Sitting of 17 July 1924

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case, of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

  County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

  London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

  London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

  Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

  Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

  Read the Third time, and passed.
  Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow, Order Confirmation Bill,
  Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the County of Holland with Boston, in the room of WILLIAM STAPLETON ROYCE, esquire, deceased.—[Mr Frederick Hall.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT).
    Mr. ROBERT MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will state for what reason tuberculosis officers are prevented from expressing an opinion upon whether an ex-service man's disease is attributable to, or aggravated by, war service; when this instruction was issued by the Ministry; and whether it is intended to continue it?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): The first part of the question does not quite correctly state the position. Tuberculosis officers of local health authorities are concerned with the treatment of tuberculosis, and they are not invited to express an opinion as to entitlement in cases which come before them solely for medical treatment. But arrangements have been made for tuberculosis officers to sit as members of medical boards which deal with cases of this disease, and as such it becomes their duty to assist in arriving at the official decision on entitlement which can only reliably be formed when the records of the man's medical history during his service and subsequently are available. The arrangements in connection with the part to be played by tuberculosis officers in cases of this type, were made some 18 months ago. They have, I am glad to say, been found to work well.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would it be possible to provide in some way that ex-service men suffering from tuberculosis who are sent to sanatoria are kept there until they get their medical discharge?
    Mr. ROBERTS: We are considering various phases of the question in connection with the men who are suffering from that disease, and I shall be glad to take that suggestion into account.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to assist colonisation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, I have not taken any yet.
    Mr. MORRISON: Has not the effect of the circular been to place the medical officer in a sanatorium in a position in which he is unable to make any written statement to the effect that he is under the impression that the man's disease is attributable to or aggravated by war service?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that that impression has been formed in the minds of many people, but I will take notice of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    APPEALS (TIME LIMIT).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether it is the practice of his Department, in special cases in which the appellants have failed to exercise their right of appeal within the time allowed, to permit the application to be forwarded to the tribunal for consideration; and whether in cases which are submitted specially to the tribunal, in the foregoing circumstances, he will stop the practice of lodging an objection by the Ministry to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the appeal is out of time and therefore invalid?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. At the same time, I should point out that the limitation on the period during which the right of appeal may be exercised is statutory, and, as such, is binding both upon the Ministry and upon the tribunal. It is therefore the duty of my Department, which has the responsibility of carrying out the decision of the tribunal, to draw the attention of the tribunal to the fact that, on the evidence before the Ministry, the appeal is out of time. It is for the tribunal thereupon to decide whether the appeal is, in fact, out of time, or whether they are empowered to determine the appeal on merits. I should add, however, that in eases where it is shown that an appellant was prejudiced in making his appeal within the time allowed by some unavoidable cause, such as illness, the Ministry intimate to the tribunal that they do not raise objection on the score of expiry of the time limit, if, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, the tribunal consider that it is one that they can equitably decide on its merits.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great effect upon appellants of the method of granting the right of appeal and then informing the appellant that the Ministry objects to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the appeal is invalid?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No. The latter conclusion is not quite correct. Before the amended instructions wore issued that was the position. Now we point out, in accordance with the Statute, that the appeal is out of date, and it will be for the tribunal then to determine whether it shall exercise its discretion.
    Mr. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a letter in that form was issued dated 10th July?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can only think that there has been some mistake with regard to the issue of that letter, because the amended circular was prior to that date
    Mr. AYLES: Has not the time now coma for the Ministry to say that the principle "fit for service, fit for pension" should be accepted by the Ministry?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes. In amending these Regulations and trying to work them more sympathetically we are trying to put that broad principle into operation.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: After a ticket is issued to a claimant to go to the Court of Appeal, and the person has gone there, have the Ministry the right to say, "You are too late"? That has happened during the last 10 days.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member gives me particulars of any such cases, I will look into them.
    Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that a number of these men who do put in appeals are allowed to set as far as the tribunal, only to be told that the tribunal has no jurisdiction?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is purely the responsibility of the tribunal.
    Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Can they not be stopped from doing it?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, because the provision is made by Statute.

    DISABILITY (PERMANENT PENSIONS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that Article

    557
    1,163 of the Royal Warrant of 1914 provides that a permanent pension may be granted to a non-commissioned officer or man discharged on account of a disability provided that he has 14 years' service, he will arrange that men with 14 years' or more service, and who, after discharge, have been accepted as having a disability due to War service, shall be given the same privileges as those who are discharged owing to a disability?
    Mr. ROBERTS: For the reasons stated in the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 3rd instant, I regret that I should have no authority to adopt this suggestion.

    HOSPITALS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Minister of Pensions what is the cost per patient per day of hospitals directly administered by the Ministry; whether such cost is greater than the average capitation grant given to hospitals administered under the Ministry by voluntary societies; and, if so, will he, as and when a reduction of bed accommodation becomes necessary, consider the advisability of closing wards in Ministry hospitals in preference to closing hospitals administered by such societies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The average daily cost to the Ministry per patient in hospitals administered by my Department is approximately the same as the cost in hospitals administered for use by my Department by voluntary bodies, namely, 8s. 8d. a day. The Ministry maintain separate institutions only where that course is necessary to supplement otherwise existing accommodation or to provide treatment for special War disabilities (for example, neurasthenia), for which adequate treatment is not otherwise obtainable. In pursuance of that policy the position is reviewed from time to time, and in the selection of accommodation to be relinquished the principal determining factors must be the type of treatment for which accommodation is required and the situation of the various institutions.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does that comparison of cost include the overhead charges which in the case of the Ministry hospitals are considerable, and in the case of those of voluntary societies are very small?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I could not give exact information on that point, but I can only assume so.

    COMMUTATION.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for commutation of life pensions have been made to the Ministry, and recommended by local war pensions committees, during the past year; and how many have been refused?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Applications for commutation were received during the period mentioned in about 2,500 cases, which were eligible so far as regards the qualifying condition that the man must be in receipt of a permanent pension of more than the minimum specified by the Regulations. There is no record as to the number of these applications which were recommended by war pensions committees. Not more than about 100 of the applications were granted. While a large number of the applications have, in any case, to be refused as a result of medical advice as to the man's condition and expectation of life, my Department must be satisfied that commutation will be to the permanent advantage of the man, having regard to the object for which commutation is desired. It is the experience of my Department that only in rare cases is this condition satisfied.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one district alone not a single application was granted, and that these applications are recommended by the local war pensions committee which have given great attention to the cases and, after having gone into all the particulars and made their recommendations, find that nothing is done?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue the policy of his Department of granting these commutations very sparingly?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Judging by the experience which I have gained since I have been at the head of the Ministry I will certainly follow the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) I have no information as to the district to which he is referring, but if he will bring to my notice the cases to which he particularly refers I will look into them, though I can hold out no hope that there shall be any relaxation of this Regulation.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that such a small percentage of the cases succeed, will the Minister draw the attention of the local war pensions committees to the fact that the members are wasting their time dealing with these cases?

    MOTHERS' ALLOWANCES (RE-ASSESSMENT).
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Minister of Pensions if his Department is still continuing the re-assessment of allowances to mothers of deceased soldiers, based on alleged underestimation of the value of the benefits received by such soldiers in return for their weekly contribution to the household expenses; and, if so, how many cases of this kind are at present under the consideration of the Department?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The systematic review of pensions based on pre-War dependence was brought to a close on the 31st March last. In cases where representations were received after that date against reductions made or proposed to be made, the necessary investigations have had to be made. The precise number of cases still unsettled at the present time is not available, but the number is, I understand, very small.
    Sir J. NALL: When is the Minister going to allow some increase in the basic rates of these pensions?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That scheme has already been announced. The increases have already been granted.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Pensions the circumstances under which disabled pensioners were originally notified that they were entitled to an alternative pension; is he aware that many of them never know that they had this choice; how many belated appeals have been brought to the notice of the Department: and whether any concessions are made in respect to them if it can be established that the applicant was not aware of the Ministerial Regulations on this point?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Department took all possible steps to give the widest publicity to the alternative pension. Not only were notices circulated in the Press and through local war pensions commit-
    560
    tees, but each pensioner was individually notified in a special leaflet of his rights and of the steps which he should take to secure them if he wished and was qualified to do so. Very few late appeals have, I understand, been received, but the claim in such cases can only be entertained under the terms of the warrant if it can be shown that, owing to physical incapacity or other cause over which the man had no control, he was unable to prove the amount of his pre-War earnings within the period allowed by the warrant.

    EXTENDED SERVICE (QUARTERMASTER- SERGEANT T. CURTIS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Quartermaster-Sergeant Thomas Curtis, late of the Dorset Regiment, who is nearly 70 years of age and who has lost both his legs, was entitled to a pension of 2s. 1½d. per diem after 21 years' service; that Quartermaster-Sergeant Curtis extended his service by an additional 10 years 103 days, thereby becoming entitled to an additional 9d. per diem, and that, because Quartermaster-Sergeant Curtis extended his service beyond seven years, he is being penalised to the extent of £2 16s. per annum; and whether, having regard to the unsatisfactory position so created, he will see what can be done to meet this case of hardship?
    Mr. LAWSON: I have been asked to reply. Quartermaster-Sergeant Curtis is not, as the question suggests, receiving less than if his service had been shorter. On the contrary, he is receiving rather more, and I regret I am not in a position to reopen the ease. As, however, the explanation is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the full answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Quartermaster-Sergeant Curtis is not, as the question suggests, receiving £2 16s. less than what he would have received if his service had been shorter. On the contrary, he is receiving rather more. It is, however, true that if he had been discharged after, say, 28 years' service, instead of after 31 years, us was the case, his pension would have been only 7s. 7d.

    561
    a year less than what it is now, namely, £74 3s. 9d., as compared with £74 11s. 4d. But this is because the Pensions Increase Act of 1920 prescribed a lower percentage of increase for the higher pensions. His original pension for the service which he had actually performed was over £50 a year in value, and was open to be-increased by 40 per cent. only, or to an amount not exceeding £75 per annum; whereas, if he had done 28 years' service only, his original pension would have been under £50 in value and could have been increased by 50 per cent. Sergeant Curtis has, therefore, received the appropriate award in respect of his service, and I regret that I am not in a position to reopen the case.

    MR. F. ROSKELL.
    Mr. H. DUNNICOasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in amplification of the reply given yesterday regarding the case of Mr. Roskell, he can now furnish for the information of the House fuller particulars as to the history of the claim?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am glad of the opportunity of giving fuller information to the House on this case. The claim in respect of delusional psychosis was first made on Mr. Roskell's behalf on the 16th January last. Mr. Roskell had, throughout the lime, since his discharge, in February, 1918, been in receipt of compensation of varying amounts in respect of disordered action of the heart and gunshot wounds of the left thigh and forearm. During this period he had been medically examined by successive medical boards and had been under treatment in Ministry hospitals, but no symptoms of mental affection had been claimed by the man or observed by the medical staff. Mr. Roskell was medically examined for the purpose of determining his claim—
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. Is this a matter of urgency?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I inquired into that. The urgency arises from a misunderstanding yesterday, which it seems to me ought to be cleared up.
    Mr. LINFIELD: May I ask if this is a reply to the question I asked? Mine was the original question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was informed that there was a misunderstanding in some answer. It was not in the hon. Member's question, but in something that occurred later.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Mr. Roskell was medically examined for the purpose of determining his claim on the ground of mental affection, but in the absence of any evidence as to any previous mental history in the case the claim could not be admitted. In the middle of May an appeal was lodged against this decision to the Appeal Tribunal, and in support of the appeal new material evidence was submitted for the first time. After consideration of this evidence, I personally directed a mental specialist to examine Mr. Roskell, with the result that, as stated in the House yesterday, I am glad to say the claim has been found to be good.
    Mr. DUNNICO: Is it a fact that, as stated yesterday, an hon. Member of this House addressed 16 letters to the right hon. Gentleman's Department concerning this case?
    Mr. BECKER: May I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville) has asked me to mention that he has written a much larger number of letters during the four years that this case has been in hand, but that since this Government has been in office he has only written four letters to the Ministry and five to the board of guardians, and that it was only after he wrote an article in the "Times" that the Minister took action?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is not true to state that 16 letters have been addressed to the Ministry. Five letters have been written on this particular case, about which there has arisen a considerable measure of controversy. Much prominence has been given to it in the Press in various directions, but, in accordance with the amended instructions to which the House agreed a few weeks ago, it has been found possible to include this and similar cases within the scope of the present administration. Five letters on this case have been received by myself, four from the hon. Member for Barrow and one from the board of guardians.

    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
    Mr. ACKROYDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of children at present in the reformatory schools, the number in industrial schools, and the numbers in these institutions in 1914?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The numbers of boys and girls now in reformatory schools, industrial schools and day industrial schools in England and Wales are 2,093, 5,025 and 300 respectively. The corresponding figures for the 31st December, 1914, were 3,878, 12,996 and 1,732 respectively.

    MOTOR CAR OFFENCES (FINES).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether he has been able to give consideration to a reduction of the sentences imposed on. R. E. Dean by the Woburn Bench for giving a lift to a poor wayfarer while using trade number plates, and upon a driver employed by Marzial Motors, Limited, for a technical breach of the Regulation governing the use of a trade number plate?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have inquired into the case of R. E. Dean. I must say, in fairness to the magistrates and to the police officer mentioned, that some of the details mentioned in the question put to me by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on the 7th July about this case are not borne out on inquiry. But on the documents before me, I have thought it right to remit £2 of the fine of £3 (not £7) which was imposed on Dean. As regard the other case referred to in the question, my inquiries are not completed.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think a fine of £3 is a rather expensive penalty to inflict upon a man who merely gave a lift to a poor unemployed workman?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have thought something of the kind when I took off £2.

    DRUNKENNESS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Home Secretary the number of persons pro-
    564
    ceeded against for being drunk or drunk and disorderly in the Counties of Brecon, Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire, and Herefordshire, respectively, during the year 1923?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to Table VI of the Licensing Statistics published annually, where figures for proceedings, for drunkenness throughout the country are given. The volume for 1923, which is in preparation, will show that in that year there were 108 such proceedings in the County of Brecon, 3,198 in Glamorganshire, 464 in Monmouthshire, and 86 in Herefordshire.

    ILLEGAL LIQUOR SALES (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Home Secretary the number of cases in which proceedings were taken against persons for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, during the year 1923?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Table V of the Licensing Statistics for 1923, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member's preceding question, will show that proceedings against licensed persons for the offences indicated in the Table totalled 1,034 in England, and 282 in Wales. As regards Scotland, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland for any information available.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many of the cases in Scotland are due to the operation of the Scottish Temperance Act?

    TAXI-CABS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether he has given further consideration to the proposal for allowing advertisements to be placed in taxi-cabs; and can he inform the House of his intentions in this matter?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 3rd instant.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we will be spared this final assault on the eyes of the public?
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that if these advertisements are permitted in taxi-cabs, the fares will be lowered accordingly?
    Mr. HENDERSON: In reply to the first Supplementary question, I cannot do more than I have said. I said I was going to ask the Commissioner to judge the proposal on its merits.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely this is the Capital of the Empire. Has not the House of Commons some say on the question of the further disfigurement of public vehicles in London?

    ARMS SEIZED, LONDON DOCKS.
    Lord APSLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the number and nature of arms found by the police in course of being shipped secretly from London Docks; whether they were destined for Russia; if so, to what port they were consigned; and whether they were intended for use on the Afghan or Roumanian fronts?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I would refer the noble Lord to the answer which I gave yesterday to the noble Lord the Member for Newark (Major the Marquess of Titchfield).
    Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that none of these arms are being shipped to the Clyde?

    EX-INSPECTOR SYME.
    Mr. LAVERACKasked the Home Secretary if he proposes to publish the result of the inquiry into ex-Inspector John Syme's case; whether he will also publish the evidence given before the Commissioners; and whether ho will himself cither weigh the evidence advanced and make a decision or arrange an early date in the House to discuss the whole matter?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Report of the Commissioners and the Appendices thereto are being printed, and I hope to present them to Parliament in the course
    566
    of a few days. It would be impracticable to publish all the material that came before the Commission, as it included very voluminous documents. As regards the latter part of the question, I would point out that the Government in granting an impartial inquiry into this case undertook to abide by the result, and Mr. Syme, on his part, gave a similar undertaking, and, under these circumstances, I fail to see how the matter can be carried further.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement appearing in the newspapers that this ex-inspector absolutely refuses to accept the verdict?
    Viscountess ASTOR: In what papers?
    Mr. THORNE: In several.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that an appeal tribunal is set up, so that cases of this kind may not occur, and those against whom charges are made may have adequate opportunity of defending themselves?

    CONTRACEPTIVE ARTICLES.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the serious increase in the number of shops in London publicly exposing for sale contraceptive articles, accompanied frequently by books of an indecent and a suggestive character; and if he will take any steps to prohibit or prosecute such exhibition, either at Common Law, under the Vagrancy Act, or under any other appropriate Statute to suppress the nuisance or, if necessary, will he introduce legislation to obtain the requisite power?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The police keep these establishments under observation, and they report to me that there has not been any noticeable increase in their number; but any action amounting to a breach of the law will be the subject of legal proceedings.
    Mr. BECKER: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "any action amounting to a breach of the law" in this connection?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think it is in the public interest that I should state that here.

    POLICE CANTEENS.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary how many police station canteens in the Metropolitan area are licensed for the provision of alcoholic drink; and whether he can state if the police canteens throughout the country are licensed for this purpose?
    Mr. HENDERSON: There are 95 canteens at police stations in the Metropolitian police district at which the sale of beer and cider is authorised under Section 111 (2) (l) of the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910. No similar authority has been given in respect of canteens elsewhere.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary how many prisoners there are now serving sentences in English convict prisons who were convicted by civil Courts or courts-martial in Ireland; how many are serving life sentences; what authority is paying for their maintenance; and whether he has satisfied himself by a review of the circumstances of their trial and conviction that their punishment should be continued?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is 75, and to the second part, seven. The cost of the detention of these prisoners is charged in the first instance to the Vote for Prisons, but in the case of prisoners from Northern Ireland is recovered from the Northern Ireland Government. As regards the last part of the question, in the case of prisoners convicted of offences in Northern Ireland the responsibility rests with the Northern Ireland Government. The cases of the ethers, who were with one exception serving members of His Majesty's forces at the date of conviction, are reviewed from time to time.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of that answer, can the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority these prisoners were brought from Ireland to this country?
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is a very old arrangement between the two countries.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars of the cases of the three prisoners, Rogers, O'Boyle and Conlin, who were convicted in Ireland, and are at present imprisoned in England?
    Mr. HENDERSON: These men were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by General Court-martial at Belfast in April, 1921. Their sentences were commuted to penal servitude for life.

    COLONIAL PRISONERS.
    Mr J. HARRISasked the Home Secretary whether the practice is being adopted of transferring prisoners from Colonial prisons to prisons in this country; and how many such prisoners are at present serving their sentences in prisons in the British Islands?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Prisoners are sometimes brought to England from some part of His Majesty's Dominions overseas in order to serve their sentences here under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884. At present there are one such prisoner from India and four sent here from Crown Colonies.
    Mr. HARRIS: On whom falls the charge for bringing prisoners from Dependencies—not Dominions—to this country, to serve their sentences here; is it this country or the Dependency concerned?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

    POLICE (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS).
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. GROVES:
    "23. To ask the Home Secretary the fund from which the expenses are met on occasions when the local police deem it necessary to be defended in Court by solicitors or counsel; if such expenses are met from the borough police rate, what steps are taken to consult the local authorities, who have to levy the rate, before any such expenditure is incurred; and whether, in instances where the cases are police v. public, both sides can be defended from such borough fund?"
    Viscount CURZON: Does not this question cast a reflection upon the police, and could not we have an answer, in the

    569
    absence of the hon. Member who put it down, so that we may know exactly what are the circumstances?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so.

    ALIENS (REGULATIONS).
    Sir L. LYLEasked the Home Secretary whether, within the last six months, any new Regulations, and, if so, what, or any modifications of existing Regulations have been made with respect to the entry of aliens into this country for the purposes of travel, study, temporary residence, or obtaining work?
    Mr. HENDERSON: There has been no change in the Regulations in this matter; but, as I stated on 6th March to be the intention of the Government, care is taken, with due regard to public interests, to avoid unnecessary hardship to individuals.
    Sir L. LYLE: Does that mean in effect that the Home Office are relaxing the Regulations?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I did say on the previous occasion that the Regulations were fitted to conditions entirely different from those which obtain to-day. The responsibility rests with the Home Office, and we are trying to administer them fairly and squarely, having regard to the better conditions under which we are living.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are not conditions of unemployment worse to-day than at the time these Regulations were made, and therefore in the interests of employment in this country is it not desirable to keep the Regulations in order to prevent aliens obtaining work at the expense of our own people?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was aware that these are not cases affected by unemployment. These are cases of those who have been long resident in this country, and those are the cases to which I refer in my reply.

  EDUCATION.

    DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (GRANTS).
    Mr. ACKROYDasked the President of the Board of Education the number of mentally defective and the number of
    570
    physically defective children for whom grants are being paid to local education authorities, and how these numbers compare with 1914?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): During the year ended the 31st March, 1923, grants were paid to local education authorities in respect of an average attendance of 12,907 mentally defective children and 9,793 physically defective children. The Board also paid grant in respect of that year to bodies other than local education authorities for an average attendance of 297 mentally defective children and 1,732 physically defective children. Thus they paid grant for a total average attendance of 13,204 mentally defective children and of 11,525 physically defective children. For the year ended the 31st March, 1914, the total average attendance of mentally defective children on whom the Board paid grant was 11,307, and of physically defective children 6,075.
    Mr. ACKROYD: In view of the large number of those children throughout the country, particularly in the small towns, who are not receiving any education at all, will the right hon. Gentleman now urge the local education authorities to put the Act of 1918 in operation respecting these little children?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: We are continually encouraging local education authorities to do so.
    Mr. FISHER: Can the right ton. Gentleman say whether the Board is now, as a matter of fact, considering any proposals for increasing the provision for these defective children?
    Viscountess ASTOR: In dealing with these defective children, could not the Board have the syllabus increased, telling the evils of alcohol, which is the cause of a great deal of the mental deficiency in these children?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher), I shall be prepared to consider any proposals for encouraging local authorities.

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES (GRANTS).
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that the Government contribution towards the

    571
    expenditure of local education authorities on maintenance allowances is 50 per cent. in the case of secondary school pupils and only 20 per cent. in the case of elementary school pupils, he is prepared to increase the grant to 50 per cent. in the case of elementary school pupils with the object of retaining a larger proportion of them at school between the ages of 14 and 15 years?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The point raised by the hon. Member is under my consideration, though I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. SIMON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say upon what basis the very great difference between the contributions for children in elementary schools and those for children in secondary schools is arrived at?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The system of grants was established a few years ago, and I think it is doing well.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember his promises about education?

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to take any action, by means of an alteration in the Code, to enforce the policy declared in Circular 1,325 of reducing the maximum size of classes from 60 to 50?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The Code, as already amended, states that the authority should consider whether it is not practicable to arrange that no class shall have more than 50 children on the register. But in reprinting the Code (which I hope to do in the autumn) I propose to introduce some further amendments, including one by which the Board will be empowered, where they are satisfied that the accommodation available is sufficient for the purpose, to reduce the figure 60 in Article 14 to 50. This, and any other new amendments, would, of course, in the first instance, be published as draft amendments.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL FEES (ABOLITION).
    Mr. SCURRasked the President of the Board of Education how many local
    572
    authorities in England have applied, under Article 9 (a) of the Board's Regulations, for sanction to abolish school fees in their secondary schools; how many such applications have been sanctioned; how many authorities have in fact abolished fees; what effect the abolition has had on the secondary school population in such areas; and what steps the Board is contemplating to encourage and assist local authorities to arrest the decline in the number of children receiving secondary education in this country?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: In England proposals have been received for the abolition of fees in one school in Oldham and one in Smethwick, also for no fees to be charged in a new school to be opened in Manchester and another in Smethwick. All these proposals have been approved. Including the areas just named, fees have now been abolished in some schools in eight areas. The provision of free secondary education has hardly yet reached the stage when any confident generalisation can be made as to its effects, but I have no reason to anticipate that they will be other than beneficial. I have already announced, both in this House and outside, my desire to see an increase in the provision of free places awarded, and I believe that the announcements I have made have already had a stimulating effect.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    IRAQ (AEROPLANES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many aeroplanes are stationed in Iraq; how many pilots and observers are stationed there; and how many aeroplanes are ready for immediate service for the defence of this country in case of war?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): It is not considered to be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first and third parts of the question. As regards pilots and observers, there are stationed in Iraq 296 officers of the General Duties Branch, all of whom are liable to fly, and 23 airmen pilots.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to impinge upon the public interest, but can the hon. Gentleman say

    573
    how many pilots there are available for immediate war service in this country? I want a, comparison between the defence arrangements hers and there.

    HALTON (COST OF TRAINING BOYS).
    Mr. BLACKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can supply the figures asked for with respect to the cost of training boys at Halton before the House rises for the Summer Vacation?
    Mr. LEACH: The figures in question are on the point of being forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee, as I promised my hon. Friend last month.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    INSPECTORS OF TAXES (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the scales of remuneration for temporary clerks employed in the offices of His Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes; and the approximate number employed at such rates of pay?

    —

    London.

    Intermediate Centres.

    Provinces.

    Men.

    Grade III

    57s. 1d.-67s. 1d.

    53s. 7d.-63s. 7d.

    50s. 1d.-60s. 1d.

    Women.

    Grade III (21 years and over)

    46s. 6d.-54s. 6d.

    43s.-51s.

    39s. 6d.-47s. 6d.

    WOMEN (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can sec his way to advise the Government to review the question of the remuneration of women as compared with men in the Civil Service, as promised in the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 5th August, 1921.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on the 3rd July.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman himself think it a most unsatisfactory answer, considering the promises of the Labour party?
    Mr. AYLES: Does not the hon. Gentleman think, now that women have political
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of temporary clerks employed in tax offices on 1st July, 1924, were as follow:

    —

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Grade I

    3

    17

    20

    Grade II

    272

    83

    355

    Grade III

    3,026

    84

    3,110

    Grade IV

    1

    —

    1

    3,302

    184

    3,486

    The remuneration of clerks graded I and II is at the moment under adjustment; that of Grade III follows the scales of pay prescribed under a recent agreement with effect from 29th March last for temporary Grade III clerks in the service generally, and is as follows:
    equality with men, that the time has come when they should have economic equality, and that it is infinitely better for economic equality to be granted rather than to have it wrested from the Government?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Come over here!
    Mr. GRAHAM: The reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to these cases was, I think, that every effort has been made to secure equality of opportunity in the service, but my right hon. Friend indicated that, in view of the very large cost involved, he could not at this stage undertake to make monetary equality, or equality of payment, as well.

    INLAND REVENUE VALUERS (PROMOTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in making promotions to the rank of first-class valuer in the Inland Revenue, regard is paid to the work required from the officer promoted?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Every effort is made to select for promotion the officer who is best qualified by general merit to perform the duties of the superior grade.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: My hon. Friend, in reply to my question, has referred to Circular letter No. 1019, of 16th February. Does that hold good or does it not?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend before that this matter is really regulated by a Promotions Committee within the Department. All the circumstances are taken into account, but, of course, merit must prevail in a promotion of this kind.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this officer was not interviewed by the Promotions Committee? Is he also aware that the letter I quoted just now says that the actual promotion has to be made having regard to the work required in the officer promoted? I want to know whether this is actually so or not?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite obvious that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with an individual case. I cannot give a reply in regard to an individual case unless I have the details.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Arising out of that—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put another question down.

    WOMEN (TEMPORAEY SERVICE).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he proposes to make some provision for the legitimate claims of temporary women who have served in Government service from very early periods during the War and who now consider that they should now be given a chance of establishment; and whether he is aware that last year nearly 1,000 girls with no Government service to their credit were brought in at the ages of 15 and 16, and that their introduction meant the subsequent discharge of many efficient older women, who have since found it almost impossible to get outside employment?
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
    576
    whether he is prepared to make some arrangements whereby the temporary women civil servants who have given such long periods of efficient service to the Government should be offered a chance of competing for any vacancies which may arise on the women's side in the Civil Service?
    Viscount CURZONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the publication of the Southborough Report and provision made therein for establishment of ex-service men, the Treasury is now contemplating making some provision for the temporary women who have been in the service for many years to enter women's vacancies which may arise during the next year or two; and whether he is aware that these women find it impossible to obtain outside employment and have had no chance of establishment since 1920?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I will answer these questions together. The position of temporary women clerks now serving in the Civil Service is receiving my consideration with reference to the recommendations of Lord Southborough's Committee, but I regret that I am not yet able to announce a decision on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the exact position of the Government in relation to the South-borough Report? Have they accepted it or are they going to put it into operation, and is the House to have an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The Government have already announced their intention, and that they are in favour of the terms of the Southborough Report. As regards an opportunity for discussion, I am afraid that must rest with the ingenuity of hon. Members.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be able to give the decision to the House before the House rises?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is difficult to say, because this is a very large question, and we have only now a week or two left, but I will make inquiry and inform the Noble Lord whether it can be done.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware there are several gaps in the Report of the Southborough Committee?

    GRETNA (PROPOSED SALE).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is strong public feeling in Scotland against the proposed sale of national property at Gretna; and whether, in view of the fact that schemes for restarting parts of the plant on a profitable basis are awaiting his consideration, he can postpone or cancel the proposed sale at Gretna?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will repeat this question in a few days' time.

    INCOME TAX (SPECIAL AGENTS).
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue Department propose to extend the liability of a special agent to be assessed to Income Tax in respect of the profits made by his foreign principal to the case of an English limited company which acts as special agent of a certain large American oil company?
    Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with further particulars of the case to which he refers, I will gladly have the matter looked into and will communicate the result to him in due course.

    TRADE FACILITIES, RUMANIA.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Rumania is in need of 4,000 locomotives; and whether, in view of the fact that many of our locomotive works are idle, he will give the use of trade facilities to firms in this country taking contracts from Rumania despite the fact that Rumania owes money to Britain?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no special information with regard to the need for locomotives by Rumania. It is open to Rumania, if she so desires, to make application to the Trade Facilities Committee.
    Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that, taking a case like Springburn, which I represent, where there are big locomotive works, if those who are building locomotives there get a contract, say, with Rumania, are the Government, because Rumania owes us money, going to put it in that they cannot have such a contract under the Trade Facilities Scheme?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. The matter is one of capital expenditure. It is open to any Government or to any private firm to approach the Advisory Committee under the Act, but, of course, it is entirely for the Committee to say whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the guarantee can be given.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether he can see his way to sell some of the Woolwich locomotives to Rumania?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Speaking from recollection, I should say at once that every effort has been made to dispose of them already.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) were adopted, would it not result in Rumania owing us still more money?
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the engines would give the power to pay us back the money?

    POLICE (WHITE OVERALLS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to accept the offer of the hon. Member for South Battersea of two overall suits for policemen employed at the- more inadequately lighted points for trial?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am obliged to the Noble Lord for his offer, and I hope he will not think me ungracious if I say that if the experiment were considered desirable the cost of providing overall suits for the purpose would not stand in the way. But, as has already been explained, this matter has been most carefully considered by the Commissioner of Police, who has come to the conclusion that white overalls are not desirable in the conditions which prevail in London; and unless I receive representations showing that the desire for these overalls

    579
    is widely supported by public opinion, I should not feel justified in pressing the Commissioner to adopt them.
    Viscount CURZON: In the event of the new Advisory Committee being set up under the Traffic Bill, which is now going through another place, making a recommendation in this sense, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I shall be very pleased to submit it to the Commissioner.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps, or if not, will he do so, to collect information from those local authorities who do at present keep their police on point duty in white overalls?
    Mr. HENDERSON: We have a considerable amount of information already in our possession, which justifies me in giving the reply I have just given.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: From those local authorities?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Yes.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an offer of white sheets if it comes from the same source?
    Mr. HENDERSON: We are able to provide them ourselves.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. SYDNEY ROBINSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of complaints of delay experienced by old age pensioners of Essex regarding applications for pensions, and that complaints are made of the method adopted of ascertaining the statutory limit of fixed income; and, in view of these complaints, will he cause inquiries to be made with a view to obviate these delays?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not aware that any complaints have been made regarding applications for Old Age Pensions in Essex, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any specific case he has in mind, I will make inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. ROBINSON: I am very pleased to receive the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, and I will let him have the cases to which I have referred in the question.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Did not the hon. Gentleman say in the course of debate on the Old Age Pensions Bill that he was going to issue new instructions to the pensions officers as to the manner in which they were to inquire into the means of applicants and recipients of old age pensions? When will that be done?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the further debate on the Report stage of the Bill, when a statement will be made.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now lay a Paper giving instructions which will be issued to the old age pension officers as to the determination of the meaning of the word earnings in the Old Age Pensions Act?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not in a position to say more than that my right hon. Friend, as he promised on the Committee stage of the Bill, is considering the possibility of producing a definition of "earnings" at a later stage.
    Captain BENN: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer hold out a hope that before the final stages of the Bill were passed we should have a copy of the Regulation which the officers would have in their hands in determining the meaning of the word "earnings"?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think I can satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend by saying definitely now that, on the Report stage of the Bill, we propose to put on the Paper a definition of earnings, and there will be an opportunity for discussion.
    Captain BENN: As an Amendment?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when we tried to put in a definition it was ruled out of order?

    INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE (PUBLICITY).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether he will now state what

    581
    steps will be taken to keep the public informed of the proceedings of the Inter-Allied Conference; whether it is proposed to open any of the sessions to the public; or whether a communiqué will be issued daily?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): Publicity was one of the first questions taken up by the Conference at its opening meeting. It was agreed that the Secretariat-General of the Conference should prepare a communiqué after each full meeting of the Conference, and that no limit should be set to the length of the communiqué. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    LAW OFFICERS (FEES).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the fees to be paid to the Attorney-General and the three Counsel who assisted him during the trial of Vaquier for murder are likely to be ascertained; and if he can say why such a trial if held in Scotland would have been undertaken by the Lord Advocate and an Advocate Depute without payment of any extra fees?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In view of Vaquier's appeal it is not possible to say when the fees payable to the Attorney-General and the other Counsel engaged will be settled. As regards the second part of the question, an entirely different system prevails in Scotland, under which the Lord Advocate is paid a salary to include, inter alia, all contentious business; and there are four salaried Advocates Depute. In England the Attorney-General's salary does not cover contentious business, and, as there are no Counsel paid by salary, Counsel have to be retained for necessary assistance to the Attorney-General and to be paid by fees.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not the case that every brief is marked with a fee, and, therefore, it will be perfectly easy to give us a figure of the cost?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, it would not be easy. We do not know what the figures are until the case is complete. The case is still under appeal, and I could not give any figure until the appeal is overtaken, and we know the actual cost.
    Mr. STURROCK: Why is it that the English Bar and the Scottish Bar are not placed on the same footing in regard to this question?
    Colonel GRETTON: Would any greater cost have been incurred by the Government if the Attorney-General's place had been taken by other Counsel?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I could not answer that without inquiry.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS.
    Mr. S. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in a recent prosecution by the county council of Essex, under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, three witnesses stated on oath that they formed part of a deputation from the Retail Corn Dealers' Association which attended on the Ministry in 1921, and that on that occasion a definite understanding was come to with the Ministry that the provisions of the said Section would not be enforced if there was a label in or on the bag containing the feeding stuff giving the required percentages of oil and albuminoids contained in the Acts, etc.; whether any such understanding as above mentioned was come to on the occasion referred to; and whether the understanding is still effectual?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): My right hon. Friend has not seen a detailed report of the legal proceedings in question. There is, however, clearly some misunderstanding as to the attitude attributed to the Ministry when the deputation in question was received in 1921. The records show that on that occasion certain suggestions were made which it was considered might assist retailers of small quantities of poultry food. It was also pointed out that new legislation would be required to meet the views of the deputation, but no ruling of the nature in question was given.

    SUSPECTED SWINE FEVER, BLACKMORE.
    Mr. S. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that at Nine Ashes, Blackmore, Essex, a sow

    583
    died in a field adjacent to the public highway; that this was reported to the proper authority immediately on Thursday, 10th July, but that no action was taken until Saturday, 12th July; that by this time the carcase had decomposed; and whether, in view of this serious menace to the health of the general public, he will take action to prevent such delay in dealing with similar cases?
    Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances of this case. The notification of suspected swine fever did not reach the Department until after office hours on the 10th inst., but telegraphic instructions were sent to the local veterinary surgeon early on the 11th instant. Unfortunately the veterinary surgeon was out on his rounds when the Ministry's telegram arrived, and he was not able to visit the premises in question until the following day. I may add that cases in which delay occurs are quite exceptional, and my right hon. Friend will see that they are avoided whenever possible.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that up till 12 o'clock on Saturday no veterinary surgeon had been there; that I at once got into telephonic communication with the Ministry of Agriculture at Whitehall, and that they were good enough at once to send down a veterinary surgeon from headquarters, and the matter was expedited?

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. HOBHOUSEasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) what is the official estimate of the present unsatisfied demands for small holdings in England and Wales;
    (2) whether he can give the number and total acreages of new holdings which have been provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts and the Land Settlement Acts, respectively, since the 1st January last?
    Mr. SMITH: I will answer these two questions together. Statistics in regard to the provision of small holdings are collected by the Ministry through the county councils and councils of county boroughs half-yearly in January and July. The returns showing the position as at the 16th instant will be received by the Ministry shortly, and as soon as the
    584
    figures have been classified and tabulated I will send the hon. Member the information for which he asks.
    Mr. HOBHOUSEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to take any action to carry out the recommendations of the Agricultural Tribunal for the further development of small holdings?
    Mr. SMITH: my right hon. Friend is carefully considering the recommendations of the Agricultural Tribunal in regard to small holdings, but before a new scheme can be put into operation, a revision of the existing, financial arrangements between the Ministry and local authorities will be necessary, and this will involve fresh legislation. In the circumstances, some time must elapse before it will be possible to formulate definite proposals.

  SCOTLAND.

    CLYDEBANK (NON-PAYMENT OF RENT).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOURasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state what conclusion has been arrived at as a result of recent conversations with the local authorities and others in connection with the position of non-payment of rent in Clydebank?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I regret that my efforts to secure a settlement of the difficulties in Clydebank have so far proved unsuccessful, but the negotiations are not yet concluded, and I should prefer not to make any statement at the present moment.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this matter has been so long delayed that he ought to take some further action and to make some statement on the subject? Ought he not now to dissociate himself from the action of the Tenants' Association in advising the people to withhold their rent and rates?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman in my reply that my negotiations are not yet concluded.
    Captain BENN: Is it to be hoped that the action of the Government will be announced before the House rises?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Is not this a matter of really great importance, not solely to the local authorities, but to the other people in this district; and may I ask whether this is not the only district in Scotland where such a scandalous state of circumstances has arisen?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Of course, I recognise that it is a matter of great importance and that is why I have dealt with it with so much patience.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the action to be taken will be announced before the House rises?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot say.

    CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland if the small heritors of Scotland have been consulted by the Church authorities on the provisions of the Church of Scotland Bill; and if there is any means of consulting the heritors unless at heritors' meetings duly cited from the pulpit?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that there is no body representative of the small heritors, and accordingly formal consultation with them has not been possible, but in the negotiations in connection with the Bill referred to their interests have* been kept in view. As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware that there is any legal limitation as to the manner in which heritors may be consulted.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that from time immemorial the only way in which small heritors have been consulted is by intimations from the pulpit, and I would like to know if in this case any such intimation has been served; or is it a fact that the only people consulted were the large landowners and property owners interested in the Church?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to take the Church of Scotland Bill in this House?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot say for the moment.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. ADAMSON: There is nothing that stands in the way of this being intimated in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

  HOUSING.

    AGRICULTURAL PARISHES, SCOTLAND.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the value of land in an agricultural parish in Scotland, under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, is net or gross value?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 of the Bill, the value of agricultural land in a Scottish parish is the value according to the valuation roll, which is the gross valuation.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the Secretary for Scotland now publish a statement showing the parishes in Scotland which will be entitled to the higher subsidy?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:
    Are tinkers included in the population?

    SUB-TENANTS (RENTALS).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a Resolution from the Bedwellty Guardians calling his attention to the serious position in which many poor peoples are placed as a result of the high rents charged for both furnished and unfurnished apartments: and will he undertake to introduce legislation to protect sub tenants by making it illegal to charge more than a fixed percentage of the standard rent of the house?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): My right hon. Friend has received this Resolution. I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which were given to similar questions on the 4th and 7th July.

    BOARD OF GUARDIANS (NON- RESIDENT RELIEF).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether He is aware that many boards of guardians are refusing to recognise non-resident relief, with the result that many homes are being broken up or that great privation ensues through

    587
    their refusal to go into the workhouse; and will he take steps to make it compulsory on boards of guardians to grant such non-resident relief?
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that this matter is engaging the attention of the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales and he will be prepared to consider any proposals which the Association think it desirable to submit to him.

    PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE GRANT).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the amount of 4s. per head repaid to boards of guardians under the 1888 Act for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in asylums is totally inadequate: and will he take steps to secure that at least half of the actual cost for the maintenance of such patient shall be repaid to guardians from national funds?
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Legislation would be required for the alteration of this grant and my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce such legislation at the present time.

    RIOTS, GEORGETOWN (BRITISH GUIANA).
    Mr. SCURRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether ho has received the Report of the Inquiry of the special Commissioner into the recent riots at Georgetown, British Guiana?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer is in the negative.

    FOREIGN PARCEL POST.
    Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAMasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that traders in countries competing with this country in neutral markets are able to despatch by post parcels and boxes which exceed in size and weight the measurements and weight permitted by the British Post Office;
    588
    That, in consequence of this difference, British traders suffer under a disadvantage; and whether he will take immediate steps to alter the Postal Regulations so that the dimensions and weight of parcels and boxes, which may be sent by post from this country to foreign countries, shall not be less than the dimensions and weight allowed by any foreign country?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I am already in communication with the railway and shipping companies on the subject; but I am unable at present to make any more definite pronouncement.
    Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I think the right hon. Gentleman has given the wrong answer.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: No. It is necessary to make arrangements, with both the shipping and the railway companies with reference to these matters before we can enter into contracts.
    Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: Will the Postmaster-General answer the definite question which I put as to whether regulations of this kind regarding the size and weight of parcels and boxes in this country are different from the regulations of foreign countries?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It is because there is a difference that I am now negotiating with the railway companies to that end.

    TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATIONS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that there are 12 civilians now employed as secretaries to Territorial Associations, he can see his way to ensure that this military work shall be done by officers who have military experience; and whether, in view of the recommendation in the Report of the Ex-Ranker Officers' Committee that the Government should make a special appeal to employers of labour on behalf of unemployed Army pensioned ranker officers, he will recommend to the chairmen of Territorial Associations that suitable Army pensioned ranker officers shall have preference for such work?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): I recognise that the secretaryship of a Territorial Army Association, though classified as a civilian appointment, is eminently suitable for a retired officer, but I cannot press Associations to terminate prematurely the appointments of those secretaries who had no previous service in the Regular or Territorial Armies, or to appoint, as vacancies occur, any particular class of officer in preference to others who may be equally qualified and deserving. I have no doubt that Associations already give due consideration to the claims of any ex-officers promoted from the ranks who apply to them.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that when in future vacancies occur civilians shall not be appointed to these military jobs until the claims of ex-service men have been carefully considered?
    Mr. CLIMIE: If a private is found suitable; will he be given the job, or will he be deprived of the opportunity?
    Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that some of these so-called civilians have, in fact, been privates in the Army?
    Mr. LAWSON: All I can do is to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to these recommendations. Rut, speaking for myself, I should say that most of these people have had military experience.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:
    What sort of example is this to show to private employers in employing ex-service men, when no pressure can be bi ought by the War Office on these Territorial Associations?
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the Financial Secretary associate himself with the Report of the Commission on Ranker Ex-Officers?
    Mr. LAWSON: I associate myself with that part which was accepted by the Government, and I think it was accepted almost in toto.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman take great care not to interfere too much with the discretion in the administration of territorial affairs of the Territorial Association?
    Mr. LAWSON: I think it will be seen from my answer that the question raised
    590
    by the hon. and gallant Gentleman received very careful consideration, and the answer I gave clearly shows that there is a reluctance on the part of the War Office to interfere with the administration of those Associations.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Would it be in the interests of the Army that men with military experience should fulfil jobs which are done by adjutants in the Regular Army?

    ARMY PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state, approximately, how many serving soldiers completed time during the War and were retained as pensioners mobilised?
    Mr. LAWSON: The number in question is 3,400, approximately.
    Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that no soldier who has completed his time is kept on pension, because as soon as their service is completed they are discharged? Does he not mean something more like "completed their engagement"?
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Navy the pensionable time does not cease with a completion of the contract, and will he review this matter?
    Mr. LAWSON: Sometimes the pensionable period finished during the War, and special arrangements were made which would be too long for me to explain to the House in answer to a question.
    Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that the expression "completed time" would apply to the serving of a sentence?

    INDIA.

      WARRANT OFFICERS (FREE PASSAGE).
      Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the warrant officers, Indian unattached list, are allowed the same free passage- facilities when proceeding to this country on leave as other British warrant officers; and, if not, what is the reason?
      Mr. PARKINSON (Comptroller of the Household): Non-departmental warrant officers of the Indian unattached list are

      591
      treated generally under the rules for British Service warrant officers, but owing to the present financial stringency, departmental warrant officers are allowed free entitled passages only when on leave on medical certificate.

      DELHI RIOTS.
      Viscount CURZON: I desire to put to you, Sir, a question by Private Notice. At this Sitting of the House I received a letter from your Secretary, referring me to Question 67, which the hon. Member was not in his place to ask. I was wondering whether you would allow me to put the question I desire to put by Private Notice?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Noble Lord may ask the question he sent me, but I am informed that the Minister responsible is not able to be here. The Noble Lord can see if there is an answer.
      Viscount CURZON: May I ask, in the event of the Under-Secretary being here, whether his attention has been drawn to reports of serious developments of the riots in Delhi, and whether he can make any statement on the position?
      Mr. PARKINSON: A report has been asked for, and when it has been received, it will be communicated to the Noble Lord.

      POLICE ACTION (EXPENSES).
      The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GROVES:
      "22. To ask the Home Secretary whether, in cases where citizens are injured by the police and no charge made against the citizen, or in cases where a charge is preferred and dismissed by the Court, medical attendance and all necessary expenses incurred in connection with such injuries are-met from public funds or whether such citizens are expected to meet such expenses themselves?"
      Viscount CURZON: May we know, in answer to this question, whether any such cases have in fact occurred?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which notice should be given.

      ANTHRAX.
      Mr. TILLETTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the
      592
      hardships and risks to health and life imposed upon workers handling hides, horns, hoofs, bones, wool, and hair, particularly those imported from India and Asia generally; and, in view of the fact that docks, wharves, quays, warehouses, and workshops at which these commodities are handled for transporting and sorting are not scheduled under the Factory Acts, will he take steps to include in the forthcoming legislation such Clauses as will cover all those engaged in the handling of these commodities?
      Mr. HENDERSON: As the answer to this question is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Following is the answer:
      I am well aware of the risk from anthrax to which these workers are exposed, and will take every possible step to meet it. There is already power under the Factory Act to make Regulations for the protection of persons employed in docks-and the other premises mentioned, and Regulations are in force in regard to the handling of hides imported from Asia or Africa. Experience shows, however, that the most, if not the only, effective remedy consists in the disinfection of the material, and the most hopeful line of advance, therefore, will be to utilise, wherever practicable, the powers conferred by the Anthrax Prevention Act, 1919, by providing for compulsory disinfection at the port of entry. As my hon. Friend knows, certain materials are already being compulsorily disinfected at the Government Station at Liverpool, and the extension of this requirement to other materials, and in particular to East India wool, is now under consideration.

      SIR JOHN SOANE MUSEUM (TRUSTEES).
      Viscount CURZONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the Barnes of the trustees who control the management of the Sir John Soane Museum, in Lincoln's Inn Fields; will he state whether the trustees are under the control of the Treasury or of the Board of Education; and, if they are not, whether they are answerable to any person, body, or Department?
      Mr. GRAHAM: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Following is the answer:
      The control of Sir John Soane's Museum is vested by an Act 3, William IV, cap. 4, in four life trustees and five additional trustees, whose term of office is five years. Any vacancy occurring among the life trustees is filled by nomination of the surviving life trustees. The five additional trustees are appointed by the Corporation of London, the Royal Academy, the Royal Society, the Society of Antiquaries and the Society of Arts.
      The present trustees are:
      Life Trustees—

      Sir Aston Webb.

      Sir Reginald Bloomfield.

      Mr. Paul Waterhouse and

      Mr. E. H. Freshfield.

      Additional Trustees—

      Sir Hercules Read.

      Sir T. Clifford Allbutt.

      Lord Bearsted and

      Mr. John Slater.

      The Royal Academy have not appointed an additional trustee, as the present president of the Royal Academy is already a life- trustee. The answers to the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question are in the negative.

      NAVAL PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
      Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if regulations were in force at the beginning of the Great War which entitled pre-War naval and marine pensioners to count War service for additional pension; and if he will give the date and title of the Admiralty order authorising the payment of pension for War service to the pre-War pensioners who served?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon):The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the payment of pension during war service is authorised by Article 1952 of

      594
      the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions (1913 Edition), and the grant of increases for war service by Article 1953.
      Major HORE-BELISHA: Is it the fact that before that Article was promulgated the War Office were consulted as to whether they would put a similar system into operation?
      Mr. AMMON:That is an entirely different question, of which the hon. and gallant Member had better give notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House what business he proposes to take next week?
Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I am obliged to defer, until the House assembles to-morrow, a statement of next week's business. The arrangement of the business next week will be very much affected by the progress made during to-day's sitting on the Housing (Financial Privisions) Bill, as, indeed, will the date on which we may hope to rise next month.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far he proposes to go to-night with the Housing Bill?
Mr. CLYNES: I cannot state the precise Clause. We did not make the progress yesterday which we ought to have made, only two Clauses having been completed. We trust that the House will again agree to the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, without any desire to keep the House silting late, but in, order that reasonable progress may be made.
Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to give us to-morrow the date on which we shall rise next month?
Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid not to-morrow.
Mr. HAYDAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Press notice of yesterday, stating that time would be given for the passage of the Bill dealing with the Stone of Destiny, is correct or not.
Mr. CLYNES: The statement in the newspapers is not correct. I have not received any deputation on the subject, and the question of facilities has not been considered.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to get the whole of the Housing Bill to-night or does he propose to give another day?
Mr. CLYNES: Naturally we should desire to get the whole Bill to-night, but I would not say we shall try to press our desire to the length of a long all-night sitting.
Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any probability of finishing to-night, and, in view of the improbability of finishing to-night, would
it not be better to fix a definite time for the House to rise?
Mr. CLYNES: I can only say, as in the case of last night, we shall have consideration for the convenience of Members. I think the House responded last night to the appeal made to them at about 12 o'clock.
Ordered,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Clynes.]
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]
The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 122.

Division No. 161.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

Ackroyd, T. R.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lansbury, George

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Gardner, J. P.(Hammersmith, North)

Laverack, F. J.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

Law, A.

Alden, Percy

George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Gibbins, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Ammon, Charles George

Gilbert, James Daniel

Leach, W.

Aske, Sir Robert William

Gorman, William

Linfield, F. C.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gosling, Harry

Lowth, T.

Ayles, W. H.

Greenall, T.

Lunn, William

Baker, Walter

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

McCrae, Sir George

Banton, G.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

McEntee, V. L.

Barclay, R. Noton

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mackinder, W.

Barker, G. (Monmauth, Abertillery)

Groves, T.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Barnes, A.

Grundy, T. W.

Maden, H.

Batey, Joseph

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Mansel, Sir Courtenay

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hall, G, H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

March. S.

Black, J. W.

Harbison, Thomas James S.

Masterman. Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Bondfield, Margaret

Harbord, Arthur

Mixton, James

Bonwick, A.

Hardle, George D.

Middleton, G.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Harris, John (Hackney, North)

Millar. J. D.

Briant, Frank

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Mitchell. R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Broad, F. A.

Harvey. T. E, (Dewsbury)

Montague, Frederick

Brown, A.E. (Warwick, Rugby)

Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

Morel, E.D.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Haycock, A. W.

Morris. R. H.

Buchanan, G.

Hayday, Arthur

Morrison, Herbert(Hackney, South)

Buckle, J.

Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (Burnley)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Cape, Thomas

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Morse, W. E.

Charleton, H. C.

Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)

Moulton. Major Fletcher

Church, Major A. G.

Hillary, A. E.

Muir, John W.

Clarke, A.

Hindle, F.

Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

Climie, R.

Hobhouse, A. L.

Murray, Robert

Cluse, W. S.

Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)

Naylor, T. E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hoftman,P. C.

Nichol, Robert

Cove, w. G.

Hogbin, Henry Calsrns

Nixon, H.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

O'Grady, Captain James

Davies, David (Montgomery)

Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

Oliver, George Harold

Davies, Rhys John(Westhoughton)

Hudson, J. H.

Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Jackson, R. F.(Ipswich)

Owen, Major G.

Dickle, Captain J.P.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Paling, W.

Dickson, T.

Jewson, Dorothea

Perry, S.F.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

John, William(Rhondda, West)

Pethick-Lawrence, F W.

Dukes, C.

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Philipson, Mabel

Dunn, J. Freeman

Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

Phillipps, Vivian

Dunnico, H.

Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Potts, John S.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Pringle, W. M. R.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Purcell, A. A.

Egan, W. H.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

Raffety, F. W.

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Keens, T.

Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

England, Colonel A.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Rathbone, Hugh R.

Falconer, J.

Kenyon, Barnet

Raynes, W. R.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Kirkwood, D.

Rea, W. Russell

Franklin, L. B.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Stephen, Campbell

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Ritson, J.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Joslah C.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Sullivan, J.

Welsh, J. C.

Robertson, T. A.

Sunlight, J.

Westwood, J.

Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

Sutton, J. E.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

Tattersall, J. L.

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

Romeril, H. G.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Whiteley, W.

Rose, Frank H.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Wignall, James

Royle, C.

Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Scrymgeour, E,

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

Scurr, John

Thornton, Maxwell R.

Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

Seely H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

Tillett, Benjamin

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Sexton, James

Tinker, John Joseph

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Toole, J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Sherwood, George Henry

Tout, W. J.

Windsor, Walter

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Wintringham, Margaret

Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)

Turner, Ben

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Smillie, Robert

Varley, Frank B.

Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Viant, S. P.

Wright, W.

Snell, Harry

Vivian, H.

Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Spence, R.

Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Warne, G.H.

Starmer, Sir Charles

Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)

NOES.

Alexander, Brg. Gen. Sir W.(Glas.C.)

Ferguson, H.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Astor, Viscountess

Gates, Percy

Pease, William Edwin

Atholl, Duchess of

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Pennefather, Sir John

Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Gretton, Colonel John

Perring, William George

Beckett, Sir Gervase

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W,

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H,

Ralne, W.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Berry, Sir George

Harland, A.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Betterton, Henry B.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Ropner, Major L.

Birchall, Major J Dearman

Hartington, Marquess of

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Bitmdell, F. N.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Sandeman, A, Stewart

Bourne, Robert Croft

Hennessy, Major J.R. G.

Savery, S. S.

Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive

Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hood, Sir Joseph

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

Spender-Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H,

Bullock, Captain M.

Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

Stanley, Lord

Burman, J. B.

Hughes, Collingwood

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Sutcliffe, T.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

Jephcott, A. R.

Thomson, F. C.(Aberdeen, South)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

Clarry, Reginald George

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Lamb, J. Q.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Lane-Fox, George R.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Cope, Major William

Lumley, L. R.

Wells, S. H.

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lyle, Sir Leonard

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Davies, Alfred Thomas(Lincoln)

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wolmer, Viscount

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Marriott, Sir J.A.R.

Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Meller, R.J.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Elliot, Walter E.

Mitchell,W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Elveden, Viscount

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane(Streatham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Eyres-Monsell.Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Captain Viscount Curzon and Major Colfox.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'in,' in line 34, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Hastings Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley-Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Imperial Institute Bill [Lords] with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee' C: Mr. Purcell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hoffman.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Rose; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Raine.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, not amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,

  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill, without Amendment.

  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to teinds and to the stipends of Ministers of the Church of Scotland, and the tenure of the property and endowments of that Church; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bognor, Brighouse, Durham, Newport (Monmouth), North-West Gloucestershire Joint Small-pox Hospital District, and South Staffordshire Joint Small-pox Hospital District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Brighton, Doncaster, Doncaster and Tickhill Joint Water District, Northumberland, and Sheffield." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Special conditions.)
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out from the word "undertake" to the word "that" in line 35.
    The effect of the Amendment would be that the special conditions which are laid down in this Clause would be accepted by the local authority, and the intervention of the Minister would not be required for the purpose of laying down the method by which the undertaking should be given. There is a further Amendment on the Paper to leave out the same words and to insert instead thereof the words
    "in accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the Treasury."
    That Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts). The object of my Amendment is to diminish central control. So far as I understand the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member opposite, its object is rather to increase central control. The reason I suggest that the Committee should omit these words, first of all, is that the conditions as laid down in the Clause are perfectly clear, and it is altogether unnecessary for the Minister to intervene in the matter at all. What the local authorities are required to do in the terms of the Statute is so clearly laid down that the intervention of the Minister seems to me to be quite gratuitous. Furthermore, if hon. Members will look at the conditions, it will be observed that there is provision in at least three of the conditions for the intervention of the Minister himself. First of all, in paragraph (c), which deals with restrictions upon sale, there is a provision for the consent of the Minister, which may be absolute or subject to such special considerations as the Minister may think proper. Then, in paragraph (d), there is, in relation to the Fair Wages
    616
    Clause, a reference to a form prescribed by the Minister; and, to take paragraph (e), there is a phrase,
    "At the appropriate normal rents"
    which is interpreted in Sub-section (3), and in Sub-section (3), again, there is a reference to rules prescribed by the Minister. It seems to me, therefore, that if you take the four special conditions with the Sub-section, interpreting the third one, the Minister has sufficient control without these words at all, and it is because I regard the intervention of the Minister, under these circumstances, as unnecessary, that I move the Amendment.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that in dealing with large sums of money it is very important that we should observe the rules of careful consideration, and I can contemplate the speech which he would have delivered had the Clause not contained the words which we propose.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I will now have to make another speech.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The object of the control by the Minister is not to enhance the status of that personality, but to obtain something in the nature of uniformity in administration. Here we have stated that we want to know what is the undertaking, and we want something in the, nature of uniformity. The local authority will want to know the nature of the undertaking which the Minister expects them to give. The control of the Minister would be unnecessary if he were not responsible for the fund, but I am afraid, so long as you are spending large sums of public money, you will require something in the nature of control. The next Amendment goes in exactly the opposite direction. It wants to establish even further control, and, although it seeks to control the Department for which I am now responsible, I think it is not altogether unreasonable, and I have no serious objection to it, because, where public money is concerned, it is perfectly reasonable that the Treasury should have the right to approve the rules that are laid down. Therefore, if the hon. Member can favour the Committee by not pressing his Amendment, I will accept the next Amendment if that will satisfy the Committee.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I really want to know what the Minister contemplates. The words as they stood were
    "in such manner as the Minister may require."
    I want to know what was contemplated when these words were put into the Clause. As the Clause stands, there are certain conditions perfectly clearly laid down. The local authority either accepts these conditions or it does not. If it accepts them, then the form in which it accepts them is a matter of indifference, and 1 do not see what rules the right hon. Gentleman could lay down to strengthen the matter. I prefer to have these matters in the Statute and not to leave them to departmental action. These conditions are either adequate or inadequate. If the right hon. Gentleman requires some further protection for the public purse, that protection should be contained in the Statute and should not be left to departmental action. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is going to accept the words suggested by the hon. Member for Hereford, to indicate what is the nature of the rules which he has in view. What rules does he conceive to be necessary in order, first, to lay down what the undertaking shall be, and, secondly, to hold the local authorities to their bargain? In my view, if you take the Clause as it stands without these words, you have clearly the conditions and a means on the part of the Minister of enforcing the undertaking. I should like to know in what respect either the form of the Bill or the alternative form which he now accepts is going to strengthen it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I was not thinking so much of the rules as the form of the undertaking.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is the undertaking?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: One thing which has occurred to my mind is that we shall want to have some particulars of the houses.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Let us take Clause 2—
    "Where in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister."
    These proposals undoubtedly are intended to contain particulars of the houses. Before the right hon. Gentleman approves
    618
    of the proposals, he must know what the houses are. Here we are dealing almost exclusively with the conditions of the tenure and the rents of the houses, and it seems to me quite unnecessary, as he has in the original proposal the detail of the houses, to put this further in the rules which he has in view.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: If I say a few words on this Amendment, it will be unnecessary for me to say anything on the Amendment which follows. I feel, from the point of view of the local authority as well as the point of view of the Minister, that they will want to know definitely what sort of agreement they will have to enter into, and they will certainly want an undertaking which goes into much more detail than the Sub-section. Therefore, it will be incumbent upon the Minister to prepare some rules which will ensure a common form of agreement which all local authorities will be able to see, and so that they will know exactly what that form of agreement will be. We have not asked the Minister to lay his rules on the Table of the House, because we say the general lines are set out in the Bill. It is a question of working out the details which the local authorities will desire to know. We have in our Amendment put in the provision that these agreements shall be supervised by the Treasury. That is why, so far as I am concerned, I shall oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member, on the understanding that the Minister will accept the Amendment in my name.
    Mr. PRINGLE: As the hon. Member is responsible for this Amendment, can he suggest any provision which would be contained in the rules that he contemplates under his Amendment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not a sufficiently fertile brain immediately to think of one, but I am perfectly certain the local authorities will want a definite agreement.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I think that what the hon. Member is really aiming at will be attained if the Minister accept the next Amendment. The objection that I have to the Bill, as it stands, is that it seems to me that it is overloaded with an immense mass of detail. Whenever a case arose either under this or another Clause in which the local authority wanted to act in a certain way then special appli-

    619
    cation would have to be sent in by that local authority to the Ministry, and if there is anything likely to overburden a Housing Act it is that spirit of bureaucracy of which complaint has so often been made in connection with past Acts. I think the insertion of these words would enable the Minister to draw up a form under which the local authorities might make their applications. It would be easy to lay down a specific form for such applications and then if the application is made on that form and contains all the necessary particulars the Minister would be able to accept it out of hand without going into further details.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there anything more required than to ask the local authority if it accepts the conditions laid down in Section 3? If not, then nothing more need be put into the form.
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 34, leave out the words "such manner as the Minister may require," and insert instead thereof the words "accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the Treasury."—[Mr. S. Roberts.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I propose to call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), dealing with the purchase of materials for the construction of houses.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: But what about my earlier Amendment with regard to the number of houses to be built per acre?
    The CHAIRMAN: I understood the Minister to say on a previous Amendment that he would deal with that matter on Report.
    Mr. BLACK: I was present yesterday, and I understood the Minister to say that he would favourably consider the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Thomson) which is now on the Paper, when it was reached. We had no argument on this at all.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I said that I accepted the principle and I am going
    620
    to deal with the subject in a New Clause on the Report stage.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end, to insert the words
    "(a) that the materials required for the construction of such houses may be purchased in the cheapest market wherever situate."
    I am urged to move this Amendment by the fact that the Report of the Building Trade Committee, on which this Bill is largely founded, lays it down that, in the opinion of the Committee, it is extremely desirable, in the national interest, that no foreign manufactured goods should be used on houses built under a Government subsidy. There is not an hon. Member of this House who is not perfectly well aware that previous housing schemes have broken down very largely because of the rise in prices of materials required for the carrying out of the schemes. It is essential, if a scheme is to be a success, that there should be an adequate provision of cheap material, and that is impossible if the building trade of this country is to be granted a complete monopoly of the supply of building materials. I am aware that the Minister, while he has not agreed with this proposal, has not very strongly condemned it, but I should be more happy in my own mind if there were inserted in the Bill itself a provision that materials should be brought from any place where they can be purchased at the cheapest rate, provided they are suitable materials. I recollect last year making a speech on this particular subject. I Was looking at it only to-day, and I was struck with surprise at the large amount of common sense contained in the remarks which I addressed to the late Minister of Health. I cannot say that I found a very sympathetic hearing at that time, but I have great hope that the present Minister of Health may look upon my proposal with a kindlier eye. It is evident, if we are to have an adequate supply of houses, that there must be an adequate supply of cheap material.
    Viscount WOLMERAnd cheap labour, too.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: If the Noble Lord will inquire, he will find that cheap labour does not always go with cheap material. If hon. Members will look at the Report of the Committee on Trusts,

    621
    which sat some years ago, they will find on two or three pages of that Report a definite statement that foreign competition goes a considerable distance towards warding off and preventing the evil effects of trade competition. I think that statement will be found particularly in the Minority Report. It will also be found in a Report submitted for the consideration of the Committee by Mr. John Hilton, who declared that there was ample evidence to show that foreign competition acted as a check against combinations in a trade to raise prices unduly.
    That there are combinations dealing with building materials, no one will deny. Later on in the same Report will be found a long list of materials used in building, some of which are uncontrolled, some being partially controlled and some entirely controlled. Among the entirely controlled will be found earthenware pipes, sanitary earthenware and lead pipes, Portland cement and wrought iron tubes and boilers, and as a result of the control there is an absolute monopoly given to the building material manufacturers of this country in these articles which are required for building houses under this scheme. However much hon. Members opposite may be in favour of a protective tariff, I think they would be unwilling to grant a monopoly which can only have the effect of ruining the housing scheme which they have said they are anxious to assist to the best of their ability. I very much fear that with this paragraph in the Report of the Building Trade Committee on the scheme they have in their mind's eye a beautiful vision of years of monopoly for themselves in these materials. Although, as I say, I have no doubt whatever that the Minister will do whatever he can to counter that plan, I should be very much happier, and I am sure all those on this side would be, if there were some provision—not necessarily the provision I and my Friends recommend in this Amendment—made by the Minister of Health in the Bill to allow of materials coming from abroad, and not restrict them to monopolies of manufacturers.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to assure the hon. Member that I am in perfect and whole-hearted sympathy with the object of this Amendment. As, however, the
    622
    Amendment, as it appears on the Order Paper, will require some redrafting, 1 do not propose to accept it, but if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it, and allow the subject to be discussed on a new Clause, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), I will consider this point on that new Clause, which, I think, will be more comprehensive.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir BEDDOE REES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "or carry on any trade or business therein."
    I think the Minister might accept this Amendment. The whole object is to prevent cottages erected under this Bill being used for ordinary trade purposes. Possibly I can explain what I want by giving an illustration. I recently had occasion to take an interest; in s. large block of houses, and, some time after the houses were built, to our amazement we found at least 50 of them were being used as small shop premises, doing considerable damage to legitimate tradesmen in the vicinity. We have heard a large amount of argument in favour of parlour houses. Surely, if parlours are erected, they should be used for domestic purposes rather than be turned into small shops. I think some words of this sort ought to be put in the Bill to prevent parlours being turned into small shop premises, to the detriment of the people living in those cottages, to the detriment, I think, of the housing scheme, and, certainly, to the detriment of the tradespeople in the vicinity.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the Committee will not expect me, after my emphatic declaration in favour of the principles of Free Trade, to veer right round and adopt Protection. I cannot accept this Amendment, because I am afraid—at any rate, I hope—that for some years to come the Ministry of Health will be wholly engaged, and will not have time to look after all the women who are selling ginger-beer and Woodbines in the houses erected by the local authorities. I hope my hon. Friend will not ask me to violate my economic conscience by accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It seems to me there is a little more in the Amendment than this. This is a question as to whether you are going to allow people to carry on business in subsidised houses. I think that if people are to carry on business in competition with others, they are not entitled to carry on that business in a house rented under State subsidised conditions. It is unfair to other people. If it were not a question of State subsidy, I would agree with the Free Trade principle, but we are dealing with subsidised houses, and while the whole case for the Bill is that there are a certain number of people too poor to pay an economic rent for a decent house, there should not so any case for allowing them to carry on business in a house subsidised by the State. It is unfair to other people whose houses are not so subsidised, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has not considered all the implications of the Amendment.
    Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has raised an important point. Consider for a moment the difficult position of one of these tenants in an agricultural cottage with a large piece of land attached, if he had to eat all the produce he grew. He could not keep ducks. He could not even keep a patient ox if he wanted to. I live in a country district where many of the cottages are partly used for trade. There are the local cobbler, the local wheelwright, and so forth, and to put a provision of this sort in a Bill of this nature—
    Mr. PRINGLE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Clause he will see the words
    "except with the consent in writing of the local authority or some person authorised by them in that behalf."
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is just what I do not want—to put people under the local authority. I am a little more in favour of freedom than hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are everlastingly trying in this and other Bills to fasten restrictions on people. If we are going to have a Bill of this kind, and spend a large amount of money in providing houses for the people at a cheap rent, do let us have as few restrictions as possible. Let the tenants live in their houses, and carry on their little businesses, and do their best to earn a decent living.
    Mr. LINFIELD: There is another point of view. In many of these small towns, as well as in agricultural districts, you will find a dressmaker, usually poor, carrying on her work. Are we going to forbid that necessary work to be done? Then, shoe-making is often carried on in cottages, and if this Amendment be accepted, it will be within the power of local authorities and landlords to prevent that kind of thing being done. I sincerely hope the Committee will not agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am very sorry to intervene again, but I wish to point out that the London County Council, which is at present controlled by the party of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, lays this down as a condition in the housing estates at the present moment. I know of a casein the last few days of a window cleaner who was keeping a ladder in his house, and was prevented from doing so by the Conservative party in the London County Council.
    Sir B. REES: I wanted to bring the local authority under the same Regulation as the public utility society. Whenever the Public Works Loans Board issue a loan to any public utility society, they put in the condition that the cottage shall be used for domestic purposes only. The local authority will have power to grant permission in certain cases, and I fail to see any hardship whatever.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert the words,
    "provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld."
    What my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), on whose behalf I move this Amendment, proposes to do is simply to bring the relations of landlord and tenant, where the landlord is the local authority, and the tenant is a tenant under this Bin, on the same lines as an ordinary landlord and an ordinary tenant. In practically every lease or agreement of tenancy—in fact, I am not sure it is not compulsory now under the new property law—this Clause is now to be found, that consent for under-letting, not only the whole of the house, but part of it, is not to be unreasonably withheld. It simply provides that, in a case where the local authority are thought to have taken

    625
    rather a hard view of the circumstances, it would come to be a question as to whether or not they had been reasonable or unreasonable in exercising their authority. I would point out that this does not take the matter out of the purview of the rest of the Bill. The rest of the Bill would govern the conditions of letting. It would simply be that in the case of a mere question of letting or subletting, even a room in a house, the tenant might have the safeguard of the local authority being required to act reasonably in giving their decision on the point.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The conditions suggested by the hon. Member are not quite the same. If this Amendment were accepted, any person could challenge the local authority and say that consent had been unreasonably withheld, and could take the matter to the Courts. I cannot think that, under the circumstances for which we are providing by this Act, it is desirable that we should put in anything which would encourage litigation. On the contrary, I am quite sure that this House would desire to keep the arrangements as simple as possible and to put this matter in the hands of the local authority. It is difficult to conceive that the local authority would unreasonably withhold consent. It would not be in their real interest to do so. I suggest that the Clause would be much better without the addition of the words suggested.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I am very sorry that the hon. Member has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. Why is the Minister trying to put in this paragraph (b)? The Clause does not represent anything more than is the usual practice of any local authority, in so far as it is their duty to sec that their housing is not overcrowded. By putting in the paragraph (b), you are putting an extra obligation on the local authority to tighten up its rules so as to prevent any family living in the house of a local authority from letting any rooms to lodgers, or doing anything with a spare room of the house which might put the tenant in a better position to pay his rent. What we want in matters like this is flexibility. We do not want the housing which is done by local authorities to be more tied up with landlords'
    626
    restrictions than the housing provided by a private landlord. Take the case of London. Over the greater part of London, in regard to every house that is being let by a private landlord, there is the implied understanding that lodgers may be taken in, and lodgers are being taken in everywhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are!"]
    Mr. WIGNALL: In many ways.
    Lord E. PERCY: That has, I admit, produced a good deal of undesirable consequences. There has been overcrowding. What is wanted is a rather tighter hand kept over the number of lodgers taken in in relation to the space; But to go to the other extreme and to tell local authorities that they must try, as far as they possibly can, to prevent their tenants from taking in lodgers, is most unreasonable. Flexibility is desired, and I hope the Committee will endeavour to give the greatest amount of flexibility by accepting this Amendment.
    Major MOULTON: I urge the Minister to accept this Amendment. Speaking from my own experience, I do not think that it is at all safe to say that local authorities will not be unreasonable. My experience is that you very soon get into a state of affairs where they say, "We never do this," or "We never do that." It is most important that the tenant should be able to have resort to the aid of the County Court Judge, if necessary. I am not in the least impressed with the remark that we do not want to create litigation. In one sense every Act of Parliament, every method of stopping abuse, is encouraging litigation, because you have to go to the Courts to enforce it. I do see a really serious danger of certain local authorities acting unreasonably. Some local authorities get a strong political tendency one way or another. You might have one local authority objecting to aristocrats as lodgers, or you might have another which would fear that the lodgers that were going to be taken in would be Communists. In the general interests the Minister ought to accept this very reasonable Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is only one point in this Amendment, and it has nothing to do with taking in pr not taking in lodgers. It is the sort of Amendment which, as an old hand, I have had to

    627
    resist in seven or eight Acts of Parliament for which I have been more or less responsible. This does not alter the reasonable-ness or unreasonableness of the local authority. I do not think that a Communist would have very much chance in any Court if he said he wanted the house for the purpose of Communism. I have always protested against legislation which adds unnecessarily to litigation and increases the fees which are obtainable by lawyers. If you cannot trust to the reasonableness of the local authority in dealing with this matter, then you had better throw the Bill away altogether. If we can trust the local authorities and the Ministry of Health we ought to do so. I urge the Minister not to accept the Amendment.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I think that the consent of the Minister of Health to this reasonable Amendment has been unreasonably withheld. If we adopt this Amendment, the local authorities will know that the person to whom the Clause refers has redress, and they will not be so unreasonable as they might be if they knew that the person has no redress. I can imagine a large amount of spite and pettiness coming into this matter, but if the local authority knew that in such circumstances their action might be shown to be an unreasonable refusal, and that the person concerned has the right of redress, the chances are that the local authority will not be unreasonable. This is a preventive Amendment. If the Amendment is in the Bill, the chance is that less injustice will be done than if the- Amendment is not there. As a rule where a discretion is allowed as a kind of final judgment, there ought to be some saving Clause like this.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The argument really in favour of this Amendment was the speech of the right hon. Member for Rusholme, (Mr. Masterman). If I may say so, he lives in the dark ages when he was a Minister, and now he comes forward as an apostle of bureaucracy of the narrowest kind. These houses are usually let by some official. We all know what happens. This Amendment is intended to get at the officials of the local authority. It is not the wise, elected representatives of the people who settle this matter; it is the officials of the local authority, and
    628
    unless we have words of this kind, which are words of warning, we shall get all kinds of back-stair influence brought to play. In the interests of freedom and in the interests of fair play, it is only right that the private citizen should be able to take the great and almighty local authority into the Court. Why should the local authority always be immune? I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division on this Amendment, and that it will get considerable support.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I hope that the Committee will not desire to vote upon this Amendment, because there is a real objection to it which hitherto has not been mentioned. The whole object of this Bill is that these houses should be let to the working classes at very low rents. This expression, "such consent shall not be reasonably withheld,' is very well known in law, and it would be of necessity enforced by the Courts. A person might enter into an agreement with a local authority to take a house at a perfectly proper rent, the sort of rent that is anticipated in the Art, and once he got into possession, he might, next day, under the old rule, be able to sublet the house at a rent which is entirely opposed to the whole principle of the Act, taking a tenant who would pay him an exorbitant rent—the very thin a which this Bill was devised to prevent. Fie would then be able to go to the Court, and say, "I have a tenant who is eminently desirable. He is a person who will pay three or four times the rent that I am paying." And the Court would have no option. The Court would have to say, "There is no reason why this tenant should not be accepted. He is a responsible tenant: he is paying a much better rent—and is able to pay a much better rent."
    There might be all sorts of things that would arise, under which the Court would have no option except to prevent the operation of this Act in its real intention. If it was merely a question of flexibility I would raise no objection, but the real objection is much greater. If this phrase which is thoroughly well known in the Courts is accepted, every Judge will know that it is binding upon him, and there will be nothing in the world to prevent a person going to a local authority, taking one of these houses at the moderate, rent which the Bill is intended to ensure, and

    629
    the very next day sub-letting it to another person, avoiding all responsibility under the Bill, and then saying to the local authority, "It is the decision of the Court that I can sub-let. You cannot withhold consent. This tenant is in every way satisfactory." If this Amendment were accepted it would go a long way to defeat the whole object of the Bill, which is that these houses shall go to the working classes at reasonable rents. I trust that the Committee will not feel that this Amendment is intended merely to give flexibility. It is most important and most vital that the Committee should not pass this Amendment under the idea that it is of small importance. None of the observations made in support of the Amendment has really touched the question at issue, which is one of great importance.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Surely in such an extreme case as that quoted by the Attorney-General, would it not be open to the local authority to get rid of that tenant?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: That goes to the whole root of the matter. Directly the local authority have made the arrangement of tenancy with such a tenant, they cannot get rid of him because he wants to sub-let. The next day he may say, "It is true I am your tenant, but I have an offer to sub-let, and I come to you for your permission, and you do not give it to me, which is unreasonable. I can go to the Court and say that I have a very suitable tenant. You cannot refuse me."
    Mr. LINFIELD: Would the Court not be justified in saying that the authorities had very good reason to withhold their consent if a man was to get an exorbitant rent or to extort key money or a fine from some poor person?
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A fallacy lies at the root of the opposition to the Amendment. These are not long tenancies, but weekly tenancies. You cannot let a weekly tenancy on a premium, or sub-let it. As these are weekly tenancies, the local authority can terminate them at the end of a week. Unless the Minister says that he intends to create long tenancies, to grant leases, the speech of the learned Attorney-General has no relevance to the Bill. There is nothing
    630
    whatever in the Bill about it. Ordinary working-class houses have been let on weekly tenancies from time immemorial, and they will continue to be so let. We move this Amendment in order to give greater elasticity and in order to deal with the question logically. The Attorney-General has referred to the tenant who would get a large amount of key money or a large additional rent. Why, there will be 2,500,000 of these tenants if the Bill is the success that the Minister hopes it to be! There will be lots of houses to let. We wish to raise the question whether a man is to be prevented by the autocracy of any local authority from having any lodgers in his house.
    Anyone who knows the conditions throughout the country knows that in an enormous number of working-class houses lodgers are taken. Many working-class families prefer to have a lodger. They get a fair rent from him and often almost as much rent as they pay for the whole house. The wife of the house gives a certain amount of help in looking after, say, a young man lodger. If the young men of the country are not able to get these lodgings where else are they to live? The Minister does not intend to provide houses for all the single men of the country. This Bill will give an autocracy to the local authority to make all kinds of rules, which will prevent the tenant of one of these houses from letting, not merely the house, but a single room in it. It happens that when I was Minister of Health, I found that certain local authorities had, in regard to houses built with public money, made orders forbidding any of the tenants from taking in lodgers. The consequence was that many elderly people without children were unable to avail themselves of the houses, because they would have been able to pay the rent only by subletting a surplus room or surplus rooms.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: What about overcrowding?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great authority on housing in Manchester, but I ask him to realise this: I went over many of these houses which had three bedrooms. Unless there was a family of children the tenant could nearly always provide one bedroom as accommodation for a lodger. Why should he not do so? Such a tenant is often obliged to let a room or rooms in

    631
    order to pay the rent. He confers a public benefit on the community by finding room where these young men can live. This is not merely the legal question that the Attorney-General seems to suggest. I agree with him that it is an important question. A suggestion was made the other day that the Minister of Health should leave certain questions to the free vote of the House. In spite of the speech made by the Minister yesterday, I cannot imagine that if this Amendment were carried against him he would fling the whole country into the turmoil of a General Election. I do not think that we can have a General Election on the question whether the local authorities should act reasonably or unreasonably. That being so, every hon. Member opposite can vote according to his conscience and be satisfied that his action will not have any disastrous effect. In any event, we propose to ask the House to express its views on this Amendment.
    Mr. J. P. GARDNER: I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment. As a, member of a local authority, and as one who has sat on a Housing Sub-Committee to consider applications for sub-tenancies, my experience teaches me that it is a great advantage for the local authority to have control. There are many considerations with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has not dealt. In the building of State houses the Ministry only allows 15 per cent. of the net rent for repairs, and, if the houses are let out in a manner not intended by their design, the question of repairs and maintenance allowance by the Ministry becomes a great consideration for local authorities. Therefore, each local authority, in considering the question of tenancies, has to take into consideration several things which are of importance in regard to the subsidy scheme. There is another consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten. There is still a scarcity of houses, and if the local authority has not discretion to determine whether a sub-tenant shall go in or not, and on what terms he shall go in, we shall have inflated rents. In our experience we have them already. We have cases of people tenanting a house of five rooms at 25s. a week, and subletting one room at 22s. 6d. a week. If
    632
    the Amendment were carried, the local authority would not have the right to prevent such a thing being done. There are to-day many people occupying upstair apartments which are not designed for such occupation. In such cases there is a danger that repairs and renewals will far exceed the sum allocated for the purpose by the Ministry. My experience is that it is essential that the Housing Committee in each district should have absolute authority over the terms of tenancy, and that failing that, there is a danger of the whole scheme being ruined.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I hope that this question will not create even a division in the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman's sole desire is to protect the liberty of a family to take in a lodger in suitable circumstances, I do not think that the Government have the slightest objection. But surely, in order to preserve that liberty, we are not going to throw the door open to all the abuses that might be associated with the acceptance of this Amendment. If it will satisfy the Committee to protect the liberty of the tenant, to give reasonable treatment to the tenant to the extent desired by the right hon. Gentleman, I can promise to take steps on the Report stage to give that protection to that extent.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that the Minister has met us to a very large extent. The object in view might be accomplished by leaving out of the Clause the words "or any parts thereof." There are several other questions being left over for the Report stage, but I am prepared to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment in order that the matter may be fully considered on Report, on the understanding that the Minister will endeavour so to frame the Clause as to meet the case of the man who wants to let one or more rooms to a lodger without the necessity of that man having to go to the local authority.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: In the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out paragraph (c).

    633
    This Amendment has rather an interesting history. It was put down originally by the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), supported by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). Their names remained attached to it for many days. A few days ago I and some of my friends attached our names to the Amendment. Forthwith the names of the original Members disappeared.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Obviously there was something wrong.
    Mr. ROBERTS: We shall be very interested to hear an explanation of the disappearance, if the right hon. Member for Rusholme deigns to give it. The main purpose in moving this Amendment is to secure a general discussion at the outset before we deal in detail with this very important Sub-section, with regard to which there are many Amendments on the Paper. We wish to discuss, first of all, the general principle. An Amendment to leave out the paragraph, I assume, will allow us to travel rather wide in our discussion. First, I ask the Minister to be good enough to explain to us exactly what his idea is with regard to the position of the owner-occupier. Some of us look upon it as a matter of very great importance that the owner-occupier should be encouraged. I will give one reason why we look with apprehension at the idea of 2,500,000 houses belonging to local authorities being let by those local authorities to tenants direct. From those 2,500,000 houses there would be a tremendous lot of political pressure and influence that could be brought by the tenants upon their landlords, the local authorities. That would bring a very undesirable aspect into municipal life. On this paragraph there are several other Amendments to be moved. I have tried to browse among the Amendments, but I have found it very difficult to ascertain exactly what is proposed by the Members whose names are attached to the Amendments.
    As far as I can see, the intention of the Minister in this part of the Bill is that there shall be a general bias against sales by local authorities. I think that possibly a general discussion upon the Sub-section may throw some light upon the views of all sections of the Committee upon this very important question, and probably
    634
    save a great deal of time in discussing detailed Amendments afterwards. It is with that object of getting a general discussion, rather than with the object of pressing this Amendment, that I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I can assure the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) that we do not object when he adds his name to our good Amendments, nor do we object, but we welcome his support in the Lobby when we go into the Lobby to carry these Amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—as we have done frequently during this Session. If he will devote his conspicuous intelligence to a more complete study of the subject, on which he has very rightly raised a general discussion, he will see that we have put down Amendments which do make possible the idea which we have both in common and which may commend themselves to the whole of this Committee. If the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried, then, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, there would be no conceivable possibility in any circumstances of ever selling one of these municipal houses. All the conditions would be covered entirely by paragraphs (a), (b) and (d), none of which permit the sale of houses, and though paragraph (c), in its present form, does not meet the desire of the majority of the Committee, or even, I believe, of the Minister himself, yet, as it stands, it does allow at least a loophole, and there is a possibility, with a friendly Minister of Health in charge, of a municipal authority getting some of these houses sold to the occupier. Omit paragraph (c), and that possibility would disappear. Therefore, without consequential Amendments this Amendment would be an absurd proposition.
    I do suggest two points. The first is that I do not believe that there is any conspicuous party in the Committee who wish to prevent the municipal authorities from soiling these houses in a certain proportion, especially to the occupier, and we wish to have it put into the Bill, as it were, in a way opposite to that in which it is put in paragraph (c) so that municipal authorities would be able to sell these houses under regulations. On the other hand everyone, I think, will agree that it will be a profound mistake merely to say that the municipal authorities shall

    635
    sell these houses as they please without regulation. The result would be a renewal of something like what was known as "the ramp" which followed the Addison scheme of 1919. The municipal authorities could sell houses at a profit, after getting a State subsidy, to people who could buy them and then sell them to other people at a profit, and so there was a kind of extraction of money from the whole community, giving great advantage to speculative persons and profiteers who had no right to such advantage at all.
    Therefore in our reasoned Amendment we realise that the Minister of Health must have some control as to the regulations under which such houses shall be sold. Therefore we have in our Amendment put down the conditions under which we think local authorities should be compelled to sell houses, and also the conditions under which the Minister of Health should sanction them. We are not committed to the actual words but this is the general system which we want to call to the attention of the Committee and the Minister of Health:
    "That the local authority shall be empowered to sell the houses subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks fit "—
    and then it goes on the words of the Clause
    "including if the Minister thinks fit stipulations for the reduction of the amount for the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduction and curtailment."
    To that we add an Amendment which has been very much pressed for by the municipal corporations and which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) to add the words
    "but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced below an amount of six pounds payable annually for the remainder of that period."
    That is to maintain the principle of the Chamberlain Act of last year as far as sale is concerned. If, in substance, these two things are put into the Bill local authorities will be able to sell houses under conditions, as I hope in the main if not exclusively, to the occupying tenants. I have had the experience, which I suppose is that of every Mem-
    636
    ber of the Committee who has taken any active part in this matter, of receiving, if not thousands, at least hundreds, of letters from men all over the country asking that an Amendment shall be put into the Bill enabling them to buy the houses on conditions. None of them are in love with being municipal tenants, and many municipal authorities are not in love with being landlords, and if municipal authorities can have houses built, and sell them on conditions which should be workable to tenants, to the extent of from 20,000 to 40,000 a year, it will be doing an incredible good to the people of this country and making the Bill much more popular in the country. This is one of the vital questions on which the unpopularity of the Bill at present is most apparent.
    On the other hand, I do not want to decide, and it would be impossible in the discussion of this subject to decide, in the Bill what should be the conditions which the Minister of Health should lay down. We must trust whoever is Minister of Health with those conditions, and that he would hold the balance between the local authorities and would-be purchasers. The Minister of Health would, of course, be challengeable in the House of Commons, and I know of no better safeguard. By such means as, that we should preserve the scheme of last year of making men owner-occupiers. We should enable municipal authorities that do not want to take charge of a large number of houses as landlords to pass those houses on to occuying owners without loss to the State, as I think, and without the ramp of 1919, and we should be permitting a very large number of people, who at present have saved up small amounts of money or are enabled to obtain, as many of the tenants are, collateral security for their repayment, to do what they desire to do above all other things, that is not to become municipal tenants but to own the houses in which they live. I am sorry to have detained the Committee on this subject, but as a result of discussing this Clause and disposing of it as a whole, as my right hon. Friend opposite has said, I hope very much that something will come from the Government side of the House, supporting us in the, idea that this will be a benefit.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely concur with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think that one of the main blots on the Bill is that it practically does away with the possibility of private ownership. The Bill sets out quite frankly to create a huge mass of municipal tenants. I cannot blame the right hon. Gentleman for framing the Bill in that form, as it is according to the tenets of his political faith, except that in one unguarded moment he made a speech in this House in favour of occupying ownership. Though it is not in accordance with the political views of the right hon. Gentleman that a large extension of occupying ownership should take place, there is a very large demand throughout the country for the possibility of men being able to own their own houses. If you are going to build a largo number of houses for the purposes of letting them at uneconomical rents to occupying tenants, as this Bill proposes to do, surely the other class of the community, those, who desire to own their houses, are entitled to similar consideration at the hands of the Government.
    I am assuming that there is a large number of people, say a million or so, who would prefer to be the tenants of a municipal authority rather than own their houses, but I am certain that even hon. Members opposite will agree with me when I say that there is an equally large number of men who would prefer, if they could get the assistance of the State, to be the owners of their houses rather than the tenants of the municipal authorities. It is that spirit, that desire for ownership, which has led to the formation and the growth and the wonderful success of the building societies throughout this land. Those building societies arose from the desire of the people of this country to own their own houses. If that is so, why should we, when we are going to spend this enormous sum of money, running to hundreds of millions sterling, put the whole of it into the pockets of tenants of the country and allow no benefit at all under the provisions of this Act to the men who desire to own houses?
    The Minister of Health said, either on the Second Heading or in one of the previous Debates, that he did not in any way penalise house ownership under the provisions of this Bill. Technically that is
    638
    correct. He does not alter the provisions, I think I am right in saying, of the Act of 1923. But surely everybody will see that it would be very difficult, and very unfair, to expect a man to build his own house on a subsidy of £75, when others are building on a subsidy of £240, which is roughly the capital value of the subsidy given under this Bill. There are in Lancashire—of which I had some political knowledge—thousands of houses which have been built by working men with the assistance of building societies, some of them with the assistance of public money advanced under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, which are not now occupied, and could not be occupied, by the owner. There are many such men, and it is a very fine thing in the history of this country that there should be so great an incentive to thrift in the hands of many of our people. It is a form of investment which many of the working classes prefer even to Consols. Many of them own one, two, three or four houses which they have built themselves. In one of them they live, and the other one, two, or three they let to tenants. Why should the Committee object to that? Why should the Government not encourage industry and thrift of that kind? It makes the basis of a contented country.
    Mr. EGAN: Therefore we should all do it.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Quite frankly I would like, if it were possible, to transform this Bill into a large measure for the assistance of owner-occupiers throughout the country, but it is impossible to do so within the terms of the Financial Resolution. The Bill is so drawn that I cannot make those alterations which I should like to make. On the other hand, I see no objection at all—unless the right hon. Gentleman himself says it is impossible—to the Minister's reconsideration of this very grave and definite decision in the Bill not to permit of any of these houses ever being sold. We want to encourage local authorities to sell. There is another reason in the finance of the Bill. The local authorities, if the Bill is a success, will have to borrow from £80,000,000 to £100,000,000 a year in order to get these houses built within 15 years. Instead of locking up all that public money in municipally-owned houses, would it not be better to turn some of it over: to sell some of the

    639
    houses, year by year, and so economise enormously on the financial position, ease the situation for the local authorities, and add to the number of owner-occupiers throughout the land. There is only one other point to which I call the attention of the Committee. Under the Act of last year private enterprise, which, roughly speaking, is the building of houses by owner-occupiers or by owners for the purpose of sale to another occupier—as distinct from the municipality which builds for the purpose of letting only—is responsible for two-thirds of the houses built up to the present. What does that mean? The figures up to date of the applications approved by the Minister under that Act show, for private ownership, 96,685 houses. I do not want on this Amendment to insist on the success of the scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), but I give that figure to the Committee as showing conclusively that there is in this country a great demand for houses to be built for purposes other than letting by municipal authorities.
    I do not say that they are all occupier-owners. There are, of course, many built for occupying ownership and some for private landlords to own and to let. But that is where I think the future of this housing question can best be provided for, namely, by encouraging that form of private enterprise and to get the houses built, partly for owner occupation and partly for the owner to let. I do not believe in this vast extension of municipally-owned houses. I have come to the conclusion, very largely for reasons given by one of the hon. Members opposite, that you are putting quite an improper power in the hands of 2,500,000 tenants in this country as against their landlords, who will be the municipal authorities. I do not wish to make any suggestion, but one does know that in a large town with 20,000 or 30,000, or, in the case of London, many more thousands of houses in the hands of one municipal authority, certain situations may arise. We know the past of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister himself in regard to this matter. Supposing a rent strike were to be started in one of the great municipalities—in Glasgow, if you like—and supposing the right hon. Gentleman was out of a job,
    640
    was no longer Minister of Health, and he went up to Glasgow, I will not say to ferment, but to organise that strike. It would be much more serious if there were 50,000 houses belonging to the municipality than if they were houses spread over different ownerships, and it is to be o remembered that all these houses would be occupied by the voters-—the electors of that particular municipality.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then they do not need to strike at all. They only need to vote.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member suggests that the Minister's occupation would then be gone as there would be no reason for a rent strike. But those same tenants would be able quite improperly to exercise an influence in regard to the management and control of these houses, and hon. Members opposite, in their hearts, do not think that is a right position for a municipal authority to occupy. My hon. Friend who moved the omission of Clause 3 said he did so in order to obtain the views of the Minister on the whole question of house ownership. I have said what I have to say on the subject. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us such encouragement as he can, and to tell us his views. If he can, in any way, encraft on to his Bill a better scheme of house ownership, such a scheme will go a long way towards making the Bill more acceptable to the whole country.
    Mr. WHEATLEY. I am always sorry to have to use this platform for party purposes, but the right hon. Baronet seems to find it one of the joys of life to keep putting me into a corner. He has drawn a picture of the dreadful state of society which might exist if local authorities were the owners of the houses of the electors. Somehow or other he seems to think that the people of this country only want a reasonable opportunity in order to become scoundrels, and that if you put them in a position where they can avoid their moral obligations, they will take advantage of it immediately and show what rascals they are. I do not know why they do not exercise those instincts in the case of gas, or water, or trams, or electricity, or the various things which they obtain from the municipalities to-day. Why do they not go and strike against payment for those services?
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the services would be cut off.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: They might be cut off, but if we remember all the people who use electricity and the fact that there are only a few officials to cut off the supply, then I suggest that if all the people were such scoundrels as the right hon. Baronet would seem to indicate, it might be some other things that would be cut off. Perhaps I had better use this platform for educational instead of propaganda purposes because I find a complete misunderstanding of the public objects of those of us who claim to be Socialists. Can the right hon. Baronet or anyone else in this Committee tell me of any responsible Socialist in this country who has laid it down as a violation of his ideal of society that a man should own the house he occupies? Think of the state of society contemplated by the right hon. Baronet As was remarked by an hon. Member behind me it was one in which everyone would own a house and have three houses to let.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then there would be no housing shortage.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Baronet seems to think that we ought to direct our public policy towards that end. We have no objection to the occupier of a house owning a house, but we have an objection to the profit-making ownership of a house occupied by another person, and if you produce a large section of the community unable to own the houses they occupy, then we prefer collective ownership through the municipality or non-profit making ownership through the building society or the public utility society to the form of ownership contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman under which a person will have three or four houses by means of which he can exploit the necessities of his poorer brother. I do not see that anyone in the Committee, who is not out to protect exploitation, can have any objection to that policy. Therefore I have no objection at all to making in my Bill the fullest reasonable provision that I can make for the occupier of a "house becoming the owner of that house. Indeed, I think it is not only a matter of having no objection, but I would be prepared to go further than many Members on the other side of the Committee in providing facilities, financial and other-
    642
    wise, whereby people would have opportunities if they so desired of owning the houses which they occupy, instead of occupying houses owned for profit-making purposes by other people.
    The higher subsidy in this case is given for the benefit of those who have to rent houses. The right hon. Baronet asks why should a man who has to occupy a rented house have a subsidy of roughly £240 while the man who has to own his house only receives a subsidy of £100. For exactly the same reason as that by which a man receives £100 and another man receives nothing at all. We have drifted into a state of society in which it is necessary, in the interests of public health, to assist millions of our people to get out of conditions of slumdom. That and that only is the justification for the subsidy. If the Committee thinks we have not in the Bill provided for the municipality passing on a house to an occupier who wishes to own it, then I am prepared to make certain Amendments in the Bill. As I think I have said before, I do not want to say a word against the private builder who is building for sale, but I have also said before that I think the probable purchaser of a house, the man who has probably through years of strenuous saving accumulated a few hundreds, would be safer in the hands of the municipality in buying his house than in buying it from the profit-making speculator. I do not think any one suggests that while we are getting houses for what I shall call the Chamberlain subsidy of £6 for 20 years that we should offer to pay a larger subsidy on the houses sold to occupiers by local authorities. I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite would examine that, they would say that if you adopted that course, apart from the other objections to it, you would make it quite impossible for the other people to sell the house at all. Therefore, the Amendment I propose to insert is this, or words to this effect, and I think myself it meets the whole case:
    "(c) that if the local authority sell or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise dispose of the houses, the sale or disposal shall not be completed except upon and subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduc-

    643
    tion and curtailment; but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of 20 years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced below the amount of the contribution (if any) which would be payable if the house had not been subject to special conditions."
    That means in essence that facilities will be provided for the sale of the house, but on terms that will not be any better financially than if the occupier had purchased his house as he would purchase it now under the 1923 Act. I think that meets the views that have been expressed from all parts of the House, and I can assure the Committee again that it is in complete harmony with the Government's policy.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, the words which the right hon. Gentleman has read out are not such as we can express a final opinion upon, when we have only just heard them for the first time, and I am afraid that, even if I were to have them in front of me, I could not give a considered judgment upon them, without considering them a little further. But I welcome very heartily the effort which I believe the right hon. Gentleman is making to meet the views of those, forming, I am quite sure, the great majority of this House, who believe in owner-occupiership, and desire to see it established as a general principle in dealing with the housing question. I remember that on a previous occasion, when I was quoting some figures of the operations of the Birmingham Municipal Bank in advancing money to the people who desired to buy houses for their own use and occupation, the right hon. Gentleman rather pooh-poohed my figures. He said they had a waiting list of something like 19,000 people, and that what I had brought forward as evidence of what was going on was but a drop in the bucket, and no contribution to the question. I have taken the trouble just recently to make some further inquiries as to what is going on, and I would like to tell the Committee what the result is, because I think it is extremely encouraging from the point of view of those of us who believe, as my right hon. Friend says, that it is in the extension of this system that we shall make most progress in dealing with the housing problem.
    644
    The number of people who have, through the operations of this savings bank, bought their own houses in Birmingham must not be compared with the number who have made applications for houses, but it must be compared with the number of houses that have actually been disposed of, whether by selling or by letting, on the part of the municipal corporation. Out of a total of about 1,800 houses that they have had through their hands, nearly 25 per cent. have actually been sold through the operations of this bank, and it is a very interesting fact that, under the system there employed, under which the purchaser has to put down £50 of his own money for a £300 house, the remaining £250 being advanced to him by the bank and the corporation, of these people it is found that they are nearly all real working men; that is to say, that the black-coated man—the clerk, who has to observe a higher standard of living—has never been able to save enough to put up the £50 required, but the working man, the artizan, is the man who is able, apparently, to find the necessary £50, and who forms the great bulk of those who have hitherto been able to buy their houses in this way. If anything like that proportion could be kept up, if you could get something like 22½ per cent. of the people who occupy these houses purchasing them, it is obvious that it would be making a great contribution to the subject, and not by any means the negligible one which the right hon. Gentleman rather seemed to suggest. It appears to me that in trying to insert provisions for the sale of houses into a Bill constructed upon the principles of the one we are now debating, we will have to take very great care that we are not using this very largely increased subsidy, which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for a particular purpose, to enable part even of that increased subsidy to go into the pockets either of the person who buys the house or of the local authority.
    If there were a free opportunity for a purchaser to buy a house at the capital cost of the house less the capital equivalent of the increased subsidy, that is to say, less the £240, he would be buying that house far below its actual value, and if he were able to sell it to somebody else, he could make a profit which might amount to a very considerable sum. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, as from

    645
    the date of the purchase the contribution from the Exchequer shall be reduced, even that would still give an advantage to this house as compared with the house Which has only received a subsidy under the Act of last year from the very beginning, and I think that some attention will have to be given to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to make quite certain that he is not creating here a class of house which can be sold at a cheaper rate than the houses that were built under the Act of last year, at the expense of the taxpayers, because it is not necessary to give this big subsidy for the purpose of obtaining purchasers for these houses. It may be necessary to give it for houses to be let, but not for houses which are going to be sold, and, therefore, it is very necessary, in trying to put this new idea into this Bill, which has been framed with such very different ideas, that we should examine that particular point with the utmost care. That, of course, we shall have an opportunity of doing when we see the right hon. Gentleman's words on the Paper, and we shall no doubt be able to deal with them on the Report stage if we feel then that it is necessary to amend them.
    Mr. W. E. ROBINSON: I would draw attention to the Amendment as read out by the Minister of Health, which seems to be absolutely colourless, and I should imagine that when an Amendment of that character gets down to the local authorities, it will be difficult for them to appreciate it. As far as I can understand, it contains no really practical policy on the part of the Ministry as to providing for the owner-occupier, and I want to suggest that this question of making a contribution to the owner-occupier is a question of the utmost importance. The right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) has quoted the experience of Birmingham, but I venture to suggest that there are very few working men who can provide £50 or the £100 referred to by the Minister, and I do not hesitate to make the statement that the percentage of working men to-day who have £50 or £100 for this purpose is really a negligible quantity. I have tried in my constituency to take some interest in this matter, and I called a meeting in order to place before our people the question of owner-tenancy, and to see how far it
    646
    would be possible under the 1923 Act to put them in a position to own their own houses. It was a very large and a very enthusiastic meeting, but the proportion of men who could put down even £50 was not 10 per cent. of those who were present.
    6.0 P.M.
    It seems to me that, having regard to the general acceptance of the view that it is a most desirable thing, from the social standpoint, to do everything possible to provide for the tenant the ownership of his house, and having regard to the fact that the financial proposals of this Bill are exceptional in every respect, some exceptional measures should be provided in order that facilities of the easiest possible character should be given to a man to become the owner of his house. I want to suggest to the Committee that, if you have got a man of good character, a thrifty man, he should be given every encouragement, and if you could, by some exceptional help in the way, say, of a sinking fund, enable him to buy his house, you would be doing a good thing. Suppose the rent of a house is ten shillings, and you have a thrifty man, of good character, who says, "Give me the opportunity by a sinking fund, a small amount added to the rent, of purchasing the house ultimately," I think that man should be encouraged. The effect on that man would be to make him a better citizen and that he would take a greater pride in his home than if he was simply a tenant of the State or of the local authority. Is that a bad thing or is it a good thing? Is it or is it not desirable for the Minister of Health, with the great possibilities that he has under this Bill, when Parliament and the country are disposed to be generous, to be prepared to so a long way to see the people well housed and contented? If you establish ownership of that character, what happens? You stimulate trade. As soon as a man is secure in his ownership the fear of being turned out by the landlord is gone. He takes a greater interest in his home, and he turns and says to his wife: "Mary, we must begin to make the house nice. This is our house; we must have some new furniture; we have got to get it." They are going to take care of the house. A man will sacrifice a great deal in order to keep his house. I do want to suggest that this

    647
    is a matter the final details of which it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise. I say, if hon. Members in all parts of the Committee would really look upon this with sympathy—and I am sure there is sympathy—that there is no hope they can give which is more likely to carry through a great scheme of social reform than this.
    Viscount WOLMER: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has told the Committee that he is going to do what he can to facilitate the acquisition of houses by owner-occupiers, and that he is going to prevent houses being purchased by wicked people, who desire to let them to someone else. The right hon. Gentleman rebuked us for regarding the inhabitants of this country as potential scoundrels. I myself have never been able to understand why he should regard a certain section of those who are able to save a little as potential scoundrels. However, the question I have risen to ask is this: How, on earth, if he is going to do the one can he avoid doing the other? If he is going to give facilities to enable men to buy houses in which they can live—I presume he means that these men should be entitled to buy and own a house and to have sole possession of it—he cannot prevent them letting their houses to somebody else. What guarantee against that has the Minister got? What guarantee can he have that the man who buys his house this year may not be obliged to go to another locality next year, and, therefore, have to let his house? Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for the Minister to confine this right of purchase to the owner-occupier.
    What he is really doing by the concession he is making—if it amounts to anything at all—is to scrap the principle of the Bill, which was municipal ownership—not to let the houses be purchased: the people were to live in them themselves, and not let to other people. I am perfectly confident that once the situation is realised in the country, the people who build houses under his Act will very soon get rid of them, and I think the Minister will probably make a financial loss. The municipalities which built houses under the Addison scheme are now, in a great many cases anxious to get rid of them, and I think are only deterred by fear that heavy financial loss would be shown in
    648
    the transaction. I have listened to the words of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not been able to discover anything in them which would prevent—this is the point I am trying to make—what I say. I trust the point will be considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall be glad if he can tell us any means by which he is going to prevent people who have bought houses to live in themselves letting them to other people.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: So far as I can follow the new paragraph foreshadowed by the Minister, it appears very closely to correspond with the series of Amendments down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) and other hon. Members on this side. Perhaps it is desirable that we should see the whole of the words in the Bill itself before expressing a final opinion; but I should like to ask the Minister whether he proposes to move them as an Amendment? Will not the Motion before the Committee have to be negatived, so that they can be embodied in the Clause.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Leave out paragraph (c).
    Mr. THOMSON: And then substitute for paragraph (c) the words that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, in order that we may see them embodied in the Bill as it will leave the Committee. Two or three hon. Gentlemen who have recently spoken suggest by their speeches that the Amendment of the Minister of Health is a reversal of the policy foreshadowed in the Bill. I submit, with great respect 1o the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), that already, in paragraph (c) as it stands, there is a right to sell, and the chief alteration the Minister, as I understand it, is making, is that instead of putting that right in a negative sense he is putting it now in a positive sense. To that extent, I think it is a considerable advantage. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) that the conditions and stipulations which the Minister is making to prevent that ramp of profiteering in house property, which undoubtedly took place in 1918, are very essential. Therefore, it is that, whilst this permission is given, restrictions and safeguards should be put in which will prevent a ramp taking place such as ha-s taken place before.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend, I am sure, will be willing to withdraw this Amendment, so that the proposed Clause may be inserted in the Bill in order that we may have ample time to consider it between now and Report. Whilst we accept the principle of the Amendment, we must have time to consider it in detail, reserving to ourselves the right to put down any Amendments on the Report stage.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The particular Amendment now before the House will have to be withdrawn before the one proposed by the Minister can be dealt with.
    Mr. ROBERTS: In view of what has been said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Sir B. REES: May I say one word, for I want to call attention to one point? It seems to me that the conditions we are now discussing will not only apply to local authorities, but in this Sub-section, as in Sub-section (2) of the Clause, they are made to apply to houses built by public utility societies, body of trustees, or companies. If so, I think the Minister will have to be very careful in the amount that is to be given; otherwise, you are going to spike the very foundation of the public utility societies and other bodies who are doing very useful work. Voluntary societies, building societies, and other corporations are doing very excellent work, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to limit their power considerably, it will be impossible to carry on in future. 1 should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to make it quite clear that the words proposed for the new paragraph will not have the effect of interfering with the right of public utility societies which they now have under this Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understand that it is the desire of the Committee that paragraph (c) in its present form shall disappear and shall be replaced by a new paragraph which has been suggested by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and which he has read out to the Committee. I should be glad if the new words could be inserted at once, but that cannot be done. It is desirable that Members of the Committee should have the opportunity of examining the proposed new paragraph.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Before leave to withdraw is given, I desire to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the inconsistency between this paragraph and paragraph (a). If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at paragraph (a) he will see that the first condition says quite specifically "that the houses shall be let." In paragraph (c) it is provided that they may be sold. Something should be done to make the two paragraphs consistent.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I should like to ask the Attorney-General, for the convenience of the Committee, and in order to make the provision clearer, to read the proposed new paragraph out again, and slowly, so that Members can lake it down.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is as follows:
    "(c) That if the local authority sell or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise dispose of the houses the sale or disposal shall not be completed except upon and subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, including if the Minister thinks fit stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduction and curtailment; but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of 20 years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not for reduced below the amount of the contribution (if any) which would be payable if the house had not been subject to special conditions."
    Captain ELLIOT: May I ask the Minister to say how the terms and facilities provided here for the sale of houses will compare with the Act of 1923? The Minister said they would be "not better" than the conditions under that Act. The Amendment says they are to be "not worse."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Attention has been called to that point, and the Committee have heard what the Minister has stated. Care will be taken to see that the words carry out his intention.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is for the Committee to say whether leave will be given to withdraw the Amendment. I warn the Committee that if leave be refused the words proposed by the Minister cannot be inserted. The Amendment will have to be put and negatived.
    Sir P. PILDITCH rose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot permit any further discussion. Either the Amendment must be withdrawn or not. Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Roberts) be withdrawn?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after the word "that," to insert the word "if."
    Sir B. REES: I do not think the word "if" is strong enough, and it should read that the local authority shall or may. I think that makes it much more definite.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The reason we are dealing with this Clause piecemeal is to enable hon. Members to be able to see what the Amendment means and then discuss it. We cannot discuss it word by word, and it can best be done; by leaving it to the Report stage. I hope hon. Members will assist the Minister as far as they can in this matter.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: I understand that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this proposal before the Report stage.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I said there, would be an opportunity of considering it before the Report stage and discussing it afterwards.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: In page 4, line 4, leave out the words " shall not."
    In page 4, lines 6 and V, leave out the words "except with the consent of the Minister, which may be absolute or," and insert instead thereof the words " the sale or disposal shall not be completed except upon and."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end to insert the words
    "but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced below an amount of six pounds payable annually for the remainder of that period."
    These words are quite in keeping with the proposal which has been made by the Minister.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words
    "an amount of six pounds payable annually for the remainder of that period,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the amount of the contribution (if any) which would be payable if the house had not been subject to special conditions."
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 4, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words "a form prescribed by the Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the form for the time being prescribed for Government contract by Resolution of the House of Commons."
    This Amendment is a very simple and a short one, and it deals with the Fair Wages Clause. As proposed in the Bill, the Minister is the sole arbiter as to what the Fair Wages Clause means in any contracts entered into by the local authorities for the building of these houses. I think the Minister will be likely to accept this Amendment, or adopt some other words whereby the form of this Fair Wages Clause should be settled beforehand, and it should be taken out of the hands of the Minister to draft the Clause according to the views of the particular Minister for the time being. I think it should be in the form of Government contracts settled some lime ago by this House. If there be any objection to that, it might be advisable between now and the Report stage for the Government to prepare the draft of a Fair Wages Clause and put it in the Schedule. I think the House will agree that this is a matter of considerable importance, and possibly the Minister will be glad to have this temptation taken from him.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: We are prepared to accept the contention of the hon. Member, but the actual words he proposes will need alteration, because no form of contract is prescribed by Resolution of the House of Commons. I think his purpose will be met if we leave out the words "in accordance with a form prescribed by the Minister."
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: This is a most important Amendment, and I want to propose an Amendment to it because I think it is a most dangerous thing to provide for bringing this question of the Fair Wages Clause before the House of Commons. I would like the words " all contracts by local authorities" inserted in order to avoid discussions in the House about the Fair Wages Clause.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am prepared to be satisfied with the explanation of the Minister, and I am willing to withdraw my Amendment and accept his.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words "in accordance with a form prescribed by the Minister" and to insert instead thereof the words
    "which complies with the requirements of any Resolution of the House of Commons applicable to the contracts of Government Departments and for the time being in force."
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I must persist in asking the Committee not to accept any arrangement whereby this question will always be under consideration on the Floor of the House. I am the last person to quarrel about a Fair Wages Clause, but we ought to keep it out of this House, and, if we limit it to contracts given out by local authorities, I think it would be much better, and 1 should like to move to limit this Amendment by inserting the words "in all contracts by local authorities."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not handed me his Amendment, and I do not know where it comes in.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. VIVIAN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end, to insert the words
    "that the cost shall not exceed ten shillings and sixpence per foot super of contained area unless otherwise provided by an Order made by the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health under this Act."
    I am confident that the objective of this Amendment has the approval of all parties in the House. It is to prevent this scheme from being frustrated in all its best features by inflation, and it limits, therefore, the houses upon which the subsidy proposed in the Bill might be given to
    654
    those the cost of which does not exceed 10s. 6d. per foot super. With regard to the principle of the Bill, I feel certain that the Minister appreciates as keenly as I do the importance of restraining increase in cost if his Bill is to produce good results. I have here the opinion of a very eminent authority in regard to the possible effects of inflation. That authority says:
    "But if all difficulties are successfully overcome, there will still remain the problem of stabilising prices. The housing scheme of the Government is based upon the assumption that prices will remain at their present level. If they rise, and the cost of houses is thereby increased, considerably, the financial basis of the scheme will be upset, and it will probably collapse, with terrible consequences."
    That is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I desire to help the right hon. Gentleman in preventing prices from rising to such a degree as to bring about those terrible consequences. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, may say that it can be left to him to deal with this matter by administration. I suggest that it would help him much more to say quite clearly in advance to all the interests concerned that we will not permit the hundreds of millions of money involved in this Measure to be so handled as to lead to a permanent burden, and a very heavy burden at that, upon the whole community. This proposal brings in all interests from the start, and gives notice in advance of the intention of the House of Commons. It is rather comparable with the new form of brake for motor-cars. I think you have one brake on each wheel, and it brings it up sharp. I desire to bring about the same effect in regard to all the interests concerned in building. There is, first of all, the architect. He will know in advance, if he is called upon to produce a scheme for 100 or 200 houses for a council, that it is no use his bringing before that council a scheme which does not comply with this maximum in regard to cost, and, therefore, from the very beginning you impress upon the architect the importance of studying economy in design.
    Then you go on to the tender. Every builder will know, when he is invited to tender for these houses for a municipality or any public authority, that, if his tender exceeds this amount, it will be futile, for it will take the houses out

    655
    of the Act. The operatives will be conscious of the same thing. If they are thinking of demanding a substantial share of this generosity of the House, they will appreciate that demanding an extravagant payment in the shape of wages on such houses as are involved in this scheme will result in taking the houses out of the scheme itself, and that, therefore, their demand in regard to those houses will be futile. It will be the same with merchants or manufacturers of materials. I think it is wise, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is wise, to give notice of this in advance, because, already, the prospect of the distribution of these hundreds of millions has had a bad effect upon the prices of materials and labour. Already a rise has begun. I suggest that we should let it be known at the earliest possible moment that the House of Commons does not intend this money to be used under such inflationary conditions.
    Further, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that such a principle throws upon the industry as a whole the importance of thinking out ways of economy within its limits. There is nothing more detrimental to any industry than to feel that it can achieve its object at the public expense without having serious regard for economy within itself. I believe the way that I suggest, of putting a maximum beyond which we will not permit the costs to go, will be of great value to the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out his scheme. In this connection I want to say quite plainly that the building trade is one of the great trades in the country that has not yet applied itself seriously to giving back to the public, in return for the increasing payments made to it, real value for those payments. As the House knows, in that industry what is called payment by results, or anything approaching payment by results, has been fought for quite a number of years, until for a great part of the industry it is excluded. I regard a system of employment which goes on giving increased money payments regardless of the return to the community for those payments as a bad system, and one which, in the long run, leads to the deterioration of the industry itself.
    I am conscious of all the objections. I know the question from both sides The
    656
    first strike in which. I came out in London, now over 30 years ago, was n, perfectly justifiable strike, because the employers were trying to beat down piece-work rates, owing to the fact that the men were earning what they thought to be too large an income. [Interruption.]. Surely, hon. Members will allow me to proceed. This is the only place where these things can be said with effect, and it is time we said it to the building industry as a whole. An hon. Member says. "They always do it." May I remind him that in most of the great industries of the country payment by results has been accepted? You have it in the shoe trade, in the cotton trade, and, I believe, in the mining industry. What we have to enforce is that, if this goes on in a great industry like that, it is the other industries that have to pay the piper. It is a mistake to assume that the real employers are these so-called associations of men who call themselves employers. The real employers, finally, are you and I. We employ each other. That is the plain English of it, and this inflation of cost, regardless of what it brings back to the community as a whole, is, in my view, wrong.
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that my proposal will help him in facing the industry and calling upon them to consider the matter particularly in connection with this scheme. I can quite understand the sentimental objection to doing this for ordinary capitalistic enterprises. I can quite understand their saying. "We are not going out of our way to add to the profits of the ordinary capitalist." But when the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in trying to provide 2,500,000 houses, most of which will be required for the poorest in the land, for those who are living in slums, for those who are badly ho used, I say that an industry, whether on the workmen's or on the employers' side, that will not coma forward and abandon every policy and every part of its policy that leads to restriction of production of that commodity, is anti-social in the worst sense of the word. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has a great opportunity of using this limitation to approach them and ask them in the correct spirit to see whether they cannot take a step of that kind. With regard to the figure itself, I would urge, first of all, that that figure

    657
    has been arrived at as a result of practical experience, and also as a result of the Memorandum put forward in the Report submitted to the right hon. Gentleman by the Association of Builders and the Association of Operativies—the Report that we all know so well. It will be remembered that the paragraph at the bottom of page 9 of that Report says:
    "The Committee has given careful consideration to cost, and, as a result of careful examination, is of opinion that houses are being built to-day at the lowest possible cost. In its judgment, taking the costs of labour and material as current on 1st March last, houses from 850 to 950 feet super of contained area, based on the Schedule as supplied by the Ministry of Health, should, under normal circumstances, not exceed in cost from x to y per square foot."
    Ten shillings and sixpence per foot super, for 950 feet, is £498, or £2 short of the £500 house about which the right hon. Gentleman is frequently talking.
    Lord E. PERCY: Is that all in?
    Mr. VIVIAN: This includes paths, fences and house drains, but not sewers, street pavings, roads or land. It is the net cost of the house.
    Lord E. PERCY: Is £498 your figure?
    Mr. VIVIAN: Yes, at 10s. 6d. per foot for the 950-foot house. There is a note at the bottom of this document stating that x and y indicate information conveyed confidentially to the Minister of Health, and the Minister has not seen his way yet to give the House those figures, I do not desire to press him; I want to help him on this. If he feels that some public interests might be placed in jeopardy by presenting any figures to this House, by all means let him withhold them. I have done the best I can in the circumstances. I conclude that this means 10s. 6d., and I know from experience that that figure is not far wrong. I have here a communication which has been passed on to me only within the last few days from one of the biggest authorities in this country, who is putting up a large number of houses under various schemes, and he tells me this:
    "In confirmation of our conversation on Wednesday last, I send you the following particulars. The latest contracts give the following figures:
    A.3, 820 square feet, 10s. 5d. per square foot.
    B.3, 950 square feet, 10s. per square foot."
    658
    It will be seen, therefore, that I am hovering on the right figure within a trifle, as far as these facts are concerned. My correspondent goes on to say:
    "I am sure that on to-day's prices these figures would be increased by sit least 5 per cent."
    That would mean that the 10s. on the 950-foot house would become my figure of 10s. 6d. I do not, however, press the right hon. Gentleman to limit himself absolutely to my figure of 10s, 6d. What I do desire him to do is to tell us in what better way he can prevent this wild inflation from taking place, for I assure him from my own knowledge of the industry that it has already begun. Some hon. Members may say "profiteering." A good deal of this is quite impersonal and beyond personal control. If hon. Members were in the enterprise themselves they would know that it is not due to any special degree of original sin on the part of the individuals that this thing happens. It happens through the play of quite impersonal forces. I can show you things that happen day by day of that character, and if by my Amendment you prevent the free play of those forces which will inflate prices, you give notice to all concerned that inflation will not be tolerated and from this moment onwards the whole industry, the architects, merchants, builders and the operatives, will know that beyond a certain point it will not be tolerated, and when your brickmaker comes into the office to make a deal on bricks, or the tile maker to make a deal with tiles, he knows that he is restricted within this limit. If he is not restricted I defy the right hon. Gentleman by all the profiteering committees he sets up from one end of Great Britain to the other, to stop the free play of these prices. If you have five or six builders running after a- particular brick, bidding for it, offering high prices for it, there is no profiteering committee you can appoint that is going to restrain the increase of the price.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is not that antisocial?
    Mr. VIVIAN: That applies to labour as well. If I were a bricklayer, and employers were on my doorstep day by day begging me to work for them, one offering 1s. an hour, another 1s. 6d., and a third

    659
    2s., would you suggest that I was antisocial because I took the 2s. in preference to the 1s.?
    Mr. CLIMIE: When the hon. Member was discussing the position of the worker with regard to piecework, he said he was not honest and not fair.
    Mr. VIVIAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make that observation. I have said these things are very largely impersonal, and very often the result of forces beyond individual control. May I ask the hon. Member what I said and when I said it that bears that out?
    Mr. CLIMIE: I do not want to be unfair, and I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member, but he clearly said the time has arrived when the piece-workers in the building trade had got to come into this work.
    Mr. VIVIAN: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for speaking what is in his mind. I certainly never intended to say anything of the sort. What I said was that this was one industry and so far as its method of administration was concerned in relation to industry as a whole, it had not yet put itself into line in regard to organisation so that the remuneration that it drew for the services it rendered was not measured, as it was in most industries, by the product it handed over. I went on to say that the industries employed each other, and when you are giving the workers in a particular industry money tokens what you are really giving them is a lien on some portion of the national production in goods and services—clothing, food, and things of that sort. It is wrong in principle to continue with a particular industry giving them a lien on the sum total of national services and goods without putting them on a basis of remuneration, like coal, cotton, and other industries, and insure that they bring to the common stock something proportionate to the stock they take away. The industry is not on that basis at present. In the long run it is the less well organised, the woman with inadequate means, the worker with a small wage and a big family who is not able to be here in this House or to exercise power and pressure in politics or in economics, who will pay for any violent inflation that takes place.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am in the heartiest agreement with the object aimed at by the Mover of the Amendment. I am fully conscious of the fact that there can be no possible success for the housing scheme which is being promoted by this Bill if anything like the rise in prices occurs that took place under the Addison scheme. If I thought for a moment that the Amendment would assist me in the slightest, I would gladly embrace it, but I am afraid it will have exactly the opposite effect. The hon. Member told us that a 950-foot house, at 10s. 6d., would cost £498, without including the land or the development. Is anyone with a knowledge of the building industry and the class of houses for which we are here asking prepared to say that these houses are worth that money?
    Mr. VIVIAN: I did not say that. I was quoting from documents.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am putting a question to the House and to the country. The idea that these houses cannot be produced for less than £550 is most absurd. If the building industry were organised, as it has now an opportunity of organising itself, with an assured market for manufacturers, for builders, and with guaranteed employment to the workers, it ought to be able to produce these houses—I will not put a figure on it, but for substantially less, than £500. To suggest to the building industry that any figure in that neighbourhood is justified after we have given them the guarantee and the assistance provided for in the Bill would, I think, be unfair to the country, because whether you agree with the policy of the Bill or not, whether you believe in its success or not, all our forces in the country should be directed to bringing down the cost of house building to a reasonable level. To allow a higher price to be paid for the building of a house would not be the moans of producing one house more. You do not get any more houses because you allow the price of the houses to go up, and if you suggest that this 10s. 6d. is a reasonable price, indeed that the Minister might go beyond it, that will be putting a most dangerous suggestion in the minds of these people. As a matter of fact, you cannot get uniformity in house-building prices. The cost of building a house in one district to-day differs sometimes by £100 from the cost of building the same house in a different

    661
    neighbourhood. I cannot always ascertain the cause of the discrepancy, but the discrepancy is there. Everyone who has had any experience in the administration of the Ministry of Health knows it perfectly well. Even to-day, when I am sorry to admit prices are much higher than anyone in the House thinks they should be, we are getting houses built at less than the price mentioned.
    The hon. Member himself quoted figures down to 10s., and I am sure if I went into the books of the Ministry of Health I should be able to produce much lower figures If you put 10s. 6d. into the Bill, what will happen? If we set the building industry going, as we must do with the shortage of labour and of materials at the outset, under the most favourable circumstances of this scheme we shall have local contractors whose hands are full of work, and they will be asked to quote for an additional job. It is true the architect will tell the contractors they are not to exceed 10s. 6d. without the approval of the Minister of Health, but that will convey to them, even though their hands are full doing 9s. 6d. work, that they may, not only legitimately, but quite reasonably, and in accordance with the views of the House of Commons, quote 10s. 6d. for the other job which they do not care whether they get or not at that particular moment. They can afford to wait. Their men and their plant are all employed. They will say, "Let us put in 10s. 6d. If we get the job well and good, it can wait, and it will be a nice handsome profit when we reach it. If we do not get it, it is all the same. We can get on with the work we have." I want to say to the building industry and the country that while I am at the Ministry of Health, I am not going to pass schemes where the price is put up. We are not going to have these high prices, and I am prepared to stake the chances of my scheme on that. I do not say that, in certain circumstances, we would not exceed 10s. 6d., but take London, where costs are always high. It is doubtful at any time whether you can get houses for this figure.
    Lieut. - Colonel JOHN WARD: Of course, for as many pence as there are shillings in that Resolution.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says you can gee them for 10d.—
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: You asked whether houses could ever be got at that price in London. The old jerry builder from 1906 up to 1914 would have produced good houses for the number of pence that you have shillings in this Resolution.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: If the houses that a-re now occupied in London were erected between 1906 and 1914 for 10½d. a foot, someone must be making a huge profit out of the rents that are now charged. I want the Committee to treat this matter seriously. I am not looking at it from the point of view of the Bill at all. The last thing the House of Commons should do is to try to regulate prices to suit rising costs We want to turn our attention to bringing these costs down. You could by this Amendment stop building in London altogether, and at the same time put up the general price of building by the passing of this Amendment alone. You cannot direct local authorities that 10s. 6d. would not be an unreasonable- cost. I hope that the Committee will take it from me that, while I am at the Ministry of Health, prices will not be allowed to rise. People will be told to wait until the prices come down. If we make that perfectly clear to the building industry, I think it will do more to keep down prices than by putting in the figure of 10s. 6d.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given any answer at all to my hon. Friend. What does his answer amount to? It amounts to this, that the figure of 10s. 6d. is higher than he thinks is reasonable. That can be very easily put right by putting in a lower figure in this Amendment. All that the hon. Gentleman and those who support this Amendment are saying is that Parliament should fix a figure beyond which the cost of houses should not be allowed to go without the sanction of the Minister of Health. We are arming the Minister of Health with additional powers. We are strengthening his hand. We are trying to set up a limit which cannot be exceeded except by a special procedure—still a perfectly feasible procedure. I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that £500 for the houses contemplated in this Bill is a ridi-

    663
    culous sum. I heartily agree with him. I know of houses at the present moment as good as those contemplated in this Bill being built for a very much less sum than that—for between £350 and £400. I am perfectly certain that the cost could be brought down. It could be easily done by the acceptance of this Amendment. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman put in 9s. 6d. instead of 10s. 6d.? Why does he not put in 8s. 6d.? He says he wants to keep costs down, but he refuses to take the powers given to him by this Amendment. The Amendment would strengthen his hand enormously.
    The right hon. Gentleman says he is not going to sanction schemes if he considers the cost is too high. I am very glad to have that assurance, but I think it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to give the House of Commons some sort of indication as to what he considers is the right cost of houses. It is no good for him to say, "Give me a blank cheque; give me a free hand; I will look after the taxpayers' money" I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given us any reason why we should have that confidence in him or his administration. On the contrary, he has taken power to expend £1,000,000,000 of the taxpayers' money in subsidising the building industry—because that is what this Bill is, nothing more or less.
    I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that we were not going to get more houses that way. We are not going to get more houses by paying more money for them. The only thing that can bring more houses is more men and more materials. Therefore, we are assisting the production of houses if we can keep costs down. I regard this Amendment as the touchstone of the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity. If he is really out to get cheap houses for the people and to prevent a building ramp, he will accept this Amendment, with such lower figure as he, with his experience and his knowledge of the Ministry of Health, is prepared to put before the Committee. It is perfectly certain that the Committee would not object, in fact would welcome, a lower figure than that advanced by the hon. Member. The Amendment proposed may require alteration. There is no reason why the Order contemplated by it
    664
    should not be confined to London or to some district where particular conditions prevail. What we do ask is that Parliament should declare that a limit must be put to the building ramp; otherwise, what happened under the Addison scheme will happen to this scheme. In fact, it has already happened. It commenced on the day the right hon. Gentleman took office. Prices have been rising, the difficulties of providing cheap houses have been increasing, and the solution of the housing problem is further off to-day than it was when the right hon. Gentleman went to the Ministry of Health. What the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian) who moved this Amendment said is perfectly true. It is the poorest people in the country who are going to suffer from this unrestricted price of houses.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: That is nothing fresh!
    Viscount WOLMER: No, it is nothing fresh.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: They always suffer.
    Viscount WOLMER: Yes, they always suffer, and they will suffer a good deal from the result of the legislation of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Tim hon. Gentleman will find that out perhaps. It is very unjust and unfair that agricultural labourers, whose wages are 25s. a week or even less, should be taxed in order that the building industry may draw wages of £4 a week and more, and in order that the building employers or building materials merchants should make great profits. The poorest classes of the community make their contributions to the taxation of this country, and taxation falls heavier on them than on anyone. Everyone is going to be taxed to find, directly or indirectly, this £1,000,000,000. We in the House of Commons offer the Minister a weapon, the only weapon, by which he can keep prices down, and he refuses it.
    Mr. H. H. SPENCER: I want to speak for a very few minutes on this Amendment, and to congratulate the Minister on his brave words about prices. Unfortunately, my Observation on the question has been that since the Minister came into office his only activities seem to have resulted in a quick rise of prices and a total stoppage of any schemes for building houses. When we find, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)

    665
    has stated, a weapon has been put into his hands, he gives us fair words, but he refuses to take and use the weapon.
    Mr. CLIMIE: What schemes have been stopped?
    Mr. SPENCER: I say there has been a total stoppage of new schemes for building houses. Since the Minister came before the country with this scheme for huge subsidies and doles for the building trade, there has been a total stoppage of the, new schemes that were being produced under the 1923 Housing Act. I want, if I may, in considering this Amendment, to recommend to the Minister the very wise words of one of the greatest statesmen that this country ever produced, a statesman who did, without doles or extravagance for the people of Egypt, something that I should like to think that Members of the present Government would do for our people in England. He based his statemanship, from his own writings, upon two things. He said: "There are hundreds of schemes put before me for the benefit of the people of Egypt. No doubt a great majority of them would have done the people of Egypt good. "But," he asked first, "what will they cost?" and, secondly, "Where is the money to come from? These two great principles of statesmanship seem totally absent from the purview of the present Government and, particularly, from that of the present Minister of Health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It was Lord Cromer. I thought all my Friends on the left would have known.
    I do not propose to trespass on the time of the Committee again, but I would like to remind the Committee, if I may, and if my hon. Friends on my left are able ever to give a fair hearing, that the Minister sometimes seems to have a very delightful and charming habit of thinking aloud. When he thinks aloud, he tells us what is in his mind. I remember that he thought aloud and told us that if he had his way he would delete the last penny of interest from the people who lend money for building houses. I want very seriously to bring before him this fact, that in my own town we are not going to need anything like as many houses as are assumed, the reason being that our own working people have £23,000,000 in the three great building societies which work in Bradford.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member please keep within the terms of this Amendment?
    Mr. SPENCER: I am sorry, Sir, if I went a little astray. I was only appealing to the- Minister on his plea for economy in building prices. I wanted to try and prove that the only road to economy was a, very different thing from giving huge doles to any particular trade. The road to economy is, I think, that the working people themselves should own their own houses. The Minister, on another occasion when he was thinking aloud, told us that the huge charges of this Housing Bill are only going to cost the nation 10 per cent. of the drink bill. I am quoting the Minister's own word. If that statement of the Minister be true, surely it would be a sounder policy, instead of having to put forward Amendments like this, to reduce the prices which should be paid for building houses, for the Minister to get people who want houses to take the very good advice which he and his Friends so often give. [HON. MEMBERS: "To stop drinking?"] Only 10 per cent. less. Do not say that my proposal compels the working man never to have a glass of beer!
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that I have already asked him to keep within the terms of the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. SPENCER: I am sorry, Sir, if I have trespassed. I will not go on any longer. I do not make this speech with the intention of obstructing the Bill, and I am sorry if I have wandered outside the terms of the Amendment. I would1 like to make one prophecy before I sit down, and that is this: This Bill, even with the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian) will be a failure. Without the Amendment, it will be a, disastrous failure, and, when it has failed, as we all know it will fail, we and the public generally will not call the Members on these benches patient oxen any more. I do not like bending my neck to the yoke of the patient oxen. But they will think about this House more in the terms of those animals who rushed to destruction in the old biblical days.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I interjected during the right hon. Gentleman's speech

    667
    some remarks as to the cost of houses before a certain period, and I think the Minister will find that, excluding the land and developments in the process of building which have been referred to, my statement is correct.
    Mr. VIVIAN: Yes, that is so.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I think I can point out a plan by which houses could be built much more cheaply than they are at the present time. Since subsidies have been given, and since these great schemes have been undertaken by municipalities, there has been a rigid exclusion of the old cottage builder throughout the country. That man gets no facilities at the present time, although he is the man who really knows how to build these cottages. The municipalities put great schemes before the Minister, who either accepts or rejects them. If they are accepted then contracts are asked for, and inasmuch as the contractor usually has to give huge security before the municipality will enter into a contract with him, the work falls into the hands of big capitalist combines. These are the only type of contractors you now have for Government subsidy houses under present conditions. You have not the man who really understands cottage building. The difference between cottage building and the building of ordinary business premises is very considerable, and the man who may be an expert in the one may know absolutely nothing about the other. Then again yon have not the type of employer who is accustomed to this class of building. The big contractor does not employ the old cottage builder, the actual workman, the bricklayer or plasterer who has always done that class of work, but he engages men used to putting up huge buildings, and who know nothing whatever of this class of building. There is not the slightest doubt that if we would give facilities to the actual workmen who in the past built these cottages, and made them weekly payments to cover the wages of the men they employ, the municipality taking care to see that the work is done correctly and that the proper materials are used—if only you could get back to those conditions and give these workmen a chance of erecting the houses necessary for the working classes you would instantly save hundred of thousands of pounds of the amount you are now pro-
    668
    posing to spend. Unfortunately the whole business is now concentrated in a few hands. If there were opportunities for the old builder of cottage property to come into his own again—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is in order on this Amendment in discussing any suggestion as to the way in which houses might be built. The only point is whether there should or should not be a certain limitation of cost.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I say there should be no limitation whatever. I believe that if the plan I have suggested were adopted, it would be stupid to put 10s. 6d. into the Bill when it is quite possible that it would be easy to reduce that amount very considerably.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) in arguing in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian) was also arguing in favour of a fixed price for the building of these houses. But yesterday we had from the same bench arguments in favour of utilising every scientific method possible for the purpose of bringing down the cost of houses, and it was suggested that that cost might be brought down by utilising scientific methods of building.
    Viscount WOLMER: It was not a question of a fixed price. It was a question of a fixed limit.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The danger is always that the maximum will become the minimum. 1 think the* Minister is quite right in refusing to accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been put. We are now defiling with the prices of houses, and it is a remarkable thing that the prices should be as they are at the present time. I should like hon. Members to compare the prices to-day with those which obtained under the Addison scheme or the Chamberlain scheme. I remember the time 20 years ago, when I was connected with the building industry as an employer. I know a little bit about the methods adopted and the prices that were then being paid. We could then get cottages built at 5d. per cubic foot. I do not think to-day you would get the same type of cottage and the same quality of work and material for less than 15d. per cubic foot.

    669
    It cannot be suggested that wages have increased in that time cent. per cent., and certainly if you take the case of a brick the price of the raw material for that is the same as it was before the War. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now talked of anti-social forces making for high prices against the welfare of the community. I agree with him that such forces ought to be scotched and killed. But in the present organisation of industry the anti-social force would be totally foreign to the whole conception on which modern history is based to-day.
    The Noble Lord opposite talked of the burden that was going to be placed on the poorest of the poor by the amount of money to be raised for building these houses. The poor always do bear the burden. They always have done so. If there are any patient oxen in this country it is the poor. There is a good deal of sympathy expressed by hon. Members opposite with regard to the poorest of the poor having to meet the charges entailed by these houses. Might not a good deal of that sympathy be extended to them in regard to the burdens they have to bear in connection with our enormous national debt?
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I think it is necessary that the Chairman should listen to this discussion. The hon. Member is now discussing the National Debt. I never got as far as that.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My attention was distracted for the moment, but I may remind the hon. Member that what we are now discussing is whether any limit shall be placed in the Bill, and I cannot permit any discussion outside that.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I simply wished to illustrate the burden which the worker is called on to bear. I hope the right
    hon. Gentleman will not yield to the blandishments of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but that he will be prepared to take advantage of all the powers he can get from this Committee for the purpose of dealing with profiteering in that drastic way which our experience during the War showed it can be dealt with.
    Mr. VIVIAN: In view of the extremely sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBEKS: "Oh!"]—I am quite prepared to be a patient ox if I can be of use. I may say I was agreeably surprised to hear from my right hon. Friend that he really hopes and believes that, apart from the special situation of London, which I appreciate—I think he is perfectly right—and in view of the definite pledge he gave to the Committee that he would devote himself to securing that the cost shall not only not rise, but shall decrease, and the possibility that this maximum may tend to become a minimum in some quarters, and in view of the recorded words of the right hon. Gentleman on the Floor of this House, and that we have a declaration of his policy—I say that in no unfriendly spirit—I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: The Committee will remember that the Minister of Health said, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that he intended to supplement this Bill by another Measure controlling the price of material, and I think we ought to have a Clause that the cost shall not exceed the average price for similar cottages ruling in January, 1924.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 236.

    Division No. 162.]

    AYES.

    [7.35 p.m.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Ballour, George (Hampstead)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Duckworth, John

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    England, Colonel A.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Ferguson, H.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cope, Major William

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davidson Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Burman, J. B.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Harland, A.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Meller, R. J.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Stanley, Lord

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Philipson, Mabel

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Ralne, W.

    Wells, S. R.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Reid, D, D. (County Down)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Remer, J. R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Savery, S. S.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Shepperson, E, W.

    Viscount Wolmer and Marquess of Titchfield.

    MacDonald, R.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Gillett, George M.

    Lunn, William

    Acland, Rt, Hon. Francis Dyke

    Gorman, William

    McCrae, Sir George

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gosling, Harry

    McEntee, V. L.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Macfadyen, E.

    Alden, Percy

    Greenall, T.

    Mackinder, W.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Alstead, R.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maden, H.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Groves, T.

    March, S.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Grundy, T. W.

    Marley, James

    Ayles, W. H.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Baker, Walter

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Maxton, James

    Banton, G.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Middleton, G.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Millar, J. D.

    Barnes, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Montague, Frederick

    Black, J. W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morris, R. H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Bonwick, A.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Morse, W. E.

    Briant, Frank

    Hayday, Arthur

    Moulton Major Fletcher

    Broad, F. A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Muir, John W.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Murray, Robert

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)

    Murrell, Frank

    Buckle, J.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hindle, F.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Nichol, Robert

    Church, Major A. G.

    Hodge, Lieut. Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Nixon, H.

    Clarke, A.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Climie, R.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Oliver, George Harold

    Cluse, W. S.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Paling, W.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Palmer, E, T.

    Crittall, V. G.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Perry. S. F.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Dickie, Captain J, P.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Potts, John S.

    Dickson, T.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Dukes, C.

    Jowitt, w. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Duncan, C.

    Keens, T.

    Raffety. F. W.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Ramage. Captain Cecil Beresford

    Dunnico, H.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Raynes, W. R.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Lansbury, George

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Laverack, F. J.

    Rees, sir Beddoe

    Falconer, J.

    Law, A.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Franklin, L. B.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lawson, John James

    Ritson, J.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Leach, W.

    Roberts, Rt Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Lessing, E.

    Robertson, T. A.

    Gates, Percy

    Linfield, F. C.

    Robinson. S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Lowth, T.

    Romeril, H, G.

    672

    673

    Ropner, Major L,

    Stewart J. (St. Rollox)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Royle, C.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Westwood, J.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Sullivan, J.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Scurr, John

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Whiteley, W.

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Terrington, Lady

    Wignall, James

    Sexton, James

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)

    Thurtle, E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Willison, H.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Tout, W. J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Smillie, Robert

    Turner, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Windsor, Walter

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wintringham. Margaret

    Snell, Harry

    Viant, S. P.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Vivian, H.

    Wright, W.

    Spence, R.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Warne, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Mr Frederick Hall and Mr. John Robertson.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end, to insert the words
    "(e) that the dimensions of all bricks used in building the houses shall be nine inches by four and a half inches by three and a half inches in size."
    The Committee will remember that I obtained leave, by the unique majority of one, to bring in a Bill to standardise bricks used in houses subsidised by the State, and I hope the Committee will support me in carrying this Amendment. I venture to claim, that so long as we have a housing problem, we shall have a brick problem; and sooner or later, if Parliament continues to subsidise house building, it will have to begin—I do not say it is going to stop at bricks—standardising material for the sake of economy, and, although I could offer a good many suggestions for standardising other things, I do feel perfectly convinced we are quite safe in standardising bricks.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any intention of pressing this Amendment to a Division, because, otherwise, I would like to go home?
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: Yes, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will do his best to whip up his friends to support this Amendment. At the present time, 90 per cent. of the bricks used in house building are what are commonly known as common clay-fired wire-cut bricks. I am the last person to want to interfere with private manufacture, and I do not want to interfere with the dimensions of channel stock brick, but I am concerned with the 90 per cent. of common clay-fired wire-cut bricks. This Amendment would
    674
    not in any way affect brick-making plant for wire-cut bricks, which are made by simply setting certain wires a certain distance apart, so that they can be cut either 3½, 3 or 2¾ inches thick. There will be no alteration needed in regard to machinery. Before the War, these common bricks were made all over the country 3 inches to 3⅛ inches thick. It has been found in practice that the 3-inch brick is the handiest brick that any man can handle. The price of these bricks before the War was one-third or one-fourth their present price. In those days the brickmakers made the brick 3⅛ inches thick, for this reason, that the architects had a clause in their specification that certain things such as bricks, timber, etc., should be of certain size. Therefore, the brickmakers made the bricks an eighth of an inch thicker than the 3-inch brick in order to be able to come within the terms of the specification. The bricks were therefore always 3⅛ inch thick.
    One thousand of these bricks always produced 11 yards square of 9-inch wall, with the result that architects or builders in preparing their estimates of cost knew exactly how many square yards of brickwork they were going to get out of 1,000 bricks, and they fixed their prices accordingly at certain definite figures. During the War the brickmakers, like other tradesmen, formed themselves into a ring or combine, and raised the price of the goods they supplied, with the result that bricks that cost 25s. per Thousand before the War were raised to as high as five guineas per thousand in 1919. In addition to raising the pries, they reduced the size from 4½ inches wide to 4¼ inches and from 3⅛ inches to 2¾ inches thick, with the result that the cost of brick-

    675
    work, both in material and labour, was increased. The bricklayers did not lay more bricks because they were reduced in size.
    I should like to give my own personal experience. In 1919–20 I was the architect for the erection of 20 factories in Manchester, the one-storey weaving shed type of factory, and brickwork was the chief thing. After fixing the contract with the builders at a certain scheduled rate of price for brickwork, labour and material, this alteration in the size of bricks meant that my clients immediately became liable for 15 per cent. more increase in cost. [An HON. MEMBER: "All the better for you!"] It ought to be reckoned in my favour that I am now proposing something which would tell against my own interests. The result was, that the cost of the brickwork through the action of the combine became very heavy. I do not want to interfere with private enterprise and private business, but so long as Parliament is committing itself to a programme of house building and is responsible for such a heavy percentage of cost spread over 40 years, it is right to say that if we cannot control prices we intend to see that no such thing occurs again in regard to the size of bricks, if the programme under this Bill is put into operation.
    I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the fact that because of the experience I had in 1919 I want to warn the Committee that as soon as this Housing Bill becomes law and contracts are given out for hundreds of thousands of cottages all over the country brick-makers will immediately reduce the size of bricks. The Minister is to attempt to control prices by a subsequent Bill, and if he does not control the dimensions of bricks and other materials, but particularly bricks, the manufacturers will immediately reduce the size, and in that way inflate the cost. Not that they would gain very much for themselves, but simply because they are, determined to sell as many thousand bricks per cottage as possible and to make as many pound notes as possible. I hope that the Minister will give me some assurance that he will accept the Amendment. If he thinks fit, I would be prepared to reduce the sizes if he thinks the sizes in my Amendment too big. What I want
    676
    is a standard of dimensions. Many thousands of millions of bricks will be required for these cottages and my Amendment would mean a very considerable saving. Indeed, this is the first Amendment which if it be carried will save the State some money.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It has been part of my policy all through this Bill to protect private enterprise, and the House has treated me so kindly, I might almost say generously, that it would be most unjust if I were to depart from that policy now. Even if I were inclined to do so, and if I could see some merit in the Amendment I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that it would be quite unworkable. We are dealing with the conditions that the local authority has to undertake. What does he ask the local authorities to undertake? He asks them to undertake that the dimensions of bricks used in building the houses shall be 9 inches by 4½ inches by 3½ inches. It would be totally impracticable for, say, Shrewsbury, to guarantee the size of bricks that would be used by a local authority in Monmouth.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is just as easy as the Fair Wages Clause.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: For the reason alone that I have stated, I should have to reject the Amendment. I cannot see anything in the merits of the Amendment that would justify me in making such a revolutionary interference with private business.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. E. D. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out from the word "not" to the word "houses" in line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "exceed the rents, generally paid for the time being in the area of the local authority for houses of similar size, type and amenity."
    This Amendment raises an exceedingly vital principle. Hitherto, in building these municipal houses there has been general agreement as to the level of rents at which they should be let. The principle has been that the rents should be, as far as possible, the same as the rents of pre-War houses of equivalent accommodation, so that any tenant who is prepared to pay a certain amount of rent

    677
    will get the same kind of accommodation, whether he gets a pre-War house, an Addison house, or a. Chamberlain house. That is the principle that has been universally accepted. It is just possible that it has not been completely carried out, because for what is called "amenity" in many districts too large a charge has been made. In some districts the rents of these houses are higher than the rents of equivalent pre-War houses, on account of more being charged for amenity and more being charged for rates. Apart from that, the principle has been accepted of one level of accommodation, one level of rent.
    In this Bill that principle has been completely departed from. The Minister of Health has said several times that what he is aiming at is to let better houses at the rent of smaller houses. That is a totally new principle, and it is expressed in words which are extremely difficult to understand—
    "That the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not in the aggregate exceed the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."

    That does not say in respect of what working-class houses.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Nor what are working-class houses.
    Mr. SIMON: Nor what are working-class houses. If what the right hon. Gentleman says, and what was said in the negotiations with the local authorities, is, that the intention is that these houses shall be let at the rent average of working-class houses in any given locality before the War, what is the position? Take the case of Manchester. Some 75 per cent. of the pre-War houses in Manchester were only of the two-bedroom type. In order to right that, the Manchester local authority is building almost exclusively three-bedroomed houses. If this Clause passes, it means that these three-bedroomed houses are to be let at, approximately, the vents of the pre-War two-bedroomed houses. That is, giving a better house for the rent of the worse pre-War house. The right hon. Gentleman has said so often in his speeches that he wants to let these houses to the poorest section of the community,
    678
    and this Clause, no doubt, is drafted for that purpose, but the striking thing about the right hon. Gentleman's speeches on this matter is that he never refers to figures.
    What are the rents of these houses going to be? It seems to me absolutely essential if we are to understand what this Clause means that we should consider at what rent the subsidy allowed in this Bill will enable these houses to be let. It is agreed that the cost is to be £500, although in the great cities you cannot build an A3 house for £500 at the present time. Assuming that you build the house for £500, the economic rent of that house, without any subsidy, works out at 13s., calculating interest at 5 per cent. The subsidy allowed under the 1923 Act is equivalent to 3s. a week, enabling us to let that type of house at 10s. per week net. The extra subsidy allowed in this Bill is equivalent to 1s. 6d. a week, bringing the rent down to 8s. 6d. net. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny those figures. That means that 8s. 6d. per week is the lowest net rent at which a £500 house can be let with the full subsidy under this Bill. To that you must, of course, add rates. The rates on this house in Manchester amount approximately to 5s., so that the gross rent is 15s. We are letting these houses at 15s. Under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill we shall be able to let them at 13s. 6d. per week.
    8.0 P.M.
    That is what this Bill in fact enables us to do with the £500 house. My figures may be wrong. They are wrong in one sense, because I do not think that we can build for £500. They are based, moreover, on 5 per cent. interest, and the local authorities are going to have such enormous sums to borrow in the next 15 years that the rate of interest is more likely to go up than down. So that the rent is likely to ho 13s. 6d. My figures are also based on a sum for repairs, agreed by the City Treasurers, of £6 per annum per house. 8s. 6d. per week, plus rates, making 13s. 6d., is the lowest rent at which these houses can be let. What does that mean in Manchester? We are building Chamberlain houses, and we shall continue to build exactly the same houses on the same

    679
    estate. We are now letting at 15s. a week to people of the artisan classes. According to the recent census 96 per cent. of our tenants are artisans and clerks, members, I presume, of the working class, but the richest members of the working class. The houses are let to them, and, so far as we can tell, there is an unlimited demand for similar houses at the present rent of 15s. from members of the same class. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that we shall go on building similar houses on the same estate, to let, not at 15s., but at 13s. 6d. The new houses may be next door to those already built or on the other side of the same street.
    The first question that arises is, what will the tenants of the Chamberlain houses say when they find that similar houses are being let at 1s. 6d. a week less? That is an impossible situation. The local authorities in their negotiations with the Minister laid great stress on this, and said, "If you are going to give us this extra subsidy, which we welcome, we shall be forced to reduce the rents of the Addison and Chamberlain houses. Will you meet us on that point and bear the cost?" Hitherto the right hon. Gentleman has not given any answer to that question. If he is going to force local authorities to let these new houses at a lower rent, it seems only fair to ask that he should help the local authorities, to bring down the rents of the other houses to the same level. That is assuming that he does not accept the Amendment. If my figures are correct, it is fairly clear that when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the 1923 Act having housed the rich and of his being about to house the poorer section—when you realise that that means that under the old Act we let houses at 15s. and under his Act we are to let them at 13s. 6d.—it is really rather an exaggeration to say that in the one case it is the housing of the rich and in the other the housing of the poorest section of the community. The only people who can afford these houses with the full subsidy are the richest sections of the working class, those whose incomes are between £200 and £300 a year. If it is the case that the rents of working class houses are too high, the natural thing is to give a subsidy to all working class houses and bring the rents
    680
    down. To reduce the rents by 1s. a week would mean £20,000,000 a year. I presume that if the right hon. Gentleman has considered that, he has found the Chancellor of the Exchequer not very sympathetic.
    If it is out of the question financially, which it obviously is, surely the next thing to do is to say, "If we are to subsidise and give a dole to certain sections of the working classes, which are the classes which need it most?" Surely it ought to be given to the classes that need it most, and I should have thought that they were the poorest—those now living in slums. There would be a good case for giving some extra subsidy to them. There is another class which deserves help, the tenants who have large families of dependent children. The artisan with a large family requires practically the whole of his income for food and clothing and can afford only a very moderate rent. Just at the time when he needs a large house most he cannot afford it. Those are the two classes amongst the working class in regard to whom there is a strong ca6e for giving some extra subsidy. But what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He does nothing for the slum dweller and nothing for the parents with large numbers of dependent children, for they are just the people who cannot afford these expensive houses. What he does is to say: "I will take the tenant who can afford a 15s. house, and I will give him a dole of 1s. 6d. That 1s. 6d. shall be partly on the taxes and partly on the rates."
    Every single householder throughout the country will have to pay more in order to help the specially privileged tenants to be created under this Bill. That includes, not only the rich, who pay their share, but the Blum-dweller and the casual labourer. Every slum-dweller will have to pay a little bit extra in order that these artisans shall get a dole of 1s. 6d. on their rents. That is most extraordinary. It is a deliberate creation of a privileged class. It is a deliberate creation of inequality and injustice, and a deliberate taxation of the whole community, including the poorest, in order to create this privileged class. The original proposal of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Prime Minister was that he wanted to build these £500 houses and let them at 9s. a week, including rates. That was the

    681
    proposal first made to the municipalities. The proposal was that the rents should average 9s. To average 9s. would mean, not a total of £34,000,000 on the rates and taxes, but exactly double that amount, namely, £68,000,000. In view of that fact, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman abandoned his idea. But if you can let these houses at 9s. would not the absurdity of letting houses, as they are now let, at 15s., and of suddenly building a number of similar houses to be let at 9s., be more patent than ever? How are you to select the particular tenants for these privileged houses? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I have spoken strongly about this scheme. May I quote what was said in one of our leading newspapers the other day about the selection of these tenants? They referred to "this publicly-financed lottery,"
    "This fundamentally corrupt vote-catching and demoralising subsidy."
    That was not in the "Morning Post," but in a leading morning newspaper which has supported hon. Members above the Gangway more than any other paper. I refer to the; "Manchester Guardian." Those are stronger words than I would have been inclined to use. If my Amendment wore adopted, it would bring the Clause back practically to the Clause that we have had in previous Acts except that it gives the local authorities full power to use the whole of the subsidy. It does not reduce the subsidy or necessarily the amount to be paid by the local authorities. They can let the houses at the lowest possible rents they can afford. But it does not force them to let the houses at lower rents than similar houses already existing. I have an Amendment later on, suggesting that any surplus subsidy might very usefully be given, not indiscriminately to every tenant, but to those particular tenants who have large families of dependent children. In that way this subsidy, instead of creating a privileged class of tenant, selected in a way that no one has yet been able to suggest, would do some real good to the children of the next generation, that is, those of the largest families who particularly need this subsidy.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not for a moment doubt the strong feeling and honest motive which actuate the hon.
    682
    Member, because I have noticed for some time in the Press that he has been very energetically propagating this idea. But I want to make it quite clear to the House that the Amendment would strike a blow at the very heart of the Bill. I want to reason with the House on this matter, and to show how essential this scheme of rents is to the success of the Bill. It is important from two points of view. I have noticed in the discussions on the Bill that many hon. Members, instead of taking a comprehensive view of the scheme and trying to understand how one portion fits into another, are apt to deal with it partially and in sections, and to be honestly misled and to mislead their hearers. An instance of that occurred yesterday, when the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), who is probably the greatest authority on this subject in the House, told us in so many words that he saw no connection between the anticipated advent of new materials and big business men into the building industry and the launching of this scheme. If the hon. Member will consider the question from my point of view, he will see that the one is the natural result of the other. What was the position that I had to deal with when I set out to find a way out of the present housing situation? I had first of all to find a market for the houses. Before> you can find a producer of the houses you have to find a market for the houses; there must be some evidence when the houses are being produced that there are people prepared to take them.
    I want hon. Members to do me the favour of trying to follow this closely. I want them to accept this as a fact. However many people you have in this country who can afford to buy, you have a large number who cannot afford to buy. That is not putting it too high. There is no use finding a manufacturer who can produce houses unless you find means by which these people can take houses. In the old days the means employed was to get an investor of capital who would take the houses from the builders and let them, if possible, at a profit to the people who require them. In other words you had to get an investor in houses, not merely a producer of houses, not merely a manufacturer of buildings, but a class of people who would sink their capital in the letting of houses. Everyone will agree that that

    683
    type of man has gone We may disagree as to why. Hon. Members opposite might say that socialist agitators drove him away. We might say that the increase in the cost of production and various economic causes have driven him away, but whatever the cause of his going, there is almost unanimous agreement that he has gone.
    Nor can I find any section of the community who hopes for his early return. I have put it, as I have said already in this House, to every deputation of local authorities in connection with houses that came to the Ministry of Health, including the municipal corporations, as to whether there was any sign in their locality of the investor of money for houses for letting purposes, for profit, returning, and in every case they said that there was not the slightest sign of his coming back. The very first thing I had to do was to find a market for the houses to be occupied by these people. If the investor has gone the only alternative I could find, apart from the State, which I think was out of the question, was the local authority. I had to get the local authority to take the place of the old investor in working-class houses, to get the local authority to be a party to the finance terms with which we had to deal. When I met them I found a reluctance, natural when we remember that at the moment we are in the course of a transition from one order of society to another. It is going on too slowly some of us think, but undoubtedly it is going on, and the general hope in this country is that it can be expedited sufficiently to keep pace with the developments of our industry, and to prevent anything like a violent disturbance. That is the hope of all of us.
    Most of these local authority representatives find themselves dominated by ideas from the generation from which we are emerging, so naturally they had a reluctance to take over the place of the old investor. Many of them still say, perhaps not the authorities, but members of the authorities, "This is not the business of a local authority. The State should not interfere; the local authority should not interfere. It should be left to the operation of private enterprise." But the local authorities as a whole do not take that view. As I said yesterday, and I am always pleased to say it, my
    684
    experience from the first day I entered public life goes in the direction of enabling me to say—and people who have had to deal from practical experience with public representatives on local authorities will bear me out—that whatever may be their party political views, they become, from sheer experience in their handling of this problem, enthusiastic housing reformers. But when I spoke to them in connection with this Bill they said in effect, "We are not prepared to take over all housing, but we are prepared to take over some housing." That, at any rate, helped to give me my market. Here was the local authority who would take over the housing of a certain section of the community, here was private enterprise still to deal with another section of the community.
    But my market was essential for two reasons. The first mason was to attract to the building industry, if I might respectfully say so to those who are in it to-day, a bigger type of mind, a bigger conception of industrial organising. It was necessary to give some hope of getting to the newer methods of construction to which the right hon. Member referred yesterday, and it is the natural result of our having guaranteed a market, for those materials and products that, as is well known, you have today, as you had not even three months ago, a large number of the best business men in this country turning their attention to the cheap production of working-class houses. It was necessary to get that market, to widen the circle of people who would have access to the houses. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has pointed out that under the Addison scheme in particular and under the Chamberlain scheme to some extent you had these houses let at fairly high rents. I think that he will agree that they are let at rents which a large number of the working classes of this country cannot afford to pay. I do not want to say anything that will be disputed, but it will not be disputed that they are beyond the reach of the working classes.
    Many members of local authorities, my own local authority among others, have said, "We would not mind taking up the housing of the artisan class, but we do object to being saddled with the housing of people who could well afford to look after themselves. The people who can

    685
    afford to pay a high rent, or to purchase their houses themselves." To get my market I have to widen my circle. I have to bring into my circle as many as possible of those people who cannot afford to pay high rents or to purchase their houses. So I set out, for this reason, to get my first subsidy in order to make the houses accessible to a larger section of the community. It may be that I have not widened the circle sufficiently, but I have widened it as far as hon. Members will permit me, and as far as the country in its present frame of mind would tolerate my doing.
    I confess frankly to hon. Members, I have frequently said in my speeches, particularly on this question, that I do not come to you with prepared speeches to throw off to conceal my thoughts. I think aloud, and why should I not do so? I honestly tell you that, if I had the power, I would bring the whole of the people within my circle, in order to widen the circle, in order to make the market for the people which it is essential to get to bring now ideas into the industry and to give me the houses at a lower price. I wanted to widen the circle for another reason—a better reason, a nobler reason, and a reason which appeals more to my heart. I wanted to bring healthy housing within reach of a larger number of people, I shudder at the very conception of society which says that housing conditions, so essential in the life of a child, are to be, determined by the accumulations of wealth of the parents or the guardians of the child. I would like to make healthy housing conditions the inheritance of every child born in Britain. Just think that if a man is a successful burglar or a successful brothel-keeper, then the children of that man, because of his having accumulated some wealth, inherit healthy conditions, but if he is a man who has served his country well by giving useful industrial service, he only receives, because of the economic methods by which we fix incomes, 40s., 50s., or 60s. a week in return for those services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or 30s.!"] I am reminded that he may receive even as low as 30s., and the children of that useful man are to be denied access to those healthy houses; are to be crippled physically and mentally, and are to be condemned by economic conditions to be wastrels, and to go through this world deprived of all the joys of life. On the
    686
    other hand, the children of the successful brothel-keeper or the successful burglar are entitled by the laws of society to the higher things in life.
    I wanted to end all that as far as I possibly could so I said to the local authorities: "I am prepared to give you the higher rate of subsidy but the condition of giving you that subsidy is that you will spend it as far as it will go in the furtherence of the objects I have in view." If the Committee were to carry this Amendment they would be making a gift to the local authorities. If we are simply going back, as this Amendment proposes to go back, to the practice of giving whatever houses may be available to the people who have the most wealth, then the local authorities in my belief can get in the market to-day a rent for these houses which would not require a subsidy at all. There is no doubt about that, and why we should give them the larger subsidy, designed for special purposes, and then proceed in the course of the Bill to relieve them of the obligation of performing the purposes which we ask them to perform I Cannot understand and I think to do so would not be justifiable.
    May I come now to one or two of the statements made by the hon. Member in regard to the manner of fixing rents. No doubt the words may be somewhat ambiguous to the lay mind, but lawyers, in framing words, particularly those dealing with a scheme like this, have to aim at the utmost exactitude and not at the comfort of the reader of the words. If you have, as the hon. Member pointed out, to take as your objective the rents being paid to-day by working-class tenants in particular localities, in some places where the conditions are good, the wages high, the houses good and the rents high, the benefit, will not be so great. In other districts where the conditions are bad and where the rents have in the past been low, the benefit will be greater. In other words, the poorer districts will benefit more than the richer districts. The Bill lays it down that the local authority may charge different rents for different sizes of houses—say, the parlour houses and the non-parlour houses—but in addition to that, they may charge different rents for houses of the same type in different localities within the same area. In London, for example, there are some districts where the non-parlour houses

    687
    would justify a higher rent than the parlour houses would be expected to bring in another part of London.
    The hon. Member spoke about 5 per cent. interest. I do not know about the administration of Manchester, but if Manchester has been paying 5 per cent. then I should say that it is not financially the best administered corporation in the country, because the rate of interest over the whole country is substantially less than 5 per cent. The hon. Member referred to the rents which might be charged. I have never been able to follow the hon. Member's figures. I may be wrong, but I have seen many financial statements on housing from him, and I say, with all deference and with all humility, I have never been able to follow him. I have asked my advisers at the Ministry, who have probably access to as much information as any set of people in this country, what would be the average rent, rates inclusive, in England and Wales, of a house costing £475 all in. I think it will be admitted that £475 is enough, and I think it is more than enough, to pay for these houses. They tell me that the inclusive rent—the average over the whole country—of a £475 house would be 9s. 5d.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does that include repairs and insurance?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It includes everything. It makes the usual allowance for repairs.
    Mr. SIMON: What rate of interest
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not quite sure. It is a varying rate of interest.
    Mr. REMER: Does it include anything for depreciation?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It includes every charge which is put on houses.
    Mr. SAMUEL rose—
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I cannot give way. I am giving the information for what it is worth. The figures are not mine, but are given me by my officials, who will compare with any other set of officials.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman dissect the figures?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: They have given me these figures, and hon. Members can
    688
    take them for what they are worth. Some places are relatively higher, and some places probably lower.
    Mr. SIMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish details of these figures?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: There were certain other questions put to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I cannot give hon. Members any more than the information at my disposal. I have nothing to conceal in the matter, and if the rents are higher, I have nothing to be ashamed of. If the rents were 20s. a week, or if I could bring them down by the figure put by the hon. Member of 1s. 6d. a week, it would only show that was the best I could do, and if anyone else can do better, then I will help him to do it. There is no reason why anyone should say that, because I cannot do everything, therefore I should not do anything.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The 9s. a week is a mathematical impossibility.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Probably I have not the same financial experience as the hon. Member.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: In order to clear this matter up, may I ask is not the figure of 9s. 5d. which the right hon. Gentleman gave just now the figure of the rent after deducting the subsidy?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Oh, yes. Let me take another point, and I think a very pertinent point, raised by the hon. Member who preceded me. He said that under the 1923 Act we had erected a certain number of houses for which the local authority had only the smallest subsidy. He says if these houses are to compete with the new houses the rents will have to be brought down and the local authority will lose and then, asks the hon. Member, what are you going to do with the local authority? He is quite right in saying that the local authorities did raise that point when they interviewed me. I told them that when the loss was proved I would be very pleased to do anything that was in my power to help them, but may I show how little it can possibly be? This Bill is retrospective for houses, the contracts for which were placed on and after 1st February, and this problem applies only to houses built for letting purposes. I suppose I should not be putting it too low if I said that

    689
    the total number of houses that would be affected by this consideration would not exceed 10,000 for the whole country, and we are thinking of a scheme of 2,500,000 houses! Let me deal, in almost my last word, with the argument that we are creating a privileged few. Surely that argument comes late in the day, and comes, surprisingly, from benches occupied by people who have been reformers in this country. Can you tell me of a single reform—I do not know that there is one—which has not benefited a certain section of the people at the expense of another section? We have free elementary education in this country. We tax our bachelors to educate the children.
    Viscountess ASTOR: We do not.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, we tax our bachelors to educate the children of the country, and, indeed, the whole principle on which we carry on social reform in this country must in its very essence begin, unless you begin by giving it to everybody, by giving it to all the people to whom you can afford to give it. While it is perfectly true, here, again, that we cannot build these houses at lower rents for everyone who needs them, surely that is not a conclusive argument why we should not begin to give them to all the people to whom we can afford to give them. My hon. Friend, if he has proved anything, has proved that I have not gone far enough. I assure him that I would like to go further, and I hope the day is not far distant when this country, even from a business point of view, if not from a humanitarian point of view, and if not from a patriotic point of view, will see that it is good, sound business to give healthy housing accommodation to every child born into this land.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon), who moved this Amendment, must feel himself rewarded for having done so, if only for the sake of the speech to which we have just listened from the Minister of Health. I confess that I like the right hon. Gentleman best when he is thinking aloud, when he gives us, as he did just now, a picture of the way in which his mind has worked. It is a picture, I think he will allow me to say, of an honest but a misguided mind, the mind of a man who has sincere ideals and a most earnest
    690
    desire to put right evils which he clearly sees, as all of us do, of course, to be around us, but who has not seen the problem in all its aspects, and who has missed out of his purview, as I think, some important and vital parts of it. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is living largely in a world of delusion. He has a delusion about the effect of the proposals he is making. He suggested that I was quite beside the mark when I failed to see any connection between his proposals and the turning of mechanical and commercial minds to the problem of producing a cheap house. He imagines that the one is the direct result of the other, but I can assure him he is entirely mistaken about that. What is really turning the mind of people to the problem of producing a cheap house is the conviction, which has been growing on them for some time, but which has now become firmly established after seeing the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, that it is impossible to get sufficient skilled labour, and to get that labour applied to the problem of producing houses, a/t any reasonable cost whatever. I now come to the particular Amendment before us
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Hear, hear!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was answering the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Mr. SPENCER: Yes; both the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister have been speaking outside the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I only wish to say that, as far as I am concerned, I do not think it is reasonable of hon. Members to suggest that I was taking up time in going outside the Amendment, when I was merely answering the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had, I thought, put his finger upon some very serious difficulties, and I am bound to say that the Minister in his reply, interesting and charming as it was in many respects, gave no answer to, and found no solution of, the difficulties to which the hon. Member alluded. I am not going to make any calculations as to what would be the particular rents which would be appropriate to the figures which are named as the cost. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures. He says that under the paragraph, which is, I think, paragraph (e), dealing with the way in which the rents are to be fixed—

    691
    and I am bound to say it is very difficult to follow the wording of that paragraph—the rents are to be the ordinary rents that the tenants are now paying, whom he would expect to get the now houses. The local authorities are, then, under these proposals, to be allowed to charge different rents for different classes of houses, and even different rents for the same class of houses in the same locality. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] That is what I understood him to say.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I did not mean that under this provision local authorities would be entitled to charge different rents for the same class of houses in the same locality, but in different localities within the area.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Within the area. But they have one thing in common that is, they will be let at rents which will be lower than the houses of the same type and size in the same locality, namely, those already erected under the Act of last year or before. The effect of that must be, as the hon. Member pointed out, that the rent of the older houses is going to come down. I desire to press the right hon. Gentleman a little bit further on this point. He said that he had made a calculation, and that not more than 10,000 houses at the outset would be affected. That excludes the Addison houses. I am certainly glad to hear him say so definitely that, if the rent of the Addison houses came down, the loss would not fall upon the local authority. I thought that insufficiency of rent charged was one of the causes which would cause the loss to fall upon the local authority. I am rather surprised to hear the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has given. In spite of this, however, I feel some doubt in my mind as to its correctness—whether, if the rents of the Addison houses come down, the loss would not fall upon the local authorities.
    Apart from that, however, there are the 10,000 houses. The right hon. Gentleman asked: "What are they compared with the two and a half millions?" But the 10,000 houses are on the ground. The two and a half millions are in the air! The 10,000 houses have been let, and the local authorities who have built them are receiving rents from them. Take the case of the small district councils
    692
    who have built a limited number of houses in their district, and who have still got another small number to build. It may be only a few houses. They mean a lot to those district councils where, perhaps, it may be, a penny rate is only worth a few hundreds per year. They do want to have a very much more definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman than they have had to-night as to any loss accruing. He may perhaps say that before he can say anything on this point he has to overcome the scruples of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am informed that the scruples of the Chancellor are exceedingly difficult to get over. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, knows that the Association of Municipal Corporations did not take a light view of this matter, for they went on to say, at one of their gatherings, that they must insist on an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he would make up to them any loss they might suffer owing to his scheme.
    If you are going to build houses of the same type and size, in a particular district, or on a particular site, and if you are going to charge very different rents for them, and are going to put very different classes of people into them, then you are going to have trouble—trouble with the people who are already in the existing houses and who will resent the intrusion of people of a very different standard to themselves. They will resist having to live alongside of them, and, as they would say, lover the tone of the district, I am not saving this in any unkindly spirit, but any hon. Member opposite, who know? human nature, will know that I am speaking the perfect truth. I could give a case not very far from here where a Labour council protested against precisely that type of house proposed to be put up by the London County Council in their neighbourhood, the suggestion being that people would come from the East End of London to live in the houses.
    These are practical difficulties that are likely to trip up this scheme, and the local authorities are going to be faced by serious difficulties when they put the scheme into operation. I confess I should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman something not so picturesque but much more concrete as to exactly how the scheme was going to work. I should

    693
    like to have heard from him as to the sort of differences he anticipates are going to exist between the new houses and the old when they are placed side by side, and how he thinks he is going to get over the difficulties that I have pointed out. That, to my mind, would have been more satisfactory, because it would have shown that he had really thought out the genuine difficulties and obstacles of his scheme, and which are likely to wreck it, despite any amount of good will on the part of the local authorities or anybody else.
    I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment, if it were carried, would wreck the Bill. I think it would go to the whole root principle of the Bill. But I think the principle of the Bill is wrong. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading. I dare say I shall vote against it on Third Reading. But I am not going to try to kill the Bill by voting for an Amendment, or by a side wind under the guise of an Amendment, which would kill the whole thing. If it is impossible to fix the rents of these houses at the rents of the houses which are being built under the Act of last year then you do not want a subsidy. You cannot mix up the two things in that sort of way. Either you must have a smaller subsidy as before, or the larger subsidy and bring the rent down to the appropriate figure.
    Mr. SIMON: Or build for larger families.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some local authorities do already build for large families. It does seem to me that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is inopportune; nevertheless, I personally am grateful to him for having given us the opportunity of having a very interesting discussion.
    Mr. FRANKLIN: I am sorry to find myself in entire disagreement with the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon). I think his Amendment will, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Chamberlain) says, have the effect of practically killing the Bill. What is it we are all striving to do? What is it we all have in our minds to achieve? Is it not this, gradually to bring down the rent of the houses of the working classes somehow or other even to pre-War rents. We have at the present time by our Rent Restrictions Act fixed a limit upon the
    694
    rent going beyond a certain figure. Are we Liberals to ask that a limit, a minimum rate, shall be fixed in order that certain localities may prevent for all time to fall in rents. Is that to be the policy of my hon. Friends below the Gangway? If that is their policy then I disassociate myself from it, and this Amendment tends in that direction. To be consistent we should have to prevent any house being built at a lower price than £500, and we should have to prevent anything in the nature of a reduction in the rates. We all have knowledge that there will have to be some sacrifices, and sacrifices will be made by the wealthier classes of investors when such a large amount of money is required for these houses.
    For as the rate of interest goes up, the capital value of your investment falls, and your fortune is reduced in value, but people will be glad to make sacrifices if they can once do away with what has been a grievance and trouble in regard to this problem. We have by some means or another to reach a point when we have sufficient houses at rents which can be paid based on economic principles to enable us to do without the Rent Restrictions Act altogether. I feel definitely that an Amendment of this kind will have the effect of preventing the tenants getting the benefit of lower or cheaper houses. The number of houses, let by the municipal authorities at higher rents, and I take the figures given by the Minister, may not be very large even then but if we can substantially reduce rents it will set the standard for a new state of things, and we shall come somewhere near pre-War economic rents. It is for that reason that I would urge my hon. Friend, after having made his protest, and after having shown the grievance of one side, to consider the other side, and withdraw his Amendment.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I regret that my hon. Friend who has just spoken has thought fit to condemn the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon). If the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin) had understood this question exactly as it stands, I do not think he would have made the criticisms which he has made. We want to ascertain exactly how the rents are to be fixed. I have read

    695
    this Clause again and again, and I say candidly that I do not understand what it means. The Minister of Health spoke about the difficulties experienced by the lay mind. I confess that I have given some time to legal interpretation in my life time, but I do not know what the definition is of "appropriate normal rent." I am quite prepared to say that there is no other hon. Member of the Committee who knows what that means. If there is any hon. Member who knows, I shall be glad if he will stand up and explain it to the Committee. Certainly, the Minister of Health has not done so, and I notice that the Attorney-General is not here. I want to find out a little about it, and that is why this Amendment has been put down. What my hon. Friend has proposed in this Amendment provides a definite standard whereby houses are to be rented, and the Clause puts forward no standard at all. This Clause says, "the rent normally charged in the area of the local authority in the case of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, 1914." What are working-class houses? There is no definition of what is a working-class house. What is it? We have had Bills for the housing of the working classes, but in none of them have we had a definition of a working-class house. Is it to be the rent now charged for those houses, or is it to be the rent charged at the" time the new houses are built? If it is to be the rent charged now, and that is to go on during the period of the duration of this Act, then we are simply stereotyping the 40 per cent. increase provided for under the Rent Restrictions Act. The rent now charged for working-class houses is based upon the standard of rents in 1914 plus 40 per cent. Consequently, I find the Minister of Health in a strange position. If this is to be stereotyped for 40 years, I find him now, in conjunction with his colleagues representing Glasgow, stereotyping an increase of rent which he promised at the last General Election to have removed.
    I would remind the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his colleagues in the representation of Glasgow that they promised at the last General Election that they were going to put an end to the 40 per cent. increase under the Rent Restrictions Act, and we know
    696
    that a Bill was introduced for that purpose. Now we find the Minister of Health and the hon. Member for Bridge-ton supporting a Clause which will stereotype this 40 per cent. increase for a period of 40 years. That is what the Bill does. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] If hon. Members can get the Attorney-General to say that I am wrong I shall be pleased. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot stand anything being said that they do not like. Either my interpretation is a right one or it is not, and if any hon. Member who interrupts me can show it is wrong I am quite prepared to withdraw anything I have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington asked the Minister of Health to say what his proposal means While the right hon. Gentleman indulged in a great deal of noble sentiment about the poor of this country, he could say nothing about the meaning of his own Clause. He did not say whether his Clause meant that the 40 per cent. was to be stereotyped under this Bill. That would not have been so good for his constituents as the noble sentiments which he expressed.
    We have really a clear issue here, namely, whether this Bill is going to be a statutory stereotyping of the 40 per cent. increase under the Rent Restrictions Act. It is as well that the electors of Glasgow should know whether it is or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Penistone!"] Yes or Penistone, although it was not an issue there. If it becomes an issue there I shall be prepared to face it. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart) is on the Front Bench, and perhaps he will be able to give an interpretation on this point, but if he is not, I hope the Attorney-General, before we part from this Clause, will tell us exactly what is the Government view. In my view, the rent normally charged in the area of a local authority for these working-class houses erected prior to the 3rd August, 1914, means now the rent charged under the Rent Restrictions Act. That rent is normally charged now by law. [Interruption.] It is normal at the time of the Act being passed. If the hon. Member would hold his tongues he would not expose his ignorance. The Bill as it stands says
    "is normally charged."

    697
    That means the usual charge at the present time for a working-class house. "Normal" means "usual," and the word "is" refers to the present time. Consequently, the meaning is that the standard is the standard in the Rent Restrictions Act, and if that be the case, the next question that arises is, is this going to be the standard continuously throughout the whole period during which houses are to be built under this Bill. This Clause makes no provision for that. We have to deal with the Clause as it stands, and in the circumstances I maintain that the only meaning is that not only have the houses now being built to be rented at these rents, but also that all the houses built in the 15 years during which houses are to be built are to be rented at the same rent. There is no provision for altering it. If the Minister wants to provide for periodical alterations, it is not provided for in this Clause as it stands.
    The break of three years does not deal with rent at all, but affects the continuance of the building scheme. We are dealing here with the definition of the appropriate normal rent, and there is no provision for altering this standard. The standard is laid down as the rent normally charged for pre-War working-class houses. If I am wrong, it will be quite possible for the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he contemplates the continuance of those Acts. If he does not, we might have an alteration; we might have these houses let on an economic basis before the end of the period; but there is no indication, in the Clause as it stands, that the idea of my hon. Friend who spoke last is to be fulfilled, that we are going to return to the normal economic rent. This Clause anticipates the fixing of the rents during the whole period of the operation of the Bill on an arbitrary basis on this principle, in accordance with rules laid down by the Minister. In these circumstances, I suggest that it is an unfortunate basis, and I hope that before the Bill goes through we shall have a more satisfactory standard.
    Lord E. PERCY: I rise for the purpose of making one correction in something that the Minister has said, in order to make the matter quite clear, and also for the purpose of making one remark on another point that has not yet been
    698
    raised. The Minister said that at the moment the number of houses, other than Addison houses, on which the local authority would stand to lose by a reduction of rents consequent upon this Clause, was 10,000. That, I suppose, means that the Minister is under the impression that he had only approved 10,000 houses under the Chamberlain Act before the 1st February last. It is those houses which are now built that are not to be entitled to the new subsidy. He had done, however, nothing of the kind. He had approved, on paper, over 90,000 by that date; but as I suppose it is not the ones approved on paper that are to be taken for the purposes of this Bill, but the ones approved and definitely arranged for, which have been contracted for, and for which undertakings have been given by the local authorities; but they were not 10,000, but 51,000. I really think the Committee has a right to expect that Ministers will be rather more accurate than that in their figures, when they are dealing with such a very important point as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has shown this to be.
    That is by way of correction. Then there is one phrase in this curious paragraph which has not been mentioned—the phrase "in the aggregate." What does "in the aggregate" mean? Does it mean that the local authority at any time is to lump together all the houses it has built, and say that, as long as the aggregate rent of all those houses, divided by the number of houses, comes out at the average normal rent, whatever that may be, then it does not matter what is the rent of a particular house—that within that aggregate you may have one house at as high a rent as 25s. and another as low as 6s.; that, as long as they are in the aggregate, or, as ordinary people would say, on the average, the normal rent of the surrounding houses, then any rent may be charged for any particular house? If that be so—I am merely asking for information—then what houses are the local authority in the aggregate to lump together? Is it to hump in simply the houses built under this Act—the houses under special conditions—or is it to lump in all the municipal houses built in its area and strike an average of the whole?
    Does "aggregate" mean one of these things or is it the latest legal way of

    699
    naming a rent inclusive of rates? Does it mean that the rent inclusive of rates is to be the average normal rent of the surrounding houses? It is no use the Minister telling us that the best lawyers have been on the job, and that, therefore, it is really all right. As the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has said, we do not want only noble sentiments. We want to know what this Clause means. Up to date the impression left upon my mind is that the Minister knows as little what this Clause means as we do, and I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows as little as I do what the words "in the aggregate" mean.
    Mr. CLIMIE: If one looks at this Amendment, one finds that the name of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is attached to it, but his speech and the speech of the Mover were entirely different. I rather gathered that the hon. Member for Penistone was running away from the attitude taken up by the Mover of the Amendment. Undoubtedly, the Mover of the Amendment wants the rents of the 1924 houses, to be built under the new Act, to be exactly the same as those of the 1923 and the 1919 houses.
    Mr. SIMON: May I just explain? The Amendment is that the local authority, while not being free to charge higher rents, shall be free to charge rents as much lower as they like, and to distribute the money either on all the houses or in any other way.
    Mr. CLIMIE: I think it was suggested that the only practicable way was to make the rents similar. The hon. Member for Penistone runs away from that, and wants to argue that in this Bill the Minister ought to have included an Amendment to the Rent Restrictions Act. That, however, as I understand it, is not the intention of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is to get, houses and let them to the working classes in they districts where they are built, and if it is carried more or less in its present form it will have that effect.
    I want to get back to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. He said that in Manchester the only saving in this extra subsidy would be 1s. 6d. per week. The Minister has pointed out that he never can follow any figures the hon. Member uses when he is discussing the
    700
    housing scheme. I am in a somewhat similar position. I think he is wrong, and I think I can prove him to be wrong. I have here an actual estate which is being built at present under the Chamberlain scheme. The number of houses is 30, of which 18 are four-roomed and 12 three-roomed houses. The average cost works out at £440 all in. The town chamberlain of the town has worked out the charges on the basis of 60 years' repayment. He has worked out the interest for 60 years. He has worked out the feu duties. We are not buying the houses. We are paying an annual feu duty. He has worked out the owners' rates. He has worked out the repairs at 15 per cent. on the rent, bringing out a total expenditure of £970 13s. 4d. That is the total annual rent for the houses. The present rent is, on the average, £25 all in. The rates are 8s. in the £, making a rent of £35. Under the scheme of the Bill the houses could be rented, not at £25, but at £19 on the average. Thirty houses at £19 gives £575. The grant of £9 per house under the scheme gives you £270. The local authority grant of £4 10s. gives £135, bringing out an interest of £980, as against £970 13s. 4d. The rents are £19 on the average. If you add the rates, £19 added to £7 12s. gives you a total rent of £26 12s. all in, or roughly 10s. a week. The rent and rates just now for the houses are 13s. 7d. a week. Under the Bill it would be 10s., giving you a saving per week, not of 1s. 6d. but of 3s. 7d. There is a concrete ease that I put before the Committee, and in my view the Minister is more or less carrying out the promise made by the Prime Minister at the opening of Parliament.
    Mr. RAMSAY MUIR: There is one aspect of this Clause, and the Amendment to it, to which I think we ought to direct our attention a little more closely than we have done. This Clause is drafted as an instruction to local authorities as to the principles on which they are to fix the rents of houses. It is not only an instruction. It is a condition of their receiving any subsidies that they shall fix the rent in accordance with this. We feel that it is really indispensable that a Clause so important and so vital to the working of the whole housing scheme should be framed in such terms that it shall be unmistakably clear and that everyone shall understand what are

    701
    intended to be the principles upon which the rents of houses are fixed under this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you going to vote for the Amendment?"] The main purpose of the Amendment, in favour of which I shall vote if it goes to a Division, is primarily to elicit some clear definition as to what the right hon. Gentleman has described as the very heart of the Bill. We submit that the Bill is intolerable as it stands, and unintelligible. The standard laid down by the local authorities is to be the standard normal rent of working-class houses. What local authority can possibly decide what is meant by a working-class house? Furthermore, the principle that underlies this Amendment is not necessarily that we should stick to the rents in vogue at the present moment, but that whatever we do, we should do our best to get uniformity of rents. I think there is no escape from the validity of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Withington as to the sense of injustice that will be created by the giving of the special privilege of lower rents to a class which, after all, is already well enough off to pay a reasonable rent. It is not the poorest class that can or will be helped by such a rent as this. The main conclusion to which I come is, that this central and vital Clause is so drafted that it will set every local authority in the country at loggerheads among themselves and with one another, and with the Minister of Health, and that it will produce among the various classes of the working community a resentment, intense and growing, as the number of the privileged persons to whom these houses are granted is increased.
    Mr. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) cited a Clause in this Bill which may have a very extraordinary effect. The idea of it apparently is not to judge house by house, but to judge group by groups, and, therefore, if this Clause were passed in the way in which it is framed, you will have to take 50 houses built under this Bill as compared with 50 houses let at a rent which was normal before the 3rd August, 1914, and the rents which will be payable if the houses were let at the "appropriate normal rent." Therefore, if you have 50 houses which were erected before the 3rd August, 1914, which were let at rentals that in the aggregate came to £650 at 10s. a week, then you are to let
    702
    the houses under this scheme at and about an aggregate which will come to £650. You could get that perfectly easily by letting five houses purposing to charge £100 for five of them, £18 a year for one of them, and £3 a year for 44 of them. In that way you would get £650 for the 50 houses, and would be acting within the letter of the Clause, if you did it.
    You might not easily get £100 for the first-named houses, but you would get any number of people to compete for the 44 houses to be let at £3 a year, and the result is that the Minister of Health will achieve his purpose of subsidising those people at the expense of the rest of the community. [Interruption.] I should have thought that what the Minister of Health really wanted to do was to see that these houses were let at a reasonable and normal rent, and if he wants to do that, then the Amendment which has been moved will achieve that end. Under those circumstances, quite apart from the interests of justice, and in the interests of trying to get a Clause into the Act of Parliament which will be reasonable, I think it is far better to vote for the Amendment than for the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I submit that the origin of this Clause arises in the practical difficulties that have arisen in many local authorities, especially in industrial areas, to get the rents from their tenants of the houses which were put up under the 1919 and 1923 Acts. The experience of many local authorities is that the amount charged the community of the subsidised houses has been altogether out of proportion to the actual cost arising through the larger space or the additional rooms, and I submit that out of those difficulties the Clause as arisen in the present Bill to enable local authorities to let houses under the 1924 Act at a lesser figure than the pre-War rentals would otherwise have justified. I submit the difficulty has arisen in the differentiation which, apparently, arises between the rent to be charged under the Addison houses and the rents to be charged under the 1923 Act houses. I want to put to the Minister the necessity of meeting the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, that if there is a loss through the necessity of making these rents of smaller houses of the same level, he should take steps

    703
    to put into his Bill the necessary Clause in order to relieve the authorities of this extra charge. That would do away with the main difficulties raised by the hon. Member for Withington, who objects to the creation of a privileged class. It is foreign to the ideas of justice, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, when the time comes, to look with favour and accept the Amendment put down as a new Clause on behalf of the Municipal Corporations Association which makes it clear the reduction in rent which would follow from making the rent the same for the class of house. Therefore I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to make it quite clear that as far as a reduction in rent has to take place in order to equalise the rent charges for various classes of houses the locality will not be penalised, as it otherwise would be, as regards the 1923 houses. I submit whether the figure is £10,000 or £80,000 it is only right that the Minister should relieve the local authorities of the loss which otherwise they would sustain in the reduction of rents which is bound to take place. You cannot have a privileged class. You must have the same level for all rents for the same class of houses. I hope the Minister will be able to meet us on that point. With regard to the question of subsidies for rent it is too late in the day to quarrel with that. We have been paying these subsidies for some years and we have found that the poorest of the poor, although they need it most, have not been getting the advantage of the State money voted for that purpose. It is only right that in the Bill care should be taken that those whose need is the greatest should get their fair share of the assistance granted from the public purse.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I wish to deal with one point which was constantly reiterated in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). The greater part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was a statement to the effect that Section (3) of Clause 3 really amounted to a stereotyping of rents on the basis of existing rents under the Rent Restriction Act. There is nothing in the Clause that would lead a layman to believe that that was the case The rent to be charged is the appropriate normal rent; it is the rent
    704
    normally charged in the area for working-class houses at the time. The hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised the word "is," which he informed the Committee referred to the present year, and he said that next year if the appropriate normal rent is not the same as it is to-day because of an alteration in the Rent Restriction Act, then that will be the rent to which the local authorities will have to have regard when determining what, for the purposes of this Act, will be the appropriate normal rent.
    The appropriate normal rent at any time will be the average working-class rent at that time for pre-war houses. I now propose to deal with the question raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). The Noble Lord attempted a correction. I am sorry he is not here, because I want to correct his correction. When my right hon. Friend referred to 10,000 houses provided for before 1st February last he was referring to houses being built by local authorities which would come within the operation of this Bill. It is perfectly true, as the Noble Lord stated, that 51,000 houses had been arranged for, but the vast majority of those houses were houses to be built by private builders for sale, and they therefore would not come within the scope of the present Bill.
    The Noble Lord asked for an explanation of the term "in the aggregate." I do not think that should present any special difficulty. Let the hon. Member assume that a town has a scheme for building 200 houses. The meaning of the phrase is that the total rent charged for the 200 houses shall not be more than the rent charged for 200 working-class houses before the War. Clearly in a scheme of that sort you will have houses of different sizes, and different rents will have to be charged. There is no attempt here to lay down a standard rent dependent upon whether the house is of three bedrooms, or with or without a parlour. You have to get at a rough approximation the equivalent of the existing rent for pre-War houses, and therefore it is necessary to take the estate as a whole, and to compare the total rents from that estate.
    Mr. GREENE: If there is a larger demand for the more expensive houses, will not building in that area automatically come to an end as soon as the

    705
    demand for the cheaper type of houses is satisfied?
    Mr. BLUNDELL: Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that in a block of 200 houses the houses will be of different sizes?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Anybody who is familiar with the subject knows there would be different classes of houses. There may be an alteration in the demand for different houses, but that does not affect my argument. If it be that there are 200 houses of the larger size, then, the aggregate rent will still have to be no more than the aggregate rent of 200 working-houses built before the War.
    Mr. GREAVES-LORD: May I ask—[Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister has given way to the hon. Member. [Interruption.] Mr. Greaves-Lord is in possession of the Committee.
    Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Take the illustration of 200 houses, let at 10s. per week. The aggregate rents from them would be £5,200 a year. What is to prevent the landlord saying, "I will for one house charge £5,001 per year"—
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to make another speech?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is asking a question of the Minister.
    Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Assuming that the aggregate rents of the 200 houses is £5,200 a year, what is there to prevent the authority saying we will charge £5,001 a, year for one house—which, of course, they will never get—and for the other 199 houses we will only charge £1? The aggregate will still be £5,200.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Chiefly common sense. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us have a proper answer!"] You cannot give a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question. I should like to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. R. Muir) and his reference to privileged persons. [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: It is very much out of order to interrupt.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not going to sit down.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can only speak if he rises to a point of Order.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am rising to a point of Order, and I protest against—[Interruption.]
    Mr. MAXTON: My point of Order is, to ask whether there is one kind of etiquette for the other side of the House and another kind for this?
    The CHAIRMAN: So far as I am concerned, I see no difference in the etiquette of one side of the House from the other.
    Viscount WOLMER: On that point of Order. Is it not within the right of an hon. Member who has possession of the Floor to give way or refuse to give way to another hon. Member who wishes to make an interjection, and it is not a breach of courtesy for an hon. Member to exercise that right?
    The CHAIRMAN: In the one case the hon. Gentleman, so far as I saw, did not give way, and I did not insist that he should. In the other case, the Minister did give way. Therefore the hon. and learned Member for Norwood is in order.
    Mr. FERGUSON: On a point of Order I would like if you would try to keep those lambs in order.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for Rochdale several times referred to privileged persons. That, I think, is not a fair way of putting what we have in view in this Bill When the Act of last year was passed enabling persons to purchase houses with the assistance of a Government subsidy, there was never any argument used that they were privileged persons. In this Bill we are dealing in the aggregate, over 15 years, with a programme for 2,500,000 houses. It is preposterous to regard the people who will occupy those houses as a small group of privileged persons. What we are attempting to do is to fill a gap that has never been filled before, and to do it in a way that is reasonable. Because a large number of working people have to pay too high rents for very poor houses is no reason why, under a housing scheme, assisted by public money, those who occupy the houses should be fined, so to speak because of the misfortune of their fellows. I ask the hon. Member for Rochdale to believe that, if it were within our power to give all people in this country decent houses to live in at reasonable rents, we should be glad to do so. The hon. Member for

    707
    Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) pressed with great sincerity the claims of his Amendment. That hardly arises here, but should be dealt with on Clause 5, and I hope he will wait until the discussion on that Clause takes place, when my right hon. Friend will give it careful consideration. As the Debate has been going on a good long time, and we have not made as yet very substantial progress, I hope I may ask the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) whether he is prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member, in reply to a question which I put twice to him during the course of his speech, said he would answer later on. I put the question to him whether, in contemplation of Sub-section (3), the appropriate normal rent was to be revised every year.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Not every year, but it will be revised as the rents change. That may not be in a year; it may be three years. I cannot say.
    Mr. SIMON: I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Health. He has characterised my Amendment as a vital or wrecking Amendment—I forget the exact words—and I want to say that it is not intended to be anything o£ the sort. I am, and I believe everyone on these benches is, just as anxious as he is to get houses built for every single child born in this country to have a chance of growing up in the best possible surroundings. I venture to think I Have devoted as much time to work on housing in the last four years as anyone here. This is an Amendment honestly moved, because I believe it is the best way of working towards the object we all, I believe, have in common. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that, under my Amendment, part of the subsidy might not be necessary, and might be pocketed by the local authorities. That is the last thing I desire. Every penny of the subsidy available ought to go to the tenant, but not necessarily to every tenant. My only object is to give the local authorities freedom to use the money available under this Bill in such a way as to be of the greatest advantage to those for whom they build houses. If the object can be better secured by other words, will the right hon. Gentleman see if he can produce another form of words by the Report stage?
    Viscount CURZON: Right through the discussion we have seen the same attitude taken up by hon. Members opposite. On practically every Amendment the first two or three speakers opposite breathe fire and thunder. Then one or two try to find a loophole for the Minister, and finally withdraw every Amendment. I do not know why they put the Amendments on the Paper. The point to which I should like to address myself is the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves Lord). He put a reasonable question to the Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary in reply said that it was an unreasonable question. It is not unreasonable; it is a perfectly reasonable question. An exorbitant figure might be put upon some houses and a ridiculous figure put upon some; other houses. I want to get a reply from the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary, if he will condescend to address himself seriously to the point, as to what there is in the Bill to prevent such a thing happening. That is a serious and legitimate question, to which he has failed to give a reply. He said that he wants to provide a decent house at a decent rent. Every hon. Member wants to do that, but when my hon. and learned Friend puts a serious question he is unable to get an answer. As the Parliamentary Secretary has failed to answer, I would ask the Minister to give an answer.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I rise to acknowledge the spirit displayed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon). I appreciate the spirit that prompted him to move the Amendment, but I can assure him and my assurance has been confirmed by the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), that whatever be his intention in moving the Amendment it undoubtedly strikes a fatal blow at the Bill. He does not want to do that. If any other way can be found to achieve the object he has in view, without interfering in this way with the method of fixing rent, I should be very pleased if we can find it. Under the circumstances, I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
    Viscount CURZON: Can you not answer the point we have put?
    Mr. REMER rose—
    Mr. WHEATLEY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided. Ayes, 242; Noes, 113.

    Division No. 163.]

    AYES.

    [9.59 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Alden, Percy

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Haycock, A. W.

    Owen, Major G.

    Alstead, R.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, W.

    Amman, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Perry, S. F.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Henderson, W, W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Baker, Walter

    Hillary, A. E.

    Potts, John S.

    Banton, G.

    Hindle, F.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Barnes, A.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Black, J. W.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Raynes, W. R.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Rea, W. Russell

    Bonwick, A.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Briant, Frank

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Ritson, J.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Buchanan, G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Buckie, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Charleton. H. C.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Clarke, A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Royle, C.

    Climie, R.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Keens, T.

    Scurr, John

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Sexton, James

    Cove, W. G.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)

    Lansbury, George

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)

    Crittall, V. G.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Law, A.

    Smillie, Robert

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Leach, W.

    Snell. Harry

    Dickson, T.

    Lessing, E.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Dodds, S. R.

    Linfield, P. C.

    Spence, R.

    Duckworth, John

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lowth, T.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Dukes, C.

    Lunn, William

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Duncan, C.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Dunnico, H.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mackinder, W.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    England, Colonel A.

    Maden, H.

    Sullivan, J.

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Sunlight, J.

    Franklin, L. B.

    March, S.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Marley, James

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Terrington, Lady

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Maxton, James

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Gillett. George M.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Gorman, William

    Middleton, G.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gosling, Harry

    Millar, J. D.

    Tout, W. J.

    Greenall, T.

    Mills, J. E.

    Turner, Ben

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Montague, Frederick

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Morris, R. H.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Viant, S. P.

    Groves, T.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Vivian, H.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morse, W. E.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Muir, John W.

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Murray, Robert

    Welsh, J. C.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Murrell, Frank

    Westwood, J.

    Hardle, George D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Nichol, Robert

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Nixon, H.

    Whiteley, W.

    711

    Wignall, James

    Willison, H.

    Wright, W.

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Windsor, Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Warne.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Gates. Percy

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas.C.)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Philipson, Mabel

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pielou, D. P.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Rankin, James S.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Remer, J. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Harland, A.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Savery, S. S.

    Burman, J. B.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S)

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cope, Major William

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Lumley, L. R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Mac Donald, R.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Elveden, Viscount

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ferguson, H.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Sir Kingsley Wood.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 116.

    Division No. 164.]

    AYES.

    [10.8 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Cove, W. G.

    Groves, T.

    Alden, Percy

    Crittall, V. G.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Darbishire, Charles W.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Alstead, R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Dickson, T.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Baker, Walter

    Dodds, S. R.

    Hardie, George D.

    Banton, G.

    Dukes, C.

    Harms worth Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Duncan, C.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Barnes, A.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Black, J. W.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Bonwick, A.

    Fletcher, Lieut. Com. R. T. H.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Franklin, L. B.

    Henderson. A. (Cardiff, South)

    Briant, Frank

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Broad, F. A.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Henderson. W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Gavan- Duffy, Thomas

    Hillary, A. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Buchanan, G.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Buckle, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Hoffman, P. C,

    Cape, Thomas

    Gorman, William

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Hudson, J. H.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Greenall, T.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Clarke, A.

    Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Climie, R.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis

    Jewson, Dorothea

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Murrell, Frank

    Sullivan, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sunlight, J.

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W. Derby)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Nichol, Robert

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Nixon, H.

    Terrington, Lady

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Keens, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Paling, W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Perry, S. F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Tout, W. J.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Turner, Ben

    Law, A.

    Potts, John S.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Lawson, John James

    Raffety, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Leach, W.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Vivian, H.

    Lessing, E.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Linfield, F C.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lowth, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Warne, G. H.

    Lunn, William

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Robertson, T. A.

    Welsh, J. C.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Westwood, J.

    Mackinder, W.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Romeril, H. G.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Maden, H.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Royle, C.

    Wignall, James

    March, S.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Marley, James

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Scurr, John

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Sexton, James

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Maxton, James

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Willison, H.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Smillie, Robert

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Middleton, G.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Millar, J. D.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Windsor, Walter

    Mills, J. E.

    Snell, Harry

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Montague, Frederick

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Morris, R. H.

    Spence, R.

    Wright, W.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Morse, W. E.

    Stephen, Campbell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. John

    Muir, John W.

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Robertson.

    Murray, Robert

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    NOES.

    Alnsworth, Captain Charles

    Ferguson, H.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W.(Glas.C)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gates, Percy

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pielou, D. P.

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Harland, A.

    Rankin, James S.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Burman, J. B.

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Remer, J. R.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Ropner, Major L.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cope, Major William

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islington,N.)

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Lamb, J. O.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    MacDonald, R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Duckworth, John

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Elvedon, Viscount

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    England, Colonel A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Fade, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Meller, R. J.

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    714

    715

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wells, S. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Lieut.-

    Ward, Lt. Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Colonel Sir Joseph Nall.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move in page 4, line 25, to leave out the words "the expenses," and to insert instead thereof the words "the estimated annual expenses to be."
    This Amendment will, I think, cover the points raised by later Amendments, and it will cover the points referred to in the next two Amendments. As this Amendment is in the nature of a drafting Amendment intended to make the meaning of the Bill clearer than it was, I hope that the Committee will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move in page 4, line 26, to leave out the words "the provision of."
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the Committee should know why these words are being left out. I can understand the words "the provision of the houses." There might be expenses in connection with houses, but not expenses relating to building. I do not object to the Amendment, but I think we should know why the change is being made.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The first Amendment was framed in order to cover all those expenses to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. This Amendment relates only to the words "the provision of."
    Mr. REMER: I think that the Committee should receive a fuller explanation of these points. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should come here with a properly prepared brief in order to explain what these Amendments mean, and, in the absence of a proper explanation, I think this matter should be left over to be dealt with on the Report stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out the words "not less than."
    We desire to leave out these words for this comparatively simple reason. We desire to fix the period at 40 years, and, therefore, these words will have to be
    716
    eliminated. We desire the period to be neither more nor less than 40 years, but just 40 years.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the words "and then", and to insert instead thereof the words
    "or in the case of houses affected by any Order made by the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health which decreases the amount of the contributions payable or curtails the period for which such contributions are to be payable an amount equivalent to such proportion of the four pounds ten shillings a year payable for a period of forty years as the amount find period of the contributions when so decreased or curtailed bears to the amount and period of the contributions as fixed by this Act, and then in either case."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that when, as a result of the triennial re-estimates of the expenses incurred in connection with these schemes, the sum of £9 is reduced, there shall be a proportionate reduction in the amount of £4 10s. provided by the local authority. Obviously it is only fair that where there is a reduction in the tot al sum contributed out of public funds that, reduction should be equally divided as between the amount from the rates and the amount from the taxes. I move this Amendment on behalf of the Municipal Corporations Association.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to suggest to the hon. Member that this Amendment has been put down in the wrong place. This Clause merely deals with the question of special conditions, and any question relating to the financial aspect of the Bill and the revision of contributions ought really to come on Clause 5.
    Mr. THOMSON: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the guidance he has offered, and I give notice that I shall endeavour to move this Amendment on Clause 5. I will now withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at the end, to insert a new paragraph—
    "(f) that, subject to the limitations laid down in paragraph (e) as to the rent

    717
    chargeable in the aggregate, the local authority shall where practicable discriminate between the rental charged to occupiers having children living with and dependent on thorn and those without such dependent children in such a way as to lower the rent charged to occupiers with such children, in proportion to their number."
    The object of this Amendment is to direct local authorities, where practicable, in administering the subsidy given under this Bill, to give a preference to those cases where there are large numbers of children dependent on the parents. The right hem. Gentleman said the other day that he wanted, if possible, these houses to be left to the people who built them, which was not possible for the best kind of houses under the 1923 Act. I think he is wrong in that. If you take a bricklayer who has no children, he is perfectly able to afford to live in one of the 15s. houses to which I refer. As soon as he has three or four dependent children, he comes to the time when it becomes important to have a three-bedroomed house, and he suddenly finds he cannot afford it. The paradox of the housing situation in this country is that the parents of young children, just those who most need a good-sized, well-situated and, if possible, well-planned house with garden, are the very ones who cannot afford it. May I illustrate that by looking at the position in Manchester? Manchester we hove a great majority of only two-bedroomed houses, and for that reason we are building nothing but three-bedroomed houses now, and I think every local authority in the country is doing the same. Every local authority begins by passing resolutions, saying that they will let these houses and give preference to tenants with large families, but I believe every local authority has had the experience that there is any number of applicants with large families, but that when it comes to paying the rent they are just those who cannot afford it. The result is that three-bed roomed houses are being-occupied by people with no children, and those with large families are still crowded in the pre-War two-bedroomed houses, a situation which everyone will admit is absurd, and which we ought to remedy, if we can.
    In Manchester, so anxious were we to afford proper accommodation for large families, that we built a number of
    718
    houses with four bedrooms, but we were incapable of finding working-class people with large families who could live in them, so that there are more than half of them occupied now by families who could house their children perfectly well in two-bedroomed houses. That is what is happening under the present system. Hon. Members who are members of housing committees or anyone who has had experience of the kind can state that that is what is happening all over the country.
    The Minister of Health has proposed increased subsidies, which as I tried to show, amount to 1s. 6d. per week per house. I did my best to follow the figures given by an hon. Member below the gangway, but I regret that I could not. The figures, however, are perfectly simple. The present value of the increased subsidy given by the right hon. Gentleman, £80, means, in effect, £4 a year, which is 1s. 6d. a week. That spread over the weekly tenants is going to do very little for them, but if you leave the matter to the local authority, as proposed by my resolution, for the money to be given where the need is greatest, to families of three, four and five children, then you would be doing something for the next generation. You would be taking a step to give these children a fair chance of growing up in good houses, rather than crowding them into two-roomed houses. I appeal to the House to give a serious consideration to this Amendment, and to pass it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry to oppose this Amendment. One of the strongest criticisms against the private house owner to-day is because of his indisposition to provide housing accommodation for a family, especially where there is a large family. While I cannot, for several reasons, accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Withington, one of which is that it would involve such an amount of investigation that I rim satisfied no local authority would operate the provision—and I question whether the hon. Gentleman himself would like to pursue all the investigation suggested by his Amendment—while, I say that, I may add that there is an Amendment on the Paper lower down which I think, with some alteration, will make it that reasonable preference will be given to large families.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member in order in moving an Amendment which he does not intend to press? [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, Oh! "and Interruption.]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members will allow me to listen to the point of Order.
    Sir J. NALL: I put this point of Order for this reason: On the last Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Withington he ran away when it came to a Division. I acted as a Teller, and hon. Members having spoken one way, voted another. It is for that reason that I put the question whether it is in order for hon. Members to continue to move Amendments which they do not intend to press?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not unusual for hon. Members to move Amendments, and then, after discussion, to ask leave to withdraw them.
    Mr. SIMON: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman. It is not only that reasonable preference should be given in the case of large families, but that they should be given some other preference. That is the object of the Amendment—to enable the local authority, if it thinks well, to discriminate in the rent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: I ask the hon. Member who moved this Amendment not to withdraw it, because I think it raises a point of great importance and substance. The Amendment the Minister has proposed means nothing whatever, and merely expresses a pious opinion, while the proposal before the Committee not only expresses a pious wish, but lays down some means of carrying it into effect. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Member opposite to carry his Amendment to a Division, and I feel certain in all parts of the Committee there will be found a large number of hon. Members in sympathy with his proposal.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: For once in a way I find myself in some measure of agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The words which the Minister of Health wishes to substitute for this Amendment are very vague in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman talks now about a preference being
    720
    given to those with large families. They might all be children or grown up. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends opposite, of course, are the children of somebody, but I sometimes doubt if they are all grown up. I think all sections of the Committee are anxious to give preference to the families of young children. [Laughter.] I mean families consisting of young children. I know the House can only understand language of the simplest character, but may I make it plain by saying we wish to give a preference to families consisting of young children of school age and younger.
    I think the Amendment, which has been moved is somewhat vague, but it is certainly an improvement on the words suggested by the Minister. This is an attempt to adjust rents according to the ability of the heads of families to pay, a principle with which I am in complete sympathy, but which, nevertheless, is undiluted Socialism. This is a Socialist Bill, and I do not think this Amendment is out of harmony with the declared intentions of the Minister of Health, and for these reasons I ask him to reconsider the advisability of accepting it. It may need clarifying, but that can be done by introducing certain words on Report. For these reasons I shall vote for this Amendment.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I do hope the Committee will not, in any moment of hasty excitement, rush into the Lobby in support of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon). This Amendment opens up an enormously large question. If we are once going to consider the size of families in dealing with rents, where are we going to stop? We know that many earnest social reformers advocate that wages should be regulated by the size of families, and we know that hon. Members opposite—I think quite rightly—are opposed to that proposal. I think the Minister of Health is perfectly right in saying that the administrative difficulties o in the way of this proposal would be enormous, and that the local authorities would not willingly accept this task and although this Amendment may appeal to many sentimentalists, yet, from the point of view of reasonable practical politics, it is quite impossible, and certainly is not an Amendment that should be dealt with in a discussion of half an hour late in the evening.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is on the same principle as the Income Tax.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the Minister of Health resists the Amendment, I certainly, and I hope many others who agree with me, will support him in the Lobby.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I support this Amendment, which I think is on very good lines. We know that there has been a great deal of discrimination in the past so far as the proprietors of houses are concerned, in actually giving preference to those who are without families, and complaints have been made about that stipulation many a time. The point raised by this Amendment is one that ought to be very heartily supported from the Labour Benches. The objection that is taken with regard to investigation is not at all a serious one, because, as matters stand now, an adjudication does proceed on the part of house proprietors who investigate the circumstances of those who desire to come into these new houses, and all sorts of questions are asked of those who apply for them. If we cannot see our way to meet a case of this kind, it seems to me that we are losing a very valuable opportunity of helping those struggling people with families whom the Minister of Health would naturally have in view. We need not worry at all about the question of discrimination, because that process is going on at present. This is a far more substantial Amendment than it might be thought to be, and, in spite of any little difficulties that there may be in regard to it, I feel that the Minister ought to accept it, whatever variations may be suggested in its wording.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot think that the Committee has really appreciated what this Amendment means. I can understand that some of my hon. Friends are carried away by a desire, which we all have, to see the population of the country well and adequately housed, but let us really think what this Amendment means. It is an Amendment which, surely, ought to receive very grave consideration, as it would involve an extreme alteration of our whole economic system. Such an alteration may come some day, or it; may not, but really at present it is an impossible suggestion.
    722
    Consider for a moment what it means. The Bill itself creates a privileged class of work-people who will get these houses provided under the Bill, which are to be let at privileged rents to those who are fortunate enough to obtain them. This Amendment goes further, and says that, under certain circumstances, certain members of the working classes who have larger families than others are to have a still higher privilege against all the rest of the working classes, apart altogether from other sections of the operation. These subsidy houses will not be in great numbers within the first few years. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is 150,000 the first year and 250,000 spread over the country in the next few years. The great bulk of the population will continue to be housed for many years in non-subsidy houses whether they have large or small families, and you are going to ask that we should order the whole of our economic system to give a certain privileged rent, whatever it may be. I do not think the hon. Member would even suggest the amount of the rent, but proposed to leave it to the local authorities. If the second Amendment is carried the local authority will be requested by Parliament to give a privilege and a preference to people with large families, but the first Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Withington merely says they may be at liberty to charge a less rent. Some local authorities may do it and some may not. You will have the greatest confusion all over the country. You will have authority A pauperising a man with a large family, and authority B saying, "No, we are not bound to carry the Section out, and we are not going to." It would really not be for the welfare of the working classes themselves that such an invidious distinction should be placed upon them. I hope the Committee will be governed by sanity rather than by sentiment.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The Minister has asked the Committee—and I am sure they sympathise with his view—to take this Amendment seriously. It really is a remarkable thing that in all the Housing Bills which have been introduced, many of them by hon. Members opposite and some at least by a Minister from hon. Members below the Gangway, such a suggestion as this has never even

    723
    been contemplated. Now we have an Amendment moved by an hon. Member below the Gangway and supported by Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes."] Think what it means. We may be pardoned for thinking that at least some hon. Members opposite support it in the hope that it may cause some difficuty to the Minister. I invite the Committee seriously to consider what sort of investigation would necessarily follow this if it was put into the Bill. Here is a family of comparatively poor people who desire to have a house and the local authority would be permitted to discriminate, having regard to the number of the members of the family and whether they were dependent or not. Think what it would mean. Presumably they would be inspectors having to go round and ask whether or not there was in fact an increase in the family. It has already been pointed out that these tenancies would vary, in many cases, from week to week, and inquiries would be made as to whether children continued to be dependent. [Interruption.] The hon. and gailant Member for Central Hull has said that would only arise once. It would arise at every
    moment when the new letting may arise, and in the case of a weekly tenancy it would arise every Monday morning. There can be no end to inquiries. I am convinced the Committee cannot afford to pass an Amendment of this kind. I do really and sincerely suggest that the Bill would be stultified by putting in such an ill-digested Amendment.
    Several hon. Members having rised—
    Mr. WHEATLEY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division.
    Viscountess ASTOR: On a point of Order. I really have been seated in this House for five hours waiting to speak on this Amendment, and I think it to little hard that a Division should be called without giving me a chance.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 159.

    Division No. 165.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Dickson, T.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Duckworth, John

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W.(Glas.C.)

    Dukes, C.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex. Enfld.)

    Alstead, R.

    Duncan, C.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Hindle, F.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dunnico, H.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Baker, Walter

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Banton, G.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Barnes, A.

    England, Colonel A.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Jackson, R. F (Ipswich)

    Black, J. W.

    Franklin, L. B.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Bonwick, A.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Gates, Percy

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Briant, Frank

    Gavan-Duffy. Thomas

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool.W. Derby)

    Broad, F. A.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Buchanan, G.

    Gosling, Harry

    Jowitt, W. A (The Hartlepools)

    Buckle, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph W.

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lansbury, George

    Church, Major A. G.

    Groves, T.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Clarke, A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Law, A.

    Climie, R.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lawson, John James

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Leach, W.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Lessing. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hardie, George D.

    Lunn, William

    Crittall, V. G.

    Harris, Percy A.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Darbishire, Charles W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    MacDonald, R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    McEntee, V. L.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Macpherson, Ht. Hon. James I.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    March, S.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Thurtle, E.

    Marley, James

    Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Ritson, J.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Masterman, Fit. Hon. C. F. G.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

    Tout, W. J.

    Maxton, James

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Turner, Ben

    Meller, R. J.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Middleton, G.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Millar, J. D.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Mills, J. E.

    Royle, C.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Montague, Frederick

    Scurr, John

    Warne, G. H.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Sexton, James

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Morse, W. E.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Smillie, Robert

    Westwood, J.

    Muir, John W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Murray, Robert

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Murrell, Frank

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Whiteley, W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Snell, Harry

    Wignall, James

    Nichol, Robert

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Nixon, H.

    Spence, R.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Owen, Major G.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Willison, H.

    Paling, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Perry, S. F.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Windsor, Walter

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Wright, W.

    Potts, John S.

    Sullivan, J.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Sunlight, J.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen

    Raynes, W. R.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Parkinson.

    Rea, W. Russell

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Dodds, S. R.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Astor, Viscountess

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Eyrts Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Ferguson, H.

    Maden, H.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Becker, Harry

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gorman, William

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Morris, R. H.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Burman, J. B.

    Harland, A.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Philipson, Mabel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Pielou, D, P.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Raffan, P. W.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland,North)

    Remer, J. R.

    Cope, Major William

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Robertson, T. A.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Keens, T.

    Savery, S. S.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lamb, J. O.

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Linfield, F. C.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    726

    727

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Col. Herbert H.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Stanley, Lord

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Vivian, H.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Wells, S. R.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Sir

    Terrington, Lady

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Kingsley Wood.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 317.

    Division No. 166.]

    AYES.

    [11.4 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Remer, J. R.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Keens, T.

    Robertson, T. A.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Linfield, F. C.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Maden, H.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Millar, J. D.

    Terrington, Lady

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Mills, J. E.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morris, R. H.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Murrell, Frank

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Raffan, P. W.

    Viscountess Astor and Mr. Hayday.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Franklin, L. B.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Clarke, A.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W.(Glas, C)

    Climie, R.

    Gates, Percy

    Alstead, R.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Ammen, Charles George

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Ayles, W. H.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gillett, George M.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cope, Major William

    Gorman, William

    Banton, G.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Gosling, Harry

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Cove, W. G.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Barnes, A.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)

    Greenall, T.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Crittall, V. G.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Batey, Joseph

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Becker, Harry

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Groves, T.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Black, J. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Guinness, Lieut. Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Bonwick, A.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Briant, Frank

    Dickson, T.

    Hardie, George D.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Dodds, S. R.

    Harland, A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Doyle Sir N. Grattan

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Duckworth, John

    Harris, Percy A.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Dukes, C.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Buchanan, G.

    Duncan, C.

    Hartshorn, Rt Hon. Vernon

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Buckie, J.

    Dunnice, H.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    England, Colonel A.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Ferguson, H.

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Hindle, F.

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Hodge, Lieut. Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Col. Herbert H.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Muir, John W.

    Stanley, Lord

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)

    Nichol, Robert

    Stewart, J, (St. Rollox)

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Hudson, J. H.

    Nixon, H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Sturrock, J. Long

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Sullivan, J.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sunlight, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Owen, Major G.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Paling, W.

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Perry, S. F.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Thurtle, E.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Potts, John S.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Purcell, A. A.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Tout, W. J.

    Lansbury, George

    Rathbone, Hugh R.

    Turner, Ben

    Laverack, F. J.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Law, A.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Vivian, H.

    Lawson, John James

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Leach, W.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Lessing, E.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Ritson, J.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Lunn, William.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wells, S. R.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Westwood J.

    MacDonald, R.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Wignall, James

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Royle, C.

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Savery, S. S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    March, S.

    Scurr, John

    Willison, H.

    Marley, James

    Sexton, James

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Windsor, Walter

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesday)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Smillie, Robert

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Meller, R. J.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Wright, W.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Middleton, G.

    Snell, Harry

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Montague, Frederick

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Spence, R.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Morse, W. E.

    Mr. E. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at the end, to insert the words
    "(f) that reasonable preference shall be given to large families in letting the houses."
    These are the words suggested by the Minister of Health.
    Viscountess ASTOR: It is all very well for the Minister of Health to accept the Amendment, but he knows that the local authorities can get round it. In Liverpool they provided that the 6,000 houses erected under the Addison scheme were not to be let to families with fewer than three children and preference was to be
    730
    given to large families, but the greater number of houses have been let to married couples with one child. What I object to is that the Minister has not faced the two pressing problems of slum clearances and houses for large families. It is not right to say that workmen are not in the Chamberlain houses. They are, but they are workmen with small families. Some hon. Members have said that the last Amendment would do away with the whole economic system of the country, but if you do not do something about the slum areas and the large families you will do away more quickly still with the whole

    731
    economic system of the country. I am certain that the Minister wants to solve the housing question. I am not saying that he is not interested in large families. I am certain that he is. He has spoken eloquently on this subject. He has made our hearts ache and drawn tears from our eyes and yet he does not face the problem of trying to get houses for the workers with large families. He has spoken of private enterprise. Private enterprise is not going to produce houses for workers with large families. Men who have worked hard all their lives and put their money into houses cannot be expected to let them to families of eight. It is not reasonable to expect them. They cannot face the repairs. We all know that an enormous number of the houses which will not be let to large families are owned by working people. In my own constituency there are many labouring men owning small houses. We all know that human nature is very much the same in all classes, and you cannot expect these people to let their houses to large families. This is a problem which we have to face. I am willing to do anything to get these children out of the appalling conditions in which they live. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken advantage of his opportunity. He has a majority if he would use it, but the Attorney-General points out that the rents would have to be collected weekly and that—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I think the Noble Lady is trying now to make the speech which she would like to have made on the previous Amendment.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I do not wish to dispute the ruling of the Chair, but you know perfectly well how this Debate has rambled—
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady should not make that observation.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I protest. Everybody in the Committee has been saying that it was the Minister of Health—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lady persists in her statement, I shall have to ask her to resume her seat.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I do not question the ruling of the Chair. I will not get on to the last Amendment, but I submit that this Amendment, though it may sound well, is not going to do anything. In spite of the fact that we belong to what is called the "reactionary" party, there are hon. Members on this side who would do anything to get these families into houses, but this Amendment is not going to do it. I stand here as a protest against the Minister's failure to face the problems of slum clearance and housing for large families. I am willing to admit that private enterprise has failed in these things, but it has not failed so lamentably as the Minister of Health and Socialism. I ask the Minister of Health when he goes to the country, to tell the people honestly that he could not do any more than he has done, not because of the Opposition in the House of Commons but because—[HON. Members: "Order!"]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Noble Lady had better resume her seat.
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lady not entitled to show that the present Bill does not deal with these matters.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady is not in Order in continuing to argue that the Minister of Health should have accepted an Amendment on which the Committee has already passed its decision.
    Captain ELLIOT: Surely the Noble Lady is entitled to show that the present Amendment does not go far enough.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lady was speaking on that point, she was quite in Order, and I did not call her to Order on that point at all.
    Viscountess ASTOR: On a point of Order. I was trying to speak to this Amendment. I was really trying to do so.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady may have been trying to do so, but I called her to Order, and warned her.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "reasonable."
    I put it to the Committee that the word "reasonable" is not the kind of

    733
    word which should appear in a Bill of this sort. It should simply state that a preference is to be given to large families, [f the word "reasonable" is allowed to pass this Committee, any local authority that does not wish to give preference to large families has a large loophole through which to escape its obligations. If the word "reasonable" is in, I think it will be impossible to interpret it, and it depends on the local committee as to what their interpretation of the word "reasonable" will be. If the word is left out, a preference must be given, and that surely is what we want.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I plead that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment should be accepted. It is a well-known fact that even local authorities in their lettings of their property under a housing scheme carefully select tenants, and when one knows, as I do, of instances of two families with, between them, a sum total of over 30 persons. [HON. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Where there are people with families of proportions like my own, that figure, of course, would be quite insignificant—but where one knows of such families residing in slum areas, that is poor housing accommodation. I know that local authorities and private owners are very often troubled with the fear that children will be more destructive to the property than adults, and in consequence many who seek tenancies are told there is no tenancy open for them if there is a family of children, while in other cases they limit the number; to one or two dependent children. It is a crying shame, and we are not giving even handicap chances to those with large families, but we are adversely handicapping them in the possibility of rearing their children under fairly decent, healthy surroundings, and I would like the word "reasonable" taken out, so that the Bill should give an instruction that large families should have a preference in this matter of house accommodation.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: This is a proposal to take from the local authorities the power
    to select their own tenants, and to lay down as one of the conditions of the subsidy that they must give the preference suggested to the Amendment. If hon. Members wish to leave the local authorities any power—as I hope they do—in the selection of their tenants they should indicate to them that in the opinion of the Committee, wherever it can be reasonably done they shall give preference to large families; I hope the Committee will not go beyond that.
    Viscount CURZON: I desire to look at this matter from a different angle. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) has accused her party of being reactionary. I strongly resent that. I stand here to-night to say—If nobody else comes to say it—that those who have not large families also have rights. Whichever way you have it, and whether this Amendment is carried with reasonable preference or with preference only—if this Amendment be carried with or without the word "reasonable" it is likely to do the greatest possible injustice—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in pursuing his remarks as he is until we get rid of the Amendment to the Amendment as to the word "reasonable."
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Committee is engaged in what are called special conditions in relation to these houses. The Minister is now proposing that amongst those conditions shall be one that a "reasonable" preference shall he given a certain class of tenant. I believe it would be a condition if you say that preference is to be granted, but immediately you introduce the word "reasonable" you introduce a discretion and it ceases to be a special condition.
    Question put, "That the word 'reasonable' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 167.]

    AYES.

    [11.35 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Black, J. W.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Banton, G.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W.(Glas. C)

    Barnes, A.

    Bonwick, A.

    Alstead, R.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Amman, Charles George

    Batey, Joseph

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Broad, F. A.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Perry, S. F.

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Buckle, J.

    Hena, Sir Sydney H.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Burman, J. B.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Potts, John S.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hindle, F.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Church, Major A. G.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Clarke, A.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Climie, R.

    Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Ritson, J.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Cope, Major William

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W.Derby)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Roundell, Colonel R, F.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Royle, C.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Jowett, Rt, Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Jowitt, W. A.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Dickson, T.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Savery, S. S.

    Dodds, S. R.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Scurr, John

    Duckworth, John

    Keens, T.

    Sexton, James

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Dukes, C.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Duncan, C.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Laverack, F. J.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Egan, W. H.

    Law, A.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lawson, John James

    Spence, R.

    England, Colonel A.

    Leach, W.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Lessing, E.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Stanley, Lord

    Ferguson, H.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Steel, Samuel Strang

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Lunn, William

    Stephen, Campbell

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Franklin, L. B.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Framantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    MacDonald, R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Macfadyen, E.

    Sunlight, J.

    Gates, Percy

    Mackinder, W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Terrington, Lady

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    March, S.

    Thompson, Like (Sunderland)

    Gillett, George M.

    Martey, James

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Gilrnour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Gorman, William

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Thomson, Sir W, Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Gosling, Harry

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Greenall, Thomas

    Maxton, James

    Thurtle, E.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Middleton, G.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Millar, J. D.

    Tout, W. J.

    Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Turner, Ben

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Groves, T.

    Montague, Frederick

    Varley, Frank B.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morris, R. H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Viant, S. P.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Vivian, H.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morse, W. E.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Nixon, H.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Harbord, Arthur

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wells, S. R.

    Hardie, George D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Harland, A.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Westwood, J.

    Harmswarth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wheler, Lieut.-Cot. Granville C. H.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Owen, Major G.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Paling, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    736

    737

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Wright, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Windsor, Walter

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Willison, H.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Mr. Warne and Mr. Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Harney, E. A.

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Remer, J. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Becker, Harry

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hore-Bslisha, Major Leslie

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Briant, Frank

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Maden, H.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Murrell, Frank

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel sir Joseph

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Crittall, V. G.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Pringle, W. M, R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dunnico, H.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Dr. Chapple and Mr. Linfield.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Viscount CURZON: I am very far from agreeing with this Amendment. One of the saddest problems we have to face in connection with housing is undoubtedly where you get two young people who are married, or who want to marry, or who when married are not able to live in the same house owing to the appalling state into which housing has got. You get a young woman with perhaps one child in one house and her husband in another, and you are going by this Amendment possibly to tell the local authority under certain conditions if the local authority wishes that those two people are never to be able to get a house. I know of cases of ex-service men and their wives. Very often they have not got more than one or two children and the Noble Lady who has so eloquently supported the Amendment is the fortunate possessor of a larger family. It cannot be expected that she can altogether share the hopeless despair of barren and childless woman. Do not in Heaven's name let us do an injustice to people who at the same time have rights. Let us remember that those people who have not got larger families are very often amongst the most miserable people on earth. Hon. Members may think it is a subject for jest, but when they come from brass tacks and really go into it they do not look at it in that way. Let us remember that those who have not got children have rights also. The Minister should think twice about the
    738
    Amendment. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the spirit of it but I do not regard it as practical and I shall oppose it.
    Mr. REMER: This is a matter that should be left entirely to the local people who know the local circumstances. There may be cases where there should be a preference given to young people who are about to be married and who have had perhaps to delay their marriage. They may be delayed still further under the Bill. My Noble Friend has convinced me on both Amendments and it would be a mistake if these words were included in the Bill.
    Mrs. PHILIPSON: I did not intend to take part in the Debate, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman behind me. I hope that hon. Members will support the Amendment, because I think there is great need for it. There are hundreds of men and women in the country who are ashamed that their families, boys and girls, are huddled together in the same room, not under decent conditions, and it is those people who want help. I do think now that the Minister of Health has put in the words providing that reasonable preference will be given that the Amendment should be passed. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman behind me, although I have sincere sympathy with the other people, men and women, who want to bring up their families decently. It is not right that they should be living together in the same room with their parents.
    SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS having risen—
    Mr. WHEATLEY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to make an appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this subject, and not to divide on this Amendment. I do not think the proceedings of the last hour have conduced to the dignity of the Government, and it is time we got to serious business. By this Amendment preference is already given to people with large families. I do not think it would be possible that that should be the only consideration in the minds of a local authority in allocating their houses, when putting in the word "reasonable" you are giving them as much discretion as is necessary.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not wish to move the motion I had risen to move, because I want to join in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to the Committee to think about the rate at which we are getting through this Bill. I am not one of those who believe it is in accordance with the dignity of this House to sit here more or less frivolously. I am not going to ask the Committee, although we have made very little progress, to sit late to make up lost time. I am going to appeal to the Committee to let us pass Clause 3. There is very little contentious matter in it, and I leave it to the Leader of the House or whoever is responsible to try to impress on the House on a future occasion the necessity for making more progress with the Bill.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at the end, to insert the words
    "(f) that if the local authority can provide or borrow the money required for building the houses either free of interest or at a less rate than four and a-half per cent. per annum any such saving of interest shall be applied by the authority to reducing the rents of the houses proportionately."
    I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can do otherwise than accept this Amendment in view of his recent utter-
    740
    ances on this subject. It will be in the memory of hon. Members that, speaking on the 3rd June, the Minister of Health made some interesting remarks re the effect of interest on the rents of houses, and he emphasised what he said to the House in an interview which later on he gave to the representative of a paper called the "New Leader." In order that the Committee may understand this Amendment, it is, I think, necessary that I should read a short quotation from the report of that interview. The first question which the interviewer put to the right hon. Gentleman was, "What about finance?" and the reply of the Minister was that that was quite an easy matter; there was a simple way of getting at that. He continued:
    "Take your pencil and put down this figure. Say that the cost, of a house is £500; that includes the charges for land, labour and building materials, &c. The payment is spread over 60 years, so you divide the £500 by 60, which gives you £S 6s. 8d. per year. Then you divide the £8 6s. 8d. by 52 and the result works out at 3s. 3d. per week, which is the all-in cost of the items that go to the building of the house except interest."
    Of course, I must admit that that calculation is correct as far as it goes. It simply means that the right hon. Gentleman said that the first cost of the £500 house was £500. But the first cost, he added, was not the last cost, and the deductions which the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to put forward were, although I desire to agree with him as far as I can, were deductions which I for one could not agree with.
    It is quite true that if those who provided the land, the labour and building materials were willing to accept payment for the same in 3,120 weekly instalments, spread over 60 years, the right hon. Gentleman's calculation of 3s. 3d. per week would be quite correct, but it so happens that the people who supply the materials, and the workmen who supply the labour, cannot afford to be paid in that way, and that is where the difficulty comes in. The financing of the operation has to be calculated, and interest becomes a very important factor of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with that point in the course of the same interview with the representative of the "New Leader" on the 4th of this month. He said that 5 per cent. interest, calculated on the annuity system for a loan period of

    741
    58 years, was £1,037. He divided that by 58, producing a result of £17 17s. 7d., which he divided again by 52, giving a charge of 6s. 8d. per week as interest alone. He said:
    "This in an aspect of the housing question which has been overlooked."
    And he concluded his review of that point by adding that it was
    "a glaring example of Capitalism at its worst."
    12 M.
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with those words, although I am trying to agree with him as far as I can. Those concluding words are not very wise; they are mischievous at a time like this, when the right hon. Gentleman is encouraging local authorities to appeal for money with which to build houses.
    My Amendment will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of correcting any erroneous impressions that may be drawn from his rather injudicious words. The difficulty is that it is impossible to build houses without money. Spot cash is required. Before a single house can be built the local authority must raise money, and the difficulty is that people of all sorts in this country, not even excluding Scotland, have a rooted prejudice in favour of getting interest on the money they invest. It is very difficult to get them to rid themselves of that prejudice. But the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that if interest can be reduced, or if money can be got free of interest, it would enable the local authorities to provide cheaper houses for the working classes. My Amendment gives the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of putting in the Bill an instruction to the local authority that if it prove practicable to carry out his view; if they can raise money at a cheap rate of interest, they shall use the saving of interest so obtained for no purpose other than that of reducing proportionately the rents of the houses of the working classes. I confidently expect that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment with both hands.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I hope that the hon. Member, having dealt with me in so eloquent a manner, will not press his Amendment. I stand rebuked.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's attitude that that is all he is going to
    742
    say with regard to the Amendment? What is his view of the Amendment on its merits? Is it his object to get houses cheaply, and to charge low rents for them I Surely my hon. Friend is entitled to a reasoned answer on the arguments put forward?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by the statement he made, which has been quoted by my hon. Friend? That statement has been very misleading throughout the country. When you borrow money you have to pay a reasonable rate of interest. It is unfair to give the impression that money for the construction of these houses can be obtained without the payment of interest to those who are prepared to lend the money. Would any hon. Member opposite be prepared to find money for building these houses without receiving any interest?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going beyond the Amendment.
    Sir F. HALL: I do not wish to do that, but I think the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to reply to the reasonable criticism offered by my hon. Friend.
    Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment. He has assured my hon. Friend that he stands rebuked. This Amendment deals with a question of which the right hon. Gentleman complained. If the Amendment is not to be accepted, some reason should be given why it cannot be accepted.
    If the Amendment is wrong, and if it is contrary to the Bill or is going to injure the Bill, we wish to be assured of that fact. I understand the finance of the Bill is based on an interest of 5 per cent. If the Minister, owing to the management of the national finances by the Government or some favourable turn in the circumstances of trade and commerce, finds that the Government are in a position to raise money at 4½ per cent., surely it is right and proper that the rents of the houses constructed under this Bill should be revised accordingly. If the Government are able to finance their schemes in such a way as to be able to borrow the money without interest at all, the rents ought not to be charged as though they were paying 5 per cent. Surely the right hon. Gentle-

    743
    man should give some reasoned reply to my hon. Friend.
    Major COLFOX: Surely we should have a reply from the Minister. If he refuses to reply, there can be but two interpretations put upon his refusal, either that he cannot answer the criticism or that he will not. I cannot myself feel that it is right to rate the intelligence and ability of the Minister so low as to imagine that he cannot answer, and therefore one is driven to the supposition that his refusal is because he will not answer, because he knows that he has put about in the country a story which is entirely false.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in Order in discussing this subject, and if so, can anyone on this side have a chance of replying?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member should confine himself to the question before the Committee.
    Major COLFOX: I am sure we do not wish to shirk any discussion on this point, and I am convinced that this story about the finance of the Bill is completely baseless and without foundation. Take one point only. The Minister has told the country—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is going outside the scope of the Amendment.
    Major COLFOX: I was under the impression that the Amendment was for the purpose of bringing up the finance of the Bill, which is based, as I understand it, upon a 5 per cent. return for the capital which has been borrowed. This Amendment suggests that if capital is forthcoming for the purpose of building these houses at a cheaper rate, advantage should be taken of that cheaper rate, and I was proceeding on that supposition to question the basis on which the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman had been made. Therefore, I submit that I was strictly in order in so doing, because the basis on which the Minister has made his calculation, as I understand it, is a 5 per cent. basis, and he has told the, country that one-half of the rent which is to be charged for these houses is represented by the return upon the capital invested in the
    744
    building. He goes on by inference to suggest that if the wicked capitalist had not required so large a rate of interest on his money it would have been possible very considerably to reduce the rents which are to be charged for these houses. I would submit that the charge which he puts down as the rate of capital is nothing of the sort, because it is remuneration for the wage earners, both those who actually build the houses and those who are employed in the provision of the building materials. Everyone knows that a wage earner could not possibly exist if he were required to draw his wages in driblets over 60 years.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not read the Amendment. It deals with rates of interest.
    Major COLFOX: Yes, and the rate of interest, as I understand it, which has been taken into account for the purpose of making these calculations, is 5 per cent., and that rate of interest produces weekly rentals of, I think, 6s. 6d. The rental on capital is 6s. 6d. according to the table which has been circulated throughout the country by the Minister of Health. My point is this that this money, which has been calculated on the 5 per cent. basis is not—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I will have to read the Amendment again to the hon. Member. The Amendment says money is to be lent at a certain rate of interest.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER: I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but cannot do so for two reasons, the first being the statement made in the Press by a Member of the Cabinet for which the Government must bear collective responsibility. The question is what is the Government position in regard to this. There is a separate reason. That is that these figures which were given by the right hon. Gentleman on the Financial Resolution on the 3rd of June were included in a peculiar form at the back of a reprint of his speech which has been circulated by the million by his party throughout the country. It is put in tabulated form in this way.
    "Where the rent goes:
    Land, per week. 1½d
    Materials and profits, per week, 1s. 10½d."
    Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: On a point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is now himself transgressing his own Amendment, which proposes that where there is a lower rate of interest or no rate of interest there should be a proportionate reduction.
    Sir J. PENNEFATHER: On the understanding that I put this down again on the Report stage, and that the Minister will reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out from the word "undertake," to the end of Subsection (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "in accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the Treasury, that the following conditions will be complied with in relation to the house:

    (a) that the houses shall either be occupied by the owners or let by the owners to tenants who intend to reside therein:

    (b) that it shall be a term of every such letting that the tenant shall not assign, sub-let, or otherwise part with the possession of the house, or any part thereof, except with the consent in writing of the society, body of trustees, or company in the case of the houses provided by them, or of the local authority or some person authorised by them in that behalf in the case of the other houses, provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

    (c) that the owner shall not sell or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise dispose of the houses except with the consent of the Minister, which may be absolute or subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduction and curtailment;

    (d) that a fair wage clause in accordance with the form for the time being prescribed for Government contracts by resolution of the House of Commons shall be inserted in all contracts for the construction of houses; and

    (e) that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the rents which could be charged by the local authority had the houses been provided by the local authority themselves."

    The subject of this Amendment is the houses subject to special conditions, but
    746
    provided either by private enterprise or public utility societies. Under Sub-section (4) of this Clause it is provided that the Minister may stop or reduce the contributions if he is of opinion that the special conditions have not been complied with. Therefore, it seems to me that those special conditions ought to be set forth so that no public utility society and no person engaged in private enterprise might fall into an error and thus sustain a loss if the contributions were stopped when the houses were erected. Accordingly, instead of taking the words which lay down that the conditions are to be conditions corresponding as closely as circumstances permit to the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the last Sub-section we propose that the conditions applicable to these particular cases should be clearly set out in the Bill, and I have set out here conditions in which, as the Committee will see, I have not attempted except in one small particular to alter the conditions proposed by the Minister himself, but I have merely set forth the same conditions over again, only making them applicable to these particular kinds of houses.
    The one exception is in the first condition in which I have included a phrase about occupier owners. I was quite aware, in putting down these conditions in my Amendment, that the conditions laid down in the Bill possibly might themselves be altered in the course of the Committee discussions, and if that were the case these conditions which I have proposed would also have to be altered so as to bring them into conformity. Now that those alterations have taken place it will be necessary to alter the conditions which I have put down here even if the Minister accepts my Amendment. All I want to suggest, for the convenience of the Committee, is that, if the Minister is prepared to accept the principle that the conditions for public utility societies and for private enterprise in respect of houses subject to special conditions should be set out in the Bill, he should accept my Amendment in the form in which I have moved it, and then on Report stage he can put down Amendments to those conditions so as to bring them into conformity with the conditions laid down for the houses provided by the local authorities themselves.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I agree to accept this Amendment, subject to the necessary alterations referred to by the right hon.

    747
    Gentleman, which will be provided for on the Report stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move in page 5, line 10, after the second word "rent" to insert the words "exclusive of rates."
    I wish to make it quite plain that this Amendment is intended merely to clear up what I believe to be an ambiguity in drafting.
    In this Clause the definition used by the Minister is very similar to that given in the Rent Restrictions Acts from 1917 onwards. It has been found necessary, however, in all those Acts to insert a provision that the standard rent shall be exclusive of any rents that may be payable in cases where the rates are compounded. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that it is the custom in certain districts, particularly in regard to working-class houses for the landlord to compound the rates and they may even be required so to do by the local authority. In other cases the occupiers pay the rates themselves. Unless it is made quite clear that a normal rent does not include any amount that may be chargeable in respect of rates anomalies will arise in different parts of the country and you will, in effect, subsidise certain occupiers at the expense of their neighbours whose rents have been raised under the Rents' Restrictions Acts to meet increases in rating. The highest rise in rates I have been able to discover between 1913–1914 and 1920–1921 is an increase of 272·2 per cent., but in many cases I have found increases of 100 per cent. and over. This is a point of real importance, more especially as in two recent law cases, the Courts have decided that where a landlord lets premises, charging a sum to cover rates which the landlord undertakes to pay, the amount of the rates is not deductible for the purpose of ascertaining the standard rent.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on an excellent speech, and to say that I will accept his Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, to leave out the word "prescribed," and to insert instead thereof the word "made."
    The few remarks which I desire to make on this Amendment apply also to the Amendment following it on the Paper. I do not desire at this hour to say more than that the two Amendments represent what is considered to be a necessary precaution in connection with the making of the rules provided for in Clause 3. These rules are to be made by the Minister, and we want to have an opportunity for them to be laid on the Table of the House, as is the case under the Addison Act of 1919. As I understand that the Minister is willing to accept this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment, I will not detain the Committee any longer.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The Government accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 18, at the end, insert the words
    "Every rule so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule is laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Mr. Gwynne.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Wheatley.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (21st July).
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Half after Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES)
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES)
  WIRELESS STATIONS (COMMERCIAL WORK).
  WIRELESS STATIONS (COMMERCIAL WORK).
  RELIGIOUS SERVICES (VOLUNTARY ATTENDANCE).
  RELIGIOUS SERVICES (VOLUNTARY ATTENDANCE).
  NATAL ESTABLISHMENTS (DISCHARGES).
  NATAL ESTABLISHMENTS (DISCHARGES).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
INDIA.
  DELHI RIOTS.
  DELHI RIOTS.
  MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT BILL.
  MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT BILL.
  TEACHERS' TRAINING COLLEGES (GRANTS).
  TEACHERS' TRAINING COLLEGES (GRANTS).
  TRANSPORT OF PRISONERS, DERBY AND NOTTINGHAM.
  TRANSPORT OF PRISONERS, DERBY AND NOTTINGHAM.
  COAL INDUSTRY (SILICOSIS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SILICOSIS).
  POLICE AND PUBLIC.
  POLICE AND PUBLIC.
  SESSIONS AND ASSIZE COURT (FIRST-AID).
  SESSIONS AND ASSIZE COURT (FIRST-AID).
  PRISON OFFICERS (CHARGE SHEETS).
  PRISON OFFICERS (CHARGE SHEETS).
  BRITISH MANUFACTURERS, UNITED STATES.
  BRITISH MANUFACTURERS, UNITED STATES.
  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
  WOOLWICH DOCKYARD.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
POST OFFICE.
  EX-SERVICE POSTMEN.
  EX-SERVICE POSTMEN.
  WIRELESS REPORT.
  WIRELESS REPORT.
TRANSPORT.
  GREAT WEST ROAD.
  GREAT WEST ROAD.
  MOTOR CAR TAXATION.
  MOTOR CAR TAXATION.
  RAILWAY PASSENGERS' ACCOMMODATION.
  RAILWAY PASSENGERS' ACCOMMODATION.
SCOTLAND.
  WESTKRN ISLES (LAND DRAINAGE).
  WESTKRN ISLES (LAND DRAINAGE).
  CARNISH-ARDROIL SETTLEMENT (ROAD GRANTS).
  CARNISH-ARDROIL SETTLEMENT (ROAD GRANTS).
  KNOCKINTORAN-PAIBLESGARRY MARCH FENCE, NORTH UIST.
  KNOCKINTORAN-PAIBLESGARRY MARCH FENCE, NORTH UIST.
HOUSING.
  SCOTLAND (SHORTAGE).
  SCOTLAND (SHORTAGE).
  STEEL SHIFTING.
  STEEL SHIFTING.
  SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEMS.
  SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEMS.
  INFANTILE MORTALITY, MARKET DRAYTON.
  INFANTILE MORTALITY, MARKET DRAYTON.
  ENEMY DEBTS (MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL).
  ENEMY DEBTS (MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL).
FINANCE BILL.
  LAND TAX (RELIEF).
  LAND TAX (RELIEF).
  LANDOWNERS (REPAYMENTS).
  LANDOWNERS (REPAYMENTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and regulate the law regarding the circuits of the High Court of Justiciary and the holding of Circuit Courts, and to amend the law relating to criminal procedure in Scotland in certain respects; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th of June next." be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question. Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LEGITIMACY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents.
1.—(1) Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall, if the father of the illegitimate person was or is at the date of the marriage domiciled in England or Wales, render that person, if living, legitimate from the commencement of this Act, or from the date of the marriage, which last happens; and such person is in this Act referred to as a "legitimated person."
(2) This section does not enable a legitimated person to take any interest in real or personal property; which he would not have taken if this section had not been passed.
(3) The Registrar-General may, on production of satisfactory evidence, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe.
VISCOUNT CAVE VISCOUNT CAVE moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:—
" (2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother

663
was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I have heard with much regret from the most rev. Primate that he is unable, for public reasons, to be here to-day to move this first Amendment, and I have agreed, at his request, to move it. I do not think I need spend very much time in doing so, because it has been so lately debated in your Lordships' House. When the Bill brought in by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, was considered a few months ago, this same Amendment was moved and was adopted by this House by a very large majority, and I certainly do not assume that your Lordships will readily have changed your minds upon a matter of such importance.
The Amendment brings the new English law as it will be set up by this Bill into accord with the Scottish law as it has stood for a very long time. In Scotland, where the process of legitimation by subsequent marriage has long been recognised, the exception has always been made that that result shall not be attributed to a marriage in cases where the child in question was either conceived or born while one of its parents was married to another person. I do not say for a moment that everything which is law in Scotland ought to be law in England, but I do think that when this exception has stood in Scotland for so long and has been sanctioned by Scottish experience and wisdom, we ought to hesitate long before, in adopting in general the Scottish law, we set aside the exception which that law has made. The principle of the Amendment, I think, is that we ought in this matter to distinguish between promiscuous intercourse between unmarried persons and adulterous intercourse between married persons. If you put the two upon the same footing for this or any other purpose you thereby remove one of the things which deter people from committing matrimonial offences and you do, to that extent, weaken the sanctions of the Marriage Laws.
In the case where the mother of the illegitimate child was married when that child was born the case for this Amendment has really been conceded by the noble and learned Lord who is to-day in charge of this Bill, because when we adopted this Amendment early this year
664
I put forward this argument. I said that where a child is born of a woman who is for the time being married it is the presumption of the law that her husband is the father of the child—a presumption which has certainly not been weakened by a decision given in this House since that debate took place. And I said that, that being so, it was most undesirable that any contention should afterwards arise as to whether the husband or some third person was, in fact, the father of the child. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster replied that really the argument was inadequate because the point would never arise. He said, in effect, that it would never happen, that where a child had been born of a mother who was married and the husband died some third person would claim to be the father of the child and to legitimate it under this Bill. But if the case would never arise surely half the argument against this Amendment, is gone, because if the point can never arise in the case of a married woman, at all events, as regards a married woman, no harm is done in passing the Amendment and saying that the Act shall not apply.
Therefore, I deal mainly with the case in which a married man has had intercourse with an unmarried woman and there has been a child as the result of that intercourse. The real effect as the Bill stands is to allow that child to be legitimated by a subsequent marriage between the parents. We argued it out last time. I think it is most undesirable that a married man who desires to corrupt a girl shall be able to say: "True we may have issue, but I will see to it; I will get a divorce from, or I may survive, my wife, and then we can be married and legitimate that child." That would be an argument which might be used by some people with effect, and I do not think it ought to lie in the mouth of anybody to use such an argument as that.
Another point, made by the most rev. Primate on the last occasion with great experience and force, was this. He said that if you allow the Bill to pass without this Amendment then in cases where a man has, besides his legitimate union, an illegitimate connection and by that connection has issue, great pressure will be put upon his wife under an Act which has

665
recently been passed to divorce her husband so that he may marry the other woman and legitimate that child. Great pressure would be put upon her, and it would be very hard and very cruel that she should be laid open to pressure of that kind. I heard no answer to that argument, and I doubt whether any can really be given.
We are always told in these cases: "You must think of the child and of nobody and nothing else." I do not agree with that argument. If you press it to the full we would have to say that every child shall be legitimate, marriage or no marriage. You must think of other considerations. If it be true, as I think it is true, that the passage of this Bill without this Amendment will weaken the sanction of the Marriage Laws and will weaken those deterrents from misconduct which exist to-day, that alone is, to me at all events, a sufficient argument in favour of the Amendment. I think not only of some children, but of all the thousands and millions of future children and wives whose whole happiness may depend upon the maintenance of our Marriage Law. Anything which this House or Parliament may do to weaken the sanctions of that law and to make it less binding and less observed than it is to-day will, in return perhaps for some benefit to some children, do definite harm to many generations to come. I wholly accept the Bill if this Amendment is inserted in it. Without this Amendment I think the Bill may do more harm than good, and I hope that your Lordships will once again insist on this provision being inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Cave.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount. I do so not from any hostility to the Bill as a whole, which I welcome as removing a real stigma in many cases. I can well remember in my parochial experience cases where marriage had been fully intended and then, either through unemployment or removal from the town, the marriage had to be postponed and the child was born shortly before the marriage. Sometimes the fact that the child was illegitimate was not known by himself or his brothers until he had
666
reached manhood. But we must be very careful not to create a fresh wrong in removing what is a cause of suffering. I am afraid that if this measure is passed without this Amendment real suffering and hardship may be caused to innocent women. In the case of a man who desires a child, who has not one by his wife and who has grown not perhaps hostile to her but indifferent to her, he might be tempted, when he knows that he has a child by his mistress since his marriage, to bring very great pressure upon his wife to divorce him. Pressure might he brought by relations and the woman herself might be in an extraordinarily difficult position as to what her duty was—whether she ought to divorce her husband or not so as to allow him to legitimate the child. It is for this reason that I am supporting the Amendment which has just been moved.
I do not believe for a moment that this measure will encourage or create vice—vice of this kind s not a matter of calculation—but I am afraid that when a wrong has once been done it will lead to the possibility of mother wrong, namely, pressure brought upon a wife to divorce her husband even when she, if left to herself, would be perfectly prepared to forgive him for the offence which he has committed. I listened on the last occasion to the very moving appeal, made, by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, to think of the children. I should have liked to vote with him on that ground, but we are bound to think of the wives and of the harm which might be done and the suffering which might be caused to those who are innocent.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I paused before dealing with this Amendment because, as has been said to your Lordships, this matter has already been very fully discussed in this House at no very distant date, and I was anxious as to what would necessarily result if the speech made in answer to the first Amendment gave opportunity to others to use the privilege of Committee to make repeated statements upon the same question. The Amendment proposed is confined to this. If a child is born while one of its parents is married to a third party that child shall be excluded from the benefit of the Bill. It does not apply, as your Lordships will notice, to a child

667
who was born before the marriage of one of its parents and whose mother afterwards is married to one of the people who had already contracted a lawful alliance. That is important in relation to marriage and I will deal with it later on.
But the Amendment as it stands is supported by arguments which, I admit, leave me completely unconvinced. It is true that your Lordships, by a sufficient majority—when the noble Viscount talks about a very great majority, I have forgotten whether it was eighteen or twenty, but it was something of that kind; at any rate it was a sufficient majority—did accept this Amendment. But when you are aware that the same Amendment has been rejected by an overwhelming majority in another place, at least it is fair to say that no considerations of Party whatever can have entered into the expression of that view. Those people, with their experience of life, have expressed an opinion the exact opposite of that which is entertained by your Lordships, and at least I think that that is a reason why this matter needs to be reconsidered. Now, when it is reconsidered, what are the grounds upon which this Amendment is recommended? If I were to take the grounds of the noble and learned Viscount in order, he began with a reference to Scotland. I feel sure that some of your Lordships will understand me when I say that on a Bill like this I hear a reference to Scotland with a feeling which nearly approaches resentment. Whenever I argued my Divorce Bill before your Lordships and attempted to point out that one of its fundamental principles is nothing but the establishing in this country of a law that has remained unchanged and unchallenged in Scotland for years, I was not listened to by the very people who support this Amendment to-day. I am told by the rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, that you could not consider the temperaments of the two countries the same. Be it so. I say the analogy of Scotland has no application whatever to this Bill unless you are going to accept it in its application to the other.
The next point he made was that, without this Amendment, the Bill might result in some removal of restraint upon ill-deeds done by husband or wife. That again always appears to me to be one of
668
those arguments addressed to a world of people who do not live, and the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the last occasion, with his customary fairness joined with me in saying that such an argument completely ignored the forces which really were the determining cause of these acts of misconduct taking place. I heard with gratitude the most rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark make the same statement to-day. That argument, at least, has not got the undivided support of the noble Viscount's own supporters. Then he says that, after all, half of the people will not be affected if this Amendment be introduced, because a child born of the adulterous intercourse of a woman living in wedlock is presumed to be the husband's child. I agree, but does the noble Viscount really suggest that cases of misconduct committed by the man and the woman are equal, and that for every man who commits adultery there is a woman who does the same?
Once more I say that is contrary to the experience of life. It is not of the least use pretending that these things are the same, more particularly as once more we were told, when one of these Bills was before your Lordships' House, that an act of adultery on the part of a man was a thing that was not measurable with that act on the part of a woman. There will, no doubt, be cases of women whose misconduct will have resulted in illegitimate children. That is quite true, but by far the greater part of these cases, and I am satisfied the most rev. Prelate will agree with me, are the result of men's misconduct and not of women's. Therefore the whole case has to be considered from this point of view; that not half of the people but practically the whole of them will be affected.
Then what is the reason why the children of these relationships shall be utterly excluded from the benefit of this Bill and set apart in a class in which they are not to be legitimated, but are to be branded for all time as the result of adulterous intercourse? You add a grievance by this Amendment. At present there is only one class of illegitimate children. If this Amendment passes these children are to be set apart as a class of children peculiarly obnoxious to the law because of some added sin on the part of their parents which they were wholly unable to prevent. It is also said:

669
"Oh, but this is going to induce men to get their wives to divorce them in order that they may many their mistresses." In the case of a man who had a child by a woman before he married, if his own marriage was infertile, exactly the same argument applies. But the Amendment does not cover that if those really are going to be the influences that are going to operate on men and women after the passage of this Bill. Not one of you can possibly say more than this, that that is what you think may happen, because no person can say it will happen. It is a poor case, and for that case you are going to do a very definite wrong to these unfortunate children.
Finally, have your Lordships considered this? As the law stands to-day a woman who is deserted by her husband, and cannot tell whether he is alive or dead, frequently contracts an alliance with another man, and not infrequently solemnises it with a marriage, believing her husband to be dead. She has children. Her husband comes back. What is the result? These children are all bastardised. Surely if there was a case where a child ought to get the benefit of the Bill it is a case of that kind.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Those children will be presumed to be children of the marriage.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I apologise. It is my own fault that I have utterly failed to make myself plain. I am assuming this case. A woman is married. Her husband has deserted her, and is away so that he is not near her for, say, six or seven years. She then goes through a form of marriage with another man, believing her husband to be dead. The husband returns ultimately. She divorces him, or he divorces her, and she really marries the man with whom she has been living. That case has nothing to do with what the noble Viscount proposes, and that is the case which this Bill would exclude. Or take another case. Take the case of a man who is permanently mad and living in a lunatic asylum. The time has gone that made it unfair to quote special instances. I say that if an eminent novelist lived with an eminent man, and had a child while that man's wife was, as we know, permanently mad, and afterwards married him, it
670
would be the height of injustice to exclude the child of that union from the benefits of this Bill. No one denies it is unjust. All that has been suggested is that you must perpetrate this injustice because you believe if you do not, in some remote hypothesis, in some infinitely small number of cases, a wrong may possibly happen. The noble Viscount positively asks your Lordships to accept this Amendment because of the millions of women and children who are concerned in it.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I said nothing of the kind.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I beg your pardon; you may have forgotten it. If you desire to withdraw I shall give way. Those are the words which I put down. I felt certain when the noble Viscount was using such arguments that his zeal had got the better of his judgment. I say the issue is a very simple one. On the one hand, you have the hypothetical grievance; on the other, it is for you to decide which cause you will espouse.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): It is right I should say a word at least to indicate the opinion which we hold on this Bench on this subject. When the question was before your Lordships on the last occasion we supported the principle of the Bill, and were opposed to the Amendment on the ground that the primary interest with which we were concerned was that of the children. We do not dispute that there is weight in the considerations which have been urged by the noble and learned Viscount opposite about the Marriage Laws, but we say that this is a Bill brought in for the benefit of innocent children who had no part in the sin of their parents, and for that reason we took the view which has to-day been expressed by my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster. On the present occasion the position is strengthened because public opinion has been expressed by a large majority in the other House. That House took the view which we took on a previous occasion. I need say no more. It would be a repetition of arguments with which your Lordships are familiar if I stated in further detail the reasons for this view. Therefore, what I have to say is that if a Division takes place I shall support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My noble and learned friend does not often misrepresent his opponents, and if he does so it is not intentional. But I think he has done so this afternoon. I did not say that the fate of millions hung on this Amendment. What I said was that the fate of
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Nothing in this Act shall operate to legitimate an illegitimate person whose father or mother has after the birth of the illegitimate person, married a third person and has issue of that marriage living at the time of the marriage to the parent of the illegitimate person."
672
many generations, and possibly millions, hangs upon the continuance of our Marriage Laws.
On Question: Whether the new subsection shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Vane, E (M. Londonderry.)

Charnwood, L.

Westmeath, E.

Danesfort, L.

Bath, M.

Darling, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Astor, V.

Desborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cave, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Emmott, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Erskine, L.

Balfour, E.

Forester, L.

Bathurst, E.

Novar, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Hastings, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hawke, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Younger of Leckie, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Cottenham, E.

Knaresborongh, L.

Coventry, E.

London, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Denbigh, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

MacDonnell, L.

Devon, E

Rochester, L. Bp.

Meston, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and
Queensberry.)

Sheffield, L. Bp.

Monson, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Mostyn, L.

Grey, E.

Phillimore, L.

Lindsey, E.

Aberdare, L.

Raglan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Armstrong, L.

Redesdale, L.

Manvers, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rowallan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Avebury, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Midleton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Morton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Shandon, L.

Onslow, E.

Barrymore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sydenham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Joicey, L.

Churchill, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Rutland, D.

St. Davids, V.

Leigh, L.

Meldrum, L. (M Huntly.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Arnold, L.

Morris, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Ashfield, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Askwith, L.

Olivier, L.

Buxton, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Boston, L.

Riddell, L.

Harewood, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Mayo, E

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Terrington, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Thomson, L.

Russell, E.

Gorell, L

Wester Wemyss, L.

Strafford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wharton, L.

The noble Earl said: I feel that I owe some apology to your Lordships for raising again the question involved in my Amendment, for it was discussed in your Lordships' House but a short time ago. Your Lordships will recollect that in the early part of this year, when a similar Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, was discussed in your Lordships' House, I moved this Amendment. I may briefly describe the Amendment as being designed on behalf

673
of the rights of the children, although perhaps my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, would not agree. This Amendment is entirely on behalf of the rights of the children, but it is on behalf of the legitimate children as against those who are legitimated by the marriage of the father with a previous mistress.
We have heard a very great deal, in the course of the debates on this Bill and on the previous Bill, as to the rights of the children. I confess, with all respect for my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, that I do not care for this Bill at all, because I think it is one of those Treasures which have become very common in these days and which, while seeking to redress a wrong, in reality inflict another wrong. Let me explain very briefly the object of the Amendment. Supposing a man has lived for a long or short period with a woman by whom he has illegitimate issue. He then marries a third person; that is to say, he contracts a regular marriage, and has issue. His wife dies and he then marries the woman with whom he had previously lived before his first marriage. From that moment the children born of his illegal connection with this woman become legitimated, and they share the father's fortune with the children of the first wife. Upon the last occasion my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, said that I had misread the Bill, and, in fact, that I did not understand it. He said that the rights of the legitimate children were protected, and he adduced various arguments to show that under settlements and so on, the legitimated children need not come in. I agree, but the legitimate children are not protected inasmuch as the legitimated children take a certain share of their father's fortune in the case of intestacy, and so forth, and, as years go by, they will take a further share.
It is really a question of the claim of the legitimate children, the children of the marriage, that I am asking your Lordships to consider this evening. I believe it was the old canonical law that subsequent marriage to a woman legitimated the children of an illegal connection. No doubt the moral was a good one, the assumed intention being that the man meant to marry the woman with whom he was living. But how can it be said that he ever intended to marry that woman when
674
in the interval he has married another woman? His wife might have survived him by many years, and he would not then have had an opportunity of marrying the woman with whom he previously lived, it is said that the question of adoption becomes more important every day. Men who are childless often like to have a house made bright by the presence of children, and consequently, if there are no children of the marriage, a man has still the right to marry his mistress with a view to the children born out of wedlock becoming legitimate. They do not compete with legitimate issue, because there is none. I have distinctly put that proviso in my Amendment. It is only where there are children of the marriage that subsequent marriage shall not legitimate.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time at this hour of the afternoon, when there are other things to be done, by arguing the point any further, but I should like to give another instance. We often hear quoted the example of other countries. We are fold that we ought to do this or that because other countries—it may be Scotland—do it. This argument is sometimes used in the case of Prohibition and other matters. May I draw an analogy from the law existing in another country? I believe that in France it is impossible for the parent of a family entirely to deprive his children of their rights to a certain share of the family fortune. That shows the position of legitimate children in France, and it would surely be very much better if we protected legitimate children in this country from being deprived of a share of their father's fortune, rather than make them share it with children of an illicit union who are brought in after many years. It is a blow at the sanctity of family life.
I hope I have succeeded in making my object clear and in obtaining some sympathy with the rights of legitimate as against legitimated children. I will put only one other point, and then I have finished. Suppose the case of a man who has lived with a woman and had children by her. He then marries another woman by whom he has a family. Suppose that in the interval, perhaps an interval of many years, that woman has been living with one, two, three or more men, and has had children by them.

675
Does this Bill make it perfectly clear-perhaps my noble and learned friend will tell us this—that the children born of that woman by other men are not going to have the benefit of legitimation by subsequent marriage? I should like to hear the noble and learned Lord's view on that point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I can assure the noble Karl that nobody will be legitimated under this Bill except the illegitimate child of a man and a woman who subsequently marry. That, I trust, will relieve his anxiety concerning some aspects of the matter. As for the rest, the last Amendment was at least supported by the consideration that the illegitimate child who was to be excluded from the Bill was the result of an adulterous intercourse, and it was this consideration, I think, that influenced a very considerable number of your Lordships. The unfortunate child to be excluded under this Amendment is not excluded because it is the result of adulterous intercourse, but as being the result of an act of misconduct between a man and a woman who were not married at the time, and it is said that the subsequent marriage of either of the parties is to prevent the possibility of that child ever being made legitimate. I ask again, is that fair?
Let me assume that a man seduces a woman and leaves her. He goes away and marries. He may not even know, and in some eases he may not even care, what is the result. The woman whom he marries dies, and he comes back and finds that the other woman has borne him a child. Surely his right course is to marry her, and. if he marries her, why is not the child to be legitimated? What is there that takes that particular child out of the general category of children whom this Bill is designed to affect? If it be that your Lordships are to be influenced by that which you did on the former occasion, I will remind you that you unhesitatingly rejected this Amendment, and I trust that you will do so again.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am sorry that I cannot support this Amendment. The reasons for it have been put with great force by my noble friend behind me, but, after all, I think the case for this Amendment
676
is very different from the case for the last Amendment. In the ease here put, the parents of the child were person who, at the time of intercourse or at the birth of the child, could have married, and should have married. A marriage has intervened and has borne fruit, but I think that makes no difference to the general principle that when those people afterwards come together and marry this Bill ought to apply.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: After what has fallen from my noble and learned friend, Lord Cave, unless there is a strong feeling in the House that a decision should be taken, I do not propose to go to a Division. I have only one reply to make to Lord Buckmaster. He said: Consider the case of a woman who has been seduced by a man. I would remind him that there are many instances where very young men have been seduced by a woman. Our sympathies must entirely depend upon the merits of each case.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Does that make any difference to the case of the child?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No, except that I was dealing with the case put by the noble and learned Lord However, I do not propose to ask the House to go to a Division.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The Amendment I have now to propose is practically a drafting Amendment. As the Bill stands subsection (3) reads "satisfactory evidence," and my Amendment is to substitute "such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory." It must be satisfactory to somebody, and the Registrar-General is the only person. If the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, is carried this Amendment may not be necessary, but for the moment, whether the noble Earl's Amendment is passed or not. I submit that the alteration which I propose makes the clause more reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out (" satisfactory evidence ") and insert (" such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory ").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The next Amendment, also in subsection (3), is obviously drafting.
Amendment moved —
Page 1, line 22, after (" manner ") insert (", on such information ").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment to add at the end of the clause the following subsection:—
" (4) No person shall be legitimated, nor shall the birth of any person be re-registered under this Act, unless both parents shall avow in writing at or before the date of the marrage, the paternity of such person, and the regulations to be nude under this Act by the Registrar-General shall make provision for such avowals."
The noble Earl said: I make no apology for asking you to consider this Amendment. The course which this Bill has taken is perhaps known to some members of the House. We considered a Bill on these lines introduced by Lord Buckmaster, and it was sent to another place. The present Bill was taken up in another place without regard to the measure sent down by your Lordships, but as a matter of fact thirteen provisions in the Bill sent down by this House were novel inserted in this Bill in another place. The Amendment I propose was brought forward here, discussed fully, a protect was made by the noble and learned Lord, and the Amendment was inserted without a Division. In another place, a very eminent King's Counsel rose to pro pose the same Amendment. By a procedure which is, I believe, novel, the Speaker in another place has the power, when time is short, to select such Amendments as he thinks most necessary to be discussed, and this Amendment, amongst others, was ruled out as being one which must be passed over. In consequence, it was never discussed in the House of Commons at all, and the very obvious facts with regard to it were never put before the House of Commons.
What are those facts? As matters are now, two persons marrying, even after a long period of years, legitimate any previous offspring of their connection, and that offspring then ranks with the legitimate children of a previous marriage for the purposes of intestacy, or in any case where money has been left equally between all the children of a testator. Surely the least that we have a right lo ask is that those who come forward to redress a wrong shall not create a further
678
wrong. What can be harder than for the legitimate offspring of a marriage to find that, subsequent to their mother's death, their father has re-married, without indicating what offspring he had before he married their mother, and that, on his death, they are forced to contest at law-claims which they have no means whatever of identifying, which they never had had put before them, and which were never, perhaps, advanced before their father's death.
It may be true that one child may be the offspring of the previous illicit connection. It may also be true that the same woman may have had three or four children by another man, never having seen the man whom she ultimately marries in the interval. The man may nor be aware of her relations with other men, and until his death the claims will never be made. Then will ensue a struggle between the legitimate heirs and persons who claim to be legitimated, and as to which evidence may not be forthcoming. In such a struggle the estate will be frittered away by the lawyers, I think the least we can ask is that those who seek to redress a wrong should make a clear statement as to who is involved in that wrong.
It has been pointed out to me that the wording of the clause, although drawn by high legal authority, does not provide for the case of those married in anticipation of this Act. or before the Act, and I propose to add at the end of my Amendment these words:—
" Provided that persons who have married one another before the passing of this Act may make their avowal in writing at any time within six months after the date of the passing of this Act. A provision for this shall be made within the regulations."
That, I am advised, will fully meet the case of any person married before the passing of the Act, who will then have six months in which to declare and reregister children registered in another name, so that evidence may be forthcoming as to what children are admitted by the parents as being children of their previous union. I trust your Lordships will give my Amendment the same consideration as you gave it before the last Bill left this House.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert:
(" (4) No person shall be legitimated, nor shall the birth of any person be re-registered

679
under this Act, unless both parents shall avow in writing at or before the date of the marriage, the paternity of such person, and the regulations to he made under this Act by the Registrar-General shall make provision for such avowals.
" Provided that persons who have married one another before the passing of this Act may make their avowal in writing at any time within six months after the date of the passing of this Act. A provision for this purpose shall be made within the regulation ").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: Naturally I would rather have my Bill as drawn, taut I know quite well that when this matter was before your Lordships on a previous occasion you took the view that something to this effect should be introduced into the Bill. It is obvious from what has taken place this afternoon that your opinion has not very materially altered from what it was then, and I do not desire to provoke a needless Division; but as the Amendment stands, even with the proposed addition, I cannot accept it. I hope, however, the noble Earl will be able to see that he can accept what I propose. If the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, will preface his Amendment by the words "In the case of the parents of an illegitimate person marrying after the passing of this Act," that will cover all the cases, after this Bill is passed, where marriage takes place.
The noble Earl's provision which is intended to meet that is not satisfactory to my mind, and for this reason. There is an obvious tendency whenever any matter is discussed to see how it bears in relation to your own immediate knowledge and experience, and you think of the people about you, and what they would do if they wanted to avail themselves of the privileges of this Bill. But the truth is that this Bill is only going to touch in the most remote manner possible people who are well-to-do. The people whom it is going to affect are the poor. It is among those people that you find the largest number of illegitimate children, due to a great variety of reasons. If the noble Earl's Amendment is accepted, even with the proviso that he has added, it will require that these people who have had illegitimate children, and have, married, shall within six months go and make an avowal before the registrar. But they may know-nothing about it. The idea that these Acts of Parliament are instantly known
680
in every cottage is a pure fallacy. And they will find, after the six months have elapsed, that they are completely excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Where a man has actually married the woman he has done all he can, and yet if he does not make this avowal within six months the whole thing will be in vain. If the noble Earl will confine his Amendment to those who are married after the Act is passed then there is a distinct event, and it will be quite easy for them to discuss the matter with the registrar, and they can then make an avowal. Frankly I would rather not have this Amendment, but, if the noble Earl will meet me, I will meet him, and accept his Amendment with the addition of the words which I have suggested, which, I submit, are essential in the interest of poor and ignorant people.
LORD ASKWITH: I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord has made a move towards what the noble Earl has proposed. I have supported this Bill through all its stages, but on this point I think that the noble Earl has put forward a very reasonable point. The suggestion of the noble and learned Lord is that it should not be retrospective. There is a good deal to be said for that, and also for what he says that many of the people for whom this Bill is intended will not know anything about it. I would suggest, therefore, that the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord should consider together, before the Report stage, what should be the exact wording of the Amendment. The noble Earl's proposal, as it appears on the Paper, does not satisfy me at all as to its drafting. It seems to me very cumbrous, and it also implies the principle of retrospective action from which your Lordships' House is very averse.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hope no one will think that this Amendment is in any respect hostile to the principle of the Bill. But I do not think that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, covers all the ground. The noble Lord who has just spoken says your Lordships are opposed to retrospective legislation, but this Bill is retrospective legislation. The noble and learned Lord's speech seems to me to be founded upon this fallacy, against which I hope always to have the

681
opportunity of protesting in this Rouse, that you make people moral by passing an Act of Parliament to say that they are. He says: "Consider the poor people whom you want to make legitimate." For what reason does he want to make them legitimate? In order that they may succeed to property. It is that which is important, not the removal of a stain. I should scorn the idea, if I were a child of a poor person, that an Act of Parliament should be passed to say that in future I was to be deemed legitimate. Morality does not depend upon Acts of Parliament. The whole purpose of a Bill of this kind is really to deal with legal lights and legal property, and there is just the danger, which the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, has pointed out, that cases may be trumped up afterwards. The matter is the more important now that the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, has withdrawn his Amendment—more important because a man who has quarrelled with his son by a legitimate marriage may wish to injure that son by marrying his mistress and rehabilitating her child. It is to deal with the retrospective cases that a retrospective clause is wanted, and I submit that the form proposed by the noble Karl, Lord Midleton, is a better form than that of the noble and learned Lord.
VISCOUNT CAVE: This Amendment has been very reasonably met by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, but I am not convinced that the words which he suggests are free from real difficulty. After all, the one danger is that years hence, when both the persons in question are dead, somebody may rise up and say: "I was an illegitimate child of those persons," and, if you have not got the word of one or both of them, you may find false claims made which it would be very difficult indeed to set aside. That danger would not be met by the words which the noble and learned Lord has suggested. At the same time I can see that what he says deserves consideration, and, in particular, I think that it might be right to give more time than six months for this avowal to be made. You might possibly give a year, or even a longer time. That is a matter well worth consideration. I suggest that you should take to-day the Amendment of the noble Earl, as he has moved it, and that
682
between now and the Report stage he should consent to confer with Lord Buckmaster, and see whether the form of the Amendment can be improved.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: After the advice of the noble and learned Viscount I propose to press the Amendment now in the form in which it is down on the Paper, subject to what has been added. I would most willingly confer with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, to see that we are really meeting the case. But I would point out that this is a question about which there is an enormous amount of public interest and public knowledge. Questions of marriage are read and considered by the public a great deal more than some other questions that may arise in this House. And therefore I have no fear that there will be a general ignorance of the state of the law which would prevent the Act being taken advantage of, as the noble and learned Lord fears. I would ask your Lordships, then, to accept the advice of the noble and learned Viscount to insert this Amendment, undertaking that we will consider with the noble and learned Lord before the Report Stage what course should be taken.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That places me in an extraordinarily difficult position because if I accept the Amendment as it stands all that is left is the discussion between the noble Earl and myself. Although I have no doubt that the discussion will be a pleasant one I am by no means sure that I shall find him amenable to my view, and the result will be that I shall have the Amendment which I do not like recorded against me. I wish it were possible for the question that I have raised to be considered and discussed here to-day. I cannot see why people should apprehend all these difficulties, because when the noble Viscount says that people might arise in the future, people arise, to-day. There is scarcely an inquiry which takes place in the Court of Chancery to-day concerning the demise of an estate in which the same question does not arise, and I cannot see why it should not be possible to trust the Courts to fulfil the duty which they now discharge, of determining whether or not A is the child of B and C. It will end there, and I should have thought that was an abundant and sufficient safeguard. I do not believe that any human being has

683
ever been so profoundly misunderstood as I have been by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. The idea that I suggested that you can make a man or woman moral by act of Parliament is one of the most astonishing perversions of my belief that I ever heard in my life.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Right of issue of illegitimate child dying before marriage of parents.
4. In the event of an illegitimate person dying before the marriage of his parents leaving any children or more remote issue then, whether such death occurred before the commencement of this Act or occurs thereafter, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of his parents have been legitimated by this Act, such children or more remote issue shall have the same rights under this Act of taking interests under any intestacy or disposition or of succeeding to an estate tail or other entailed interest as they would have had had the illegitimate person died immediately after the marriage of his parents, and that person shall for the purpose of the transmission of such right as aforesaid he deemed to be a legitimated person within the meaning of this Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 4. The noble Lord said: I desire to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Clause 4 says:
" In the event of an illegitimate person dying before the marriage of his parents leaving any children or more remote issue then, whether such death occurred before the commencement of this Act or occurs thereafter, if that person would, if living at the time of the marriage of his parents have been legitimated by this Act, such children or more remote issue shall have the same rights under this Act of taking interests under any intestacy or disposition or of succeeding to an estate tail or other entailed interest as they would have had "—
and so on. I do not quite know how the noble and learned Viscount will support this clause after the Amendment which has just been put into the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. That Amendment, as I understand it, makes it necessary that the parents shall say that the child is really their child.
What will happen if Clause 4 remains in the Bill? A person living with a woman has an illegitimate child by her and that illegitimate child grows up. He may become a person of not very good character and may live with
684
another woman and have an illegitimate child by her. That person dies and after his death his parents marry. Then the child of the woman with whom he had been living, and who may have been living after that with other men and have had other children, can come forward—or even more remote issue still—and be legitimated. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer—I often regret it—and therefore I cannot always understand the intricacies of Bills, but as I understand this clause it is in absolute contradiction of the Amendment which we have just accepted. It would be impossible at any rate for one of the parents, if he or she was dead, to say that the child was really his or her child by the other parent. The clause seems to me not only to be extraordinarily vague but extremely dangerous. The words "leaving any children or more remote issue" may entail any number of Tichborne cases and cases of people coming forward and making claims to estates.
What is the object of it all? Merely because certain people have been immoral and have done wrong the noble and learned Lord conceives that in the interests of the children you ought to do something. You might just as well say that when any illegitimate child is born the parents ought to marry and the child be legitimated. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will accept my Amendment, which really does not hurt the rest of the Bill but makes it a measure which is not so harmful as it would be if the clause were left in.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 5 to 19, leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. This is a very simple clause. It provides that the marriage of the grandparents shall legitimate their child so that the grandchildren might not suffer. It is merely the logical consequence of, and is consistent with, the rest of the Bill. As for supposing that it would interfere with the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, or that his Amendment in any way interferes with this, that is an entire mistake.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I, too, hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It is certainly remarkable to what a confusion

685
of ideas this little measure of mine has given rise. I cannot help thinking that there is some unhappy influence exuding from this Bill. If you look at the clause you will see what it does. It is the simplest thing in the Bill. It provides that if a child who is dead would have been legitimated had he lived his children shall none the less stand in the position in which they would have stood had he been alive and been legitimated. Is not that fair? If you are going to legitimate children at all, surely it is a most unjust thing that the mere death of the parent who was himself illegitimate and would have been legitimated had he lived should adversely affect his children.
VISCOUNT CAVE: This Bill gives rise to confusion, I believe, because the basis of it is that that shall be deemed to have happened which has not happened but which ought to have happened. But I agree with him that this clause is consistent with the principle of the Bill and is not affected by the adoption of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. There will still have to be in these cases an avowal by the parents that the child is their child, and that avowal still has to be made within the proper time. If that avowal is made then the consequences laid down in the clause will follow. I hone that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not sure whether I thoroughly understand what the noble Lord has said, but I gather from him that the Amendment of the noble Earl does make some difference. In those circumstances, unless I receive some further support, I shall not press my Amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Savings.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise a legitimated person or his issue to take by descent under an estate tail or other entailed interest created before the commencement of this Act.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation or construction of any will (including a codicil) coming into operation before the commencement of this Act, or of any settlement or other disposition (not being a testamentary disposition) made before such commencement.
LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBUKY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "before," to insert "or after." The noble Lord said: I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, after the generous way in which I accepted his view two moments ago, will now meet me and accept my Amendment, which really is a very simple one. The words in the subsection are:—
" Nothing in this Act shall authorise a legitimated person or his issue to take by descent under an estate tail or other entailed interest created before the commencement of this Act."
I desire to insert, after "created before," the words "or after" the commencement of this Act, and I will explain why.
As I understand the Bill, and I have taken the precaution of asking the opinion of some one learned in the law, the result, unless my Amendment is put in and also the subsequent Amendment in my name which deals with the same point, will be this. I make a will, and I leave what estate I may have to my legitimate children. I may have made that will two or three years ago when I had no conception that a Bill of this sort would be introduced. If I had died then, or if I had died yesterday, or if I die before this Bill is passed, that will is legal, but if I succeed in living until after this Bill is passed then my will and my wishes are disregarded. In order to ensure that which I desire taking place I shall have to go to my solicitor, who probably will have to take the advice of a counsel learned in the law, and I shall have to make a new will. I do not see that anybody is going to gain any advantage from that, except the lawyers. Although I have a great respect for lawyers, I do not see that there is any advantage in giving them extra work.
All I ask, therefore, is that where a man has made a will, and has declared that his estate is to go to certain people, this Act shall not override his will. All I ask the noble and learned Lord to do is to allow a will which has been made to stand. Supposing I have changed my mind, having been converted by the noble Lord's eloquence to believe in this Bill, which at present I consider a bad one. I can go then to my lawyer and change my will if I am still of the opinion that I was two or three years ago. But why should I be put to the expense of going to a

687
lawyer and changing my will? I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, after (" before ") insert (" or after ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Lord cannot expect me to accept this Amendment, though he may hope that I will do so. Let us see what it is that he wants. This Bill provides that existing wills shall not be touched by the passage of this measure, but, after this Bill is passed and children are legitimated, why in the world should they not get the full benefit of this Bill and succeed just like legitimate children? That is what this Bill is for. The noble Lord seems to have fastened on to an estate tail, which he seems to think has some mystery or dignity attached to it, and to think that it ought to be the kind of estate in respect of which, if created after the passing of this Act, the descendant should be excluded from the benefit of the Bill. May I suggest to him this? If he really wants to save the expense of a lawyer let him simply put on the codicil of his will: "No person legitimated under the provisions of this Act shall take any estate under the terms of this will." He can then sleep in peace and save his costs. Really that is the whole thing, and no person who is going to make a will after the passing of this Act need be under the least doubt or apprehension. If he wants to exclude people half a dozen words will do it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I remind the noble and learned Lord what he said a few moments ago? He said there were a large number of people who would not know anything about the provisions of this Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Poor people, and they have not estates entail.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I accept that. There are a great many people who, at the present time, have estates but are poor. I think that, as a matter of fact, they are poorer than those to whom the noble and learned Lord alludes. Let me thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice. It is always welcome. I only used my case as an illustration. I have had the good fortune to
688
sit in this House and listen to the noble and learned Lord, and therefore I know what is going on, but there are a very large number of people who do not know what is going on. They do not see the reports of our debates, and they will not in the least know that they have to go to their solicitor and make a codicil such as the noble and learned Lord has suggested. Consequently their children may find that, contrary to the wish of their parents, some illegitimate children have succeeded to their property. I do not know what view your Lordships take of the Amendment, but I earnestly hope that you will endeavour to persuade the noble and learned Lord to accept it, or, if he does not, carry it on a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. (Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Penalties.
4. Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to substitute "four months" for "three months." The noble Lord said: On the face of it, this Amendment is merely to make the maximum period of imprisonment which can be inflicted under the Bill four months instead of three. The real object, and the real effect, of the Amendment is to give the defendant in these cases an absolute right to be tried by a jury. I put down the Amendment in order to carry out the wishes of many noble Lords in this House and to give effect to a suggestion made by Viscount Cave in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill,

689
that this right to be tried by a jury if he so desires should be given to a defendant. Many of your Lordships thought that cases might arise in which it would not be easy for a bench of magistrates to decide even with the safeguard of an appeal to Quarter Sessions, and there were others, including the Lord Chancellor, who thought that it was only reasonable in the interest of the defendant himself to give him a light to be tried by a jury if he so desired. The effect of the Amendment making the maximum period of imprisonment four months will give him that right automatically.
This right to be tried by a jury arises under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, Section 17, and I will read the Section from Stone's Justices Manual, 1922 edition, page 44, where the words of the section are correctly reproduced. The section reads thus:—
" A person when charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence, in respect of the commission of which an offender is liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months, and which is not an assault, may, on appearing before the court and before the barge is gone into but not afterwards, claim to be tried by a jury, and thereupon the court of summary jurisdiction shall deal with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an indictable offence and not with an offence punishable on summary conviction, and the offence shall as respects the person so charged be deemed to be an indictable offence …"
There is a subsection in this Section 17 with which your Lordships are probably familiar. The effect of it is that the defendant is entitled before the charge is gone into to be informed of his right and to be told that if he chooses he can be tried by a jury instead of being dealt with summarily, and if he desires to be so tried he is so tried.
The Amendment anticipates and meets the desire of Earl Russell who has a similar Amendment on the Paper, not, I think, quite so satisfactory in its terms. I think he will agree that this Amendment meets his views. It will certainly remove the main objections to the Bill which were urged by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Council on the Second Reading. I should be very sanguine if I supposed that it would remove all the objections of the Government to the Bill, but I trust better counsels will prevail. Be that as it may, I
690
hope the Amendment will recommend itself to the majority of your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, line 22, leave out (" three ") and insert (" four ").—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: This Amendment, as I have been advised, does meet objections that were taken to the question of conviction on summary trial. That is to say, it gives the defendant an absolute right to trial by jury, which is one of the points desired. The noble and learned Lord is quite right, in thinking that it by no means removes all the objections to the Bill. in my opinion, it still remains an extremely foolish measure and one which I am satisfied is much more likely to do harm than good. The Amendment, however, removes the objection that you are changing the law. You are not now substantially changing the law; you are not depriving a prisoner of a right which he had before. I agree that my Amendment is not couched in words of art. The noble and learned Lord's Amendment is much better and I am quite satisfied with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to add to the clause the words: "and the provisions of Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall apply." The noble and learned Lord said: It appears that the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, does not apply to Scotland or Ireland. It is my desire, and I think the desire of your Lordships, that this Bill, if passed, should apply to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, and therefore as the Act of 1879 does not apply to Ireland and Scotland I propose to put in the words of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert (" and the provisions of Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall apply ").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DUNEDIN: My Lords, in 1905 I was appointed Chairman of a Royal Commission to inquire as to whether the law of Scotland could be amended cither by introducing registration of title—the present arrangement in Scotland being registration of deed—or in other ways. That Commission sat and we made a Report, which advised two things—First, that a certain experimental trial of registration of title should be made, and, secondly, that a great deal could be done in the direction of the simplification of conveyancing. That Report had the fate which I think has been common to many Reports. Everybody approved of it and nobody did anything in consequence of it. In 1911, after six years more, the Lord Advocate of the day appointed a Committee of eminent Scottish lawyers, unconnected with politics, to see what measures they could recommend for the general improvement of the law of Scotland. That Committee, composed of Sir George Paul, Mr. Chree, and Mr. Prosser, has worked continuously ever since, and I think Scotland owes them a great debt of thanks. Several of the Bills they have produced have become law, and this Bill is their Bill.
This is the second edition of the Bill. It has been subjected to heavy criticism. and a good many alterations have been made in it. I cannot, say that opinion is absolutely unanimous, because there are some in Scotland who are against it, but they are only against it on this point—namely, that they would rather like, instead of amending the law, to make a clear sweep and begin from the beginning. That is a proposition which is rather hard and obviously prevents improvement. I have said this because I wish it to be understood that I am not in any way responsible for this Bill. I am not its parent in any sense. I was not consulted about it, and I should not have taken the responsibility of bringing it before your Lordships unless I had looked carefully into it and could say that I thought it was a thoroughly good Bill. The reason why I have taken this position is, in the first place, that I had that far-off connection with it in 1905, and, secondly, that the Bill is so technical that if any of your Lordships are of a curious turn of mind I really believe that I am the only man in the House who could answer the conundrums that you might put.
692
The Bill itself can be described in a very few words. First of all, it does away with the cumbrous form known as the notarial instrument. In very many ways it shortens this. Then it deals with, and very much simplifies, the method of finding out and commuting rights of terce and courtesy. Those are the rights which a husband and wife respectively have in the estate of a deceased spouse. Last of all—and probably this is the chief improvement—it reduces the prescription of heritable rights from twenty years to ten. What is more, it reduces the present searches to a period of five years. I may remind your Lordships what a search means. If you are getting an estate from anybody, in order to see that the title is good you have to have a search in the register to see that there are no burdens affecting it. The result of this will be a great cheapening, because the search will be so much shorter. I really think that your Lordships may safely give a Second Reading to the Bill, seeing that it has passed the inquiry which was directed to it in another place.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dunedin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has said that he is not directly responsible for the initiation of this Bill. That is quite true, but the fact that he has taken it up and has expressed his full approval of it will have great weight with your Lordships' House. My noble and learned friend's experience is unrivalled, so far as Scottish law is concerned, and when he comes here with his great authority and says that this is a Bill which we ought to pass, and gives reasons for that advice, that is a consideration to which we will attach great weight. It is true that opinion in Scotland has not been unanimous regarding this Bill, but the reason has been, not that the Bill is regarded as a bad one, but that something larger was wanted. I do not myself see any immediate prospect of that larger measure being brought in and passed. I hope it will come, but I cannot say at what period the Government will be ready to introduce such a measure, or to go into the details that have to be examined before it can be fashioned.
This Bill effects what I believe to be very substantial improvements in the Scottish law of conveyancing The Government is not responsible for it, but

693
it has been examined by the Lord Advocate and scanned closely, and the Lord Advocate, who is also a great authority upon the law of Scotland, agrees with my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin, that this is a Bill which ought to pass. It has the good fortune to have passed the House of Commons, and now it comes here. Speaking for the Government, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' attention, and I think that it should be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Bead 3a (according to Order).
Valuation and surrender of teinds.
15.—(1) After the passing of this Act the provisions set out in the Sixth Schedule to this Act which relate to the obtaining of valuations of teinds and the surrender of valued teinds shall have effect for those purposes and the present law and practice relating thereto shall cease to apply but without prejudice to any proceedings taken before the passing of this Act or to any proceedings which may be taken within twelve months after the passing of this Act for the approbation of reports of sub-commissioners relating, to the valuation of teinds.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years." The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time, and I will be as brief as I can. The question with which I have to deal is somewhat complicated, though very important. It will affect a large number of people unless it is put in a satisfactory position before this Bill becomes an Act. I think I should say again that there have been considerable difficulties in dealing with this Bill owing to the delay which has taken place in printing the Bill after its various stages in this House. For instance, I may say that the reprint of the Report Stage of this Bill, which was taken last Thursday, was, I think, issued only yesterday, and at any rate did not arrive in Scotland in time to allow one to put down an Amendment after having an opportunity of reading the reprint. I had to put down the two Amendments which stand in my name before I had
694
been able to see the revised Bill as reprinted after the Report Stage.
The Amendments which I have put down practically amount to the same thing. I will be as brief as I can, because I understand that the Government, though they will not be able to accept the Amendment, will consider whether they can deal with the question when this Bill reaches another place. Under the existing law and practice, a heritor whose teinds were valued in the seventeenth century, by a Report of Sub-Commissioners appointed in 1617—your Lordships will sec that this is very ancient history—to carry out the valuation of these teinds, can have them approbated. Until they have been approbated in the Teinds Court, these sub-valuations are not legally binding, though in most cases they have been acted upon. One difficulty is that it is not known how many of these valuations require approbation, and apparently there is at present no means of ascertaining this. The danger is that if, after this Bill passes into law, insufficient time or opportunity is given to the heritors to obtain approbation, they may be put to very serious loss, and very heavy burdens may be imposed upon them which do not now exist.
I may give your Lordships one instance. I know one property on which, under the old valuation, the teind is somewhere about £10 per annum, but I believe that if it were valued now the teind would be something like £240 per annum, or twenty-four times as much. The question of these approbations was raised towards the end of the discussion on this Bill which took place between representatives of the heritors and representatives of the Church, but the point was discussed in connection with Clause 7 of the Sixth Schedule, and all the parties, including the Teinds Clerk, who is practically the only man who really knows this question, came to the conclusion that the Bill did not take away the right to approbate. It had been overlooked, however, that Clause 15 of the Bill expressly provides that the present law and practice relating to valuation and surrender shall cease after the passing of the Act. It is true that this provision is declared to be without prejudice to any proceedings taken before that date, and the point is whether approbation proceedings taken,

695
let us say, in 1925, on a sub-valuation made as far back as 1629, are a continuation of proceedings taken before the passing of the Act or not.
My Amendment is designed to give sufficient time for people to get these approbations through. The difficulty is that very few people know what is entailed. A great deal of search is required and, what is a still greater difficulty, the whole of these cases have got to go through the Teinds Office. As these people cannot possibly be allowed to go through the Teinds Office, if there are a great many of them, and I suppose there are a great number, it is impossible within the time allowed to get the business through. In that case, there might, be a great burden and injustice, which I know the Government do not intend to put upon the heritors. I put down my two Amendments really as alternative Amendments, but I have had an opportunity of consulting the Government. I believe they are rather averse to the Amendments. I believe that they agree that it is a reasonable and right request, but their objection is one of form. The Amendment increasing the period to three years probably gives sufficient time, but it is undesirable to delay bringing the Bill into operation a day longer than is necessary, and if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gives an undertaking that this question will be thoroughly looked into and put right in the House of Commons, so that there will be no injustice inflicted, I would not wish to detain your Lordships any longer with a further explanation of this very complicated subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has been good enough to communicate his Amendments to me at an early stage, and I have had an opportunity of considering them with the Lord Advocate. We fully appreciate the point that he has made. It is a reasonable point, but one which requires consideration. It does not go to the root principle of the Bill, but only to the machinery of it. Looking into it, we think probably we can meet the wishes of the noble Duke, although the form of the required Amendment needs consideration by those having full technical knowledge. I am prepared to undertake that when the Bill goes to the Commons the matter shall be fully considered. It is impossible to say more at 696
this moment, or anything else except that we will do our best to meet what seems to be a reasonable desire on the part of the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I would like to thank the Lord Chancellor, and in these circumstances I will not move my Amendments.
Privilege Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, may I rise to a point of order of which I have given private notice to the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill? The point of order is this: I submit that the Bill which the noble Viscount proposes to read a second time deals entirely with the Prerogative of the Crown, and therefore can only be considered by the House if introduced by a Minister of the Crown. Your Lordships are all aware of the form which the Patents we so often hear read at the Table take. His Majesty confers a certain title of "His special Grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion," and there are limitations to every honour which he confers. In most cases it is conferred upon an individual with remainder to his heirs male, and those heirs male are given a right to a seat and voice in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In some cases there is remainder to the daughter of the person, and in that case the Patent specially omits to confer on that lady the right to a seat and voice in Parliament.
May I read to your Lordships the Patent conferred recently on the late Lord Rhondda? It confers upon him the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Viscount Rhondda of Llanwerth, with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten, and in default of such issue remainder is given to his daughter Margaret Haig Mackworth, who is to have and to hold the name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Viscountess Rhondda of Llanwerth. The patent proceeds:—
" … willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors

697
that the said David Alfred Baron Rhondda and his heirs male aforesaid and in default of such issue the heirs male of the said Margaret Haig Mackworth and every of them successively and respectively may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
As your Lordships will see the lady is omitted.
I submit that this Bill is an attempt to deal with the Prerogative of the Crown, and I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the House, it has not been the habit in the past, to deal with such matters only when the measure is introduced by a Minister of the Crown. I believe it has been nearly always the custom when dealing with the reform of this House to deal with it first by Resolution, and I believe that was the case when Lord Lansdowne introduced a series of Resolution". I therefore desire to put this point of order.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, on the point of order I should like to say just one word, if I may be allowed to do so, although I have no claim to speak with any kind of authority. I have just looked into the authorities on the point, and as I understand the rule of Parliament it is this: that if a Bill is introduced which affects the Prerogative of the Crown, before the House parts with it—that is, before the Third Reading and before the Motion "That this Bill do pass"—there must be the consent of the Crown signified by a Privy Councillor. That, I understand, is the practice of Parliament. It is not the case that it need be introduced by a Minister of the Crown. So far as I know that only applies to measures to increase taxation, which are introduced in the other House, because we cannot impose taxation.
If I understand the law rightly as stated in Sir T. Erskine-May's Parliamentary Practice, at pages 542–3, the position is as I have said, and I find that in a Bill which was discussed, it is true in the other House—but in this respect the practice of the two Houses is practically the same—which proposed to restrict the number of Irish Peers, and therefore was a very clear interference with the Prerogative, the Second Reading was moved without objection, but just before the Question was put the point was raised that it was a matter on which the Prerogative
698
of the Crown ought to be safeguarded by the Assent of the Crown, signified by a Privy Councillor. Thereupon Mr. Gathorne Hardy, the Home Secretary at the time, said this:—He believed the practice was settled and although this Bill might be come to the last stage without receiving the Royal Assent it could not go beyond that stage. He did not think it was a measure that was at all pressing in its character, and could not undertake to advise Her Majesty as to its progress. Considering, therefore, the great pressure of other and more important business, he appealed to the hon. and learned baronet not to proceed with it. In other words, he announced that in no circumstance" would the consent of the Crown be given, and it was not worth while pressing the Second Reading. It was not suggested that there was anything out of order in proceeding with the Second Beading. Therefore, before the House parts with the present Bill, I think the consent of the Crown should be signified through a Privy Councillor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, even in the event of this being a Bill which goes a long way to alter the law, and even if, on the hypothesis of the Prerogative being affected, there is a doubt about whether what the noble and learned Viscount has laid down is sufficient to cover the case, I do not think any real question arises. This is, in effect, a Bill to take away a disability which prevents a woman from availing herself of her Peerage to claim a Writ to sit in this House. Your Lordships decided, through the Committee for Privileges, on a claim of the Baroness Rhondda, that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act did not cure that because it gave her no affirmative right. It was treated as not extending so far as to enable the Baroness Rhondda to claim. But there were certain things about which I think your Lordships were all agreed, even then. One was that since the Earl of Bristol, in the reign of Charles I, established that every Peer had a Common Law right to a Writ of Summons the granting or the withholding of the Writ did not depend upon the Prerogative at all, but depended upon this, that when a man has a Peerage he has a right to claim a Writ and to sit in this House. It is not the words

699
in the Patent, but it is the status belonging to the Peerage which gives the right to the Writ.
Your Lordships held that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act had not altered the disability of a woman to perform a public function as a Peeress in this House, and accordingly the Committee for Privileges advised that the Baroness Rhondda had not made out her claim. Rut that was not on any ground relating to the Prerogative. That was because the Common Law of the land disqualified Baroness Rhondda as being a woman. This is a Bill to enable a Peeress to be qualified to sit here. If she becomes qualified then she would be like anybody else, and could claim her Writ as a right, as was done by the Earl of Bristol in the time of Charles I. It is obvious, if that be true, that this is not a Bill which takes away any Prerogative of the Crown. It is a Bill which leaves the Prerogative of the Crown exactly as it stands, the Prerogative to create Peerages. If Peeresses are created then the persons created would have the full status of a Peerage ex debito justitiæ. Therefore it appears to mc that this is not a Bill cutting down the Prerogative of the Crown at all, and, accordingly, that the difficulty that has been raised is not a formidable one.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I had not been apprised beforehand that this point was going to be raised, but I should like, if I may, to say a few words upon it. I am not sure that I go the whole way with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. That is to say, I am not sure that this is not a Bill to alter Patents and to enable a Peeress, who by her Patent is not entitled to be called to sit in Parliament, to receive her Writ of Summons. That being so, I think it may well be, with great deference to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that at some stage of the Bill the question may be raised whether the Assent of the Crown, through a Privy Councillor, should not be given to the Bill. Exactly what that stage is I would rather not say without further considering it. At all events, I am satisfied of this, that there is nothing whatever to prevent a Second Beading of the Bill being moved and debated, as things now
700
stand, and the matter might well be further considered at a future sitting of the House.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, you have to-day discussed a variety of different subjects, contained in different Bills, and you have displayed a great measure of agreement on those subjects. I trust that I shall find the same measure of agreement indicated towards the Bill to which I am now formally asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam has a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill. If I did not see his name down to such a Motion I should feel, as a friend, some degree of anxiety lest his accustomed vigour was being diminished.
The Bill of which I am moving the Second Reading is quite a short one. it contains three clauses. Clause 1 proposes that Peeresses in their own right should be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to Parliament, and to sit and vote here as if they were men. Clause 2 enables Peeresses in their own right to be entitled to vote at Elections of Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland, and also to be elected to represent cither of those two countries. Clause 3 deals with an amendment to the Representation of the People Act. At the present moment a Peeress is allowed to vote at an Election. A Peer, as your Lordships know, has not that privilege. Clause 3 proposes to put Peeresses in their own right on exactly the same footing as a Peer. Your Lordships, some two years ago, had before you a Petition, moved on behalf of Lady Rhondda, that she should receive a Writ of Summons. The history of that Petition must be fresh in your Lordships' memory. It was decided by the Committee for Privileges that Lady Rhondda was not entitled to receive a Writ of Summons. That point was settled. This Bill recognises that there is no such right, and it asks your Lordships to make an alteration in the law on the lines which I have indicated. It is a totally different point which is before your Lordships to-day.
I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I do not look upon this Bill in any way as an attempt to reform your Lordships' House. It affects a very small number of persons—less than two dozen Peeresses. It is not contemplated that

701
there would be any large addition to your Lordships' House. I say quite frankly that I have always been in favour of what is known as the reform of the House of Lords. I am in favour of that because I am in favour of having two Chambers. I contemplate the time coming when your Lordships may have to take a firm and definite stand, and, if and when that occasion ever arises, I want your Lordships' House to be in as strong a position as possible. I think there is a measure of common agreement between representatives of all Parties that some reform is necessary. If I were bringing this Bill forward as a measure of reform it would be more far-reaching and far more drastic than is this small Bill.
I suggest to your Lordships that we cannot possibly postpone or reject this Bill on the ground that the point ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive measure of reform. Keen though I am on the reform of this House, wholeheartedly though I support that general idea, I am convinced that the reform of your Lordships' House is very far distant. I do not see any possibility of a Liberal Government bringing it forward. I do not sec any possibility of a Labour Government bringing it forward, and when, before the Election of 1922, my late leader. Mr. Bonar Law, made a public announcement that if returned to power his Government would not in the first year of office attempt to reform your Lordships' House, I realised, with great regret, how far distant was a measure of reform.
I suggest that your Lordships cannot postpone this particular question or wait until it is possible to deal with a general scheme of reform, but that until we do get that reform your Lordships' House should more accurately and fairly reflect those eight million women voters who now exist in the country. I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that on a large number of questions there is, undoubtedly, a woman's point of view. Many men cannot understand the woman's point of view. Many men differ from the woman's point of view. But that there is such a point of view is unarguable. In my opinion the point of view of women is necessary and it is desirable that we should have it. It is a good point of view on a large number
702
of questions. Your Lordships have to consider and to pass legislation dealing with problems affecting children, women, morality, and the employment of both sexes. It is essential, I think, that your Lordships should have the woman's point of view put at first hand before your Lordships' House. It may be a right or a wrong point, of view, but at all events it should be heard. I feel that it is impossible for a man to put it with as great conviction and as much comprehension as it would be put by a woman.
I am not going to take up any great amount of time in arguing the competence of women to act as legislators. Had I been introducing this Bill before the year 1919 I should have felt bound to argue that point and to indicate why I thought that women were qualified and competent to act a; legislators. I should have had to recall to your Lordships' memory the fact that England's fame was never greater in the past than when she had a Queen. I should have had to recall the fact that when Elizabeth came to the throne England was a third-or fourth-rate Power, and that at the end of her reign England occupied a position of far greater distinction in Europe. It is not necessary now for me to make out a case that women are qualified to legislate and to be members of a House of Parliament. In 1919 the first woman representative was elected to the House of Commons. That lead was followed about two years latter. Plymouth led the way and took the first plunge. Plymouth's lead was followed by an agricultural constituency, and the agricultural constituency was followed by an industrial constituency in the North of England.
I think that the representation of women in another place has proved itself to be an enormous success and I will tell your Lordships why I think so. In the course of less than five years the representation of women in another place has been increased eight fold. At the last Election Scotland followed the lead and every Party now has its women representatives in the House of Commons. The only country which is not so represented is Wales. We find in another place to-day that there is a woman occupant of the Ministerial Front Bench. In this House we deal with all subjects, except the

703
question of finance. It seems impossible and ridiculous to argue that a woman can discuss finance in another place but is not competent and qualified to come to your Lordships' House and assist us in our deliberations and in our legislation on questions of morality and child welfare and questions affecting the employment and the position of women generally.
One interesting fact has come to light recently. That is the special faculty with which members of your Lordships' House are endowed for selecting as their mates for life ladies who, apparently, are selected subsequently by the electors to represent them in the House of Commons. I do not know whether that has anything to do with our being hereditary legislators, but it is an interesting fact. It seems ridiculous that a lady who has no particular knowledge of legislation or of administration should be qualified to be returned by a constituency to another place, while the daughters of your Lordships in certain cases, having all these advantages of contact with legislation and administration which come from their family, should not be qualified to sit in your Lordships' House.
One of the most notable happenings m the world recently is the advance in the position of women. Women are now taking an active part in the law and an active and able part in the conduct of business. Women are occupying positions of distinction and responsibility in the Civil Service. I understand that a woman holds the rank of Assistant Secretary at the Treasury, Recently the Government has always been represented at the League of Nations by a woman. The position of Deputy Chairman of the London County Council has been held by a woman. It seems to be impossible to say that a woman shall be competent and qualified to represent this country at the League of Nations, to occupy one of the highest positions in the Civil Service or on great self-governing local bodies and to sit on the Front Bench in the House of Commons, and yet shall not be competent and qualified to assist us in our deliberations in this House.
I can see no constitutional, historical or logical objection to the proposal which I am now making to your Lordships' House. This House has played a great part in the history of this country. It has always attempted, I think, to act justly and
704
fairly. It is in that spirit that I hope your Lordships will deal with this Bill this afternoon. I venture to suggest that if we do not take this small step forward we shall be very largely stultifying ourselves and showing that we are out of touch with opinion in the country at large. This is a small and moderate Bill. It is a genuine attempt to bring your Lordships' House into relation with the aspirations and the point of view of nearly half the electorate and more than half the population. That is the aim of the Bill, and that, I believe, will be its effect if your Lordships pass it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill has a very curious history. Two years ago Lady Rhondda applied to the Committee for Privileges in this House in order to enable her to take a seat in your Lordships' House. She founded her claim, entirely upon the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919. As the noble Viscount who has just sat down said, your Lordships refused that claim. The first Committee, consisting I think of eight members, agreed to the claim, but your Lordships referred it back to a larger Committee consisting of thirty members, and that Committee, by twenty to four, rejected Lady Rhondda's claim. There were on that Committee a number of learned Lords, and I find that the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Finlay, Lord Cave, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Parmoor, and Lord Carson all found that her claim was unfounded, and the only two noble and learned Lords who voted for her were Lord Haldane and Lord Wrenbury. That is a very strong consensus of legal opinion—eight celebrated law Lords against two equally celebrated.
My noble friend Lord Astor says that Lady Rhondda fully recognises what took place, and he now brings forward this Bill, as I gather, on other grounds. I have taken the trouble to read the very voluminous document containing, if he will allow me to say so, the extraordinarily eloquent judgment delivered by the Earl of Birkenhead, and I found this. I find that your Lordships' Committee

705
rejected Lady Rhondda's claim on the ground that in her Patent she was expressly disqualified from taking a seat in your Lordships' House. The question was raised as to whether other Patents of other Peeresses, being Peeresses in their own right, contained the same provision, and Lady Burdett-Coutts' Patent and Lady Beaconsfield's Patent were produced, and they both had the same provision. The promoters of this Bill are perfectly well aware of that, as is proved by Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill says—
" A woman being the holder in her own right of any Peerage, other than a Peerage of Scotland or Ireland, shall, if otherwise qualified, be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to Parliament and to sit and vote in the House of Lords as fully as if she were a man and notwithstanding that the loyal Charter or Letters Patent (if any) creating such Peerage do not expressly confer upon her the right to hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in Parliament."
Therefore, your Lordships must see that the promoters of this Bill are attempting by an Act of Parliament to alter a Patent given by His Majesty. If Peerages were conferred by Act of Parliament I should have nothing to say, but Peerages are not conferred by Act of Parliament; neither are Patents given by Act of Parliament.
I am only a very recent member of your Lordships' House, but I remember standing only a few months ago at that box while the Clerk read out my Patent before I was admitted a member of this House in order to see whether ray Patent entitled me to sit in this House. If there had been anything in my Patent which had prevented me sitting in this House no Act of Parliament could have given me that privilege. Therefore I say that if you pass this Bill you will set up a precedent by which a Patent can be altered by an Act of Parliament. If this Bill was carried there would be nothing to prevent me bringing in an Act of Parliament to say that in the event of my grandson dying without issue my granddaughter should sit in this House. Without going into the merits of whether or not Peeresses should sit in this House, with which aspect of the matter I will deal shortly, I venture to say that your Lordships will be committing a very great error, even if you are not doing something which infringes the Royal Prerogative, if you pass a Bill of this kind.
Let me now deal with the question of whether or not it is advisable for Peeresses to sit in this House. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill gave us the history of certain lady members of the House of Common, and he alluded to the three lady members with whom I had the pleasure of sitting during the time that I was in that House. He said that one represented Plymouth, and one represented some other place, and another represented a constituency in the North of England, but he forget to mention the very extraordinary history of their election. They were all elected because their husbands had to give up their seats. Lady Astor was elected because the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, came to this House. Mrs. Wintringham was elected because her husband died in the House of Commons. Mrs. Philipson, who is a Conservative—and this is the most extraordinary election of all of them—was elected because her husband, who was a Radical, was turned out of his seat for corrupt practices. The constituents having lost a Radical Member, returned his wife as a Conservative Member to the House of Commons. Surely there is no argument founded on those elections that can be brought forward to show that there was any great desire on the part of the constituents in this country to return women to the House of Commons.
In view of what I have said in regard to the Royal Prerogative, I very much doubt whether a Bill of this sort ought to be brought in by a private member. Ought it not to be brought in by the Government? I was in the House of Commons with these lady members. I have not been in the House of Commons with the other five who have been added, but my experience—and the noble Viscount was not in the House of Commons with these ladies—is different from his. I do not know about the Labour Party, but I never met any one else who did not regret that we had women in the House of Commons. Over and over again honourable Members have said to me: "We made a great mistake when we admitted women to the House of Commons." I do not ask your Lordships to accept my statement about that. It may be said that I am prejudiced. Though I am a great admirer of women, I do not like them in the House of Commons. I wall give your Lordships the opinion of one of the ablest men in the

707
House of Commons, a man of great distinction, a man who has been many years in the House of Commons, and a man who is sincere and honest in everything he does, and who has, what is very much lacking at this moment in the country, the courage of his convictions I mean Lord Hugh Cecil.
What did Lord Hugh Cecil say, this year? I have taken the trouble to obtain a copy of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT in order that I may not misquote him. This is what he said on February 29 this year:—
" I did support that [woman suffrage] and I should support it again, in spite of the many follies and excesses which have been associated with the feminist movement. I am sorry it has led to some of the consequences to which it has led. I am sorry we have come to include among our members persons belonging to the other sex "—
and then comes a little qualification, I am most anxious not to cut out anything which is favourable to the noble Viscount's Motion. This is the qualification:—
" but what we have lost in dignity, we may have gained in efficiency."
Your Lordships will mark the word "may." Do your Lordships wish to lose the. dignity of this House, which for centuries has been the model of a Parliament House, in order, perhaps, to gain efficiency?
Before I conclude I should like to read a few words from a letter which appeared in the Sunday Times last Sunday from Lady Rhondda. It shows really what is at the bottom of all this. It is not a movement on the part of the women of the country. Do you mean to tell me that the women of the country care two-pence whether Lady Rhondda or any other Peeress sits in this House? It is a movement on the part of a certain number of women who have formed themselves into a women's organisation and this is what Lady Rhondda says in her letter. She speaks of:—
" not the non-Party women's organisation only but also that growing body of individual women influenced by those who, while nominally adherents of the Conservative, Liberal or Labour party, are, in fact, most interested in reforms of special concern to women."
Then the reforms are given, and one of them is the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is perfectly clear
708
that there are a certain number of women who are desirous not to put the welfare of the country in the forefront of their object, but some small petty personal advantage which they can gain. One of the reforms is, I think, widow's pensions; another, equal rights. We are all going to be equal, and if widows are to have pensions why should not widowers have pensions as well? Where are you going to stop if you begin in this way? What we desire is not to perpetuate class legislation, but that everyone in both Houses of Parliament should be actuated solely by a desire to promote the interests of the country as a whole.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time, but this is a very important question. I will conclude, however, by summarising my arguments. First, I maintain that this House, by Act of Parliament, cannot interfere with the Patents creating Peers or Peeresses. If it did so, it would be creating a grave precedent which might lead to something which no one can foresee. Secondly, I say that we have done well in the past. Women in the House of Commons have not been a success. You must remember that men and women are different, and you cannot prevent a woman in the House of Commons exercising the privilege of her sex which she has been accustomed to exercise. You cannot treat her as an equal. I do not for a moment say that she, by malice prepense, exercises that fascination which a woman exercises over man, but she does it unwittingly. On these two grounds I earnestly entreat your Lordships to reject this Bill, and to reject it by such a majority that we shall not be troubled with Bills of this sort again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out (" now ") and at the end of the Motion insert (" this day six months ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. I should be astonished, having known the noble Lord for so long, if a Bill upon any subject was introduced in this House without Lord Banbury of Southam moving its rejection. He has said that one of his objections to the measure is that an Act of Parliament cannot alter a Patent of Peerage. If that is so there is no harm whatever in passing

709
this Bill. It may be we do no good, but I prefer to pass the Bill and see whether the legal opinion given by the noble Lord is sound or not. For myself, I prefer the opinion which was given just now by the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord has given no real foundation for his objection. What is it? I think we should look back and consider the past, have some regard to history, and ask ourselves why it was, when Parliament was first summoned, that women were not summoned too. The reason is this. The Barons of that day were summoned. They were people like the noble Lord, strong in the upholding of their own individual and hardly-conquered rights, determined not to share them with other men, and certainly with no women. After a time the franchise was enlarged, and many men were, given the franchise who had not had it before. I am sure the noble Lord never assented to that. But women were not enfranchised.
The noble Lord apparently has been studying the law. Let me ask him this: Does he know that before women were allowed to sit, in the House of Commons they were capable of being Members of Parliament, and were Members of Parliament? If the noble Lord will look in Sir Erskine May's book he will find that Parliament is composed of the King or Queen and the Estates of the Realm, the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled. But the King or Queen is a member of Parliament. There has been a woman member in this very House. Queen Elizabeth was a member, so were Queen Mary, Queen Anne and, last of all. Queen Victoria. I wonder whether my noble friend, when he was a member of the House of Commons, ever came to the Bar and heard the Royal Assent given to a Bill which—I was going to say, which he had helped to pass, but I will not. If he came to that Bar, how horrified he must have been when the last words of all that were said upon it were "La reyne le veult." All the opposition that had taken place, all the assent given in the House of Commons, all the assent given by your Lordships, were useless until a woman member of Parliament, a member of this very House, had said that she consented to it. Then where is the anomaly? Even in those distant times when Parliaments were first
710
established the law was that a woman might sit upon the Throne and might exercise this right.
This is really an attempt to carry into another age that which might have had a very good reason in a time which has long passed away. In the old days women were not trained as they are now. They were not accustomed to take part in sports or public life, as they are now. But now the time has come which was foreseen by the gentleman in "Locksley Hall," when
" Iron-jointed, supple-sinewed they shall dive and they shall run.
Catch the wild goat by the hair, and hurl their lances in the sun."
That is now done by the daughters as well as the sons of "Locksley Hall." Only the other day, under very distinguished patronage at Wembley, there wore ladies—I saw their photographs—taking part in catching the wild goat by the hair. These things were never thought of by ladies in the days of chivalry. They sat down on a dais while the Barons, my noble friend's predecessors, killed one another for their amusement. Times have altogether changed.
What is the reason why a woman should not be entitled to sit in this House? My noble friend seems to think that this is a Bill for introducing Lady Rhondda into this House. I do not agree that it is anything of the kind. He said that it would be a shocking Bill, if we passed it, because we should lose dignity, as the House of Commons has lost it. It is not for me to talk about the dignity of the House of Commons, and I will not do so, but how should we lose dignity by allowing these ladies to come and sit upon these Benches and to vote? Who would they be? I will not mention who the modern ones would be, because they are very well known. There is not only Lady Rhondda, but there are certainly two others whose fathers rendered most distinguished military service to the State. But who were those whose presence here would detract from the dignity of your Lordships' House? They are ladies of the oldest blood in England and Scotland. These Peerages were given to heirs general in the distant past, and those who now

711
inherit them would not, in my opinion, in any way detract from the dignity of this House. Indeed, if I were to express my opinion—well, I will not. I should be glad to know upon what grounds of logic or convenience a lady should be excluded from this House while admitted to the other. As for logic, I have already said that there have been ladies who were members, not only of Parliament but of this very House, and if they may sit upon the Throne, why may they not sit upon these Benches?
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, if there is a question upon which the Party with which I have been identified have differed more than upon any other, it is the question of whether it is desirable or not that women should have seats in Parliament, and it is not my intention to suggest that the Liberal Party are in agreement upon this subject. On the other hand, I think most of us take the view that this is not the light method of raising a subject of such great importance, and that it should not be left to an unofficial member to try to extend to this House the principle of allowing ladies to sit and vote. If such an extension is to be made, it ought to be made on the responsibility of the Government of the day, in the same way as the franchise has been extended to female voters in the country. There is one other reason why most of those with whom I am associated would feel that we are justified in refusing our support to this Bill. The time is not far distant when it will be absolutely essential that the Government of the day shall take up the question of the reform of your Lordships' House. The question now before us is obviously one which should be raised when that reform is discussed, and an attempt should not be made to pass it through your Lordships' House by means of an unofficial member's Bill. For these reasons I, at any rate, am prepared to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Wrenbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT (CO-PARTNERSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had given Notice to draw attention to a disparity between the reports of the Lord Chancellor's speech in the House of Lords, on Monday, July 14, on the question of the Singapore Base, as reported in The Times and Morning Post newspapers of Tuesday, July 15, in which reports the Lord Chancellor is made to say:—
"The Government were endeavouring to keep the Navy efficient, but Singapore went far beyond that, and added a new weapon which it was not good that the Navy should have";
and the report of the speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 58, No. 57, Col. 514:—
"That does not mean that we do not intend to keep the Navy efficient, but it does mean that we do not intend to put a new weapon into our hand which may be looked upon with suspicion by others";
and to ask the Lord Chancellor which of the two reports gives the correct rendering of his words.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess is, I think, under a misapprehension if he thinks that there is any inconsistency between the report in The Times and the OFFICIAL REPORT. Both made it quite clear. What I said was that it was purely on the grounds of general policy, and not on strategical grounds, that I raised any objection to the Singapore base. Indeed, I laid that down in express terms in the earlier part of my speech. There is really no inconsistency between the version in The Times and the version in the OFFICIAL, REPORT, but I prefer the official version, which is a little more explicit.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: By leave of the House I should like, if I may, to say one word. It would be this:

713
that in the minds of many of us there is a good deal of difference between the two forms of words under consideration, and I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that both your Lordships and public opinion outside, and particulary the opinion of the great Service affected-will learn with a good deal of relief——
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Marquess will allow me to call his attention to the fact that he is entirely out of order, because there is no Motion on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I asked leave of the House and if I am allowed I will conclude—will notice with some relief that the noble and learned Viscount has been pleased to tell us that he prefers the official version, and that, indeed, the OFFICIAL REPORT conveys his views upon the matter entirely.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I add a word, because my noble friend who sits beside me is, I think, right in saying that this is a matter of importance? There is a great difference between the two forms of words and I was not in the least surprised to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that the terms in the OFFICIAL REPORT are those which he accepts. When he says he prefers the "official version" I think he is using a wrong expression, because clearly the OFFICIAL REPORT, taken at that Table, gives the words he used, unless he has altered them himself, which is inconceivable. Therefore we assume that he did use the words as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. From that it emerges that the Report in The Times, whether it does or does not express his general sentiments, is incorrect in its terms.
For my own part I am very glad to hear that that is the case, because when I saw The Times—I was abroad and I could not see the OFFICIAL, REPORT—and read the words attributed to the noble
714
and learned Viscount, "but Singapore went far beyond that, and added a new weapon which it was not good that the Navy should have," they appeared to me to imply a slur upon the Navy, and a likelihood as to the manner in which the Navy would act, which was entirely undeserved, and which, if it came from anybody, ought not to come from a Minister in the position of the noble and learned Viscount. I am therefore glad that attention has been called to the matter, because we now find that the words actually used were those appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that those appearing in The Times and Morning Post were a misinterpretation of what he said, and are a gloss upon them for which the newspaper alone is responsible.
[From Minutes of July 16.]
The Earl of Cottenham—sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday, July 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Wednesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blackpool Order) Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Tynemouth Corporation Bill; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 22nd of May last and on the 9th instant discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  ROTH ESAY TRAMWAYS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant, to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a(Lord Muir Mackenzie) and reported from the Committee.
PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading debate adjourned to Wednesday next.
LEGITIMACY BILL.
Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next.
SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.