.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say.
    Mr. INSKIP: Are those unloading the wagons working at full speed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That I cannot say either.
    Mr. RAPERasked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) if he will inform the House whether the average laden mobility, exclusive of shunting and inter-terminal work, of the 1,000,000 railway wagons in the United Kingdom is more than or less than one-half of 1 per cent. of their existence; (2) whether he is aware that on an average over 80 per cent. of the energies of a locomotive are absorbed in shunting or unaccounted for; and what steps are being taken to remedy this position?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade are not in possession of any figures from which the laden mobility of a wagon or the average time during which an engine is hauling trains can be deduced with any certainty.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not the fact that these figures have been before the public for
    582
    some considerable time, and that the Board of Trade has been unable to confute them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes; I believe that they have been published.
    Mr. RAPER: But is it correct or not that the Board of Trade cannot confute them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not possible to test them, because we have not the figures to test them by.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making some inquiry where these losses are? It is a business proposition.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.

    FINANCIAL POSITION.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the estimated deficit on the working of the railways to be supplied by the taxpayers for the year ending 31st March, 1920, giving credit to the railways for the carriage of Government transport at Government rates; and when, and what, steps will be taken to make the railways self-supporting and not a burden on the public Exchequer?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I have previously explained, I cannot at present say what the deficiency in the net receipts of the railways for the current year is likely to be. One of the objects of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill is to enable steps to be taken in the direction of making the railways self-supporting, but I cannot say when that Bill will be passed.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can my hon. Friend say when he will be able to tell us what will be the estimated deficit?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I answered a question a few days ago, saying that we were trying to get an estimate, but we could not say that it was likely to be a very close one.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the aggregate net receipts of the year 1913 is the total sum guaranteed to the owners of the railways by the Government, while dividends at the rate prevailing in the same year are not guaranteed to the shareholders, he will say how such dividends are to be paid in view of the estimated

    583
    extra cost of over one hundred millions, as compared with 1913, in running the systems under Government control?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Whatever may be the cost of running the railways under Government control the railway companies receive from the Government their aggregate net receipts of 1913. It is for the boards of directors to arrange how the amounts received should be distributed to their shareholders.
    Major NEWMAN: Does that mean that there is no guarantee of any dividends at all for the shareholders?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, it does not mean that. It is a guarantee of the net receipts of 1913, and no loss will make any difference to that. There will be the same amount to distribute as in 1913.
    Major NEWMAN: Supposing those receipts are swallowed up by expenses?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That remains to be seen.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will there be an extra cost of £100,000,000 or any extra cost at all?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figure that was given of £100,000,000 was the estimated increase in the working expenses. No estimate has been given yet of the probable receipts of next year.
    Lord H. CECIL: Can an estimate be given now?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I have already explained, we are trying to get an estimate, but we cannot say that it will be a very close one.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether, allowing for Government traffic, there was a profit to the State under the arrangement with the railways for the period of about four and a half years ending 31st December, 1918; whether he can supply approximate figures showing the results of actual working for the same railways for the first half of the current year; and whether, before the House enters upon the Report stage of the Ways and Communications Bill, he will lay before it a further estimate as to the probable financial results for the year ending 31st December, 1919?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to answer this question. As my hon. Friend will see from the recent Return in
    584
    regard to railway working during the War, the estimated value of Government traffic during the period of control up to the end of 1918 exceeds the amount of compensation paid in respect of that period, but, as indicated in the Return, the cost of making good arrears of maintenance is uncertain, and there is a large contingent liability in respect of abnormal wear and tear. In these circumstances, I cannot say whether the result of railway working during the period referred to will ultimately involve a profit to the State or not. As regards the results of actual working during the first half of the current year, I cannot add to the reply given on this point to the hon. Member for Lincoln on the 26th June, and I fear that it is not possible to give an estimate as to the probable financial results for the year ending 31st December, 1919.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will look at the last paragraph of the question and answer it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am sure my hon. Friend will see I cannot give an answer to that without having looked into it.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: The question was put down to the Prime Minister for the express purpose of eliciting that answer.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: But it is a question about which I can have no knowledge except through the Board of Trade.
    Lord H. CECIL: Does my right hon. Friend think it reasonable that the House should be asked to take the Report stage of the Ways and Communications Bill lacking this very important information? It is treating the House with the greatest disrespect.
    Sir F. HALL: If my hon. Friend tells us no figures have been kept, and they cannot say whether the railways would have resulted in a profit or otherwise, how can the Minister-designate state that there has been a loss of £90,000,000 per annum on the railways of the country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say that. I said the cost of making good arrears of maintenance was uncertain, and has not yet been ascertained.
    Lord H. CECIL: Why has it not been ascertained?
    Sir F. HALL: Will my hon. Friend reply plainly to the first part of the question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Marriott)?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that the financial White Paper on this Bill is in such a condensed form that it is practically incomprehensible to anyone who studies it without technical knowledge of the question, and does he not think it unfair that this House should be asked to plunge into the Debate tomorrow without the necessary information?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I never myself found that condensation prevented comprehension. In any case this is not the first statement. Whatever information of that kind was required would be given in Committee.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was asked for time and again in Committee, and we could not get it. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that some Minister will come who can really give this information to-morrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly, if it is information in the possession of the Board of Trade I see no reason whatever why it should not be given, and if my hon. Friend will let me know clearly this afternoon what the information exactly is which is wanted, I shall try to have it given by the Minister to-morrow.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever information is obtained, there is organised opposition to the Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is very probable, but even organised opposition has a right to be dealt with, and is very apt to disappear when the facts are given.

    CHILDREN (CHEAP FARES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will ask the Railway Executive to consider their decision not to extend cheaper fares for children to the juvenile friendly societies; whether he is aware that, as the privilege is limited to schoolchildren, the only alternative is to make all such juveniles into Sunday-school scholars for the day; (2) whether he is aware that under the official regulations regarding the issue of cheap fares to children the Railway Executive decision excludes from its benefits all such organisations as Pearson's Fresh Air Fund, which exists to carry poor children in general into the country, but who naturally do not fulfil the official condition of belonging in bulk
    586
    to any particular educational institution; and whether the terms of the regulations will be reconsidered in this respect?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on this subject on the 5th June to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) and the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Lort-Williams), of which I am sending him a copy. The question whether the concessions recently granted in the case of recognised school excursions can be extended is a difficult one, but it is being carefully examined.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the case of fathers of large families who find it utterly impossible to take their children on account of the increased railway fares? Will he issue a family ticket?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The whole question is being examined, and we have to make some definite rules which will have to be observed. It would be a dangerous thing to make exceptions in particular cases.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to come to some decision before the summer months are over, and make a statement in a week's time?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will make a statement as soon as I can, but at present the only statement that I can make is that we cannot see our way to make exceptions of that kind.
    Major NEWMAN: Can these concessions be extended to Boy Scouts' Associations?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are several questions on that subject down upon the Paper.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (EXECUTIVE OFFICERS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether full-time branch and executive officers of the various approved friendly societies, in view of the fact that they are doing very necessary work for the State, may be permitted to travel at the old railway rates to district, delegate, or executive board meetings?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot arrange for this concession to be granted.

    GOODS TRAFFIC (DELAYS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pre-

    587
    sident of the Board of Trade whether great injury to the trade of the country is being caused by the delay of the railway companies in handling goods for transmission; whether this delay is due to the unwillingness of the directorate to provide adequate staff to handle the goods; and whether, in order to safeguard the interests, of both the workmen and the commercial community, the Government will secure the representation of both these interests on the Railway Executive?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As regards the first part of this question, I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given to the question which he asked on this subject on the 29th May. Delays on the railways are not, I think, in any way due to unwillingness on the part of the railway companies to provide adequate staff, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by altering the constitution of the Railway Executive Committee in the manner proposed. I may add that the difficulties affecting railway transport are under the immediate and direct consideration of the Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will consideration be given to the handling of fish on the railways?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is one of the questions being carefully inquired into.

    PASSENGER FARES (REDUCTION).
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that the 50 per cent. tax on fares was adopted as a war measure, to restrict the number of passengers travelling on the railways, he will now consider the advisability of its being taken off, as the need for restriction of travel is not now imperative and the continuation of the impost has caused a feeling of irritation amongst all classes of the travelling public?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is the case that 50 per cent. increase in passenger fares was imposed primarily with the object of restricting travelling. My right hon. Friend would be only too glad if it were possible to remove the increase, but the railway companies have great difficulty in dealing with the present passenger traffic, and both from that point of view and from the point of view of the financial position of the railways he does not feel able to reduce the charge at present.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is the considered decision of the Government that the increase of 50 per cent. is a fair charge on the public? If so, under what Act is this extra charge imposed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the last part of the question has already been answered. I may point out, in regard to the 50 per cent., seeing that prices for everything else have gone up something like 100 per cent., it does not seem unfair to increase the fares 50 per cent.
    Mr. TERRELL: Would it not be better at once to announce boldly that this 50 per cent is a permanent increase? And should not a similar increase be made on all other freight rates?

    RACE WEEK (SPECIAL TRAINS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will state the number of special race trains that were run by the South Western Rail way Company to Ascot during the recent race week; whether all or any of these trains were saloon or first-class only; if all or any of them were run at the ordinary fares or if they were run at a special fare; if the latter, at what increase was the special fare over the ordinary rates; (2) whether he will state the number of special race trains that were run by the respective railway companies to Epsom during the Derby week; whether all or any of these trains were first class only; if all or any of them were run at the ordinary fares or if they were run at a special fare; and, if the latter, at what increase was the special fare over the ordinary rates?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am making inquiries, and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

    SOUTH-EASTERN AND CHATHAM RAILWAY (SUBURBAN PASSENGER TRAFFIC).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received an answer from the South- Eastern and Chatham Railway Company as to reopening all the stations and working the Victoria to City loop line which runs through South London; and whether he will press on the Railway Executive Committee the urgent necessity for this reopening in order to relieve the present traffic congestion on tramways, tubes, and omnibuses in South London?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This matter has been under discussion with the railway company concerned and the Railway Executive Committee. I am afraid it is not possible at present to make any announcement with regard to the reopening of the stations referred to. The question will, however, not be lost sight of.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MOTOR CARS (RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the scanty supply of new British motor cars at present available or likely to become available within the next few months, and the consequent high prices of second-hand cars, he will consider the question of removing the restrictions on the import of American cars?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The restrictions on motor cars at the existing rate have only recently been recommended by the Imports Consultative Council, who went fully into all the circumstances of the case. It is not proposed to disturb these arrangements at present, but the extent to which motor cars will be admitted after 1st September will be determined by the general trade policy to be pursued alter that date.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous amount of unemployment at the present time, and will the Government take steps by means of a general tariff on manufactured articles to find employment for our own men in our own country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question of general policy with which I am not competent to deal.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be great opposition to that policy?
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate the ideas of the House on this matter to the Leader of the House?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. Friend's ideas are quite familiar to the Board of Trade.

    TRADE POLICY.
    Mr. ACLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the perma-
    590
    ment trade policy of the Government has been submitted to and approved by the War Cabinet or the Home Affairs Committee of the Cabinet?
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the economic policy, which is in his possession, has received the approval of the Cabinet?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give any information as to the permanent trade policy proposals before a general statement is made as to the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. ACLAND: I merely asked if it had been approved by the Cabinet?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not in a position to say.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Does anybody know?
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the members of the Committee which has advised the Government in connection with the economic trade policy of the country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure to what Committee the hon. Member refers. Numerous Committees have advised the Government on this subject, and the names of their members are to be found in their published Reports. I am circulating the Command numbers of these Papers in the OFFICIAL REPORT
    The following is the list of Command Papers referred to:
    Cd. Papers 8482, 9032, 9033, 9034, 9035, 9070, 9071, 9072, 9073, 9092, 9093, 9182, 9224, 9226, 9227, and 9236.
    Mr. TERRELL: The Committee, the names of which I desire to know, is the Committee which settled the policy which was announced to be now locked up in a box?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not aware that it was settled by this particular Committee.
    Mr. TERRELL: Can my hon. Friend give the names of the gentlemen who were concerned with formulating that policy?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There was not, as far as I know, any Committee such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. BILLING: Who has the key of the box?

    FARRIERS.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether as from 1st June, 1919, the National Iron Merchants' Association have entered into an agreement with the National Master Farriers' Association not to supply goods to any farrier unless he is or becomes a member of the Farriers' Association; whether he is aware that the effect of this arrangement is to raise prices by as much as 50 per cent. against the public; and what action does he propose to take to stop such profiteering and protect the farrier not desirous of being forced into a trades union?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My attention has not previously been drawn to the existence of the agreement referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, but if he will pass on to me the information which he possesses on this subject I will consider the matter.

    FOREIGN COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is part of the trade policy of the Government to denounce our foreign commercial treaties; and whether any steps have been taken in that direction?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is not yet prepared to make a statement regarding the trade policy of the Government.
    Mr. TERRELL: When will the statement be made?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say, but I hope very shortly

    CLOTHES AND BOOTS (CONTROL OF PRICES).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps the Government has taken or proposes to take to control the prices now being demanded for clothes and boots?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When can we expect the statement. One was promised three weeks ago?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think any definite day was named.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Are there any restrictions on the imports of clothes and boots?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must ask for notice of that.

    STEEL RAILS (CONTRACT FOR UNITED STATES).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Glasgow corporation has placed an order for 5,000 tons of steel rails with the United States of America; and whether, in view of the disastrous effect upon employment, he will take immediate steps to announce the economic policy of the country for the preservation of British industries and for the employment of British workers who are at present receiving unemployment benefit?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My attention has been called to a statement in the Press to this effect. The announcement of the economic policy of the Government will not be unnecessarily delayed.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the extreme importance of this contract to the unemployed of this country I will call attention to this on the Adjournment.

  COST OF LIVING (CLOTHES AND BOOTS).
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage of the increased cost of a suit of workman's clothes and of a pair of workman's boots, comparing current with pre-war prices, due to the rise in wool, leather, and other raw material, and to the advance in wages, respectively?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Inquiry is being made, but the hon. and gallant Member will no doubt recognise the extreme difficulties of arriving at any close estimate.
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman include profits in addition to wages and the increased cost of material?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be necessary to include that in order to arrive at any conclusion at all.
  Major NEWMAN: When will the result of the inquiry be made known?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give any date.

  INDUSTRIAL LIFE INSURANCE (INQUIRY).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake that when an inquiry is held into industrial life assurance it shall be public, that the National Amalgamated Union of Life Assurance Workers shall be directly represented on the Committee, and that the term of reference of the inquiry shall include the remuneration and conditions of service of the insurance agents?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A Committee to inquire into industrial life assurance has already been appointed, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 5th May to the question addressed to the Prime Minister by the Noble and gallant Lord, the Member for Horsham and Worthing, in which the composition of the Committee and the terms of reference were stated. From this answer it will be seen that it has been decided not to include representatives of the agents and collectors. The Committee have decided that the inquiry shall be conducted in public when witnesses are being examined, and that evidence bearing upon the remuneration and conditions of service of the agents shall be admitted.

  INDIA.

    ARMY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India, during their investigation into the conditions of service of officers of the Indian Army as to pay and pension, etc., will take up the question of the high cost of housing, the impossibility of keeping a horse on the present allowance, and the inadequacy of travelling and detention allowances, and consider whether some immediate relief might be given by the provision by Government of all chargers with free forage for same; by the grant of free quarters or lodging allowances according to rank; the abolition of mess fund subscriptions and more liberal rules as to travelling and detention allowances?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Yes, Sir.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the statement in the Indian Press
    594
    that the war bonus is being paid to the non-commissioned officers and men in India at the rate of Is. 4d. the rupee, while officers are being paid at the rate of Is. 6d. to the rupee; and if he can state what is the reason for this differential treatment and why officers are not paid at the same rate as the men?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Non-commissioned officers and men of the British Service are entitled to receive when in India the rupee equivalent of their sterling pay, and when the rupee rose above Is. 4d. it was open to the Government of India, and would have been in accordance with former practice, to reduce their rupee pay pro rata. But they decided to leave the rate undisturbed, and to apply the same rate to the war bonus. The case of officers is different, as their salaries are fixed in rupees without reference to any sterling standard. In issuing their sterling war bonus the appropriate rate seemed naturally that fixed for remittances from this country to India through Government channels. The point, however, has been referred to the Army Council.

    RUPEE (VALUE).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what is the present value of the rupee; and at what rate is the pay of officers of the Indian Army being credited to them at home and in Egypt?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The present rate for my immediate telegraphic transfers is 1s. 8d. to the rupee, at which rate the pay of Indian Army officers issued in this country is being credited. The same rate is being applied, I understand, in Egypt.

    AFGHANISTAN.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state when the full text of the recent communication from the Ameer of Afghanistan and of the Viceroy's reply thereto will be published?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I propose to lay full Papers, but I cannot at present name a date.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not necessary we should have these Papers at once, in view of the grave question of giving an armistice to the Afghans?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes. But through the India Office or from Simla full information of the negotiations has been published. I am waiting until the Viceroy receives the Ameer's answer to his latest communication—which may be a matter of a few days—and then I propose to lay Papers before the House.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS (PASSPORTS).
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Regulations requiring passports to visit the Channel Islands will be rescinded as soon as Peace is signed; and, if not, will they be rescinded before the summer holidays take place so as not to hamper the free movement of British subjects about the British Isles?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for-FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harms-worth): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question on the 3rd instant. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is now in communication with the Channel Islands authorities on the matter.
  Sir A. FELL: Now that peace is signed is it necessary to keep up these vexatious restrictions?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No doubt that will receive the consideration of the Secretary of State.

  NORWAY AND GERMANY (CURED HERRINGS).
  Sir HENRY COWANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that quantities of cured herrings are being exported from Norway to Germany and sold there to German buyers at prices equivalent to over £4 a barrel; whether he is aware that in consequence of the continued closure, as against British exporters, of the Continental markets, and notwithstanding the guarantee recently given by the Government in respect of 400,000 barrels of cured herrings, the fishermen engaged in the Scottish herring industry have recently been unable to obtain more than 5s. per cran for large portions of their catches, and are consequently laid
  596
  ashore; and whether arrangements are being made to enable Scottish herring exporters to send supplies into Germany immediately after the signature by the Germans of the Peace treaty?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Large quantities of cured herrings are doubtless being exported from Norway to Germany, but I would point out that there is no legal or administrative closure, as against British exporters, of the Continental markets, except in respect of Hungary and parts of Russia. British cured herrings may be freely exported to Germany. The practical obstacle to the trade is, I fear, mainly one of finance, and I doubt whether the signature of peace by the Germans will improve the situation in that respect. The gradual reconstitution of the former channels of trade appears to be the only remedy.
  Sir H. COWAN: Will my hon. Friend say whether during the blockade and before the signing of peace it was possible for cured herrings to be sent into Germany?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, for a long time it has been possible to export herrings to Germany.

  POLAND.
  Mr. GRITTENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the massacres of Jews in Poland, any orders have been sent, or will immediately be sent, to British officers on the spot to protest in the name of humanity to the Polish military and civil authorities against these outrages?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Minister in Warsaw has already been instructed to make representations to the Polish Government in regard to such cases of ill-treatment of Jews in Poland as are known to have occurred. I am confident that Monsieu Paderewski and his Government are determined to do everything in their power to secure that Jews in Poland shall enjoy the same security and protection as other Polish citizens.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the hon. Gentleman received any further authentic reports from Poland on this subject?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Oh, yes, Sir—quite recently.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Has not a Minister been officially accredited to the Republic of Poland?

  HUNGARIAN SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a White Book will be published detailing atrocities committed by the Hungarian Soviet Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No suggestion of the kind has been made up to the present, nor have His Majesty's Government sufficient authenticated information to justify such a publication

  EX-KAISER.

    STEPS TO PREVENT DEPARTURE FROM HOLLAND.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken in conjunction with the Dutch authorities to prevent the escape of the Kaiser?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Allied Governments have, through their representatives at the Hague, represented to the Netherland Government the necessity for taking adequate steps to prevent the departure of the ex-Kaiser from Holland.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the newspaper report, the ex-Kaiser has threatened to commit suicide rattier than take his trial—[HON. MEMBERS "Let him!"]— and will the Government do its best to facilitate this expeditious and inexpensive solution?
    Mr. G. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent German treachery at Scapa Flow, he can state whether adequate measures have been taken to ensure the delivery of the ex-Kaiser for trial and to prevent his rescue, disappearance, or escape from justice; and whether any negotiations have taken place, or agreement been reached, between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Netherlands on the subject of his extradition?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have been asked to take this question. As regards the
    598
    first part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have to-day given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for South Hackney. As regards the second part of the question no negotiations for the extradition of the ex-Kaiser have been entered into.
    Colonel YATE: Have the German naval ratings at Scapa Flow been put in a jail or interned with German prisoners of war?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a question for the Admiralty.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. POWNALLasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to prevent the escape of the ex-Kaiser from Holland in view of his having to appear for trial before an international tribunal?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have been asked to answer this question, and would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I have to-day given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for South Hackney.

  BELGIUM (BRITISH LEGATION).
  Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government is disposed to raise the Legation at Brussels to the rank of an Embassey, in view of the announcement that such a proceeding is contemplated by the United States of America?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not in a position to make any announcement on this matter.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he has information of slaughter during the past year of cows, heifers, and calves which will endanger the future milk supply for England and Wales?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The information in our possession indicates that the number of cows (including heifers) is not less than a year ago, while calves are also about

    599
    the same, and that there is accordingly no appearance of immediate danger to the milk supply from a reduction of stock.

    POTATOES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, under the operation of the orders forbidding dealing in potatoes, many tons are rotting in pits, the owners not being allowed to sell, and bills for compensation accruing, which the taxpayer will have to settle?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. G. H. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware that any wastage of potatoes has been caused by the operation of statutory Orders. The wastage which has recently occurred in the potato clamps is attributable largely to the exceptionally hot weather, which reduced the demand for old potatoes, and increased the rate at which the potatoes deteriorated. Such wastage as is due to the failure of foreign Governments to take delivery of potatoes for which they contracted will be covered by the payments to be made by the Governments concerned.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not this loss to be attributable still more to the continued interference of "Dora" in matters in which she should no longer be concerned?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is a matter of opinion.

  DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION).
  Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether very considerable delay has occurred in coming to a decision in connection with demobilised officers who have made application for grants to continue their education in agriculture; whether in certain cases a delay of five or six months has taken place since the first application was made or personal interview took place, in consequence of which the applicant has lost a whole term's instruction; and whether steps can be taken to expedite these cases?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Applications of the nature referred to are placed by the Board before a Departmental Committee of Selection, upon whose recommendations the Board act. I am not aware of any
  600
  avoidable delay in decisions being arrived at, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of the cases to which he refers I will at once have inquiries made into them and communicate the result to him.

  BINDER TWINE.
  Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the-Board of Agriculture what steps the Board have taken in order to ensure that there shall be sufficient binder twine available for the coming harvest?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In accordance with the Government policy of freeing industry from control in every way possible, there has been no control of the output or price of binder twine since the Armistice. The Board have urged manufacturers to provide sufficient stocks to meet the needs of farmers, but have no power to compel them. As the manufacturers alleged that the holding by the Board of stocks amounting to about 2,700 tons was disturbing the market and causing unemployment, the Board have sold for export the bulk of their supplies. It is believed that makers are well able to execute all orders placed with them at the present time, but if farmers delay ordering till shortly before harvest it may be impossible to give delivery in time. The Board have published several notices warning farmers that upon themselves lies the risk of being unable-to purchase their requirements if they do-not place their orders during June.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH AMBASSADOR).
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the name of the new British Ambassador to the United States of America?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I am unable yet to make any announcement.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: As this appointment is to be made, I understand, by the Prime Minister, why does the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs answer the question? May I ask the Leader of the House whether he remembers that he told me six weeks ago that

  601
  this appointment was to be made at an early date? If I suggest a name, will he accept it and settle the whole matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The appointment does rest with the Prime Minister, but I think it has always been made on the advice of the Foreign Secretary. I may say that several suggestions have been made, but it has not been found possible to get the gentleman we wished to accept the post. If the hon. Member has any one suitable, the Prime Minister will gladly consider it.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it a fact that it has been very difficult to get anybody to go to America because it is now a dry country?

  MINISTRY OF COMMERCE.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Prime Minister whether any progress has been made towards the establishment of the Ministry of Commerce; and whether, consequent on the establishment of such a Ministry, existing Ministries, such as the Board of Trade, Ministry of Supply, and Ministry of Shipping, could be abolished in the interests of economy?
  Major Sir KEITH FRASERasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the question of establishing a Department of Commerce and Industry, under the control of a Minister of Commerce, who shall be a member of the Cabinet?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The intention is that the Board of Trade should be developed to perform all the functions of a Ministry of Commerce.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it to be understood that the Overseas Trade Department will be put entirely under the Board of Trade and separated from the Foreign Office altogether?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend knows, a Committee is at present considering that question. I therefore cannot make a statement to-day.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: When is that Committee likely to report?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope almost immediately.
  Lieut-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that there
  602
  will be considerable opposition to putting the Overseas Trade Department under the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was because it was a question upon which there were differences of opinion that a Committee was set up.

  ARMISTICE (NAVAL CLAUSES).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister who was responsible to the Allied Supreme War Council for the framing of the naval clauses of the terms of the Armistice with Germany; whether the naval clauses as embodied in the terms of the Armistice constitute the original proposals of the naval advisers to the Supreme War Council or whether the original proposals were modified in any way; what was the extent of the modification; who was responsible to the Allies for the fulfilment of the naval terms of the Armistice with Germany; and whether the British Board of Admiralty are satisfied that the naval clauses of the terms of the Armistice with Germany were carried out in their entirety?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty last week.

  REPATRIATED BRITISH CIVILIAN PRISONERS (ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Repatriated British Civilian Prisoners Help Committee, Surrey House, Marble Arch, to which the duty is entrusted of looking after those British who have lost everything in enemy countries during the War, is not 'able even to support for more than a few weeks those who are absolutely destitute, with the result that educated men are being driven into the workhouse, although they have large claims for compensation against enemy Governments, on which, when it is too late, payment may be made; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the reply to this question is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the Answer referred to
  The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the Repatriated British Civilian Prisoners' Help Committee has been entrusted by His Majesty's Government with the duty of looking after British subjects who have lost everything in enemy countries during the War. The responsibility for the reception and initial care of destitute British subjects arriving in this country from enemy countries has been entrusted to the Central Charities Committee of the Social Welfare Association for London, whose funds are derived from the National Relief Fund. In the event of such civilians being unable through ill health or other legitimate causes, to obtain employment within a reasonable period after their repatriation, they are eligible for assistance from the National Relief Fund, through the appropriate Local Representative Committee for the Prevention and Relief of Distress.
  The Repatriated British Civilian Prisoners' Help Committee is a voluntary committee whose funds have been raised privately and whose expenditure and discretionary powers are in no way controlled by His Majesty's Government. They frequently give assistance which is supplementary to that rendered by the local representative committees, and also, in special cases assistance of a nature that the National Relief Fund has no power to give.
  I have not been able to obtain confirmation of the suggestion that, in any deserving case, an educated, repatriated British subject has had to apply for admission to a workhouse.

  BOARD OF INVENTIONS AND RESEARCH.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether the Board of Inventions is still in existence; and, if so, what are the Government intentions with regard to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Admiralty Board of Invention and Research was disbanded shortly after the conclusion of the Armistice. Its work is now conducted by the Scientific Research and Experiment Department of the Admiralty, in consultation with the Naval Staff and the Technical Departments concerned.

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALFRED WARRENasked the Prime Minister if a day will be given for the discussion of future restrictions upon the sale of liquor before any further Departmental action is taken in the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the announcement on this subject which it is hoped will be made this week.
    Lieut.-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Ought not all war restrictions automatically to lapse on the signing of Peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the statement, when he will find exactly what is proposed.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we may now consider ourselves in a state of peace or whether war still exists until the Peace Treaty is ratified?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: More or less. Is the hon. Member ever in a complete state of peace?
    Sir A. WARRENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions when the Liquor Control Board is to come to an end?
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the duties of the Liquor Control Board are to be handed over to any Department of State on the termination of the Board's control?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Ministry controls the Liquor Control Board, and when the latter will, upon its existing basis at any rate, cease to exist?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I must refer the hon. Members to the announcement made by the Home Secretary on Thursday last.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great resentment occasioned by the operations of this three-star chamber? Is he aware that it is prejudicing subscriptions to the Loan and that speakers now are met with cries of "No beer no Loan"?
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Have the Government considered the advisability of dissolving the Liquor Control Board?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is one of the subjects now being considered by the Government.
    Mr. BILLING: Will they come to a conclusion before the Loan closes, as it is materially affecting the loan amongst the working classes?
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Government will announce their policy in regard to liquor control?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We have already said that we hope to be able to announce it this week. I still hope so.

    NATIONAL FACTORIES.
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many national factories have been sold by the Government since the date of the Armistice; whether the purchase prices at which they were sold covers the cost of their erection and equipment by the Government; and if he. is in a position to state the number of persons now employed in the factories transferred to private management as compared with the number employed in the factories when under Government control?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not at present in a position to give all the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am having a statement prepared, and will circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT when it is complete.

    MOTOR LORRIES AND CARS (BELGIUM AND FRANCE).
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if there are some thousands of motor lorries and cars still parked in Belgium and France; if, while so parked, many have been destroyed by fire; and, seeing that there is a shortage of this class of vehicle in this country, if he will say what steps have been taken to remove these vehicles to England, and when it is intended to have their removal completed?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There are a large number of motor lorries and cars still parked in Belgium and France, some of which have been notified to the Disposal Board as surplus to requirements. These are being brought back to this country from overseas as fast as the available ton-
    606
    nage will allow. No cars passed to the Disposal Board have been destroyed by fire.

    ROYAL GUNPOWDER FACTORY, WALTHAM ABBEY.
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the retention of the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey has yet been received; and whether it is intended to publish the same?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Report has just been received, and is now being considered. I cannot at present make any statement as to publication.
    Brigadier-General COLVIN: When is a decision likely to be arrived at?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That will depend a good deal upon the nature of the Report. There will be no delay.

    GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS.
    Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis try of Munitions on what public business the following Government cars, namely, LE 3,594, LT 7,381, and K 44,583, were being employed on the afternoon of 26th June, and if he is aware that at 2.40 p.m. on the date in question all these cars were waiting outside the Ritz Hotel, Piccadilly, in charge of a soldier driver?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The cars in question are not owned or supplied by the Ministry of Munitions, and I have no official information in regard to them.
    Earl WINTERTON: Did the hon. Gentleman not say recently that his Department was responsible for these cars, which are loaned out to other Government Departments?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Ministry of Munitions is responsible for the loan of the cars to certain Departments, but we have not been able to trace these cars to which reference is made in this question.

    AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT (OFFICERS' LETTERS).
    Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that letters addressed by name to officers holding His

    607
    Majesty's commission and employed in the Aircraft Production Department of the Ministry of Munitions are, under official instructions, opened by the staff in the central registry before they are delivered to those to whom they are addressed; whether a similar practice prevails in either the Admiralty or the War Office; and whether he can state the reasons for the adoption of these proceedings?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Unless marked "Personal" or "Private," letters addressed to individual members of the staff of the Ministry are opened in the registry. The practice was adopted to prevent delay or miscarriage of correspondence. I understand that there is no similar rule in the Admiralty or War Office.
    Sir F. LOWE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain in the case of letters addressed to these officers it is necessary for them to be opened by anyone else? Is it not a most inconvenient practice?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is a convenient practice. If correspondence is addressed to members of the Ministry and not marked "Private" or "Personal," it is presumably on official business and is opened.
    An HON. MEMBER: Does correspondence of that character bear a 1½d. stamp in the ordinary way?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the rule made in the Ministry prevents the abuse of private correspondence in that way.
    Sir F. LOWE: If it is found quite possible to allow officers to open their letters at the War Office and Admiralty, why is it necessary to have a different rule in the Ministry of Munitions?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I can only answer for the Ministry of Munitions. The same rule that applies to officers applies to other members of the Ministry, and I see no objection to it.

  IRELAND

    IRISH-AMERICAN DELEGATES.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister (1) whether inquiries similar to those which resulted in the Government preventing the attendance of certain French delegates at the Labour Conference at Southport were made in connection with the visit of the Irish-American delegates to Ireland; and (2)
    608
    whether he consulted the Irish Executive before permitting the Irish-American delegates to visit Ireland; and whether, when he sanctioned their tour, he was aware that they intended to issue a Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 14th of May last.
    Major O'NEILL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since that statement was made the Report of these delegates has been issued, and can he tell the House whether that Report has been received by the Peace Conference and whether any action will be taken with reference to it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I ought not to say anything about that, but, as a matter of fact, no action has been taken and I believe no action is contemplated.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet received any official information from the United States as to the effect on public opinion there of the Report of the Irish-American delegates and also of the Irish Executive's reply; and, if so, can he give the purport of the information?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative.
    Major O'NEILL: Has any communication been received from the United States expressing feelings condemnatory of the gross misstatements which have been made in this Report?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have said no official information has been received.

  LAND SPECULATION (SECURITY OF TENURE FOR FARMERS).
  Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling of insecurity created among farmers by the numerous recent sales of estates to land speculators, he will introduce legislation to give all farmers the same rights as to security of tenure, compensation for improvements, and fair rent, which are given to small landholders or statutory small tenants under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am aware that the sales referred to have created a sense of insecurity among tenant farmers. I

  609
  hope shortly to be able to state the method by which the Government propose to deal with the matter.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been raised now for some four months and the gambling is still going on? Will he take some steps to stop it forthwith by an Order in Council or anything that is necessary?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware of the matter, and we are considering the best method to adopt.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman answering for the Secretary for Scotland or the English Board of Agriculture; and, if he is answering for the English Board of Agriculture, why is he answering this question?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am answering the question for the English Board of Agriculture because I was asked to do so.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Scottish Small Landholders Act and the dealings under it are under the control of the Scottish Office? What has his Department to do with it?
  Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAY: Is the Secretary for Scotland prepared to make a. similar statement to that made by the Parliamentary Secretary?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As regards Scotland, questions should be addressed to the Scottish Board of Agriculture.
  Major WOOD: If my hon. and gallant Friend has no better solution to propose, will he do all in his power to give facilities to secure that the Bill standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead should be passed into law?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said we are considering the best method of dealing with it. That may be one method of dealing with it, and it will be considered.

  MALTA (DISTURBANCES).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether an inquiry has been set up with regard to the recent disturbances at Malta; whether His Majesty's Government contemplate making any changes in the present Constitution of
  610
  Malta; whether steps have been taken to limit the profiteering in foodstuffs in Malta; and whether compensation will be paid out of Maltese public revenues to those persons whose property was damaged during the period of mob rule in Valletta?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for, the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): Yes, Sir, an inquiry is being held. The newly-appointed Governor, General Sir Herbert Plumer, was requested to report upon the Constitution of Malta, and until his report has been received it would be premature to make any statement. Food prices in Malta have been under control throughout the War, and a bread subsidy has been in force for a long time. The Governor's proposals as to compensation for the damage done by the rioters have not yet been received.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) whether, under the secret agreement signed by Sir Starr Jameson on 14th August, 1893, half the loot seized from the Matabele became the property of the British South Africa Company; whether the total loot exceeded 70,000 head of catle; whether, in view of the statement that the British South Africa Company is claiming the costs of the Matabele war from His Majesty's Government, the value of the cattle and other loot will be deducted from the total claim; (2) whether His Majesty's Government have reached any decision as to the liability of the Crown for those administrative charges which have devolved upon the British South Africa Company arising out of the action of their agents in South Africa acting in defiance of the Imperial authorities, or charges incurred through misstatements made to the representative of the Imperial Government; (3) whether his attention has been drawn to the published admissions of the British South Africa Company, notably in the statement of policy issued in 1913, that it had not been possible for the company to keep distinct their administrative and commercial accounts; and whether, in view of this and the claim of the company in the interests of their shareholders, he will consider the advisability of having a special examination of the accounts of the British South Africa Company and present, for

  611
  the information of this House, a Report upon the alleged deficits in the company's accounts?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As the Lord Privy Seal informed the right hon. Member on the 16th April and 13th May, His Majesty's Government recognise that the claim of the Company demands the closest scrutiny, and are considering in what manner the nature and extent of the financial obligations arising out of the recent judgment of the Privy Council can best be ascertained. It is hoped to make a statement on the subject shortly.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question which asks whether it is a fact that 70,000 head of cattle were looted?
  Earl WINTERTON: Will my hon. Friend deny the statement in the last part of Question 67 that the Chartered Company had made mis-statements to the Government? Is it not a fact that there is not a word of truth in the allegation?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not aware that any mis-statements have beeen made. As regards the figure of the cattle I am sorry I have not answered the question, and I am afraid I cannot answer it offhand.

  GERMAN WAR VESSELS (CONSTRUCTION AT ROTTERDAM).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether, prior to the War, concessions were granted by Holland to Germany to the Vulcan Company to build Dreadnoughts and submarines in Rotterdam harbour; and whether steps have been taken to prevent any further construction of war vessels at these works?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no knowledge of any of the concessions referred to in the first part of the question having been granted prior to the War, but it is believed that during the War Germany offered to supply Holland with drawings of certain light cruisers. As regards the latter part of the question, any future construction of warships by Germany is limited by Article 190 of the Peace Treaty.

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Major BIRCHALLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the expenditure on the
  612
  shipyards at Beachley, Chepstow, and Portbury is to be submitted for consideration by the Committee on National Expenditure?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This is a matter which must be decided by the Select Committee itself.

  ALEXANDRA PALACE.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now in a position to announce the estimated total cost of the adaptation of the Alexandra Palace for Government offices; whether it is proposed to use the whole of each of the several buildings for national service; whether the Government have approved of any portion of the park being exclusively used as a racecourse; and if he is aware that the contributory authorities in the 1900 Act are strongly opposed to the drastic adaptation of these premises for the use of Government Departments?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfréd Mond): The answers to the first and third parts of the question are in the negative in each case, and to the second part in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, I am aware of the opposition of the contributory authorities referred to and am, in fact, meeting a deputation from one of them on Wednesday next, the 2nd July.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to be in a position to inform us what the estimated total cost of the adaptation will be?
  Sir A. MOND: In a few days.
  Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the rent the Government; are paying for the Alexandra Palace?
  Sir A. MOND: I must have notice of that.
  Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what other buildings will be vacated?
  Sir A. MOND: A very large number of buildings will be vacated, but the numbers are so large I cannot remember them.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the main hall of the Alexandra Palace is to be converted into offices for Government officials?
  Sir A. MOND: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what the cost will be for the conversion of the Alexandra Palace for the use of Government officials?
  Sir A. MOND: It is not yet possible to give the information asked for, as the details of the necessary works to be carried out have not been settled.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Ministry will use these offices?
  Sir A. MOND: They will be used by the liquidation staff of the Ministry of Munitions and the staffs of other Departments.

  HOUSING.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements are being made in Scotland to en sure a sufficiency of labour for the purpose of erecting houses under the Government housing schemes; whether he will give an outline of any such arrangements; and whether, in view of the necessity to expedite these housing schemes, the Government will consider the desirability of approaching the trade unions connected with the building trades with the object of arranging to utilise much labour, both male and female, at present in receipt of unemployment benefits?
  The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I have been asked to reply to this question. Arrangements have been made between the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Edinburgh Divisional Office of the Ministry of Labour under which the latter is kept informed of all housing schemes which the local authorities in Scotland are in a position to put in hand. The Employment Council and the local employment committee have invited all local authorities to notify their labour requirements to the Employment Exchanges, in order that the latter may utilise the services of any available workpeople on their registers. The general question of the supply of labour for building is being carefully considered in consultation with the other Departments concerned and with bodies representative of the building industry.
  Mr. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman actually approached the building trades and the trade unions of the building trades?
  Sir R. HORNE: Yes. I have already had conferences with representatives of the building trades, and other conferences are taking place.
  Mr. BILLING: Does that also apply to England as well as Scotland?
  Sir R. HORNE: Yes. The building trades who have met officers of my Department have been representative of all parts of the country.
  Mr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements are being made to ensure an early and sufficient supply of the different classes of materials necessary for the Government housing schemes; whether he will furnish details of any such arrangements; and whether all encouragement is being given to private enterprise in the provision of the necessary materials?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am sending my hon. Friend copies of a Circular and enclosures issued to local authorities on 16th instant by the Local Government Board for Scotland, which give full details of the arrangements made, I am informed by the Department of Buildings Material Supply that encouragement is given to manufacturers to increase their output of materials by giving orders in advance of manufacture, by making liberal payments on account, and by offering help in obtaining coal, machinery, transport, and labour.
  Mr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland what steps the Treasury proposes to take to assist the local authorities in Scotland to arrange the loans necessary for the purpose of erecting houses under the Government housing schemes?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Local authorities with a rateable value under £200,000 can borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners for this purpose. Larger authorities must raise the necessary loans in the open market, and the Treasury has already undertaken to assist them by granting a very substantial subsidy towards any loss on housing schemes. Having regard to the very heavy burdens falling on the Treasury in connection with existing short-term

  615
  loans, it cannot also undertake to raise loan capital for the local authorities at the present time.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state the rate of interest?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will inquire into that.
  Mr. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is at least one local authority in Scotland that has been unable to raise a loan for this purpose?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I can believe that.

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
  Lieut.-Colonel PINKHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to allow the local authorities to expend public funds for Peace celebrations on similar lines as were allowed at the Coronation festivities; and to what extent?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is issuing to-day the Orders sanctioning reasonable expenditure by local authorities in connection with public local celebrations of Peace.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of recommending all these authorities that the finest Peace celebrations upon which they can spend their money will be the building of their first house?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Colonel BURNasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is prepared to favourably consider the introduction of an amendment to Section 2 (1) (b) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, in order to substitute other means for calculating the incomes of those who are in receipt of old age pensions who have obtained temporary employment during the War, but who are being discharged owing to the return of those whose places they filled?
  Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether in the case of old age pensioners who have no income other than the pension guardians
  616
  may be empowered to grant out-relief in. addition to the pension, and that the relief so given may in no way disqualify the recipient from continuing to receive the old age pension?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the reply which I gave on the 26th instant to the hon. Member for Morpeth.

  MOTOR CYCLES (PASSENGERS ON CARRIERS).
  Sir A. WARRENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the number of accidents, many of them not only serious but fatal, that have occurred which are directly attributable to the carrying of passengers upon the carriers of motor bicycles, what steps he proposes to take to constitute the carrying of passengers upon the carriers, of motor bicycles an offence and punishable accordingly?
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of accidents which have occurred in consequence of the carrying of passengers upon the carriers of bicycles; and whether he will consider the advisability of constituting the carrying of passengers upon the carriers of bicycles an offence under the Motor Car Acts, and punishable accordingly?
  Major ASTOR: As the hon. Member is aware, it is proposed that all powers in relation to motor cars should be transferred to the Ministry of Ways and Communications, and my right hon. Friend does not think the matter to which the hon. Member refers is one on which legislation can be proposed at the present. time.

  EAST COAST RESORTS (DAMAGE TO HOUSES).
  Sir A. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the large number of houses on the East Coast resorts which are uninhabited owing to the fact that the damages payable by the military authorities for the user of such premises by the soldiers are not settled

  617
  and the owners cannot repair such houses until this is done; and, since such delay is seriously affecting the housing question, what steps he proposes to take to get these houses repaired for occupation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I can only refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to his previous questions on this subject, and assure him that the War Office is doing all it can to expedite the settlement of the dilapidation claims referred to.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he has received representations as to the necessity of a revision of the contributions and benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts; whether the same has been considered by the Advisory Committee; and whether he can make any announcement on the matter?
  Major ASTOR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the matter is now under consideration of the Ministry, and the Advisory Committee has been consulted. Any revision of health insurance contributions and benefits, which it must be remembered would only be possible by legislation, must be considered, however, not only in relation to the financial scheme of the Acts, but also in relation to possible developments of unemployment insurance, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  BOARD OF HEALTH (WALES).
  Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if the Welsh Insurance Commissioners have been appointed the Welsh Board of Health under the Ministry of Health; if so, whether he consulted the members representing Wales before making the appointment; and whether he is aware that there was dissatisfaction in Wales
  618
  with the manner in which the Commissioners discharged their duties as Insurance Commissioners?
  Major ASTOR: The members of the Board of Health in Wales are appointed by the Minister of Health under Section 5 of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919; the three persons appointed as initial members have hitherto been members of the Welsh Insurance Commission, but the Board is not yet complete. The answer to the concluding paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Sir O. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether these three gentlemen have been on speaking terms for the last two years?
  Major ASTOR: It would be very difficult to find that out.

  TELEPHONE SERVICES.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General when the London telephone service will be reorganised so as to include Stanmore within its orbit?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): In any revision of the telephone services consideration will necessarily be given to the extent of the London area.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General when he will make his promised statement on the telephone service?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The Post Office Estimates were to have been taken on Thursday last, when I intended to make a statement on the telephone service. I now propose to wait until the Estimates are taken.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will that be?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

  DUBLIN STOCK EXCHANGE (SPECIAL WIRE).
  Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Postmaster-General before what date approximately does he hope to restore the special wire promised to the Dublin. Stock Exchange?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Authority has been given for the restoration of the wire, but the Association of Irish Post Office Clerks have made representations in respect of the accommodation provided at the Dublin Stock Exchange, and inquiry-is being made in this matter.

  EMPLOYMENT.

    EXPERT MEN (DEMOBILISATION).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that firms could employ a large number of additional hands if only they could secure the liberation from the Army of expert men whose knowledge is essential to any industrial expansion; and whether, in view of the existing unemployment, he will make special representations to the War Office on this point?
    Sir R. HORNE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Elland on the 24th June.

    EX-SEKVICE MEN.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to issue a black list of firms who have failed to keep their promises to ex-Service employ és?
    Sir R. HORNE: From the information in my possession I do not think it is necessary to prepare a list of the kind suggested by the hon. Member. Complaints received by the Minister of Labour against employers for failing to keep their promises to ex-Service men are referred to the Local Employment Committees for investigation, but I am glad to be able to say that the number of such complaints has been very small.
    Mr. RAPER: If I give my right hon. Friend particulars will he take action in this matter himself?
    Sir R. HORNE: I shall be very glad to have the opportunity of taking action.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the ex-Service men for whom employment has already been secured through the Labour Exchanges were on a disabled register?
    Sir R. HORNE: Figures are only available for the period 8th June, 1918, to 6th June, 1919. For this period the total number of ex-Service men placed in their
    620
    first civil employment by the Employment Exchanges was 113,899. Of this number 30.263 (or 26.6 per cent.) were disabled men.

  PEACE TREATY SIGNED.
    WELCOME to Mr. LLOYD GEORGE.

      PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
      After Question No. 99 had been answered, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd-George) entered the Chamber, and was greeted with loud cheers, nearly all the hon. Members rising and joining in the greeting. When the cheering had concluded, hon. Members sang "God Save the King."
      Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Before I ask a question of which I have given private notice may I—as I think I can on this occasion, on behalf of the whole House—express our hearty congratulations to our most distinguished colleague the Prime Minister, who is back among us again after discharging duties as arduous and as responsible as have ever been undertaken by any British Minister? The question I wish to ask is: On what day will the Prime Minister make a statement to the House with regard to the Peace Treaty?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for the very kind words which he has just uttered. It has, indeed, been a very anxious time, because of the gigantic character of the interests concerned, and the fear lest any failing on my part should prejudice those interests. I think that it would meet the convenience of the House if I made on Thursday next my statement with regard to the Treaty of Peace signed on Saturday, which brought to an end the most sanguinary war of modern times, or, indeed, the most sanguinary war that has ever been waged in this world. The document then signed is the most comprehensive and far-reaching Treaty which has ever probably been concluded, whether you regard the number and the might of the nations who are parties to it, whether you regard the infinite variety of the interests or the vastness of the territories affected, or whether you regard the great and promising new experiments which are embodied in it, and which may alter the whole character of the affairs

      621
      of the world, and give a new turn to the destiny of mankind. I think it would be better that I should wait until I get the authentic copy of that great document. I hope to be in a position to lay it on the Table of the House, certainly by Thursday, and, if possible, I shall introduce on that occasion a Bill which will enable the Government to give effect to its provisions, and I shall take the opportunity, with the permission of the House, of saying something about the Treaty itself and the methods of its execution.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask whether the question to be proposed in the House on Thursday will leave the opportunity open to the House to discuss the statement of the Prime Minister?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I certainly contemplate that there will be a discussion, and I think it would be desirable that views should be freely expressed upon the general character of the Treaty. I do not suppose it would be possible to discuss it in detail until the House has an authentic copy of the Treaty, and has had an opportunity of examining it in all its details. Of course, it is a very vast document.
      Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will declare a public holiday to commemorate this day, and let it be a recognised anniversary?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I think a statement will be made on the question of the Peace celebration by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tomorrow.
      Mr. SEDDON: On a point of Order. We have just witnessed one of the most historic scenes that this ancient House has witnessed. Every Member has subscribed fealty to the Crown. I notice the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) remained in his seat. I hope that a record will be made that although he has sworn fealty to the Crown, he showed disrespect in this great crisis.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE D.
    Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D: Sir Maurice Dockrell.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Government of India Bill,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated to them on Tuesday last: That it is expedient that the Government of India Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
  BILL PRESENTED.
  TOWN TENANTS BILL,—"to improve the position of tenants of certain houses, shops, and other buildings in Great Britain," presented by Mr. ROWLANDS; supported by Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Hinds, Lieut.-Colonel Parry, and Mr. Strauss; to be read a second time upon Monday, 28th July, and to be printed. [Bill 113]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
That the Civil Services Estimates, 1619-20, Class 2, Vote 17 (Local Government Board), be considered in Committee of Supply.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.— [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY IN THE CHAIR.]

  SUPPLY.— [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.

      DR. ADDISON'S STATEMENT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,380,377, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, l920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including certain Special Services arising out of the War." [NOTE.—£ 655,000 has been voted on account.]
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison):After the scene we have just witnessed, it is somewhat difficult to refer to Departmental matters. Nevertheless, it is one of the finest features of this House and of the race to which we belong that in the midst of crises we still manage composedly and doggedly to go with our daily work. I will endeavour on this occasion to live up to that reputation. In the first place, I have to remind the House that in consequence of the adjustment of matters with the Treasury, the Vote which we are considering to-day will hereafter be incorporated in the Vote for the Ministry of Health. Therefore, it will not be possible to take a final Resolution to-day on the Local Government Board Vote, as it appears as a part of the Ministry of Health accounts, to be presented later. I believe that the wish of the House will be met if I devote what I have to say to-day to the important question of housing. Therefore: I propose to pass lightly over the many other functions of the Local Government Board— more lightly than one would have done under other conditions. May I say that although the Local Government Board, as such, disappears in the course of a day or so, I hope that in making the last speech of the President of that Board one will not forget fully to realise that for fifty years it has been responsible for forwarding and promoting local government in this country, and that although it may be the fashion of some of its critics somewhat to belittle what it has done in some directions, I am sure the record of its progress as presented from time to time during those fifty years has
      660
      thoroughly justified its existence. The House is well aware of the share of the Local Government Board in the work of the War, particularly its work in connection with the establishment and carrying on of tribunals.
      There is one other part of its work, just completed, of which I would like to remind the House. In conjunction with a committee, it took charge of 200,000 or more Belgian refugees during the War, arranging for their lodgings, and so forth; and lately we have been responsible, with the assistance of a committee set up to deal with it, for repatriating, at our expense, 62,000 Belgian refugees. I am glad to say that the formal thanks of the Belgian Government were very deservedly tendered to the officers concerned for the self-denying and devoted work which they have carried on during the War in the interests of these unfortunate refugees.
      4.0 P.M.
      Another point in connection with war services which I ought to mention is the assistance which has been given to our troops and invalided men by the Poor-Law infirmaries throughout the country. They have provided 75,000 beds for the service of the Army, and 22,000 of these were in the Metropolitan area. We hear a good deal sometimes of disparaging criticism of Poor Law authorities. I, for one, though I have been a liberal critic of our Poor Law system in many directions, and shall be, I have no doubt, again, do not mix up those criticisms with those who work that system. They have devoted themselves under difficulties to assisting our soldiers and in providing beds and accommodation throughout the whole of the War. Seventy-five thousand men were provided for the Army at the maximum point which was early this year.
      Various other branches of war work have necessarily fallen upon the Local Government Board, particularly with regard to the relief of destitute aliens and the assistance which has been given by the Civil Liabilities Committee. That Committee has been enabled to devote over £6,000,000 to the assistance of individuals qualified to receive it.
      I come to the work which we initiated more particularly in connection with demobilisation. One of the early fears which we had, and which has been justified to some extent by the event, was that as there were so many of our men serving overseas in

      661
      countries where they were likely to be infected with tropical diseases, that those might be spread throughout the country. I shall have a word to say about two or three of them later on. In February I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board to be chairman of an Inter-Departmental organisation of the Board, the War Office, Admiralty, and Air Board, to prevent the, spread of infectious diseases arising out of or during demobilisation. I am glad to say that in the main the methods which have been adopted have proved to be successful. It was also quite clear, with great masses of disabled men and a large number of men being discharged on demobilisation, that it was necessary to review the facilities at present afforded for the treatment of men affected with tuberculosis, which, in many cases I am afraid, has necessarily been aggravated by the hardships arising out of war. A Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow), composed between ourselves and the Ministry of Pensions, is at the present time going into this subject, and we hope to receive their recommendations as to the best and most effective steps to be taken in the course of a short time. I can say, so far as the number of soldiers affected with tuberculosis on the 1st of June is concerned, and those on the waiting list, the number are, in institutions on the 1st of June, 3,000, and waiting for treatment, 364.
      Early in the year as unemployment became greater it was necessary to do what we could to speed up the provision of useful public works. I am quite sure that the House will agree that it is better that local authorities should get along even at a somewhat increased cost with necessary public works rather than that we should be spending large sums of money in unemployment donation week by week. At the beginning we, of course, moved slowly, but these records of applications will, I think, show what kind of progress has been made. The number of applications made to us in January was thirty-eight, February ninety-three, March 117, April 139, and May 218. That shows the greatly increased activity of local authorities in the preparation of public works and in the prosecution of them. As a matter of fact at the present time, including housing, there are public works in progress and under construction to the value nearly of £3,000,000.
      Mr. HOGGE: How many of those applications have been dealt with?
      Dr. ADDISON: The works now in operation and under construction amount to £3,000,000. Works for which the preliminaries have been completed and sanction given are equivalent to a further £17,000,000. There is the further figure where the necessary preliminaries are not yet completed, but where the authorities propose to proceed as soon as possible, and this includes £44,000,000 for housing, to which I shall refer later, and another £38,000,000 for other kinds of public work. In answer to the interjection of my hon. Friend, so far as the sanction for loans for this work during the last two or three months is concerned, the figures are: in March £950,000, in April £717,000, and in May £825,000. That marks the present rate of progress. As my hon. Friend is aware, you may have one or two schemes which cost £2,000,000 or £750,000, and perhaps a dozen schemes coming next which do not total as much. Progress is represented by the fact that in June the schemes in operation virtually amounted to the value of £3,000,000, and schemes for a further £17,000,000 have been sanctioned. I may say, with respect to the avoidance of unemployment, which is a very important consideration, that I can quite see that we may have to be very careful in the near future with regard to some works other than housing, because a shortage of labour will, I believe, be a limiting factor with regard to housing; and it will be inadvisable in the case of some great public undertakings, which may take years to complete, to lock up a great amount of labour which might be better employed in the meantime in erecting houses. So that we have to have regard to the other demands upon our labour programme, and more and more regard in surveying particular proposals which come before us.
      The medical services of the Board which now become merged in the Ministry of Health are very diverse, and in respect of some of them my view is that we are only at the beginning. I said that a few months ago there was serious risk in connection with demobilisation lest certain diseases might be introduced and spread in this country, and we set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to deal with them. I may say that up to the present time we have had only nineteen cases of imported smallpox, all of which have been arrested,

      663
      and several cases of malaria, dysentery, and so on, and they also have been prevented from spreading.
      A good deal of attention has lately been drawn to rabies, and if we compare rabies and influenza the comparison will give us a new sense of proportion as to what those two things mean, although they occupy sometimes quite a disproportionate amount of space in the public papers. The House will remember what we did on Friday last. I may say that there have been fifty-four cases notified, and we made arrangements in various centres throughout the country where the anti-rabine vaccine could be obtained, and we are being advised in this matter by Sir David Semple, who has been a director of the Pasteur Institute in India. The first nineteen persons who were bitten we had to send to Paris to get the lymph, and subsequently twenty-four were treated in England. Out of the fifty-four, we have treated eleven with vaccine prepared in our own laboratories. I think it was rather a reflection upon us as a nation that we were dependent on supplies from our Allies in the early days. Of the whole fifty-four cases which have hitherto been notified and treated, none have as yet developed hydrophobia. Let us compare that disease, which is, of course, a horrible disease, and one which attracts a great deal of attention, to what we have lost through influenza. During the six months ending 31st of March last in England and Wales alone there were 136,000 deaths from influenza. I think that suggests that it is very necessary for us to spend money freely (if necessary) and energy in conducting research and reorganising our methods to combat the spread of a disease of this kind. I hope that in due time, when I come down to the House and ask for assistance in doing this kind of thing they will remember that in the last six months 136,000 of our people died from this one disease alone, or the conditions arising out of it. We have got together, in conjunction with the Medical Research Committee, a Standing Committee to conduct research and inquire into influenza and to endeavour to prevent the infection being brought into this country. I would not myself venture to hold out any sanguine hope as to what we may be able to do in the near future as a great deal of research and organised inquiry is necessary before you can speak with any hopefulness of this subject.
      664
      Another topic, which I am sorry to say has been a good deal exaggerated and which was brought into prominence during the War, was the spread of venereal diseases. We have a number of critics as to the action we have taken and I should like to say something in justification. Under the Regulation issued in July, 1916, 75 per cent. of the cost of schemes for treatment of venereal diseases is paid by the State. There are at present 146 centres, of which some are exceedingly good. In London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Victoria University, Newcastle, Manchester, Salford, and Liverpool there are excellent centres, each treating more than 1,300 persons, but in a large number of these centres, in my opinion, we are not doing as well as we ought and as we will do in time, and we need not only 140 centres, we need 1,000 at the very least. The difficulty here is to obtain the staff and the people with the modern training arising out of the experiences of the War to carry them on. It, will only be gradually that we shall develop and train the personnel and organisation throughout the whole country to make the very best use of these centres. We have been blamed because we did not support compulsory notification. The view I take is that it was quite useless to require compulsory notification until we have completely organised, or substantially done so, throughout the country efficient and up-to-date methods for treatment, otherwise you simply drive people wholesale into very imperfect methods, and very largely you drive them into the arms of the quack. One of the very important things that we have yet to work out in detail is how to get the centre conducted on such lines that the people needing its assistance will readily come. The numbers have gone up. The attendances in 1917 were 205,000 and in 1918 488,000, but it is clear that we have got to aim at a centre where people will come in the earliest possible stages without fear that their coming will be known to other persons, feeling that they can do so freely and frankly, without any misgivings; otherwise you simply drive a great deal of this underground and to all sorts of methods of unsatisfactory treatment. It is no short cut to the treatment of this horrible disease to adopt methods of compulsory notification. It needs an elaborate development of our system of treatment on the best and most up- to-date lines, and being sure above

      665
      all things that the centres are conducted humanely, with common sense, and in a way which will induce the people who need assistance to come early.
      With regard to tuberculosis, my view, as I have said so many times, is, although we have increased the number of beds available by 1,500 during the last year, that our methods are still far from sufficient, and it is quite useless to expect that we shall ever successfully cope with a disease like tuberculosis until we have got an improved state of national housing. It is quite futile often to have people in sanatoria, and then send them back to some horrible dwelling where they cannot get proper ventilation.
      An HON. MEMBER: Have you any figures about phthisis?
      Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Five thousand a year more.
      Dr. ADDISON: We have proposals before us at present as to 3,300 additional beds. The grants made last year were £383,000 in respect of assistance for dealing with tuberculosis. If the hon. Member wants the number of persons I have not got the figures by me, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Major Astor) will give them when he replies later. Another branch of our work which we shall have to develop, and of which I may have the opportunity hereafter as Minister of Health of giving some account, is the spread of our maternity and child-welfare work. All these services are at the present time to a great extent in the experimental stage, and we need a great extension of our maternity and child-welfare centres, and this goes hand in hand with an improved nursing service and with an improved midwifery service, all of which takes time to develop, particularly with regard to the necessary personnel. Whichever of these topics we deal with, it is in my view quite useless to put before the House of Commons figures or projects. They all come down in the end to having the necessary trained assistance to do the work, and, in regard to practically the whole of these cases, the limiting factor is persons trained and competent to do the work. The latest development of all is in connection with the treatment of the blind. The Committee which has been working since 1917, with regional committees, has made a full survey of the blind population of the country, and of the in-
      666
      stitutes where training is given, and just lately the Government sanctioned the provision of £125,000 this year, to which a Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House, to be distributed in assisting the blind in workshops, in homes, in hostels, for home teaching and for various miscellaneous services, in institutions that have been carefully examined and approved.
      This is a brief outline of some of the medical and numerous other services performed by the Board, but I have omitted a great many more than I have mentioned. I would like to take the opportunity to speak at greater length on the question of housing and the difficulties of the position as we find it to-day, and I propose to do so quite frankly. The policy which we have adopted throughout has been to tell the House and the country exactly what the facts are, and I do not propose to dress them up to make them look better than they are nor to understate them. I think it is much better for all concerned that we should know, not what our promises are, but what the facts are. In this connection I should like to take the opportunity of referring to the history of this great scheme, because we have been, and I dare say we shall be, subjected to a good deal of criticism, some of it informed and some of it ill-informed. So I would like to ask the House to let me recall to them something of the history of this matter. Statements have been made— for example, the other day in another place, where my predecessor, Lord Downham, rather went out of his way, I think, to make reflections and animadversions upon myself, which I propose to ignore, but with regard to the facts of the case it may be well to refresh our minds. In July, 1917, the Government first issued a statement suggesting that we should give local authorities substantial financial assistance in regard to housing. In October, 1917, the Committee of Reconstruction, of which Lord Salisbury was chairman, presented me their Report. The Report was published later on, and the House will remember that a very important feature of the scheme as projected or recommended was that we should have established during the War throughout the country a number of officers under a housing commissioner who should help local authorities and others in the preparation of their plans, and in getting forward a survey

      667
      of sites and so forth during the War, so as to be ready when Peace came for getting along with the building of houses, and on more than one occasion I myself took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of that recommendation.
      Then in March, 1918—nine months, be it noticed, after the original Circular—the scheme of financial assistance to authorities was issued, and later on there was an important Memorandum by Lord Salisbury, Lord Crewe, and others, animadverting upon the scheme of assistance, and so forth. But it was a very generous offer which was made to the authorities, and I have recently, as the House is well aware, altered it, and I am proposing to say something as to why I altered it and what is the organisation we have set up in the Department as arising out of that and other alterations in the first place, when one was able to ascertain at the beginning of the year what the facts were we found them, I am afraid a. good deal different from the statements made by the Noble Lord in another place. He told us there that 900 authorities had expressed their willingness to forward schemes. That may have been so, but what I found on 21st January, when we got to the facts, was that there were in all 108 proposals as to sites, and fifty-two for housing schemes, many of which were out of date, and some of which were pre-war, and therefore we had to cut them down before we got anything to begin with. But after eighteen months of consideration— and that is why I am replying to the Noble Lord, and I think it is necessary that I should—after eighteen months of talk, I did not find a single house or site sanctioned from one end of the country to the other. We began from scratch, and had this statement not been made so publicly it would not have been necessary for me to state it.
      Mr. HOGGE: The same Government.
      Dr. ADDISON: That may be so, but I am giving the facts. If a Government finds out that the position is bad, it is only good sense to say so, and to try and alter it. What had to be done? Remember this is five months ago, and I am now trying to show what has got to be done before you can have a great number of houses in course of construction through out the country. We found that we had to begin from scratch. First, it was neces-
      668
      sary to prepare a Bill for this House to see what powers we really required effectively to deal with housing, and the House has dealt very generously with the Bill which I had the honour to introduce. Then it was quite clear that, notwithstanding the reflections which had been made upon us the scheme of financial assistance previously held out was quite inadequate. It did not, in fact, invoke the response which was necessary, and it is really not the case, as the Noble Lord suggested, that if the Government can tear up one bargain, because it does not suit them it can tear up another. The bargain was not altered because it did not suit the Government, it was altered because it did not suit the local authorities. They were not, in fact, making proposals to build houses, and that is the only test which we are entitled to apply, and, therefore, we have to alter it. The scheme which the House has discussed in detail on other occasions was worked out in the Department, negotiated with the Treasury, and issued to the authorities in February. The next thing clearly that we had to undertake was the subdivision of the country into housing districts, to survey the transport facilities, and requirements of housing, to give assistance in the preparation of sites, plans, lay-outs, and so forth. The country has been divided into eleven, areas, and officers and others have been appointed to do the work. In this connection, let me say, the local authorities for some months wore, and still are, to some extent under a great disability because of the shortage of their skilled officers. They were still in the Army at the beginning of the year, and we had therefore to get schedules of the surveyors, architects, etc., as required, and get men released for the local authorities, and 4,200 local authority officers were in that way released. But I may say a good many more are wanted.
      It is quite evident that the negotiations as to the value of sites, the preparation of schemes for the laying-out, the plans for the houses, the getting out of quantities, tenders, and all the rest of it, take a long time, and I should like to call the attention of the Committee to a parallel case. It is five months since January, and I will give the House in a moment a statement of affairs as they stand now compared with then. But I happened to be at the beginning of the Ministry of Munitions, having joined it on the first day, and I will remember how in;

      669
      June, 1915, we surveyed the requirements as to filling, rifle production, central stations, and all the rest of it, and gradually the requirements of a great ammunition programme were developed. Gradually the stupendous character of the work of organisation, machinery, and all the rest of it, became impressed upon us, and we had with us the enthusiasm and assistance of the country. It was then the one business before the country so far as production went. Nevertheless, it was many months—well into 1916—before the fruits of our labours began to be apparent, and I ask Members to bear that parallel in mind when they protest that, starting in January, you do not produce 100,000 houses by June. The essential preliminary work, the enormous amount of spade work to be done in any great constructive effort takes weeks and months of time with the best will in the world. To-day I am glad that we find ourselves a good deal further on. On 21st June, instead of the 108 applications for sites, we had 2,538, and the number is rapidly increasing. It is increasing every week. The Committee is well aware that I issue to Members monthly now a statement of the number of schemes that are submitted, and what is happening.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is this an official publication? Because I have never seen it.
      Dr. ADDISON: Certainly; it is supplied as a White Paper. I will send my hon. Friend a copy with full details. It is quite official. I am glad to say we have already sanctioned—and the price has been agreed —12,000 acres for housing, which is sufficient, at 10 per acre, for 120,000 houses, and we have site applications before us which relate to a further 18,000. At the present time, the plans with full details, specifications, tenders and so forth represent 17,720 houses, but, of course, with regard to a great many of them, the other schemes in the same places are largely a duplication. For instance, I was speaking this morning to an officer of an authority where we have sanctioned forty-two. They have 240. The other 200 or thereabouts would be practically a reproduction of the forty-two. So that, although the house plans number only 17,000 which have been sanctioned, as a matter of fact the plans they involve are many times that number. For instance, in the city of Sheffield, where they are now building 653 houses, the scheme they are preparing involves some thousands of houses, of which I have
      670
      no doubt a large number will be a reproduction practically of the plans of those already sanctioned.
      Mr. G. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been commenced?
      Dr. ADDISON: The authorities who have begun building are shown in the list which I have here. It is a pretty long list, and I will issue it this evening as a White Paper, but I may say Sheffield has a building scheme of 653 houses; Birmingham has started a section of seventy-four, and Bristol a section of seventy-one. That does not mean that all the seventy-one are actually being constructed. In some cases the foundations are being laid and in some they are doing the streets and so on. But that is the scheme upon which work has been begun. In some cases they have begun the building of houses; some are still in the stage of streets and drains. There are a large number of cases—twenty or thirty—where they have begun—Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Yarmouth, Wolverhampton, Ipswich, Norwich, Bolton, Bath, and Middlesborough. There is the statement of the number of places where they have begun work, although, as I say, it is not necessarily bricks in all cases, but it may be streets and so on. But they have actually begun work. I confidently hope that in the coming weeks that list will not go on one sheet of paper, but will require two or three sheets. We see a great disposition now to get on rapidly.
      Here let me say a word as to the cost of the houses. We have had, naturally, to contemplate the serious cost to the community through the present high prices of building materials, labour, and everything else, together with the uncertainty. I have here a list of the first representative groups of tenders for 1,100 or 1,200 houses, which give the individual prices. I do not think I ought to issue the names—I do not think that would be desirable—but I would say that the first group of sixteen houses is £526 per house; the next group, of 262 houses, 675 per house. Of these twenty-nine schemes, as regards three the cost per house of the accepted tender is below £500; in eight it is between £500 and £600; in nine, between £600 and £700: in seven, between £700 and £800; and in one case it is more than £800.
      Mr. THORNE: Where it is below £500, how many rooms are there?
      Dr. ADDISON: I could not say.
      Mr. HASLAM: Are these prices for houses alone?
      Dr. ADDISON: This does not include the cost of the land: it is simply for the building of the house and the necessary work in connection therewith.
      Mr. SUGDEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman state definitely the cost of the five and six-roomed houses?
      Dr. ADDISON: I will ask my hon. Friend if he can give details when he replies. I am afraid I have not the figures in my hand.
      Major PRESCOTT: Does it include the cost of the roads and sewers?
      Dr. ADDISON: I think that is included, but not the cost of the land. The average price is somewhere about £700 in those cases. I find several lately where the price is higher than that, and we must add on to that the cost of the land and other expenses. Of the 12,000 acres already acquired, I propose in our next monthly statement we issue as a White Paper to give the cost of the land per acre, and I think hon. Members will find, I am glad to say, that in general, at all events, local authorities have been quite fairly met by those who own the land, and they have been able to acquire it at reasonable rates. Still, those figures must have the cost of the land added. The Committee will see, therefore, that the total cost of the house, according to these figures, will be very high, and we are, I notice, exposed to some criticism. I propose, therefore, to tell the Committee what steps we are taking to try to minimise expenditure and check extravagance, but I think we have got to make up our minds, under existing circumstances, that we must pay prices something like this in order to get them. It means a considerable loss to the Exchequer, even if in course of time, as I hope they will, the rents approximate, to the fair cost of construction, and you can write off the war enhancement. Even then it will mean that the houses which are provided under this scheme will be provided at great cost. I think the House and country have made up their minds they want the houses and must have them, and, in view of all the facts of our time, they must be had even at that cost.
      672
      My hon. Friend and myself have been accused of antagonising local authorities. We are, I am sure, taking the same course with local authorities that we are taking with the Committee. We are telling them, as I am telling the Committee, what the facts are. The legislation under which local authorities proceed at the present time is exceedingly cumbrous. It makes it very difficult to get on rapidly, and, until the new Bill is on the Statute Book, we shall not be able, in many directions, at all events, to speed up the work. When that Bill is on the Statute Book with regard to the acquisition of land, and, more than all, the acquisition of houses, which can be adjusted or altered, we ought to be able to make rapid progress, but at the present time we are quite held up by the lack of power. Lord Downham accused us of having antagonised local authorities, but local authorities recognise the facts as well as we do. If the Minister of Health is on his trial, be it so. What is on trial is whether the State, by its machinery, central and local, can succeed in meeting the emergency of the shortage of houses. I have no doubt myself we shall succeed, but the fact that our whole system of Government, both central and local, in this matter is on trial is not open to question. We have said so without any qualification, both to the local authorities and to ourselves. Whether in England, Scotland, or Wales, I think they have not been offended by our telling them.
      My view is that they are doing their beat to speed up the work and to recognise the urgency of the situation, and that they are quite willing to co-operate with us, to receive our assistance, and to help in any way that is practicable and expedient. Remember, we have done a good deal; indeed, I may say we have already short-circuited procedure as experience seemed to require, and I hope we shall short-circuit it still further. As the Commissioners in the country gather experience they will be able to take greater and greater responsibility, I hope, in connection with this matter. In this connection I would like very respectfully to acknowledge how much assistance we are getting from the group of Members who are co-operating with me in their constituencies in respect to housing. I myself have often thought that we have not yet in this House devised a system whereby the Government can get as much help as they might do out of Members of Parliament. I know many Members who are anxious to be of help. They are men

      673
      of great influence in their district, and it would be a point to employ them, or, where employed, to employ them still further, to help to work out more effective systems and schemes. At the present time, in consequence of this Bill, and this attitude, large numbers of Members have offered to give us their assistance in the different districts to endeavour to overcome the difficulties incident to the local situation and to speed up the work of providing the houses,
      So fan as the supply of materials is concerned there is, thanks to the Ministry of Supply, no shortage before us in the near future. We have plenty of bricks on hand, timber, cement, and so on, for the first 100,000 houses, with a fair supply of slates. One of the greatest difficulties at the present time is in regard to the removal of the material to where it is wanted. The difficulty of railway transport in respect of many of our building materials is very great indeed. There is no shortage of bricks, for reasons I have stated, but the Ministry of Supply tell me that in their view the success of the rapid and cheap distribution of this material depends more and more upon the transport facilities rather than upon the efforts of the brick makers themselves. We have 300,000,000 bricks manufactured to our order at the present time.
      A number of experts are assisting Sir James Carmichael, the head of the Department, in going into proposals for standardisation. A large number of orders are being provisionally placed for standard parts. It is quite impossible, however, to expect to satisfy those who arc good enough to send us their suggestions in such large numbers. We get a large number of suggestions of a very varied kind. Sometimes we are not able to accept them—I am afraid quite often— and thus disappointment is caused. But that is inevitable! Those in charge of this affair endeavour to make the best of it. For all this, I am quite sure that these gentlemen who are doing this work for me are very often very alive to the adoption of new methods to increase standardisation, and we propose to make as rapid progress as we can. We are preparing to issue to the local authorities a schedule giving the prices of these building materials and the nearest railway station, with a schedule, too, of parts—an illustrated catalogue, and so forth. I remember we were confronted, in placing contracts for millions and millions at the
      674
      Ministry of Munitions, with difficulty, and one longed very eagerly sometimes that one knew what these things ought to cost. Then it was, as an hon. Member reminded us the other day, that I got together a number of gentlemen who created in the early days of the Ministry of Munitions a Costings Department which saved the country vast sums of money. I think such a Department ought to be a standing feature of our public Departments which are responsible for similar expenditure.
      For this purpose I have borrowed from Lord Inverforth, Sir Gilbert Garnsey, the head of the costings branch of the Ministry of Munitions, chairman of our Finance Committee, to advise me as to the financial aspect of the housing schemes. We have appointed, on the advice of this body, a finance officer to deal with the new schemes, to keep some check upon the estimates, and so forth, and we have appointed an accounting officer for the whole of the accounts of the Ministry of Health. Precautions recommended to me by Sir G. Garnsey and his colleagues are already being acted upon. I am quite sure, though I will do my best to carry out the recommendations of these various experts, we cannot by any means escape a large burden of expenditure. We propose to begin at this early day and to get a financial system which will, at all events, minimise extravagance. I may, however, say in this connection if we are to wait until every imaginable precaution has been taken, and until the last point of criticism has been reached, before we tell the authorities to go ahead, we shall be a long time about the housing. Therefore we must take some risk. We are doing everything we can to speed up the provision of these financial checks, for the Government recognise the need for getting on with the work. We must, therefore, take some risks in view of the existing emergency.
      I find that a good many authorities have been without the very necessary expert staffs. There has been a good deal of hesitation as to the expenditure to be incurred. I have ventured to remind them, as I have reminded myself, by setting up a considerable organisation and headquarter staff, and Commissioners, that we are setting out to do something quite beyond anything the State has hitherto taken up. We propose to build, under the direct or indirect supervision of the State, either by the local authorities, by

      675
      public utility societies, or otherwise, vast numbers of houses in the near future. It is a task twenty or thirty times greater than that hitherto undertaken by the local authorities in this country. Therefore it cannot be done without adequate assistance. I do not think any apology is needed on my part for encouraging local authorities to obtain the services of surveyors, architects, and others: because, unless we have adequate and proper paid staffs to do this work, we shall neither do it rapidly nor successfully. We have always been told when we employ people—certainly Ministers have been told—when they have sanctioned schemes to employ persons, "You arc creating more jobs, "or words to that effect. I cannot understand how we can do this great work without an adequate staff. I would like to give the House just one illustration of the necessity for a proper and competent staff.
      5.0 P.M.
      In the last batch of schemes which I have had before mo the valuation of the land is shown. For the sites required the price asked was £59,000. The price ultimately agreed upon, after the advice of our expert valuers had been obtained, was £39,000. On a few transactions alone like that we are able, of course, to more than save all the salaries of the valuers for twelve months, and this transaction was one occupying not a very long time. We had also, I remember, some time ago a case before us which was clearly one of a proposal to build excessively. It would have told heavily on the rates, and the cost to the State would have been high. We were criticised because I preferred to employ a surveyor at a considerable salary rather than to go on at a cheap rate. This surveyor had other cases of a similar kind where the authority was not quite accustomed to deal with matters of the sort. This particular authority had never built any houses. I only say this in justification of my urging the local authorities to employ readily, and even, if need be, at a considerable cost, the necessary staff. I do not think we shall be able effectively to deal with this housing problem unless we can make the fullest possible use of powers in regard to unsatisfactory dwellings. These are the subject of further powers contained in a Bill now before Parliament, but of which it would not be in order for me to speak. Subject to the limitations of the powers which at present exist, and which I am afraid
      676
      render the matter somewhat slow, I think that if one considers the amount of organising work in various directions, construction, material, and so on, we have not done so badly in five months. In saying this I do not want to suggest, or admit, that we are getting on fast enough. I hope that it will be long—I am quite sure it will be—before we have reached the limit of labour available. It will be due to no fault of ours if rapid progress is not made. Already there is evidence of that. We are sparing ourselves no effort, nor, I believe, are the local authorities sparing themselves any effort. We are confronted with a task of enormous difficulty, very technical, the successful execution of which needs the goodwill both of employers and trade unions concerned as well as the expert professions involved. Some time ago on another occasion I stated that it would be necessary in my view that some novel methods in the building trade should be devised with the concurrence of all parties for getting building done more quickly and introducing what is called diluted, or some form of auxiliary labour into the trade. We are fast approaching the time when the skilled members of the building trade will be practically fully employed, and when that time comes we shall scarcely have reached the maximum effort of our housing programme. Therefore in the appeal which I am asking the Minister of Labour to make to those concerned in the building trade in order to discuss with him and all parties concerned in a friendly spirit the adoption of new methods for the furtherance of this housing scheme, I think we are asking for something which is essential if these houses are to be provided.
      Let us remember that those who will inhabit those houses will include amongst others those engaged in the building trade itself. We shall have to face new methods in a great national cause, and I hope that just as we did it in the War, so people will be willing to undertake it for this purpose in time of peace. I do not think there is any constructive work before the country at the present time which goes so near the removal of causes of unrest, and so near to removing the first prime causes of physical disability which it is the duty of the Minister of Health especially to deal with, than the improvement of the vast number of

      677
      houses which are at present thoroughly insanitary, and the clearing away of many more which are a blot on our civilisation. With the provision we are making for the working classes—and I use that phrase in no narrow or limited sense—of better dwelling and better surroundings I hope we are doing something of which our country may hereafter be proud.
      Sir D. MACLEAN:The statement to which we have just listened I would describe as interesting but not satisfactory, and I refer more particularly to that portion of the statement dealing with housing. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the consummation at last of a union between the Local Government Board and the Ministry of Health. I do not know which is the predominant partner, but whatever the case may be, we are very glad indeed to know that no new Department has been created. The Minister of Health is the head of the Local Government Board, and I hope the new process will not be accompanied by any long measure of administrative indigestion, but I am certain that with good will and good habits, regular methods, a proper application of work, and adequate hours of leisure, one of the usual cures of indigestion, assimilation will in due time take place.
      We were all shocked to hear that in six months this country had suffered the loss of 136,000 lives. Many of these people were pulling their full weight, and they included young men and women in full activity. Influenza laid its fatal hand amongst us and the losses have been very great. We were very glad to hear that the Minister of Health has taken what I may describe as a safe, as well as an efficient, measure for the necessary research work into the causes of the ravages of this fatal disease, and we hope and trust that under providence these skilled men may be guided to some method whereby we may face the future with more confidence than we have done in the past.
      I would like to make a suggestion which occurred to me when listening to my right hon. Friend with regard to the Ministry of Health. We all realise at all times how important it is that the health of the community should be one of our first and most important cares. As we all realise, the ravages of the War have made that more important than ever. My suggestion is that the right hon. Gentleman should take
      678
      into careful consideration the possibility of, at least once a month, as Minister of Health, making a statement to the House as to the condition of the national health. I am sure that even statistics would be very useful, so that we should all know how the body corporate is faring in this matter of health. I throw that out as a suggestion. It might be very useful, and it can certainly do no harm. It would stimulate the local authorities the country over, because, say what you like, the House of Commons is the great sounding board of the nation, and things said here even when there is only a sparse attendance of Members have an influential effect far beyond what many people often think. Debates might arise on these questions, and any suggestion might be of real use in spreading information and knowledge as to the best way to meet many of these all too many preventable diseases.
      With regard to the statement made by my right hon. Friend about housing, I have already said that it was not satisfactory, and I am sorry it is not more satisfactory. As hon. Members know, the Armistice was declared last November, and we are now at the end of June, and it cannot be charged that the Government at any time were not backed up by a large amount of goodwill and help. There was scarcely a single word of criticism and no obstruction can be charged against any hon. Member; in fact, the criticism was intended to help. There has been a change in the Local Government Board, but, whatever that may be, the responsibility of the Government remains the same, and it is not unfair for us to bring to the notice of the public what we think the position is to-day, and indicate as well as we can what it ought to have been. Notwithstanding all the propaganda and all the preparations based on that propaganda, I think I am right in saying that the Ministry of Health has not official information that one single house has yet been completed.
      Dr. ADDISON: Oh, yes; Large numbers.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I am speaking of completed and inhabited houses. I hope there are many, but have any been officially reported? Supposing there are hundreds what difference does it really make when you look at the vastness of this problem. I do not believe there has been one officially reported as completed. What were the hopes held out on this point.

      679
      The First Lord of the Admiralty, when he was President of the Local Government Board, said to a deputation:
      "To let our men come home from water-logged trenches to something little better than a pigsty would be criminal on the part of ourselves."
      They have been coming from all the horrors and the ravages of the War back to what is little better than a pigstye. Not only this but thousands of them cannot even get a pigstye to get into. I gave some figures in this House supplied to me by a gentleman in the City of London, who has given a large amount of time and care to finding out the wants of demobilised soldiers, and they were very striking. I think an hon. Friend of mine gave the right hon. Gentleman some further information upon this point. Will the Government face the situation? My right hon. Friend knows the unrest that exists in the country, and this is one of the prime causes of it, and very largely it might have been minimized—I do not press it further than that—if this had been done. If there had been encouragement and liberty given to private enterprise to make a start now, I am sure a proposal of that kind would meet with the approval of a large number of Members of this House. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon it is not schemes we want but houses. We are face to face with this extraordinary position. My right hon. Friend said that he thought at no distant date the number of unemployed skilled men in the building trade would be fully employed. Am I right, or how far am I wrong, when I say that at the present moment there are at least from 35,000 to 40,000 men in the building trade drawing unemployment pay?
      Dr. ADDISON: They are not skilled men in the building trade—the carpenters, the joiners, and the masons—they include all the labourers of various kinds. The number of skilled men in the building trade unemployed is quite insignificant.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I mean men in the building trade.
      Dr. ADDISON: You said "skilled men."
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I ought to have used another word. I do not mean the joiners and carpenters: I mean men whose natural avocation is in the building trade.
      Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Assuming that the number of unemployed in the building trade is between 35,000 and 40,000, it
      680
      would be all the men drawing unemployment pay who described themselves as "previously employed in the building trade." I do not want to cast any reflection upon them, but a large proportion of them probably are men who have never had continuous employment in the building trade, but are men who can be partially used in the trade. They are scattered all over the country—I believe the largest number in any one place would be five or six—and the process of moving a few from each town to any one centre would be a very unwise one. Practically, there is no large reservoir of unemployed men in the building trade.
      SD. MACLEAN: I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend has stated. I invited the interruption because it is so very much better to have the correction made at once rather than in a subsequent speech, though I hope the House will hear my hon. Friend, who has exceptional knowledge of the matter. Still, there are thousands of men in the building trade who are unemployed, and I know, with regard to many great building firms, that there are men waiting the chance of employment. I know that from my own personal information. Obviously, it is quite time that something was done about this unemployment benefit. Whatever the causes, the building trade is prevented from getting to work on this urgent vital problem, and one cause, undoubtedly, is the want of adequate dealing with this unemployment benefit question. There can be no question that it requires immediate and drastic handling. We have got very nearly half through the time when my right hon. Friend anticipated getting 100,000 houses, and there are only a few score at the most completed, and none officially known. I am quite sure that the right method, where you can, is to encourage private enterprise. Let the men who want to work, work. Next, there should be the greatest amount of encouragement given to public utility societies. Their work may not be quite as finished as that of the local authorities, but I am quite sure that through them you will get delivery of a large number of houses if you give them plenty of encouragement and adequate opportunities. I admit that I speak with limited knowledge, but I really look to the development of the public utility societies and to their doing as much as many of the great corporations are doing.

      681
      Let us just visualise what happens in the case of an ordinary public body. It has a committee. The report of the committee goes back to the corporation as a whole. There are constant communications with its officials as to whether the Regulations of the Ministry of Health are being complied with. Men on the committee are always raising sterile, technical points, and there are adjournments to another day, leaving the business half done. The public utility societies work quite differently. Give them the utmost encouragement, and I am sure that we shall be astonished by the result. You will get very few local authorities to look at the question of the adaptation of existing buildings. That is not the way in which their lofty minds work. They want to make garden cities or to have town-planning schemes, and things of that kind. No one, however, can go about in any urban centre, great or small, without seeing houses which could be adapted, at any rate to meet a temporary need. I am sure my hon. Friend (Sir T. Walters), whose knowledge on this question is certainly as great as that of anybody in this House, will agree with me. If emergency committees got to work, and there were she same ideas abroad with regard to the provision of houses as there was about the delivery of shells, I am sure that something could be done. There is a great lack of user of existing facilities and a really lamentable waiting upon the development of schemes. My right hon. Friend made a reference to the Ministry of Munitions, and said that it was a long time before they got to work. He pleaded, and rightly pleaded, for patience and consideration while they were elaborating these plans. We know, and are thankful to recognise and remember, that in 1916 munitions began to pour in, but the old organisations were working very hard all the time and delivering very large amounts. Something must have been happening, because our men held on during that time. That illustration, therefore, fails, because things were being delivered, but no houses are being delivered. So far we have only had plans. If I can do anything to help to stimulate local authorities—it must of course be very little that I. can do—my humble services are entirely at the disposal of my right hon. Friend. Take whatever organisations are around you and let them get to work. Put no obstacle in the way of any organisation. Meanwhile, let your great
      682
      plans go on for the delivery of the local authority and State houses. It will be splendid when they come, but meanwhile get anything which is fit and proper for human beings to live in delivered as soon as you can.
      Lieut.-Colonel RAW:I must congratulate the Minister of Health on the very excellent statement which he has put before the House, especially on those questions which concern the general health of this great community. I should like to express my admiration for the extraordinarily efficient and excellent way in which the health services of this country treated our wounded who were sent from abroad. Under our present voluntary system of hospitals it would have been quite impossible to have dealt with the enormous number of wounded and sick who came from overseas, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, 75,000 beds were provided by the Poor Law institutions, and the House will agree that our greatest thanks and admiration are due to the splendid organisation of those Poor Law infirmaries which were every bit as well equipped and admirably managed as any hospitals we have in the country. I should like to say one word upon a very important subject, and I am sure the Minister of Health will appreciate the importance of it when I say that the disease of tuberculosis is killing about 60,000 people in this country every year. It has been estimated that 1,000,000 people in Great Britain are at the present time affected with tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that tuberculosis is a preventable disease which ought not to be here, and I feel certain that with the advent of the Ministry of Health a much greater effort will be made to stamp out a disease which is causing so much poverty and misery. I am not finding any fault with the present Government for the treatment of tuberculosis, but I do feel with the Minister that a much more comprehensive scheme should be started, that much more generous treatment of those affected with tuberculosis should be given, and that facilities should be provided, free of all charge, at the national expense for those people who are affected, and to whom treatment should be given in the early stages. The House will agree that too prevent tuberculosis is much better than to try to cure it, and any money which this House could provide I am certain would be willingly provided if we could rid ourselves of a disease which

      683
      really has no business in our midst. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should undertake some great educational campaign, and that a lecturer should be appointed to instruct the public that these diseases ought not to be here. It is a social question as well as a medical one, and I think the House will agree with me when I say that tuberculosis causes more poverty than all the other diseases put together.
      Another point I want to bring before the House is the question of our milk supply. Everyone agrees that the milk supply is as unsatisfactory as it is possible to be. Milk, in addition to various other contaminations, has been found to contain in about 20 per cent. of the samples submitted the germs of tuberculosis. This disease is conveyed to children, and in them you have the disease developed at the very beginning of their lives. What is the good of permitting children to be affected by tuberculosis when by the simple process of the control of the milk supply the disease could be eradicated? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should take complete control of the milk supply, and see that tuberculous dairy cows are not used for supplying milk for the people. I should like to suggest also to the right hon. Gentleman that, as a means of preventing disease, he should take his courage in both hands and set up a great National Institute of Health on similar lines to the Pasteur Institute in Paris and the Rockefeller Institute in America. It would be well worth while spending millions of pounds in prevention rather than in cure. I am quite certain that this House would readily agree to the Government setting up a great national institute of that kind, where the very best scientific men in the country could work, and investigate the causes of the diseases by which we are afflicted. Another thing which I specially want to emphasise here is that the health of Great Britain and Ireland is in a very unsatisfactory condition. The Minister of Health has entered upon his duties at a very critical time. Before the War the health of the people was unsatisfactory, but the devastations and losses of war have, increased ill-health most acutely. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties of the problem with which he is faced. He has a very difficult task before him,
      684
      the task of improving the general health. I am perfectly certain he is the right man to undertake the work, and that by coordinating all the big Government Departments in one great endeavour to improve the general health he will be able to do much. I believe that the House will grant the money necessary for the purpose. The investigation of disease involves expenditure of an enormous amount of money, but I am confident that that money will be freely given, provided the right hon. Gentleman has the necessary facilities for stamping out the disease.
      The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that it is not in order in Supply to discuss matters which require legislation.
      Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I am very sorry that I have transgressed the Rules of the House. I shall learn very soon not to do that. But I have nothing further to say except to support the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and to repeat my confidence that the House will willingly supply the necessary finance for the splendid work ho has in hand.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK:The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition observed that the housing question was in a profoundly unsatisfactory position. To a certain extent I agree with him. It is unsatisfactory. The summer is flitting by, and so many local authorities have not yet taken any effective action. But for that I do not think it possible to blame the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Vote, and who is now the Minister of Health. I am satisfied, on the contrary, that since he has held office he has applied whip and spur, and he is still doing his very best. If there is any blame to be attached to anyone I think it is to the House of Commons—not only this House, but the last. There was very great levity on this subject towards the end of the last Parliament. Many Members took not the slightest interest in the question, and even at the beginning of this Session the Government were allowed to wait six or seven weeks before they introduced their scheme. I think we must take blame to ourselves in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman opposite told us the proper thing was to encourage public utility societies and private enterprise. It is all very well for him to say that now, but my

      685
      recollection goes back some considerable time, and I can remember a period when no attempt was made by the party he leads to encourage private enterprise, and, indeed, any proposal to do that met with strenuous opposition from them.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: That is certainly not correct. Ever since these Debates have been taking place in the House I have been an upholder of the development of public utility societies.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: If I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman I am sorry. My recollection goes back to the last Parliament. I do not, however, wish to take up more time with regard to the housing question. I want to say something about tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated that there could be no improvement in this question until there was a general improvement in the health of the country. If we are to wait until there is such a general improvement in the health of the country, if we are to wait until the sanatorium benefits have reduced the amount of tuberculosis in the country, I am afraid we shall have to wait a very long time. I complain that the Government is not doing what it should do to improve the very unsatisfactory treatment which we are affording to the discharged soldiers who are suffering from tuberculosis. Let me give a typical instance. The East Midlands Disablement Committee has formulated a definite scheme. It came to the conclusion that the only way to treat tuberculous discharged soldiers is by concurrent training, and for that they have a definite scheme, and they have their eye upon a definite place which they wish to acquire. They came up to London to see the Pensions Minister, who, however, handed them over to the Local Government Board. They went to the Local Government Board, and were told that that body could do nothing, because there was a Committee inquiring into the subject. It is very wrong to put the attacking of this important subject off simply because there is a Committee inquiring into it. Here you have the East Midlands Disablement Committee with a definite scheme. Surely we know enough about this subject to go forward and encourage local committees where they have definite schemes, and to give them
      686
      grants. What are we waiting for? We know perfectly well that the sanatorium benefit by itself is perfectly useless. It is all very well for persons well to do, but to the poor man who has to go back to crowded surroundings and insanitary homes it is of very little use. Where you graft on to the sanatorium benefit a system whereby training and treatment can be given in pleasant and healthful surroundings, where you can give a person work at his own trade or in an allied trade, under such circumstances that is the very best treatment of tuberculosis that has been discovered up to the present, and I hope that the Local Government Board will somehow or another manage to get from the Treasury permission to give grants to local committees when they ask for assistance for their schemes.
      The next thing I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend is the inadequacy of the grants given to widows and children on out-relief. There was a Debate on this subject at the beginning of the Session, and on all sides there was universal condemnation of the system whereby miserable doles were given to widows and children on the ground that it was really only adding to unemployment, misery and destitution in the country. It is a system whereby the wretched mother works herself to death, and, while she is doing that, with these miserable doles, she cannot give her children adequate nourishment. The Leader of the Opposition said that this House of Commons, however empty and however dull the Debates might be, did serve as a sounding board for the nation. I am thankful to say that our Debate on that occasion has done a considerable amount of good, because boards of guardians have—and I am thankful for it, I do not know whether or not it is a deathbed repentance—they have at all events effected a very great improvement in the out-relief grants to women and children. I have here instances where women are now given 10s. a week, where with one child they get 16s. 6d. per week, and with two children 21s. In a place in the North of England a board of guardians is now giving 8s. per head. But I desire to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice the fact that there are still boards of guardians who are in this respect scandalously and shamelessly neglecting their duty. I have the case of a board in the South-East of England whose out-relief averages, for woman

      687
      and child, only 3s. 4½d.per week. I have another instance in the West of England where in 1914 the out-relief to widows and children was Is. 7d., and in September, 1918, it had risen to 2s. 9d. per person, and what is more amazing is that the inspector actually congratulated the board of guardians, and said that 2s. 9d. per week adequately represented the cost of living in the country. Is there any means of bringing pressure to bear on these backward boards of guardians to cease this system of the semi-starvation of women and children. I am told that the Local Government Board is conducting an investigation into the system of out-relief. There is a very strong feeling in the country that that investigation should be conducted only by women inspectors. A question was asked of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and the reply was given that the investigation was being conducted only by women. There is evidence to prove that it is not so. The investigation in some instances is being conducted by the general inspectors.
      Dr. ADDISON: Will you give me instances?
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: That is plainly wrong, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is wrong. An investigation of that character is of a somewhat intimate kind; it has to go into the woman's physical condition, her underclothing, her bed clothing, and all that kind of thing. There is one more subject I would like to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention, that is the increase in the number of children in the workhouse. I can remember the Debates on the Local Government Board Vote for a considerable number of years, and on every occasion this subject has been brought forward. The President of the Local Government Board has promised that no time should be lost in bringing the children out of the workhouse. Notwithstanding that fact, it is deplorable to see that there is actually an increase for last year in the number of children in the workhouse. Whereas in December, 1917, there were 9,932, in December, 1918, there were 10,389. Of course it is only the unprogressive boards who still keep their children in the workhouse. That makes it all the harder on the children, because one may be pretty
      688
      certain that where the board is unprogressive there the conditions of the children are worse. What is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from fixing a date—a date has already been fixed, but no notice has been taken of it—for telling boards of guardians that on that date they must have the children out of the workhouse. I feel very strongly upon this question, and for a long time the House has felt strongly upon it. I am sure the President will be giving expression to the strong humanitarian instincts of this House if he does take my suggestion and tells the boards of guardians that on such a date they must have the children out of the workhouse.
      Mr. BRIANT: Everyone who has seen the right hon. Gentleman at work on the Housing Bill Committee and on the Ministry of Health Committee has no doubt as to the sincerity and keenness with which he has attacked the subject of housing and all the other health questions. He is deserving of a good deal of sympathy, because when he came into power he was the inheritor of a scheme that was foredoomed to failure. Like most Ministers, he had some hesitation in immediately throwing over that scheme. The scheme whch Lord Downham initiated was one which, for better for worse, did not attract the local authorities. Under that scheme 75per cent. of the expenditure on housing was guaranteed by the Government. The 75 per cent. did not limit the actual amount which the local body would have to spend. It meant that the remaining 25 per cent. might represent ½d. or 5d. in the £. The average local council was speculating as to what it really meant. They were so terrified that this 25 per cent. might mean 1d., 5d., or even 6d. in the £ on the rates that they did nothing. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had the courage to throw over that scheme and adopt one which limited the definite cost to each local authority to a penny rate. That has given them the heart to come forward with schemes, which, although some what tardy and belated, and in some cases extremely slow, are nevertheless going to do something for England in the next six or nine months. Unfortunately, my own constituency is one in which every day of my life I am assailed by discharge soldiers demanding the houses they were promised. I am not unreasonable. I know the enormous difficulties. I know that the right

      689
      hon. Gentleman has had to start from scratch, and that he cannot build houses in the same way as mushrooms grow. You have to provide materials and labour and get the schemes through. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if the houses were jerrybuilt. He must take moderate care, and that he is taking. Undoubtedly we have to face enormous cost. The increased cost of labour and of material will make the cost of houses enormous compared to what it has been in the past. Yet I do not hesitate to say that there is no greater economy for the nation than to spend money on adequate housing. The cost to the nation of bad housing is a harvest of tuberculous disease, and anæmic children, who sometimes become charges on the State. Very often before full manhood or womanhood is attained such persons have become sickly and unable to do a full day's work. In the end it is economy to spend money on houses.
      I trust there will be no false economy in making adequate provision for discharged soldiers who are tuberculous. Only two days ago I visited a young discharged soldier within a few hundred yards of this House. He was in an advanced stage of the disease and in a highly infective state. He was lying in the room where the whole family had to have their meals. From the point of view of economy alone it is worth almost any money to take that young man away from that home where he is infecting the rest of the family and, perhaps, preparing the way for a series of tubercular men and women who are going to find their way into our sanatoria and hospitals. No expenditure is too great in the endeavour to secure that there shall be adequate provision for the reception of tuberculous soldiers. Another point with which I believe the right hon. Gentleman has full sympathy, but for which he has not made adequate provision, is the question of publicity. I can quite understand that the hands of the Department are full and that it does not see its way to launch a large campaign of publicity, but there are few Departments of the Ministry of Health to which I attach so much importance in the future as the Publicity Department. We have learned during the War of the enormous work that can be done by advertising. We called our people to enlist by putting advertisements on every notice board. We taught them to invest in War Loan by advertising, and some of us who have been elected have not been unmindful
      690
      of the advantages of advertising also. If there is much to be done in the way of education it is not going to be done by a limited number of circulars, but by bold advertising with posters, which, in a few lines, give the salient points connected with disease, and which point out the advantages of air, water, and cleanliness. Perhaps the most effectual way would be to have illustrations of large photographs of some of the germs of disease, which would be sufficiently horrifying to make the people realise what they are losing by want of air and want of cleanliness. I am quite sure that you could educate an enormous number of people if they had constantly before their eyes striking advertisements and if you did not mind issuing them by the million. We did issue by the million advertisements to secure investments in War Loan. You should be equally generous in your literature on a matter which is as important to the nation as even War Loan.
      There should be a series of leaflets, not drawn up in a technical way, but with short lines and striking headlines. In the course of ten or fifteen years that would educate the nation in health matters in a way in which it has not been educated before. We have to deal with all health matters, with very little regard to what we called economy in the past. We have to face that question particularly in regard to the employment of the necessary staff. The right hon. Gentleman hinted that there would be a lack of technical advisers and medical staff in the future. I believe that in the past we have not recognised the proper worth to the nation of the trained medical adviser, the expert, and the man who gives his life to research. We have underpaid the nurse, and from the nurse upwards there is not a sufficient number of technical advisers. It is a travesty of government and of the nation's appreciation of the real needs that a man by singing a comic song can get in a month as much as a great physician can get in twelve month. We have not yet appreciated what are the most valuable things. One of the first things we have to do is to pay our tuberculosis officers at a proper rate to enable the work to become a profession to which a man can give his life at an adequate rate of pay. We could make the pay of the nurses better, and especially the pay of the research department, so that we

      691
      shall attract the best young men and women into matters of this kind. I am sure the House is beginning to realise the disastrous payment we have had to make for our neglect of health in the past. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend should be the first Minister of Health, for whatever I may think of him in connection with some subjects I am sure that his desire is that England in the future shall have the health service she has not had in the past. I hope we shall never have to fight again, and especially that we shall never see hundreds of thousands of men discarded as useless, not through their own fault, but owing to the nation's neglect of those things that were necessary for the health of the nation.
      6.0 P.M.
      Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that the provision of houses so long promised is of the utmost importance. There is no question of its supreme importance at the present moment. But it is no use the right hon. Gentleman or members of this Committee or the country at large imagining that these is any short cut to the solution of the present housing shortage. We may pass Bills in this House, we may issue regulations, appoint inspectors, architects, commissioners, and all the rest of it, but, although those are things we have got to do, they do not immediately solve the housing question. You have a problem before you that will need all kind of emergency measures, some of them most drastic. All sorts of new policies will have to be devised, and every kind of ingenuity will have to be exercised in the Department and by those interested if we are going to get the houses. I may put it in a few words. You want to build a large number of houses, and it pays no one to build them. That is the proposition. You talk about private enterprise and about the obstacles in the way of private enterprise. What obstacles are in the way? Who is preventing anybody from building? Do hon. Members know any builder who wants to build, and can they tell me of any official or any Department who wants to stop him? If they can, I will get that official by the throat by the morning. No one is standing in the way. Any people who are prepared to build can have all the resources and all the facilities at the disposal of the State if
      692
      they like to commence to build to-morrow. But if they did commence to build tomorrow they would build something on which they would lose a lot of money. They would build something on which they would not get even a 2 per cent. return for their money.
      That is the proposition we are up against, and we shall never solve the housing question, we shall never get the houses that people want until that difficulty has been bridged over and private enterprise can obtain an economic rent and the ordinary laws of supply and demand get to work. That is the only solution of the housing question, and if my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) or the Chief Whips can devise some method by which you can, in fact, get private enterprise to work again at an economic rent, you will not want a Housing Department or Commissioners or Government architects or anyone else. The thing will right itself. We have an emergency problem to deal with. How are we dealing with it? We have to look round and say, "If private enterprise will not do it and we must have the houses, who is to do it?" Obviously, the State. Do those who object to the method of getting the local authorities to do the work wish the State to set to work to build the houses? if anyone will definitely make the proposition that some Department of the State should set to work to build a million houses and set up a gigantic organisation of that kind, let them get up and show how it can be done. If the State is not to do it directly it must do it indirectly. How else can the State work indirectly except through the local authorities? By a process of ordinary reasoning you bring yourself to that position. The State must carry out the emergency housing principally through the local authorities. How are they to do that? By giving the local authorities, if possible, assistance, by doing all they can to stimulate them, if necessary, and, finally, to do more than stimulate them—to compel them. The only form of legitimate criticism that we can bring to bear upon the Department now is this: Have you done in the past and are you in the present doing everything you can to persuade and even to compel the local authorities to carry out this emergency matter?
      I wish we had commenced to do the thing twelve months before we did. We ought to have been getting all these ar-

      693
      rangements made at the beginning of last year, but we did not do it, and the proposition before us now is, How can we get the local authorities, not simply to prepare plans, but to build houses and deliver the goods? In order to achieve that we shall have to put forth much more vigorous efforts than we have done up to the present. A great deal of work is being done by the local authorities. A large number of them have not only bought land, but are preparing schemes and letting contracts. I am glad to say Sheffield was the first to begin to lay bricks. It always leads the van in everything, even in its Parlimentary representatives, and if other Members would do what I did at Sheffield and get their towns to set to work, that would be very profitable. If every man in the House who gets up and criticises the procedure of the Department would go home for a week and sit in constant session with his local authority, and get it to prepare plans and invite contracts and get schemes, he would be doing good service. If any man says he cannot get the Department to consent, I will throw him out a challenge. Let him bring up to London a scheme, carefully prepared by competent people, and bring me resolutions and the necessary authority from his council, and I will go with him to the Board and between us we will compel the authorities here to approve of them. I know it can be done, because I have done it already. This is the proposition we are up against—getting the local authorities actually to work with the least possible delay. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will frown on me, but I think if he were to set to work now and himself appoint in every part of the country some co-opted members to local authorities who are not getting on with housing schemes, he would be performing useful work. If any authority whose housing committee is so slack and so incompetent that it will not get a scheme within the next few weeks, I suggest that the Minister should send someone—let him send me if he cannot send anyone else—to the district, and I will pick half a dozen men. Let them be co-opted and put on the local authority, and let them get a scheme through, if no one else will. For the moment local authorities are the only people to do it. The only way to get it done is to see that each local authority, without loss of time and without red tape, gets its scheme out invites tenders, and starts to work to build. I see no reason
      694
      why in the next three months every local authority in the country should not have a scheme approved and tenders accepted.
      My right hon. Friend who criticised wanted to know how many houses were actually finished. If I have a million houses to build the thing I am after is not getting a hundred done in the next two or three weeks, but to take care to spend my time in setting to work people to build not a hundred, but two or three hundred thousand, and it is far better to see that the preliminary stages are commenced for a large number than to worry yourself about getting one authority to prepare small schemes. You must get up something with a momentum about it. You must get a number of authorities at work and a number of people building and then you will get a number of houses. I have worried Sir James Carmichael almost to death from time to time. I have no more right to go in than any other Member of the House. Because I once presided over a Housing Committee, there is no reason why I should go in and argue with the officials of the Board. Still I do it, and they seem quite pleased to see me. I have been in there a great many times, and I have seen the whole details of the work, and I believe they are going to deliver the goods. I believe local authorities who are in earnest will get a large programme of building work carried on quickly, but there are a large number of local authorities who are not in earnest, and a number of men who will not get to work, and I do not think the Minister can get the houses unless those local authorities are made to wake up, either by gentle means or by means the reverse of gentle. I am speaking to the country at large when I say private enterprise cannot and will not do it at present, and local authorities must do it, and unless every local authority sets to work within the next few weeks we shall have-such a crisis in housing matters as will aggravate the condition of people's minds almost to the verge of revolution. Moral blame will attach to those who have any influence with local authorities if they do not do their utmost to stir them up.
      Public utility societies are a splendid method of getting houses. I have a fairly large professional clientéle, the result of a practice I used to have, and I have been persuading everyone I have any influence with, who has a large business, to form a public utility society, and I have been

      695
      spending all my leisure time in helping them to form them, and I believe that movement is only in its infancy. I want public utility societies not only for employers, but for workmen's clubs and for groups of men in various avocations in life. I want them to form these clubs all over the country—trade unions, co-operative societies, men's meetings, brotherhoods and sisterhoods to form them. If those who have not much influence with local authorities could get their constituents or their workpeople or anyone else they know in a district where they are short of houses to form these public utility societies—and if no one else will form them I will; my services are without any kind of charge and are entirely at their disposal—you can then create the machinery that ought to produce 50,000 houses before the end of the year. But do not make any mistake about it. There is not a short cut to it. There is no ready solution. There is no cut-and-dried scheme which will get all the houses you want—neither Liberals, Tories nor Coalition, nor anyone else's suggestion. It is only by the most laborious, patient and continuous effort in every direction that you will get, not only an adequate housing scheme, but the real building of the houses.
      Mr. HOGGE:I am sure anything my hon. Friend says about houses has considerable force and influence with members of the Committee in view of the very special experience he has had from time to time on this matter, in addition to his own personal experience. But while it is true to say that unless you urge local authorities and public utility societies to get active you will not have 50,000 houses by the end of the year, that does not solve the very large immediate problem to which, in my view, the Government is not addressing its mind as it might do. And even if you finally get all you want in the next couple of years of new houses built so many to the acre, I am not the least sure that the people who are going to occupy those houses are the people you are trying to find houses for, and that you will not have, as you have had always in connection with every scheme of that nature, migration of people from one class of house to a better class of house, and the people who really want houses scrambling for those that remain. I had reported to me the other
      696
      day a new housing scheme in one of the London Metropolitan areas. It is a very ambitious scheme in many ways. The houses are being laid out very few to the acre and of very considerable size, and I know people in that neighbourhood who are at present paying very much larger rents and are in a very much better social position who are staking out their claims for these new houses that are going to be built, though they themselves reside in perfectly excellent houses with every kind of sanitary accommodation. So, after all, this Committee must not run away with the idea that, however many housing schemes we may get our local authorities to put through, we are really after all doing more than touching the fringe of a very large subject. My hon. Friend threw out a perfectly friendly challenge, whether anyone could devise a scheme which would supply houses quickly. When he said that I dare say he had at the back of his mind the fact that in a debate of this kind we are not entitled to discuss matters which require legislation. Otherwise it would have been perfectly easy to make a fairly competent reply, because there is certain legislation which, if passed, would contribute more in a single month to the building of houses than all the schemes which have ever been prepared by any local authority in any part of the country. One reason why you cannot get good and sufficient houses depends very largely upon systems which are still in existence and which this House has not attempted yet with success to overthrow.
      I want to say a few words about the provision made by the Local Government Board of accommodation for tuberculosis cases. I think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned 3,300 extra beds. I should like him to say a little more on that point, particularly in view of the complaint that is common knowledge to every Member with regard to the impossibility in many cases of discharged soldiers affected by tuberculosis getting into a sanatorium or any other kind of treatment. It has been mentioned in this House that although it was illegal to accept a man for the Army if he was suffering from tuberculosis, particularly if he had been certified by his medical officer as tubercular, that up to the Armistice there had been between 50,000 and 60,000 men discharged from the Army and Navy suffering from tuberculosis, meaning a very large addition to the number of men on the panel through

      697
      the national health insurance requiring this treatment. I am perfectly certain that every one of us is agreed that provision should be made for such men, and I should have liked to hear from my right hon. Friend—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it when he replies—how far the new Ministry of Health proposes to deal with that matter, and how far they are prepared to go in furnishing more and better accommodation for the treatment of these men. It is a pressing subject. If we examine the figures of death rates from consumption we shall find the most remarkable figures in connection with the national health insurance since they began their operation. Everyone will be appalled at the enormous cost in money to the nation in the treatment of those cases, and the very poor, inadequate and meagre results that have been achieved. I am sure my right hon. Friend, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, who is interested very much in this question, will give it his progressive attention.
      The chief point I want to raise is the question as to whether the Local Government Board cannot do something in connection with the immediate problem of housing without waiting for the schemes of the housing committees. The problem is expressed quite briefly in letters written by the wives of discharged men, and by discharged men themselves. I have many letters, but I will only give one or two examples as affecting not only London but all parts of the country. Here is a letter from a woman:
      "My husband works at Woolwich Arsenal. He was not fit for the Army. My son is in Egypt. We are in two rooms and I have twelve children. The landlord gave us notice last November and since then I have walked for miles but cannot get a house. I almost smuggle my children in and out as my landlord does not know how many I have got. We are three storeys high, and I have to carry the water up and down and I have no convenience whatever. Nine of my children are under fourteen years of age."
      Here is another letter:
      "I am the wife of a demobilised soldier. I was obliged to give up my little house and go home to my mother and father. My husband had his heel blown away and has two silver screws in it, but as we cannot get a house he has to walk over half an hour each night and morning before he gets to the tram. When you try for a house they say 'It is sold,' or 'Have you any children?' and as I have three little ones I cannot get any sort of place. There are five of us now in one room."
      698
      A third letter is from a man:
      "I was taken a prisoner of war on the 20th October, 1914. I have a wife and four children and have to live in one room. Our eldest daughter is fourteen years of age, and I think it is a disgrace to humanity to have her sleep in the one room with me."
      My right hon. Friend probably knows the material of these letters as well as I do, and probably every other Member is familiar with similar cases; therefore, I will not weary the Committee by giving more examples. None of the schemes that are being provided by the local authorities give any immediate provision for these conditions. We are celebrating in this country to-day the signing of Peace, yet in the country 400,000 discharged men, at least, are without work and well over 100,000 of their families are without real and decent housing accommodation. You cannot celebrate Peace with these kind of things in your mind. There is no use in this House blinking the facts. There is no use in this House going through its political life in blinkers. In London the situation is acute, and I want to ask my right Friend whether the Local Government Board cannot do something immediately without waiting for the schemes of the Committees to deal with this immediate and pressing problem themselves. Let me make a few suggestions which I think could be carried through. The first suggestion is that the Government should release all the houses that they hold, have them cleansed and place them at the service of soldiers and their families for at any rate a minimum period of two years.
      Dr. ADDISON: Does the hon. Member mean the houses occupied by Government Staffs and Departments?
      Mr. HOGGE: Yes. In the neighbourhood where I reside there is a long row of houses which were occupied for a very long time by members of the Army Service-Corps waiting for demobilisation. If the War Office had had any sense they would have demobilised them months ago, but for six months they were hobbling about the street, no use to anybody and a nuisance to themselves. These houses are unoccupied. They are not particularly clean as a reult of being unoccupied, and at the mercy of everybody. An ordinary tenant who is looking for a house is not likely to take that kind of house. They require cleaning and painting to make them habitable for a certain social standard; but the Government could go in with the authority which they have or which they could easily

      699
      take. They have taken all kinds of authority during the War for saving life and this is another form of saving life. Let the Government go into these streets, take over these houses and turn them into service for the families of these soldiers, many of whom have lost their houses because they went to the War. Let them fix a minimum time limit and I am certain that by so doing you would provide accommodation for a large section of the community in London. My second suggestion is that the Government should requisition all houses that owners refuse to let and give soldiers and their families, again the first preference. There are a great many of these. There is any amount of property in London that cannot be let.
      Major NEWMAN: Where is it?
      Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. Member will come down and stay a night with me I will show him to-morrow morning.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): Will the hon. Member explain what power the Local Government Board has, without legislation, to requisition houses?
      Mr. HOGGE: I know that this can be done without legislation. It could be done by Regulation under the authority of the Local Government Board. They still have powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, which is not extinct. Greater powers have been taken by the Local Government Board to do much less than this, and I suggest that for the immediate problem before us they should take powers and achieve the things which I am suggesting.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Peace has been signed.
      Mr. HOGGE: Yes, but D.O.R.A. has not been unsigned.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better not proceed with that line of argument.
      Dr. ADDISON: We have sought legal opinion on this very point, and we are advised that we have no power under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to do what the hon. Member suggests..
      Mr. HOGGE:It is curious that when you seek legal opinion upon that point you are told that you cannot do it. You have been able to do all sorts of things before, and how, in the name of common sense, you have not power to do it now
      700
      I cannot understand. It is strange to me how legal opinion changes. It cannot have changed since the signing of Peace. It is a very poor opinion.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but it is clear now that the Local Government Board have not the power. Therefore, I must rule that line of argument out of order.
      Mr. HOGGE: I was not intending to pursue the subject, but I must express my opinion as to the poorness of the legal opinion that the Local Government Board cannot do, without legislation, a thing which is perfectly obvious to any man should be done. In any case, the Housing Bill which is now going through the House of Lords will enable my right hon. Friend to take these powers.
      Dr. ADDISON: Hear, hear!
      Mr. HOGGE:Therefore, I will hand on to my right hon. Friend the remainder of my suggestions with great pleasure, so that they may be taken up. Although the forms of the House prevent one pursuing the subject, the suggestions are worth something from the point of view of dealing with the immediate problem. I should like to know precisely what is to happen to the Local Government Board in its relations to the Ministry of Health. Is the staff to be changed in any way? Are the permanent officials of the Local Government Board simply being transferred to the Ministry of Health, or, if not, which of the permanent officials of the Local Government Board are going to the Ministry of Health, and which are going elsewhere? What division is going to be made in the functions of the Local Government Board and the Ministry of Health? Is a hard-and-fast line to be drawn in the Ministry of Health or is there to be a margin in which the Departments overlap? I should like to know where we are to raise questions in future on the various Votes? There is only one other point which I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was the distinction he drew between the mortality in the recent epidemic of influenza and the present mortality in the case of rabies. Can my right hon. Friend tell us how far his Department and his experts have made investigations into the ravages of influenza? It always appeared to me that a recurrent disease of that kind, which has

      701
      produced such disastrous results, claims the most serious attention, not only of medical men, but of the Government itself. I do not know whether the epidemic which was described as influenza, from which we in this country have suffered severely, and from which other countries of Europe have also suffered severely, was really influenza or something specifically arising out of the War. If my right hon. Friend could tell us whether anything has been done in the way of research in that direction, it would be extremely useful, because probably next to child mortality the mortality from influenza, which is a recurring epidemic, has become one of the worst plagues in the country.
      Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I desire to say a few words on the question of tuberculous soldiers. I have the honour to be the acting-chairman of the Committee to which reference has been made. It has been suggested that delay has been caused by the setting up of this Committee. I hope that that is not so. But if it has been so, it will not be caused any longer, because the Report, I think, will be out of our hands this week or early next week, and I hope that those to whom it is addressed will take our recommendations to heart, and put them into operation as soon as possible, and I hope that we shall have an early opportunity of discussing them in this House. No one can deny the urgency of the problem, so far as the soldier afflicted with tuberculosis is concerned. That urgency distinguishes it from the ordinary problem of tuberculosis for this reason: We all feel for patriotic reasons that any able-bodied man who has unfortunately caught tuberculosis in the trenches in defence of the country has a special claim upon the help of the community. Many of those oases, unfortunately, are not diagnosed sufficiently at the time, and the early stages of tuberculosis, as we all know, are the most curative. The matter should be taken in hand at once, and such soldiers would have by means of the State provision the help of the pensions, which you have not got in case of the ordinary civil population.
      An hon. Member has referred to the difficulty about sanatorium accommodation. No one can deny that there has been a lack of sanatorium accommodation for tuberculous soldiers. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind the circum-
      702
      stances in which that lack of accommodation arose. There were in course of construction when the War started sanatoria which had immediately to be stopped. There was hospital accommodation which had to be commandeered by the War Office and while I admit as freely as anyone the cases in which sanatorium accommodation has been deficient I do think we have to bear in mind the circumstances in which that deficiency arose, and certainly in some cases that deficiency was inevitable. But I am glad to say that it is now being rectified, so far as I have any means of knowing, as fast as possible. I do not want to anticipate what the Committee of which I have the honour to be chairman will have to say on that subject, and therefore I do not want to go into the matter in more detail. But I do want to assure the Committee, that while the deficiency certainly arose and has been considerable it has been due largely to causes produced by the War itself, and as far as I can ascertain it is being rectified very rapidly. The figure of 70,000 tuberculous soldiers has been mentioned. The figure given to us is not so large as that and I hope therefore that possibly the mattter is overstated.
      With regard to what was said by the Noble Lord as to treatment, training, and the development of curative work in sanatoria, everybody who has studied this problem will agree entirely. What I think is wanted even more than that, particularly in the case of the tuberculous soldier, is a further step by the State. We often hear it said that work on farms is the ideal thing for those who are suffering from tuberculosis. I do not believe it. Agricultural work is of all kinds very often the hardest, and not work for those suffering from tuberculosis, even when they have got back to a reasonable standard of health. What we want is something more than that, something more than mere training and treatment in sanatoria. We want to look forward to what is to happen to the soldier. Suppose he has been put in a sanatorium and has had curative treatment and curative training, suppose he has learned to exercise himself by means of light gardening, etc., and that he has got back to a certain standard of health, what is to be his future? This is a question which the House will have to consider at a very early date. Is he to go back to his old surroundings, his insanitary housing, and his unsatisfactory conditions generally? If so, the help which

      703
      he has obtained will be lost, and he will lose all that he has gained. What is to happen to the man after he has gone through the sanatorium?
      In the first place, you have got to get the good will of the men themselves. That is the great problem. Are they willing to do the best they can, not only to secure their own health, but to secure the health of their families? Are they willing to give up a certain amount of the amenities of life to come and reside in a village community under the best possible health conditions with some medical supervision and so on? Because, if they are, we will see to it that some such provision is made for them. That is not a mere dream. It has already been attempted at sanatoria, such as the famous sanatorium near Cambridge. That was an ordinary sanatorium to start with. But, in addition, the far-sighted committee who run that sanatorium have bought up all the cottages in the village, and when a man has passed through the sanatoria and got up to a certain standard of health he is placed in one of those cottages. His family is brought to that cottage. He is started in various kinds of village industries, whether light agricultural work, market gardening, poultry-keeping, carpentry, or even tailoring or boot-making, and so on, all under the best possible conditions of health, with open windows, and all carried on under medical supervision. If we make some arrangement of that kind I believe it will be the best way of dealing with the problem. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for getting away a little bit from the point of criticism that has been raised, but I am glad to take this opportunity of saying something of the plans which, in ray view, are the only plans that are likely to deal with this problem of the tuberculous soldier in a proper manner. But that can only be carried through with the help of the man himself. I am glad to hear from various centres that the goodwill of the men had been allowed, and if we can carry them with us I believe that there is a great future for a scheme of this kind.
      Mr. SUGDEN: The subject which we are discussing this afternoon is one of great importance. It is one which concerns the welfare not only of a large section of the community of the present period but also of the community that is to come. I welcome and support with all
      704
      the power of which I am capable the proper consideration that its to be extended to those wounded men who are coming back and to those who are receiving the legacy of the fight which has been fought and of the work that they have done for us. We must also remember the heroes of the great industrial warfare, and not forget, either, the little children who have been the shuttlecock between four or five or six Departments of this great country. We remember also the treatment of those men and women who have stayed at home and have had to live so largely on foods which were diluted and adulterated, and in the majority of cases were deficient in substances so vitally essential in these days of speed, when the very utmost of nerve is required, even in the ordinary walks of life. Therefore, there is. I consider, the very proper question of dealing with all these matters, and I suggest that it is vitally essential that the necessary work should be taken into consideration not only by the municipalities but also by the new Ministry of Health. Full attention should be given by the municipalities and the local medical officers of health to these questions, now that peace has been signed, so that it shall be possible to build up the stamina of the people, who at present in our great industrial centres work under conditions which are not always the best, and that adequate steps shall be taken to deal with the care of the children. I assert that little or nothing has been said about the children. It has been under the consideration of the Minister of Education and it has been under other Departments, but I know to-day by my connection with the special schools committees of different sections of our great industrial centres that there is not 10 per cent. accommodation for all these poor little ones, who should receive special medical care. I suggest that in the new Ministry this question should have dominating consideration.
      I am perfectly aware that no special qualification is required to become a critic. I therefore tender to the hon. Member who represents the Ministry of Health one or two suggestions. There should be suggestions of an educational character to the municipal authorities. There should also be a reclamation of powers which are now lying dormant on the Statute Book. The Ministry of Health has power to guide the physical recreation, culture and treatment of the people. When I recall the method and

      705
      type of recreation and amusement in our great industrial centres—I cannot speak with any great knowledge of the agricultural districts—I realise they are not of the kind which makes for the best physical efficiency. These things cannot toe done by financial considerations only, but they can be done by educational facilities. Some of us have taken a little part in events across the water, when we had the honour of wearing the King's uniform, and had something to do with the gathering together of men for the Army. We know that physical training and culture are essential to make men physically fit. These men are coming back to work, and it is vital that physical culture and recreation should be taken into consideration, and that the new Ministry of Health should use its influence with local authorities so that it will be possible for these men, who have knowledge of the splendid usefulness of physical culture and outdoor recreation, to retain something of their physical efficiency.
      Something has been said about the housing question. There are many ways in which the Minister of Health could influence the speeding up of house building. I will mention one or two. There is the cornering of certain classes of building materials by great corporations already formed or being formed. I affirm that the Ministry has power, by means of certain Statutes to make it impossible or difficult for those industries to run up the price of materials. The other day I asked the price of a five or six-roomed house. I have the honour to be connected with a great industrial undertaking which very public-spiritedly is building houses to-day, and it has been a. tremendous surprise to many of us to find that a five-roomed cottage, which in pre-war days cost £120 to £140 for building, to-day cannot be built under the closest scrutiny for less than £350 or £400. I would suggest that the Minister of Health bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that many of our great industrial firms might do useful work in the provision of houses if an arrangement was made whereby a portion of the excess profits tax of 40 per cent. could be used for the building of houses, the money so invested to bring in a return of not more than 1 per cent., and the houses not to be tied to the employés of the firm, but to be offered broadcast.
      706
      Many of us are with great pleasure taking a hand in the raising of money for the Victory Loan. It is our duty no less than was that of donning the King's uniform. But I would bring to the notice of the Minister of Health the fact that when we are getting money at 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. we are making it very difficult for the municipalities to get money on a serviceable and economic basis; therefore I suggest that there should be co-operation and co-ordination with the Exchequer in regard to the financing of housing schemes.
      Mr. HASLAM: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down on the many thoughtful and practical points he has brought before us. There is no doubt that research work is very much needed. We require research, for instance, so that we may know that the food-supply to the people is of the healthiest and most nutritious kind. In only one regard was I disappointed with the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, and that was because he did not tell us what the cost of land was in connection with housing. From the figures I have had, my own impression is that the cost of the land is really only a very small proportion—I think certainly not more than 10 per cent of the total cost of the houses. I made this calculation from some figures which were supplied by the papers sent round to me and, I suppose, to other Members. I think it very important that the public should know as soon as possible what proportion land bears of the cost of housing. The President of the Local Government Board did not appear to be quite clear whether the estimate also included the cost of sewerage and paving, and so forth. As his statement was indefinite, I trust that in his reply he will be able to tell us something of a more practical nature. I rose more particularly to emphasise the point raised by the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) with regard to children who are still kept within the precincts of workhouses. I think it very important that children should not be kept within the precincts of workhouses, and I would like to call attention especially to the fact that, by their own Order, the Local Government Board have demanded or required that the children should be excluded from such precincts. It would not cost so very much to make this effective, and any little amount so expended would be money well spent, for it means that the

      707
      children will have a better opportunity of growing into good and useful citizens. Money thus spent is the most profitable of investments. The number now kept within the precincts of workhouses is10,389. That is a reduction on the number for 1918, but it is an increase on the number within the precincts in 1917, which was 9,932. Something might be done in this matter by directing that, as far as possible, boards of guardians should co-operate with local housing authorities, so that in their scheme they may provide more suitable accommodation for children who would otherwise have to be in the workhouse. It means a great deal to these children. They require special care and to be as far as possible in surroundings similar to those of other children. When within the precincts of the workhouse they cannot be properly looked after. I hope, therefore, that in his reply the President of the Local Government Board will let the Committee know whether he will take steps, now the War is over, to ensure that children hitherto kept in the workhouse are to be provided for by means of homes outside the workhouse boundaries.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): It will be convenient, perhaps, if I deal now with points raised during the discussion. I have taken part in many Debates in connection with the vote of the Local Government Board both before and during the War. I do not think I can remember a single occasion when there has been so generally a friendly attitude on the part of the House as a whole. It is, probably, partly because hon. Members do not wish on an occasion like this, on the last day when we appear here as officially connected with the Local Government Board, to strike anything like a note of hostility or criticism. It is also, I think, because of a recognition of the fact that we are already trying to deal with the points which have been raised. I am very grateful for the friendly and suggestive notes of the speeches delivered. With many of the points made I will not deal now at great length, for they are connected with future policy. We are none the less grateful for the suggestions made. One point referred to publicity; another was connected with milk. We are going into the regulations which will have to be brought out. This is the last day of the official
      708
      existence of the Local Government Board. To-morrow my right hon. Friend will come to the House as the first Minister of Health, head of a Department of which so much is hoped and from which so much is expected, which starts with so much good will, which embarks upon its official career with a real vision of what, as it hopes, it may be in future. The reorganisation of the centre is only the first step in putting into operation and making into actualities those visions which most of us have before us. The next step will be some form of reconstruction at the periphery.
      7.0 P.M.
      The Minister will have to decide what form of machinery he will use in carrying out administration and the various proposals which he will ask the House to pass. I desire to go a little into this matter, because it has, I think, really been at the back of the minds of most hon. Members who have taken part in this discussion. Hon. Members know as well as I do that the Central Department operates through local and popularly elected bodies. My right hon. Friend, when he had to deal with the housing problem, had to decide whether or not he would use the existing form of machinery and the old system of local government, or whether he would go in for some new machinery which would possibly be very effective at the start, though I am very doubtful whether hon. Members, who have perhaps been suggesting that we ought to have done more, would in fact later on—say, next year—have been grateful to my right hon. Friend if he had changed the whole of the existing machinery and gone in for what would have been nothing but a glorified form of bureaucracy. I realise perfectly well that if we use our existing machinery that we are not likely to move as rapidly at the start as if we did it all from Whitehall. That is quite possible, but let us not forget that mere efficiency of administration and organisation is not the only thing we are out for. Do not let us forget that we fought against a country which had brought national administrative efficiency to a high point. We do not want to give up our old system of local government and of local administration, which, with all its shortcomings, has great advantages in delegating responsibility and training character. We do not want to give up the whole of that in order to set up a system of bureaucracy comparable to the German system.

      709
      Therefore, do not let us forget when we are criticising shortcomings or delays, that my right hon. Friend had to consider in connection with housing, as in connection with health, whether he would rely upon the old-fashioned system of local government, or whether he would embark upon a new system of bureaucracy. There were some people who were in favour of a new form of bureaucracy. I do not believe that it would be in the national interest if we adopted that form of organisation. It is quite true that both the President and myself have said, and I repeat it now, that our existing form of local government is on its trial, and if by any chance it were to break down, then the advocates of bureaucracy might get the opportunity of sweeping aside and taking away the powers from local and popularly-elected bodies, dealing with housing and everything else, and setting up in their place a new system, or what I may call some form of bureaucracy. It is because of that I sincerely hope and believe that the local authorities will fully come up to the needs of the situation, and will be able to deal with housing and that we shall realise that we can trust them in the future in the development of our health services. That is what we had in mind in dealing with housing, and when we said that our system of local government is on its trial. The functions of the Central Department and of the local authorities are quite clearly divided. This House gives certain powers to the local authorities to do certain things, and a minimum standard is set. I do not mean that in the past the Department has always been careful enough in setting standards and in giving grants and in seeing that there was real value for the money used. Under the Housing Bill we are giving local authorities very real and enormous power. An hon. Member opposite spoke of our inability to deal with some suggestions under the Defence of the Realm Act. My right hon. Friend and I would have liked to have done so but it was not legal. We have taken power in the new Housing Bill to deal with the problem in the manner my hon. Friend suggests. I am sure the hon. Member for East Edinburgh does not mistrust our system of local administration.
      Mr. HOGGE: I do not.
      Major ASTOR: The alternative to the existing system is what I have described as bureaucracy. In the long run, I am in favour of using popularly elected local
      710
      authorities and putting the responsibility upon them, and giving the people in each area the opportunity of exercising the pressure of public opinion, to sec that the powers given are carried out, and if they are not then the people have the power to change their representatives. Hon. Members will find that the next elections in the municipalities in November will turn very largely on the adequacy or the inadequacy of the provision being made for local housing. I have been round a good many neighbourhoods, and I have found public opinion taking a very keen interest in this subject, and Councillors will find, when they go to their constituents in November, that whether they are returned or not will depend very largely on the steps they are taking now, and will have taken throughout the summer, to provide for the needs of the area.
      Mr. SUGDEN: Whether they are shaping or not.
      Major ASTOR:That is one of the great advantages of a system of publicity, and of giving complete information to the House, and to the country, as has been done by my right hon. Friend, so that particular areas can see what is being done in comparable districts, and they will very soon draw the moral. In the past—I say it quite frankly, and I say it now because it bears on the next point—there has not been sufficient contact between the Central Department and the authorities at the periphery. I am not going to say that the institutional provision which is now available for the treatment of tuberculosis is adequate, either in numbers or in quality. My right hon. Friend hopes to have much closer contact existing between the centre and the different authorities. I believe good authorities who are carrying out their obligations will welcome inspection. The other cry which we hear periodically against "officials from London" comes usually from bad local authorities who do not like any inspection, but even in their case inspection is most beneficial. They dislike us and abuse us, but go ahead. As to this question of tuberculosis, which has been very rightly brought forward, I was asked for figures, and, first of all, let me deal with soldiers. The total number discharged in the United Kingdom was 35,000, and we have now in the institutions undergoing treatment about 10 per cent. of that number, or something like 3,000. There are, I think, 300 on the waiting list, and it is

      711
      enough for me to say there is a large number of civilians waiting for treatment. We are doing all we can to stimulate the local authorities. Hon. Members will realise the difficulty of providing fresh institutions during the War, when all men were taken off building. The Army has vacated some buildings, but has brought back men suffering from wounds to this country. Therefore it has not been possible to get hold of as many institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis as we might otherwise have done. I think the War Office is fully justified in beginning by emptying the hospitals in France rather than emptying institutions in this country, because they have the feeling that it would be better to bring the wounded men home.
      As regards the number of deaths from tuberculosis, in 1914 the total was 38,600 and in 1917 43,100. We must not take those figures too rigidly. I believe our diagnosis is improving, and we have got to make allowance for that; but the figures show that there is no diminution. This is a disease which depends on the whole social conditions of the people, such as malnutrition, bad housing, inadequate attention in childhood, and all of those affect the magnitude of the problem of tuberculosis among adults. I am perfectly certain that the co-ordination at the centre which we are going to get under the new Ministry of Health will assist us enormously, without any fresh legislation, in dealing with this disease. In the past we have had too many different Departments running different policies and different ideas as to how the disease should be treated. I do not want to go now into the question of the future development of policy. I am not sure that it might not be out of order to discuss the future policy of the Ministry of Health on the last Vote for the Local Government Board. We expect in the course of ten days or a fortnight to receive the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which has been going into this question. Generally speaking, our policy is, more accommodation and better accommodation for those suffering from this disease. When I say "better accommodation," I mean more attractive accommodation. The tuberculosis patient suffers fearfully from boredom. I know, as I have been in. a sanatorium, and I believe the development of workshops to provide occupation will tend enormously to improve the physiological effect on the people concerned will be most
      712
      beneficial. There is only one other thing I want to say in connection with this, and that is that in our interests it would not be wise to isolate either any special disease or any special class of treatment. We have gone on the lines that it is far better to make provision for treating the population as a whole, and not to provide special machinery for tuberculous ex-soldiers, for instance. We are told periodically that we ought to deal more energetically, or with different machinery, with different diseases, but we had much better graft it on to our existing machinery. The whole tendency is against specialising for any particular disease, making our local authorities and our local medical officers competent to deal with the various problems as they arise, and not to keep them in watertight compartments.
      During the discussion to-day hon. Members have very rightly concentrated in the main on the problem of housing. The Leader of the Opposition made, I think, the most critical of all the speeches which we have heard during the day, and most of them were extraordinarily friendly in character, and I want to reply to some of the points which he made, although I regret that he is not now present. He said it was no use my right, hon. Friend attempting to shirk responsibility for the lack of houses at the present time, and that the responsibility for the present shortage must rest upon the Government as a whole, his point being that, whoever was President of the Local Government Board, it was the same Government that had made certain promises, whose members had made certain pledges, and that, therefore, the Government—and by Government I "think he meant the Prime Minister—must shoulder the responsibility. He said it was quite true that when my right hon. Friend came into office, early this year, not only were there no sites or houses approved, but there was no information; but, he said, my right hon. Friend's predecessor was a member of the same Government, and he quoted speeches from a previous President of the Local Government Board, showing that in his time the housing problem had been one of urgency. In fact, everybody who has studied the housing problem knows very well that it was urgent before the War, and that previous Presidents of the Local Government Board are just as much to blame as the existing holder of the office in that they did

      713
      not collect the necessary information. Why is there delay now? It is because the local authorities have not made a survey of their areas and are not able to give us the information which we require and which they require. As a matter of fact, the President, whose words the Leader of the Liberal party quoted with such approval, was a member of the previous Government under Mr. Asquith when he said it, and if it means anything it means that Mr. Asquith's Government must share the responsibility with this Government and with the one before. I only want to bring out quite clearly that if there is any responsibility it does not rest upon this Government or this President, but it has got to be shared by all the predecessors, both in the way of Prime Ministers and of Presidents of the Local Government Board, and 1 believe, as a matter of fact, that their responsibility on the whole is greater, because they were not as hard pressed for time. I believe what my right hon. Friend has done during his few months of office does not compare with, but absolutely outclasses and outdistances all previous efforts made. The next point which the Leader of the Liberal party made was that private enterprise ought to be encouraged. He said most emphatically that private enterprise ought to have dealt with the housing problem. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean? The House knows that there is no control now, and does he suggest that control ought to be re-established, or that the Government ought to give financial assistance to private builders? Is that the official policy of the unofficial Members of the Liberal party? I do not quite follow what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that private enterprise ought to be encouraged. The Government have done nothing to discourage private enterprise. What has discouraged private enterprise is the high cost of building. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Government should control wages and try and reduce wages?
      Major NEWMAN: Does the Local Government Board at the present moment control building materials in any way?
      Major ASTOR:The Local Government Board have made contracts about bricks, favourable contracts which reduce the price of bricks, and they have earmarked and set aside a certain portion of these bricks for private enterprise. The Government are doing all they can to
      714
      encourage private enterprise, and it is merely the uncertainty and the high cost which is holding private enterprise back. Builders do not see a possibility of building houses and being able to let them at a commercial paying rent to the working classes, and that is why private enterprise has not done anything during the last few months. The Leader of the Liberal party's next proposal was that there ought to be emergency committees set up to deal, I do not know what with—empty houses or houses which might be adapted. But surely he would not suggest that this should be dealt with without powers? We have not got the powers. We cannot do it under D.O.R.A., and it is no good talking about setting up emergency committees to deal with things under emergency powers which do not exist. My right hon. Friend has done the only thing possible. He has come to Parliament with a Bill containing the powers which he wants to give the local authorities to deal with all these different aspects, whether of slum clearances, taking over interests in housing, taking over houses, or acquiring land. That is the only course which he could have adopted. It is the only constitutional and legal way, and my right hon. Friend is in fact carrying out, as far as he can, and has carried out, all the suggestions which have been made this afternoon in connection with housing. Where we have not had powers we have come to Parliament to ask for the powers, and it is idle to criticise us for not having done that which we could not do under our existing powers. We have done the only thing which we could do, namely, we have asked Parliament to give us the powers to deal adequately and drastically with the housing problem.
      One or two hon. Members raised the question of costs. The figures which my right hon. Friend quoted for the cost of putting up houses were, roughly, from something below £500 to something above £700. That very wide variation is due to several causes. First of all, the cost of labour varies considerably from area to area—much more than many hon. Members might consider. Secondly, it depends very much upon the propinquity of brickfields, upon the distances which material has to be taken, upon the material required for housing—bricks, slates, cement, are heavy, and it adds considerably to the cost of putting up a house if that material has to be borne a

      715
      long distance. Then another factor was difference in type of houses. We do not want to stereotype the type of house. We do not want to cover England with half a million houses all of exactly the same character. We are encouraging local initiative, local taste, and the use of local material. But there are also two types of houses concerned. At the one end you have got your living room and a parlour and three or four bedrooms, a scullery, and a bathroom. Then you have got another type of house, which has got three bedrooms instead of four, which has got a living room but no parlour, and which has got a scullery and a bath. There are very few instances where only two bedrooms are being put in. Those differences, I think, would account for the considerable difference between £500 and £700—the different type of house and the different cost of labour and material in different areas. We estimate that the cost of roads and sewers is, roughly, about £50 to £60 per house. The question of land has been raised by several hon. Members, and landowners are being criticised to a considerable extent, but it is only fair to say that by agreement local authorities have acquired sufficient land for something like 200,000 houses or more —I forget offhand the exact number, but anyway far more sites have been acquired and approved than we can deal with at the present moment. By using the valuers of the Inland Revenue, the costs have been reduced, in a considerable number of cases, an average of something like 30 per cent., and we are encouraging and asking local authorities before entering into negotiations to get the advice of the land valuers as to the prices which they ought to pay for the land. The House knows perfectly well that there is a Bill dealing with land acquisition, but this is not a suitable occasion for me to discuss that.
      Mr. HOGGE: I suggest that you should stick to the old values.
      Major ASTOR: There will be another opportunity when my hon. Friend can raise that, but in considering the cost of houses and the amounts to be charged for rent, do not let us forget the change in the value of money. We are rather apt to take it for granted that, although the cost of almost everything else must necessarily go up, and is going up, and
      716
      will remain up, if not at its present figure, but certainly will never go back to prewar figures, people are too apt to begin discussing the housing problem as if the pre-war rents and cost of building must be maintained. The same factors operate in housing, and because they operate in housing they will operate in rents, as operate in cost of living generally. An hon. Friend opposite raised one or two points. He asked what was to be done with the staff. As he knows, the Ministry of Health is being created, roughly speaking, by amalgamating the Local Government Board and the English Insurance Commission. On the whole, the existing staff will stay on, but a few are retiring on pension. The majority are staying on. Eleven assistant secretaries are being appointed dealing with different groups of subjects in the Department, and my right hon. Friend is also getting ready to give to other departments certain non-health functions as authorised under the Bill setting up the Ministry of Health. As regards influenza, the Medical Research Committee did predict that there would be another wave of influenza. A special committee has been set up, and is investigating this very important and very difficult subject. They have been sitting constantly, meeting regularly, and have been able to suggest various courses which have helped to mitigate this disease, which has not been limited to any country or to any section of the community or any type of people. It has swept over the world. It comes-periodically as a sort of plague.
      I think that the last time of speaking on behalf of the Local Government Board I may pay a tribute to the enormous amount of good work that has been done by the Local Government Board. Many of us have criticised the Local Government Board in the past. We have criticised previous Ministers. It is because of that that we want to take this opportunity of acknowledging, and acknowledging freely and without reservation, the real amount of good work which has been done by that Department. We are setting out, as I said just now, with a new vision. I really believe that local authorities are also going to get that new vision, that they are going to share it, that they are going to realise that their duties are not only local, but national. All hon. Members will, I hope, make the local authorities with whom they have influence,

      717
      with whom they are connected, realise that we are dependent on them more and more to build up the new country which we all want to see, and that their duties and responsibilities are not only to the inhabitants of their areas, but to the citizens of the whole country. I really believe there is a growing determination among local authorities to look perhaps a little bit further with a wider horizon than some of them have done in the past. There are local authorities with whom anybody might well be proud to be associated, who have given a splendid lead in the way of local patriotism and the development of local conditions. If local authorities as a whole, as I hope, will have the same vision, the same patriotism, the same determination to use the powers Parliament has given them in the past, is giving them now, and wants to give them in the future, then I believe we shall have a reorganisation of conditions and services and reconstruction in the best sense, because it will be based upon individual responsibility and upon common recognition by the members elected by the citizens of each area that they are not only citizens of that area but citizens of, and responsible to, the country as a whole.
      Captain ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member who has just sat down has reminded the Committee that this is the last day of the existence of the Local Government Board, and we are here, so to speak, both to bury Cæsar and to praise him, and I think that it is only right that all Members who take part in this Debate should pay a tribute to the energy displayed during the War, and since the War, by the extremely hard-worked officials of the Local Government Board, who have shown in the national emergency caused by war conditions the most unstinting efforts in supporting the Minister and the wishes of Parliament in all questions of public health, housing, and the like, which have come before them. I rose to say one word on certain administrative questions in connection with housing. I think the right hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech, was quite right when he said that, although he becomes Minister of Health, housing is the very foundation, and is in the forefront, of the administrative work he has to carry out. Parliament, I hope, soon will have passed the Housing Bill. It will then be up to his administrative talents to see that it is put into practice,
      718
      and put into practice in the widest and fullest possible manner. Now there are two administrative lines of action which, I think, will be required at once and in the future. The Department must do something to help local authorities to get the necessary cash to carry on the schemes. At the present moment the order has gone out that only local authorities whose rateable value is under £200,000 can expect to get money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, while the remainder have to go to the open market, and many are failing to get the money, and will fail, because at present they have to face the justified and the very necessary competition of the Victory Loan, and all the new industries who are wanting money, and the savings of the people are not forthcoming unless there is a real driving force from the central Government behind local authorities to help them to get the necessary money. I do think the President of the Local Government Board could do a great deal by approaching banks and the big insurance companies and the like, call a round-table conference if necessary, and urge them in the interests of the whole country to advance the necessary money to the local authorities to get on with their housing schemes.
      Finance is a very real problem as looked at by the local authorities in connection with these housing schemes, and the next very real problem is the question of labour. The Local Government Board has got to go out into the open on the question of labour and tell labour generally throughout the country that it is absolutely vital to the speedy provision of an adequate number of workmen's houses to see that pre-war restrictions upon output are really got rid of and the houses are provided, and I do hope the President of the Local Government Board, and any who speak upon this question, will do their utmost, not in any way hostile to labour, but to urge upon them, in the interests of the working men who now are overcrowded in houses, during the next three years to put their backs into the work and lay as many bricks in a day as they possibly can. But there is another point. I do hope the President of the Local Government Board will not put his faith on bricks alone. As he knows, I am a very keen advocate of concrete. I really believe you can build quicker, better, and cheaper with concrete, if only the necessary research work is done, than with the old house of bricks

      719
      with tiles on the top of it. I am perfectly certain you have not developed in this country the concrete building as it ought to be developed. People say it is ugly, but it is not so ugly as yellow bricks. Ugliness depends on design and how you use your material. You can have good architecture in every conceivable sort of material, just as every conceivable sort of material can be used for an ugly building. It is a question of art. Do not let prejudice against concrete deter the Local Government Board and local authorities from pressing forward progressively in the use of concrete. I think the land bogey has been very much exaggerated. I think there is real good will on the part of the great number of landlords in this country, and that they are only too anxious to see better housing conditions.
      I want to turn from housing to other points connected with the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The first is the Poor Law question. The Poor Law remains to-day as we have known it all too long, and I do hope next Session the right hon. Gentleman will really bring in a Bill for Poor Law reform which has been so long obstructed by his predecessor, Mr. John Burns. I do hope that, when he does that, he will finally, once and for ever, destroy those unsightly edifices, the general mixed workhouses, throughout the country. It is no good taking them away from boards of guardians and putting them on to other authorities. The only thing you can do to improve the Poor Law is to pull down the workhouses and break up the administration of the Poor Law. I have always opposed the transference of Poor Law functions to county councils, which are overburdened at present, and I do hope he will not adopt the Webb scheme in that respect. I am perfectly certain that for out-relief in a parish and all these things you must continue the administration you have now, namely, an ad hoc authority for the purpose. I know a great many hon. Members do not share that view, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to face this question, as he must, both administratively and in regard to preparing a Bill, will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, administratively, he can do much. He can prepare the country and prepare the boards of guardians, and urge them now to take up the work of reducing the evils that still exist under the Poor Law, and in the
      720
      whole modern methods of dealing with vagrancy, aged poor, and pauper children in these institutions.
      Finally, I want to say a word with regard to the fight against tuberculosis. The figures we have been given to-day show, no doubt partly owing to the War, very largely owing to the congestion and overcrowding in houses, that, in spite of the Insurance Act, in spite of what has been done during the last few years to make the country realise the great danger of tuberculosis, we are not really gaining ground on it yet. The big fight is still in front of us.
      It is really still very largely a fight for education. You want to educate the vast masses to remember that to sleep in large numbers in a room with the windows shut at night is bad for health, and that if there is tuberculosis it only aggravates it and makes it more difficult to cure. The other great thing is propaganda—that anybody who has any tubercular affection should be treated at the earliest possible moment. The third thing is that we require to go more to the root causes, mainly the milk supply, and to deal drastically with them. There is a certain amount of hereditary disease, and it is very difficult to get rid of it. It can only be eradicated by getting at the children when young. I do say that disease spreads even with adults when there is contagion, and healthy children are undoubtedly impregnated by it. So the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of next year, has a great task before him of carrying on a war against phthisis, giving us a sane and wise measure of Poor Law reform, getting the boards of guardians thoroughly efficient and up to date, progressive in spirit and in fact. He has the gigantic task of carrying out his administrative duties under the Housing Bill. In all these three great tasks I wish him every success, and as the Local Government Board is dying to-day let us pay respectful tribute to its memory and hope that the Ministry of Health will be better.
      Major NEWMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just told us that this is the last occasion—unless something unexpected happens in another place— that we shall have of dealing with the Housing and Town Planning Bill. I wish that Bill every success, but I do say again—for the last time I suppose—that I wish this Bill had

      721
      been called by a different title. I wish it had been called the National Housing Bill. I wish—
      The CHAIRMAN: We are not dealing with legislation at the moment. We are only, on the Vote, concerned with administration.
      Major NEWMAN: Then, in connection with the Housing and Town Planning Bill, I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board, for the last time, for one or two answers to one or two questions about this Bill. We have heard that a number of houses are to be built, some of brick and some of concrete—it really does not matter how the houses are built so long as they are built. I want to know this: When they are built, who will be allowed to inhabit them? We have been told that local authorities have in hand 500 houses. Suppose, say, an urban district authority in Middlesex builds 500 houses; can these be inhabited by the curate, the stockbroker, and the small professional man, as well as the artisan and other members of the ordinary working classes, as we call them, or is the habitation of these houses to be confined alone to what we know as the working classes? I have tried over and over again to get a definition of who are the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has acknowledged that he has failed to give it. He cannot give it.
      Dr. ADDISONwas understood to assent.
      Major NEWMAN: The last answer of the right hon. Gentleman was to the following effect:
      "The Housing Acts do not contain any definition of a person of the working classes which is of general application."
      That leaves the matter in an unsatisfactory state. But I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that there really is an urgent need for housing for the middle classes as well as the working classes—perhaps greater! After all, though this matter, according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary, has been left to the local authorities themselves to decide, certain pressure can be brought to bear by the Local Government Board or the Health Ministry—whichever it is—on the local authorities to tell them that a number of houses are to be built for middle-class men as well as for men of the working classes, and that in their scheme
      722
      they have to take into consideration the need of all classes of the community because this is a national housing scheme.
      I do not often agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Sir D. Maclean), but I do say I think it is a very great pity that private enterprise in building has been discouraged. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir T. Walters) spoke as a great authority. Ho went on to tell us that, as a matter of fact, there was nothing against the private builder being able to go ahead and build houses at once. I wish that was true. But a little while ago the Local Government Board sent to local authorities some memoranda. I read these very carefully, and came to the conclusion that if building was not going to be done for a local authority by a builder that particular builder had little or no chance of getting any building material. If any other Member of this Committee has studied these memoranda, as I have done, I imagine he will come to the same conclusion: that is, that the Local Government Board, or the Government, or the Ministry of Supply—whichever the official Department may be—has collared all the building materials at present—perhaps quite rightly—and that they are going to deal them out to the various local authorities as they get their schemes ready, and that at the present time the private builder has little or no chance at all if he wants to start off on his own. It is a poor outlook for the middle-class man who has to come down to a very small house, which may be well-built and fairly comfort able, but the accommodation of five rooms or so is small. But it is the best he has to hope for a few years, for he cannot, as he could before the War, hope to get a private builder to put up a house for him.
      There is one other suggestion I should like to make to the President of the Local Government Board. There are in London a great number of empty houses at the present time—largely in Kensington. These are too large for those who had them before the War, and they will possibly never be inhabited again as they were then ! Why not turn these large houses into flats straight away? The right hon. Gentleman told me the other day that the local authorities had power to do this on their own. They may have power—
      Dr. ADDISON:No; what I said was, they would have power under the Housing Bill now before Parliament when it became law. They have not got power now.
      Major NEWMAN: Well, I take it for granted that the present Bill will become an Act in the course of a few days, and that the local authorities will then have this power. But the local authorities want gingering up to get this thing done. It is not showy work. It is much more showy to take the larger schemes and to build cottages and houses than to turn these big houses into flats for middle-class families at reasonable rents. The owner at present would let the houses if he could, but he cannot. Nor can he live in them with the three or four families necessary. But it is desirable, if possible, that these places should be converted into three flats at £50 or £60 a year rent, and I suggest that course. When this Act becomes law, the right hon. Gentleman ought to do his best to move the local authorities to take up this branch of the question and to convert these big empty houses into flats. I trust he will be able to give me an assurance that the houses that are to be built by the local authorities for the working classes will be available for small professional men. Though these may not be, technically, working men, they require houses quite as badly as the others.
      Mr. PERRING: I desire to draw the attention of the new Minister to an aspect of this question of housing which has not been discussed. It is all very well to talk about houses of four and five rooms. I want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will exercise his mind on the question of the canal boats, which are registered as dwelling-houses? We have about 8,000 canal boats on our canals. I happen to represent a district which is associated with the registration of these boats. Canal boats are registered with cabins not five feet high and the floor space not measuring 7 feet square for two adults and two children. It would seem unnecessary to argue that this is not suitable accommodation for four persons. I suggest that new regulations should be provided covering this question so that these small boats, which ply between London and forty and fifty miles distant, shall not be used for dwelling houses, because it is utterly impossible for the decencies, to say nothing of the amenities of life, to be observed in cabins the size I have given. The local authorities do their best under the circumstances. They have appointed inspectors. Very many inspections are, I believe, made—something like 35,000 per
      724
      year. A considerable amount is a pure waste of money because, however vigilant the inspection may be, what can be done? The health of the community, and disease, has been freely discussed here, and in this connection serious attention should be given to the facts I have mentioned, and the fact that in these boats sixteen cubic feet capacity is allowed for an adult against 400 cubic feet required under the Public Health Act. It is apparent that these miserably small cabins are not suitable for dwelling purposes, and the time has now arrived when the captain or the owner should be called upon to provide housing accommodation for his family like other people. The time has arrived, too, when he should earn a wage which should enable him to do so. and when the education, health, and upbringing of his children shall be consistent with common decency and the ideas of the twentieth century. I am advised by the inspectors that while the boat may be registered for two adults and two children there is nothing to prevent it, as often happens, being used by more than two adults. Having regard to these facts I trust the new Minister will exercise his mind upon the matter, and endeavour to do something to prevent what, to my mind, is a great scandal in connection with these canal boats.
      8.0 P.M.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has given us a good example of Tory democracy. There is, however, one point of view I would like to put, and it is the question of concrete buildings. I know a certain amount about reinforced concrete buildings, and you can make some very artistic designs with it. These little four or five-roomed houses, with two living rooms and two or three bedrooms should not be made too permanent, and ought only to be a temporary measure, because the democracy very soon will want something better. There ought to be separate nurseries for the children and more bedrooms. In twenty or thirty years' time we hope to-have the country so different, and people-will be living on such a different plane, that they will require better houses. The Tory democracy idea in this respect will not pass. It is easy to criticise, but I have not risen to make criticisms except with regard to one aspect of the Ministry of Health, which I may say I wish every success. There is an idea in the country—I

      725
      hope it is wrong—that the Ministry of Health will be largely manned by a great many doctors who have been through the Army and, owing to demobilisation, are now surplus. I believe they are going to wear uniforms and have far-reaching powers to inspect houses and children when they like, and the drainage arrangements, and order whatever steps they think necessary. It will be a tremendous mistake if anything of that kind is permitted.
      Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member need have no misgivings about that.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have heard some of the officers who are going to man this office talk about it themselves. I hope there will be no interference of that kind with the people in that way. Then with regard to the Army huts. Have they been used as much as they could in this emergency for housing people who have not anywhere to go at all? I hear of dealers buying up these huts at low prices and placing them on the market. Could they not have been earmarked specially for housing schemes, and why do they all go to commercial purposes. It seems to me that that might have been done. We have been told that there are no emergency powers to enable the Government to take over these empty houses until the Housing Bill was passed, but I cannot accept that view. If places were wanted for officials during the War or billets for soldiers on coast defences, empty houses, large or small, were taken over very quickly without hesitation. It has been said that this cannot be done under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am afraid the public outside who want houses, and especially the men coming back from the War will not stand this kind of treatment, and they will feel that the Government ought to have been a little more considerate in regard to their interests.
      I would like to make two suggestions. It gives one great hope to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in that position, because particularly I bracket his name with milk legislation, and I hope this means that we are going to have some real legislation on this subject. I have had the great difficulty, or rather my wife has, of getting milk for the children in sealed bottles, and the milk is still being served round in
      726
      tins that get the dust in. I believe bottled milk would have a good effect upon the health of the children, and if the hon. and gallant Member will take up this matter I am sure he will have the whole of the womanhood of the country behind him.
      The right hon. Gentleman knows the great danger of the spread of disease from the Continent. We have all read of the growth of disease in Poland and Western Russia. I believe that spotted typhus is on the increase and cholera is particularly bad. I put down two questions on this subject which have been answered with great courtesy, but I am afraid that the medical facilities for quarantine and inspection of ships will not be sufficient during the coming summer. There is a danger of one of the gravest outbreaks of plague in Central Europe that we have yet known, and although our precautions in this country are great I think we ought to take special steps to see it is not carried over here to this country. At present it is mostly our enemies, and. some of our Allies who are suffering from this disease, but it might spread to this country unless it is taken in hand at once.
      Major BORWICK: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to think that these houses would be unpopular in the future. That may be so, but the point is that they are going to be exceedingly popular at the present time. They are going to be all the more popular if we can get some sort of light and leading on the very important question of lodgings. In my Constituency these houses are going to be let for quite a small rent. At the present time the prices being paid for lodgings are enormous, and if a man is going to get one of these houses at a very small rent largely owing to the assistance of the State, and he is going to-be allowed to take in one or more lodgers who pay high prices, I do not think it will be fair. I do not think we should provide houses for people at a small rent so that they can make money out of it by letting them to lodgers.
      Motion made, and Question,
      "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—[Dr. Addison]—
      put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY [24TH JUNE].
  Resolution reported,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The last time this Vote was before the House I and another hon. Member drew attention to this £185,000,000 as an Appropriation-in-Aid, and we expressed surprise at such a tremendous sum coining forward seven months after the Armistice. This sum is money that will be realised by selling the wood and timber, metal, leather, clothing, boots and everything connected with munitions which was purchased for the supply of the Army, and it is said that this large amount of money is required for the expenses of the Ministry and other things. I cannot see any difference at all between an Appropriation-in-Aid and ordinary Votes for money. This money is for Government stores, and belongs to the people, and it would serve a very useful purpose for housing. Is the whole of this money still required. Cannot we look forward to a time of prosperity and gradual disarmament, and cannot these expenses be cut down say to £90,000,000. I really think the House is entitled to some explanation, and some promise of a new policy that will lead to a general drastic reduction of armaments, and all that armaments mean, which many of us think is the only hope of peace in the future.
  The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway):I cannot give any further explanation than I gave the other night. All that I can add is that this expenditure would be a very depressing figure if it were to be regarded as normal expenditure for these purposes. I look forward quite as eagerly as the hon. and gallant Gentleman docs to the time when these great swollen Estimates will have become an unpleasant memory, but do not let the hon. and gallant Gentleman paint the picture more black than it is. Out of the £185,000,000, the expenditure of which the House has approved, the larger part is purely War expenditure. It is really the aftermath of the War, and the winding up of the contracts running at
  728
  the date of the Armistice, and unless we banish all our ideas of honest dealing, those contracts have to be liquidated on honest terms, and the largest part of this expenditure is for the liquidation of those contracts. A very substantial sum—about £86,000,000 —is for reconstruction work in connection with the housing programme of the Local Government Board, and the remainder can be described in a sense as being for military purposes. You cannot at once step out of a state of the most tragic war that the world has ever seen into the ordinary conditions of peace. The quicker it comes the better, and I hope that we shall have the help of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in expediting that happy time.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how much of this money goes to our pseudo-Allies in Russia and other countries?
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.

    STANDING COMMITTEE C [13TH MAY].
    Adjourned Debate resumed on Question [24th June],
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £34,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings.' "
    Question again proposed.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I think I am right in saying that on this Vote a question arose as to the irregularity of the expenditure of money in connection with the Lord Chancellor's residence. As I understand it, contrary to the practice of Parliament and of public offices, certain new work was commenced before this House had assented to the estimates. When the estimates came before the Committee they discovered that new work, not ordinary work which could properly be described as current work, had been begun. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, first of all, how the expenditure has been met up to date, and what steps his Department or the Financial Secretary intend to take to regularise the proceedings. Money having been spent without the authority of Parliament, what steps

    729
    are going to be taken to get some indemnification or the authority of Parliament for the expenditure?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement. This work of redecoration can scarcely be described as new work.
    Captain BENN: I referred to structural alterations.
    Sir A. MOND: Structural alterations are not necessarily new work. As the Vote has been reduced, and the money must be found, a Supplementary Estimate will be produced at the proper time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Second Resolution,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £39,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
    Agreed to.
    Third Resolution.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £75,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
    Read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to ask if this Vote includes expenditure on museums, and what is the state of the museums taken over and occupied by a portion of His Majesty's Air Force during the War. I should like to know if the damage has been made good—some of the damage to certain works of antiquity cannot be made good—and what stage we have reached in the way of replacement of these buildings to a state suitable for the enjoyment of the public.
    Captain W. BENN: Perhaps this will be a convenient time for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many museums, which were closed during the War on account of the shortage of staff, or of a desire to house the contents in a safer way, in view of possible air-raids, still remain closed, and what steps the Department propose to take to reopen them for the use of the public.
    Sir A. MOND: The only museums which can be fairly described as closed are the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Collection, and the National Portrait Gallery. The other galleries are very largely open. The programme which is now being carried out or about to be carried out of re-housing Government officials at Alexandra Palace will allow me to clear the National Gallery, the Wallace Collection, and I think the National Portrait Gallery. I hope to be enabled also to clear the Tate Gallery. I am further taking steps to remove the small staff still in the British Museum. The bulk of the museum is now entirely free. I do not understand the reference of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to the damage to certain works of art. I have had no report whatever from any director of any museum occupied by Government officials of any damage of any kind to any work of art.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I refer to certain works of antiquity, and my authority—I shall be glad if it is not a good one—is derived from certain statements in "The Times." I ask for assurance that it is not so?
    Sir A. MOND: All I can say is that I have had no information from the President of the British Museum on the subject. Therefore, I can scarcely credit that the statements in "The Times" can be accurate. My attention has not been drawn to the matter before, and I will certainly have inquiries made. With regard to the Vote itself, there are sums allowed for the purpose of cleaning these museums and reestablishing them when they are vacated by the clerical Departments. It will be a satisfaction to ma as well as to everyone to get our museums back into the state in which they were before the War.
    Dr. MURRAY: I am not quite sure whether it comes within the purview of this Vote, but I should like to ask what progress has been made with the National War Museum? How is it proposed to deal with it?
    Sir A. MOND: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the Imperial War Museum. There is a separate Vote for that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Fourth Resolution,
    "4. That a sum not exceeding £69,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

    731
    in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    Read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe this Vote includes expenditure on cemeteries. I would like to ask if the cemetery and monuments for our gallant men who fell in the recent War come under this Vote? It will give great satisfaction if the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on this point. I understand that this Vote deals in particular with cemeteries like that at Lisbon, where many of our soldiers and sailors are buried. At present our cemeteries abroad are administered and looked after, in a very excellent manner, I believe, by the War Office. At one time they were not able to give any latitude to the parents and friends of the dead in regard to inscriptions on the tombs, but, as a result of representations which were made, they allow the parent now to choose a few simple words. There has been a lot of feeling on the question of monuments among parents, relations, and wives of soldiers.
    Sir A. MOND: On a point of Order. None of the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member come under this Vote. The matter is dealt with by the Imperial War Graves Commission, which does not appear on the Vote of the Office of Works.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Another point I wish to raise is on the question of diplomatic buildings abroad. We had an extremely illuminating Debate in the House a few weeks ago, in which a number of hon. Members spoke of the future of the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and one hon. Member remarked that in nearly all cases our diplomatic buildings abroad were not such as to be creditable to a great Empire like this. I notice here are certain sums of money for various parts of the world, for places like Canton and Hankow, and so on, and the Grants are fairly generous. But I do not see any mention of the port of Lisbon. That is a place of some importance, as it is the meeting place of people from South America, and many of them visit the English Consulate. We have a very able Consul there, but he has to provide the
    732
    Consular building out of his scanty allowance. It is of necessity a very modest one, and not at all suitable for the place. Apparently these buildings come under the Office of Works instead of the Foreign Office. I should like to have some assurance as to the policy to be pursued in future with regard to these places, where the buildings have to be provided by the Consul out of a very inadequate and out-of-date allowance, which might have been sufficient sixty or seventy years ago, but which, in present circumstances, with the increased cost of living, is totally insufficient. I see here an item of £65 for the upkeep of the office of the Vice-Consul at Petrograd. Now, that city has been in the hands of its present Government for eighteen months, and I would like to know what policy is being pursued with regard to our Consulate there. I presume any expenditure is being held over until such time as it can be earned out with safety?
    Sir A. MOND: The question of buildings for Consular offices in certain places is, of course, a matter for the Foreign Office. My Department merely carries out such schemes as the Foreign Office gives its assent to. I cannot, therefore, make any statement with regard to policy on that matter at all. As to the item of £65 for the Vice-Consulate at Petrograd, I cannot really say whether we still have a Vice-Consul there. I suppose if we have not the money will come back to the Treasury in due course.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.

    STANDING COMMITTEE C [12TH MAY].
    Resolutions reported:

    "1. That a sum, not exceeding £145.836, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."

    2. That a sum, not exceeding £3,226, be granted to His Majesty to complete the gum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade and for Grants for Harbours.

    3. That a sum not exceeding £22,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead.

    733

    4. That a sum, not exceeding £563,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in coarse of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1920, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

    First Resolution agreed to
    Second Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On this Vote I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the harbour at Spurn Point, where a certain sum is to be expended this year. It is a small matter perhaps, but this is a very good natural harbour; I know it very well; I was there both before and during the War, and it would be interesting to know how it happens to come under this Vote. There is a Bill before the House with regard to a Ministry of Ways and Communications, and one of the matters dealt with by that Ministry is to be the development of harbours. Spurn Point is a refuge for small sailing vessels waiting for the tide, and money may very well and usefully be expended upon it, but I want to know how it is that this harbour comes under this Vote. Is this with other harbours under the control of the Board of Trade and what is the future policy of the Board of Trade to be in asking money for them?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury):With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, there are four harbours which were formerly called harbours of refuge, and a Vote for them goes back something like seventy years on the Estimates of Parliament. Within the last thirty or forty years they have been placed under—it is an anomalous arrangement, I agree—the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. These harbours are Holyhead, Spurn, Dover, and Harwich. Against this particular Vote the expenses of putting up groynes or piers, as the case may be, is charged, and in addition to that, for some years my hon. Friend will find Estimates of moderate amount in connection with smaller harbours of refuge on various parts of the English Coast. The special point to which he referred is the creation of a
    734
    revetment at Spurn, which was desired before the War but the work for which was suspended. Seven hundred pounds of the £1,200 is a re-vote. That amount was voted previously but the money was not spent, so it is brought up again this year now there is a chance of proceeding with the work. The extra £500 is an estimate that the Board of Trade have put in for the increased cost of this work at the present day compared with what it would have cost. This is a Board of Trade Vote, and no point of principle arises on it. The Committee upstairs were good enough to take the explanation of the Vote from me. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will take the same from me to-night. With regard to the future of these harbours, I am in a position to say nothing. That must rest between the Board of Trade and the proposed new Ministry. Doubtless that is a point which my hon. and gallant Friend may raise with perfect propriety in the Debate to-morrow.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY.

    STANDING COMMITTEE C [15TH MAY].
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £590,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."
    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY.

    STANDING COMMITTEE C [27TH MAY].
    Resolutions reported.

    "1. That a sum, not exceeding £1,430,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes.

    2. That a sum, not exceeding £176,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon.

    735

    3. That a sum, not exceeding £436,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Ex change and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain."

    4. That a sum, not exceeding £82,340, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways."

    First and Second Resolutions agreed to.
    Third Resolution read a second time.
    Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, to leave out "£436,700," and to insert instead thereof "£336,700."
    In accordance with the pledge which I gave to the Standing Committee upstairs, I propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100,000.
    Mr. G. THORNE: Some of us were not upstairs in Committee, so possibly the right hon. Gentleman would give us some explanation.
    Sir A. MOND: The reduction is in Sub-head (f), Insurance (National Health) Buildings. A long discussion took place on this subject upstairs, as it did on most of the expenditure under this Vote. The money to be spent under that Sub-head was for a new scheme which was proposed in a suburb of London for buildings to be put up for the staff. I am assured by my technical advisers that it will be impossible in this financial year to spend the amount which we placed on the Estimates for this year, and I therefore assured the Committee upstairs, who were very anxious to get a reduction in the Estimate, that I would move the reduction of this Vote by £100,000 now, rather than not spend the money and surrender it to the Treasury at the end of the year.
    Captain W. BENN: I should be the last and all of us on this side of the House would not wish to complain of the Government for thus proposing to reduce their own votes, but it is impossible to let the occasion pass without pointing out the most remarkable state into which we have come. The Government, at a time when economy is the one thing that is required to save this country and when every penny should be saved, is still pursuing a course of profligate expenditure. Attention has been called to this matter many times, and sometimes we are told that the
    736
    instances which are brought forward are too small to matter. It may be motor cars for Ministers, it may be a small and unauthorised expenditure upon a residence for a Member of the Government— these matters, we are told, are too small to be mentioned. But now we find that, under the pressure by a Committee of this House, the Government itself is constrained to come down and propose to take the very considerable sum of £100,000 off the Estimates which they presented to Parliament, and on the basis of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to the country asking them to subscribe to an enormous Loan. No one will dream of opposing the reduction, but it is impossible to let it pass without calling attention to the fact that at this moment, when expenditure is the one real enemy we have to face, the Government itself is forced by a Committee of the House to come forward and reduce its own Estimates by this gigantic amount.
    Sir A. MOND: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will never encourage another Minister to reduce an Estimate if his only thanks are a violent attack, of a perfectly uncalled-for and ridiculous kind, on the question of expenditure. It was impossible during this financial year, owing to the fact that the scheme has been delayed, to spend the whole of the money in this year's Vote.
    Captain BENN: Why was it put in the Estimates?
    Sir A. MOND: The Estimates are made for a new scheme a long time beforehand. A long delay has taken place in selecting and acquiring a site; the building was expected to be done during the year, and the money will not be spent till next year. A reduction on the Vote is not necessarily a saving in the Estimate. All it is the postponement of expenditure anticipated in this financial year which will undoubtedly have to be made to complete the scheme in the next financial year. It would have been quite possible to leave the Vote where it was and surrender the money at the end of the financial year. But I promised the Committee upstairs that I would move reduction.
    Colonel GRETTON: Members of the Committee were under the impression that a real saving of £100,000 was made. I am much disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. But it is due

    737
    to him to say that the position of the Office of Works in regard to these Votes is profoundly unsatisfactory. The Office seems to be a kind of contractor or maid-of-all-work to various Government Departments. When they present their Votes to Parliament they say, we are not responsible for policy. We are not responsible for this expenditure in any way. All you are entitled to do is to criticise the items of our expenditure as to whether we are getting good value for the money we are ordered to spend by another Department. These Votes are not brought up on the expenditure of the Department which on that explanation is really responsible. The right hon. Gentleman, in this case at all events, is ordered to provide certain buildings— Labour Exchanges and National Insurance offices—and brings forward a Vote which in the opinion of his Department is necessary, and the House is asked to criticise the expenditure. The whole position is profoundly unsatisfactory. I think the right hon. Gentleman has explained too much. The Government is apparently unrepentant. The money is not to be paid, and in some future year the whole sum will be demanded by the Government of the day in order to complete the expenditure already approved by the House of Commons. The House is empty, and there is no one prepared to understand it on this occasion. The House of Commons is in a very foolish position in regard to the view held by the Committee upstairs and the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not in any way blaming him. He is very helpless in the matter. The whole system
    738
    is wrong, and, apparently, on the Votes of the Board of Works we can never find the real culprits who are responsible for the expenditure which the House may or may not consider to be extravagant.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend with regard to complaints I have had from poor people who go to Labour Exchanges to register their names. They have no waiting list, and they have to stand about in cold rooms with no benches or chairs. Many of them are women, and very often they have been out of work. I should be very glad if he would give an assurance that the suggestion would be passed on with such backing as he can give it—I am sure his backing would have great effect—and some little simple comfort provided, especially in large towns, for these people who apply to Labour Exchanges.
    Sir A. MOND: It does not rest with me, but I shall be pleased to pass it on.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
    Fourth Resolution agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Nine o'clock

  NEAR EAST (DISCUSSION).
  NEAR EAST (DISCUSSION).
  VALUATION OFFICE (TEMPORARY (STAFF).
  VALUATION OFFICE (TEMPORARY (STAFF).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  BRITISH MUSEUM (HOUSE OF COMMONS "OFFICIAL EEPOET")
  BRITISH MUSEUM (HOUSE OF COMMONS "OFFICIAL EEPOET")
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (BRANCHES).
  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (BRANCHES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BREAD.
  BREAD.
  PIGS (BALLYMENA MARKET)
  PIGS (BALLYMENA MARKET)
  MILK.
  MILK.
  PRICES.
  PRICES.
  BILLINGSGATE MARKET.
  BILLINGSGATE MARKET.
  VESSELS SALVED BY DOCKYARD TUGS.
  VESSELS SALVED BY DOCKYARD TUGS.
  BRITISH FLEET (THAMES VISIT).
  BRITISH FLEET (THAMES VISIT).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
IRELAND.
  THURLES MURDER.
  THURLES MURDER.
  MR. DE VALERA (PASSPORT).
  MR. DE VALERA (PASSPORT).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  TELEPHONISTS.
  TELEPHONISTS.
  APPRENTICES.
  APPRENTICES.
  DOGS (SMUGGLING BY SERVICE MEN).
  DOGS (SMUGGLING BY SERVICE MEN).
  CONSCRIPTION (SIR D. HAIG'S SPEECH).
  CONSCRIPTION (SIR D. HAIG'S SPEECH).
  "APRON DEFENCE," LONDON.
  "APRON DEFENCE," LONDON.
  SPECIAL RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  SPECIAL RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (MECHANICAL TRANSPORT).
  ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (MECHANICAL TRANSPORT).
WAR DECORATIONS.
  GENERALS SIR H GOUGH AND F. MILNE.
  GENERALS SIR H GOUGH AND F. MILNE.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  BALKANS (ARMS).
  BALKANS (ARMS).
  TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA (SICKNESS).
  TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA (SICKNESS).
  ROYAL SCOTS (PUBLIC WELCOME).
  ROYAL SCOTS (PUBLIC WELCOME).
EVENTS OF WAR.
  OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION).
  OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION).
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
  NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
  MILITARY HOSPITAL (ACCOUNT).
  MILITARY HOSPITAL (ACCOUNT).
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  WAR OFFICE (EX-SOLDIER CLERKS).
  WAR OFFICE (EX-SOLDIER CLERKS).
  SUMMERDOWN CAMP, EASTBOURNE (CIVILIAN WORKERS).
  SUMMERDOWN CAMP, EASTBOURNE (CIVILIAN WORKERS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS,
  ACTING-PAYMASTERS.
  ACTING-PAYMASTERS.
  REGULAR ARMY (OFFICERS).
  REGULAR ARMY (OFFICERS).
  DEMOBILISATION OFFICERS.
  DEMOBILISATION OFFICERS.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  EX-SERVICE STUDENTS (GRANTS).
  EX-SERVICE STUDENTS (GRANTS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  TOWER OF LONDON (EDUCATIONAL VISITS).
  TOWER OF LONDON (EDUCATIONAL VISITS).
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY.
  INDIAN COMMUNITY, SOUTH AFRICA.
  INDIAN COMMUNITY, SOUTH AFRICA.
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS).
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS).
  FOOD ORDERS (PENALTIES).
  FOOD ORDERS (PENALTIES).
  ALIENS (IMMIGRATION).
  ALIENS (IMMIGRATION).
  QUARTER SESSIONS (APPEALS).
  QUARTER SESSIONS (APPEALS).
  PEACE CELEBRATIONS (EXPENDITURE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  PEACE CELEBRATIONS (EXPENDITURE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
HOUSING.
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE SCHEMES.
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE SCHEMES.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
  ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
  ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  COAL SUPPLIES.
  COAL SUPPLIES.
  ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION.
  ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION.
  JAPANESE SHIPPING COMPANY
  JAPANESE SHIPPING COMPANY
  BOARD OF TRADE (ALIENS).
  BOARD OF TRADE (ALIENS).
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES.
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  RACE MEETINGS (TELEGRAPHISTS).
  RACE MEETINGS (TELEGRAPHISTS).
  EX-OFFICERS (TRAINING GRANTS).
  EX-OFFICERS (TRAINING GRANTS).
  FORAGE (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  FORAGE (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA) COMMITTEE.
  TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA) COMMITTEE.
  INTERNED LADY (FRANCE).
  INTERNED LADY (FRANCE).
  MESOPOTAMIA (ADMINISTRATION).
  MESOPOTAMIA (ADMINISTRATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the Lord Chairman being unfortunately incapacitated by illness, I have to move that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day, and in the Standing Orders Committee, and in the Committee on Unopposed Private Bills to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, notion agreed to.

STOCKSBRIDGE GAS BILL.
WATERFORD HARBOUR BILL.
Read 2a.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve Itself into Committee.—(Lord Sydenham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions with respect to demands and receipts for rent in which any sum for rates is included.
1. From and after the date hereinafter named every document containing a demand for rent or receipt, for rent, which includes any sum for rates paid or payable under the existing law by the owner instead of the occupier, shall state either the annual, half yearly, quarterly, monthly, or weekly amount of such rates paid or payable in accordance with the last demands received by the owner from the rating authorities at the time of making his demand or giving his receipt in respect of the hereditament in question: Provided that where such a statement as is required by this section has been furnished in connection with a demand for rent or receipt for rent in respect of a particular period, it shall not be necessary to furnish the statement upon any subsequent demand for rent or receipt for rent in respect of that period.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to substitute the words "any statutory enactment" for "the existing law." The noble and learned Lord said: It has been suggested to me on behalf of the City of London Corporation that the language of this clause might be improved. According to my Amendment on the Paper I proposed to substitute the words "statutory requirement," but I have had some conversation with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and I understand that if I use the words "any statutory enactment." he will be satisfied; therefore I beg to move my Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("the existing law") and insert ("any statutory enactment").—(Lord Phillimore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to add to Clause 1 the following proviso: "Provided further, that if there is an increase in the rates of which the owner does not intend to avail himself for making an increase in the rent, it shall not be necessary for him to make a fresh calculation or to alter his previous form of demand for rent or receipt for rent."
The noble and learned Lord said: I am not so sure whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will assent to this proposal, but I submit it to your Lordships as extremely convenient. The object of the Bill is to provide that tenants shall know how much they have to pay by way of rates. It is very good object, but we do not want to penalise landowners and householders by giving them trouble and expense which can be avoided. My proposition is this. An owner makes out the calculations—they are really very minute if the property is held on weekly tenancies—once and for all, how much is rates and how much is rent. At some half-year the rating authority may raise the rates by ½d. in the £, and it may be that this ½d is not divisible; ½d. in the £ on a £4 rating would not be divisible into twenty-six weeks. I do not want the owner, where he does not intend to avail himself of the small increase in the rates for making an increase in the rent, to be put to the cost and trouble of making a fresh calculation because of that increase of ½d. or 1d. in the £. If the rates are lowered, of course he must make a calculation, because otherwise he is representing to the tenant that he is

1125
paying more for rates than is really the case. But when the rates are slightly increased so that the landlord's share of the rent is slightly less, I do not want him, under the penalty of being considered a wrongdoer and being hauled before the magistrate and fined 20 s., to have the necessity of making a fresh calculation. I think all the objects of the Bill will be satisfied if this Amendment is introduced, and inasmuch as my noble friend has consented to one Amendment and the Bill, therefore, most go back to the other House, I press upon your Lordships that this Amendment should be adopted
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, line 18, at end insert ("Provided further, that if there is an increase in the rates of which the owner does not intend to avail himself for making an increase in the rent, it shall not be necessary for him to make a fresh calculation or to alter his previous form of demand for rent or receipt for rent").—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD SYDENHAM: I venture to think that this Amendment is somewhat inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which is that the tenant should have such information as it is possible to give him as to rates levied by the local authority. If the sum divided was so small as to be negligible, a fresh calculation would not be made. In any case it would only have to be made every half year. There will not be any alteration of form because there will be a fixed form, which will have served for the last demand. There would be only the question of altering one of the columns of the form. All that the Bill asks is that information should be given as to the rates paid or payable under the existing law by the owner instead of the occupier in accordance with the last demands received by the owner from the rating authorities at the time of making his demand or giving his receipt. In the case contemplated by the noble and learned Lord, if the landlord is going to shoulder the burden of the rates himself, I should have thought he would be glad that his tenants should know of his generosity. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will not press the Amendment, which I think would be rejected in another place, so that it would have to conic back to your Lordships.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble and learned Lord press the Amendment?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE then moved to add a subsection to Clause 1, to provide that "This Act shall not apply to weekly lettings at inclusive rentals in any market established or controlled by statute." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment, again, is moved at the request of the Corporation of the City of London, who feel that they are likely to be seriously embarrassed by some of the provisions of the Bill. I do not deal with other points which are in charge of the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, but I submit that the Corporation are right in regard to this one. I know that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill thinks this an unnecessary provision, but I am not satisfied that he is right. The markets are let at rents controlled by statutes; they are inclusive rents, including rates. It is impossible to say what particular rate is imposed on any particular stall. That is the very reason for making this provision apply; and, inasmuch as the noble Lord agrees that in his construction of the Act it does not apply to these weekly lettings and as I venture to think it is extremely doubtful whether it does not apply to them, no harm can be done by inserting this proviso. I can assure your Lordships that those who have looked into the matter more fully than I have had time to do, and those who are in charge of markets such as those of the Corporation of the City of London, think it is very necessary.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, after line 18, insert:
"2. This Act shall not apply to weekly lettings at inclusive rentals in any market established under or controlled by statute."—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD SYDENHAM: As there seemed to be some doubt on the point, I referred this matter to the Local Government Board. They told me that in their opinion it would not apply in the cases which are mentioned in the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Therefore I ant afraid I must oppose the Amendment.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, and I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will not persevere in his objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SOUTHWARK: There was an Amendment which I wished to propose to the effect that "This Act should not apply to the City of London." I have not put the Amendment on the Paper. It will probably be put down for the Report stage, and perhaps in the meantime the noble Lord will consider whether he can accept it.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Commons Message considered (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the Motion that stands in my name in regard to this Bill is as follows—
"That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons: 'That it is expedient that the Government of India Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.'"
If it were my duty, in making this Motion, to enter into any lengthy exposition either of the broad outlines or of the details of the Government of India Bill, I should quail before the task. It would indeed be beyond my powers, for I imagine that so complex a Bill, a Bill which makes so great and constant an appeal to expert authority, has seldom been introduced into the British Parliament. But fortunately that is no part of my task this afternoon, and if it had been undertaken to-day it would more properly have devolved upon my noble friend Lord Sinha, who represents the Department concerned. But neither of us, I imagine, will be pressed by your Lordships to go into a detailed explanation of the contents of the Bill at this stage.
The Motion I have just read is that we concur in the proposal made in another place, and that the Bill, in accordance with pledges that have previously been given by myself in this House and by representatives of the Government elsewhere, be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. I had hoped to be able this after noon to place upon the Paper the names of the proposed members of the Committee, but I am not at present in a position to give you the final list, which I trust, however, will not be much longer delayed. Upon one point I should like to say a word.
1128
It is this. I hope that nobody will imagine that the list of members of your Lordships' House whom we are fortunate enough to induce to serve upon the Committee will in any way be Government nominees. That is not the way in which Committees are composed, either in this House or in the House of Commons. In the House of Commons there is a system by which members of Committees are returned by different sections of the House in proportion to their numerical strength. We do not exactly follow that plan here, but the Leader of the House and those acting with him who are responsible for the suggestion of names, endeavour as far as possible to follow the same plan, and therefore when the list of proposed names appears your Lordships must not regard them as carrying with them any Government selection or authority, but as an endeavour fairly to represent the different and important sections of this House who are qualified to deal with this matter.
There are other reasons for which any detailed exposition of this measure is not required at the present stage. The Secretary of State has himself rendered it unnecessary by a Memorandum, occupying thirteen pages of print, which he has circulated with a view of enabling members of both Houses of Parliament to have a clear understanding of the principal features of this Bill. Further, a Paper has also been circulated showing the manner in which the Act of 1915–16 will be affected by this Bill. Your Lordships may remember that in those two years a great deal of patient and disinterested work was devoted by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament—under the chairmanship, if I remember aright, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Loreburn—to the task of reducing to the compass of a single enactment all the various measures on the Statute Book relating to the Government of India. That work was happily and successfully accomplished on that occasion. It would be a peat pity to throw those labours away, and it is in contemplation, in whatever form this Bill ultimately passes into law, to introduce its provisions automatically into the framework of the Consolidated Act to which I have referred. It is with a view of explaining how this will be done that the further White Paper to which I have referred has been laid before Parliament. These two Papers have relieved my noble friend Lord Sinha and myself of a heavy responsibility that

1129
might otherwise have been laid upon us, and have placed this House in a position of unusual advantage in dealing with a measure which has been thus explained.
But this is not all. An uncommon feature of this case is, I think, the wealth of documentary evidence and literary comment, inevitable because of the complexity of the case and inseparable from its gravity, which has been in the last six months laid before both Houses of Parliament in relation thereto. Your Lordships will recall that it is as far back as August, 1917, when the Declaration of the Government, from which all subsequent events spring—and about which I shall have something to say a little later—was made. In July of last year the Report of the Secretary of State and Viceroy, concurred in by their colleagues who went with them to India, was laid before Parliament. We have had two discussions on the matter in this House. The first was on August 6, 1918, when attention was called to the Report by Lord Sydenham. We had a brief discussion on that occasion, but a little later, in October—the dates Were October 23 and 21—on a Motion made by my noble friend Lord Midleton for the appointment of a Joint Committee—the Motion was defeated—we had a discussion pasting for two days, in which all the most eminent authorities in this House who had had connection with the Government of India, whether as Viceroys or Governors or administrators, took part.
At that time, my Lords, the scheme itself of the Secretary of State was not complete. There remained the task which was devolved upon the Committee, or Committees, under the chairmanship of a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Southborough. It was in the later part of that year that he and his colleagues went to India, and we now have the Report of the Southborough Committees, as they are called—the first of them, presided over by my noble friend, dealing with the nature of election, the character of representation, the number of voters, and so on; a portly volume, reflecting great credit on the industry of my noble friend and his colleagues, of 282 pages. We also have the Report of the other Committee presided over by Mr. Feetham, a gentleman who I believe had great experience in drafting the South African Constitution. He was deputed to inquire into the question of the division of functions between the Central and Provincial Governments in
1130
India, and, in the Provincial Governments, between the official and popular elements. Mr. Feetham accomplished his task within rather a smaller compass, but his Report contains as many as 121 pages. Next, my Lords, you have the views of the Government of India on these two Reports, a document of sixty-eight pages.
Further, your Lordships may recall that on the occasion of our last debate some not unreasonable complaint was made that the House, although acquainted with the suggestions of the Viceroy and Secretary of State, did not enjoy the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the views of Local Governments and important bodies, associations, and the like, in India. That complaint, if such it was, can no longer be made; for you have, in a further Blue Book containing 316 pages of print, first, the opinions of the Local Governments given between the dates of October, 1918, and January, 1919; secondly, a number of printed Minutes, Resolutions, Memorials and Memoranda from important bodies and individuals in India; and, thirdly, the covering letter of the Government of India, dated March 5, 1919, occupying fifty-four pages of print. Lastly, my Lords, you have the text of the Bill which is about to be referred to this Committee. Thus your Lordships, who a year ago complained of lack of necessary information, are now confronted with over 1,000 pages of print, and I think it might almost be open to any hostile critic—and such I am sure does not exist as regards my right hon. friend the Secretary of State—to apply to him in this context the famous epitaph pronounced over Sir John Vanbrugh, the architect of Castle Howard and of Blenheim—
"Lie heavy on him, earth! for he
Laid many heavy loads on thee."
There is yet another Committee still sitting under my noble friend Lord Crewe, the Leader of the Opposition. This is the Committee that is to advise upon the functions and powers of the Council of India and upon their future relations with the Government of India. I do not know how far that Committee has proceeded with its labours, but its Report also will be laid.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to explain that the labours of the Committee have been concluded, and that its Report is ready.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have not had the advantage of seeing the Report, but it will also be laid, and will be referred to the Joint Committee, in order that the provisions arising therefrom may be incorporated in the Bill. My Lords, the latest stage in this historical narrative with which I will venture to trouble you was the debate that took place less than a month ago in another place, when the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill, after being debated for part of two days, was carried without a Division. That was followed by the Motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee. I think I am right in saying that that suggestion originally emanated from my noble friend Lord Selborne, seated upon the Front Bench opposite. It is one which at quite an early date I intimated our willingness to adopt. It is in fulfilment of that pledge that I stand here this afternoon.
The stage at which we have now arrived and at which this Bill goes before this Joint Committee, as I understand, is this. The starting point, of this Bill, the basis of our action, the guiding principle by which we are directed, is the Declaration of August, 1917. That Declaration has been so often quoted in debate here that it is unnecessary for me textually to repeat it. Broadly speaking, the object laid down by the Government in that Declaration was the progressive realisation of responsible government in India. In other words we want, I will not say to start India, because she has already been started, but to give her a forward push, on the road towards responsible government, and to train her in the knowledge and exercise of constructive responsibility. I am confident that no member of your Lordships' House will deny that we all, although perhaps in different degrees, are bound by that Declaration. I assisted in the Cabinet to draw it up, and therefore I am bound by it. It is true that Parliament, neither in this House nor in the other, has passed any definite Resolution accepting or confirming it, but there were many opportunities in both Houses, had they so desired, of dissociating themselves from it. Neither House of Parliament adopted that course. It was accepted not only without demur but with universal approval in the House of Commons. In our two debates here, although voices of criticism were heard, the statement itself was accepted without reservation. I refer more
1132
particularly to a passage in the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne during the debates, and to a declaration by Lord Sydenham, who, although he found much to oppose in the scheme of the Secretary of State, yet accepted this Declaration as indeed the avowed principle on which our Government has long been and must continue to be founded in India.
Therefore, my Lords, I think I am justified in saying not only that this Declaration of ours was not merely a scrap of paper, to be torn up when it had served a temporary purpose, but that it was a binding Declaration on the British nation and in the nature of a compact between ourselves and the people of India. This Bill, in the form in which it will reach the Joint Committee, is the manner in which the Secretary of State proposes to carry that principle into effect. The Bill as it leaves the Joint Committee may or may not be identical with the Bill in its present form, but it must not lose sight of the principle itself. It may vary the method of giving effect to it, hit I am sure you will agree with me when I say that it must not secretly undermine or destroy the principle. It must not try to defeat the principle, but loyally endeavour to find the best solution for it. I should be shocked if it were capable of being said that the Cabinet or Parliament had issued or given assent to that Declaration in 1917 merely in order to stimulate the loyalty or flatter the pride of the Indian people. That was not the case. It was a deliberate and historic pronouncement. It was a milestone in the history of our connection with India; and, my Lords, whatever characters You may wish or may decide in your wisdom to inscribe upon that milestone, it is not, if I may respectfully say so, open to you to take it up or throw it down, to turf it over and put a nameless slab upon its grave. If you were to do so, that tombstone would record the dishonour of the British Parliament and of the British people.
Starting from that point, if I carry you with me, I ask the question, What is the discretion left the Joint Committee in dealing with this measure? I do not think that any doubt can be entertained upon the point. I have endeavoured on previous occasions to define it myself, but it has been done with so much greater amplitude and power by the Secretary of State in the debate to which I referred just.

1133
now in another place that I may, perhaps, be allowed to read what he said—
"There are very important differences—differences which I do not wish to minimise—as to methods, and you will never get to a discussion of those methods, infinitely technical, until you have a small body constituted which will take evidence and consider the alternative merits or demerits of the different plans. It is our intention, if the House gives a Second Reading to this measure to-day [June 5], to ask that it should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that that Joint Committee should consider all the questions that are involved. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is the Government's wish that that Committee should discuss the matter not only from the point of view of a detailed examination, but from the point of view of the examination of alternative methods. Let it have free scope. Let the House appoint a Committee to go into the whole question, and, although I believe from the bottom of my heart that you dare not and ought not to do less than we propose in this Bill, I shall be glad, and the Government will be glad, to take the advice of the Committee on any alternative method which really and actually promises at least as much."
Those words, my Lords, are I think sufficiently explicit, and they define with accuracy the function and powers of the Committee which it is now proposed to constitute.
The Committee will, of course, take evidence from whatever quarter it desires, and the plethora of authoritative evidence that is at its disposal is almost overwhelming. We note that Sir James Meston, a very distinguished civilian in India, is coming, or has come, to this country to place the views of the Government of India before us. Other distinguished administrators are, or will presently be, in this country, and they can ht, consulted upon the matter. There are at this moment quite a number of Indian deputations already in England making their views known, and willing, if summoned, to be heard. I do not know whether it is a remarkable, but it is a noticeable feature of these deputations that, so far as I can judge, no two of them hold the same views. There is a deputation from the Indian National Congress, which thinks that the Bill does not go far enough. There is a deputation from the European Association, which thinks that it goes much too far. There is a moderate Association which, generally speaking, supports the Government's proposals. There are representatives of the Moslem League and other bodies, who wish to be heard from their particular standpoint. No doubt the Committee will listen to all these representations; and, indeed, the subjects
1134
which they will have to discuss are of the first importance. There is the disputed question known by the rather novel and detestable name of diarchy, the system of duality or division of the functions of the Government into reserved and transferred departments, which no doubt they will pass under review. That system, as we know, has been widely criticised in some quarters. It has not found favour with the majority of the Local Governments in India, but the Secretary of State has so far adhered to the plan as the best to carry out the to which he is wedded. There are important questions as regards finance, the future constitution and position of the Central Government in India, the character of the representation to be adopted, and so on, which will come under their review.
It would in become me to attempt any way to anticipate the labours, still more the decisions, of the Committee, but there are one or two general considerations which the House will, perhaps, pardon me if I suggest as having an important bearing upon their treatment of the ease. The first is this. Time is of importance in this matter. The dates which I named just now show that nearly two years have elapsed since the Declaration of the Government was made in August, 1917. The Government certainly have no desire unfairly or unduly to hurry the labours of the Committee. A more important Committee has never been constituted in the two Houses of Parliament. It has in its hand the determination of the future relations of this country and its greatest Dependency. It has in its hand the making of peace or of discontent in India, very likely for generations to come. We would net like unfairly to hurry that supremely momentous task. On the other hand, it is only fair to remember that India is expectant. She has been waiting contentedly, though perhaps not without occasional protests, for these two years. Hopes have been , sentiments have been aroused, in India which it would be undesirable unfairly to disappoint. Therefore, my Lords, it is not unreasonable to ask that the Committee, when it undertakes its labours, should proceed with them with as much expedition as it finds possible. The second consideration which I would urge the members of this Committee, if I may do so, to bear in mind is this. There will be members of the Committee of great experience of India. There may be some

1135
who will have no first-hand knowledge of India at Upon both classes—upon the first just as much as upon the second—I would urge the proposition that thing are moving very fast in India. India is spinning very fast and very far "down the ringing grooves of change."
It is now nearly fourteen years since I came back from India myself. India is a subject upon which no man who has had any connection with it would ever dogmatise. It is a subject upon which, looking back over this chasm of fourteen years that separates me from it. I hesitate almost to express an opinion. I dare say the ideas with which I went out to India, and to which according to my lights I adhered while I was there, are not altogether the ideas that prevail at the present time. My view was that India was a great, a supreme, a magnificent trust. I saw under a Government, as I believed, just, efficient, and humane. I saw it moving steadily forward in the direction of self-realisation. I was content to watch, and to the best of my ability to assist in, that progress. I was not in my time in favour of making leaps in the dark. Rather did I prefer to march steadily forward in the light of day. I suppose, my Lords, that my ideas would now be regarded as rather old-fashioned and that my pace in India would be voted both pedestrian and slow. I recognise that great changes have conic in the interval over the temper and attitude, and I dare say also over the aspirations, of the people. Greater acceleration has been given to this movement owing to the circumstances of the past five years. I do not refer merely to the part that has been played by Indian soldiers in the war, although your Lordships cannot fail to see that the appearance on the battlefields of France and Flanders, not to mention other fields in other parts of the world. of Indian soldiers side by side with the most efficient trained troops of the European Powers, and the fact that they comported themselves well under that dire ordeal, must have a great effect in raising the spirits, in enlarging the self-respect, and I dare say also in increasing the demands, of those whose soldiers fought so well.
But putting that aside, simultaneously with what has occurred in the field your Lordships cannot forget the steps that have been taken in other directions. It is during these last two and a-half years that. India
1136
has for the first time been admitted on a footing of equality to the Imperial Conference. I see my noble friend Lord Harcourt opposite. He presided over an Imperial Conference in the old days. I think I am not wrong in saving that in his day the Government of India had no direct representation there, but that her interests and aspirations were expressed by the Secretary of State. She has now been admitted on a footing of absolute equality to the Imperial Conference. Her representatives have had a seat during the last two and a-half years on the Imperial War Cabinet on precisely the same terms as the representatives of the Dominions and of ourselves. They have gone to Paris. During the last six months they have been playing their part in the proceedings of the Peace Conference, and at the great ceremony that occurred only a few days ago in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles the signatures ores of the Indian representatives were appended to that historic document. And lastly, we know that India is to be admitted on her own account as a separate unit to the League of Nations of the future. The result of all these operations is this, that during the period of which I am speaking India has grown in stature; she feels that she is no longer in a state of tutelage; one may almost say, paraphrasing the words that were used by the Prince of Wales in another connection a little while ago, that during the war she has found her manhood. These are great and significant steps, and they must, I think, be accompanied by some corresponding advance in the power of political expression and in the recognition of responsibility which you concede to the Indian peoples.
I am not either so vain or so sanguine as to pretend that all will be plain sailing in the future that lies before us. I can quite imagine that the reverse will be the case. It may be that some of these schemes, whether they be those of the Secretary of State or whether they be an amendment of the schemes of the Secretary of State, will have no permanent existence. It may well be that, like the reforms connected with the names of Lord Morley and Lord Minto, which we remember being expounded and defended with fervour by those statesmen in this House, they will fail of their mark and result in disappointment. It may be that a period of unrest and of fermentation lies before India, just as it does, in my humble judgment, before

1137
every country in the East, whether it be China at one end or Persia at the other. It will be a long, long time before the ground swell of the great commotion of the past five years subsides. But I hope that the Committee will not be deterred in their labours by such a prospect. Rather it is their task to endeavour to find the channels in which the legitimate aspirations of the Indian people can flow, and to place dams where they may be required across impetuous or dangerous currents.
If I were a member of the Committee I think that it is in this spirit that; I should endeavour to approach the task. And there are, if I may be allowed to say so, four considerations which I should endeavour personally to bear in mind. I hope your Lordships will not think it presumptuous of me if I venture to place them before you. I would try in all my arrangements and acts to keep alive and not in any way to daunt or to quench the spirit, the traditions, and the efficiency of the Indian Civil Service. It is easy to indulge in cheap sneers at the expense of that Service: I have heard them in this House. It is easy to characterise the somewhat rigid and frigid character of Indian administration. There may be truth in those charges. But what I do know is this, that for 150 years Englishmen—and the best Englishmen—have been willing to leave their native country to go out to India to lead a life of relative exile there; that they have thrown themselves with animation and ardour and devotion into the service of the Indian peoples; that they have learnt to love them; that they have produced some of the finest types of English character that our history shows—men whose names flare like a beacon in the history of the British people—and that it is they in the main who have enabled India to take the place which she new occupies in the estimation of the world.
I should greatly regret any change which made Englishmen lose their love of India or made them think that India is a country not worth labouring for or living in. The life of the Indian Civil Servant is not a very easy one. It becomes more difficult from year to year. Do not let us do anything to make it harder in the future. I should therefore deplore any lowering of the standard of the Civil Service in India, both because of its effect upon the Service itself, and because of its reaction
1138
upon the administration of the country, and I should think it a heavy price to pay for the gratification of political ambitions, however reasonable they may be.
The second principle which I would endeavour to bear in mind is this. I would do nothing to impair or diminish the authority of the Central Government in India. Whatever you may do in the Provincial Governments, of which I know less, and as to which I believe there is a general agreement that not only increased decentralisation but larger powers of autonomy must be conceded—whatever you do there, I how you will do nothing to dethrone or weaken the Central Government in India; and say so for this reason. The Central Government is the supreme symbol, as it is also the custodian, of law and authority and justice in India. It represents, or it ought to represent, the British Crown and the British Parliament. It sets, or it ought to set, a high standard of efficiency and rectitude in administration. I am told—I think Lord Sydenham told us—that should these changes be carried out the Provincial Governor of the future will have a very bad time. I do not know whether that will be the case. Whether he steers his barque successfully or not through these troubled waters will, I expect, depend upon the personality of the man. But not dealing with his case—about which I do not know enough—and looking at the position of the men at Delhi or at Simla, I would say—not because I myself was Viceroy, but from a higher standpoint—that I hope that the Government of India and the Executive Council at Headquarters will not by any changes that are introduced be made the sport of warring factions or the victims of Parliamentary vicissitudes. The Government of India should be free from partisanship, but it should also be free from illegitimate forms of pressure; it should not be exposed to discomfiture or defeat. In the last resort its authority and its decision—subject, of course, to the controlling authority of Government—should prevail.
My third principle would be that nothing should be done to weaken or diminish the protection that is given to the poorer classes in India, and they are the vast multitude of the population, by the British Raj. The noble Lord, Lord Southborough, has devised a scheme by which votes are to be given to something like 5,000,000 Indian people. Whether the numbers are

1139
500,000 or 5,000,000 or 15,000,000, remember that electoral franchises and votes are nothing to the great mass of the Indian people. It will not touch them directly at all. What they really want is security, justice, freedom from oppression—and when I talk about oppression, pray believe me that the classes of whom I speak are just as much, nay far more, subject to oppression from different classes of their own countrymen as from their British rulers. It is for those guarantees that they have, learnt to look to their British governors. Do not let us disappoint or desert them in the changes we have in view.
Lastly, I would venture to express the hope that neither in the findings of this Committee nor in any of the speeches that are made thereon may anything be said or done to encourage the belief that the British Empire is not good enough for India and that India can safely cut herself adrift from the Imperial connection. None of us knows what is the future that lies before that great country and her almost illimitable and inscrutable population. The whole future is buried in dark cloud and mist. Put my conviction at any rate remains unaltered—that it is under the ægis of British protection and guidance that the advances in the self-realisation of India, for which I have pleaded, can best be secured. We do not ask her, in this development, to remain in connection with our system out of gratitude for what we may have done for her, or in order to flatter our national pride, or as a symbol of Imperial pomp and power. Believe me that these are not the ideas with which we plead for a continuance of the old connection. It is because we are firmly convinced—at any rate I am—that within the confines of the Imperial system the best guarantees can be found for the assumption by India of ever-increasing degrees of responsibility, and for our joint accomplishment of what I myself shall never cease to regard as one of the great duties of the world.
Moved, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons: "That it is expedient that the Government of India Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one who has listened to the most eloquent speech of my noble friend will
1140
underrate the vast importance of the occasion upon which we are engaged. He spoke in tones of gravity, of hesitation, and even of apprehension which must have impressed every one of your Lordships. As I heard him state, with what I believe to be the general assent of your Lordships, the great principles which he hoped this Committee that we are about to set up will bear in mind—the principle of the maintenance of the Civil Service, the support of the strength of the Central Government, the obligation of the protection of the multitudes of poor in India, and the essential solidarity of India with the fortunes of the Empire at large—I could not help feeling a sentiment of profound regret that, in dealing with topics so important and with interests of such deep monent, we have not a better opportunity than we have been afforded amongst the pre-occupations of this great war.
Though I do not criticise in any way my noble friend in what I am about to say, I must say that I do not think that the Government have treated Parliament fairly in regard to this Indian question. My noble friend spoke of the amount of time since this particular Indian issue was before the country; but let me recall to him and to your Lordships the kind of way in which the Government in the other House have treated Parliament in this matter. It has been a policy of almost studied contempt for Parliament. The original Declaration—the solemn Declaration—to which my noble friend has referred and which he has quoted, was produced at the end of the session in 1917 when there was really no opportunity at all of properly discussing it. We then separated. When we reassembled, before either House of Parliament had any opportunity of reverting to this question we heard that the Secretary of State had already gone to India upon his Mission. There was no real concern for the assent of Parliament to this policy. I do not think His Majesty's Government cared a snap of the fingers for what Parliament thought on the subject. That is what happened then.
What has happened now? The Bill which is before the other House and which is to be referred to this Committee was read a second time, I think, on the day upon which Parliament separated for the recess. This Bill, of the importance of which my noble friend has spoken, was read a second time in the House of Commons only forty-eight hours after it had been in

1141
the hands of Members. My noble friend then spoke of the information which had been given to Parliament. When was it given? After five clays at the most before the House of Commons was asked to consider it. These vast Blue Books to which my noble friend has referred were produced only at the last moment. I will venture to say that not one dozen Members of Parliament had made themselves acquainted with these Blue Books, or could have done so, before the Bill was read a second time.
What did those Blue Books contain? Please do not let the House think that I pretend to have read them. I do not so pretend. But I have looked at them, and. what has struck me most forcibly is the extraordinary amount of dissent which the Local Governments of India have pronounced in regard to the Secretary of State's plan. I am not going to give many quotations to your Lordships; neither do I think that these quotations are conclusive; but I wish to give one or two in order to show how very important was the information which was submitted to Parliament but too late for Parliament to consider. This is what the Government of Madras say—
"On a careful review of the general trend of the proposals which have been made in the Report, the Government of Madras cannot but ask themselves whether the adoption of changes such as are here proposed, which constitute in effect rather a revolution than a reform in the government of the country, is in the true interests of its progress and happiness."
That is the opinion of the supreme Government of Madras. Here is the opinion of the supreme Government of Bombay—
"The next matter which calls for discussion is the Provincial Executive, which is dealt with in paragraphs 214 to 224. On this most important a ad difficult question—"
which is the essential question, of course, in these reforms—
"the Governor in Council, I am to say, regrets that he is unable to accept the proposed scheme of government as one which is likely to work satisfactorily in practice."
Next I quote the Government of Bengal—
"Official opinion is, on the whole, frankly dubious as to the working of the scheme, and the most experienced administrators in this Presidency regard it with serious misgivings, even as a temporary measure during a transitional period."
These vital declarations of opinion by the Local Governments in India were not revealed to Parliament until five days before the House of Commons was asked to
1142
read the Bill a second time; and I do think, having regard to these very serious misgivings on the part of these great Governments in India—misgivings with which, I cannot help thinking from his speech, the noble Earl himself has some sympathy—that it cannot be s id that Parliament has been properly treated in the operations of the Government in laying this most difficult question before us.
In these circumstances I must ask your Lordships to allow me for a moment to consider the spirit in which it would seem right that the Committee should enter upon the consideration of this question. Your Lordships' House is not asked to assent to the principle of the Bill. Let us be quite clear on that. The Bill has not been read a second time in this House, and it is not going to be read a second time in this House before the Committee sit. Your Lordships, therefore, are not pledged to the principle of the Bill. But, having said so much, I should be very sorry if your Lordships thought that I, for one, was in favour of a purely negative attitude on this question. I am not. I recognise, quite as much as the noble Earl opposite does, that having regard to what has passed in India and having regard to the action which His Majesty's Government took, we must accept the fact that reform, in the nature of throwing more responsibility upon the natives of India themselves, is inevitable. I do not look upon it as a great achievement. It is not that I despise responsibility as an educative power. I believe in it. It may very well be that, on the merits, a great measure of responsibility ought to be entrusted to the people of India, and that, no doubt, is what the Committee have to decide. But I say this—that the production of this policy at such a moment, in such a crisis, amid the pre-occupations of the great war, was a blunder of the first magnitude, and all we have to do at this stage in the proceedings is to do our best to prevent the blunder from issuing in a disaster.
I do not know what led the Government to make the Declaration. It is a solid fact of which we have to take note. There it is, not every word of it to be accepted, of course, not to be taken literally in any sense, but as a great Declaration on the part of the Government of the Empire in favour of greater responsibility being entrusted to the natives of India. But what led them to make it I do not know.

1143
I have observed, in regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government in many respects, that they seem to drift into particular measures. There does not seem to be a governing hand behind the policy. In many respects that is so. I do not refer to this particular Government only, but to recent Governments. I believe we drifted into the war without really knowing exactly what preparations we ought to make for it. Most properly we went to war, of course; but we ought to have foreseen that the war was coming. In the same way, I should judge from the proceedings in Paris, we have drifted into the peace. In Egypt there was a policy of drift, and in Ireland there is a policy of drift—drifting everywhere, without any real, strong, statesmanlike control guiding the policy of the Government! I do not know whether the same thing led to the Declaration of August, 1917. I believe that a condition of agitation was allowed to spring up in India which was very deplorable. Great weakness was shown. I believe that the Government of India itself had been allowed to fall away from its former efficiency to a large extent; and so the thing went on, until a situation was produced in which some new startling policy had to be devised. The result was the Declaration of August, 1917.
How far must the Committee go in interpreting that Declaration? I certainly shall not presume to indicate to what point they ought to go. That is for them to consider. But I should like to say one or two things in respect of it, if your Lordships will forgive me. I understand that the attitude of the ardent spirits in India is this. They see the Government of this country, its Parliament, its Government, its wonderful Constitution and its supreme success, and they say, "Why should not we have institutions of a similar kind?" If they want to imitate England they should imitate the principles on which she has gone in making her Constitution; and that was the principle of gradual growth. Anything like the conscious destruction of an old system for the sake of replacing it by a new is utterly foreign to our ideas. We have never done such a thing in our history except during the brief period of the great Rebellion, and then it was reversed as soon as possible. We have always built upon the old; gone gradually to work. The principle of growth is the principle on which the British Constitution has been developed. I hope the Com
1144
mittee will realise that if they are to make a great self-governing Constitution for India it can only be done by a process of very gradual growth.
The second principle I should like to see them study is the principle of simplicity. No one can accuse the proposals of the Secretary of State and Viceroy of being simple. They are the most complex set of principles anybody has ever had an opportunity of reading. The natives of India in this respect must be treated as children. I do not mean it in any offensive sense. They have no experience of the great and difficult process of self-government, and they will understand, I am quite confident, nothing except what is of the simplest kind.
The third principle which I hope the Committee will bear in mind is the principle of caution. I confess that the picture of what is likely to happen in India under the limited franchise which is proposed in the near future does not fill me with very much confidence. If the franchise was going to be exercised by those who are naturally the leaders of the people, I should be comparatively easy; but if it is to be exercised only by the half-educated natives, who up to now have had no experience of responsibility and no tradition of self-government to guide them, I confess I should view that with considerable apprehension. After all, government by intelligentsia is probably the worse kind of government any country can have. It is not the fact that a certain limited amount of education fits people to govern; it is experience of leadership and government, till ultimately the whole people may have it, such as our people have it and are able to produce the Constitution under which we live.
I hope that the Committee also will approach this subject with an open mind, not to turn down the Bill altogether, as my noble friend most properly declared would be unthinkable, but that they will exercise a perfectly open judgment as to the provisions which it contains—weighing on the one side the unrest which exists in India, the aspirations which have been excited there, and on the other the statesmanlike considerations which my noble friend opposite has himself set out, and which in a far inferior way I have attempted to advocate.
I am quite certain that, if India is really to achieve anything like the success which the ardent advocates of reform hold out for it, she must be content to emulate

1145
England in treading the path of constitutional progress with caution and patience, and feel her way to the form of government for which temperamentally she may prove to be fitted. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the Committee will approach this most momentous subject in the spirit which the noble Earl has laid down, and will not be afraid, if the evidence should justify it, even to differ very widely from the conclusions at which the Secretary of State has arrived.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE UNIFORM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING LOANS
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Grey, I beg to ask the Government the starred Question standing in his name—viz., whether it is their intention that the Regulations to be issued by the Treasury in accordance with Section 7, subsection (1), of the Housing and Town Planning Bill now before the House shall provide that local authorities or other bodies, in receipt of loans under the Bill, shall obtain the benefit of any lower rate of interest should the Government be able to borrow at such lower rate during the period of the loans in question.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I must apologise for the absence of my noble friend who was to have answered this Question. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow it to be put down for our next sitting. The business has gone with rather unexpected speed during the last few minutes.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Before the adjournment of the House, I wish to state that to my regret the Forestry Bill is not in your Lordships' hands. My proposal, therefore, that the Second Reading should be taken on Thursday next must be abandoned. I propose accordingly to put down the Bill for Monday next, July 7.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of June 26.]

PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
(Petition for additional Provision.)
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Brassey be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Aberdare; read, and agreed to.
SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 27th of May last and the 3rd instant discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order for Witness to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.