Sitting of 13 November 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Wick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., ACT, 1919.
Paper [presented 22nd October] to be printed. [No. 205.]
MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (PUBLIC BUSINESS).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Manual of Procedure in the Public Business of the House of Commons. Fourth Edition, 1919.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.
    GOVERNMENT POLICY.

      STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to negotiate with the Soviet Government on the basis of the terms brought back by the hon. Member for East Leyton?
      Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general uncertainty in the public mind as to the nature of British policy with regard to Russia, he will give an early day for a further discussion of the subject in this House?
      Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apparent discrepancy in the statements of our policy towards Russia as announced in this House on the 5th instant and at the Guildhall on the 8th instant, he will state whether the policy of the Government has been modified since the Debate on the 5th instant; and, if so, what fact, or facts, in connection with the Russian situation came to the knowledge of the Government in the interim?
      Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Prime Minister, in view of the published official Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, as well as the evidence of reliable witnesses, regarding the moral turpitude of the Bolshevik Government and of its connivance in the conspiracies against Aliied and Neutral Governments in order to set up Soviet rule, will he state what guarantee he proposes to obtain, and will be able to enforce, that any agreement or treaty such Bolshevik Government may sign will be loyally carried out?
      Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Prime Minister whether any person has on his behalf or with his knowledge interviewed representatives of the Bolshevists for the purpose of ascertaining whether and upon what terms negotiations for peace might be opened?
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the situation in the Ukraine where British munitions and details are being employed against the Ukranian people by General Denikin; whether this state of affairs has his sanction; and what steps he proposes to take to cause a cessation of these hostilities, which inevitably result in the massacre of unoffending people?
      Lord ROBERT CECILasked (1) the Prime Minister what is the nature of the civil administration in the territories under the control of General Denikin; whether there is at present any commerce between this country and those territories; if not. what steps the Government propose to take to open up such commerce;
      (2) Whether he can give the House any information as to the present position of Admiral Koltchak and the administrative and military causes of his retirement?
      Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked (1) whether any undertaking

      471
      is given in return for assistance to Russian Armies as to the use to which such assistance will be put;
      (2) whether the decision to bring to an end assistance in personnel and material to the anti-Bolshevik Armies applies to naval as well as military assistance?
      Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to propose a conference with the Russian Soviet Government with a view to establishing peace in Eastern Europe; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will consider favourably any similar proposal from a neutral Government?
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Prime Minister whether the reference by him in his speech at the Guildhall on the 8th November to a renewal of the attempt to reach a settlement in Russia indicates a possibility of the Allies entering into negotiations with the present Soviet leaders, or if what is contemplated is an effort to restore constitutional Government in Russia through the leaders there who are now trying to restore popular democratic control?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I propose, with the permission of the House, to answer all these questions together.
      Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister is coming here to answer questions on one day each week. Is he entitled, in the usual phraseology "with the permission of the House" to answer questions in bulk, or is he entitled to answer each Member's question as it arises?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If one reply covers them all, what is the use of repeating it?
      Mr. HOGGE: On that point is not the Member who puts the question a much better judge as to whether the reply covers the question which he has put and which the Prime Minister has answered in the bulk?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Let us have the answer first.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am answering all the questions together. It is impossible to answer them separately because they run into each other, and some of them cover exactly the same ground. As to the question in regard to the so-called peace advances from the
      472
      Soviet Republic, the Allied Governments have always declined to take any action on communications which purported to come from the Governments of hostile countries through irresponsible agencies. They have acted only on communications coming officially and directly from such Governments. That has been the practice of the Allies during the War, and events have fully justified it. The Government do not think it advisable to depart from that practice now.
      In reply to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Captain Tudor-Rees). I wish to state categorically that no person has at any time on my behalf or with my knowledge interviewed representatives of the Bolsheviks for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and upon what terms negotiations for peace might be opened.
      I have never agreed with what I may call the "Northcliffe policy" explained by its author earlier this year, that the world powers should sink their pride for a moment and get into communication with the Bolsheviks, and that we should employ an avowed English Bolshevik sympathiser for that purpose. In my judgment that certainly is not the method by which peace can be secured in Russia.
      In reply to the question put by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), first of all, as to the present position of Admiral Koltchak and the administrative and military causes of his retirement. The position in Western Siberia is undoubtedly grave. The Bolshevik forces are marching rapidly on Omsk, but the Koltchak Armies have not evacuated that town, and its fate will be decided by the battles that are to be fought in the course of the next few days in front of the city. As to the causes of the retirement, they are rather too complicated to give in answer to a question. But it illustrates the aspect of the Russian Civil War which I ventured to emphasise on Saturday—its abnormally swaying character. Early in the year Admiral Koltchak's Army had crossed the Urals and advanced beyond Perm, and a junction with General Denikin in the south and the Archangel forces in the north was regarded as imminent, whilst an advance to Moscow before the winter seemed quite within the limits of practibility. At that time General Denikin was only just holding his own in a limited

      473
      territory on the eastern shores of the Black Sea. Now Admiral Koltchak has retreated 660 miles, and General Denikin has swept the Bolshevik Armies from a vast and fertile region covering thousands of square miles. Within the last few weeks he has lost some ground, but he still holds by far the greater portion of the recovered territory.
      We are far too apt to examine the fight in Russia in the light of our experience of the great struggle in France. There an Army of the size of General Denikin's or of that of his Bolshevik foes would hold a front of a little over fifty miles with well-organised communications behind. Here, such an Army has to hold a front of 1,300 miles, with a vast country behind thoroughly disorganised, often overrun by marauding bands, who temporarily capture and loot great cities in the recovered territories. The vast majority of the population feel no ardent loyalty for either side, and very quickly change their allegiance. There is the further complication of provincial or national movements like Petlura's. The result is that General Denikin has not so far been able to establish administrative control over the conquered territories. That makes trade in this very important region for the supply of food and raw material for the present almost impracticable. I might also add that the absorption of the railway equipment in the supply of the Armies adds to the difficulty.
      It is the policy of the Government to open up trade and commerce as much as possible with South Russia, in the interest not only of Russia, but of the world. We have made special efforts in that direction during the last few months, and the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacKinder)—a well-known and able Member of this House—has been appointed to go on a special mission to South Russia with the object of, amongst other things, investigating what can be done in these respects, and of generally advising the Government on the position.
      As regards general, policy, the Government have repeatedly stated this in the House. I stated it in some detail in the month of April. More recently it has been explained to the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his written and financial statements. From the policy thus enun-
      474
      ciated the Government have no intention of departing. As has been explained, between the date of the Armistice and the end of October, in cash and in kind, the value of nearly £100,000,000 has been spent or sanctioned by the United Kingdom on account of assistance sent to Russia. A substantial part of this sum has been, or will be, added to the permanent indebtedness of this country. The Government has repeatedly made it clear to the House of Commons that, with the crushing financial burden already cast upon it by the Great War, it cannot contemplate the assumption of new obligations under this head. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in the White Paper and in his speech, there is no provision made for such additional expenditure on Russia. If an addition is to be made to the national obligations under this head, it will be the responsibility of the House of Commons to determine the additional taxation that shall be imposed for the purpose.
      On the other hand, the Government have an overwhelming sense of the importance of bringing peace to Russia. Not only is Russia a source of unrest and disturbance to all its neighbours, with all the infinite possibilities for mischief which lurk in such a condition over so vast an area, but a settlement of the Russian problem is essential to the reconstruction of the world. Russia is one of the great resources for the supply of food and raw material. The present condition of Russia is one of the contributing causes to the prevailing high prices, and high prices are undoubtedly in all lands the most dangerous form of Bolshevik propaganda. There are also many indications that German, reactionaries are using the present strike in Russia to strengthen their influence with all the struggling parties alike in that country, and I have no doubt that if the struggle continue the military party in Germany will secure a great hold in Russia through the medium of the very numerous bodies of demobilised officers and non-commissioned officers out of work, who will find ready employment in that country if the war proceed. From the humanitarian point of view it is no less important in the opinion of the Government that civil war, which is not only destroying the economic life in Russia and thus impoverishing the world, but is slowly decimating its inert and helpless population, should be brought to an end as soon as possible.

      475
      That is why the Government have always been ready to take any reasonable opportunity which may present itself to effect a settlement of the Russian question on conditions which will really bring peace and good order and constitutional government to Russia, on terms that are acceptable to the Russian people themselves. Their views on this subject were embodied in the Allied letter to Admiral Koltchak. It is proposed to hold, I hope at early date, an International Conference at which Ministers of the Allied and Associated Powers will consider the various grave and outstanding problems which the Peace Conference has so far been unable to settle for one reason or another. Russia will be amongst these problems. If the House of Commons wishes to have a discussion of the Russian question before the assembly of this Conference, the Government will, of course, be prepared to give the necessary facilities. But I would respectfully suggest before the demand be made that Members should bear in mind that in a difficult and delicate matter of this kind it is not always the best plan to have a public debate in which the Government may be forced in support of its views to give publicity to information on matters connected with the position in Russia—information which has influenced their judgment on policy. The House, of course, may rest assured that the Government will inaugurate no new policy and commit the country to no fresh action without giving the House the fullest opportunity of discussing it.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question as to whether it is intended to keep on the form of blockade this winter in view of the suffering it will cause to innocent children at Petrograd?
      Major MALONE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to put a question but not to make a statement.
      Major MALONE: My question—[No. 47, relating to local housing schemes]—has been associated with the Russian question, and, though my name is Malone, I am not the Russian Malone.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question was dealt with on a previous occasion. It was not dealt with by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. HOGGE: While I agree that the Prime Minister must take opportunities which are offered to him of announcing the Russian policy, I should like your ruling, Sir, on this. If the Prime Minister is going to come down or. Thursdays to answer questions, is he entitled to use that opportunity for making a long statement of policy when the questions which are put on the Order Paper are questions of fact on which in ordinary circumstances hon. Members are entitled to ask supplementary questions if the facts are not elucidated, and in that case is the fact of the Prime Minister coming down to answer questions of any good to us on Thursdays?
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is very obvious that the House wanted the statement. If the hon. Member looks at the number of questions, and if the House wanted the statement the House has had it. We have only five minutes more for all the rest of the questions.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the first hour of Parliamentary time is devoted to questions and that the Prime Minister has an opportunity—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is abusing his right and depriving all other hon. Members of the opportunity of putting-questions.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: My question was supposed to be answered with the rest, but I do not think it was dealt with. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister would do anything to stop the civil war between Petlura and Denikin, which is being waged on the side of Denikin with British munitions against a people rightly struggling to be free. Will he stop this by-sending out instructions?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With respect to the question by the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), there is a direct question later on which is to be answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty. Therefore I did not answer that question. In regard to the question by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood), I thought I gave a comprehensive account of the difficulties in the Ukraine, where it is in a complete state of disorganisation, where there are a good many roving bands.
      Mr. HOGGE: Speech!
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am trying to answer the question. Therefore, when

      477
      those are the facts, you cannot say to General Denikin, "We have supplied you with munitions to hold your own, and if you are attacked by Petlura you must not use the guns with which we have supplied you." Here may I point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) that the first question I answered is the question which he has on the Paper; and if he looks at it he will find that it is a categorical answer.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: No; it is not possible to send a political mission to that division of Denikin's army, which is engaged not in fighting the Bolsheviks but in fighting these other people. Cannot he not take steps to protect the Ukraine from the Donikin troops, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

      GERMAN TROOPS IN BALTIC STATES.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Notes have been addressed to the German Government by the Supreme Allied Council on the subject of German troops in the Baltic provinces of Russia; what steps have been taken to enforce the Allied demands for their withdrawal; and whether a blockade of the German coast was declared in connection with this matter; whether this blockade has been raised; and is it intended to carry on a form of blockade of Soviet Russia without German co-operation and moral support?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Since the beginning of June this year six Notes have been addressed to the German Government by the Supreme Council, with reference to German troops in the Baltic States.
      The pressure which is being brought on the German Government in this connection is of two kinds. In the first place, the discussion of arrangements for the supply of food-stuffs to Germany has been suspended, and permission is being refused for financial transactions for that purpose. In the second place, all free sailings of German ships in the Baltic have been suspended. These naval measures do not apply to German fisheries and coastal trade. No blockade of the German coasts has been declared, or is being enforced.
      478
      As regards the last part of the question, the Supreme Council have not yet had before them the question whether the measures which are being taken to prevent trade with Soviet Russia should be made conditional on German co-operation or support.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these German troops with their loyal Russian collaborateurs have already killed nine British sailors by gunfire, and is more rigid action to insist on their withdrawal in. contemplation?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: That question scarcely arises out of this question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any special information I should be glad to receive it.

      UNITED STATES LEGION.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the formation of a United States of America Legion for service in Lithuania; and whether this legion is intended to operate against the Poles, the Soviet Russian troops, the Tsarist Russian troops, the Germans, the British Military Mission, or the native Lithuanians?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    YPRES.

      PRESERVATION AS WAR MEMORIAL.
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations have been or are being carried on and agreements arrived at by His Majesty's Government with the Belgian Government for the adequate preservation of Ypres as a memorial of British valour and sacrifice in the War: whether its boundaries for this purpose will be delimited clearly and protected from wanton damage by tourists; under whose care the ruins will be; and who will be responsible for their necessary repairs?
      Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; this question has been entrusted to a War Office Committee, under the chairmanship of the Adjutant-General, which is in

      479
      touch with the appropriate Belgian authorities on the spot. The remaining points raised by the right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be carefully considered by this Committee, and I will draw their attention to them.

      DEATH CERTIFICATES (EX-SERVICE MEN).
      Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Pensions Minister whether he has received protests against the present method, which involves payment by widows and dependants of ex-Service men in procuring necessary death certificates; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
      The MINISTER Of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am not aware of any protests such as that referred to by the hon. Member. Occasionally certificates are forwarded by widows, but in the usual course of procedure they are obtained by the Pension Issue Office from the local registrars and are paid for out of public funds.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (LANCE-CORPORAL BIKKETT).
      Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Pensions Minister whether Lance-Corporal Thomas Vallance Birkett, No. P/16294, Royal Field Artillery, who served four years 101 days, and was wounded, was discharged as being no longer physically fit for war service; whether no allowance is being paid to this man, his wife, or two children; and when his case will be settled by the granting of allowances?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Lance-Corporal Birkett has been drawing pension since his discharge in December, 1918, the present rate of payment being 28s. a week. He is not eligible for allowances in respect of his wife and children, as he was married after the receipt of the wound which led to his discharge.

      SEWING MACHINE GRANT.
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Pensions Minister whether, when an application is made by the widow of a
      480
      soldier for a grant from the King's Fund to enable her to obtain a sewing machine it is a condition, if a grant is made, that the machine has to be one of the Singer Manufacturing Company's make; and, if so, whether he will in future allow these widows to choose the make of machine that they prefer?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part, of this question is in the negative. I understand, however, that the trustees of the fund have frequently suggested to local committees that they should purchase Singer machines owing to the exceptionally favourable terms offered to the trustees by that company.
      Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these most favourable terms mean that over £11 is paid for a Singer machine when they can buy one equally as good for £5 or £6?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me any information as to where those equally good machines can be obtained, I will forward it to the trustees.
      Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to the war pensions committees that they have the power to buy these as well as the Singers?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They have not the power to buy any machine at all. This is a grant from the King's Fund.
      Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform those responsible for administering the fund that these cheaper machines can be got and that some women can work them a great deal more easily than they can work the Singer?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is what I ask the hon. Gentleman to give me information about. I will pass on to the King's Fund any information he can give me.

      MENTALLY DERANGED EX- SOLDIERS.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that discharged soldiers suffering from mental derangement produced by wounds or shellshock are at present inmates of the pauper lunatic asylum at Rainhill, Lanca-

      481
      shire; by what authority they were sent there and treated as pauper lunatics; and whether he can arrange that such men shall be transferred from the Bainhill Pauper Lunatic Asylum to suitable hospitals or homes where they will receive special treatment with a view to their recovery?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the question. The men to whom the hon. Member refers are, however, not treated as pauper lunatics, but as private patients, the cost of their maintenance and of the special privileges which private patients enjoy being borne by the Ministry of Pensions.
      Mr. HOUSTON: But does my right hon. Friend realise the distress, and the humiliation that this supposed stigma of pauperism inflicts upon men and their relatives, and will he take effective measures to dispel this belief?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope my hon. Friend's question may help to dispel it, and I am glad to repeat that they are not treated as pauper patients at all, but they are treated as private paying patients, and they are paid for out of pension funds.
      Mr. HOUSTON: But the fact that they are sent to a pauper lunatic asylum gives the impression that they are so treated.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is a superficial impression which I hope will be removed. It is not possible for the Ministry of Pensions to start asylums all over the country, and if we do not use those already existing, friends of the men will be deprived of visiting places near their homes.
      Mr. HOUSTON: But does my right hon. Friend realise that the object of my question is to remove this strong impression?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

      POOR LAW BELIEF (WIDOWS AND CHILDREN).
      Mr. RAPERasked the Pensions Minister (1) the number of children of widows in Poor Law institutions, and the cost of their maintenance;
      482
      (2) the number of widows and their dependent children receiving out-relief under the Poor Law, and the cost of such relief?
      The PAYMASTER - GENERAL (Sir Tudor Walters—for Dr. Addison): I regret that no figures are available as to the number of widows and their dependent children in receipt of relief at the present time, but I am proposing to obtain a return showing the number of such cases on the 1st January next.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the Pensions Minister not aware of the number of children in those circumstances whom the Committee in his Department looks after?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I have no information on that point, but if my hon. Friend—
      Mr. HOGGE: I asked the right hon. Gentleman.
      Sir T. WALTERS: I am in charge of this, and if my hon. Friend will repeat the question I will do my best to dig out all the information I can.
      Mr. HOGGE: I fail to understand why the Paymaster-General should be in charge of a question which deals with wives and children under the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ministry?
      Sir T. WALTERS: In my present capacity I represent the Ministry of Health. These questions relate to Poor Law institutions, and Poor Law institutions are under the Ministry of Health.
      Mr. RAPERasked the Pensions Minister the number of children of widows in industrial and reformatory schools, and the cost of their maintenance?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. The present average cost of maintaining a child in these schools is about 18s. a week.
      Mr. RAPER: Is it possible to obtain the information? As they have to maintain them, they ought to know the number?
      Mr. SHORTT: I will make inquiry.

    IRELAND.

      SUPPORT OF BLIND.
      Mr. DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Government proposes to introduce legislation in support of the blind in Ireland?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I trust that this matter may be dealt with in the contemplated Irish Education Bill.

      CRIMES ACT AND DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
      Captain W. BENNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state for the past year, or for any convenient period, the number of persons convicted in Ireland under the Crimes Act or under the Defence of the Realm Act, specifying the Section under which they have been convicted and the punishment inflicted for the offence?
      Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Act prohibiting street collections without permit did not apply to Ireland as originally introduced; whether there have been any cases of bogus collections against which the Act was directed; if not, whether it was extended to Ireland as a convenient method of summarily punishing Sinn Feiners for their political opinions and preventing them from raising money for propagating those opinions;
      (2) whether he will state how many persons in Ireland, in each of the last three years, have been tried by a single resident magistrate out of Petty Sessions; how many of these were men, boys, women, or girls; how many had been previously tried for the same offence and discharged; how many in each year were bound to the peace or bound to good behaviour; how many were sentenced to gaol for refusing to give bail or refusing to recognise the Court; whether this procedure was adopted in consequence of the large percentage of cases dismissed by the magistrates in Petty Sessions;
      (3) whether he will state how many per sons are now in prison for political or seditious offences; how many of these were sentenced by court-martial, civil Courts, Crimes Acts Courts, or a single resident magistrate; and how many were, respectively, for speeches inciting to crime, speeches calculated to cause disaffection,
      484
      being suspected of intention to commit an illegal act, drilling, possessing arms, carrying arms, street collecting, or other new offences created under the exigencies of the War?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The information asked for in these questions could not be given without a minute examination, of the circumstances of each case, and I have already stated that such minute investigations would impose so great amount of work on the already overburdened police in Ireland that I could not ask them to bear this additional burden. I have already prepared and published a list of outrages during the last three years, and, if desired, I will publish this list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Captain BENN: If the right hon. Gentleman has the information from which to put his side of the case, why cannot he give the House of Commons the information as to how many people in Ireland have been locked up, or for whom warrants have been issued under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have given the fullest possible and most unbiassed information I have. If the House still presses me to ask my overburdened police to bring these under investigation, of course we are bound to do it. But I refuse unless the House wishes me to do it.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the latest achievement of the Irish Government the imprisonment of a couple of girls for selling flags on behalf of the Irish language?
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to convoy to the House that he has not got this information asked for in the question?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I said this had already imposed a great deal of work upon the police.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: That is not an answer to the question put. I have asked him: Does he represent to the House that he has not got the figures which are asked for in these questions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If any unbiassed Member of the House will look at the list to which I have referred I think he will be satisfied.
      Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman, if I specify certain sections of D.O.R.A., tell me how many convictions have taken place under them?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will do my best if the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts a specific question. But these questions are rambling over most difficult and most minute investigations, and if there is anything in them at all it means that the overburdened police of Ireland would have to collect the information.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Have the overburdened police anything to do with the preparation of statistics?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: They certainly have.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Oh, they have, have they?

      TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, BELFAST.
      Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that over 600 applicants could not obtain admittance this year to the Technical Institute in Belfast; whether there is any provision to enable such applicants to continue their education; and what steps the Government propose to take under the circumstances?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The Technical Instruction Committee for the County Borough of Belfast have been unable to admit all applicants to the Technical Institute this year owing to lack of accommodation. The Department of Agriculture have applied to the Treasury for funds to enable them amongst other purposes to aid technical instruction committees to provide further accommodation for the increased number of pupils seeking admission to the schools.
      Sir E. CARSON: Where these applicants are rejected is there any provision made to enable them to continue their education?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am speaking off-hand, but I am afraid there is not. But I will make it my duty to approach the Treasury to see whether we can get an additional grant.

      HORSE BREEDING.
      Captain DIXONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, he is taking to reconstruct the horse-breeding industry in Ireland?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to his previous question on this subject on the 20th February last. The Act dealing with the licensing of stallions which will effect considerable improvement by the elimination of unsound and unsuitable sires is to come into operation on 1st January next, and arrangements for putting it into force are now almost completed.
      Captain DIXON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to advance financial aid towards horse-breeding in Ireland?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a specific question down on that point.

      FEEDING TROOPS.
      Captain DIXONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that instructions were issued to feed the troops in Ireland on chilled beef for six days per week; and whether, owing to the congestion of traffic and to the great loss to the Irish farmers which would ensue if this order were carried into effect, he will make representation to the Secretary of State for War to have it cancelled?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have been asked to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The order referred to-has already been cancelled.

    OUTRAGES.

      MEMBER DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW.
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of murders and attempted murders of soldiers and members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police which have occurred in Ireland during the past year; and whether these outrages or the perpetrators of them have been denounced by any of the Sinn Fein leaders?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will send my hon. and learned Friend a copy of a list giving this information up to the 11th October. I am bringing this list up to date, and if my hon. and learned Friend will put down a question next week I will give him a complete answer. With regard to the last part of the question I have seen no denunciation of these dastardly outrages by a single Sinn Fein political leader.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks he has suppressed the Sinn Fein organisation, and whether he has all the Sinn Fein Members of Parliament in gaol; if so, how are they to denounce these outrages?
      Mr. MOLES: Would the right hon. Gentleman also tell why, if Sinn Fein has been suppressed, the crimes are still being carried on?
      Mr. MacVEAGH: But Sinn Feiners could not do them!
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of Sinn Fein!
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Don't be impertinent!
      HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"
      Mr. MacVEAGH: You are given too much to that altogether.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow that expression, which doubtless escaped from the hon. Member. It is not Parliamentary.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the most insolent remark made by the Chief Secretary which had nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper—most insolent! [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's observation is one we are not accustomed to hear in this House. I hope he will see his way to withdraw it.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask you whether, if an abusive epithet were applied by a Minister of the Crown to a Member, you would call that Minister to order?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the word "impertinent" were employed?
      Mr. MacVEAGH: No, Sir; but the Chief Secretary is getting into a habit of replying that is characteristic of him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] He interjected this observation: "I am glad to see that the hon. Member is an advocate of Sinn Fein." I ask you whether that does not call for rebuke?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is anything unparliamentary in that expression. What I take exception to is the hon. Member's remark that the statement of the Irish Secretary was an impertient one. That I shall always take exception to.
      HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. May I respectfully call your attention to the fact that in immediate contiguity to the suggestion that Sinn Feiners are responsible for many of the acts of violence and assassination in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary followed by the statement that my hon. Friend was practically a Sinn Feiner, thereby suggesting—[HON, MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—that my hon. Friend was in some way or another, near or remote, associated with a body which the right hon. Gentleman charged with fomenting assassination. I am sure that observation did not reach you at the moment, or catch your attention, or—if I may respectfully say so—you would have called the Minister to order.
      HON. MEMBERS: Speech, speech!
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Practise a little fair play!
      Mr. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully put it to you, was making a suggestion which was most offensive and most uncalled for.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say as to that. There are a number of Sinn Feiners amongst the Members of this House. Whether hon. Members act with them or not is a matter for everyone's own judgment. I do not take any exception to that; it is not my business. What I take exception to is that an hon. Member should say that an observation made by a Minister of the Crown is an impertinent one. That is not a Parliamentary expression, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: I think you know perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, without any assurance from me, that there is no person in this House who has a higher respect for you, or is more anxious to bow to your ruling. In view, however, of the habitually offensive character of the interjections of the Chief Secretary for Ireland— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—in this House, I very much regret that I cannot see my way to withdraw it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Under these circumstances, I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw from the House.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: I am quite prepared to do so, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that before many months have passed the whole House will have the same opinion, of the Chief Secretary as I have to-day.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a question of the Chief Secretary. It is a question of whether or not the hon. Member will withdraw a statement which I say is un-parliamentary.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: I should have withdrawn it with reference to anybody in the House except the Chief Secretary.
      Mr. SPEAKERthereupon, pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 relating to disorderly conduct, ordered Mr. MacVeagh to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
      The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

      WHITLEY COUNCILS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, DUBLIN).
      Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many of the Government Departments in Dublin have Whitley Councils in existence; and in how many Departments have no meetings of Whitley Councils been held?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Councils are in existence or in immediate course of establishment in eleven Departments in Dublin. Owing to difficulties as to representation only two of the councils have held a meeting, but it is hoped that most of the Departmental Councils in Dublin will be in full working order shortly.

    HOUSING.

      SITES (AREA).
      Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Minister of Health for what reason the Ministry of Health have instructed local authorities in rural districts in Sussex that one-eighth of an acre is sufficient area for a house and garden under the National Housing Act, in view of the fact that the price of agricultural land in most parts of Sussex is low and that the majority of existing cottages have a total house and garden area of between a quarter and half an acre?
      Sir T. WALTERS: The principle I have laid down is that in rural districts not more than eight houses should, as a general rule, be built on an acre of land. This limitation applies to the maximum and not the minimum number of houses that should be built on an acre of land.
      Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that it was impossible to hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer, will he kindly repeat it?
      Sir T. WALTERSrepeated his answer.
      Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Minister of Health and ask him for what reason the housing committee in West Sussex instructed the rural district council of the Petworth district that they could not exceed eight houses to the acre, in view of the cheapness of agricultural land in that district?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I will make inquiries.

      BORROWING POWERS.
      Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the number of local authorities who are unable to proceed with the housing schemes in, their area owing to being unable to borrow the necessary funds, and what the policy of the Government is in the matter of finding a way for these authorities out of their difficulties, so that these schemes may proceed without further delay?
      Sir T. WALTERS: The Public Works Loan Commissioners will be prepared to lend to local authorities having a rateable value not exceeding £200,000 who are unable to obtain loans from other sources. It is anticipated that the larger local authorities will themselves be able to obtain the capital for their present needs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed a Committee to afford guidance to local authorities, as to the steps to be taken in placing long-term loans for housing purposes.
      Mr. LANE-FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when that Committee is likely to report, in view of the very grave urgency of the housing problem in rural districts?
      Sir T. WALTERS: At a very early date.

      HOUSES COMPLETED.
      Mr. LANE-FOXasked what number of houses are now completed under the Government housing scheme; and what approximate number are in course of construction?
      Sir T. WALTERS: The Returns up to Saturday last show that local authorities and public utility societies in England and Wales have submitted detailed plans for

      491
      56,168 houses, of which 43,299 have been approved. These include a large number of types which will be repeated as schemes develop. Detailed information as to the number of houses which have been completed and are fit for immediate occupation, is not available, but tenders have been actually approved for 9,500 houses.
      Mr. LANE-FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give a return of the number of houses actually completed?
      Sir T. WALTERS: That would involve an inquiry from all the local authorities who have actually commenced building.
      Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the Minister is in constant communication with all these districts and he can get this information in a very short time?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I will make inquiries.
      Major E. WOOD: Is it not a fact that only two houses have actually been completed, and if that is so it would not take long to find out?
      Sir T. WALTERS: That is not correct.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: How does the right hon. Gentleman know it is not correct if he has not received a return of the number of houses completed and building?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I happen to know it is not correct because my own society has already completed twelve.
      Major HILLSasked the Minister of Health whether he has seen a notice in the Press to the effect that on 6th November the mayor of a Midland city opened the first two houses completed under the Housing Act; whether this statement is true; if not, how many houses were completed by 6th November; and what is the exact number completed to date?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I have seen the notice to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but the statement that the houses mentioned were the first completed is not correct. No detailed information as to the number of houses actually finished for occupation, is available.
      Major HILLS: Can the Leader of the House now say when the House will be given an opportunity of discussing this matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I shall make some reference to that in the announcement of business for next week.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the fact that housing questions are only reached on one day in the week, and it is an absolute waste of time to ask supplementary questions of a Minister who is not responsible for the answer, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Health to attend on the day his questions are reached?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: From my own observation, I do not think that is a complaint that can be directed against the Minister of Health. To-day I believe he is prevented being present by an engagement which is, in fact, connected with the housing question.

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (POSSIBLE LOSS).
      Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst local authorities with regard to the Regulations governing the financial assistance available for housing schemes, which were laid before the House on the 22nd ultimo, and which local authorities feel do not guarantee them against being involved in a financial loss in excess of the produce of a penny rate, notwithstanding their endeavours to grapple with the housing problem; and is he willing to modify these Regulations so as to meet their legitimate fears on this point?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 5th instant to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. As I stated in that reply, local authorities will not be called upon to bear more than the proceeds of a penny rate in connection with their housing schemes unless, in the opinion of the Minister of Health, confirmed in the event of any dispute by an independent person, they have failed to charge sufficient rents or make adequate arrangements for supervision, management, or administration. It seems to me that the Regulations fully safeguard the position of the local authorities, but I am willing to consider any suggestions that may be made to me for a declaration on points as to which there may be any doubt.

      ONE-ROOMED TENEMENTS.
      Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Minister of Health whether the Ministry have refused to sanction any self-contained one-room tenements in connection with State-aided housing schemes; and whether he is aware that there is a great demand for this class of accommodation in urban areas among single persons engaged in work all day and also among old age pensioners, neither in a position to pay rent for, nor clean, larger tenements?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I am not favourably disposed, in principle, to one-roomed tenements in State-aided schemes. The primary need is obviously for larger tenements. But, in exceptional circumstances, where it is guaranteed by the promoters of a scheme that any one-room tenements proposed are to be used for the special purpose of housing aged single persons or aged couples, I am prepared to authorise the inclusion of a small proportion of such tenements in a housing scheme.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a crime for a single charwoman to live in a one-roomed tenement?
      Sir T. WALTERS: No. He does not consider it a crime, but he considers it foolish to supply single-roomed tenements when there is such a demand for other tenements.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the fact that there is a large demand for this class of accommodation in certain parts of London on the part of people who have to be out all day and have no time to keep larger tenements clean, why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to allow these tenements to be worked in with dwellings of a larger type. Does it not moan that when they are eventually provided, single persons will have to be put in separate colonies?
      Sir T. WALTERS: My right hon. Friend will be very pleased to consider any special scheme that may be submitted in relation to local circumstances.

      TAXPAYERS' BURDEN.
      Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the all-in estimate of cost to erect a house under the Motional Housing Act, and, on
      494
      the assumption of 50,000 houses being built and let in a given year, the probable amount that the taxpayer will be called on to provide to supplement the difference between the economic and commercial rent?
      Sir T. WALTERS: The average total cost of a house, including land, roads, sewers, and all other charges, may be estimated, on the basis of the tenders already approved, at about £800. There is not yet sufficient information available as to the fonts that can be obtained to prepare a precise estimate as to the loss that would fall upon the taxpayer, but assuming an average loss of £15 per house per annum, as estimated in the White Paper issued in April last, the total loss on 50,000 houses which would fall to be met by taxpayers and ratepayers would amount to £750,000 per annum.
      Colonel NEWMAN: Is that not a rather sanguine estimate?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES (POWERS).
      Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health if he will shortly publish a series of pamphlets, on the lines of the valuable pamphlet on housing already published, explaining the powers of local authorities in connection with milk, food, and fuel, in view of the mass of different Regulations dealing with these subjects?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I have issued an explanatory circular dealing with the powers of local authorities in respect of the supply of milk for expectant and nursing mothers, and children under five. In the matter of Regulations as to other food arrangements and as to fuel I must refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade respectively.
      Sir E. CARSON: When can we get these publications?
      Sir T. WALTERS: I will be pleased to send copies to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Sir E. CARSON: They should be sent out broadcast.

      ALIENS (DEPORTATION).
      Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to allow Miss Lillian Scott Troy, an American citizen, deported in April of this year, to return to this country; and if not so prepared whether he will state the reasons?
      Mr. SHORTT: Miss Troy was deported as an undesirable alien, and for the same reason it is not desirable to allow her to return.
      Mr. MACLEANasked the Home Secretary the reason or reasons which led the Government to intern and afterwards to deport Baron Louis Anton von Horst?
      Mr. SHORTT: This man was interned and subsequently deported because he was an alien enemy whom it was contrary to the interest of this country to allow to be at liberty here.
      Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the United States Government are purging their country of the Bolshevik and revolutionary plotters whose activities have recently been brought to light, he will take special steps to see that these people are not allowed access into this country?
      Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir; the necessary steps are being taken.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the historic right of asylum for genuine political refugees is to be preserved?

      POLICE PENSIONS.
      Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if any deduction is made from the pension of a superannuated member of the police force if he obtains subsequent employment; and, if so, if he will explain for what reasons members of the force are treated differently to other public servants?
      Mr. SHORTT: If a police pensioner rejoins the police, and receives full police pay, his pension may be suspended, but if he takes any other employment, no deduction can be made from his pension. The enactment under which such deductions were formerly made was repealed a year ago.

      COLONIAL OFFICE (APPOINT MENTS).
      Mr. STEWARTasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent appointment of a senior official of the Home Civil Service to a first-class Colonial governorship is an indication that the Government consider that they have no officer in the Colonial service capable of filling such an appointment; and whether, if, as at present obtains, Colonial appointments are open to the Naval and Military Departments, and also to home Government Departments, he could arrange for some interchangeability between the Colonial service and home Departments so that the authorities at home should get to know their own Colonial officials personally and so afford their Colonial officials, if deprived of the prizes of their own service, at least some relaxation from the severe climates that they have to live in by being granted periods of service in home Government Departments in England?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): I hope my hon. Friend will not draw any such inference as he suggests from the appointment in question. Colonial governorships have always been open to other services besides the Colonial service, and any attempt to narrow the field of selection would be open to serious objection in the interests of the efficiency of the public service. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there would be many advantages in establishing a system of interchange between the home and the Colonial services. The possibility of doing so has been often under consideration, but the difficulties are very great.
      Mr. STEWART: In view of the fact that the Colonial Secretaryship of Ceylon has recently been given to an Admiralty official, will the hon. Gentleman do his best to prevent the Colonies becoming the dumping ground for other Government Departments to the detriment of the officers of his own Department?

      TRADE MARKS ACT (GERMAN EXPORTS).
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade

      497
      whether the Trade Marks Act has been suspended with regard to German goods; and whether it is possible for any goods of German origin to enter this country without a clear indication of their country of origin?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I may, however, point out that even if the Trade Marks Act were suspended it would have no effect on the marking of German goods as such.
      With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for Portsmouth and South Hackney on the 27th October last. I am sending a copy of the Memorandum issued by the Commissioners of Customs referred to in that answer to the hon. and gallant Member.

      PREMIUM BONDS.
      Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now name a day for the discussion of premium bonds?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that it will be possible to arrange for this discussion at an early date; probably an early day in the week after next.
      Mr. NEWBOULDasked whether, on the day on which the question of premium or lottery bonds is discussed, the Government will place upon the Paper an outline of the terms of an issue of such bonds which, if approved by the House, the Government would adopt?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I should prefer to hear from the advocates of such an issue what form they think that it should take.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
      Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister how many Members of this House have been imprisoned or for the arrest of how many warrants have been issued for offences under the Crimes Act and under the Defence of the Realm Act,
      498
      specifying under which Section the offence was committed and what punishments have been awarded in each case?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Every case of the nature indicated in the question is communicated by Mr. Speaker to the House and is to be found in the Journals. A list has, however, been compiled and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the list referred to:
      (Dates given are those of letters read by Mr. Speaker.)
      1914. None.
      1914–16. None.
      1916.
      1st November.
      Laurence Ginnell.
      Under Regulation 44 of Defence of the Realm Regulations. Twenty-one days in 1st division or £50 fine. (C.J. 1916, p. 227.)
      1918.
      5th April.
      Laurence Ginnell.
      Unlawful assembly. Required to find sureties of £500 and in default six months' imprisonment. (C.J. 1918, p. 44.)
      1st June.
      De Valera.
      Count Plunkett.
      W. T. Cosgrave.
      Joseph McGuinness.
      Under 14 (b), Defence of Realm Regulations.
      Interned until further orders. (C.J. 1918, p. 105.)
      (Dates given, relate to the date of Entry in the Votes.)
      1919.
      11th February.
      Mr. Wm. Sears.
      Unlawful assembly under Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887. Committed to prison for six months.
      7th March.
      Mr. Pearce Beasley.
      Arrested and committed for trial by court-martial for an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act.
      10th March.
      Mr. J. J. Walsh.
      Mr. R. C. Barton.
      Arrested and committed for trial by court-martial for an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act.
      2nd June.
      Mr. Beasley (above).
      Two years without hard labour under the Defence of the Realm Act.

      1. Regulation 42, for speech calculated to cause sedition.

      2. Regulations 48 and 27, having documents in his possession for injuring locomotives and training men in use of rifles.

      24th June.
      Mr. J. J. Clancy.
      Three months' hard labour under 50 and 51 Vic. c. 20 for unlawful and riotous assembly.
      24th June.
      Countess Markievicz.
      Four months' imprisonment under Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887, for unlawful assembly.
      7th July.
      Mr. L. Ginnell.
      Four months' imprisonment under Criminal Law and Procedure Act for unlawful assembly.
      22nd October.
      Mr. Ernest Blyth.
      Arrested and committed for trial by court-martial under the Defence of the Realm Act.
      22nd October.
      Mr. P. O'Keefe.
      Sentenced by court-martial to eighteen months' 'imprisonment for offences against Regulations 42 and 27 of the Defence of the Realm Act.
      22nd October.
      Mr. A. McCabe.
      Charged under Criminal Law and Procedure Act for two offences and sentenced,

      (a) To three months' hard labour and to find sureties.

      (b) To three months' hard labour, sentences to run concurrently.

      19th August.
      Mr. P. P. Galligan.
      One year's hard labour under the Defence of the Realm Regulations 9e, 48 and 32.
      3rd November.
      Mr. E. Blyth.
      One year's imprisonment under the Defence of the Realm Act, Regulation 27.
      Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it includes the particulars of the sections of the Defence of the Realm Act under which the convic-
      500
      tions have been secured, and the nature of the Court, in which the trials have taken place?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that it includes the sections. I am not quite sure of the second part of the hon. Member's question, but I will look into it.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cases are men who have taken the oath of allegiance?
      The PRIME MINISTER: A good many.

      CABINET (SECRETARY).
      Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether a new appointment has been made of a secretary to the Cabinet; if this is so, whether he is entrusted with the keeping of national secrets in the same way as members of the Cabinet; whether he takes the same oath as Cabinet Ministers; whether his appointment is sanctioned beforehand by His Majesty as in the case of Cabinet Ministers; and what reason there is for the appointment of such a secretary, establishing, as it does, a departure from a practice which has existed since Cabinet government was instituted?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The secretary to the Cabinet is trusted in precisely the same way as the secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence was trusted in the past. The experience of the War has convinced the Government that the appointment of a secretary is necessary if the work of the Cabinet is to be carried out promptly and efficiently.
      Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the functions of the secretary will be; whether they will be functions of a recording nature, whether he will be permitted to submit questions to the Cabinet, or whether the position will remain as in the past whereby only Ministers may submit questions to the Cabinet; and seeing that there may be important points—
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is an important point, and the hon. Member had better put it on the Paper.

      NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN.
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether a Report of the negotiations between the Government and the National Union of Railway-men is to be published; and, if so, when?
      The PRIME MINISTER: A statement of the result of the negotiations will no doubt be published in due course, but it is not proposed to publish a detailed account of the proceedings at the various meetings that have been and will be held, and no shorthand note is being taken.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the practice has been departed from, by which we were always acquainted in the past?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no. I have had to do with negotiations of this kind for fourteen years, and no report of that kind has ever been published.

      SS. "RIVER CLYDE."
      Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether the steamship "River Clyde" has been brought back to this country, and how it is proposed to deal with her, having regard to the associations of this ship?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The "River Clyde" is at present at Malta, and the question of her disposal is under consideration.

      SHALE ROYALTIES.
      Mr. BETTERTONasked whether the decision of the Government that the State would acquire the rights of owners of royalties applies to the acquisition of shale royalties by the Government?
      The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Leader of the House on 27th October.

      NEAR EAST (TREATY WITH GREECE).
      Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked what are our commitments in the Near East; and whether our treaty with Greece is secret?
      The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to make a statement on our general policy in the Near East in reply to a question. We have no secret Treaty with Greece.
      Mr. HERBERT: When will the Prime Minister put his precept into practice, and allow this House to discuss a settlement that is very detrimental to the Empire?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The House is to have an opportunity on Monday of discussing that question, if it so desires. I have already announced that.
      Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will it be in order to discuss the situation in Egypt then?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. It is in connection with the Foreign Office, and that would be quite relevant.
      Earl WINTERTON: Will the Prime Minister give facilities for a discussion? If the Debate commences with the Russian policy there will be difficulty in discussing Egypt and the Near East.
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no control over the course of the discussion. That is in the hands of Members. Of course the Debate will be controlled by Mr. Speaker.

    COAL PRODUCTION.

      OUTPUT AND PRICE.
      MR. ADAMSON (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the output from the coal mines of the United Kingdom for the fifteen weeks, 26th July to 1st November, is 59,909,796 tons; whether the output for the last ten weeks, excluding the week of the railway strike, is at the rate of 234,000,000 per year; whether, if that rate is continued for the remaining thirty-seven weeks, the output for the year will be 226,500,000, notwithstanding the great loss due to strikes in the mining industry and the railways; whether that output would be 9,500,000 tons in excess of his estimate; whether the output for the past three weeks is at the rate of 245,500,000 tons per year, and if that rate of production is continued during the remaining thirty-seven weeks the output for the year will be 234,500,000 tons, an increase of 17,500,000 tons above his estimate; whether he has any reason to

      503
      think this rate of production will not, be maintained; and whether, having regard to these figures, he is now prepared to take off the 6s. per ton which was imposed in July; and whether any allowance is being made to the coalowners in excess of the 1s. 2d. per ton recommended by the Report of the Coal Industry Commission; and, if so, will he state the amount?
      Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I would point out that this output is at an annual rate of slightly under 200,000,000 tons per annum, due allowance being made for public holidays. The nine weeks of the last ten, which the right hon. Member takes as giving a rate of output of 234,000,000 tons, gives, in fact, an output rate of 225,000,000 tons a year, allowance for holidays again being made. If the rate of output during those nine weeks be continued for the remainder of the year the output for the year will not be 226,500,000 tons, as the right hon. Member suggests, but approximately 217,000,000 tons, which, far from being 9,500,000 tons in excess of the estimate, happens precisely to coincide with the estimate, if the output during the last throe weeks were maintained for a complete twelve months, the amount raised would be 245,500,000 tons, but that assumes that the pits would work continuously through the holiday periods of Christmas, New Year, Easter, and Whitsuntide. Allowing for holidays, even if the three-weeks rate were continued, the output for the year ending mid-July next would be approximately 225,000,000 tons, which would be only 8,000,000 tons above the estimate.
      While I hope that the present rate of output will be maintained, and perhaps improved upon, I am not prepared to commit myself to any statement on the subject, depending, as it does, upon the absence of disturbing factors both inside and outside the coal industry. However interesting these calculations may be, I am bound to deal with ascertained facts, and the central fact is that in the fifteen weeks, almost a third of a year, which have expired since the increase of price was imposed, the amount of coal raised is slightly-less than 60,000,000 tons, or, as I have already said, at a rate of under 200,000,000 tons per annum.
      With regard to the 6s. added to the price of coal in July, I can only repeat what I said in this House at that time, that the
      504
      Government is prepared to reduce the amount of the increase as soon as it can be done without calling on the Treasury for a subsidy. This question of the reduction of price, which we all desire, and to the possibility of which I referred in my statement in July, is extremely difficult. If we could feel sure that there would be no stoppages other than holidays recognised in the coalfield, I would be prepared to recommend the Government to take risks with reference to the price of coal, and to lower the price, not by 6s.—that is impossible with the present output—but by some much smaller amount. The subject is being considered, but I am not in a position to make a further statement to-day.
      With regard to the last part of the right hon. Member's question, as I have already informed the House on more than one occasion, the Government intends at an early date to introduce a short Bill designed to limit the owner's profit on each ton of coal raised to 1s. 2d. during this financial year.
      Mr. BRACE: May I ask the Leader of the House, as from the answer given by my right hon. Friend it is quite clear that this is so involved a question that we cannot deal with it by way of question and answer, would he give us a day so that we may debate the matter some day next-week?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I cannot undertake to do that. After the discussion on the Foreign Office it would be quite impossible to give a day next week in addition. I offer the right hon. Gentleman that if he would appoint an accountant to go into the question of figures, we would be very ready to let him go into the figures, so that the public might be informed as to their accuracy.
      Mr. BRACE: Will he give us a Select Committee of this House of Commons, to investigate the whole question, as it is quite impossible to meet this case by sending in an accountant?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As my right hon. Friend knows, I had a very long discussion with him on this subject this week, and if it is a case of debuting—and that is what a Select Committee would do— there is no end to it. It is a case of calculation, and I am perfectly certain that the method which I suggest is better. Beyond that, I offered the right hon.

      505
      Gentleman that if he or some of his Friends wished to go into the matter with 4he Coal Contoller we would be very glad to allow him to do so. Until they have done that, I do not think that they should press for a discussion.
      Mr. HARTSHORN: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister made us the same offer some months ago, and when we sought to put that offer into practice we were informed by the Coal Controller that he was advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the information which we sought could not be divulged because of the Act of Parliament, under which the mines were controlled, making it obligatory to keep that information secret, and we were unable to get the information?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish the House to realise that this is a very important thing from the point of view of the effect it may have on the mines. Therefore we are extremely anxious to meet my right hon. Friend to whatever extent is possible. The suggestion of an accountant would not be met by that difficulty. It is a case of calculation, and the result would be given. But if my right hon. Friends cannot adopt that I would still suggest that they should have this consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller to see to what extent they can agree as to the information to be given, and if they are not satisfied I am willing to consider the question of a discussion in this House.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You called upon me to put question No. 46. The Prime Minister said that the question would be answered by the First Lord. As the First Lord has not answered it, may I ask am I entitled to an answer?
      Mr. SPEAKER: We are now discussing the price of coal.
      Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask whether the Government would not appoint some impartial accountant to go into this question, so that the consumers will have an opportunity of knowing whether right is on the side of the President of the Board of Trade or of the miners?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I said to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues this week that, if they could not come to some agreement with us, that was a course
      506
      which I thought the Government would be bound to take in order that the public might be informed.
      Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the holidays, of which he makes so much, Christmas, New Year, Easter, and Whitsuntide, are more than six days in the mines of this country, recognised holidays?
      Sir A. GEDDES: The recognised holidays for the whole year are five or six days.
      Lord R. CECIL: Will a discussion on this point be open in the Debate on the Bill to limit the owners' profits? That might give us an opportunity.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it would be impossible to prevent a discussion of this subject on the Second Reading of that Bill.
      Sir H. NIELD: I gave private notice of a question to the Minister of Health. I have received a communication asking me to postpone it, and I have no alternative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what is the, business for next week?
In view also of the Prime Minister's attendance here on Thursday, would the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements at the Table that the Prime Minister's questions on that day might commence at No. 25 instead of 45?
Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the last question of my right hon. Friend, I would remind the House that as a regular rule, until recently, the Prime Minister's questions, beginning at 45, were reached at a quarter-past three o'clock. If hon. Members would restrain their desire to ask supplementaries, I think that 45 would be reached at that hour. I will discuss the question with the Prime Minister.
As regards the business for next week, it will be:
Monday—The first Order must be the Industrial Courts Bill, Third Reading. As the House knows, that has to go through, though I do not think, it will take very long. We propose to devote the rest of the day to the discussion of matters connected with the Foreign Office. It is not possible to put down the Foreign Office

507
Vote, because, as the House knows, that has closed, I presume the best method will be to move the Adjournment of the House, so that these matters may be discussed.
On Tuesday, we shall take the Third Heading of the Aliens Restriction Bill, the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill, and the Nurses Registration (No. 2) Bill, Second Reading.
Wednesday and Thursday, Electricity (Supply) Bill, Report.
On Friday it will be necessary that the House should sit, and it is possible that it may be the best arrangement to take the discussion on the Housing question, but I should like that to be left over until later.
Sir E. CARSON: Is my right hon. friend aware that the Electricity (Supply) Bill only passed through Committee to-day, and that a very large number of Amendments were moved and discussed in Committee? Does he not think that it is too short a time between now and next Thursday for hon. Members to become acquainted with what the Committee has done? It is a very important Bill.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite recognise the importance of the Bill, but it will be printed and be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. I should like to remind my right hon. Friend and the House that though up to now we have not been very greatly pressed for time, for the rest of the Session there will be not a minute to spare. It will be absolutely necessary to get on with this Bill.
Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when the Government think it convenient, as it often is, to make a detailed statement in answer to a number of questions, that statement could not be made at the end of Question's, and so not interrupt the time of the House for Questions?
Mr. BONAR LAW: If I may say so, I think that hon. Members are under a misapprehension as to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have all been in the House when questions dealing with the same subject have been replied to in one answer. To-day sixteen questions were answered in that way. I venture to express the belief that if they had been answered individually it would have taken twice as long.
Captain W. BENN: In view of the general desire of the House that the Prime Minister's answers should have been fuller to individual questions—I say it with great respect—would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of coming more than one day a week to answer questions?
Sir F. HALL: Considering that every day there are at least a hundred questions on the Paper, have the Government considered the question which was raised earlier in the Session of giving another quarter of an hour to Question Time, in order that a greater number of questions can be answered?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Very often we get through a hundred questions in the time allotted to Questions. Indeed, that has happened quite frequently. That would happen very much oftener if hon. Members had a little restraint in regard to supplementary questions. When this question was raised before, I said that the Government would not press their view against the wish of the House. I believed then, and I believe now, that there is not a general desire for this change.
Mr. GWYNNE: In view of the fact that at the present time there are lying on the Table certain Regulations and Rules in regard to Housing which come into force on the 21st instant, unless they are objected to beforehand, could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have the discussion on Housing before the 21st?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be very difficult to arrange that except after 11 o'clock, which would certainly not satisfy the House. I will consider the matter with my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot), but I am afraid I cannot give that time.
Mr. GWYNNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow us to put down some Resolution delaying the coming into force of these Regulations? It is a most important matter that should be debated.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not the details to enable me to answer that, but I will consider it.
Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: In order to facilitate business, would it not be desirable to have the Debate on Housing on Wednesday, thus meeting the wishes of hon. Members who desire to deal with

509
that question, and take the Electricity Bill one day later? That will give hon. Members one day more to digest a Bill which is very important.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that. Another reason why I cannot name a definite day for Housing is that the Government are considering the possibility of making changes in their method of dealing with it. I am sure it would not be desirable to have a discussion until we have completed our consideration. I hope that will meet my hon. Friend.
Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. DOYLE: In view of the unnecessary waste of time that has been caused by members of the Opposition in unnecessary interruptions and in making speeches, and seeing that there are a great many important questions not reached, will you, Mr. Speaker, allow another quarter of an hour for questions?
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY (later): May I have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on my point of Order on Question 46 which you called upon me to ask? The Prime Minister stated it would be answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty. As it was not reached, may I have the answer now to the question you called upon me to put?
Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member complains that Question 46 was not answered. Is that the point?
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was to be answered by the First Lord.
The PRIME MINISTER: I can clear that up. The hon. and gallant Member asked mo the question and I told him that the question would be answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty on Question 88. That is my recollection. Question 88 was not reached, but it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The question is a printed question. It is very specific.
Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the best way would be for the hon. and gallant Member to put the question down for Monday.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is quite usual to answer two questions together, but the answer is given usually to the first question. This is not the only case in which a question has been deferred so that it shall not be answered. It is a very strong point of Order that we should not initiate a practice which enables Ministers to avoid being cross-examined in the House by their postponing a question till a time when the question is not likely to be reached.
Mr. SPEAKER: Then I will ask the hon. Member who put down Question 88 to be kind enough to defer it till Monday also. Then both questions can be put together.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this to be a precedent for the future? It is a very important matter for private Members of the House. In view of the fact—[Interruption]—
Mr. SPEAKER: I have done my best to satisfy the hon. Member, and I think the solution I have suggested will meet the case.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then it is not a precedent?

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 207.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 207.]

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Agriculture and Fisheries (Councils, etc.) Bill): Mr. Acland, Major Barnston, Major Breese, Mr. Cape, Mr. Cautley, Major Courthope. Captain Fitzroy, Mr. Thomas Griffiths. Sir Arthur Griffith-

  511
  Boscawen, Mr. Irving, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Lane-Fox, Major Nall, Sir Robert Thomas, and Mr. Charles White.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Major Hayward and General Sir Ivor Philipps.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill [Lords]): Sir Ryland Adkins, Major Birchall, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Alfred Davies, Sir William Howell Davies, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Holmes, General Sir Archibald Hunter, Mr. Alfred Law, Sir William Middlebrook, Major Nall, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Purchase, Sir John Randles, and Mr. Walsh.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee E (for the consideration of the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill [Lords]): Major Barnes, Sir Edward Beauchamp, Mr. Bell, Mr. Briant, Mr. Broad, Mr. Cairns, Major Entwistle, Mr. Joseph Green, Mr. Hail-wood, Major Lane-Fox, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Oman, Mr. Albert Parkinson, Mr. Preston, Colonel Raw, Mr. Robert Richardson, Sir William Seager, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Sir Alfred Yeo.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  MR. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON MR. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill [Lords]).
  That they had appointed Mr. Rendall to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Agriculture and Fisheries (Councils, etc.) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL

    CLAUSE 9.—(Admission of Former Enemy Aliens.)
    (1) No former enemy alien shall for a period of two years after the passing of this Act be permitted to land in the United Kingdom either from the sea or from the air, or to remain in the United Kingdom without the permission of the Secretary of State, to be granted only on special grounds.
    (2) A list of the persons to whom permissions are so granted during each month shall be published in the "London Gazette" at the end of each such month.
    Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "for a period of two years after the passing of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "until Parliament shall otherwise determine."
    The House will remember that the period in Clause 1 in the Bill as introduced was two years. On the Second Beading we came to a compromise with the Home Secretary, and the period was made one year. In Committee this Clause was inserted, and two years has been made the period. I submit that it is not only inconsistent, but undesirable, to have two periods in the Bill, therefore my Amendment would have the effect of compelling the Government to legislate before the expiration of the two years. We all hope that the Government will legislate, as they promised, in order to deal drastically and generally with this subject in a permanent form; but in order that the Home Secretary and his Office should not be under the compulsion to do that within a limited period, having regard to the conditions under which Parliamentary life is carried on now, I suggest the insertion of the words "until Parliament otherwise determines." That leaves the Government a perfectly free hand to introduce legislation, if necessary, within two years.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Shortt): I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Nield) will follow the course which he adopted in Committee, and be content with the two years. Putting in the words he proposes
    538
    makes this a permanent measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, because they say, "until Parliament shall otherwise determine," whereas if you put in a definite date, then the question must arise, and it is infinitely better that it should. My hon. and learned Friend has reminded the House that this was a matter agreed to in Committee. Originally the Bill gave one year, it was proposed that that should be left out, and then in Committee an hon. Member suggested two years, and my hon. and learned Friend himself said,
    "I am prepared to accept the word 'two.'"
    We had a full discussion, and I hope my hon. Friend will continue to be satisfied to accept the word "two."
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider his decision. It was the declared policy of the Government at the time of the General Election to prevent enemy aliens from coming back to this country. That policy was accepted by a vast number of the Members of this House and was endorsed by them and by the electors. In that policy there was no limitation of time. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else in the Government said that the policy of the exclusion of former enemy aliens was to last for one, two, or any other number of years. I do not for a moment suggest that it is not open to Parliament, if they think fit, to review that policy. All that we ask them to do is to carry out the policy as declared by the Govern merit and as accepted by the country and then leave it to Parliament, if they think lit, to alter it. For that reason, if for no other, the words "two years" should be left out and the Amendment inserted. There is another reason. If you have two years put in you may have an awkward gap or hiatus. It is not by any means certain that the Government will be able to introduce such a Bill within two years. They may have other matters to deal with. What will happen if the two years elapse and no Bill is introduced? The declared policy of keeping out enemy aliens will come to an end and, in the interim between the expiration of two years and the new Bill being passed, all aliens will be able to come in without any interference whatsoever, unless the Government should think fit to introduce some Clause into an Order in Council. That would be extremely inconvenient. It would hamper the action of the Government, and it would force them either

    539
    to bring in a Bill at a time when they did not want to do so, or to issue a new Order in Council. The Amendment would leave it entirely open to them to alter the policy when they thought fit, and it would also facilitate the conduct of business. I do, therefore, ask the Government to say that it is really the only logical course to pursue.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope that the Secretary will stand fast in this matter. It is much better to leave the words as they are. We do not know who will be our enemies in two years time, and the House has always been ready to give such powers as are necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. MURCHISON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."
    It is needless to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Election pledges of Ministers and of the fact that feeling in the country is very strong on this subject. In Clause 8 the Government practically say I that any enemy alien, whose affairs have I been thoroughly looked into and found to be unsatisfactory, is to be sent out of the country for a period of seven years. Surely it is only consistent therefore to prevent the wholesale influx of enemy aliens for a longer period than two years. This Amendment is not aimed in any way at the technical enemy alien or at British-born wives of Germans, but particularly at those enemy aliens, Germans, of whom we have had such unfortunate experience throughout the War. We cannot help feeling that the 84,000 or so Germans who were turned out of this country will be very anxious to get back, and it is against those that this Amendment is aimed. The German Government are doing their best to make the emigration of their people as easy as possible. They have actually set up a Department in Berlin, of which I have read an interesting account in the "Times" newspaper. Owing to the difficulty of Germans earning a livelihood in Germany, they are anxious to make it as easy as possible for them to emigrate to other countries. This applies especially to Germans of considerable education, the very type of people whom we wish to keep out of this country until our trade has recovered its position. It is not from any motives of vindictiveness that this Amendment is moved. It is simply a measure of
    540
    prudence, and is really the common sense of foresight and statesmanship, in the Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman raised various objections to a similar Amendment, one of which was that it would interfere very much with the trade of this country. I cannot see how it can possibly interfere with the trade of the country. We must recognise the economic necessity of trading with Germany, but that is no reason why we should allow the wholesale influx of Germans in so short a time as two years hence. The right hon. Gentleman also made a great point of the fact that the international situation wag a delicate one, and that it would be very difficult to promote legislation of the description desired. I would like him to tell us what legislation, if any, the Allied and Associated Powers have recently introduced on this subject. On 8th July the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to a question, said that the United States were going to introduce some legislation. He said, with reference to the Regulations then in force:
    "One of these Regulations provided that in the case of hostile aliens isa for the journey to the United States should in no case be granted unless special authority had first been given. It is understood that such authority has been sparingly given, and in the case of persons actually of enemy nationality has been practically confined to American-born women who acquired such nationality by marriage and who further had urgent reasons of health or business for returning to the United States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1919, col. 1644, Vol. 117.]
    Apparently, in Portugal stringent regulations against the immigration of Germans are still in force, as also they are in Belgium. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what the other Associated Powers have done in the last three or four months in the way of introducing legislation, and, also, if they have introduced legislation, as I believe the United States have done, why it should be difficult for us to do the same?
    Mr. SUGDEN: I bog to second the Amendment.
    At the present moment we have a large number of unemployed amongst us in Lancashire, and it is very undesirable that there should be this large influx from every enemy country in Europe. We know that these countries have made preparations. It was suggested in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that there are certain trades which cannot exist without the services of certain aliens from enemy countries

    541
    and certain powers, I think too wide powers, were given to the Home Secretary to permit certain specialised men to come to help those industries, where their presence is a vital necessity. I suggest that if the research work which is now being considered by the various industries in the country proceeds there will be no need to permit these specialised aliens in our midst, but if it is found vital that some must be used the Home Secretary has power to allow them entrance even if our Amendment be accepted. I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment will be useful, and I say, without hesitation, that we shall never have industrial peace and concord if we permit this large influx of aliens, because it is the aliens who make the industrial unrest which we have in this and other parts of the world. This is a fair and legitimate Amendment, and I press the Home Secretary to accept it.
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. We must, long before seven years are over, go into this question of aliens in the light of further information. There is no fear of an influx of undesirable aliens.
    Mr. SUGDEN: I know that they are there ready to come, because our leaders in industry have the information.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have heard all these stories.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: But you do not listen.
    Mr. SHORTT: Even if it were true that they were in Holland?
    Mr. SUGDEN: I did not say Holland. I said in other countries.
    Mr. SHORTT: They could not come here.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: The Home Secretary has dismissed this Amendment very lightly. Apparently, he has no conception of the tremendous feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country upon this question. At this very time there are instances of men who have actually come back after fighting us, and who have been already restored and are in business in this country. This is causing tremendous wrath among the people of the country. I shall be very delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman two cases within twenty-four hours, two cases of well-known men. This is causing such unrest that I hope the right hon. Gentle-
    542
    man will not continue to oppose the Amendment. I understand that he has power to let in desirable enemy aliens. Why does he want more? Why does he want to do away with that limitation and allow the riff-raff of the German Empire and people known to be hostile to us to come pouring into this country at the very time when we have these great questions of unemployment and housing? If there is one thing more than any other which in industrial centres is causing an ugly feeling it is that the houses of British soldiers are being occupied by aliens in large numbers. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that at the end of two years we are going to open our gates once more and lot anybody come into this country who chooses to do so. I am going to support my hon. Friend in the Lobby, and I hope that he will press his Amendment. Two years is entirely inadequate and in no way comparable with the speeches made by Ministers at the General Election, when they made it clear that this German penetration was going to be got rid of for a reasonable time.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hon. Members who move Amendments like this really ought to consider the general purport of such legislation, and its effect upon the people as a whole. This particular Amendment affects me very slightly. I took my daughter out to Hungary some months ago to marry a Hungarian who had been at school and college in this country. What would be the result of this legislation? None of that Hungarian family, who speak English perfectly and whose members have been educated here, will be allowed to come to this country for seven years.
    Mr. SUGDEN: You can get a special permit.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you think that I could get a special permit?
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Perhaps you might.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Even my own daughter will not be permitted to come back to this country, because she has married a Hungarian and is a Hungarian subject. Is this really the sort of legislation that English gentlemen moan to inflict on people? I am by no means alone in the matter. Any number of people have relations who are Hungarians, or Austrians, or Germans. Are they never to be

    543
    allowed into this country because of these stories of 40,000 Germans in Holland waiting to step across into the freedom and the opportunities of employment here? I do think the House of Commons ought to come down off the high horse about these aliens. The War has been over for a year. The alien business has been run by the hon. Member for York for about four years. I trust that in this case those hon. Gentlemen will go into the Lobby to leave out the word "two"; then perhaps we may get bark to the original suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that instead of two years one year shall be the duration. I presume that when the right hon. Gentleman put down "one year" he thought that one year was sufficient. As a result of the machinations—not bargains—in Downing Street, he agreed to strike out "one" and to leave it at two years, as it was put in the Bill in Committee.
    Mr. SHORTT: What happened was this: I had originally put in one year as the duration. In consequence of that, one year was put into this Clause also, and I only opposed the substitution of "two" for "one" because I had got the Second Reading owing to the fact that I agreed to reduce the two years to one year.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I still do not follow. As far as I can make out, if this Clause is passed no enemy alien would come for two years, although the Act only asks for one year. Two years after the passage of this Act no enemy alien will be able to come back into England.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Except under permit.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Home Secretary, when this Bill went through, thought one year was sufficient. Now he has gone back on that, and for exactly the same reason that he agreed to accept Clause 8, which he had previously desired to remove from the Bill. The Home Secretary originally had some qualms as to what the world outside this country would think of legislation such as this, and he desired to make it as little offensive as possible. Then hon. Members below the Gangway pressed this subject upon him, and immediately the Government gave way and introduced legislation of which they did not approve. I am all for making this Bill as little offensive as possible, and for that reason I shall vote for the suggestion
    544
    of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this two years' period be reduced to one year. It is true I shall vote against him, but I shall vote with his better self rather than with his later thoughts, influenced as they may have been by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I hope that all who want this Bill amended will vote for leaving out the word "two," and then we shall see whether we cannot get the original suggestion of the Home Secretary adopted and have in the Bill "one year" instead of "two years."
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I should not have interfered in this Debate, although I think there has been a total misconception of what the Amendments are. I have no sympathy at all with the lady or gentleman who goes away and marries a German or even a Hungarian. If they choose to go to another country, they belong to it, and it is not our business. The question is that this has been made "two years" because the operation of the Bill is two years. When the Bill comes to an end some Bill will have to be introduced to regulate these things. Personally, I am all for keeping Germans out as long as possible. I do not see that there is any objection to making this a longer period. I think that seven years is rather far ahead, if we consider that at the end of two years we are going to have a reconstitution of the whole Bill. I think we might have made it three years. I am sorry the Home Secretary has not given a rather more kindly reception to the Amendment, because I think he might well have said that the new Bill will not come in for a year, or for several months after this has expired, and therefore three or four years would be a safeguard and would not do much harm. With the idea kept in mind that there will be fresh legislation, it would be quite unnecessary to make it seven years. I know that in Committee we had two years, because I proposed it as a compromise, but when pressure is put by the House of Commons to make it three years, I think it would be quite reasonable for the Home Secretary to make some concession, particularly as there seems to be so much feeling about it
    Sir H. NIELD: It was my original proposal that the period should be three years, and my hon. Friend (Sir T. Courtenay Warner) was the spokesman for two years, and two was inserted. The Bill was for two years as introduced, and then, as the result of the Second Reading

    545
    Debate, the Government promised that that period of two years should be reduced to one year, because the House then thought it necessary to put moral pressure, on the Government to legislate before the end of that year So that that is entirely a separate matter. It deals with the general question of the continuance of emergency powers. It was very different when we got to the definite statement with regard to enemy aliens. We have constantly listened to the taunts of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme. We know that in this matter he does not represent his constituents, because they repudiated him, and he declined to withdraw when he changed his politics entirely; so it comes with bad grace from the hon. and gallant Gentleman to pour public odium on those who are endeavouring to secure Britain for the British, and to keep Britain free from the undesirable alien. What I am so surprised at is that my hon. and gallant Friend, who has served in the War, as he told us the other day, with a great amount of satisfaction—who has served with great valour and whose interest are being advertised in my Division (where he is to speak) on account of the valour which I know he was fortunate enough to achieve—I am surprised that he should identify himself with this matter. I cannot for the life of me understand it, except that it is traditional policy, and in connection with the party he represents traditional policy is the very marrow of the backbone, and they cannot get away from it whatever happens to the body politic and the country. I hold that two years is not a long enough time, in view of the condition of Parliament and the difficulties under which we work here, and I regret that the Amendment has not been accepted. We desire to have some security against the German alien. We have suffered too much during the last five years. No amount of sentiment can wipe that out. We do not desire, and many of us say we will not have as far as we can prevent it, a return of the pre-war state of things, when Germany was able through her emissaries to undermine all those institutions which counted for anything in this country.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I think the House will have begun to realise what have been our sufferings upstairs. Day after day we have listened to the same arguments from the same hon. Members. I do hope that the House will not be led
    546
    astray by the fact that this Amendment is opposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In this particular instance I think the common sense of the House will bear me out when I say that he is throwing himself on the right side for once. As for the hon. Member who spoke last, it is rather pitiful to see such an intense patriot adopting this attitude. I cannot understand this perpetual hatred of the Germans. After all, consider the matter. For four and a-half years the Germans put up a magnificent fight. On several occasions they very nearly beat us. I ask the House what more can we want of an enemy than that they should do that. They fulfilled their function as an enemy in a magnificent fashion, and I think it shows rather a poor spirit now to wish to punish them for doing it. I must say that the constant attitude of the hon. Member has led me once or twice to speak with some little heat on the various Amendments proposed. I hope he will not think I am personal when I say that I think that he is very much prejudiced indeed upon this matter, and that he talks without any regard whatsoever to the facts of the case. He brushes the whole question of British foreign trade aside as if it was of no importance at all. He endeavours to get support for his views by talking about such things as unemployment, not knowing the fact that unemployment in this country would be very much relieved indeed by this very much freer intercourse with Germany.
    I stated in Committee, and I say now again, that if this country is going to be reconstructed from the economic point of view within a reasonable time, we must have former enemy aliens coming into it. If this country is to get any sort of satisfactory indemnity out of Germany we must have Germans coming into this country. [HON MEMBERS: ''Why?"] It is unnecessary to go into these things, and, no matter what arguments I advance, I should never convince the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. This question of the influx of former enemy aliens to this country is one which peculiarly affects my own Constituency and surrounding parts of the country. They are parts of the country which depend on certain industries which have been brought to a high pitch of perfection in Germany. During the War a very largo amount of our foreign trade has been seriously hampered owing to the want of dyes. There

    547
    has been an embargo, fortunately at present partially or wholly removed, on the import to this country of those dyes from Germany, and there is not the least question that the trade and commerce of this country has been very seriously injured owing to that embargo. But it may be said that we have had Government assistance and that the manufacture of dyes has been started in this country. That is so, but the quality and the cost of those dyes has been so extremely bad that it has put us at a great disadvantage in competition with other countries in manufactures. I merely give that trade as one example. I say positively, when we are settling down, if we cannot get, at any rate for many years to come, a constant regular supply of German dyes a very large proportion of our foreign trade in cotton goods will go to other countries which are sufficiently civilised to know when war is finished.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In reference to the personal attack made upon me a short time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I hope I can afford to treat that attack with indifference, and, perhaps I may add, with contemptuous silence. That hon. Gentleman spoke of making this Bill as little offensive to Germans as possible. I hope he will not take it amiss if I suggest that he should make his speeches as little offensive as possible to Members of this House. He has brought forward a certain instance of a relative of his own who might be prevented from returning to this country if this Clause were passed. I think that argument is not one which would commend itself to the House as a whole.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I gave it as an illustration.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: There is a much larger question than the question of whether a relative of the hon. and gallant Member is to come back or not. This is a question whether the pledges of the Prime Minister and other Members are to be carried out or not. We on this side venture to suggest that to confine this prohibition to two years is not carrying out the pledge to its full and proper extent That is really the only question between us. The hon. Member who spoke after the hon. and gallant Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made a speech not against the Clause as a whole or against this parti-
    548
    cular proposal, but a speech which would be relevant on a Motion to leave out the Clause The hon. Member did say one thing which I confess I heard not only with amazement but, if it is Parliamentary to say so, with disgust He told us that the functions of the Germans as enemies were in every respect magnificent, and that he cannot understand our hostility to the Germans, and that they put up a magnificent fight and nearly beat us. I gather that he drew the conclusion that we ought to clasp them to our hearts and welcome them to these shores. If that is his view I hope his Constituents will take note of it, and that those whose sons and fathers and relatives suffered through the deplorable actrocities committed in this War by the Germans, and not only due to the military power, but atrocities which were sanctioned and approved of by large sections of the civil population, will take note of the views of the hon. Member and of his condonation of those infamous crimes against humanity and civilisation. I should recommend the hon. Gentleman, if he never read the papers as to what has gone on for the last five years, and if he wants some enlightenment to cure him of his blindness, to read some of the reports which have come in great numbers, and which I have read, from the prisoners' camps in Germany where our unfortunate and helpless prisoners were treated with a brutality and inhumanity almost impossible to conceive, and for which I imagine there never was any precedent in history. I do not look upon his advocacy as to this Clause as being one of great importance or as one which will recommend itself to any large numbers of Members of this House or to anyone outside possibly except himself. As regards the general question, I do ask the Home Secretary if he cannot give an extension of time, can he give a guarantee that within two years this House will be given an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question of continuing this exclusion, if desired. If he cannot, and probably he is too cautious to give any such guarantee which it might be impossible to carry out, then I submit he would be wise to extend the period a little longer. If my information is correct, the Canadians have provided for the entire exclusion of Germans, Austro - Hungarians, Bulgarians, and other enemy races without any limit of time. Will the Home Secretary tell us if that information is correct In order

    549
    to ensure that these people, the friends of the hon. Member from Manchester, these enemies who incurred the indignation of the world, shall not be allowed to come here for a reasonable and proper time, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to omit the word "two" and to insert some longer date.
    Captain W. BENN: Some of us thought that the castigation by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) was a little unnecessary. That hon. and gallant Member has given the best possible proof of his belief in this country and his desire to serve it, and he used a perfectly harmless remark which many soldiers would not have considered a very gross offence. If the hon. and learned Member had confined himself to an examination of the Amendment, I think it would have been more to the advantage of the deliberations of the House. Let us see where we stand. The Home Secretary preserves by the first Clause all the rigorous powers he possessed in the actual state of war for one year. Now it is proposed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to add further precautions and terms, and to put them in the Bill. This is one of the precautions which the Home Secretary did not consider requisite at all, and when the Bill was introduced it had none of these Clauses which were carried in Committee in defiance of the advice of the Government. I would ask the Home Secretary and the supporters of this Clause have they seriously considered what this Amendment does. It is not aimed at the people who committed those monstrous atrocities, which everybody with a sense of decency must view with unspeakable anger. It is proposed to exclude everybody of enemy origin, and how is that defined in the Bill? I have asked the question before, but it has not been answered. An enemy alien is defined as any person who is a subject or citizen of a State with which His Majesty was at war at any time during 1918. When we are framing an Act of Parliament, it behoves us to look into the details and sec really what these Clauses mean. The first people obviously meant are the Germans, and there is certainly a stronger case for that than any other, although I am not sure it is wise, even from our own point of view, to put this rigorous provision in the Act, and I think it is much better to leave the powers in the hands
    550
    of the Home Office. Take the case of the Bulgarians and the Turks. I do seriously ask those who are supporting this Amendment to think what will happen to the trade of this country if the same legislation is passed against us by those other countries This is not a factious point, but a point of substance. Suppose the Turks decided that no Englishman was to be permitted to land in their country for a period of seven years, and that the Bulgarians did the same, and the Austrians— though the Austrians do not matter so much, because their country is very small—and then what is going to happen? If such occurred it must be of the greatest possible material disadvantage to this country, and must create the very unemployment which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway profess their intention of allaying. The most powerful advocacy of this Amendment has come from Gentlemen of the long robe, and I am asking them, very respectfully, for information. What is the position with regard to Russia? The definition says "anyone who was at war with us in 1918." I do not profess to interpret that myself, but no one can doubt that if you send aeroplanes and bomb the capital of a country some judge might hold that you were at war with that country. I am not a lawyer, and I ask those who support the Amendment and have knowledge and experience of the law to say what is the position. Then I want to know what about the people who live in the German Colonies. German East Africa, for instance, is a mandatory territory, and what is going to be the nationality of the people there? I should like the Home Secretary to tell us. Supposing that a man there does not assume British nationality—and I do not know that he can—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that is relevant to the question we are now discussing, which is, to leave out two years, and to insert seven years.
    5.0 P.M.
    Captain BENN: I was discussing the point as to whether our trade would suffer by the absence from this country of persons who are enemy aliens. The point was that it might well be that business interests between this country and the ex-German colonies might demand before the expiry of the seven years the presence of these people in this country, and I want to be assured that this Amendment is not going to exclude people of that kind.
    Mr. SHORTT: They would come under special reasons. As I explained, trade reasons are special reasons.
    Captain BENN: What we complain of is that instead of the thing being left in the hands of the Home Secretary we are here putting down terms which will bind his hands, and I submit that in these cases it is a very great hindrance to the setting up of these trade relations if every person who wishes to come over on business before the seven years have expired has to make a special application to the Home Office for the purpose. I observe in the previous Clause that the Home Secretary inserted a saving Subsection for the wives of enemy aliens. Do we understand that under the general terms of this Amendment the wives of enemy aliens are to be excluded for seven years from this country? Because if so, let me beg hon. Members to see what happens. Supposing that British women who have married Germans and were living in Germany and who were interned during the War have been compelled for the time being to remain there and then find themselves placed under this Subsection which forbids them to return to the home of their birth and of their allegiance—
    Mr. MURCHISON: I said that this Amendment was not aimed at British-born wives of enemy aliens.
    Captain BENN: That is exactly the point. The amateur legislators below the Gangway introduce a Clause which will exclude for seven years the British wife of an enemy alien from landing in this country. I know it is not the intention of the hon. Member to do so, but the Amendment would have that effect. On these grounds, I submit that the original proposal of the Government was the best. Originally, the Home Secretary when he accepted the Clause inserted a proviso for one year only, but that he turned into two years after a debate with the hon. Gentlemen, below the Gangway, and I think that is as far as we ought to go, although personally I much prefer the original proposal of the Government.
    Sir F. LOWE: I think the real meaning of this Clause has been considerably obscured by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke and by other hon. Members. The Clause says that for a certain period no enemy alien shall be allowed to land in this country without
    552
    the permission of the Home Secretary, which can be given on special grounds. It does not say that all enemy aliens are to be excluded under all circumstances, for under the circumstances which have been mentioned by several hon. Members, if it is desirable, for business or family reasons, such as those adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that enemy aliens should be allowed to come into this country, they can, but for two years under this Clause they are not to be allowed to come in without that permission. Some of us think that two years is not long enough, and I personally share that view. I am not going to go over again the arguments in favour of the Amendment, because I think they are perfectly obvious and overwhelmingly in favour of an extension of the time. I think seven years is perhaps too long, and I rise mainly for the purpose of supporting the appeal which has been addressed to the Home Secretary to extend this period somewhat. It seems to me that this is a matter eminently for compromise. We do not want to wrangle over a small question like this for hours, as to whether it shall be two, three, four, or five years, and if the Home Secretary will offer us three years instead of two, I am prepared to support that.
    Mr. SHORTT: If the three years will satisfy, I shall be very glad indeed to ask the House to insert it.
    Sir R. COOPER: For my part, I certainly cannot agree to that, and I think the best justification I can give for holding tenaciously to that view is to remind the Home Secretary of the explicit pledges given on behalf of His Majesty's Government previous to the last General Election. There are pledges on record, and they were brought to the notice of the Committee upstairs—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the rule against repetition. We have had that argument brought forward over and over again.
    Sir R. COOPER: I am sure, Sir, that what I was going to say is so very well known that I have no need to press it. The point definitely promised by the Government was that after the War every Boclie should be returned to his own country, and the only understanding on the part of the public of that promise at that time was that the Government

    553
    pledged itself to take steps to keep this country as free as it reasonably and properly could from the presence of the Germans, whom we had every cause to distrust and to dislike. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) appealed more than once that the House should place its trust more in the decisions that might be given by the Home Secretary on behalf of the Home Office. It is not here a question of trusting or mistrusting any particular Minister presiding over that Department, but I must observe that the British public generally judges the Home Office from its actions broadly throughout the War, and the conclusion which I venture, to think the vast majority of people in this country have come to is that the administration of the Home Office in this respect has been so unsatisfactory that it would not be proper to trust it to exercise its own discretion as to how soon any particular enemy alien should be allowed to return to this country without very special reasons being given for such action. When one recalls the whole spirit in which I and many others spoke at the last General Election, one feels that the Government is not fulfilling that pledge which—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is saying the very thing that I warned him had been said in this House over and over again upon this topic, and I must ask him to respect the Rules of the House against repetition.
    Sir R. COOPER: All I can say in conclusion is that for my part I am not prepared to accept three years. I think the seven years ought to be accepted by the Government, and I believe the country will expect nothing less.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I very much hope, in spite of what my hon. friend has just said, that the House will accept the concession offered by the Government. I was unable to follow exactly the argument addressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, as much of it appeared to be against the Clause and not against this particular Amendment The Bill says that for two years, or, as is now proposed, three years, every former enemy alien who comes here shall require to have permission from the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friends have been anxious this afternoon to assure that the House of Commons shall have an opportunty in the future, if it thinks so fit, to continue that restriction
    554
    for a longer period. I only rise to say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner), earlier in the discussion, put his finger on the real point. The Government, whether this Government or the next, are bound to come to the House of Commons after the expiration of one year from the end of the War for further powers, and any hon. Gentleman who looks at Clause? I will see why. Clause 1 continues the emergency war powers for a period of one year after the War, and if hon. Members will look at the principal Act, which is referred to there, they will see that there is a large number of these powers which no Government could possibly afford to allow to lapse under present conditions, or is likely to contemplate the lapsing of. There are not only powers which are dealt with specifically later in this Bill, but there are powers enabling the Government to determine the residence of aliens, to prohibit aliens residing in certain districts, to appoint officers to carry orders into effect, and so on All these powers would lapse were the Government not to come back to the House of Commons for further powers, and, therefore, I think my hon. Friends may take it as an absolute certainty that a further opportunity is certain to return within two years, and, if the Home Secretary's Amendment be accepted, it makes it even more certain.
    Mr. MURCHISON: As the Mover of this Amendment, I am quite prepared to accept three years instead of seven.
    Mr. SPENCER: I am very sorry to hear the Home Secretary say that be is prepared to accept this Amendment, because, in my opinion, no case has been made out either for the three years or for the seven years. I think the arguments which have been advanced by the Mover and supporters of the Amendment have been to the effect that because the character of the enemy alien is altogether unreliable he is not to be trusted, that the enemy alien came to this country previous to the War and acted detrimentally to the interests of this country and will so act, therefore, if he returns again. If that is true, it is altogether illogical to talk about changing from two years to three. If there is any truth in that statement, then those who are seeking to change the Amendment from seven years to three would have been more logical to have moved an Amendment to have kept the alien out entirely and for ever.

    555
    If an enemy alien was unreliable before the War and always will be unreliable, the only logical position to take up is that he should be kept out for ever. The Mover of the Amendment says he is quite prepared to substitute three years for seven. Therefore, it is not a question of character or reliability with them at all, but just a question, it seems to mo, of their own feeling, and just as their own feeling subsides so they want the term of prohibition to subside. My own opinion about this question is this: Acts of this kind perpetrated on both sides of the Channel are just the things which lead to an interruption of good feeling between nations, and if we are to begin it here somebody else will take it up on the other side of the Channel, and it will be the occasion of a raging, tearing propaganda for an Army and a Navy and not to trust the principles of a League of Nations. Then, probably, in twenty, thirty, or forty years our children will have to go through the same thing that we have gone through. To avoid that altogether, it will be far better to let our feelings die down, and trust more to our judgment and reason, and because I think judgment and reason are on the side of the two years, I should support that period.
    Mr. K1LEY: In. Committee the Home Secretary considered that one year was sufficient for his purpose. Pressure was brought to bear in Committee, and he made a bargain with my hon. Friends below the Gangway, and agreed to accept two. The Bill was accordingly altered from one year to two years, and now, because of additional pressure, the Home Secretary accepts three years. The Home Secretary time after time has pointed out, when desiring to get certain Amendments disposed of, that this is only a temporary measure, and now he proposes to extend the period. So far as I am concerned, I shall certainly vote against anything beyond two years.
    Mr. FRANCE: The proceedings of the House with regard to this Bill remind me rather of what can be seen at 4 o'clock any day in the Zoological Gardens, the Home Secretary filling the rôle of keeper, trying to pacify the roaring lions. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the monkeys."] This afternoon an extra lump of one year has been thrown to the roaring legal lions who are anxious now to have as much as possible in the way of a long period. I
    556
    congratulate them in having so rapidly fallen from that historical and scriptural period of seven years to three. I notice, if I may say so without any offence, that the language and fierceness of words in this House with regard to enemy aliens appear to me to be in direct inverse proportion to the number of direct blows that were struck against the enemy during the period of the War. Hon. Members in this House who were in any degree actually engaged in His Majesty's Service are, I think, inclined, while not wishing at all to do anything detrimental or harmful to the welfare of the State, not to want in perpetuity, or even for a longer period than is absolutaly necessary, to keep up restrictions which are bound in their turn to be harmful to the State; but there are some Members of this House who want us to live in the atmosphere of a general election in perpetuity. The hon. Member acknowledges the justice of my remark. He Wants the Home Secretary to administer the Act with his ears tingling and his eyes fixed upon the denunciatory speeches made at the General Election. We cannot live for ever in that atmosphere, and I would like to point out two reasons for that. Some hon. Members are very anxious indeed to see a large war indemnity paid by Germany. How are they going to get it? Are they going to trade with Germany?
    Sir R. COOPER: We want to import all the raw materials we can from Germany and supply her with all the manufactures we can.
    Mr. FRANCE: A delightful proposition, and it is to be carried on in strict silence, without the opportunity of conversing with the gentlemen with whom we are going to conduct these remarkably interesting transactions.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Does the hon. Member not know that under this Bill any genuine German can get a permit from the Home Secretary? All we want is that persons who have been known to be enemies of this country shall not get permission.
    Mr. FRANCE: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by "persons known to be enemies of this country." I thought they were all known to be enemies. I am quite with the hon. and gallant Member if he wants to keep out of this country anyone who can be

    557
    described as an undesirable alien, or who can be looked upon with suspicion. The hon. and gallant Member knows I have no desire to view with any gentleness what has been done in the past, but I do not want the future to be marred for all time with the natural indignation we had against certain things done during the War. If we are to trade with Germany, this system of licence must not last longer than is absolutely necessary, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has only given one year more to the roaring lions opposite. I have talked about trade. Two nights ago the House practically suspended its sitting by general consent so that Members of all parties might go to various parts of the country and address the listening population on the question of a League of Nations. It is not much good to expect the public outside to have very much respect for the utterances of Members of Parliament if they adjourn their Debate to go and make eloquent and moving appeals for something that will produce a better state of feeling throughout the world, so that we shall at some time or other come to a general friendship throughout the world and take every means we can to avoid falling again into a general state of war—it is not very consistent, I say, that we should talk on Tuesday night about the League of Nations and on Thursday afternoon we should ask the Home Secretary to make this period of exclusion seven years, remember all the wild and whirling words that were said and written during the General Election, and keep in our hearts a determined and desperate hate of everything German, when we must, whether we want to or not, some day or other trade with these people, and hope some day or other, when they are thoroughly reformed in their hearts, character, and lives, that we may live with them as friends in a great world.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am astonished at the proposed Amendment, and even more astonished at the Home Secretary's surrender. This Amendment is, with great respect, a Rip Van Winkle, Those in its favour, I am afraid, have been totally unobservant of what has been going on in Europe during the last few months. I saw the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House a little while ago, and I hoped he was going to speak. The Hungarians are included. They were former enemy
    558
    aliens. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman knows that the common talk in Europe is really the possibility—in fact, it is said in Paris and Rome, as well as Vienna and Budapest—that a member of the Teck family will ascend the throne of Hungary! While there is a powerful party in Hungary asking us to allow this noble prince to accept the throne of Hungary, we are saying that no Hungarian shall be allowed to enter this country for three years without special permission. And no doubt the Opposition papers in Budapest, who are naturally opposed to us, will quote the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Croft), especially the latter, as leader of a party in this House, and ask what is the use of having such a prince for their ruler if this is to be the attitude of the English towards their people. Furthermore, with regard to hatred of the Huns, who I do not think are going to change in three or seven years, they are at present fighting shoulder to shoulder with English soldiers against Russians in the Baltic. They are to be told that they cannot come into this country without some special permit, and that they are still looked upon as undesirables and the sort of people we cannot possibly have here? Really it is Rip Van Winkleism, if I may use that term. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), although so extraordinarily well-informed, does not seem to know what is going on in Europe to-day. This Amendment might have been accepted twelve months ago, but much water has flowed under the bridges since then. The present aspect of the situation in the Baltic, where the Germans are our allies and are fighting with us, should not be forgotten.
    Sir E. WILD: Two or three words in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations about Rip Van Winkleism. If I remember the story of Rip Van Winkle, he did waken up ultimately, and it seems desirable that the country in some of these matters should awaken too. However, I am not going to be led by the very amusing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley into a discussion on the League of Nations. All I desire to say about that part of his speech is that if he or any other Member of the House has attended meetings in favour of the League of Nations, and ever held out to his audience any hope that

    559
    within any reasonable time we shall be embracing Germany, then he, in my humble judgment, is entirely misrepresenting the idea of the League of Nations. I have attended meetings in favour of the League of Nations, and I take care to tell my hearers what I conceive to be the true position of Germany in this matter. We must not overlook the fact that the defeat of Germany has removed a great danger, but we must not be forgetful of the past in considering Germany's entrance to the League. However, if we allow ourselves to talk in these generalities we shall have a general discussion upon every Clause. Therefore, I limit my very few words to the purpose of the Amendment, that is, the question of the period of years which is put clown in the Clause as two. I had an Amendment to make it five years, which I withdrew in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend who proposed to make it seven. I should have preferred seven, but I am willing to get the best I can, and I will take the three years suggested. It is quite a mistake, if I may say so, to regard this Bill as merely a one-year Bill. It is not so. The first Clause certainly speaks of one year, referring to Orders in Council, but in the splendid work done in Committee we have managed to induce the Government to take the view that alien legislation must be for a period of years and not merely be a matter of one year. I am not going to repeat the argument about the wild and whirling words used at election time. The answer to my hon. Friend is that those of us who got our Seats by the help of election pledges—I do not know about the wild and whirling words—are not going to forget those pledges, but propose to carry them out as far as we possibly can. I do altogether protest, as a new Member of Parliament, against that most superior view put forward from one of the benches behind me, of talking about the electors as if they were people to be cajoled when you wanted their votes, but once you came here, to be forgotten altogether in your superior position as a Member of Parliament; you forget then that you happen to represent the people who elected you!
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend—
    Sir E. WILD: You generally do. [Laughter.] Go on!
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This time I will, with the very courteous permission of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Does that attitude in relation to election pledges refer to Conscription?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That is quite an irrelevant question.
    Sir E. WILD: All I can say is that any pledge I gave I shall keep. That is my answer to those superior beings who tell us that election pledges, as soon as they have served their purpose, should be forgotten. There is just one other matter, I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall have your permission, as I do not think I shall be out of order in just saying one word. In connection with this Amendment, the word "insolent" has been used and queried as being unparliamentary? I should like to refer to the insulting things said in regard to the profession to which I happen to belong. It was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite—I do not know whether he is a right hon. Gentleman or not—I refer to the Member for Leith—upon this very point—and he brought it in again—speaking with sarcasm he referred to the "hon. and learned So-and-so," or "the hon. and gallant So-and-so" on the other side, and he has indicated that some of these Clauses are only supported by lawyers, while opposed by soldiers. Nobody will deny the extreme gallantry of my hon. and gallant Friend. We should not be allowed to forget it even if we could forget it. But I will just say this, with regard to the argument that legal opinion is on one side and military opinion on the other, on that very Division on Clause 8 about which he used the remarks he did—and which, of course, were meant to be offensive—on that Division without the Government Whips—that is the House voted according to its conscience for once—for the Clause there were 226, of whom eighty-three were sailors or soldiers, and voting with the hon. and gallant Gentleman were 116, of whom twenty-two were soldiers or sailors. In the one other Division which I have taken out on the question of employment the Government Whips were against us. Out of 130 of our supporters fifty-two were soldiers, and out of 205 coerced into the Lobby fifty-two were soldiers, all of which

    561
    shows perfectly well the argument that this is a legal argument merely is not a true one. I do not propose to say further oil that point because personalities are very undesirable. All of us have done what we could, some of us at some little danger, in the country to serve our Sovereign, and the fact that, because we were over age, we were not out at the War, ought not to be brandished in our face. Personally I was a special constable, out in all the air raids, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend may perhaps repent the fact that in the exigencies of a very weak case he should have used so paltry and poor an argument. "All's well that ends well." I love to give and take knocks. If the Government will give us "three" we will take "three" and carry it.
    Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
    Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. How will
    those vote who wish to retain the two years in the Clause?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I shall put the Question that "two" stand part of the Bill and they will vote "Aye."
    Mr. MURCHISON: On a point of Order. Am I right in supposing that when this Amendment is disposed of, the Home Secretary has agreed to accept "three" years?
    Mr. SHORTTwas understood to assent.
    Mr. MURCHISON: And that covers the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend—we have agreed to all this?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I put the Question as to whether or not "two" shall stand part of the Bill. If the House decide that it shall not stand part, I presume the Home Secretary will move to insert his Amendment.
    The House divided: Ayes. 41; Noes. 216.

    Division No. 132.]

    AYES.

    [5.40 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

    Hogge, J. M.

    Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Briant, F.

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wignall, James

    Bromfield, W.

    Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)

    Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

    Sitch, C. H.

    Spencer and Mr. Kiley,

    Grundy, T. W.

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Bowyer, Captain G, W. E.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Croft, Brig.-General Henry page

    Allen, Colonel William James

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.

    Dean, Com. P. T.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.

    Denison-Pender, John C

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Dennis, J. W.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

    Barker, Major R.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Barnston, Major H.

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Barrand, A. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Edge, Captain William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Chamberlain, N, (Birm., Ladywood)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Cheyne, sir William Watson

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Betterton, H. B.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Birchali, Major J D.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Bird, Alfred

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

    Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

    Rowlands, James

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Glyn, Major R.

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Gould, J. C.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Seager, Sir William

    Green, A. (Derby)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Greer, Harry

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Martin, A. E.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Hailwood, A.

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Moles, Thomas

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)

    Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Murchison, C. K.

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Nall, major Joseph

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Neal, Arthur

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.

    Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

    Waddington, R.

    Hinds, John

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Wallace, J.

    Haare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Wardle, George J.

    Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Whitia, Sir William

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Pratt, John William

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Purchase, H. G.

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Kidd, James

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    King, Commander Douglas

    Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Reid, D. D.

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar

    Renwick, G.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Lorden, John William

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Sanders and Mr. J. Parker

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Seven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

    Question, "That the word 'seven' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["for a period of"], insert the word "three."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or to remain in the United Kingdom."
    This Clause is to prevent enemy aliens coming here for the period stated, and if these words remain they would prevent those who are here already, and who have been allowed to remain, from staying here. I am sure that is not the intention of my hon. Friend opposite, and the real question is what is the best way to remedy this. I do not think the words "or to remain in the United Kingdom" are in the least necessary in dealing with persons who come without permission. I do not think any words of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend are necessary, and it is far better to eliminate these words, and
    564
    allow the Clause to provide that no enemy alien shall land without permission. I think that makes what is intended perfectly clear.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I think the Clause would read much better if it read ''no former enemy alien shall be permitted to land in the United Kingdom, or having so landed without permission, shall be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom." I do not quite see what the position is supposing the words forbidding him to land are left out. The Clause would read, "no enemy alien shall be permitted to land." That does not say what would happen, if he is permitted to land. My hon. Friend says that he should not be permitted to remain here, but if they are here I think it is better to make the matter clear. I can imagine an enemy alien, supported by one of those Gentlemen we have heard to-day saying "I have landed—"
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are we the Gentlemen?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I am not referring to the hon. Member for Plaistow, but to someone who spoke this afternoon who has had the wisdom to depart. I ask that in the case of these aliens having come without permission they shall not be permitted to remain.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not mind which way it is done, because it means the same thing. The point is whether we should put this matter right now or in another place. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "or" ["or to remain"], insert the words "if he should land without permission."—[Sir H. Neild.]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "to be granted only on special grounds."
    I move this Amendment solely in the interests of international trade, because there may be some misunderstanding about the words "special grounds." I think this is necessary if you are to encourage trade with our former enemies, and I would point out that the President of the Board of Trade has been urging us to trade with all parts of Europe, including former enemy territories. This would not weaken the provision against undesirable aliens, but it would show to bonâ fide traders that we have no objection to them coming here for legitimate purposes.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think that those words can possibly be accepted. We must have words pointing out that permission can only be given in cases of a special character. It is well recognised, and everybody knows it, that in trade permits for the purposes of trade are granted on special grounds. If a German wishes to come here to purchase goods that is a special ground.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If I withdraw this Amendment will the right hon. Gentleman accept my Amendment later on to insert the words "which shall include permission to land for genuine business purposes"?
    Mr. SHORTT: No.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (l), to insert the
    566
    words, "and such permission shall be limited in duration to a period of three-calendar months, and may upon special grounds be reviewed from time to time for a like period."
    The object of this Amendment is not to give enemy aliens a general power to remain here, but that the period should be limited to three months. These words are introduced at the suggestion of the Home Secretary in Committee, and therefore I think he will be ready to accept them.
    Mr. SHORTT: The effect of this proposal would be that every British-born wife of a German subject would be put to the trouble of getting permission. It is highly improbable that anyone coming here for business purposes would require to stay for a longer period than three months. Therefore the only practical effect of this Amendment would be to put a serious inconvenience in the case of the British-born wife of a German subject. It is not a matter of great importance to those who have to administer the Act, but it might be a mutter of great importance to the women I have mentioned. It will be very seldom, certainly within the next three months, that permission will be required to stay longer than three months, but under this proposal a British-born wife would be put to all this trouble during the time the Act is in force, and therefore I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: By permission of the House, might I refer to what happened in Committee, when the Home Secretary accepted this proposal? These are the words he used:
    "I think it would be better if the provision was that such permission should be renewable every three months. I think that would meet what we have in mind."
    On the strength of that promise we did not press the matter further in Committee, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to this Amendment now.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have not objected; I have only pointed out the difficulty. I am only putting forward considerations which have arisen since that time.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not resist my Amendment. Apparently he does not disapprove of the principle of it.
    6.0 P.M.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: May I give an instance to show how important it is that there should be no laxity on this question. Earlier in the afternoon the Home Secretary asked me if I could cite any cases where enemies have come into this country and have received treatment of this kind. I propose to give one case in response to his question. There is a gentleman now in Manchester, who was the Austrian Vice-Consul there before the War, and who, when Germany declared war, went back to Austria, became a Colonel in the Austrian Army, and was fighting against the British forces all through the War. He has now returned to Manchester in a permanent business capacity. Apparently, the Homo Secretary knows very little about it, but I do suggest it is obvious that in a case like that it is desirable the permission should be reviewed from time to time.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "which shall include permission to land for genuine business purposes."
    The object of this Amendment is solely to benefit not the people of this country at all, except perhaps indirectly, but possible customers coming to this country from abroad to buy British goods. Any hon. Member acquainted with great industrial centres like Manchester, Bradford, Wakefield, and similar places knows how the streets are filled with people from all parts of the world. Among them are Armenians, Turks, and Bulgarians, who come here to buy British goods. The insertion of these words would make it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government to keep out genuine commercial men who want to come here for strictly business purposes. Without the insertion of the words there might be some misunderstanding in Bulgaria, in the Turkish Empire, in Upper Silesia and in Galicia, where the people technically have been our enemies, and my object is simply to make it quite clear that buyers coming here to do business will be permitted to land. Without the words it might be assumed by these people that the special grounds relate only to such cases as that of a British-born wife of an enemy alien or some person who may have performed some special service for this country. Make it
    568
    clear that if people come here for genuine commercial purposes they will be permitted to land.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second that Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. The only possible effect will be to put in an indefinite provision. Surely people who are acquainted with business affairs will, as the Clause now stands, fully understand that business will be one of the special grounds for permission to come here. The words do not alter in the least the meaning of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the objection to them then?"] Putting in such words always has a bad effect in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I see no object whatever in this Subsection, except that it may be in the interests of people who take an extreme view about the great alien peril, a view no doubt honestly and sincerely held. But I would ask what good is it going to do to publish the names of these people in the "London Gazette" which nobody ever reads, unless it is people who look through it to ascertain whether they have have been awarded any decorations or honours or unless it be the alien hunter. I am not making any personal reflection in this regard, but there are people outside this House who make money by writing newspaper articles and by stirring up hatred against other countries. Beyond that, I cannot understand what is the use of this Sub-section. It might lead, however, to a great deal of unpleasantness for quite respectable people who come here for the good of the trade of this country.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We have already been told by the Home Secretary that this permission will only be given for a very brief period to a person who comes for commercial purposes. Such a person might be here possibly for only a fortnight, yet a month later his name is to appear in the "London Gazette." Of course he will not be injured thereby. But when it

    569
    comes to the case of the English-born wife who comes over here, it is almost certain to cause her considerable annoyance. I cannot see Shat any useful object therefore is served by the Sub-section while it will put the country to a good deal of trouble and expense.
    Mr. SHORTT: It is quite true that possibly this is not one of the most useful or necessary provisions in the Bill, but at the same time it is both useful and necessary. It is just as well that you should have publication of the names of persons who are allowed to come into the country. It cannot do any great harm. It is very difficult to see what harm it can do to anyone who is allowed to come, and if there happens to be someone about whom ii mistake were made it might lead to the discovery of that mistake, and if there is anyone who could be harmed by it being known that he had been allowed to be here the probability would be that he was a person who ought not to have been allowed here at all.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "at" ["at the end of each such month"], and insert thereof the words "as soon as practicable after."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 11.—(Offences and Penalties.)
    (3) Where a person lands in the United Kingdom in contravention of this Act, the master of the ship or the pilot or commander of the aircraft from which he lands shall, unless he proves to the contrary, be deemed to have aided and abetted the offence.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).
    It is rather contrary to our legal practice to conclude that a person is guilty of an offence unless he is proved innocent. You have to prove his guilt; otherwise he is considered to be innocent. This is going directly contrary to that. You now suggest that where a person lands in the United Kingdom the master of the ship or the commander of the aircraft shall be deemed to have aided and abetted the offence, which I consider is a very unfair Clause to put in an Act of Parliament. There are certain penalties for breaking this new law already, and it is quite competent for the Home Secretary to proceed against the unfortunate captain of a steamer or pilot of an aircraft who has unwittingly carried over an alien who had not got permission to land. Here
    570
    you say that where a stowaway lands, at once the master of the ship can be haled up and proceeded against for aiding and abetting. During the War the number of rules and regulations hampering the unfortunate captain of a merchant ship have been increased out of all reason. Every Act that comes on the Statute Book now has something hampering and harassing the unfortunate seafarer, and here is yet one more. Take the case of the master of a ship who is just going to leave Rotterdam or Copenhagen for a British port. All his work is cut out with his clearance, his health ticket and seeing to his ship being ready, and so on. He has to see the Custom House officers and the police officers, his time is fully taken up, and his officers are busy getting passengers' luggage, securing everything for sea, and so on. It is a big ship carrying perhaps 1,000 souls, and amongst them are one or two people who have no permission to land. This unfortunate master is guilty of aiding and abetting. The whole spirit behind this is absurd. I do not know whether this is a brain wave of the Government or one of its aiders and abettors below the Gangway.
    Sir H. NIELD: It is in the Order in Council.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is a brain wave of the Government. I am not surprised, for many of these Orders in. Council, are hurriedly put together and contain very questionable provisos. Then, of course, we are legislating for the commander of the aircraft as well. Apparently, he also is going to be made a criminal because someone lands from his airship. About that I should not like to express any opinion, but about the master of a ship, this is a hampering, pin-pricking, unnecessary Clause. I do not think anyone here is going to accuse the captains of British ships of having any desire to introduce undesirables into this country. I hope the Clause, which is contrary to British ideas of jurisprudence and justice, will be left out. and that, at any rate, shipmasters will be relieved from further anxiety under this Bill.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Sub-section is not in the least contrary to the practice or the spirit of British jurisprudence. There are many precedents for provisions of this description.
    An HON. MEMBER: In war time.
    Mr. SHORTT: No, in ordinary normal times. It is not the case that a man has to prove himself innocent of a charge made against him. What is proved is the fact that someone has landed who had no business to land. It is proved as a fact that he came from a certain ship, of which the defendant was the master. Such provisions are constantly put into Bills. We have them in many Acts. It is very necessary and perfectly fair, and it does not in any way go contrary to the spirit of our criminal jurisprudence.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Definitions.)
    (1) The expression "former enemy alien" means an alien who is a subject or citizen of a state with which His Majesty was at war at any time during the year nineteen hundred and eighteen.
    (2) The expression "allied state" means a state which on the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and eighteen, was engaged in hostilities with all or any of the states recently at war with His Majesty.
    Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words, "a subject or citizen of a State with which His Majesty was at war at any time during the year nineteen hundred and eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "or has at any time been a subject or citizen of the German Empire or any component state thereof, or of Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, or Turkey, and has not changed his allegiance as a result of the recognition of new states or territorial rearrangements, or been naturalised in any other foreign state or in any British Possession in accordance with the laws thereof, and when actually resident therein, and in such a manner as not to retain according to the law of his state of origin the nationality of that State."
    This is in order to get over the difficulty of the definition of "former enemy aliens." After controversy with the Foreign Office these words were very carefully framed so as to exclude the subject of any State who, upon the operation of the Peace Treaty, may be entitled to be regarded as of separate nationality and friendly towards ourselves, though nominally an enemy alien, by reason of the events which have happened and which have changed so largely Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The object is to bring into the definition of former enemy aliens people who have been at one time or another Ger-
    572
    mans or other enemy aliens, but it makes two exceptions. The one class of exception is people who have been in the past Germans or other enemy aliens but who by the operation of any of the recently concluded Treaties become subjects of another State, such as, for instance, the Czecho-Slovakian or the Serbian, the Polish, or any of the new States set up under the Treaty. The other class who will be excepted from being treated as former enemy aliens are people who have been naturalised in either a British Possession or some foreign country, but subject to this condition—a very proper one to impose upon such people—that they must not only be naturalised in the British Possession or in some foreign State, but they must have denuded themselves or got rid somehow of their former German nationality. In other words, if, although naturalised, he still retains his German or other enemy alien nationality, he would still be an enemy alien. But if, besides being naturalised, he got rid of his former nationality, he would be exempt from this Clause.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think this very interesting Amendment shows the difficulties which will face the Executive. It is also Rip Van Winkleism. Are hon. Members aware that at present British troops are being sent to certain areas to preserve order while a plebiscite is taken as to whether they shall belong to Germany or Poland, to take one instance? In Upper Silesia or Memel or Lithuania, for example, the inhabitants are sufficiently mixed that a certain number of Germans will be included in Poland or Lithuania or Czecho-Slovakia, and a number of Poles and Lithuanians and Czechs and Slovaks will be left outside their frontiers and included on German territory. They are former enemy aliens, and under this Bill they may be proceeded against while their blood relations in the next village, who happen to be inside the lines as the result of the plebiscite, will be allowed to come to this country. The line will almost cut through families in these regions where the plebiscite is taken. This should bring home the utter parochialism of this legislation and the ignorance that lies behind it. Rip Van Winkleism is a mild term, because when a man who has been asleep for twelve months wakes up he forgets a good deal, but when people have been alive and awake and take an interest in what goes

    573
    on around them one cannot forgive them at all for this kind of thing. It is parochialism and ignorance. This top-heavy Amendment—and I hope the representative of the Home Office will bear me out in this—shows the difficulties and the anomalies and the utter futility of this kind of legislation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
    "but shall not be held to include citizens of the state of Poland, Czecko-Slovakia, Roumania, Jugo-Slavia, Hungary, Palestine, Latvia, Lithuania, Esthonia, Greece, France, Italy, Denmark, or Belgium, or persons living in those parts of the ancient empire of Turkey which are no longer under direct Turkish rule."
    This Amendment stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood), and he put it down because he realises that there will be many anomalies and difficulties brought about by this Bill. Therefore, he desires to put in these words to safeguard those people who, by the anomalies of the Peace settlement, happen to be where there are mixed nationalities. I hope this Amendment will be accepted, and I should think the hon. Member (Sir H. Nield) would not object to it.
    Sir H. NIELD: It is already covered.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I think this Amendment would make it a little more water-tight, and is to ensure that citizens who are friendly to us but who by chance are included in the new territories should not be cut out. One Amendment cuts at persons who are former enemy aliens. This Amendment includes people who are technically former enemy aliens but who are, in theory at any rate, our friends.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment, in order that the Home Secretary may have an opportunity of explaining.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment is wholly unnecessary. It is entirely covered. The words have been very carefully thought out in the Amendment which the House has just accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (2).—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee and on Consideration, be re-committed
    574
    to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the New Clause (Temporary restrictions on acquisition by former enemy aliens of certain kinds of property) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Shortt, and of the New Clause (Prohibition of former enemy aliens holding land, etc) in the name of Sir John Butcher."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we have the reasons why this is to be done?
    Mr. SHORTT: I thought that was in the memory of the House. The question arose as to dealing with former enemy aliens who hold land and other kinds of property. I could not put the Amendment down in time to be reached before we finished the new Clauses, and it was necessary to re-commit the Bill in order to deal with it in Committee.
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Colonel SANDERS in the Chair.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary Restrictions on Acquisition by former Enemy Aliens of Certain Kinds of Property.)
    (1) During a period of one year from the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for a former enemy alien to acquire property of any of the following descriptions, that is to say:

    (a) Any land, or any interest in any land, in the United Kingdom; or

    (b) Any interest in a key industry, or any share in a company registered in the United Kingdom which carries on any such industry; or

    (c) Any share in a company owning a British ship registered in the United Kingdom.

    (2) If any such property as aforesaid is acquired in contravention of this Section the Heard of Trade may, on an application made to them for the purpose, by Order vest the property in the Public Trustee.
    Any such Order may contain provisions applying for the purposes of the Order, with such modifications as the Board think necessary, any of the provisions of Section four of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, or any enactment referred to in that Section.
    (3) For the purpose of this section—
    The expression "key industry" means any industry included in a list declared by the Board of Trade to be a list of key industries for the purposes of this Section;
    The expression "share" includes any stock forming part of the capital of a company and securities of any description issued by a company;
    The expression "interest in land" does not include a tenancy for a period not exceeding three years at a rack rent;
    (4) Any list of key industries prepared by the Board of Trade under this Section shall be published as soon as it is made in the "London Gazette" and may be varied or amended by the Board from time to time.—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely this very vital Clause is not to be presented to the Committee without some sort of explanation. I do not want to use the word "bargain." to which so much objection has been taken, but I would like to know whether this is a result of the conference at Downing Street after the defeat of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I think we might have the favour of an explanation. I was on the Committee, but my memory does not serve me in this respect. This is a very important Clause. I see it includes the words "a key industry." We have not had a definition of a key industry, except the very vague one in the Prime Minister's speech some time ago on the Motion for the Adjournment. This Clause seems to be one put in to hamper trade and industry. Surely nobody in their senses suggests that this is necessary for military purposes now. Surely we shall not be told the old story about plots of land having been taken by the Germans in order that they may make gun emplacements for siege guns in order to bombard London. Surely we are not to be told that we are afraid of the Germans coming over here, in spite of their having no Navy, in order to attack us, and that, therefore, we must prevent Germans from holding land.
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. and gallant Member has answered his own question. The object is to prevent a German or a former enemy alien holding land or being able to control a key industry or holding shares in shipping which may be vital to our own trade. It is for a limited period. How long the period will be depends upon circumstances. The complaint that we have not had a definition of a key industry is not well founded. The Clause itself says that a key industry means "any industry included in a list declared by the Board of Trade to be a list of key industries for the purposes of this Section."
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: Is this to be put in for strategical purposes? Is it that we are afraid that shipping will be in German, hands at the outbreak of a war with Germany and, therefore, will not be available for us? Is this question of land dealt with for military reasons to prevent gun emplacements being put on land? It is more possible to prevent other
    576
    nationals than former enemy aliens from doing this rather than our former enemies who are so utterly down and out that there is no possibility of them coming over here wanting to create gun emplacements or to have secret retreats in the Scottish mountains. Is this Clause to prevent dear old ladies from having nightmare lest the Germans come over here and capture British key industries, such as the aniline dye industry, which may make explosives in war time. Is that the purpose? Is it for naval or military purposes or is it only to hamper trade, because that is what will happen, or is it simply to meet popular clamour?
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is not observing Standing Order 19, which is against repetition.
    Sir H. NIELD: There were six columns of a report in Committee on this question, and although my hon. and gallant Friend was present the whole time he did not think fit to utter one syllable. The Homo Secretary promptly told us that the Committee's suggestion was one as to which there was no question of disagreement. It was before the Cabinet. He went on to say that the whole thing was being considered, and they were prepared to put into the Bill the definite principle that there should be no new acquisition of any of those things for a period of twelve months. Then my hon. Friend takes up the time of the Committee by saying that he never heard of it, and he goes into a rambling statement, which is his idea of Parliamentary institutions.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Until Parliament otherwise determines."
    If my right hon. Friend would prefer the words "during a period of three years," which would be in conformity with Clause 9, I should be prepared to move my Amendment in that form.
    Mr. SHORTT: I shall be willing to put in "three years," as was done in the case of Clause 9. This will involve the withdrawal of the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "one year" and insert instead thereof the words "three years."
    After the word "alien," insert the words "either in his own name or in the name of a trustee or trustees for him."
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, after the word "acquire," to insert the words "or hold."
    This is an Amendment of some importance. The effect of the Home Secretary's Clause is that those classes of property may be vested in the Public Trustee and may be available for the purpose of paying debts due by Germans to British citizens, because by a Clause in the Treaty of Peace with Germany it is specially provided that there shall be a charge upon all kinds of property held in this country by Germans in order to make payment of the debts due by Germans to British subjects. What has happened already is this: There has been a considerable number of German businesses sold or wound-up in this country, and a considerable amount of property belonging to Germans has been sold. The proceeds of those sales have in every case been handed over to the Public Trustee. Now when it comes to paying the debts due by Germans to British subjects there will be this money in the hands of the Public Trustee for the purpose of liquidating those debts. The Home Secretary by this Clause proposes that in future for three years no German shall acquire land or these other classes of property, and, if they do acquire it, then the property shall be vested in the Public Trustee for the same purpose as the property of Germans which already stands in the name of the Public Trustee—to liquidate debts due to British subjects. I desire to go one step further than the Home Secretary, and to say that, as regards the existing property of Germans in this country, whether land or these other kinds of investments specified they should in the same way be vested in the Public Trustee, and rendered liable for the payment of debts due to British subjects.
    This is merely completing the provisions of the Peace Treaty. It is only right and logical to say that so far as there is any distinct property of Germans in this country which has not been already sold and vested in the Public Trustee for this purpose it shall now be vested. There can be no hardship on the Germans, because it is only carrying out the provisions of the Peace Treaty. On the other hand, it will be a very great advantage to British subjects, because instead of having to go hunting about the country and saying,
    578
    "Here is property belonging to Germans available for the purpose of paying my debt," they can go to the Public Trustee and make application to the Court for payment of their debt out of money in the hands of the Public Trustee. It may be said that a provision of this sort, namely, to vest property belonging to Germans in the Public Trustee for this purpose, would lead to reprisals on the part of Germany, and that they might confiscate or otherwise deal with property belonging to British subjects. They cannot under the Peace Treaty, My hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) reminds me of a section of the Treaty which is aimed precisely at preventing that result. No doubt the makers of the Treaty had in mind when they put in that Clause the fact that Germany already during the War had been confiscating property belonging to British subjects, and they very properly introduced this provision to prevent them going on with this course of action. Therefore let us not be afraid of any reprisals. It cannot be done according to the terms of the Treaty. I would ask my right hon. Friend to put in these words which will assist in carrying out the Peace Treaty, and render this German property which is already charged with the payment of British debts more accessible for the payment of these debts.
    Mr. SHORTT: There are grave objections to this. There is objection from the point of view of having two sets of regulations or provisions dealing with the same subject. The question of property at present owned in this country by German enemy aliens, at any rate, is dealt with in the Peace Treaty, and already one Order in Council has been made under the Peace Treaty and published in the "London Gazette" on the 24th October, and it says that as regards all property, rights, and interests within His Majesty's Dominions, etc., belonging to Germans when the Treaty comes into force, not being property and interests acquired under any general licence issued by or on behalf of His Majesty, the net proceeds of the sale, etc., are hereby charged, and then it sets out what they are charged with. Manifestly it would be very unfortunate if a question is dealt with by the Peace Treaty and Orders in Council are made under the Peace Treaty dealing with this question that we should then legislate in a way which is useless if it agrees with the Peace Treaty, and would be most improper if it were contrary to it.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Does not the Clause carry us a step further than the Peace Treaty does? The Peace Treaty only creates the charge. This really renders it available for the payment of debts.
    Mr. SHORTT: It is available now. So for as seeing that German property is taken to make good claims which we have against Germans, it is all provided for in the Peace Treaty, but this is a prohibition against the people who now own property, property which is dealt with under the Treaty, and it goes further than that.
    Mr. McNEILL: Has not the Peace Treaty the force of a Statute in this country? Suppose that a German owner of property were to bring an action or had an action brought against him in our Courts, could he plead the Peace Treaty as a good title?
    Mr. SHORTT: Certainly I think he could plead the Act confirming the Peace Treaty. I do not want to give offhand an opinion on that, especially as I am not charging for it. What I would say is that if we pass an Act confirming the Peace Treaty we ought not within a week to pass another Act which does not conform to the terms of the Peace Treaty.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: This is a matter of the very greatest importance to people to whom money may be due from Germans. My only object in moving the Amendment is to ensure the speediest and easiest payment to British creditors out of German property, in accordance with the terms of the Peace Treaty. I should like to ask, if the words I suggest are not accepted, what steps will have to be taken by the British creditor in such cases to enforce his charge? I believe there are still in this country some magnificent houses, large parks, and so on, belonging to Germans. The Peace Treaty says that commercial men and others in this country who are owed money by Germans shall have a charge upon those magnificent parks and other properties belonging to Germans here. I want respectfully to ask the Home Secretary, How is a commercial man to whom such debts are due to ensure that these great properties which are owned by Germans are made available for paying him? Is he to bring an action individually against a German, and ask the Court of Chancery or some other Court to declare that the property is subject to the charge, or what other
    580
    provision is there? If it has all been thought out and provided for, I shall be perfectly content. I thought that the simplest way would be to vest such property in the Public Trustee, as there would then be no difficulty in paying the British creditor out of the money in the hands of the Public Trustee.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): We have established a clearing house which is responsible for taking over all German property—not only of the limited type dealt with in this particular Clause, but all types. The property will then be disposed of and the money placed in the hands of the Public Trustee. The procedure is quite simple, and has been published. If anyone has a debt against a German he simply applies to that clearing house and will be paid.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask to whom the application should be made, as I sometimes get letters from these creditors?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The clearing house will be under the joint control of the Board of Trade and the Treasury.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), to insert the words "except where necessary for the re-establishment of trade and commerce between the United Kingdom and former enemy territories."
    I think it is desirable that the provisions of this Clause should not apply in cases in which the holding of such property by a business man who may be technically a former enemy alien may be necessary for the formation of a company for the reopening of legitimate trade with former enemy aliens. I am thinking particularly of our very valuable Smyrna trade, which, although technically enemy, is nevertheless carried out by people who were and are very friendly to us. I think it is not the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, if he can help it, in any way to hamper the re-establishment of British trade and commerce with those great portions of Europe and Asia Minor which are technically former enemy alien territory, and I hope the Home Secretary will accept these words, so that those who are trying to reopen trade will be, able to go ahead without any fear of being hampered. With regard to ship-

    581
    ping, although that is only one factor, we have, after all, sold great numbers of British ships to France, and there is no reason why those ships should not ultimately pass into the hands of Germans. I think the number up to date is well over 100—there were 112 before the Recess—and the value of them amounts to £12,500,000 already. I think the insertion of these words will be useful in clearing business men's minds of the fear that there will be hampering restrictions on the restarting of the very valuable British trade between this country and former enemy alien territories in the Centre and East and South-East of Europe.
    Mr. SHORTT: If this were accepted it would go very far to nullify the whole Clause. The object is to protect our industry from the incursion of Germans, at any rate, for a period of three years, and if these words were inserted it would be very difficult to say what is necessary for the re-establishment of trade and commerce and what is not necessary, and, indeed, what "re-establishment of trade and commerce" means. They are very wide words, the interpretation of which would not be at all easy, and if they were interpreted in the wide sense in which they might very well be interpreted they would, as I say, go very far to nullify the Clause altogether.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (COUNCILS, ETC.) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parlia-
  582
  ment, of the expenses of any council, committee, or sub-committee established, or of any fishery meeting convened, under any Act of the present Session, to provide for the constitution of councils and committees in connection with agriculture and fisheries, and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909."

  COUNTY COURT JUDGES (RETIRE MENT PENSIONS AND DEPUTIES) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to make further provision ou4 of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament with respect to the Retirement and Pensions of County Court Judges and the employment of Deputy Judges under any Act of the present Session relating thereto."

  COUNTY COURT JUDGES (RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND DEPUTIES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

PEACE TREATY (RATIFICATION WITH GERMANY).
  PEACE TREATY (RATIFICATION WITH GERMANY).
  PEACE TREATY (RATIFICATION WITH GERMANY).
HIS MAJESTY'S ARABIAN GUESTS.
  HIS MAJESTY'S ARABIAN GUESTS.
  HIS MAJESTY'S ARABIAN GUESTS.
FLOGGING WOMEN.
  FLOGGING WOMEN.
  FLOGGING WOMEN.
EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COAL INDUSTRY).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COAL INDUSTRY).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COAL INDUSTRY).
TREASURY (ESTABLISHMENTS DEPARTMENT).
  TREASURY (ESTABLISHMENTS DEPARTMENT).
  TREASURY (ESTABLISHMENTS DEPARTMENT).
INCOME TAX (TAXABLE INCOME).
  INCOME TAX (TAXABLE INCOME).
  INCOME TAX (TAXABLE INCOME).
WORKS OF ART (HIGH PRICES).
  WORKS OF ART (HIGH PRICES).
  WORKS OF ART (HIGH PRICES).
CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
  CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
  CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  OATMEAL.
  OATMEAL.
  MILK.
  MILK.
IRELAND.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
ROYAL NAVY.
  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
  FREE DISCHARGES.
  FREE DISCHARGES.
  ZEEBRUGGE OPERATIONS (CLASS B RESERVE).
  ZEEBRUGGE OPERATIONS (CLASS B RESERVE).
RUSSIA.
  BALTIC FLEET.
  BALTIC FLEET.
  SPECIAL MISSION, SOUTH RUSSIA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  SPECIAL MISSION, SOUTH RUSSIA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY.
  DURHAM LIGHT INFANTRY.
  VOLUNTEERS (BADGE)
  VOLUNTEERS (BADGE)
  51ST WARWICKSHIRE REGIMENT.
  51ST WARWICKSHIRE REGIMENT.
DEMOBILISATION.
  TROOPS IN INDIA.
  TROOPS IN INDIA.
  WAR OFFICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
  WAR OFFICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
  TROOPS (REFUSAL TO EMBARK).
  TROOPS (REFUSAL TO EMBARK).
  DESERTION (ROYAL ENGINEERS).
  DESERTION (ROYAL ENGINEERS).
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (2ND WEST RIDING BRIGADE).
  ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (2ND WEST RIDING BRIGADE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TUBERCULAR CASES (BEDDING AND CLOTHING).
  TUBERCULAR CASES (BEDDING AND CLOTHING).
  MEDICAL REFEREES, HASTINGS.
  MEDICAL REFEREES, HASTINGS.
  RICHBOROUGH CAMP.
  RICHBOROUGH CAMP.
INDIA.
  GOVERNMENT OR INDIA BILL (EVIDENCE).
  GOVERNMENT OR INDIA BILL (EVIDENCE).
  WOLSELEY HELMETS (CONTRACT).
  WOLSELEY HELMETS (CONTRACT).
  AFGHANISTAN.
  AFGHANISTAN.
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (TREATY STIPULATIONS).
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (TREATY STIPULATIONS).
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  POLICE PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  POLICE PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-CONSTABLES' PAY).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-CONSTABLES' PAY).
  ALIENS DEPORTED.
  ALIENS DEPORTED.
  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  GREATER LONDON (LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES).
  GREATER LONDON (LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES).
  MOTOR SPIRIT.
  MOTOR SPIRIT.
  SEWING COTTON (PROFITS).
  SEWING COTTON (PROFITS).
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
  RAILWAY STRIKE (VICTIMISATION).
  RAILWAY STRIKE (VICTIMISATION).
  TEA IMPORTS (TRANSPORT).
  TEA IMPORTS (TRANSPORT).
  HULL (PORT CONGESTION).
  HULL (PORT CONGESTION).
  MOTOR CARS (STEERING APPLIANCES).
  MOTOR CARS (STEERING APPLIANCES).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION,
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION,
  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.
  COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.
POST OFFICE.
  VACANCIES (EX-SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
  VACANCIES (EX-SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
  TELEPHONE CIRCUITS (BERKELEY STREET AND PICCADILLY).
  TELEPHONE CIRCUITS (BERKELEY STREET AND PICCADILLY).
  SUB-POST OFFICES (EARLY CLOSING).
  SUB-POST OFFICES (EARLY CLOSING).
  SUB-POSTMASTER'S ASSISTANTS, LLANDUDNO.
  SUB-POSTMASTER'S ASSISTANTS, LLANDUDNO.
  CHANNEL SERVICES (BRITISH AND IRISH PORTS).
  CHANNEL SERVICES (BRITISH AND IRISH PORTS).
  PORT1SHEAD DOCK.
  PORT1SHEAD DOCK.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FEEDING STUFFS AND FERTILISERS.
  FEEDING STUFFS AND FERTILISERS.
  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (BENEFACTIONS).
  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (BENEFACTIONS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The Loan CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SUPERANNUATION (PRISON OFFICERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many houses have been completed under the Housing Act; what has been the average cost of each of such houses; and what is the average rent at which they are let.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Question that stands in my name relates only to a small part, but I think your Lordships will agree a very material part, of one of the most important matters at the present moment occupying the public mind. Your Lordships will notice that there is another Question standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Grey which deals with a more extensive aspect of the same subject, and it would probably be for the convenience of the House—I think the noble Earl would find it to his convenience also—if both Lord Grey's Question and mine were taken together in order to avoid two distinct debates upon what really are two Questions on the same subject.
In considering this housing question, I think it would be well to look back and see how it has arisen and why it is so urgent to-day. The question has arisen owing to the grave and serious neglect of every successive Government during the last fifty years. I do not think that any one who has been through some of the mining villages in Scotland and in parts of England can fail to feel that the existence of the dwellings in which we house one of the most important sections of the community is a blot upon our English life. It cannot
258
be forgotten, and it cannot be denied, that during the last fifty years the attention of people in this country has been far too exclusively concentrated upon the acquisition of wealth, and there has not been nearly sufficient attention given to the consideration of those by whose labour the creation of that wealth has been so materially assisted. It ought to have been impossible for people to have allowed colonies to grow up round their works that present the candalous conditions of the houses which were the subject of the Report made by the Scottish Commission upon Housing, to which I called your Lordships' attention on a former occasion.
The evil, as I have said, has been the growth not of one or two but of three generations, and it is hopeless to imagine that any abuse so long continued can by any means whatever be promptly and rapidly remedied. Whether it will take as long to restore a, proper condition of housing as it has taken to destroy it, is a question upon which no man can speak with certainty; at any rate, it is quite certain that those people who have been responsible for leading the country to believe that this evil is capable of swift and immediate remedy have done a very serious mischief. They have inflamed the people's mind with hopes which it will be impossible to realise, and the discontent that will grow when it is found that those hopes are doomed to disappointment may form a very grave and serious factor in the industrial reconstruction of this country which it is the object of all of us, by united effort, to secure and advance.
The housing problem suddenly became notorious at the last Election. A very grave responsibility rests upon the people who then, instead of pointing out, as it was their duty to do, that the condition of the country even after our great victory was so broken and disturbed by the strain of war that great efforts, great sacrifices, and great energy from all were required in order that it may be restored, suggested that there were great schemes by which the difficulties and disadvantages may be removed, that all they had to do was to secure the return to Parliament of a Government which promised to remove them in order that their hopes might be fulfilled. That, I believe, has had not a little to do with the industrial unrest and discontent which has been with us ever since the Armistice was declared, and

259
which will remain with us until some of its more immediate and fundamental causes are removed.
It is now more than twelve months since hostilities ceased. It is approaching twelve months since the Government assumed office. It must be six or seven months since the Housing Bill became law. What I want to know is what has been done, and at what cost, in that interval to satisfy the pledges that were made. My Question puts three simple points—how many houses have in fact been completed; what has it cost to complete them; and what is the average rent at which they are let? More than once, even at the risk of accusations of pessimism, I have called your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the present moment the housing schemes which have been produced under the provisions of the Housing Act are of such a character that, if they are carried out, there will be imposed on this country a permanent annual liability which I have estimated at no less than £20,000,000.
I mentioned, and your Lordships will forgive me for repeating it, as I have had no explanation and no answer to my figures, that in one urban district—the district of Godalming—there was a scheme for building fifty-eight houses which depended on an initial building cost of something under £1,000 a-piece, and there would be imposed either in the form of rates or taxes an annual liability of £57 per house if all the annual charges were properly met. It seems to me that this means the destruction of the whole housing scheme; or, if it does not, it most certainly involves this—not merely that the Government have hastily, and as I think without any proper reflection or foresight, embarked upon a scheme which will involve us in measureless responsibility, but, as every one must know, all private enterprise in building will be permanently destroyed. It will be quite impossible to expect private people to begin building houses in competition with houses which, when they are let at 12 s. per week—a five-roomed house —none the less require to be subsidised by the State to the extent of £57 a year.
The figures I gave might be thought exceptional, but the estimate of the county council was for a building price that was in excess of the building price for Godalming. Mr. Woodward, who speaks with authority as a Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, writing to The Times,
260
points out that the figure of £20,000,000 a year, which I put as the average annual burden of the scheme, is under-estimated to the extent of £17,000,000; in his view it cannot be less than £37,000,000 a year. Sir James Carmichael suggests that the average cost of each house would be £707, and Mr. Abbott, Vice-President of the Town-planning Institute, stated that the average cost would be £921—that is, the cost of building the house. This does not include the acquisition of the land, the making of the roads, the sewers, the pavement and the kerb, and all the incidental expenses which every one who has had even the most transitory connection with the development of urban property knows form an enormous item in the general cost of houses when built.
I have no desire to do anything which will hinder the development of this scheme. I am as anxious—I hesitate to say that no one is more anxious, for it sounds a little self-sufficient—as any of your Lordships to see that our people are decently housed. Every man who has ever touched public affairs must realise that you can never built up a great, contented, self-respecting people if you house them under conditions that are a disgrace to your civilisation.
The scheme has to be carried on somehow, but my complaint is that the Government have begun the wrong way. They ought to have attempted to see first how to stimulate production of materials, how to use the unemployed labour in connection with the preparation of all materials required, and, if necessary, for the purpose of constructing the houses. If they had attempted that instead of giving a flat-rate unemployment benefit to people who, while in receipt of it, had no stimulus whatever to try and get work—if they had supplemented and subsidised their wages in developments such as I have suggested, and called upon the unions to help them to build houses for the benefit of those who are their own people—I think very different results would have been accomplished. It may be that I am in ignorance—that the Scheme has progressed more favourably than I fear—and it is for the purpose of ascertaining information, in order that this House and the country may know what has been done and what it is of which we may expect accomplishment, that I have put down the Question which stands in my name.
EARL GREY EARL GREY had the following Notice on the paper—
To call attention to the speech delivered by the Director-General of Housing at the Timber Exchange on 5th November, in which he is reported to have stated—

1. That the Government scheme is in danger of breaking down owing to the excessive cost of building; and

2. That there is no incentive to economy on the part of the local authorities.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I presume it will be in accordance with the convenience of the House if I deal with my Notice immediately. A whole week has elapsed since The Times reported the Director-General of Housing as having, in a public speech, made the two statements to which I refer. Those statements are so serious that I think I am entitled to assume that, if they had not been correct, the Director-General of Housing would have contradicted them by now. Therefore I think we may fully assume that they represent his considered opinion. As perhaps collateral evidence, I would turn to the answer given by the Minister of Health in another place on the day after that speech was made. When he was asked by an hon. Member almost exactly the same question as Lord Buckmaster has put to the Government, he replied in an answer which gave, not the details asked, but figures of schemes which had been put forward, of houses which had been approved, and then he fortified it by saying that—
"Detailed information as to the number of houses which have been completed and are fit for immediate occupation is not available, but I am aware of a few cases where houses have been completed and are occupied."
That is apparently the sum total that the Department is able to boast of after a whole year's work. Therefore I think that Sir James Carmichael has under-estimated the gravity of the situation when he says that the Government scheme is in danger of breaking down.
It is shown that the Government scheme has broken down hopelessly already. If any justification be needed for drawing your Lordships' attention to that position, I think it lies in the fact that apparently the realisation of this has at last broken through to the Minister of Health himself, and therefore he has found it necessary to enter into new agreements with the building trade, which presumably may be expected
262
to improve the situation. It was only at a late hour last night, when hardly any of your Lordships were left, that we reached the Question which I had put upon the Paper designed to draw from the Government what were the terms of those agreements. I do not know whether the noble Viscount opposite will agree with me, but I think it will really cover the position if we deal only with the first of those agreements. I think that ay criticism which is likely to be directed against the first agreement will equally apply to the second. I may perhaps be wrong, but it looks to me as if the first is the more important of the two agreements.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is the most important, certainly.
EARL GREY: The answer given to my question last night was as follows—
"The principal feature of the first is that representatives of the local authority, the local federated builders, and the housing commissioner meet together and arrive at an agreed price at which houses are to be erected, and that then the number of houses to be built under the arrangement is distributed to the builders in proportion to their resources."
It seems to me that the important thing about this agreement is this—Does it contain any new feature which will entitle the Government to hope that a policy which has not been successful in the past will be successful in the future? I have been turning over that answer in my mind since last night, and I am bound to say that I cannot see that we have very much to hope for from the new departure.
There is one direction, however, in which I think there may be some improvement to expect. It does seem to me that the agreement implies that the Ministry of Health is reconciled to greater decentralisation and is prepared to waive the strict application of some of the more irksome specifications, which, while no doubt features of an ideal housing scheme, yet serve to increase very much the cost of houses and impose very considerable delays. If the Ministry of Health can be brought to realise that the troubles which have delayed the whole of this scheme are not only due to difficulties of labour—difficulties which your Lordships will no doubt agree are very great indeed and very serious, and which are unfortunately not all behind us—if they can be brought to realise that labour cannot be accused of being the only source of trouble, then I

263
think we may hope for rather quicker progress in the future.
In this respect it would be instructive to look at what has been achieved during the same time in France. In France materials are no doubt more difficult to obtain than in this country. Labour certainly is scarcer, and transport in the areas to be rebuilt is very much more difficult than it is in England. Yet for every house which we build in this country I believe I am correct in saying that tens of houses have been erected in France in the same time. I think I am entitled to ask why that should be so. The only answer which occurs to me is that it is because the French Government has allowed private enterprise to go its own way unfettered; it has, in fact, said to the individual, "If you elect to live in a house which contains a less amount of cubic feet of air space than the doctors say is the best thing for you, well that is your business." One result is that houses undoubtedly have sprung up in a most remarkable way in the northern part of France. I am not suggesting that we ought to go as far as that. I do not think that would be a good thing, but I do say that there is a middle way which we could reach—half a loaf is still better than no bread. If the Ministry of Health persist in saying that the people must live in palaces, I am afraid that the only result will be that those who are house-less to-day will remain houseless for a long time to come. Therefore I hope most earnestly that the real inner meaning of this new agreement with the builders is an attempt to cover a strategical retreat from an impossible position.
If I might quote an instance of how I think the Ministry of Health have contributed by the action they have taken to increase the delay, I would like to call your Lordships' attention to a paragraph which appeared in the Daily News last week, and which I have not had an opportunity of verifying. It describes the efforts of the Woking Council to proceed with building. According to the reporter of the Daily News the Woking Council had this experience—
It appears that Woking's ambition is to get on with its first forty-two houses, as many families are crowded together in rooms. "Plans were completed," said the Councillor, "and every preparation made for proper drainage. As we were about to proceed, an official stepped in and condemned the drainage. So we altered the plans, and thought, we could then go ahead. But no. Along came another official and dis-
264
covered we were going to use 21 oz. of glass. 'It must be 15-oz.,' he said. So we altered the plans again. A third official then made his appearance. 'The rise in the stairs is one inch,' he said. 'It must be only three-quarters.' So we altered the plans again, and just as we were about to submit them we received from the Ministry of Health a 'Set of Model Plans,' which local councils must use if their plans are to be passed. Now these plans were identical with our own before we had three times altered them to suit the officials who had held us up. We should have to restore the drainage which we had originally planned, also the 21 oz. of glass and the I in. rise in the stairs."
I have no doubt that is a very exaggerated account; still there is no smoke without fire; and I am satisfied from what I have heard from many sources that, if this is an exaggerated account, may similar hindrances nevertheless do occur up and down the Country through the irritating insistence on small details which cannot really affect the health of the people who are to live in these houses.
May I say one word now about the second statement which I quote from the Director-General's speech, "that there is no incentive to economy on the part of the local authorities?" It is quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of that statement, or, I am afraid, to impugn its accuracy. Therefore the only question that I want to raise in connection with it—I will leave its importance and gravity to speak for itself—is this. If it is true, as I am afraid we must take it to be, how far as a result of that stricture will the Government's policy be amended under the new procedure which has been proposed? Will it be improved, or will it not? With the best will in the world I do not see how any new principle whatever is contained in the so-called new agreement. The normal procedure of all local authorities under this Housing Act, or any other Housing Act under which local authorities have built in the past, has always been to issue tenders and build on contract for fixed sums, the contracts frequently, as now, including clauses which safeguard the builder from rises in wages. That is, I suppose, now a universal feature of all formal contracts. But no local authority has its own building department, and therefore I think that there may be slight rearrangements which I do not quite see at present in the procedure. I do not see, if there was no incentive to economy on the part of local authorities before, where that incentive is to come in now under this new procedure.

265
I would not have raised this question had I thought that there was no alternative policy which the Government might even still consent to support. I believe that there are alternative policies which would not only produce a larger number of houses than the policy of the Ministry of Health, but which would conduce in a way which the present scheme does not to economy of building. I do not think we ought to concentrate in the present crisis on any one method. I believe we ought to employ any and every method which would contribute to the result desired. There are two methods particularly which ought to be mentioned in criticising the policy of the Government. One is a policy of bounties on the production of houses. That I do not propose to deal with now. I believe that it will be dealt with by other speakers in the course of the debate.
The other policy which I want to mention leads me to say how very much I regret that the offer of the building societies to co-operate with the Government—an offer which I brought to the notice of the Government in the course of the debates when the Housing Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House—has not apparently ever been followed up or acted upon. I firmly believe that that offer was turned down for no good reason except a sentimental reason—or perhaps it would not be quite fair to call it a sentimental reason. It may be that in times past, when prices were less grave than they are now, that, there were very good reasons why the policy of not subsidising private traders should not be departed from, but when you fail to get the houses by any other means I do think we ought to reconsider our position. If the policy of subsidising in the case I am thinking of, through building societies, is going to give us the houses which we have not got at present, I venture to express the hope once more that the offer will again be considered if, as I understand, it is still open, and if building societies are still willing to come in and help the Government. As far as I remember, the offer was a peculiarly favourable one from the point of view of His Majesty's Treasury, because building societies themselves were prepared to finance a share which they had suggested to the Government. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to assure us that in exploring the ground further he will once more see whether use can be made of the great building societies.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Astor, who would naturally represent the Ministry of Health in this House, is not here to deal with this matter. I understand he is usefully employed elsewhere. He is saturated with this subject, is following the matter from day to day, and could deal with it far more fully and satisfactorily than I can expect to do. Indeed, from the point of view of the War Office we are rather in the position of finding some difficulty ourselves in the matter of housing, and therefore we are ourselves sufferers.
The noble and learned Lord who began this discussion raised, I think, a general indictment not only against past Governments but against the general social attitude of this country towards housing, and thus, I think, travelled rather wide of the specific question that he placed upon the Paper. May I say this in criticism of the accuracy of one statement that he made? He told us, I think, that the Act had been passed for some six or seven months. The Act has been passed about three months; it received the Royal Assent, I think, on July 31. A general charge that the working of a very complicated Act of this kind has entirely broken down after it has only been three months in operation is a much more serious and severer charge than it would be if the Act had already been six or seven months in operation.
As regards the first Question that the noble and learned Lord asks about the number of houses completed under the Housing Act, I am afraid I have not got the figures with me. There are no figures, I believe, which I can give to the noble and learned Lord in satisfaction of that particular demand. I should also like to say that we must not only deal with the number of houses actually constructed under the Housing Act. There are, of course, the houses which have been dealt wish under the process of conversion with which the noble and learned Lord is familiar. Some 300 tenements, I think, under this conversion system are already complete, and 140 of them are ready for occupation. As to the second Question—What has been the average cost of such houses as have been completed—I believe that the average cost works out as follows:—The actual building of the house, £710; land, £18; road and sewer work, etc., £45. Those figures, added

267
together, come to £773, and, if to that is added architects' fees, £800 will fully cover the average cost of the houses that have been constructed. Perhaps I may be allowed to say something at a rather later stage as to the third Question, the average rent at which these houses are let.
I think it might be convenient if I gave to your Lordships some idea of the way in which work has proceeded under the Housing Act during the last few months. Hardly any difficulty has been met with as regards sites. Sites have been submitted for approval sufficient for something like 400,000 houses. The sites actually approved up to the present moment have ben 230,000. The land also, through good will on the part of owners and through the assistance received from district valuers of the Inland Revenue Department, has been acquired on the whole economically. Therefore the first step towards housing, the acquisition of the sites, is proceeding, I think, quite satisfactorily.
The next point is the lay-out of these sites for building, and I am informed that there also matters are going along fairly rapidly, and there has been no very great difficulty. As regards the plans for the houses, your Lordships will readily realise that the plans have to be scrutinised very carefully. I have no knowledge of the particular case cited by my noble friend, the Woking case, but it is quite clear that in the exercise of the responsibility of the Department for keeping down expenditure anything like unnecessary and expensive detail has to be dealt with firmly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can my noble friend say whether the scrutiny takes place by the local Commissioner, or in London.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I believe that the work is largely done by the local Housing Commissioners. The number of house plans which have been approved is 40,000, but that number is really far larger than might be supposed, because in many cases regular type plans have been used, and those can be repeated in the future. Therefore the work of approving plans, if the houses are built upon certain approved types, can go on in the future very rapidly.
The great difficulty comes when tenders are invited by the local anthority. There is a good deal of tenderness on the part
268
of builders in tendering at all. The large builders do not find this class of work very profitable, and they prefer to use their resources as far as they can in other work —factory and shop extension, and work of that kind. A large percentage, I think something like 60 per cent, of the building trades is employed actually on repair work and different classes of work, such as places of amusement, factory and shop extensions of different kinds all over the country, and this, of course, militates a good deal against their anxiety to take part in these housing schemes. For instance, some time ago the number of bricklayers under one of the housing schemes dropped from 160 to forty-two in one week, owing to the fact that rather more attractive and higher paid work was offered to them in the particular locality. The smaller builders, I understand, are very largely unacquainted with the difficulties of bills of quantities and specifications, and the result is that prices are very much put up, largely because many of those who tender do not really very much care whether they get the tenders accepted or not, and further because they are very a apprehensive, and naturally apprehensive, of a large increment in the price of labour and also of material. At the present time, therefore, it is very difficult to regard a large number of the tenders that have been put forward as in any sense competitive. This, of course, has a very serious effect upon the local authorities, who are rather alarmed at the cost, and it makes it very necessary to scrutinise carefully the tenders that have been received. This, again, leads to delay, discussion, and bargaining.
But the other very serious difficulty to which allusion has been made is, of course, the shortage of labour. The building trade recruited very largely during the war for the Army, and it suffered heavily in personnel. Not only that, but many persons who were in the building trade have come back from the war and drifted into other trades from which they are rather unwilling to return. It is extremely important that some steps should be taken to remedy this shortage, and it is to be hoped that the trade unions will see the necessity in the interests of their own class of affording facilities for this being done, and for the increase of those who could be employed in the building trades.
Another difficulty which is being encountered is that of finance. Some local authorities are finding difficulty in raising

269
their loans; a still larger number are afraid that they will have difficulty in raising loans—which, perhaps, amounts to the same thing. At the present moment, as I think was stated during the course of the debates on the Housing Bill, local authorities with a rateable value of less than £2200,000 a year can borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners, so there is no particular difficulty about their obtaining money. The big authorities, again, are familiar with the raising of loans, and do not find any great difficulty. It is the intermediate authorities who are troubled in the matter of finance, and I understand that a Committee has recently been appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is prepared to give guidance and advice to local authorities on this very difficult point. Then as regards rents, there is some apprehension on the part of local authorities, especially the district councils, who are afraid that they may not be able to obtain when the time comes proper economic rents, and that therefore they may get into some difficulty in 1927 when the whole matter is reconsidered and when the subsidy from the Government is finally fixed. The Government policy on that point is, of course, perfectly clear. It is to aim as an ideal at obtaining an economic rent; and this policy received from your Lordships great support during the discussions on the Housing Bill.
The regulations which are based upon the Statute provide that the subsidy, both at the present time and when the final subsidy is fixed in 1927, shall be such as will limit the burden on the local authorities to the Id. rate. At the same time the regulations provide that the Exchequer itself shall be protected from extravagant and uneconomic action on the part of the local authorities. For instance, the regulations provide that the Minister may make deductions from the subsidy if it is likely to be increased by the insufficiency of the rents charged by the local authorities. The ideal which is to be attained is that the rent which will be fixed in 1927 shall be the rent which could be obtained for a house built at that date on the assumption that at that date the cost of building will have reached a normal post-war level. As regard the fixing of the rents, I have to add that the question of the initial rents and what should be charged in agricultural districts is being considered by a special committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Henry Hobhouse.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Initial? That is not the 1927 rate?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; you cannot judge of that until you know what the cost of building will be at that time. Now as to any action that the Government may be proposing to take to meet the present difficulties. First of all, I think it is fair to state that the Government have been perfectly frank during these months on the position and as to the difficulties with which they have been met. The White Paper which is published every week is laid before Parliament showing the exact state of progress under the Act. The Government have not shut out any suggestions from any quarter; they have been only too ready and anxious to receive suggestions from those who are competent to give them advice. Yesterday I detailed certain new suggestions which had been made, upon which my noble friend Lord Grey commented in the course of his speech. I think he has somewhat misunderstood those. proposals. They were not meant in any sense to supersede the normal working of the Act, and they were no more than supplementary to the provision of houses in other ways. Then I think my noble friend also rather complained that the building contractors, and so on, were not taken sufficiently into the confidence of the Government. This particular scheme on which my noble friend commented was actually in accordance with the suggestion of the Building Re-settlement Committee of the Joint Industrial Council of the Building Trades; so that the proposal imposed from above on the building trades is one which actually comes from them; and as it comes from them, and as they may be assumed to know their own business, I think, perhaps, there is some likelihood that this may prove more fruitful than the rather melancholy prognostications which my noble friend seemed to suggest.
EARL GREY: I think my noble friend has misunderstood me. I said that the fruitfulness or otherwise of these scheme depended on the degree with which the Ministry of Health is prepared to relax its insistence on minute specifications.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That may have been one of the grounds; but I think the arrangement made under this sort of triple alliance of the Housing Commissioners, of

271
the local authorities, and of the federated building trades—a friendly arrangement of that kind—is likely to obviate some of the minor difficulties to which my noble friend alludes. I come now to the different forms of construction and to the use of different materials, which I think bear on the suggested rigidity of the action o the Ministry of Health. They are doing their best to encourage different forms of construction and the use of different materials in order to produce economy and rapidity of construction. Judging by some of the quotations received from firms who deal with these particular methods of construction, it is to be hoped that houses will be produced more cheaply than has been the case before. I have in my hand a copy of a paper called Housing, issued by the Ministry of Health. I cannot trouble your Lordships with all the details because they are extremely complicated—the various improved construction methods and varieties of material which are set out and which have been suggested by different building firms. At any rate, all these have been approved, and if they can be made use of — as is hoped will be the case—they will lead to more rapid and economic construction. But, in addition to the points I have mentioned, I should like to say that further schemes are being considered by the Ministry of Health, which schemes will in due course, no doubt, bear fruit.
There are two points to which I must also refer, points raised in the question of my noble friend in regard to some statements made by the Director-General of Housing at the Timber Exchange on November 5, in which he is reported to have made certain statements as set out in a newspaper. I think that your Lordships, as members of public assemblies, realise that there is a considerable tiresomeness in prolixity, but there is, perhaps, even more danger in condensation; and these observations as set out here are so condensed as to give a wholly false impression of the speech made by the Director-General. There is a further point to be remembered—namely, that the speaker generally addresses himself both to the audience and to the particular issue before him, and I dare say if the Director-General of Housing had known that his observations were to be carefully scrutinised in your Lordships' House he would have made those necessary limitations and definitions
272
which skilled and practised speakers make almost unconsciously.
The first point I should like to note is this—that the speech was delivered to the Timber Trade Federation and the object with which it was delivered was to urge the Federation to assist housing in every way by reducing the cost of timber. Naturally, the speaker pointed out that unless there were these reductions there was a great danger that the housing schemes of the Government would fail. I cannot imagine that any of your Lordships who might have been urging on the production of housing, would have made any other speech. As to the perversion of the context by which my noble friend suggests it almost amounted to a statement that the schemes were failing because of the high prices of materials, that is a construction which, I think, is really quite unfair to place upon the statements made to the Timber Exchange.
As to the second statement—that there is no incentive to economy on the part of the local authorities—to what specific I point was that observation addressed? It was addressed to this point, that the I main burden in the initial stages of securing that these houses are economical falls upon the central authorities either directly or through their Housing Commissioners, and the Director-General wished to suggest to the timber trade that everybody—the timber trade, the local authorities and others—should co-operate to reduce expenses as much as possible in order that the full weight of bringing economy to bear should not rest mainly or only in this initial stage upon the central authority. My noble friend interprets that as if it were a general statement that there is no incentive to local authorities to act with economy. The curious thing is that almost the opposite is the case.
One of the dangers and difficulties in the way of building these houses is that the local authorities are afraid that too much economy will be forced upon them, and that thus they will suffer because the subsidy may be reduced on the ground that the rents are insufficiently high. So that you have dangers on both sides. You must not alarm local authorities by suggesting that their subsidies will be reduced if they do not fix the rents sufficiently high. The Director-General, of course, had no intention whatever of applying the observations to this stage of the building of houses; indeed, if he had, his observa-

273
tions obviously would have been absurd, because everybody knows—your Lordships are familiar with the provisions of the Act and know quite well—that if the local authorities do not exercise sufficient care in the management and administration of the houses their subsidies will be reduced and the penny rate will not be the sole amount which they will have to pay to make both ends meet. I think my noble friend can dismiss any anxiety as to the observations that are made by the Director-General. They have been taken out of their context and applied more generally and more widely than, and in a different sense from, that in which they were expressed at that meeting.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the two noble Lords opposite have given your Lordships' House an opportunity to discuss the housing question. Although the attendance here would hardly suggest it, I think I am not exaggerating when I say that it is the dominating problem of the hour in our domestic affairs. Every week I hear—and I have no doubt your Lordships hear as well—that the social and economic evils which flow from a dearth of houses are becoming increasingly pronounced. My noble friend who has just replied to the various Questions that have been put to him by noble Lords opposite has, with his accustomed ability and lucidity, dealt with the official aspects of the matter and, with accustomed adroitness, skated over the more difficult aspects which have been put forward by the noble Lord opposite and to which I will allude in a moment.
From various centres one hears, week by week, pitiful accounts of hardship and suffering on the part of families quite capable of paying substantial rent for a house who, on account of the dearth of houses, are unable to obtain anything in the nature of a decent dwelling. Several of our centres now have had to appeal to the poor-law guardians to intervene and, in a most makeshift manner, introduce accommodation for those who are unable to obtain it otherwise. From an examination into this problem there appears to be a very wide difference in demand. In some localities the demand for houses is comparatively slight, whilst in other it is alarming and, as I have said, it is causing very grievous distress.
I should like, if I may for a few minutes, to dwell on the causes of the shortage of
274
houses, because I believe that from the causes may be deduced certain remedies which would mitigate those evils to no small extent if they were adopted but which, as I understand, have not seriously been adopted by the Ministry of Health. The first obvious reason for the shortage is the almost complete cessation—the necessarily almost complete cessation—of house-building during the five years of the war; but it is not merely since the year 1914 that there has been a cessation of building, especially of private enterprise in building. It dates from an earlier period than that—the year 1909. It dates, I venture to say, from the coming into operation of the Land Taxes imposed by the Budget of that year, especially the Undeveloped Land Tax. I think it is universally recognised by all those who have examined the subject that, whatever the merits of that tax may have been or may be to-day, it has succeeded in producing an almost complete cessation of building. That is not all. In the same year when that Budget with the Land Taxes was introduced Mr. Burns carried his Housing Act which was put into operation in the country. This did a great deal, and has done so in the succeeding years, to stimulate demolition and closing orders. It has gone a long way towards materially increasing the available house accommodation throughout the country, and undoubtedly—and we all naturally applaud the fact—it had the effect of removing large centres of disease and houses in an insanitary condition; therefore, of course, I do not say this by any way of comment, but with this reservation, that the Act, while it stimulated demolition and closing orders, made quite an inadequate attempt to avoid the necessity of making closing orders on the part of local authorities. It did not introduce any provision to enforce structural repairs to those houses which were in a dilapidated or insanitary condition.
I lay stress on sanitary condition, sanitary defect, as compared with structural defect. Attention under the Act has been almost exclusively confined to sanitary defects, and nothing has been done to enforce structural repairs, where they could have been carried out, to dilapidated houses. The result is—I may say without exaggeration, as I have been informed by those competent to give the information—that there are hundreds of houses, perhaps thousands, in our urban and rural districts

275
which have been condemned as unfit and are unoccupied to-day, but which, if structural repairs had been undertaken at the time, would to-day have been occupied and have afforded comfortable homes for families throughout the country. The method by which this operation has been carried out has been through the instrumentality of the sanitary inspector under the local authority. It is not the business of a sanitary inspector, neither has he the experience nor the training, to attempt to deal with anything in the nature of structural repairs.
It is much to be deplored that the Ministry of Health have not in the past two years called the Royal Institute of Architects to aid them in securing the skilled assistance in the different localities of architects to deal with these numerous houses that are in a dilapidated condition. I am given to understand that had such assistance been invoked it would have been readily responded to, and as the Institute are in close touch with all the architects throughout the country, committees could have been formed in the different districts, skilled advice given, and many houses which are not tenanted or are tenanted under very defective conditions might have been placed in a state of repair. This would have been of considerable assistance in mitigating the evil, though it would not have gone a very serious way towards meeting the great problem of the shortage of houses.
I am sorry that my noble friend was not able to give the number of houses which have been completed. I have heard of two houses which have been finished in the town of Wolverhampton, but from a perusal of the public Press these are the only two as a result of all the stream of correspondence and the torrent of forms which have been sent down to different local authorities.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope my noble friend will not assume that the two houses he has seen are the only houses that have been built.
LORD ISLINGTON: Those are the only two I have seen. I am sorry the noble Viscount was unable to give us the figures showing the number which have been completed. What I feel is this, that the Government two years ago, when they saw this great crisis was coming, might
276
have exercised rather greater foresight in finding out those localities where the trouble was going to be most acute. There is no doubt that in some districts in this country to-day the dearth of houses is acute in the extreme, and I should have thought that, with a certain amount of foresight, steps might have been taken effectually to find out where the shortage would be most acute. If these steps had been taken provision might have been made of a more emergency character, and healthy and comfortable dwellings, although of a temporary character, have been provided and furnished a roof for families during the coming winter.
The two really important points which ought to have been placed in the forefront of the consideration of this problem are—first, that the demand in certain of these localities, when discovered, was immediate and should be met and complied with before the winter months arrived; secondly, that it was obvious from the start, with all the conditions prevailing, that a fully standardised permanent house could not possibly be erected which could ever be occupied upon an economic basis, either now or at any time in the indefinite future. How could an elaborate house, with all its health provisions, its conditions of permanent structure and its provisions for efficient drainage, be erected with prices as they stand at the present time? Every condition and element of the building trade to-day is in an absolutely abnormal state, and it is bound to be so, not only now but for many years to come.
Where should we have been in the years 1914 and 1915 if methods like those which are being employed by the Ministry of Health to-day had been employed to accommodate ourArmy and the troops which came form all parts of our Empire to these shores? I venture to say that the shortage of houses in some of our important districts to-day may be regarded in just the same light—an emergency shortage of accommodation—as in 1914 when accommodation had to be arranged for the troops, and that the same methods should have been employed to meet the emergency this year, and the immediate succeeding years, as were employed in 1914. No doubt it would shock the susceptibilities of those in official circles to say that, now the war is over, it would be proper to erect in any part of the country houses of a temporary character, but I think it would

277
be much better if the class of house which accommodated with comfort the troops during the past five years were now available for families who are practically roofless in many of our thickly-populated centres. Had this been done the Government and the municipalities would not be faced to-clay with the impossible and insoluble economic problem which now confronts them.
My noble friend, as I say, skated very lightly over the real question which confronts us to-day, and which will confront us with more acuteness in a few years time—namely, that two-thirds of the expenditure on these houses will be a dead-weight debt upon the State or the municipality, or equally divided upon both. We are told by the Minister of Health that in a few years time, when normal conditions are restored, the rents of these houses can be raised to a sufficient height to pay for interest and sinking fund upon this inflated sum.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know what inflated sum my noble friend alludes to. Of course, the economic rent will be based upon what it will cost to build at that time, not what the houses cost at the time when they were built.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not use the word "inflated" in any offensive spirit, but it is inevitable that the building of houses of high standing when abnormal conditions are prevailing does produce an inflated expenditure, and if that expenditure in six or seven years time is to be met by a rent which will be adequate to pay interest and sinking fund, it will entail, of course, a rent far in excess of that which obtains to-day.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think I made myself clear to my noble friend, because the rent in 1927 is not to be based upon the cost of the house as now built but upon the cost in 1927 of building a house of that type, it being hoped that by that time some sort of after-war conditions may be arrived at.
LORD ISLINGTON: So that the difference between what would be the expenditure then and the expenditure now will have to be regarded as a dead-weight debt on the State?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Less the penny rate on the municipality.
LORD ISLINGTON: I think that is all the more an argument in favour of what I am venturing to suggest, which is that it would have been much better for the Ministry of Health to have obtained, as far as they could, accurate information as to those districts where the crisis was really acute, where there was such a dearth of houses that grievious suffering would ensue and dislocation of industry, and in those centres go straight to work and build houses on exactly the same lines as those which were built in order to accommodate the troops in 1914–15. If that had been done I think we should have had houses built by now, on the eve of the winter, and those houses if properly looked after would last a long time, and would, I believe, cost the State very much less than the cost which is entailed by this elaborate and indiscriminate building of houses during an abnormal period such as we are now passing through. I have ventured to put forward this point, and I do so in no hostile spirit, because I realise that the problem is one of the utmost difficulty; but I do feel this, that whilst affording accommodation where accommodation is really necessary, every precaution should be taken, in these difficult years when you have this extremely expensive method of building, only to build houses of an expensive character during that period where they are absolutely necessary.
I would suggest with all respect to the Government that in considering this problem—because, after all, it is so difficult a one that there is very excuse for making changes and fresh departures as time proceeds—they should really apply themselves to the suggestion which I ventured to indicate at the commencement of my remarks—namely, that they should put in order and make habitable all those houses which are untenanted throughout the country, and do it upon a thoroughly architectural and scientific method; also that they should derive information from those districts where the crisis is really acute; and that, instead of merely consoling these unfortunate people by asking them to look at elaborate plans, they should really set to work and get them houses erected with the same expedition as houses were erected in 1914.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to speak on the housing question with great sympathy for the Government. They are faced by a very

279
great difficulty. We all recognise it, and I am not disposed on every ground to find very great fault with the Government, because I recognise that at any rate the Minister of Health is not responsible for the great rise in the cost of materials and labour. I think it probable that many of us—I speak for myself and others—would have made different proposals for the solution of the housing question when we had to make proposals, if we had realised what would be the exigencies of price at the present time. I make that preliminary observation in order to assure my noble friend, the noble Viscount, that I do not want to find too much fault with the Government in the few observations that I propose to make. At the same time I do not think there is any useful purpose to be gained in trying to explain away the great urgency of the difficulty at the present moment.
I think that that inevitable optimism with which my noble friend always approaches the difficulties in which the Departments he defends are placed was almost excessive on the present occasion. The difficulty is really of the most urgent character, and it is particularly hard upon my noble friend that he should have been faced by Lord Grey with the actual observations of the Director-General of Housing. These cannot be quite explained away. The Director-General of Housing definitely said that "it must be frankly admitted that the supply of houses by the local anthorities has been very disappointing," and he said in another part of his speech that there was "a risk that the Government housing scheme would be killed unless prices could be kept within reasonable limits." That, by a. Government official, is a most formidable statement, and it only confirms what is really in the experience of us all. There is reluctance on the part of local authorities—a very great reluctance. Why is there a reluctance? I wish my noble friend had been able to reply to the questions which were put to him by the noble and learned Lord who sits behind me. Those questions were upon the Paper, and they were quite clear. He was asked, first of all, what was the number of houses which had been completed, and he was not able to answer that question. He was asked, in the second place, what rents were charged for these houses. I think it was probably by inadvertence that my noble friend did not say anything about rents.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I said a good deal about rents.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not bearing on that point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said that I would deal later, and I did deal later, with the question of rents, though I could not answer specifically the question as to the average rents.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We do not worry about average rents; any rent would have done for us if we could have got some information. There was a blank ignorance on the part of the Department. The noble Viscount is not a member of the Department himself, and I am sure that if he were he would have been perhaps in a better position. There was a blank ignorance on the part of the Government as represented in your Lordships' House both as to the number of houses completed and as to the rents charged for them. Let us come down to figures for a moment. I happen to know the cost of the houses which are going to be built—I ought not to say that, but rather are designed to be built—in the locality where I live. They are going to work out, when everything is included, at £1,000 a cottage. What is the economic rent for a house built for £1,000? Shall we say 25 s. a week or something of that kind? That would be the present economic rent. I do not know whether my noble friend thinks that in Hatfield he is likely to get a rent of 25 s. a week. I do not think so, or anything resembling it.
What is going to happen in 1927? In 1927 the Government will insist, before they relieve local authorities, upon the economic administration of the house property, and a part of that economic administration is that there should be an economic rent charged. In interrupting my noble friend who has just sat down, the noble Viscount (Viscount Peel) explained what he meant by economic rent. It would be based upon the then price of a house of a similar kind. A figure was used by my noble friend Lord Islington just now which I accept. On that basis the £1,000 house to which I have referred will have to earn a rent of 16 s. 6d. a week before the local authority receives any Government subsidy—or any sufficient Government subsidy—after the year 1927. Does my noble friend think that the authorities in Hatfield

281
will be able to get a rent of 16 s. 6d. a week? If he does not, where is the difference going to come from? I invite the Government's attention to this in no spirit of adverse criticism, because I am going to make some little suggestion to the Government before I sit down. But what is going to happen if the rent of 16 s. 6d. cannot be obtained? The difference has to come out of the rates. That was not perceived at first, as my noble friend very justly said. The Act has only been in operation three months, and it was not perceived that there was a tremendous contingent liability on the rates. That being the case, can the Government be surprised if there is reluctance on the part of local authorities?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very sorry to interrupt, but why does the noble Marquess insist on the term "a liability on the rates"? The noble Marquess is familiar with the Act, and he knows that a penny rate was to be the limit, and anything above that would fall on the Exchequer unless the authorities consider there has been some lack of economy in administration or in some other respect, and that therefore the subsidy ought to be reduced to a certain amount.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt it is my own fault, but I thought I was sufficiently explicit. The Government subsidy will only be granted to a local authority who administers this cottage property on economic principles. The economic principle is set out in the rules. The rents to be charged after the 31st day of March, 1927, should be sufficient to cover, in addition to the expense of maintenance, the interest which would have been payable on the capital cost of the building of the houses if they had been built after that date. So that if 16 s. 6d. is that figure, and the local authority cannot obtain 16 s. 6d., I want to know where the difference is coming from. The Government will only pay the subsidy if the local authority obtains the economic rent, and I am suggesting to your Lordships and the Government that there is no chance of the local authority being able to obtain the economic rent. Therefore there is a tremendous contingent liability upon the rates. Of course, if my noble friend were to get up and say now that the Government would be much more liberal than this rule indicates, and that they would go
282
much beyond that limit if cause could be shown, it might restore confidence amongst local authorities; but what those authorities at present seem to think is that owing to the cost of the houses—the cost of the very expensive type of house that they are called upon to build—they will not be able to earn the economic rent, and therefore that the ratepayers will have to make good the difference. I suggest that it is of the very first importance that the cost of these houses should be reduced. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows as much about housing as any man in your Lordships' House, because he was principally in charge of the Bill which passed. I say that if the Government scheme breaks down—and none of us can shut our eyes to the fact, with whatever good will we approach it, that the Government scheme may through the enormous weight of cost break down—there will be no chance whatever of building the houses which are required upon reasonable terms on the conditions which the Act imposes as administered by a Government Department. That being so, we must find something else. We cannot leave the people unhoused. What else can we have? I am not going to say positively that the Government scheme has broken down—it may be that it will not break down—but I say that there is great danger of its breaking down, and in that event we must fall back upon private enterprise. I am certain that is the ultimate result, and that private enterprise will be far more economical than the administration of the present Act in a great variety of ways.
In the first place, if a private individual —whether he is a landowner or one who is sometimes spoken of in a tone of scorn quite unfairly as a speculative builder—comes to build, he will take care to keep the standard of his house within proper limits. I do not say that he ought to be allowed to build below a certain standard, but he will certainly keep the cost down as much as he can. You will never get a Government Department to do that. I made an inquiry a short time ago (I am not sure whether the rules have been made since then) and I was told this—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for being a trifle egotistic—that the dimensions of accommodation which the Government stipulated for in houses were so much greater than my own best cottages

283
which I have recently built that it would add by itself 20 per cent. to the cost. This may have been altered by some modification in the regulations of the Department since that information was given to me, but I have very good reason to know it was true at that time, because the architect who was being employed by the local authority to build these cottages to Government requirements was the same architect who had built my best cottages, and therefore he could speak with absolute authority, and he said that these cottages, built according to the minimum which the Government would allow, were so much larger than my best cottages that that by itself added 20 per cent. to the cost. That is the first thing which shows how uneconomical is building by a public authority. They have no reasonable perspective in the matter of size in cottage building. I hope your Lordships will notice that I have not said that my cottages are very good cottages, but I hope your Lordships will believe it all the same.
There was a very interesting point in the speech of the noble Viscount just now. He said that one of the difficulties of getting building done was that the small builders are so stupid that they do not understand Government specifications.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not use the word "stupid"—say, rather, unaccustomed to the complexities.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount must forgive me if I put a little gloss on his words sometimes. Small builders are so unaccustomed to the complexities that they cannot understand Government specifications. It is quite true. The result is that they are obsessed by a feeling that they may make a mistake, and that the result may be very costly to them. They consequently protect themselves by demanding a far higher price than they otherwise would do. I know this is the case, because I have seen it in operation under my own eyes. I built a certain type of cottage for a certain figure before this particular crisis, but when the local authority asked the same builder to build similar cottages he asked them a higher price. I sent for him and said, "How comes it that you charge this price to me, and a much higher price to the local authority?" He said, "Well, if I made the least mistake the local authority are so precise in the administration of their duties
284
that I might be called upon to pull down a whole wall and rebuild it. That kind of thing involves a great risk to us small builders, and we have to protect ourselves by asking a much higher price." In other words, under the system of private enterprise small mistakes are looked over, treated of relatively no importance, because there is a system of give-and-take and elasticity which enables a builder who knows you to rely upon your treating him on reasonable terms; consequently he asks you only a reasonable price. That is another reason why building by a public authority is always much more expensive than building by private enterprise.
Lastly, there is this point, that when it comes to asking for the rent you will find that the private owner is able to ask for a much more reasonably high rent than a local authority will ever venture to do. The local authority is subject to so much pressure, from various methods of applying pressure under a representative system, that it is not able to insist upon a reasonably fair rent with the same confidence which private enterprise would have. Therefore, if the Government scheme breaks down their only resource will be to fall back upon private enterprise, and if they would say to private enterprise "We will give you either a moderate subsidy or (better still) we will let you have a loan upon extremely low terms," they would save money. It would be cheaper than their own scheme, and they would get the houses, which I doubt whether they will do under their own scheme. The houses would, of course, be up to a certain standard and if they would give to the private builder such a pecuniary advantage—say the equivalent, either in a subsidy or the interest on a loan, of £120 or £150 a house —they would save money for the Exchequer. The houses would spring up in all directions. I venture respectfully to suggest that plan to the Government.
I know it is rather shocking to suggest that the taxpayers' money should be given to private individuals. I certainly do not think it would be very unreasonable to give it to the working class themselves to build their own homes, considering our present feeling. But surely even the broader proposition which I submit, if it can be shown that it is really much more effective and more economical, ought not to be rejected, merely on the ground that it is unprecedented. If the Government

285
would go into the market and say that for everybody who produced a working class house between certain limits of standard they would pay a flat rate of £120 or £150, or its equivalent in the cheapness of the loan, they would get the houses, and it would not throw anything like the same burden upon the Exchequer as the system of making good the difference between what the houses are going to cost now and what they will be worth in seven years' time.
The Government have an opportunity of considering the matter because, owing to the delay which has taken place, I suppose there can be no building for the next couple of months. The moment the frost begins it is almost impossible to build, unless the Government build houses of pisé de terre, as they have been recommended to do in certain quarters, and therefore they have got an opportunity. No doubt they will completely reconsider their housing policy. I venture to submit to them that, when they next have the opportunity of speaking in your Lordships' House, they will not try to minimise the extent of the housing crisis and the difficulty in which they stand, but that they will be prepared to come before your Lordships with substantial proposals for remedying it.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, as the President of the Local Government Board who was probably more than any one else responsible for inducing the Government and, perhaps, Parliament to adopt a policy—not this policy—of partnership between the State and the local authorities in meeting a deficit on housing, I should like to add a few remarks to those which have been made in this debate. Although I may criticise His Majesty's Government and the policy which they are adopting, I can assure my noble friend who has defended His Majesty's Government on this occasion that my sympathies are very deep with all those who have to solve this enormously difficult problem, and that if this policy of the Government has failed—and it has failed in my opinion—there is no other policy at present which has been constructed to take its place.
My noble friend who defended this policy is one of the most dexterous and ingenious of all debaters, but I think that he himself felt that on this occasion he was placed in a more difficult position than,
286
perhaps, he has ever occupied before. The policy has been a failure, and we had better acknowledge it at once in order that we may seek a new policy. For nearly twelve months this policy has been tried—the policy did not depend on the Housing Act—and my noble friend could not get up to-day and say that he could point even to one dozen houses that had been completed under this policy in any part of the country.
Let me say at once that I know something about London, and I know that not one house has been completed yet under this policy, and that not one house will be completed under this policy by Christmas next. I would not say that this alone was sufficient to prove that the policy was a failure. Where I say the policy is a failure is that it is now proved, on my noble friend's showing, that the average cost of these houses is going to be £800 at the very least, and that we go on to prove that the annual deficit on these houses is going to be, on the average, at least £50 a year. My noble friend who has just sat down and who so ably spoke, as he always does, on housing, gave away his case by saying that in order to obtain a remunerative rent on a £1,000 house you would have to charge 26 s. Let me inform my noble friend that I am dealing with these cases every week and that I have constantly to use this figure of a £1,000 house, and in order to obtain an economic rent on a £1,000 house you must charge, not 26 s. a week, but 43 s. 6d. a week; and that on an £800 house you must charge an economic rent of 35 s. a week. I will not take the £1,000 house, although I should like to inform the noble Marquess of these figures. Here in London we are building houses on the Old Oak estate close to Paddington, and they are being erected at a cost of £1,013 for a five-roomed house, and £832 for a four-roomed house. We will leave out the odd £13 and call it a £1,000 house. On such a house, in order to get an economic rent, we must charge 43 s. 6d.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What percentage do you take?
LORD DOWNHAM: 5½ per cent. for interest on the loan, and 3½ per cent. for the sinking fund.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is rather high.
LORD DOWNHAM: It has been very carefully worked out. However, if my noble friend likes to put his sinking fund a little lower he will still find that his figure of 26 s. is inaccurate. But do not let us push the case too far; let us take it that my noble friend is right. He himself stated that the average cost of every house that is going to be built under the Government policy is to be £800—as I think it will be. The average rent to be charged for each house costing £800, in order to get an economic rent, is 35 s. Is it likely that on an average we are going to get a rent of more than 15 s.? I have tried to make my figures as simple as possible and rather against myself than otherwise, and that rent leaves an annual deficit in round figures of (let us say) £50 on each house. That is, that this policy to build 200,000 houses—which is the very minimum number of houses required—and to let those houses at a rent which the working man is able to pay (they are supposed to be built for the working classes) will cost this country £10,000,000 every year. If we take it at an average of five persons to each house, it will cost £10,000,000 a year to house 1,000,000 people. The Minister of Health has again and again stated that the minimum requirements of the nation are 500,000 houses. Instead, therefore, of £10,000,000 a year the Government policy is going to land the taxpayers and ratepayers in this country in £25,000,000 a year to build 500,000 houses.
I am not ashamed to say what I am now going to tell your Lordships. As the author of this policy of sharing the deficit —I will speak about that presently—between the taxpayers and the ratepayers, I am going to say that, if I had realised at the time when I persuaded the Government to adopt that policy that there would be anything like this amount of deficit on these houses, I would never have put my hand to the various memoranda which I penned on this subject. I was permitted to go up and down the country when I was President of the Local Government Board —beginning with a speech at Manchester and ending with a speech at Birmingham or at Sheffield, I forget which—and to inform the people that His Majesty's Government was willing, in order to start the housing policy, to share with the local authorities the deficit. I was authorised to mention only three columns of figures—2s. a week, 2s. 6d. a week, or 3s. a week as the maximum. What is the deficit on 3s. a week?
288
It is £8 a year on a house. What is that deficit on 200,000 houses? It is £1,600,000 a year. Is any noble Lord going to say that, for the purpose of starting a policy of that kind for building the first 200,000 houses—I always christened it an emergency policy—he would object to this country finding £1,600,000 in order to house 1,000,000 people by building 200,000 houses? I never heard any member of the House of Commons get up and object to it when it was put in that way.
I say that the policy turned out to be an absolutely different policy; an impossible policy, a most unsound policy. Directly it was found that there was going to be a deficit on these houses of £50 a year instead of £8 a year it made the whole difference. Why did it turn out that these houses were to be so expensive? Why did we receive no warning when we initiated this policy that materials were going to be of such excessive cost and that labour was going to demand very much more than labour had ever before demanded? All I can say is that we did not receive the information. The Minister for Reconstruction—he is now the Minister of Health—who was responsible then for giving information to His Majesty's Government as to the possibility of obtaining labour and materials, did not warn the Government that there would be any difficulty either as regards material or labour, that there would be any excessive cost of this kind. So far as incentives to economy on the part of local authorities were concerned, when His Majesty's Government altered the policy for which I was responsible—when they tore up that policy and informed the local authorities that when they had spent a penny rate the Government and the taxpayer would find the whole of the deficit—they removed one of the greatest incentives to economy which existed for the local authorities.
The policy which I was authorised to initiate, and which I preached all over the country, was that the local authorities themselves would be responsible for 25 per cent. of the deficit. If it amounted to a penny rate, it is quite true, the Local Government Board was to be permitted to limit their 25 per cent. to a penny rate, but directly you limited the expenditure of the local authority to a penny rate you took away from them all incentive to exercise economy. It is obvious that under this policy any great town may say,

289
"Directly we have spent our penny rate we can call upon the Government to build any number of houses and to advance the whole of the deficit that falls upon those houses." The only safeguard, as my noble friend says, is that if the local authority should let these houses at rents very much below that for which they could let them if they were bent on economy, His Majesty's Government might possibly step in and say, "We shall reduce your subsidy by such and such an amount."
Will my noble friend say that the rent I have named to-day, 15 s. a week, is a rent much below that which ought to be obtained from the working classes for houses of this character? I think not. And if 15 s. a week is a rent which the local authority ought to exact, it still leaves His Majesty's Government with a deficit of at least £1 a week which has to be met by the Exchequer and the taxpayers of the country. I say that this policy has broken down; that this country, with all the charges that have to be faced at the present time, cannot meet this enormous expend ture.
What ought to be done? What do I suggest? If I had been still at the Local Government Board when I found that, instead of contemplating a deficit of a maximum of £8 a year on each house, I should have to contemplate one of £50 or more on each house, I would have summoned the local authorities and the builders and the trade unions, and particularly the trade unions connected with building. I would have had a great conference of all those authorities and I would have pointed out to the working men themselves that if they were to adopt a policy of laying far too few bricks, or of exacting far too high wages, or of building for fewer hours than there were accustomed to build, they would only raise the price of houses against themselves. I would have boldly pointed out to them that it is not for the rich that we are building these houses but for the working classes themselves, and that if they succeeded in making the houses so expensive that the economic rent must be 43 s. 6d. or even 35 s. per week, the local authority would be tempted, and very naturally tempted, to let those houses, not to the working classes but to returned civil servants, to shop keepers and all kinds of people who are able to pay something more nearly approaching the economic rent than is represented by
290
the 15 s. which the working classes might be able to pay.
Every local authority which builds these houses with such a heavy deficit upon them will be faced with this problem. On the one hand they will be called upon to let the houses to the working classes. On the other hand, there will be a number of people, suffering from high prices and grievous taxation, who are poor compared with the position they occupied before, and who will say to the local authority, "These are very nice houses; there are labour-saving appliances in these houses; they are charming little abodes, not quite what we should have occupied before the war perhaps, but we shall be only too delighted now if we can make them our homes." I say there will be a real difficulty in the minds of the local authorities as to whether they ought to let these houses to the working classes who are prepared to pay only 15 s. a week, or to those other citizens, with rates and taxes to meet, who will pay 25 s. towards the rent of those houses.
It would be far better for the Government to recognise that their policy has gone a very long way at all events towards breaking down, and that it is too expensive for the country to adopt. It would be better to call together all those who are sincerely interested (and who is not?) in this great question of housing the local authorities, the private builders and the leaders of the trade unions—not for one of that sort of conference which is not a conference at all but is merely addressed by two or three Cabinet Ministers and then disperses with a vote of thanks to the gentleman who presides, but for a real conference in which opinions should be completely outspoken on the subject, and where each shall contribute something towards the solution of the problem. Then, perhaps, we may be able to formulate a more practical policy, one less expensive to the State and more satisfactory to us all.
It is not in order to praise myself that I say the present policy has broken down. When the policy was launched of a partnership between the State and the local authorities it was only part of a larger policy. I always so described it, and as I went up and down the country conferring with the great local authorities—sometimes in as many as four counties such as Dorset, Cornwall, Devon, and Wiltshire on a single tour—I used to hear many things that

291
greatly affected my judgment. I recollect hearing in the county of Dorset that the great fault of the houses there was that there were only two bedrooms, which often opened into one another. The landlord was frequently not a rich person—it is a mistake to think that all landlords are rich people—and I was told that if the landlord could get an advance of £100 he would be able structurally to alter the cottage, to add another bedroom and a few more conveniences for washing and matters of that kind, and make it most habitable and convenient.
When I left the Local Government Board I was busy developing that branch of the policy. I took advice from many people. I regret that the Government have done nothing towards it. I believe, as my noble friend below me said, that one of the most valuable things we can do, both in town and country, is to look at our cottages and our workmen's dwellings and see whether, with the expenditure of £100 or even £200, we could not make them thoroughly habitable for the next twenty or thirty years. That is a far more economical policy than building houses at £1,000 each. I was also busy in seeing whether I could not get private builders to do something. I believe there are many private builders who have estates on their hands, already partly laid out for building, with arrangements made for drainage and matters of that kind; but there has been an unwholesome fear that you might, if you employed private builders to develop these estates, put some State money by way of profit into their pockets. I think that is rather an exaggerated fear. By employing the private builder, particularly where you have estates in process of development, to build houses for the working classes we might ensure to them quite a good house, not perhaps up to the standard laid down by the various circulars, but a better house than was built before the war. We could also ensure that the profit the builder might get was not excessive, not more than a contractor is likely to make who builds for the Government or for the local authorities. I will say no more except to emphasise this, that the policy which is being adopted as the sole policy is an expensive policy, and the sooner the Government realise it and call a common conference of those who are interested in this question and who are capable of helping them to a solution, the better.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the practice in your Lordships' House of hanging a debate which assumes a character of first class importance upon one or two very limited Questions has its conveniences. It also has very great disadvantages. It would, I think, have been much more convenient to-night if the Motion, which has elicited the kind of speech to which your Lordships have just listened, had been I down in such terms as "to call attention to the complete failure of the Government's building policy and to move a Resolution." The adoption of that course would have ensured at least one thing. It would have ensured that a member of the Government, or members of the Government, would have been present who knew not only that the question was being asked as to the cost and as to the rent, which suggested the trend of thought in the mind of the questioner without giving any indication of the scale upon which the criticisms were to be developed here to-night, but that the whole policy was to be discussed.
The attack, repeated I think four times by the noble Lord who has just sat down, is, in plain language, that the whole housing proposals of the Government, as contained in the Act which I had the duty of carrying through this House, have completely broken down. I should certainly have desired, if that had been down as the subject of a substantive debate, that it should have taken place with a larger number of your Lordships present; and undoubtedly there would have been a larger number present had the nature of the attack been made clear. I should also have desired (and I am sure my noble friend who replied on behalf of the Government to the limited case made would in that event have taken care) to have been fortified by every kind of inquiry and every fragment of available information in order to deal with the kind of speech s which have been made to-night. We are not so equipped, and in the few observations that I shall make I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I am not able to deal with every specific point that has been raised.
Speaking for myself, if at any future time your. Lordships would wish to raise the whole matter upon a Notice that that course is to be adopted, I would certainly equip myself to discuss the whole subject—and I know my noble friend would do so —in order that we might exhaustively con-

293
sider whether this policy has broken down, and, if it has broken down, what alternative course should be proposed. The noble and learned Lord who asked the first Question, with that sombre satisfaction with which he always dwells on the defects of the Government, made, I think, no constructive suggestions at all. Other speakers have offered suggestions upon which I will make a few observations.
I miss in the speeches, taken as a whole, a realisation of a fact which is at once elemental and fundamental—and that is that something prodigious has to be done, something upon a prodigious scale, and done now. For five years there has been no building at all in this country; for five years the whole manhood and enterprise of the country have been diverted into other channels. There was an immense shortage of houses in this country before August, 1914. I and the noble Marquess, and certainly many of the same Party, were constantly pressing on the Government of that day the fact that the number of houses in this country was becoming alarmingly insufficient. I remember well the speeches with which Mr. John Burns, then President of the Local Government Board, used to assure the House of Commons that there was no shortage at all.
Five years have passed since then, and the claims of the working classes are no longer so easily satisfied in the matter of house accommodation as they were. I think they are abundantly right in setting before themselves a higher standard. We find at this moment a greater need for building upon a large scale than we have ever had before, and the increases in the cost of labour and every raw material are such as have never been know before in the whole history of the world. These problems are not chargeable—at any rate, not all can be made the subject-matter of an indictment—against the Government. If any other Government was in power many of these problems would be the same. Lord Downham will forgive me, but he sometimes gives me the impression—quite baseless—that he really thinks that all wisdom, experience, and sanity walked out of the Local Government Board the same day as he did. I can assure him there are a few sane men who remain, and that many of the subjects that he proposed have been carefully explored by the same people with whom he acted when lie was there.
My noble friend did, I think, less than
294
justice to the extent and gravity of the problem. He told your Lordships that he was father of the partnership between local authorities and the State, but he does not pretend that he foresaw he immense increase in the cost of building materials. He does not inform your Lordships that he foresaw the immense increases which would have to be conceded in the wages of labour, and, as far as I understand him, he very candidly made it plain that he is taken as much by surprise by these increases as His Majesty's Government. I welcome greatly the observation of the noble Marquess when he said that the Government had been extremely unfortunate in this matter. They are unfortunate in this sense, that even the most experienced persons in these matters, like the noble Lord, public servants and expert witnesses, all failed to anticipate that the Armistice and the months that followed would be marked by increases upon this scale in the remuneration of labour and the cost of material.
Here and now we are in this position, and we have to deal with it. When the noble Lord says that the Act is a failure, certain observations have to be made upon it. Let me begin by saying that when the Government is convinced that the Act has proved a failure, and that other courses must necessarily be adopted, I shall come to your Lordships and candidly say so, and it will be said equally candidly in another place; because we are certainly not going to run the terrible risks, in the condition of this country, of leaving this problem undealt with. By some means or other it will have to be dealt with. If our scheme is a bad one another must be found, and found at once. Therefore, if I do not agree that the scheme has broken down it is because I am wholly unconvinced at this moment that it has.
May I remind my noble friend of one circumstance? He said that the attempt to carry out this policy did not begin with the Act. I do not agree. It is true that circulars were sent to local authorities before the Bill became an Act, inviting and suggesting their co-operation; but to circularise reluctant local authorities is quite a different thing from applying compulsory statutory powers to them; and the whole condition which I ventured to suggest, and which your Lordships assented to, was that we might be armed with these compulsory statutory powers, and I deny

295
that you can apply any connection between a period when you possess such powers and a period when you do not possess them.
I must in this connection remind my noble friend of what happened when the Bill was in Committee, when he sat in his present seat and moved an Amendment to Section 1 of the Act. I was attempting to convince your Lordships then, as now, that the problem was one of the most urgent and pressing character and admitted of no delay. What did we provide in the Bill?
"It shall be the duty of every local authority…to consider the needs of their area with respect to the provision of houses for the working classes, and within three months after the passing of this Act…to prepare and submit to the Local Government Board a scheme."
If they failed to do so, various consequences followed. Three months was the minimum period, and it was conceded in debate that any shorter period would have been intolerable. But my noble friend moved an Amendment and supported it with arguments, and, as I said at the time, suggested with a good deal of heat that the period should be not three months but six months. When your Lordships took a view adverse to his Amendment he renewed it even on the Report stage, but in a more moderate form, and proposed that the period should be four months instead of three. Had either of those proposals been adopted we should even now have to wait some months before local authorities were obliged to submit plans. Yet a month before that he conies here and. says our policy has broken down and that the Act has failed. He might at least have considered that, before he presses upon us enquiries as to how many houses we have built, and says "Are a dozen houses built?" Certainly, although I do not know the precise number, I am sure if it comforts him at all he had much better talk about hundreds than dozens. The point I am making is this, that to establish this as a ground for criticising the Government, at a date when he would not even have allowed us to obtain proposals from the local authorities if he had had his way, is surely to carry the practice of criticism rather far.
Let me deal with the specific suggestions which have been made. As soon as we were agreed that something had to be done the conclusion followed irresistibly that the economic loss had to be faced by somebody. Either houses have to be built or they have
296
not. We are all agreed that they have to be built, and they can only be built under existing circumstances at an economic loss. Who is to meet that loss? It can only be met either by the State in one form or another, or by the local authorities in one form or; and I do not think that my noble friend or anybody else would suggest that upon a large scale it would be possible to go to the local authorities and ask them to bear the loss. Therefore in one form or another we must face the fact that, at any rate for some period, this economic loss must be borne by the Exchequer; and it becomes no longer relevant to point out that it is a large economic loss, unless we are prepared to argue that the houses ought not to be built or could be built upon a scale and in a manner which would reduce the loss. Nobody has attempted to make that case to-night, and we are therefore left to face the alternative.
There is a course which has been recommended for consideration by the noble Marquess, and that is the granting of subsidies to private builders. We are continuing to explore every alternative course on the realisation of the expense of carrying out the Act, and it is the fact that the very course recommended by the noble Marquess has actually been under consideration, or at all events was on the agenda for discussion, in the present week. We do not want to deceive ourselves upon this fact. It is a question how we can reduce the economic loss. There is much to be said for the view that if you can enlist the private builder and call into being the undoubted advantages which private enterprise as opposed to municipal or State under-undertakings affords, undoubtedly some economies would follow. Nevertheless I think your Lordships will in justice admit that in the urgency which the problem required it would not have been possible to leave the whole thing to the chance that the private builder might respond to the terms offered to him. If we had left ourselves without the powers which this Act gives we should have been entirely helpless the moment we began to enter into negotiations with the private builders. In other words, the existence of compulsory powers was indispensable to any suitable arrangement with the private builder.
I hope that in any future discussions we shall all of us make up our minds to co-operate in making useful and helpful suggestions in the criticial and terrible

297
position in which the country finds itself to-day. I am sure that I did not detect any real desire to do anything else to-night, but when we recur to this subject much fuller information will undoubtedly be available as to the progress which either has been made or is reasonably to be anticipated; and I assure your Lordships of one thing, and that is that the utmost candour will be shown, because help will be needed from every source from which help is proper. With the exhibition of such candour as I promise on the part of the Government, and with the contribution
298
of such experience and knowledge as your Lordships possess, dark and difficult as the situation is I would be very unwilling to be supposed to be one of those who regard it as desperate.

WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.