The Vote of Credit carries with it the provision of money for the dependants of our sailors and soldiers, and we have had within the past few days a statement from the Leader of the House with regard to the proposed increases to the wives of our serving men and their dependants. The figures which are involved are £14,000,000 for the wives and dependants of our serving men, and £9,000,000, a special provision for the dependants of apprentices—in all, some £23,000,000. I want this morning to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposals of the Government. The first criticism that I would offer is that the increases are all prospective and none of them retrospective. The amounts that are to be paid are to come into operation on the first pay day in October, so that for some considerable time yet, in spite of the long agitation for increases, these poor people will require to wait. While it is hard in the cases of wives and children it is even more hard in the cases of the mothers of apprentices, because in their case there has been no scale provision made for allowances at any period of the War, and the only way in which these mothers can obtain allowances now is, as the House knows, by application through the local war pensions committee. The practice of our local war pensions committees is not uniform. While a mother might be able to get an allowance in Newcastle, the same mother would be unable to get the allowance in Bristol. Therefore, the delay in awarding the new increases until the first pay day in October obviously bears much more hardly upon the mothers of apprentices than it does upon the other dependants who have been on scale all the time.

Let me proceed to examine in brief detail the proposals of the Government. The first point which I think commands the attention of the House is the fact that while the Leader of the House undertook to consider increases for wives and dependants, the result of the deliberations of the Committee is that no increase of any kind is given to the wife. All the increases apply to children. I should like to know from the Leader of the House why it was that, having been charged by the House practically to look into this matter, he was unable to increase the wife's allowance. Later, I shall suggest the reason which I think has governed the action of the War Cabinet in these proposals, but the fact remains that although this question was remitted to the War Cabinet no allowance has been made for a wife. The House will remember that in 1914 the wives of our serving men were not in receipt of 12s. 6d., but of something round about 11s. 1d., and that in the four years' War there has, therefore, been an increase of less than 1s. 6d. per week to those wives. When we consider, as perhaps many Members of the House will consider in more detail, the question of the increased cost of living, it will be at once observed that no woman living in the circumstances in which the wives of our serving men now live can possibly maintain herself in physical efficiency on that 12s. 6d. I know, of course, that the reply is made by those who are opposed to an increase that it is a mistake to allow the wife of a serving man to draw an allowance and do no work, and that the amount awarded to the wife has at the back of it the suggestion that the woman should enter the industrial market and make a wage. I want to protest against that idea and against that theory. I consider that the Government, having conscripted the man to fight, has no right to conscript the woman for industrial service by awarding an allowance upon which she cannot maintain herself. It is meagre really in the case of the wife because she is, perhaps, the only unorganised unit in this country. I have often wondered what would have happened had the wives of our serving men been organised in the same way as our effective trade unionists. This figure I give subject to correction, but I think I am right that the railway union workers since the outbreak of the War have secured in war bonuses, owing to their organised strength, an increase in wages of 25s. per week. That is twice the amount that is now paid to the wife of a serving man. You have only to consider that fact to see how inadequate the provision is for the wives for whom we are pleading to-day. I have said, and probably other Members will enforce the point, that no woman can live on that amount to-day. It becomes more unreasonable still when you consider that many of them have children to support.

The provision that the Government are making for children is a two-fold one. In the first instance, it is proposed to add 2s. 6d. per week in the case of a woman with one child, and in any of the remarks which I am making I am taking basal figures. I am leaving out of account such things as London rental allowance, because, of course, all the extra allowances are made for an extra liability. That may prevent any misunderstanding during the rest of the Debate. The wife with one child is in receipt to-day of 19s. 6d. per week, and the proposal of the Government is from the first pay day in October to raise that by 2s. 6d., bringing it therefore up to 22s. Once you get beyond the wife with one child, then the proposal of the Government is one that I fail completely to understand. It is proposed in the cases of wives with more than one child to pay 4s. 6d. irrespective of the number of children. Obviously, it follows that the more children the wife of a serving sailor or soldier has the less she is going to obtain from the increase offered by the Government. The woman may have as many as five or six children. If the increase of 4s. 6d. has to be divided between those children, and if you compare that with the 2s. 6d. which is given in the case of the first child it stands to reason that the scheme is inadequate. I know, of course, that the reply will be at once given that greater hardship arises, according to some people, in the case of the woman who has only one child, and that the increase of 2s. 6d. in her case is to meet that hardship. If that were true, which I doubt, then it would be equally true, if not more true, that greater hardship would arise in the case of the childless wife. If you increase the allowance to the wife with one child and leave the allowance of the wife with no children as it is, obviously the hardship would be greater in that case.

Let me illustrate that by one or two examples of the hardship that does exist. I have brought down with me one or two budgets. I do not intend to weary the House with any great detail, but simply to use them to emphasise the value of the point I am attempting to make. Here is the weekly expenditure of a wife with one child from Rotherham, a fairly typical provincial town. We have to bear in mind that practically the large bulk of women affected are the women in our provincial towns. This woman spends the following amount each week, or at least would like to spend the following amount each week. I would like to draw the attention of the House quite closely to this one budget as a typical budget, and I will not give any others. She pays 6s. rent. Of course, that item may be met by a supplementary rent allowance from the local war pensions committee. It is doubtful whether it will all be met in that way, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He knows the practice both of the Civil Liabilities Committee and of the local war pensions committee, and he will probably agree that the practice was in favour of the committee every time. This woman pays, in addition to 6s. rent, 2s. 6d. a week for coal, 1s. 9d. for milk, 7d. for sugar, 8d. for tea, 3d. for jam, 1s. 5½d. for butter, 1s. 4d. for flour, 9d. insurance, 3s. 5d. for bacon, 2s. for meat, 5d. for lard, 10½d. for lighting, 3s. for clothing and boots, 6d. for stamps and paper for use in writing to her husband who is serving abroad, 4½d. for soap, 1s. for sundries, such as salt, pepper, and things of that sort, 3d. for firewood, 5d. for rice, 1s. for eggs for her child, and 10d. for potatoes. I do not think that is an extravagant menu for the week. I will make it less extravagant in a sentence or two, but as it stands it is not extravagant. It comes to £1 9s. 4½d. To make it less extravagant, let us assume that the expenditure on bacon and meat, which are the largest items, making together 5s. 5d., is deducted. That leaves the woman with an expenditure of 23s. 5d. If we go still further and deduct the rent allowance completely, and assume that that is all paid by the local war pensions committee, it leaves the expenditure of that woman, on the basis I have given and without any meat at all, at 18s. a week.

It is obvious that if we are attempting, as I presume we are all honestly trying to attempt, not only to prosecute the War vigorously, but, as far as we can, to maintain the standard of living at home, because my right hon. Friends will agree a great amount of the success of the future of this country depends upon the physical fitness of the children being maintained while their fathers are away fighting; therefore anything that has a deleterious effect physically upon the wife and children would be put to the debit balance of the State. This budget could be amplified by practically every Member of the House. I presume there is not a Member listening to the Debate or who intends to take part in it who does not know from his own experience or from that of others that it is practically impossible to maintain this efficiency on the sum that is awarded. I say deliberately, after thinking the problem right through, that the provision made by the Government for children such as I have described is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the situation. I have dealt with the wife. The absence of any provision in that case is scandalous. It is an insult to the men who are fighting to learn that this House of Commons, which is voting £700,000,000 to carry on the War, which has given very much more than that to the Allies who are engaged in the War with us, cannot see its way to give something to the allies of the men in their own country. If any body of people has borne the heat and burden of this War more than any other persons it is the wives of the men who are fighting, who have had to do without the company of their husbands, who, while they have had to do that, have been torn with anxiety as to the safety of their husbands, and, in addition to that, have been set the extraordinarily difficult problem of trying to keep an honest roof above their heads. I use the word "honest" deliberately, because in the course of my correspondence, which is by no means small, both with the wives of the men who are serving and with the men themselves at the front, I have received a number of letters, which I do not care to make public, in which the evidence has been incontrovertible that, on account of the smallness of the allowance, these women have fallen from the path of virtue and have distressed not only their own husbands away at the front, but their own relatives. I remember one particular case, which is the most extraordinary letter of any I have ever received. It was from an officer in Egypt, in which he said that no fewer than fifteen men in one company had received information with regard to their wives, and tracing it to the fact that these women were put up against the impossible problem here at home in attempting to live.

The third point with regard to the increases that are suggested is the much vexed point of the allowance to the dependants of apprentices. I need not cover the ground again, because I have covered it and many others have covered it before. Briefly, the position at the moment is, that unless an apprentice was able—as a matter of fact very few of them are able to do it—to establish pre-war dependence, his mother was not entitled on any scale to any allowance, and the allowance, when it was obtainable, was only obtainable through the local war pensions committee. The Government apparently have considered that, and I want to draw the attention of the House very closely to the provision which they suggest will cover it. It is a long statement. It practically repeats many of the arguments that have been used in this House as to the need for the allowance, and it winds up by saying

"It has, therefore, been decided that an exception should be made in the class of cases alluded to above—"

That is the apprentice allowance—

"and that when the soldier has attained twenty-one years of age, at which time he would have been able to make some contribution to the family income, some allowance should be paid to the parents.",

Further down in the suggestion of the Government they agree that

"A flat rate of 5s. per week should be given to the parents of all soldiers, sailors, and airmen over the age of twenty-one and under the age of twenty-three."

Every boy I ever knew was out of his apprenticeship on or before he was twenty-one years of age, and the average youth of twenty-one would be in ordinary circumstances a journeyman worker, entitled to, and probably drawing, a substantial wage. If that boy had not been called to the Colours until he was twenty-one there would be no question at all about his allowance, because, earning a workman's wage, his dependants, whoever they were, father, mother, sisters, or any relatives, would obviously, on the basis of the wage that he was earning, be able, without any difficulty, to establish a separation allowance up to the maximum of 12s. 6d. a week, with any extra allotment he cared to make from his pay. So that to fix the datum line at twenty-one altogether leaves out of account that fact, and it is therefore a datum line which requires some explanation from the Government.

I have here two short letters which illustrate this point, and are the kind of letters which I dare say most Members receive. This woman says:

"In reference to the attached announcement re a flat rate for apprentices' payment, could you do anything to bring before the War Cabinet the great injustice done to parents whose sons joined up at eighteen years, a few months before the completion of their indentures? Host apprenticeships expire upon reaching the age of nineteen. Surely that should be the accepted age, as the strain for parents undoubtedly during wartime has been very heavy, as in my case, by submitting particulars to the War Pensions Committee, is not a fair way of dealing with these affairs. My son joined up last November, eighteen years of age, and at the present time it will be two years, if at all, before he can benefit by this allowance."

Observe that the Government, owing to national necessity, has actually put into the firing line boys of eighteen and a half to nineteen, where they may be killed and are frequently wounded, and therefore subsequently disabled. That is a fact which we should not lose grip of. The Government uses boys in that way and then say to the mothers who gave them up to the Army that they cannot draw any allowance from them until they are twenty-one, and that then all they can draw is a flat rate of 5s. The uses made by the nation of the boy and the abuses of the privileges of the mother stand out in such distinct contrast that no Government which values its own respect can really stand by this proposal. It must go. I can see no other way out of the difficulty. The other letter is practically in the same kind of terms. It comes from a mother who is waiting—

"Once more I am troubling you, as I have waited patiently for a concession. What a disappointment it is for lads over twenty-one. My youngest boy was called up in March. His time was four years apprenticeship, up in October, 1918."

So that although his apprenticeship is out and he would be earning a journeyman's wage, and therefore entitled to a maximum if it were possible to get it, other circumstances being equal, of 12s. 6d., they limit that by a flat rate. I believe honestly that the Government has come to this conclusion because it is afraid of the subsequent increases which would require to be made in the pension warrant if it touched the separation allowance of the wife of the serving soldier. A woman to-day gets 12s. 6d. separation allowance. I am again dealing with scale payments and I do not forget the variations in pensions, such as alternative pensions and that kind of thing. As a widow she gets 13s. 9d. Ever since the scale was drawn up I have wondered what the serving men in the Army and the Navy think of their value, because obviously on that scale the value of a serving man at the Front to-day is 1s. 3d. a week. If his wife gets 12s. 6d. when he is alive and 13s. 9d. when he is dead, obviously on scale 1s. 3d. represents the difference in the value of the man dead and alive. It is rather curious, in pursuing these figures a little further, how the man's value diminishes if he has children. Because the wife and two children of a serving man get 24s. 6d. separation allowance, but if she were a widow with two children she would get 25s. 5d. pension on scale, which is a difference of 11d. So that whereas a man without any children is worth on scale 1s. 3d. a week, a man who has two children is only worth on scale 11d. a week. It rather suggests the anomaly of the 2s. 6d. separation allowance for the first child, and the 4s. 6d. for all others. Presumably the House is still dissatisfied not only with the separation allowance but with the pension. We must still keep in mind this fact, which I do not think has been elaborated nearly enough, that the whole basis of our pension scheme is our separation allowance, and it explains the flat rate of 5s. to the mothers of apprentices. If a boy is killed in the War the mother becomes a dependant parent. She is dealt with under Article 21 of the Royal Warrant under which she is entitled to a minimum pension of 3s. 6d. a week and a maximum of 15s., and the basis of what she gets from the Pension Minister is that portion of her separation allowance which is given by the Government, and which does not include the allotment of pay of the boy, so that in this provision, by which you give a flat rate of 5s., no contribution presumably coming from the boy in this case as it would be a separation allowance, none of these parents would be able to establish a greater pre-war dependence than 5s. Therefore, the parents when they become dependent parents, pensionable on account of the death of the boy, would only in either case be able to establish a pension of 5s. a week. I think that is an iniquitous proposal. The whole scheme of the Government is full of anomalies. Take their present proposals. The first child to-day on separation allowance gets 7s., and it is proposed to give another 2s. 6d., making it 9s. 6d., but the first child of a widow, when the father is killed, only gets 6s. 8d., as against the 9s. 6d. that is given to the child when its father is alive, and when possibly the man could increase the separation allowance by an allotment of his pay. The House will know that a soldier is entitled to allot up to 3s. 4d. of his pay as a serving soldier in allowance which his wife draws. Therefore, in pressing the Government for a further increase, as I hope the House will do, and in establishing the right to claim this further increase, I hope the House will not forget that the foundation stone of our pension system is made in the provision of separation allowances, and that if we obtain, as I think we ought to obtain, a higher rate of separation allowance for the wife and a better scheme for the mothers of dependent apprentices, we are not only securing the advantage of the wife of the serving man, but we are establishing a later claim, which I think this House will have to face as surely as we have met this afternoon, to increased pensions.

There is a third point which does not quite touch the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but it deals with the pension side of the question. I want, on the earliest possible opportunity that is afforded in this House, to protest most strongly against the Ministry of Pensions setting up a Committee to administer voluntary funds to provide for the disabled man what the State ought to provide for him. I would like to call the attention of the House to the circumstances which have led to this appeal by the Ministry of Pensions for £3,000,000 of charitable money, which, in my view, is a disgrace to the Ministry, a disgrace to the Government, and a disgrace to this House. When we considered the Pension Warrant originally, the House will remember that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. McKenna) made an attempt in this House to secure £1,000,000 from the Prince of Wales' Fund in order to finance the Statutory Committee. The House resented that very strongly, and compelled the late Government to withdraw from that proposal. The House will also remember that an attempt was made by the Government to make use of local funds throughout the country, and that we had an agitation, led principally by the mayors and lord mayors and corporations of great cities in this country, against any local money being taken into consideration at all in providing for pensions.

Does the hon. Member suggest, in connection with the present voluntary fund, that it is an attempt on the part of the Government to get control of funds raised by the mayors and lord mayors?

I was not suggesting that, but I was recalling to the House the history which has led up to the present proposal, and I was giving a second instance in which the House itself defeated a previous proposal to make use of voluntary funds.

Is the hon. Member not a little involved? I do not think he means that attempts to make use of voluntary funds have been defeated, but—

I think the hon. Member had better wait until his turn comes later on.

I am not often accused of being involved. I thought that, like the late Mr. Chamberlain, my words were so simple that any child could understand them. The House having by unanimous consent deplored any of these attempts, you have the Government now, through the Ministry of Pensions, attempting to provide funds for purposes which ought to be provided by the State. That is a very important point, and we must not lose sight of it. Is it sufficient for the Government to dispose of a disabled man and the dependants of a man who has been killed by a pension scheme pure and simple, or is it the duty of the State, having conscripted a man for service from industrial and business activity, to restore that man as far as possible to the position from which they took him? I maintain strongly that it is the bounden duty of the State to restore every disabled man as far as possible—we cannot do more than that, because he has to carry his disability with him—to the position from which we took him. I would incidentally remind the House that that is what we are doing with the money which is being lent to the State to carry on this War. None of the money that is being lent to the State to carry on the War is returned to anyone who lends it carrying a disability. On the contrary, it carries a high rate of interest and the return of the capital. Just as the State deals in that way with money so the State must deal with discharged and disabled men. If a disabled soldier goes to the Ministry of Pensions and says, "It is true I am in receipt of a disability pension, but before the War I had a little shop, or I had a little business of some kind and I cannot restart that because I have no money." In that case it is the duty of the State, if and when it can, to start that man in that business. Not only is it the duty of the State but it is a wise thing for the State to do, because every man you resettle in the position from which you took him you are lessening the possible pool of unemployment after the War. If the House agrees that it is the duty of the State to do this, then it cannot be done from voluntary funds. The proposal of the Ministry of Pensions is that these men applying to this voluntary fund shall have an amount of £25, to be increased if the fund increases. The sum of £25 goes into £3,000,000 one hundred and twenty thousand times, so that if you give £25 to 120,000 disabled men you have exhausted your £3,000,000. We have discharged and pensioned over 400,000 men, to say nothing at all about women and dependants. If you lump them altogether there is nearly 1,250,000, and I say it is unfair to these people to attempt to deal with them in this way. The only authority that can deal with them properly is the State, and this House having said at the beginning of the War that discharged men should never be treated in any charitable way again is losing a considerable amount of dignity in allowing the Ministry of Pensions and the Government to set up a voluntary scheme out of which these men are to be assisted.

We want these men to stand on their own feet and to come to the State and demand their rights and to receive justice from the State. It slackens a man's real moral fibre if he has to go to a local committee in a provincial town and ask them to put up a claim to the Government for a paltry £25 to set him up in a little business. There could be no graver national mistake than to attempt to set men up in small businesses. It simply means that they are going to lose the amount of their Grant in attempting to start that business, and that they are going to mortgage their little pension to keep their businesses alive, and that in a short time, owing to the competition, these men are going to be thrown out again on to the streets for the State to look after them. Therefore, I want to make the strongest possible protest of which I am capable against the Government sanctioning a policy on behalf of the Minister of Pensions for the provision of funds for any such purpose. What we want to know to-day is why the Government have not increased the wives' allowance. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us whether the reason that it has not been increased is that it is the foundation-stone of the pension scheme. I would also like him to tell us the reason for this extraordinary distinction between the provision of 2s. 6d. for the first child and 4s. 6d. for all others, by which a woman gets less the more children she has. I would also like him to tell us the justification for postponing the distribution of a flat rate to the mothers of apprentices until they are twenty-one, when they will be on their own feet, and I would ask him, Will he repudiate on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the State that at any time this nation is going to deal with our discharged men in any charitable form? Considering the future of this country, the various parties into which the people who are now enlisted will fall, and the future domestic, social, and industrial and economic outlook, a great deal is going to depend on the spirit of the men discharged from the Army. If these men are disgruntled we may have in this country happenings of which the whole country may be ashamed. If, on the other hand, these men feel that the nation has done a fair and square deal, they would be satisfied to work in constitutional ways for the reforms that they and all of us desire, and it would be much better for all of us if they are put into that position and are able to look back and say: "We fought for our country, served our country, and saved our country, and now our country has saved us in our disability."

My hon. Friend, in the very admirable speech just delivered, has thrown his net very widely and with very small meshes, and in many ways the House might be quite content to leave the case where he has put it and listen to the reply of my right hon. Friend. But there are one or two things, perhaps, to be said, if for no other reason than the reinforcement of his position. I would like very briefly to associate myself with his protest against the voluntary fund, which is being got up by the Pensions Minister. It is a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to the nation that men in the position of those who are supposed to be beneficiaries under it should have to be beholden to charity in order to get what every decent-minded citizen desires them to get. The men who will be chiefly affected by this are an especially deserving set of men. I oppose, and I hope the Minister of Pensions will take into account what my hon. Friend has said, the idea of putting disabled men on the shelf, as it were, by giving them a small business. A small business is a bottomless pit. You can put every sixpence of your savings into it and lose it all and in the end be worse off than at the beginning. But there is a certain number of men now serving with the Colours who, having started small businesses, made a success of them. They have done their best since the War began to keep them going. Military exigencies have called these men to the Colours. Their businesses are decaying. Some of them have been closed. I am told by a large number of them who write me that if they could only get some sort of assurance that when they return to civil life they can be put in a way to get back to their old customs they see a way to make a decent living. Those are the men who are to be helped.

Those men would be very much worse off than ordinary workmen. There will be a demand for the labour of these men. It may be a very limited and intermittent demand, but there will be a demand. But those men, having lost their capital, as a great many of them have done, having lost their connection, as most of them have done, will require to get some help from the State, so that they may be in a position to start life at the point they left off when they had to go into the Army. If nothing is done for them our pauper population is going to be enormous. Moreover, they are a body of men with a great deal of self-respect. Their independence to a very considerable extent has made them leave their workshops and start small enterprises on their own account. Others have been physically weakened. They belong not to the first grade of physical efficiency of labour, and after serving in the Army their physical efficiency in a great many cases will be somewhat lower than when they first went in. Therefore, you have got a type of men with a great deal of self-respect. That is combined with a somewhat low grade of physical and hustling efficiency. That type of man ought to receive special consideration from the State. His self-respect would not be appealed to by a £3,000,000 charitable fund, and his financial necessity would not be met from such a fund. I hope, therefore, that the House will adopt regarding this attempted charity the same attitude that it did on two occasions referred to by my hon. Friend. I will say nothing about the position of the apprentice's mother and the dependants. I think that my hon. Friend has said all that need be said about that, but there is still something to be said about the separation allowance.

I start with the proposition which I think is reasonable, if, indeed, it is not too modest, that the separation allowance to-day should be equal in real value to the separation allowance of 1914. I do not think anybody will dispute that. As a matter of fact, I think there is substantial ground for a considerable increase, but I want to put the matter on a basis such as any reasonable man would care to lay down. Between 1914 and 1917 prices have increased by something like 107 per cent., but I am quite willing to make the official deduction from that. First of all, however, I should point out that lower grade foodstuffs and lower grade clothing-stuffs are substituted for the higher grade pre-war foodstuffs and pre-war clothing-stuffs, and the increased prices range somewhere about from 70 per cent. to 107 per cent. I think that the Government increase is too general, but I will adopt it, and will take the instance of a wife and two children who, in 1914, received 17s. 6d. separation allowance. Seventy per cent. on that makes 30s. for wife and child included; under this new scheme they get 29s. If you take the case of a wife and three children, the family have an allowance of 20s. to begin with, and 70 per cent. on that is 34s., but they only get 32s. 6d., so that they are short by 1s. 6d. If you take the case of a wife with four children, the payment was 22s., and 70 per cent. on that is 37s. 4d., and they now get 25s. 6d. If you take a wife and one child—just to take the matter right through—they receive 15s., and 70 per cent. on that is 25s. 6d.; they now get 22s. The simple fact of the matter is that anybody who knows what a woman with two children has to do in the way of meeting expenses will see that 29s. is not an adequate allowance under present conditions, which are almost impossible. Clothing alone is very difficult to get now, the prices being so high, that a woman with 29s. and two children cannot buy anything at all.

Let me take the scale on another footing. At the present moment a woman without any children gets 12s. 6d., and no change has been made in that allowance; but a wife with one child gets 7s. increase, and at the present moment under the existing scale you add 2s. 6d., and you get an increase of 9s. 6d. When the second child comes the increase at present is another 5s., and under the new scheme it is 7s. With the third child the increase is 3s. 6d., at the present time, and under the new scheme it is still only 3s. 6d. With each child added to the family the jumps in the income are simply and absolutely absurd, when considered in relation to the increased expenses of the family. The present drop between the second and the third is 1s. 6d.; the drop that is going to be created under the new scheme is 3s. 6d. The drop between the second and fourth, under the present scale, is 2s., and the drop under the proposed scheme between the second and fourth is 4s. I do not know what the explanation of that is, but I know that if you were to put these figures before a competent housekeeper and say, "I will give you so much for two children, and so much less for the third, and very much less for the fourth, and still much less for others," no competent house-keeper would take the responsibility of looking after a family of one, two, three, or four children under such a scale of allowances as that which is proposed under the new scheme. After all, we have to look at it from that point of view, otherwise we would not be doing our duty, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposed scheme should be reconsidered, because it is not at all fair, especially under the conditions which now exist.

I leave the case of childless women, which was so adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend. There is one other point that I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody admits now, and the Government itself has admitted, that for months and months the separation allowance must have been inadequate Nothing has happened within the last six or twelve months which would more justify the increase which the Government themselves have now granted. The conditions have been very much the same in the last six months or twelve months, and recent inquiry has persuaded the Government to increase the allowance. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the increased pay should date back, and I think the Government must be content to give it at once from the 1st January. I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that it is quite necessary to postpone this particular proposal until it has received further consideration, especially when everything is taken into account, the curious arrangement of the scale, the insufficiency of the amounts, and the ungenerous way in which the State is meeting its obligations to the dependants of the defenders of this country. I hope that the scale is not yet finally fixed, and I trust that this Debate will persuade the Government that it must endeavour to meet this matter a little more adequately than this scale at present does. I hope before we go home this afternoon I may receive a statement from the Government which will make this scheme a little more satisfactory to this House, and that we shall be able to get an adequate scheme established.

There is one point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government, and that is the amount of separation allowances to soldiers' wives and families. It is extraordinary that a man who is living at home, and has been permitted to do so by the military authorities, should be mulct in 6s. 7d. per week as compared with the man who receives the ordinary separation allowance. I want to make myself perfectly clear. This is designated Family Allowance, Scheme 1. The man gets 11s. 8d. per week, the consolidated family allowance is 20s. 6d., and the London area allowance is 3s. 6d., giving a total of 35s. 8d. The Government cannot imagine for one moment that 35s. 8d. is a reasonable sum out of which a man has to live and provide for his wife and home, as well as pay his rent. We have only to look at the rates of wages that are now paid to ordinary artisans. We find they have tremendously increased. I am not going to discuss the question whether that increase is right or wrong, but the fact remains there has been an enormous increase, and when we inquire why it has been necessary to grant it, the Government reply has usually attributed it to the increased cost of living. When you come to the case of the man who has volunteered for service, as a great many of these men did in the early days of the War, giving up the positions they occupied in order to fulfil their duty and privilege as a citizen, you must remember that the State on its part owes a duty to them, although I am afraid it has been a little late in recognising that duty. Let us compare the figures in the case of that man with the payments to the soldier who is receiving the ordinary separation allowance. What is called the family allowance is given to the man who lives at home, who has to travel to and from his work, and in many cases has to pay travelling expenses, and who incurs additional expenses for nourishment while away from home out of this magnificent sum of 35s. 8d. per week.

The man who gets the ordinary separation allowance receives altogether 42s. 3d. a week. His pay, 11s. 8d., his ration allowance (including the increase of 4d. recently granted) 14s. 7d., his soldier's allowance 12s. 6d., and his London area allowance 3s. 6d.—a total of 42s. 3d. a week. I do not think anyone will say that 42s. 3d. represents too generous an allowance, but if the Government recognise that such a sum should be given to a man who has not the expense of travelling to and from his work, who is living in billets or barracks, and has to provide no food outside, surely it must be difficult to justify the payment of 6s. 7d. per week less to the other man. I do not for one moment want the right hon. Gentleman to think that the soldier living under a separation allowance is getting too much. I think the boot is on the other leg. He is getting too little, but how much more palpable must it be that the man with a family allowance is receiving a great deal less than he ought to do. Then, again, take the case of a soldier with one child. The discrepancy in that case is 7s. 7d. per week instead of 6s. 7d. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give a reasonable reply on this question. I have discussed the matter with all classes of men, I have talked it over with Members of this House of all ways of thinking, and not one has been able to find any justification. The explanation seems to me this, that the matter has been more or less overlooked. It has been brought up here casually by way of question and answer, and although we always do get courteous replies from the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that in this matter there has been evasion on his part. He has not been able to give a reasonable excuse for making this differentiation. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, although it is late in the day, although this has gone on for a considerable period, that he should not now tell me that as it has gone on since the War started it must continue. That is not a reasonable reply. When we find things are wrong and bring them before the Government it is the duty of the Government either to show reasonable cause for not altering them or to apply a remedy. I do not want to waste the time of the House. No doubt many hon. Members wish to discuss this matter, but I must impress the importance of it on the right hon. Gentleman.

I have another point to which I wish to draw his attention, and that is in regard to the London allowance, which is granted to those who are living or were originally living in the London area owing to the extra cost of rent and other things. The grant amounts to 3s. 6d. per week, and it is paid to the wives of men living in the London area. It was agreed that if these women moved out of the London area the grant ipso facto ceased to exist. If that is right, and I think it is quite right, I say, on the other hand, that if it is incumbent upon some of the women who have been living outside the county of London to move into London, owing perhaps, as is the case very often, to the fact that they have to perform work of national importance in London, surely it is necessary, as the Government have taken away the 3s. 6d. when they moved from London into the country, that the Government should give the grant of 3s. 6d. a week to these people. In reply to a question the other day on this very subject, the right hon. Gentleman said, to my surprise, that this was something that had gone on since the commencement of the War and that there was no reason to alter it. I do not really think the right hon. Gentleman means that, or that he intends to tell hon. Members that if they bring to the notice of the Government something that is wrong they are not going to rectify it simply because it has been in existence since the commencement of the War. The great majority of people did not anticipate that the War was going to continue for such a long period, and therefore many of these cases of injustice have been left in abeyance in the hope that we should have a termination of hostilities. Those hopes not having been realised, it is high time, and past high time, that many of these things should and must be righted. I therefore venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take up this matter, because it affects an enormous number of people, and to say that the Government, having considered it, are only too desirous to put right what they have found to be wrong.

I desire to bring one more matter before the House, and that is with regard to men who unfortunately lost their lives previous to July, 1916. I am speaking now on behalf of the widows of these men. I have recently put down on the Question Paper a case that has been brought to my notice with regard to a poor woman who has applied time after time for the large sum of £5 from a magnanimous Government which has deemed it advisable to accept the responsibility as and from 16th July, 1916, and yet they said that the widows of those who had been killed previous to that date should receive the sum of £5, or in a great number of cases were granted £5 by the Patriotic Society. I do not think that that is right. If the Government thought it was reasonable that £5 should be paid to these widows, they have no right to say, because it was paid by this voluntary fund, that cases brought to the notice of the Government now shall not receive attention on the ground that they occurred previous to July, 1916, when the matter was administered from the Patriotic Fund. It does not seem right, and it is not right. If the sum was granted and was given in cases before July, 1916, out of the Patriotic Fund, surely the Government ought not to act in such an exceedingly niggardly manner and try to evade their responsibility by saying that the Government did not make these payments before a certain date and therefore cannot be held responsible now! I hold in my hand a most pitiable letter from one of these unfortunate widows, who asks if I can tell her on what grounds other widows have received the money when she is deprived of it. She says she has to strive very hard, and that every 6d. is of the utmost importance to her, and she has asked over and over again for this sum of £5 without getting it granted to her. She says she is told first to write here and then to write there. I have taken the matter up with the pensions committee, and I appreciate that as far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned he has done his best in the matter, but there is some line that is drawn which rules out and makes of no account the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary. This poor woman says that she has other people living side by side with her whose husbands have been lost. "We have given our men to our King and our country,'" she says, "and much as we miss our husbands we feel that we have done our duty, but we do feel that the Government on its part ought not to try and evade responsibility by simply saying that from a certain date they have closed their books and that they are, therefore, not responsible." I venture to appeal to the Government not to have these hard and fast rules. It is not necessary. The House and the country do not want them. The country is prepared to provide the money that is necessary to carry on this War and to make provision for the widows and orphans of those who have unfortunately fallen, and the country would be the last to say that they agreed with the Government in adopting this niggardly policy, which the Government would be the first to deprecate if it were a question of a private employer. We have always tried and hoped to look upon the Government as a model employer, and I hope the matters which I have brought before the Government to-day will receive not only sympathetic consideration, but will receive the consideration of rectifying these wrongs and making the rectification retrospective in cases in which it is found to be necessary.

The question in which we are engaged this afternoon is, perhaps, one of the most important of all domestic war questions. Unless adequate provision is made for the wives and children of our fighting men, we shall be faced with three distinct results which will be disastrous. One is the suffering of the wives and children themselves; the second is the deterioration of our population and the great national loss in that great asset, namely, the children—the men and women of the future; and, thirdly, undoubtedly there is, or will be, unless adequate provision is made, much anxiety, much discontent, both here and in the fighting forces abroad, with the possible result of a diminution in the moral of the nation and its determination to see this War through. I have had, I suppose, like every other Member of the House, a good many letters on this subject. I have also personally seen a good many of the women who are affected by the inadequacy of the provision made for them, and the result of my experience has been, until at any rate the recent concessions—about the adequacy of which I shall say a word in a moment—that undoubtedly there have been many cases where the provision made for the support of the wife and children was inadequate, and where there was serious consequent suffering. I think the country is grateful to the Government for the very large concessions which have been made. They amount to the large sum of £23,000,000 a year, but the actual large figures must not deter us at any cost from doing what we consider right in this matter, and if a larger cost than £23,000,000 is necessary, all I can say is that it must be found somehow or other, and the resources of the country, I think, must be pledged to the utmost limit in order to make provision for what I consider to be almost the first charge on the resources of the nation.

I should like to express my concurrence with what has been already said as to these concessions not coming into operation until 1st October of this year. I put aside the question, which possibly might be urged, that they should be made retrospective. Putting that out of the question, I can see no reason myself why they should not be brought into operation at once, and that is a matter on which I wish to urge the Government very strongly to reconsider their views. Before I come to the general question, I want for one moment to draw attention to a very interesting and very significant document which has recently come to my notice. It is the report of Dr. Sabnis, Tuberculosis Officer at York, to the Health Committee of the City Council as to the malnutrition amongst the children in the City of York and its consequent effect on the increase of tuberculosis in that city. It is a long document, elaborately worked out, but I do not propose to give to the Committee more than a summary of what he says. In effect, he says that his observations have satisfied him that there has been increasing malnutrition since the War amongst the children of the working-classes, and especially amongst the children of soldiers who are serving. That is a very serious matter, and that increasing malnutrition has been followed by an increase in tuberculosis amongst the children. I am afraid the conclusion is inevitable that that malnutrition, to some extent, at any rate, is caused by the insufficient allowances which have been hitherto made to the wives and children. He gives five specific cases, which he has gone into, of a wife with one, two, three, four, and five children, showing in each case what the Government allowance is and showing what the net amount remaining for the food and clothing of the wife and children is, after deducting rent, insurance, coal, and gas. The average amount left for food and clothing of each person, after making those necessary deductions, is 4s. 7d. a week, or, in the case of a family of four, 18s. Under present conditions, would anyone say that it is possible to feed and clothe four people, three being children, on 18s. a week? I have had some figures looked up as to the Poor Law allowances for children, and I find in the case of boarders-out children the allowance for a child is 6s. 6d. per week, with £3 a year for clothing. In the case of standard homes under the Poor Law the allowance is from 8s. to 12s. until the child attains the age of sixteen. So that, comparing those figures with the amount given by Dr. Sabnis as payable for the children of soldiers, it would certainly seem as if, up to now, at any rate, the allowance to wives and children of soldiers have been insufficient.

May I just say one or two words as to specific cases which have been dealt with, and, first of all, as to the childless wife? As I understand, a childless wife receives a scale allowance in all cases of 12s. 6d. She may receive an additional allowance of 4s. a week if she is unable to work. Then, I think I am right in saying—and upon this I should like my hon. Friend's confirmation—that a childless wife comes under the special grants, and can get towards rent, insurance, and other contractual obligations up to a maximum of 12s., and, indeed, in some cases 22s., the exact amount being dependent upon the existing income she possesses, as compared with the pre-enlistment income of her husband. If I am right in those figures, I think the position of the childless wife is fairly well secured, but this depends to a very large extent upon the action of these special grants committees, and if one were perfectly sure that in every case the special grants committee would exercise their functions fairly reasonably, I do not think myself, so far as I can see, there is much to complain of. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can give me an assurance that if the special grants committees do not exercise their discretion in a reasonable manner, there is some mode of controlling them and compelling them to act fairly in a particular case. As regards the wife with two children, her position undoubtedly has been considerably improved under this new scheme, and when an allowance is made by the special grants committee in proper cases, I doubt if there is great ground for complaint on the part of the wife with two children. But in the case of the wife with, say, three, four, or more children, I confess, to my mind, the allowance under the scheme is somewhat arbitrary, and I doubt if it will work out quite satisfactorily. Perhaps my hon. Friend, who is going to speak later, will explain this, and, if it turns out that this new arrangement works inequitably as between the wife with two children and the wife with a larger number of children, that they will correct it and introduce improvements into their scheme.

There is one other point which is of considerable importance, and that is the hardship which exists in many cases on the families of men who enlisted in the early days of the War, when wages were far lower than they are now, as compared with the allowances made to families of men who enlisted at a far later date. The men who enlisted in these early days deserve our sympathy and the expression of our gratitude in some concrete form to the greatest extent to which it can be given. They have borne the burden and heat of the day. They saved this country—and the world!—in the earlier days of the War, and if these men can be rewarded in any way possible by consideration for themselves and their families—these men who went out in those days and have borne the stress, strain, and hardship of battle for years—they are thoroughly entitled to such reward. How does this comparison work out? Under the special grant arrangement, the special allowance, as I understand it, is to be made to families who have to meet very special contractual obligations, such as rent, assurance premiums, and so on.

There is a certain maximum. The sum they have to get out of these grants is not to exceed the difference between the present income of the household and the pre-enlistment income, so that if you go rigorously to the amount of the income when the man enlisted, the amount of the special grant that may be given to the families of the men who enlisted earlier is far less than that to the families of the men who enlisted later, because wages have gone up very much in the interval. Take the case of railwaymen, who are a large and important class of the community. Their wages have gone up something like from 2s. to 5s. per week, if you take the special war bonus as part of their wages. The Government have already made a certain concession in regard to them. They have allowed the wages of the men who enlisted, say, in 1914 to be estimated on the basis of the wages that they would have been paid in January, 1916. That is not enough. I think this grant ought to be given on the basis of the wages that are now being paid. May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to the views upon this matter which have been expressed by the York Local Pensions Committee? I need hardly say that these pensions committees are in a position to appreciate the working of this scheme, perhaps, as well as anyone in the country. York draws attention to this point, and says:

"The families of men who are now being called up will be entitled to a very considerable grant under the new Regulations, whereas the families of the men who went straight from their regular employment to enlist are not able to have nearly so large a grant."

They passed a resolution which I think they have forwarded to the Ministry of Pensions and some other Departments, in these words:

"This Committee urge that the grant made under Part II. of the Regulations of the Special Grants Committee of the Ministry of Pensions should be based on the rates of wages current in June, 1918, and not merely on the pre-enlistment wages, or the wages of June, 1916."

That seems to me in itself to be a most reasonable proposal, and also, I may add, a very urgent one. I hope the Government will give immediate attention to it. I feel that the matters we are discussing this afternoon—I am sorry to say in rather a thin House—are of the utmost national importance. They are important not merely to the people actually concerned, the wives and children of the fighting men, who are deeply and anxiously concerned with the welfare of those whom they have left at home, but they are important to the nation as a whole, in view of the determined and successful prosecution of the War.

I desire, in the few remarks I have to make, following the previous speaker, to emphasise the feeling of the importance of the subject we are now considering. I am amongst those who are not unmindful of the action of the Government in the increased allowances that they have made. They seem to me, however, to be lacking in several particulars. First, there is the date of payment. This has been alluded to by succeeding speakers as October. If I understand aright the Regulations, it really is November, for it states that "it will not be possible for the Department to begin to pay before 1st November, and it will be several months after that date before the revision of Army allowances is completed." That seems to me to be getting very near to Christmas. A very large number of people who have had their hopes raised by the announcement of these increases will have their patience very severely tried, and I wish to join my hope with those which have been expressed, that there will be some reconsideration of this matter, and that in some way or other it will be hurried up, so that the payments may be made as early as possible. I should like to join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) in his expression of the very unsatisfactory state in which the case of the apprentices is met—namely, at a flat rate of 5s. per week. It is not enough. The age limit, too, is from twenty-one to twenty-three. The delay to my mind is unjust, because it places upon those who enlisted earlier a disadvantage which is not experienced by those who have been called up later. This is recognised by the various pensions committees that have to deal with these matters, because in every case in which there is an application of this kind it has to be made through these committees; and it seems to me a very ungenerous thing that you should call up the cream of our fighting forces, the young and vigorous, and that they should be treated in a way which is in no wise in harmony with their importance. The decision of the Government will leave thousands of parents chewing the cud of disappointment at the insufficiency of the amount granted, and at its conditions.

In relation to this new Warrant, the childless wife is left without any consideration except before the pensions committee. As has already been intimated, the temper of the pensions committee varies. Some of them are apt to give a generous interpretation of the rules and regulations, and others are apt to do the opposite. In many instances it is thought that the official representing the Department of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is deeply interested in not carrying out his duties in a sympathetic spirit, and he sees that the rules and regulations are very exactly administered. The childless wife presents a very difficult problem, because in some instances she has been newly married, and perhaps living with her parents, and in other cases she goes out and earns money, and these reasons are urged for non-attention to the childless wife. She may be an ailing woman requiring support, and the amount she is receiving may not be sufficient. I suggest that there should be an additional amount allowed by the Committee under certain conditions.

A woman wants to maintain her pre-war respectability and she finds her means are not sufficient, and if she expresses any dissatisfaction the reply is, "Well, we are at war, and that accounts for the difference." I suggest that there should be some better means and some larger allowance granted to the childless wife than is granted at the present time. The soldier's wife is the only member of the State at the present time that is called upon not to accept more money than she received under pre-war conditions. If she appears before the committee the grant must not be over and above her pre-war income, allowing for the saving because the Government provide food and clothing for her husband. When the soldier's wife goes into a grocer's shop there is no differentiation between her and the wife of the munition worker and she is treated as any other woman, and the increased cost of living is the same to her as to the others. I think it is unjust that you should place upon her the embargo that, whatever other people may get and however high the price of living, that any income to her must not be above her pre-war income. That is unjust, and will not stand examination. The principle upon which these grants are made seems to me to be wrong.

The other matter I wish to call attention to is the question of widows' only sons, which the Government still continue to take, although they said they would not do so, and I wish to urge that where they do this that the amounts granted should be very much more generous than they have been and than they are at the present time. The difference is that the Government are insisting upon certain conditions, that is to say, the amount of money received at a certain time shall regulate the money for all time in relation to the soldiers. You have to bear in mind that the soldiers whose complaints are the greatest are those who were the most willing to fight, that is, they were volunteers, and the conscript is having a very much better consideration in the way of pay than the volunteer. I have here a letter from the clerk to the Houghton-le-Spring Rural District Council, a responsible body, and they say:

"It has come to the notice of the Committee that several young men joined the Army before they were legally liable and their parents secured their release under Army Instructions to Class W Reserve. When the lads first joined the Army, small separation allowances and in some cases possibly none were allowed owing to the small wages earned by such lads prior to enlistment. After discharge to Class W they were enabled to earn larger wages, but when they were recalled to the Colours the separation allowances granted were those in existence previously based upon the earnings of such lads before first joining the force. The following case which came before my committee on Tuesday last explains more definitely what is meant. Andrew Bowey, 25158, D.L.I., enlisted in May, 1915, when a separation allowance of 5s. 6d. per week was established. He was subsequently transferred to Class W and was at home three months (30th October. 1916 to 8th February, 1917), during which time his certified earnings were 27s. 6d. per week. On the case coming before the pension officer for the second time, he valued the dependence again at 5s. 6d., ignoring the period of three months when the lad earned 27s. 6d. per week. My committee consider the present dependency should be based upon the "second" earnings, and they have recommended that it be fixed at 10s. per week, but they are afraid the War Office will not grant it."

2.0 P.M.

They asked me to bring this case before the House, and I think it is really one which should have the consideration of the War Office together with very many more of which it is merely representative. I urge myself an earlier payment of these increases promised, a reconsideration of the same paid to the parents of apprentices, a levelling up of allowances, that is making the same payments to volunteers as are now paid to conscripts, and a further payment to the childless wife, and a reconsideration of the whole matter in the interests of the nation and the winning of the war.

This is a subject of the greatest magnitude so far as its effects are concerned, and it is more important than any of the subjects that have engrossed our attention for some considerable time past. The question of the allowances granted to the dependants of our soldiers must have in the future a very far-reaching effect on the rising generation, and in regard to the sort of stamina we are to have in the population from time to time. There was a great deal of expectancy in the minds of the public when it was announced some time ago that it was the intention of the Government to reconsider the question of allowances, and I know that expectancy was very keen indeed when last week the Government Report was issued as to the conditions under which the Government were prepared to reconsider these allowances. While the sum involved is a very large one as things go, or as they used to go in pre-war times, we have got rather beyond that kind of thing now, and although the sum of £23,000,000 struck the imagination as being a large addition to our expenditure, yet when we come to analyse it I think we shall find that while we are glad to have this £23,000,000 for allowances that does not cover at all the requirements of existing necessitous cases, and they are so distributed that they leave some very wide and unfortunate gaps on account of the way in which they are allocated. I want simply to endorse, without going over the same arguments, all that has been said by the previous speakers with regard to the keenness of the interest taken in this question by Members of this House, and by the community at large. We realise every one of us that we owe a deep and abiding duty to these men who are at this time upholding our liberties on the battlefield and we are anxious that those who enlisted very early in the War may be treated in the most generous manner, because I believe that those men who came out in the early days of the War, in 1914 and the early part of 1915, before there was any Conscription, are the men to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude. They voluntarily came forward in our hour of need and responded to the call of the country, and we should show our gratitude to these men and their dependants for what they did at that time above all others.

The allotment takes a very peculiar form in the new arrangement. I am not going to weary the House—I have had a heavy correspondence since the answer was given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night week—by giving examples of budgets sent to me. One such budget was given to the House this morning by the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and I think we may take it as typical of hundreds of others which could be produced by Members in all parts of the House. I wish simply to say that the budgets we have had show the inadequacy of the allowances now made in comparison with the rise in prices. I endorse all that has been said about the childless wife. I think her case is one which requires serious investigation. I know—it has been repeated here this morning—all the arguments put forward with regard to her income, but I have had brought before me and have correspondence here at the present time of cases where a childless wife is outside the whole of the arguments that have been used, and even with the extra allowance, where she is incapable of earning money, she cannot possibly live, even with the extra allowances, under the existing conditions. I do not want to repeat the arguments with regard to the peculiar case of the 2s. 6d. for the first child, and 4s. 6d. no matter how many other children there may be, but I endorse all that has been said.

There is, however, one class I particularly wish to appeal for, and to ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot with the other cases consider it seriously and alter it. This is the case of the apprentice. Where you are in a locality where there are a large number of lads that are apprenticed, where you know thoroughly well the great sacrifices made by the parents—and I happen to be so situated on account of the large engineering works in our locality—you know the great sacrifices made by the parents in apprenticing their boys. Many of us have begged them to do it, and encouraged them in doing it, because we know that the, skilled man, after he has served an apprenticeship, is of much better service to the country than the man who has gone into a blind-alley occupation, and, as the result of it, is able to contribute more to the household than the apprentice. Anyone who has been an apprentice must know, as I do, that the remuneration does not come up at all to the standard in any other occupation you may take, but what you are waiting for during the time you are learning your craft is for the last year or two when your remuneration goes up and there are other means of adding to it, and as you become more skilled you jump right into the standard rate of wages of the skilled men in the particular industry to which you have devoted your time. I speak with practical experience, and can enter into the spirit of the fathers who have written to me. They have made this sacrifice. We are taking, owing to the necessities of the conditions of war, these lads or young men away from their occupation in the last period of their apprenticeship, or, as has been shown, just as they are passing away from their apprenticeship. The importance of the case has at last been acknowledged to be such as should be dealt with by the Government. There is something to be said for the, parents who have made this sacrifice having some allowance, and under the new scheme there is the allowance of the 5s. flat rate. That does not to my mind meet adequately the requirements of the case. I think you want to go more thoroughly into the conditions in which the parents or other relatives would have been when these individuals, for whom they have made the sacrifices, would have been able to contribute towards the household in which they lived. I know it is said in the Report that the cases are so numerous that it would be too much labour to carry on this investigation. I quite agree, but that is an argument why they should be reconsidered in a very generous spirit in regard to the flat rate. They are very numerous cases. They are so numerous that the Government has at last conceded something towards these dependants, and I ask them whether they think the rate of 5s. is anything like adequate to the needs of the case? I seriously ask for a reconsideration of that particular part.

The other portions have been dealt with by other Members of the House, but I seriously ask for the reconsideration of the case of the apprentice, as I am thoroughly conversant with the circumstances and know the sacrifices made by the parents. Any sacrifices of money they might have made by not going into other occupations, they cannot show as in the case of the lads earning large sums in blind-alley occupations. They cannot show so large a contribution to the household, but they can show what would have been the contribution had they not made the sacrifice in turning out a number of thoroughly skilled men. The case is one of title strongest there is, and I do not want to labour it any more, and do not want to occupy the time of the House by going over the various arguments of the various Members, but I endorse all they have said, and trust that we may got a reply from the right hon. Gentleman; that he will be able to encourage us with the statement that the Government will arrive at their conclusion in connection with the readjustment of their allowances; that they will really consider them after the criticism that has Been made—because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected criticism to take place this week, and now it has been made by those who have investigated the whole of the case, and are able to speak on behalf of those who have communicated with the Government, that they will deal with it in a kindly and open-hearted manner, and give effect to that by a readjustment of the allowance.

I hope the Government will not take the attendance here to-day as a reflex of the interest of the public outside in this very important question that is occupying the attention of the House. I think it would not be out of place to ask the House to remember that especially in the early days of the War not only the Government, but the country were pledged very completely to make the most generous possible provision not only for our soldiers and sailors, but also for their dependants. The Government, therefore, must not be surprised to find that up and down the country there is not only a feeling of disappointment, but also a very strong feeling of resentment. One or two speakers this afternoon have asked the Government and the House to keep in mind the fact that the volume of discontent and disapproval is very substantial and is making itself manifest from one end of the country to the other. I have risen more particularly to urge upon the Government to reconsider their decision concerning apprentices. Some of us during the last four years have had very much correspondence with Government Departments on this important subject. Yesterday a working collier and his wife, who have three sons who have joined His Majesty's Forces, were on these premises. One son had been a prisoner in Germany now for upwards of three years. I remember when I first came to this House receiving a letter from my old schoolmaster, asking me to go and have an interview with him. When I went he told me that his brightest boy in the school was going to commence work in the mines, and he was very anxious that this bright boy, full of promise, should not do so, but he was the eldest of a family of eight children. I undertook to see the parents, and they agreed to allow the boy to continue at school. He succeeded in getting a scholarship under the county council, and since I have been a Member of this House he has passed the London Matriculation. For twelve months he worked as an uncertificated teacher to supplement the earnings of his father in order that he might go to college. He went to college, and was taken from there into the Army. The second boy has also gone into the same profession, and the father told me yesterday that although he has one son, now a prisoner of war in Germany, who has had twelve months at college and whose fees have been paid for the second term, a second son who is now in hospital, and a third who is in the fighting, line in France, the Government have declined absolutely to make any consideration for any of those boys.

I submit that the Government did not meet the needs of these claims when they fixed the maximum at 5s. per week, and did not admit of a claim until the boys had reached twenty-one years of age. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the case I have quoted is only one of many that have come under my own personal observance, and I do earnestly plead with the Government to do elementary justice to citizens who were rendering a very great national service as the result of great sacrifices in trying to give their boys the opportunity not only of a thorough education, but of a professional career. I want to register my protest against the Government making this new scale, which is very imperfect and very incomplete prospective. It is not to operate until October. One hon. Gentleman has quoted from the circular, showing that the first payment is not to be made until November. The Government have been compelled by force of public opinion to recognise that the allowances are very inadequate, and it is not treating this House and public opinion outside fairly, and, indeed, it is adding injury to insult, having given that decision after long delay and overdue inquiry, to say that it is to be post-dated some two or three months hence. I earnestly hope that, as the result of this discussion, the Government, amongst other concessions, will decide that it is not to be post-dated, and that they will apply it at the earliest possible moment, and that they will give more sympathetic and more favourable consideration to the claims of the apprentices. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are thousands of homes in this country of the type of which I have spoken, where working men and their wives have made tremendous sacrifices in order to give their boys a better education to put them into the teaching profession. I have given the case of a working collier who has two sons in that category, and who has not received a single cent from the Government. I am certain that if the Government would have regard to the feeling of the public on this question they would remedy that injustice which has been so obvious and transparent for such a long time.

The representative of the Government will agree that the Debate to-day has been extraordinarily useful in bringing out a large number of points which require careful consideration. I have sat through the whole of the Debate, and I do not think I have heard anything in the nature of an attempt to score off the Government or off any of the Departments. Every speech has contained some definite statement of grievance or of fact, with the request that those grievances or facts should be looked into, and I do hope that every official in the Government Departments concerned will be requested by their chiefs to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this Debate in order that the various useful points which have been raised by so many Members should be thoroughly considered and, where practicable, dealt with. Several complaints have been made about the grading scale, and, personally, I agree that there are some very extraordinary anomalies. It is difficult to understand why the separation allowance for one motherless child should be increased by 3s. per week and, at the same time, the allowance for the second or third motherless child should only be increased by 1s. I have a number of points which are highly technical to raise, and it will be almost unfair to expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer them on the spur of the moment without having an opportunity of investigating such reasons as may exist for the decisions which have been arrived at.

It might, perhaps, meet the views of my right hon. Friend and, on the whole, be more useful if, instead of attempting at considerable length to explain all these points in a speech and so occupy the time of the House, I were to put these matters in questions for reply next Tuesday. That would give the right hon. Gentleman's advisers or the persons concerned in the Government Departments an opportunity of giving reasoned answers. Therefore, I propose to skip the greater part of the matter which I had included in my notes for a speech to-day and to adopt the course of including it in questions.

An extremely important point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) in regard to the unfair position in which men are placed who volunteered in the early days of the War. The position is that under Regulation 7 (1) of the Special Grants Committee, local committees are empowered to make allowances to soldiers' wives to meet contract obligations, but they are instructed to base their assessments upon the rate of wages prevailing on 1st January, 1916. The great rise in the value of labour and in wages has taken place since 1st January, 1918; therefore the man who did not volunteer but who waited until the Military Service Acts imposed Conscription upon him has his wages assessed at the rate prevailing at the time he joined up, possibly in 1918, by which time wages had gone up considerably. I have a calculation in my hand, with which I will not weary the House, but the result of which shows that a man who volunteered in 1914 is at a disadvantage of 5s. a week compared with the man who was conscripted in 1918. That is very rough on the men who jumped in and volunteered in the early part of the War, and who really, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York said, jumped in and saved the country. There is one other point where patriotism seems to have been penalised, that is in the case of boys whose patriotic impulses led them in the early days of the War—this happened in regard to large numbers—to overstate their age and thereby secure enlistment. A great many of those boys, when their real age was found out, were discharged and were subsequently re-enlisted under the Military Service Acts at the age of eighteen. Those boys, or rather their parents, are penalised for their patriotism, because in their cases the allowances are only calculated on the basis of their wages prior to the original enlistment. I submit that at that time they were boys only getting a small wage, that they left the Army, and that on re-enlistment they were young men getting young men's wages; therefore the calculation of their allowances should be based on the rate of wages they were earning upon re-enlistment and not upon their wages at the time of their original enlistment.

I am in substantial agreement with what all speakers have said to-day except in regard to one point, which I would not willingly have introduced into the Debate, but, as it has been introduced and as it to some extent touches me personally, I feel bound to refer to it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) both saw fit to introduce into the Debate a denunciation of attempts which have been made to raise a voluntary fund to restart in life discharged soldiers and sailors who need some assistance. They both used the same phrase; they both said that that was a disgrace to the country, a disgrace to Members of this House, and a disgrace to the Government also. I need hardly say that it is no part of my duty to defend the Government or even to defend the Minister of Pensions, but, so far as I am concerned, as a humble Member of this House who has supported this movement, I should like to say that I hope when I die it may be put on my tombstone that the greatest disgrace which could be laid at my door is the disgrace that I was willing to do all I could to assist soldiers and sailors, wounded and discharged, who wanted to be restarted in life, but who had not available at the time of need any fund out of which such help could be given. I am willing to lie under that disgrace, if it be one. I am willing to do everything and anything I can to help discharged soldiers and sailors and their dependants. The Financial Secretary to the War Office will admit that I have been somewhat of a nuisance to him and other members of the Government for two or three years in urging the claims of the discharged men and of the soldiers and sailors, and of their dependants. Because I have been somewhat of a nuisance, I can speak with greater freedom. No one can point to my record in this House in connection with pensions or with the soldier and sailor and say, "This man is not a friend of the soldier and sailor." Therefore, speaking as a tried and proved friend of the soldier and sailor, I say that I am perfectly willing to go forward with an attempt to meet an urgent need. I want to emphasise those words "an urgent need." Men were being discharged from the Army by thousands and they wanted some help to restart them in life.

Whatever may happen in the future, whatever the State may do—I am not inimical to the State doing what some people think it ought to do; I advocate the State bearing its full burden of responsibility—in the meantime, what about the men who are coming out of the Army every day, and who have been coming out for months, who wanted a little help to re-start them in life? Were we to say to them, "No; there is nothing for you until such time as perhaps a new Act of Parliament has been passed authorising some payment." The need was urgent, and so far from feeling that it is a disgrace, I feel proud that I was one of those who stepped into the breach and said, "I will contribute; I will ask others to contribute; I will help in any way I can to make that fund a success and useful to the discharged soldiers and sailors." The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) said the men did not want charity. That is a very dangerous thing to say in a House like this. Charity is a horrible phrase to apply to a fund voluntarily raised by people who feel that their indebtedness to the soldier and the sailor is so great that they want to do more than is at the moment possible under an Act of Parliament. If we begin to use the word "charity" in such a sense, what about the Red Cross? What about the Young Men's Christian Association? What about the Church Army, and the thousand and one funds to which we are asked to subscribe every day and to which we subscribe gladly? It is a very dangerous and a mean thing to say to the soldier or sailor, "If you take any funds which are raised voluntarily you are taking charity." I am not sure it is not a wicked thing to do, and I hope and believe that the discharged soldiers and sailors and the bulk of the people of this country will resent any such suggestion. It has been said that soldiers and sailors do not want this. If they do not want these grants to re-start them in life and to go into small businesses, why are they applying for them at the rate of 1,500 or 2,000 a week? Who is the best judge? Some of my hon. Friends arrogate to themselves the position of being judges. I am more democratic than they are. I say, leave it to the judgment of the discharged soldier and sailor as to whether he wants these grants or not, and as to whether he wants to set up in a small business of his own or to continue a paid servant of some other man for the rest of his life.

I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) was rather vexed because I suggested, in an interruption, that he was rather involved in something that he said. Someone behind me said I was the only person in the House who thought that. I will not say the hon. Member was involved in his own mind, but he was rather prejudicing the case by introducing something which was totally irrelevant. His argument was that we in the House of Commons had already declared our objection to voluntary funds because we had protested against the use by the Government of certain voluntary funds which had been raised by the lord mayors of the country. I was one of those who protested at the time against that. We in Liverpool have raised a fund of something like £100,000—a local fund—what the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) would call a charitable fund. We wanted to keep that under our own control, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to get control of that money, more or less to commandeer it, and administer it as Government money. It was against that that we protested. But does anyone suggest that the present voluntary proposals include the commandeering of local funds against the will of the people who subscribe them? No one will claim that for a moment. If that is the case, if there is no suggestion of commandeering these local funds for the purpose of this voluntary fund administered by the Pensions Ministry, the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) was involving in the question something which was totally irrelevant and endeavouring, I do not say intentionally, to prejudice the question by introducing this irrelevant matter. I will put down the questions for next Tuesday which will save the hon. Gentleman the trouble of replying on many technical and involved matters.

I should like to associate myself with all the criticisms of the proposed new scale which have been made. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Pennefather) has taken too much to heart the criticism offered by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), in regard to the proposed voluntary funds for the assistance of discharged soldiers. I am certain he would not object to an inadequate State allowance being supplemented from voluntary sources. The State at present makes no provision for the particular kind of assistance which is proposed to be given by these voluntary funds. No time ought to be lost before the State itself discharges its obligation to these discharged and disabled men. Every speech that has been delivered in the Debate, with the exception of that of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Butcher), whose purpose in speaking appeared to be unreservedly to congratulate the Government on the improved scale they have set forth, has offered criticism upon the same lines and has urged the hon. Gentleman in four different directions, first of all, that no change has been made in the allowance given to the childless wife, the very peculiar grading of the allowances in regard to the number of children, the case of the apprentice lad, and the date at which the new scale is to come into operation. It would be quite impossible to add anything to the cogency and the force of the arguments which have been advanced under each of these four heads. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) presented a family budget. I return to the point for the purpose of putting before the House some information which, I think, has far greater weight and authority than that which has been advanced by the hon. Member and other speakers. I do not know if hon. Members are acquainted with the most interesting, valuable, and useful publication issued by the Food Controller's Department, the title of which is "Food and How to Save it." The purpose of this document, which I am afraid is not written in very popular language, is to show people how they can spend their money most economically upon food, and how they can most economically cook it and eat it. In reading the pamphlet I was reminded of a publication which I have sometimes seen issued by the Food Reform Society and the vegetarian societies telling people how to live and grow fat on 3d. a day. There are given in this official publication specimen means for families large and small. On page 44 of the pamphlet there is a sample weekly menu for a family of six persons, and at the very lowest the cost of supplying the minimum amount of food necessary for keeping body and soul together is given as 7s. 2d. per head per week. The hon. Member for York quoted from a statement in a report issued by the medical officer of health for the City of York that there was only 4s. 7d. a week left for food on the basis of the present separation allowances. The Government themselves in their official publications are teaching people to be economical, but when they have attained to the highest degree of economy they cannot possibly feed six persons at less than 7s. 2d. per head per week, which means 43s. a week for food alone for a family of six persons. In one of the specimen menus given in this publication issued by the Food Controllers' Department the average cost is 14s. per head per week for food. The cost of another menu which is for a family of four persons is 11s. 8d. per head per week.

How does the Government expect that a soldier's wife is going to secure the minimum amount of food which the Food Controller says is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of health, for the maintenance of herself and family, on the separation allowance, even on the improved scale? It cannot be done. According to this official document it will take the whole of the separation allowance to provide a family with food alone. In addition to that there are a hundred other household expenses; rent, clothing, etc. Everything with the exception of rent has increased considerably in cost during the last four years. I think the hon. Member for Leicester, when he was estimating the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of the War, was much too modest. I find that milk is very strongly recommended in the dietaries of this official publication. A child must have at least 1½ pints of milk a day. That is 6d. a day, or 3s. 6d. a week, for milk alone. The publication says that a child over five must have at least one egg a day. Eggs are 5d. each to-day, and I was told by a poultry expert that they are likely to be 8d. before the end of this year. How far are these improved separation allowances going to go in order to provide this dietary which the Food Controller says is essential to the maintenance of mini mum efficiency? It cannot be done. There is no difference of opinion between Members of the House and the Government that the separation allowances ought to be sufficient to keep the family of the soldier in a fair state of physical efficiency. We are all agreed upon that. Therefore, the simple question is, Will these allowances do it? These allowances, I have proved conclusively out of the mouth of the Government, are not sufficient to provide food alone, not taking into account the other necessaries of life.

With regard to apprentices, which is a subject in which I have taken a considerable amount of interest, I would like to raise points mainly for the purpose of gaining information. I am not quite clear as to how this concession in regard to separation allowances for apprentices is going to affect pensions. I can gain very little information upon that point from the terms of the answer which was given in regard to the new scale. There have been, I suppose, thousands, may be tens of thousands, of these apprenticeship cases. If every other hon. Member has received as many of these cases as I have, there must be tens of thousands of them. No pension has been given. I had this morning a report from the Ministry of Pensions upon a case which I have had before them since the beginning of this year—that of an apprentice lad who was killed at the age of sixteen. The reply I got this morning is the usual one, that the circumstances of the family are such that no grant can be made, but that if it should be necessary for them at any time to be saved from the workhouse by some small grant, an application must be made for that purpose. I want to know from the members of the Government whether anything is to be done in these cases, whether these people are to have their cases considered now, and whether a pension is to be given, to them? I want to emphasise a very important point made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in regard to these apprentice lads who would have become journeymen at eighteen and half or nineteen years and whose parents are to derive no benefit until the time when they would have been twenty-one years of age. The thing seems to me to be utterly indefensible, and I am quite sure when the hon. Gentleman rises to reply he will not attempt to defend it on any ground of logic and of justice.

In regard to the coming into operation of these allowances we are told that they are not to date until the 1st of October next, and they are not to be paid for a long time after the 1st of October next. A warning is given in the statement that it may be a very long time before all the cases have been dealt with and the amount of the increased separation allowance has been determined. If it is a practicable thing to post-date the increased amount from the tune it is fixed, say next January or February, to the 1st October, it would be equally practicable to post-date it to the 1st July or the 1st January this year. These people have been suffering for the last two years from this great increase in the cost of living. I do not know how many of them have lived with prices at what they are now. I may read a letter from a woman in my Constituency who now, I suppose, will be an elector. It is a very short but most intelligent letter:

"Will you please explain to me whether the increased allowance means that no matter how many children you have the increase is only the same as for two? Do not you think, Sir, that the mother of a big family is more deserving of better treatment than she is receiving, and why have we to wait until 1st October for the increase considering how rates, coal, and every necessity of life has advanced?"

Remember that these women are going to vote at the next election. There are 26,000 of these new women voters on the new register in my Constituency. She continues:

"I can assure you, Sir, there is deep resent-a half or nineteen years and whose parents ances, and we mothers of big families feel that we are not being fairly treated. Many of us are already weary trying to make ends meet."

3.0 P.M.

I feel that this increase for only two of the children is an insult. These women have been suffering for a long time because the cost of living became almost intolerable two years ago. It has continued to increase since. I repeat that I do not know how these women have made ends meet during that time. Why should they be put off now for three or four months longer? It cannot be justified. I am sorry that no member of the War Cabinet has considered this Debate sufficiently important to induce him to be present. There is no member of the Government for whom the House entertains a higher personal regard than for the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster). But he is not in the War Cabinet, and could not, on his own responsibility this afternoon, commit the Government to a revision of this scale which we are now discussing. Only the War Cabinet can do that. The resentment in the country against the inadequacy of this scale is very great. I wish that the Government, when they had decided to deal with the matter, had been, I will not say generous, but merely just. I agree with what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has said. If we can get no satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that this scheme will be reconsidered it shall not rest there, and we will continue the agitation, because we have not only a just cause and an urgent one, but a cause which will have the sympathy of everyone who has any idea not only of what I may call the economic sacrifices and privations of these people, but of their sufferings, due to their anxiety with regard to those who are near and dear and who are constantly exposed to the dangers and hardships of the War.

The criticism of the scheme for the increase of separation allowances proposed by the Government has circled round certain quite definite points, and the attention of this House has been called to these points with great cogency and clearness, and I am bound to say with great moderation, by all those who have addressed the Chair. Therefore, I propose to confine myself to the points that have been raised. I will refer first to the case of the dependants of the non-earning soldier, the case of the apprentice. It has been represented that the proposals of the Government are wholly inadequate and do not in any way meet the case. I admit at once that the problem with which we have to deal is one of great difficulty. We have to go into the realm of hypothesis, foregoing the clear atmosphere of fact. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole theory of dependants' allowances in the early days was based on the net contribution towards the family income made by the soldier before he enlisted. Obviously, in the case of the apprentice, the student, and the lad not in a position to earn wages owing to educational and other reasons, there was no possibility of contribution before he became a soldier. Therefore there was no possibility of giving any kind of dependant's allowance to his parents unless we abandon the basis of pre-enlistment contributions. That the Government have done. They have come to the conclusion that, in view of the great inequality of treatment given to the parents of the lad who volunteered early in the War and the parents of the lad who waited until he was fetched under the Military Service Act, we were no longer able to hold fast to the theory of pre-enlistment contribution. Then we had to consider how best we might deal with the problem.

There were two courses open to us—either to establish a system of discretionary grants, entrusting the administration of it to local pensions committees which would inquire into the circumstances of each case, basing the amount of allowance upon what the soldier might reasonably have been expected to be able to contribute had he remained in civil life, or establishing a flat-rate allowance at a suitable rate. There were very great objections—I think great objections were raised in this House—and very great practical difficulty in the establishment of allowances such as I at first described, discretionary allowances locally administered, and the Government came to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with this difficulty was to establish a flat-rate allowance of 5s. a week. The rate has been criticised as being too low. I forget whether it was the Member for East Edinburgh or the Member for Leicester who said that practically in every case when lads have attained the age of twenty-one years they would be in a position to earn sufficient to secure the dependants' allowance at the maximum rate for their parents, but that if we fix the rate at 5s. it certainly would not meet the just demands of the parents whose lads were among the earlier enlisted soldiers. I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that we are going beyond the sphere of apprentices only. We are not dealing in this case with apprentices only, we are dealing with students and with other categories of men, many of whom, when they have reached the age of twenty-one, may not have been in a position to earn to the fullest possible extent. We have this further to remember, that we are extending this allowance to the parents of those who actually did make some contribution in the early days of the War. We naturally had to do that. Obviously, it would have been impossible to face a situation in which we gave to the parent of a soldier who made no contribution to the family income more than we allowed in respect of the soldier who paid a contribution at a very low rate. Therefore, this not only covers the case where no contribution is made, but involves bring the dependant's allowance, now 5s. a week, up to their level.

Why twenty-one?

Because I take it that on the whole the conclusion we came to was that twenty-one was the age, taking all the categories, at which any man would be capable of earning wages. So much for the case of the apprentices. I come to the question of the wife. The hon. Member spoke of conscripting the husband, and then conscripting the wife by giving her an allowance at a rate which practically compels her to work. Does my hon. Friend really think that is true generally? Let us see. Remember that in the early days the varying separation allowance was established to maintain the home. Does not my hon. Friend realise that in a very large number of cases, where the soldier has married since the outbreak of the War, there is no home to maintain—that he has married a woman who was actually at work, and, to her honour be it said, has returned to work as soon as the soldier goes back to his military duty. There is a very wide difference between cases in that category and cases where the soldiers had established homes before the War, and others who, since the War, have left established homes. These are two totally different classes of cases. We all know there are immense numbers of wives of soldiers who of their own free will have gone back to work after marriage, and that is all to the good of the nation. Then again, there is the wife who has lived in her own home, the wife without children. Surely no one thinks that a strong, able-bodied woman, able to work, in times like these, ought not to work! I should like the House to see that she ought. There is, I believe, work for all of those who are strong and healthy and able to do it. The majority, thank God the majority of our women are sufficiently strong and sufficiently healthy to enable them to do work that is of real value. But there are instances where such is not the case. We all know the case of the delicate woman, the woman unable to work because of a variety of causes. If this system of scale allowance, to which my hon. Friend confines himself, stood alone, then I think there would be no doubt a case for doing something more. But the local pensions and special grants committee is empowered to deal with cases where the woman is not able to work for one reason or another.

The committee never do it.

Then we have got to see that they do do it. That may be an excellent reason for putting pressure upon the Government to see that these local pensions and special grants committees do perform their duties. But I submit it is not a reason for a wide and general extension in those instances where it is really not needed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman's Department find out the cases of those who have already had the 2s. 6d. per week, and then he will ascertain the remedy.

I will see if I can get something like the figures my hon. Friend suggests.

Before we leave that point, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Government can bring pressure to bear upon these local pensions and special grants committees?

Do it in your own Department!

I was not speaking for my Department, I was speaking for the Government, and I do not think it is past the wit of man to give such elasticity to the Regulations as to enable this thing to be done. I refuse to believe that there is any widespread refusal on the part of the local pensions and special grants committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Really, my hon. Friends are not quite fair; they do not allow me to finish the sentence. What I was going to say was, I refuse to believe that there is any widespread desire on the part of the local pensions and grants committees to do other than go as far as they think the Regulations enable them to go. What has happened in some cases is that perhaps the local pensions and grants committees possibly took an unduly strict view of the powers with which they are clothed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman issue some Instruction to these committees to the effect that they are to carry out their duties according to the generous principle which he has stated?

I think that is under the consideration of the Minister of Pensions, with whom the responsibility rests.

I quite appreciate the sympathy of my right hon. Friend, and he is in the same difficulty as we are. He is responsible for the separation allowance made to the wives. The administration of the extra allowance is under a separate Department. We would be quite content if my right hon. Friend had the whole control in his own Department.

I am very much obliged for the kindly expressions of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, but this is not a question of this person or that. It is a question of the intention of the Government in connection with this scheme of separation allowance, and I think we must judge of that alone. I come next to the question of the allowances for the children. We have been criticised because we have confined the increase in the amount of the children's allowances to the family of one or two, and hon. Members have commented on the fact that in the cases where the family exceeds three or more the allowance is no greater than in the case of the smaller family. When the question was discussed in this House before the appointment of the Committee practically the whole case made at that time was on behalf of women with one or two children. There seemed to be some sort of general agreement that the woman with three or four children was fairly well able to get along on the allowance. There was a very strong case made out by the hon. Member for Leicester on behalf of the woman with one or two children.

I hope my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand what I said on that occasion. I took the family of not more than two children as a type of family, but I did not mean to suggest that the grievance was only felt by the family of that size.

I think the hardship was greater in the case of the woman with one or two children than in the case where the number of children was larger. One hon. Member has commented to-day on the gradation of the allowance and on the various steps in the scale, so much for the first child, so much for the second, and then a flat rate for all subsequent children. But did not my hon. Friend realise that although we speak of the children's allowance it is really a convenient form of describing the household income, and that in the provision for the first child and to a certain extent for the second, lies some provision for the mother. Therefore, you have to judge the children's allowance in conjunction to the allowance made for the mother, you must judge the whole as the family income, and it is not fair to say that as the woman with one or two children gets 4s. 6d. while she who has three or four children only gets the same amount extra for herself, therefore the latter is harshly treated. I do not think that the criticisms which have been made against this proposal have been fully justified. The hon. Member for Leicester said that what we really ought to do is to see that the separation allowances of to-day bear their true relation to the separation allowances established in 1914, keeping in mind the increased cost of living incurred in the meantime. He took that increase since the beginning of the War at 70 per cent. He admitted that that was on the low side, but he said he was content to take it, and then he went on to point out that if we look at the increases that have been made in the separation allowances since September, 1914, we shall find that the increase is not 70 per cent., but something below. What my hon. Friend I think overlooked is the fact that the increase of 70 per cent. in the cost of living is since the beginning of the War, and if we take the separation allowances at the beginning of the War we shall find that the increase in the case of a woman with children is more than 70 per cent. and in some cases practically 100 per cent.

It was admitted that the allowance was inadequate.

We have gone on increasing the separation allowances step by step, and the admission of inadequacy was made after the War had begun. But even if we take the increases from the 30th September, 1914, when the revised separation allowances came in, we find that the increase of the allowances is practically all but, if not quite, the 70 per cent. which represents the increase in the cost of living. Therefore I do not think there is any great substance in the point which my hon. Friend made. We have been told that the amount of the separation allowance recently has been so insufficient as to cause great hardship to a large number of families. If that were the case, if it were generally true, one would have supposed there would have been a considerable allotment by the soldier to his family in order to remedy any hardship from which they may have been suffering. I do not think anyone is going to accuse the British soldier, on the average, of being harsh or cruel or mean towards those who are dependent on him. With one or two exceptions where the percentage is higher I have been very much surprised to find how very few soldiers have made allotments to their families since the compulsory allotment was taken over by the State. It only amounts to something like 4 per cent. of the number involved, and I think that goes a very long way to dispose of the assertions that in a large number of cases families are suffering hardship.

You gave this concession to the soldiers for themselves, and now you suggest that they should use it for their wives and families.

What I am suggesting is, if it were true that their families are suffering hardship, they would have done it. In presenting the soldier with the compulsory allotment and increasing his pay we trebled the amount he had in his pocket, and if it had been necessary he would have been able to make a contribution towards his family. The fact that he has done so to a very limited extent goes far, I think, to disprove the idea that this grievance is widespread. It does exist in some cases—in the case of Leicester, for instance, where I find that the number of men who have increased their allotments is something more nearly 20 per cent., and that confirms the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester that in that neighbourhood, at any rate, there is special need for something extra being given. It also confirms the statement of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) that there is a disparity of treatment at the bands of the various local pensions committees. There is one consideration I wish to bring to the notice of the House. It is all very well to say that the scale of allowances is insufficient, but I want the House to bear in mind that that scale as it stands must be judged in its relations to rural populations as well as urban. If you judge of it in relation to the amount that the soldier is able to earn in civil life in the rural districts, I think you will find that there is no case for making a general increase in the scale allowance. The wages of the agricultural labourer have recently been fixed, by wages boards and other means, for the various counties, and they range from 27s. a week up to 33s. and possibly 35s.

Less increases for rent.

That is within limits.

That does not apply to Scotland.

Let us look at the amount that the family get when the soldier is absent and when he is fed and clothed and housed and found altogether free of expense to himself. Let us take, for instance, the case of a man with three children who is able to earn 30s. a week in civil employment. When he goes as a soldier his wife and family get 32s. 6d. under the revised scale, so that when the man is taken for a soldier and the cost of his maintenance is taken off the family income, the family income automatically not only gets what is saved by his becoming a soldier, but an addition of half-a-crown a week as well. That is a result that I think we ought to keep in mind, because when the man reverts to civil life and goes back to earn civil wages, when he has to find and feed and clothe himself as well as maintain his family, he will find he will have to do it out of a very heavily reduced income, and I am not at all sure that it is desirable—and I think the House has got to face this particular aspect of the question in all sincerity—to encourage a standard of living during the War which is at too high a level. Hon. Members may say that that is all right for the rural population, but that still as regards the great bulk of the urban population the scale of separation allowances, even as the Government have revised it, is insufficient. I do not think it is, but, again, I point out to the Committee that if there are cases in which there are special circumstances that call for special treatment, it is part of the Government's scheme—it is not charity—with money provided from public funds, that the local pension committee should be able to deal with those cases. I would only like to say, in conclusion, that the whole question of dealing with these separation allowances has been one of great difficulty, and I can assure the Committee that the Government have approached it with feelings of sympathy as well as with the feeling that it is essential to preserve in view the just claims of the taxpayer. It is never easy to refuse assistance to those whose claims can be so strongly and so justly represented and urged upon us. It is specially difficult, when all the sympathy of one's heart goes out to those who day after day are carrying a load of anxiety in respect to those whom they love. But these things cannot be settled in accordance with our feelings of sympathy only, and we have got to bear in mind that we are trustees for the nation's purse, as well as sympathisers with those who are carrying this heavy load. We have to justify the expenditure which we have to call upon the country to undertake. We have endeavoured to take a reasonable, a sympathetic, and a dispassionate view of the situation as a whole, and I believe that our proposals are fair and equitable.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to another matter, namely, the position of those large towns on the East Coast of England which, owing to their geographical position, have been affected by this War in a different capacity from any of the other towns in the country. There is only one occasion since this great War began on which we have troubled the House with the position of these towns on the East Coast of England, and on that occasion we raised the point with the Local Government Board and asked them that some assistance might be given to these towns to enable them to keep up the services which are required to keep any town in a proper condition. I may say that the Local Government Board met them very fairly indeed, and that the Treasury carried out the recommendations of the Local Government Board, and there has been no complaint of any kind on that head since. Now they have another grievance, and that is a grievance against the War Office. They feel that they are not now being treated fairly and with the consideration which should be shown them, and they think it is in the power of the War Office to ameliorate their condition greatly by regulations which they can make, and that they can help in making the lot easier for those people in these towns who are grievously affected by the War.

I need not explain to Members of this House the very sad effect of the War upon these towns. Many hon. Members who have by chance been in these towns have noticed the terrible effect that the War has had upon them. They have in many cases entirely lost their attractive power to visitors, and they have lost large numbers of the tenants of their houses, so that a large number of houses are vacant, and they have also lost, for another reason connected with the War, their great fishing industries, which brought them prosperity in normal times. For instance, at one town, in the last year before the War, they had 1,000 fishing smacks, and last year they had 150 only, so that they had one-seventh of the fishing which they enjoyed before the War. The loss of that industry, combined with the loss of visitors, who do not come there now, has affected both the shopkeepers and all the tenants of houses, many houses now being empty. I may say that the patriotism of the inhabitants of these towns has also contributed to the present position because they enlisted in such numbers. Not only have they gone in immense numbers into the Army, but they have also been drawn upon to an immense extent for the Navy, and it is not only those who are in the Fleet, but the very large number of fishermen who have gone with their boats, many of them, to the Eastern Mediterranean and all over the seas, mine-sweeping and helping in various ways in the War. The houses of many of these men have been shut up, and their wives and daughters have gone to stay with relatives. They have been away for years. Their houses are empty, and have added to the large number of empty premises in these towns.

Then the War Office has come down upon these towns, and has kept considerable bodies of troops in their neighbourhood. In the first winter of the War they did not send men into the towns with which I am more closely acquainted, but for those they did send into billets in the towns they paid 9d. per head per day as billeting allowance. That, I believe, was thought to be entirely satisfactory by the people, and there was not a word of complaint about it. In the second year the distress and the number of vacant houses increased, and the War Office, or the officers there who were carrying out the instructions of the War Office, took possession of many of these vacant houses for the billeting of troops, and that year they paid half of the rents which had been paid before the War. That half paid the rates and taxes, and left a small surplus for the owner of the house. They come from their camps into the towns in October, and they leave again for their camps in March. This last year when they came in they said, "We shall not pay any rents for these vacant houses. We shall take possession of them, and the utmost we shall do will be to pay the rates and taxes." In addition to the rates and taxes in these towns, the owners have to pay the antiaircraft insurance, insurance against bombardment, which is an additional rate to that in any other towns in the country, and the ordinary fire insurance. So that when the military take possession of a vacant house and pay the rent and taxes, that does not pay the outgoings on that house, without taking into account in any shape the natural wear and tear which must result from putting large numbers of men into these houses. There is no recompense for this at all, and, at the present time, when they go out of these premises in March they tell the proprietor, "We shall want these premises again in October if the War is going on, and we shall take them on the same terms." The inhabitants of these towns do not consider those terms are fair in any shape. Their premises, it is true, were vacant at the time, but there is no reason why, because these premises are vacant, in these towns only in the whole country, the Government should be able to obtain barrack accommodation for nothing at the expense of the people who have put up houses for which they are getting no return. That is what it amounts to in effect. If there were not these houses, the military authorities would have to put up barracks or turn people out of their houses and take them at proper rents. But they have found these empty houses and taken them under what I call a very onerous and very unfair terms and conditions.

There is another point with regard to the dilapidations of these houses, and it is a matter more serious than I could have believed if I had not seen the effect of the occupation of some of these houses by a number of troops for six months at a time. The matter was brought to a head last spring, when they left a certain town I need not name for their country quarters. They went through the streets to the station ringing bells which they had torn from these houses, and waving things about which they had taken from these houses. Altogether, I can only describe it as a sad and an unfortunate spectacle for the inhabitants to see. It naturally created great indignation, and I have received many letters on the subject. The mayors of the towns have been lately meeting, and consider that it is a subject which ought to be brought to the attention of Parliament, to see if something cannot be done to obviate what I may call this scandal in the future. I have made particular inquiries with regard to some of these houses. I will not worry the House with regard to the smaller details. A man wrote:

"I have been over another house this morning. All the bells were removed from this house. The bells were removed from the two adjoining ones. This morning I found, in addition to the removal of the bells, that shelves had been removed. Cupboards in the scullery were removed. The door in one of the rooms was broken off its hinges. The brickwork over a door had been torn out. In one room a bayonet had been driven through the ceiling."

In another house—of this I have personal knowledge—they made a passage-way into the adjoining house by removing bricks from the party-walls, and they used this additional means of communication with their friends in the next house, vitiating, I have no doubt, the fire policy, and possibly other policies. I am not going to blame the soldiers for this. It is most unfortunate that there should be such a want of care and supervision, that they should strip the houses in this way, and openly parade the fact that they have done so. That is a matter for the War Office, and I strongly urge the War Office to take greater care of people's property when they have taken it without paying any rent. I will not go into the legal question with regard to that. I believe others will do so, and can do so more competently than I can. I bring it to the attention of the War Office that this goes on, and it is most unfortunate.

The question then arises as to when the dilapidations to these houses will be repaired. The soldiers go out at the end of March and they say, "You had better leave dilapidations over until the end of the War, and then it will be settled altogether. Of course, it is no use doing up the place now, if we are going to take possession again in October, and possibly make it in a bad condition again." Can you imagine a town, with premises left in the condition I have described, not being thereby affected detrimentally? I believe that in roads where a number of these houses were left in this condition, people living there have had to leave, because they say they cannot live in a road where houses are in such a dilapidated condition. "It is," they say, "against our self-respect. We cannot inhabit such houses in consequence of the condition in which they have been left and without extensive alterations being done." And they will not be repaired until the end of the War. I think those houses will be vacant next October, and the following time. What chance has the proprietor of such a house, damaged in the way I have described, to let it in the summer? I will not say what chance there is in these towns. I think they vary a great deal; but I do say the War Office method of arranging the dilapidations, which are only to be made at the end of the War, must necessarily entail these houses being vacant, whatever the demand for them by possible tenants. So that this is a case, I think, which must be remedied. It will damage a house and a neighbourhood now, and it may damage them irremediably if you allow repairs of this kind to be postponed for an indefinite period; the whole character of the neighbourhood and the town will be run down.

I do not wish at any time to raise a point like this without suggesting some sort of remedy. I do not wish to lay the blame upon the War Office. I do not think that the matter, perhaps, can be remedied in a moment, nor do I wish to do anything that would prejudice the War, but I think it is in the interests of the soldiers themselves that there should be better discipline in these towns and the houses, and that they should take greater care of the property of which they have the user. I suggest that it is bad, in the interests of the men themselves, that they should be allowed to do this damage and not suffer for it in any way, or that such damage should be considered trivial, and that such bad habits as these should be, I will not say inculcated, but at any rate winked at by the War Office. I am sure the War Office can make better arrangements with regard to this billeting. I do not know which officer, if any, is responsible in this matter. I have inquired, but I have not yet arrived at the officer who is responsible in the regiment for these billeting arrangements. I do not know whether he is the major, or the senior captain, or even a junior captain. I cannot discover whose business it is to take any interest in the matter and to go round and see in what condition the property is; but I should have thought it was the business of the War Office, in the course of the arrangements, to see that there is some officer whose duty it was to look into this matter in the towns; for sergeants, it may be, to go round every week and report upon the houses, as to whether or not any damage has been done.

We have been told that if we bring particular cases of damaging property against any particular soldier in a regiment that he will be punished. Of course, that is absolutely impossible. We cannot do it. We would not wish to do it if we could. It is not the individual man we want to get at so much as to change the spirit which prevails—the lack of discipline and order amongst these soldiers. It is not the case of the actual individual who may happen to be the culprit in a particular case of pulling down the bells or stealing the knockers off the door. Still, I think some better arrangement can be made in regard to the billeting so as to see that, in particular, these vacant houses are properly taken care of, and not wilfully damaged in the way they are. In regard to the question of rents, which I also raised, and the inadequacy of the payment of the rates and taxes, the amount of damage done to the house must necessarily depend largely upon the number of people who are billeted there. If there are ten men billeted in a house, the rent should be larger than if there were five or six men. I think the old plan of paying 9d. per head per day, which was the original method for billeting, should be revived, or at any rate—for I do not say 9d. was not too much; I do not know what is a fair price; in certain towns it might be 6d.—but a fair price based upon the number of soldiers who are going to be put into that particular house should be the principle on which to measure the rent which the War Office pays for the premises. I wish to impress it upon the War Office that they are doing present damage, and possibly permanent damage, to the towns which stretch from the coast of Northumberland down to the South of Kent, and that after the War, when they have to meet these bills for dilapidations, which are running up against them, they will have a very heavy sum to liquidate and it will be difficult both to assess and to pay. They would be much better advised if they would treat this matter in the ordinary business way, pay as they go, and repair the damage which they do. I strongly urge this method upon the War Office.

In approaching this question, which has already been opened by my hon. Friend, I wish to proceed not upon cases of individual hardship; I wish to put forward the underlying principle. In the view I take of compulsory military occupation by the War Office during the course of this War,—I speak recognising the gravity of the charge I am making, but believing that the charge is well-founded and should be discussed in this House. In the view I take of the action of the Government in this matter, I think I shall be able to show that the Government has perverted public opinion and misled it as to the appropriate remedy lying in the hands of the subject vis-a-vis the Crown, and also that the Government has deliberately abused the obligations of judicial interposition between the Crown and the subject. These are serious charges; but I think the facts—and I am going to discuss them—warrant what I am saying. I am not going to enter into any legal niceties but I must make some allusion to legal history in this matter to justify my argument, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the War Office will be able to meet me upon legal grounds as well as upon grounds affecting the Department of which he is in charge. Requisitioning in all our legal history is only permissible under two conditions, one by Royal prerogative and the other by statutory right. As regards requisitioning by Royal prerogative, legal history shows that in such cases the act was always confined to cases of emergency and measured both in time and extent by the occasion which made the act lawful. So far as the Royal prerogative is concerned. I think it is exceedingly doubtful whether it ever went so far as to involve taking the property and excluding the subject from that property. In every case in which the Royal prerogative has been exercised, it has always been accompanied by compensating rights to the subject in regard to the property. I do not think that the action taken by the Government in regard to property in the course of the War is sought to be justified on the ground of Royal prerogative, and therefore I pass that point by. But I make this proposition, that right through our common law you will find references to it even in Magna Charta, in Blackstone's Commentaries, in the Defence Act of 1842, and in the amending Acts to that Act, in the Military Lands Acts, all through you will find where the Crown has found it necessary for a national emergency to interfere with private rights compensation has always been accorded fully and fairly. The charge I seek to make good is that the conduct of the Government in the taking of private property in the course of this War has departed from historical precedents completely in this respect. In the case of the Defence of the Realm Act of 1914 and Regulations there under which have been the source of action by the Government in requisitioning all property for military purposes during the course of this War, there is expressly reserved and recognised the continued powers of the Defence Act of 1842 and the Military Lands Acts, all of which were compensating Acts.

4.0 P.M.

What have the Government done in regard to the properties taken? They have misled public opinion in this War. They have used the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, set up for a totally different purpose, not to determine legal rights, but to make in proper cases ex gratia payments, and they have diverted that for the purpose of creating in the public mind the idea that that is the appropriate judicial authority to decide between Crown and subject in the matter of taking property and compensation. That is the first and the most grievous use of this power to which I shall have to refer. The Royal Commission was set up not to determine, and it has no right to determine, rights between the Crown and the individual. It is not a statutory body. It is not mentioned in the Defence of the Realm Act or the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It gives no rights to the subject. It can determine no rights of the subject and its functions are purely advisory. Its duty is to advise the Crown what sum in cases not provided for should, in reason and fairness, be paid by the Crown ex gratia. That is the position of the Royal Commission. If rights exist as between the Crown and the subject, and were recognisable by law or by petition of right, the statutory commission has no locus standi at all and is not a determining body. Its procedure and its decisions cannot be revised or questioned by any Court, and it cannot even advise and it cannot act in any case unless there is no legal right to compensation. The first and the greatest abuse in the treatment of private property by the Government in this War is that everybody has been told by the War Office valuers, presumably acting under the authority of the War Office, that if they do not like the insignificant and in some cases insulting sums offered by the War Office for military occupation, they can go to the Defence of the Realm Commission. The comment I make upon that is either the War Office is ignorant of the functions of the Commission or else the War Office has been deliberately misleading the country—I leave to them the choice. I am afraid that when I get a stage further the alternative of being misled as to the legal position will have to disappear in view of what has happened in the course of a case where the rights were going to be established. If that is so, if the inference to be drawn from the case I shall presently allude to is just, the War Office have never been ignorant of the rights of the individual, but they have been deliberately inviting the individual to take an inappropriate course when he gets an inadequate remedy, and have deliberately been obstructing as between subject and Crown, the subject in the receipt of that to which by all law and precedent he is entitled.

If that be true, and I think I can make it good, it applies to a class of a community that the War Office is hitting hard. There are rich people who are getting richer by the War and the poor people have plenty of opportunities of making money while the War is on, but there is an intermediate class, not rich, and who in peace time were not poor, but had a little money put away, and they have no means of making more of it, and a lot of these people have small house property which has been requisitioned by the Government under the conditions to which I am making reference. That is particularly true of a very large number of people residing on the East Coast of England, and those people have been hit hard enough by the War. Their means of livelihood generally consist of visitors, and that has now been withdrawn. Their expense of living has gone up, and in a single town there are between 1,000 and 1,500 houses empty, and those who cannot go away and are left in that town have not merely to pay their own rates, but also the rates which would otherwise be borne by the houses that have now fallen empty. Those are the people with small houses which have been taken into military occupation, and those are the conditions, and I charge the Government that in a matter of requisitioning this property for military purposes they have treated these people with scant fairness and scant justice. Those people were never bound to submit to military occupation and have their rights determined by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. They are encouraged to believe that that is so because there is no appeal from that Commission. There is no decision to be obtained elsewhere, and here I come to the point to which I made previous reference. I say that the public have been misled into believing that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission was their proper remedy. I go further now. I say that apart from throwing dust in the eyes of the public, and instructing or permitting their valuers to give incorrect legal advice to people who have brought claims against the Government, I say that the Government have actively prevented the true legal position becoming declared by the ultimate Court of Appeal in this country—the House of Lords. It is well that the public should know this. For my part, I feel strongly about it. The trick that has been played would have been shunned by a private individual who was not too careful about his character. When it is played by a Government, I will not venture to describe what my opinion is of the action.

A case was brought in relation to property taken for the Brighton Aerodrome. The people that took it were people in a position to obtain good legal opinion, and they got good legal opinion. They said, acting under advice, "We are not obliged to go to your Defence of the Realm Losses Commission which is a charitable show of an advisory character. We have legal rights under the Defence Act of 1842. We will proceed under that, and have an arbitration under the Lands Clauses Act," and they brought their action by Petition of Right. The fact that this was brought by Petition of Right is merely an incident, for the House will know it is a case between the subject and the Crown, and only by a Petition of Right can proceedings be instituted. Proceedings were brought. Up to that time a decision stood which had got as far as the Court of Appeal, which precluded the subject from having his compensation determined under the Defence Act and the corresponding Acts. The people concerned in the Brighton Aerodrome case challenged that decision. They did not believe it was right, and were prepared to go, and did go, to the House of Lords. Up to the Court of Appeal they were bound by the decision that already stood in our law records. They went further. The case was argued to a point in the House of Lords, and then it became apparent to those who were advising the Crown and deceiving the country, and I say so deliberately, that an adverse decision was going to be given against the Crown, and it was going to be declared by the ultimate Court of Appeal, from which there was no appeal and by which all future conduct of the War Department would have to be regulated—it became apparent that the decision was going to be against the Crown. What happened? The Crown rather than allow the thing to proceed to a decision agreed by consent to pay compensation in regard to the land taken for the Brighton Aerodrome, that compensation to be settled under the Land Clauses Act as provided by the Defence Act, and the appeal was withdrawn. What is the effect of that? It is this. That those who have the responsibility of advising the Crown and yet have the duty of being just to the public, saw that if that case was decided against them, this ex gratia swindle of the Royal Commission would have to stop, the right of the subject would be declared, and that real compensation would have to be paid in respect to property taken for military occupation; and the effect of climbing down and withdrawing without a decision being granted, is to leave the decision in the Court of Appeal in the other case unimpeached so that every subject of the King has now—though the opinion of the House of Lords is known—for those who run may read—nobody can hope to get that right again established unless he has sufficient cause at stake and has sufficient money to take his case again to the House of Lords. It is well for the Department to be economical, but when we are talking about the purity of the motives for which we entered this War it is not unimportant that a great Government Department should observe the principles of common justice to the subjects of the Crown, and in engineering public opinion into the belief that the Royal Commission was the appropriate remedy—as either consciously or through ignorance the War Department did—and when you add to that observation that they were on the point of getting a decision from the ultimate Court of Appeal establishing the subject's right and then deliberately took action which prevented that opinion being declared by the judges of that Court, and made it impossible for any subject of His Majesty to get a similar right established without going again to the House of Lords—the Department deserves the sternest and most righteous censure of every right-thinking man.

I do not allude except to some extent to the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Crown in practice. It is common knowledge that at the beginning there was a sort of inclination to be just, then an inclination to be less just, and finally an inclination to be absolutely unjust. It has not rested at inclination; it has been really indulged in. I will not weary the House with any particulars, but it is a subject upon which public opinion ought to be informed. The public have been kept in ignorance of their rights, and measures have been taken by those who advise the Government to prevent the public getting to know their rights. The sums paid have been scandalously inadequate, and the answer has always been, "Well, if you do not like it, go to the Defence of the Realm War Losses Committee." Those who say that say it with a knowledge that that tribunal has no power to determine rights, and that it is not subject to revision or correction by any authority in this country. I leave it as a matter of principle. I could give many cases of detail, but I prefer to leave it in its broad aspects. If the country learns that the whole basis upon which compensation has been paid is an unsound, an untrue, and an illegal basis, and that the subject has his rights and can obtain his rights, then good may issue from this Debate. In concluding my observations, may I say, out of courtesy to the House what I have already said to the Under-Secretary of State for War, that I regret that departmental duties call me away, and that I shall be guilty of the apparent discourtesy of running away when I would prefer to wait and listen to any criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman may have to offer on the observations that I have made. I will promise him that they shall receive my earnest consideration when I am able to read them.

I desire to make a few brief remarks in support of the plea put forward by the last two speakers in favour of a more just and equitable treatment being meted out to the owners of these vacant houses. I have never been able to understand why a distinction is drawn between houses which are occupied and houses which are vacant. With regard to occupied houses, if they are requisitioned by the Government, although the tenant has to get out of them quickly, at any rate, he does receive the rent of the premises out of which he has been forced to go. But with regard to untenanted or vacant houses, so far as I understand, they can be requisitioned by the Government without any payment in the way of rent. My hon. and learned Friend (Commander N. Craig) has made me wonder whether I have rightly understood the law. Most laymen have viewed these cases very much in the same way that I have done. I have always thought that the Government were acting on the right principles of law, although their action was contrary to all the principles of equity. The harshness of the treatment is accentuated in the case of the places on the East Coast, where the vacancy of the premises is due, as it is entirely at the present time, to their geographical position and the war conditions under which we are now living. It seems to me that advantage is taken of the misfortunes of the individual in favour of what are considered to be the interests of the State.

The places which have suffered more severely than the rest of the country during this War have been the places on the East Coast. In the earlier days of the War they alone were subjected to being bombed from the air, and they were bombed very frequently. Occasionally, they also had that bombing from the air supplemented by bombardment from the sea. A great many of the inhabitants of those places left their homes in order to secure the safety of their children and their families, while the visitors who used to come in shoals during the summer come no longer. The result is that very many houses are rendered vacant, and, while the owners of these houses are suffering from their geographical position, they are being treated very unjustly. Their houses which are rendered vacant through no fault of their own, are taken by the military without the payment of any rent. Naturally this aggravates very much the financial position. It is an extraordinary paradox that while, on the one hand, the War Office refuse to pay the individuals anything in the way of rent for the premises they occupy, the Treasury has come to the assistance of the local authorities in order to avoid their being placed in an impossible position. I do not think the hardship ends at that point. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir A. Fell) has given us some instances of particular damage, but I think I can say with full confidence that although the unfortunate owners of the house is supposed to get compensation, perhaps not till the end of the War, for the damage which is being done, I do not think, from what I have seen of compensation which has been paid, he will get very full compensation, and I am certain he will have to wait for it a very considerable time. I hope the Under-Secretary for War will see whether instructions cannot be given to regimental officers that periodical and frequent visits should be made in order to see that no damage which was avoidable should be done.

Another point I should like to urge is that greater consideration should, when occasion arises, be given to the owners of these properties. I had sent to me yesterday morning a case of the kind which I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman. It is a copy of a letter to the War Office by the agent for a house which was requisitioned by the Government, I suppose some little time ago, as an officers' mess. It was very much against the owner's wish that the House should be taken, as he considers the premises were in too good a state of repair to warrant their being taken for that purpose while there was a large number of houses adjacent which could have been taken instead. The owner has had an opportunity of letting the house on a three years' tenancy, with the option of continuation at the end of the period, and he has applied to the War Department to quit. They refuse to do it. In his letter to the War Office he said he understood they refused to give up the house because if they gave it up now they would not be able to have it in the winter if so required. He thinks the treatment is very unfair. I do not know whether it is unfair or not, but I think that if the War Office would give more favourable consideration they would remove a good deal of feeling which is existing owing to the way in which the public are treated by the War Department. I agree with the plea which has been put forward by my two hon. Friends, and I want to urge upon my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he should obtain Treasury sanction, if Treasury sanction be required, in order that he may pay fair and reasonable rents for premises which are occupied by the military. I am of opinion that if you take a person's property and make use of it, the least you can do is to pay something in the shape of maintenance. Another point is in regard to damage to property, and the third point is that due consideration should in all cases be shown to the interests of the owners.

I think a case has been made out showing that hardship is inflicted upon a certain section of the community through no fault of their own. Hitherto the House has understood that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is the only ultimate tribunal of appeal to which the subjects can go in these matters. In this particular case of an unoccupied house which, owing to the exigencies of the War, has not been income-producing if it is occupied by the War Department, they should be looked upon as an ordinary commercial tenant. I know there is enormous difficulty, and obviously if houses which are non-income-producing are to be paid full commercial rent, there will be other demands from those who have been equally hard hit. But I think these East Coast towns are a comparatively small section of the community, and they have suffered to an undue degree. I would ask whether or not the Government could not extend the principle which they have admitted in regard to these communities as communities. They have already received Grants-in-Aid to the amount of £130,000 in relief of their local obligations which they are unable to discharge. Could we not carry it one stage further and in specific cases allow relief for actual injury. I know it enormously extends the principle which has been adopted in the past, but I respectfully urge that the circumstances warrant it. As to the administrative difficulty, I think a great deal of the perverted public opinion which we have heard referred to might have been avoided if a little more commercial common sense and a little of the rudiments of humane elements had been exercised in arranging these things. I know perfectly well that the land branch of the War Office has exercised both commercial common sense and the milk of human kindness. I know that an entire reorganisation was made of the officers who had the duty of commandeering these houses and endeavouring to enter into the necessary arrangements with owners. Everything that could be done in that direction I am sure was done, but, owing to the paucity of personnel that had the necessary skill, I am afraid that these negotiations were carried out very slowly, that there was considerable delay, and that arrangements that might have been made in an amicable manner never were made.

As to the actual administrative difficulty, my hon. Friend below complains that he could not find out who were the officers who wore really responsible for this dereliction of duty in allowing this unnecessary delay, but there is a complete chain of officers, from the assistant quartermaster-general downwards. In every division there is a deputy assistant quartermaster-general, in every battalion there is a colonel, and so on down through the whole of these officers, and all these officers in their several spheres are responsible. But it might be well if it were brought home to the company commander at the end of the chain that they would be held personally liable. Many of these houses, owing to the conditions, are hardly occupied in the winter season, and it is difficult to let them in the summer if they are in a dilapidated condition, and in the case of these houses certainly something might have been done. I know that it is a great financial burden on the War Department, and, as a member of the Committee on National Expenditure, it is the last thing that I ought to advocate; but the circumstances are so extremely hard that I do feel that it is worth the consideration of the War Department whether, where there is reasonable chance of a house becoming reduced in condition, something might not be done. In all these places, after all, so far as the leading inhabitants are concerned, they have carried on in the most extraordinary way in great difficulties. I cannot help saying that the display of national character which one has seen in some of these East Coast towns where there were almost constant air raids and bombardment in the early stages of the War, was beyond all praise. I know of a Red Cross hospital in one of these towns where the War Office begged and implored the staff to leave, they absolutely refused to do so. The conditions were such, however, that the matter was finally settled. I want to put a question. It is agreed that a case has been made out in regard to this, and I wish to ask whether the Government are prepared not only to compensate the community, but also to specifically compensate individuals, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should set up a Committee under the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission to inquire into the whole subject, with a view to seeing whether some recommendation cannot be made, the result of which would be the payment of compensation in the manner I have indicated. I think that may be found to be a practical solution, of what is I admit an extremely difficult and painful state of affairs.

I think that everyone who has listened to this Debate this afternoon will have a very great deal of sympathy for the position of those people living in the towns on the East Coast of England which have been specially referred to. I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken pay a well-deserved and just compliment to the inhabitants of those towns on the courage, endurance, and patience they have manifested during the stress of these difficult and anxious times, and I am sure that tribute is endorsed by every Member of this House. The general trend of the Debate has been to cast blame for this hardship upon the War Department. I am sorry that it should be so, because it is quite unreasonable, the hardship being due to much deeper and more far-reaching causes, and it is to these that any difficulties and hardship which have arisen should be ascribed rather than to any particular Department. I think we all recognise that much of the hardship which has been suffered is due to the deeper and more far-reaching cause of the War itself. I was astonished to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Isle of Thanet (Commander Norman Craig) deliver such a vigorous attack on the Department which I represent, and also upon the Government. It is true that the War Office is the Department which in the main deals with this matter, but the Department of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a member has had charge of the same sort of work, and in my judgment it ill-became a member of that Department to cast the whole blame on the Department which I represent. Hardship such as that experienced on the East Coast was bound to be felt over the whole country. Certain conditions, among them the geographical situation of the East Coast, accounted for some of the hardship experienced there, but, if you look to other parts of the country, you have the case of the one-man business, where the owner of the business has to suffer not only in person but commercially, and I think that is a matter that ought to be remembered when one discusses a question of this sort.

The hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Isle of Thanet in his legal disquisition tried to make it perfectly plain that not only was the action of the Government Departments concerned—not merely the War Office—unjust and unwarrantable, but also illegal. The House will be perfectly well aware that no Government Department ever takes action in a case of this sort without first of all having consulted the highest legal authority, and the action which the Department has taken is the result of advice received from the only authority which the Government have at their disposal. It is not for me at this time to question that legal authority. It has been questioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am content to abide by the advice of those distinguished, learned Gentlemen, the Law Officers of the Crown. I understand that the point which the hon. Member put to the House will be decided in the near future in the highest Court of the land. With regard to the specific case—the aerodrome case which he mentioned—in my judgment we were perfectly right in taking it in the way we did. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not go on to tell the House that the claim of the proprietors of the aerodrome amounted to a sum of something like £290,000, and that they actually received as the result of arbitration only £35,000. I will now deal with the specific questions raised by my hon. Friends who sit behind me. I think, if I remember aright, they had two specific points. The first was that the owners of houses in the towns on the East Coast were very badly treated because they were compelled to hand over their houses either for no rent at all or for a miserably low rent, and the second point was that if a house was handed over when returned it was invariably damaged, and the Government were never prepared to pay for dilapidations.

I did not go quite so far as that. There have been cases I know where compensation has been paid.

Let me deal with the case of the houses taken over. Where we have taken them over we have had power to do so under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. When we take the houses over it is true we take them not at the rent which the owner would receive in normal times under pre-war conditions, but the basis upon which we pay compensation is the basis upon which the Defence of the Realm Losses Commissioners, appointed by this House, work. Take the case of a house at Felixtowe which has been mentioned. The rent in ordinary times may be £500, but the Defence of the Realm Losses Commissioners say that the proper compensation is £100, and the reason for that is that under the general war conditions, which have been emphasised to such an extent in the speech just delivered, rents have been lowered very greatly, and the Losses Commissioners have come to the conclusion that the proper basis of payment is the rental value as it now stands.

But £100 in the case of a house of the rental value of £500 would not pay the rates and taxes, so that there would really be no rent at all.

I have explained, as far as I can, the basis on which we act. The House must remember that there are two sets of houses in these towns. The statement made by my hon. Friend and corroborated by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir E. Beauchamp) is that towns on the East Coast of England have been practically emptied, and that therefore you have two sets of houses in these towns. You have got the houses which are occupied by the War Department and various other Government Departments, and you have got the houses which are unoccupied. You have, therefore, got two sets of grievances to consider. You have got the grievance of the man who is paid a lower rent than he is accustomed to, and you have got the grievance of the man who has got no rent at all, and who has an unoccupied house upon his hands because of war conditions. It seems to me that if the Government were to pay for an occupied house the same rent as in pre-war days the man who has got no rent at all, because of the same conditions, for his empty house would have a far greater grievance than the man who is getting rent for his house. It was stated time and time again that we are taking over these houses without paying any rent at all. I do not know what justification there is for that statement, and in fact I am quite certain that there is no justification for it. We have authority to take them over on the understanding that the owner can go to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission in order to get a proper compensation for our occupation. Indeed case after case has come from the East Coast to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, and each case has been decided upon its merits. It is true that we do not enter into a contract with the owner of the house, but we do what we are told, by the proper legal authority, whom we always consult, we should do. We were told that we could occupy any house under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that it was not necessary for us to pay any particular rent. But the House of Commons made it perfectly plain that that might be very intolerable, and consequently it brought into existence the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, to which anybody so aggrieved might go and state his or her case, and might get proper and reasonable compensation.

I have mentioned a letter from an agent of a house, and that letter has, I think, received no contradiction. In it he says that he only received a few shillings a week—just enough to cover the rates. There is no question of rent there at all.

I have never admitted that the Government was paying rent in the ordinary acceptance of the term. I have said that rent in the shape of compensation will be given if the proper application is made to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission. As a matter of fact, in every part of the East Coast we have got War Department valuers, and I was very glad to hear the commendation of them which came from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Colonel Weigall). I, personally, know how assiduously those men attempt to meet all cases, and I know case after case which has been amicably settled by them and the owners of houses, and which have never had to come before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission at all. And the same thing applies to dilapidations. I was quite astonished to hear that so much wilful damage was effected by the troops in the East Coast towns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle made it very evident that, so far as the Army is concerned, very proper and very effective steps are taken to guard against dilapidations caused by wilful damage. We ourselves have issued, not only in 1916, but on several occasions since then strict instructions with regard to wilful damage.

Are they enforced?

Certainly. The instruction issued in 1916 was:

"In view of the amount of wilful damage to hired buildings and billets whilst in occupation of troops which cannot be brought home to individuals owing to the length of time allowed to elapse before inquiries are instituted, officers commanding units are reminded that it is an essential part of their duty to exercise a strict control over the troops in billets or quarters, and by frequent, and, if possible, daily, inspections by themselves or by their subordinate officers, to prevent wanton or negligent damage. When such damage has taken place they will be held responsible for immediately taking all steps necessary to bring the damage home to the individuals concerned, who may be required by them to pay for such damage. Failure on the part of commanding officers to take reasonable action on these lines amounts to negligence, and consequently renders them pecuniarily liable for the damage."

I do not think I need read the other instructions which have been issued, but it is quite clear that we have taken every possible step to prevent wilful damage, and, with regard to other damage which is not wilful but should be regarded as ordinary dilapidations, I was quite astonished to hear the statement that we made no payment of any sort or kind for these dilapidations. As a matter of fact, my knowledge is that we do, in exactly the same way as we negotiate payment so far as occupation is concerned, and I can read instruction after instruction to our War Department valuers, telling them to assess damage as quickly as possible, and to make payment for such damage as quickly as possible. Not only is that an instruction, but the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have made it perfectly plain that they are quite willing that our War Department valuers should advance a reasonable amount for dilapidations pending settlement by the Commission.

One case was mentioned, namely, that of the seasonal house, by which I mean the house of the man who depends entirely upon the fact that his house might be occupied during certain months of the year, mainly, I am told, July, August, and September. It was suggested that in case after case we occupied houses of that nature during the winter, and then in the spring we left them, and did not give any opportunity to the owner of the house, if a tenant for the seasonal months were forthcoming, to occupy the premises for the seasonal months. My information on that point is exactly contrary to what has just been stated. I could again produce an instruction quite recently to our War Department valuers making it perfectly plain that they should be on the spot at once to assess all the dilapidations and all the damage, and if the occupier assured them that any tenant for these seasonal months were forthcoming the house would be tendered to him in good condition and repair. I think I have met all the points which have been raised. I would like to say, before I have finished, one word with regard to the practical suggestion which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle. It will be seen from the very fact that the Treasury and the Local Government Board came forward and gave Grants to these towns of the East Coast that the Government does not regard the hardship existing there as being due to any specific Government Department. They regard it, and have always regarded it, as being a hardship arising out of the conditions of War. I will make a point of bringing the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend to the notice of the Treasury, whose representative now is on the Treasury Bench. In my judgment there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope that something may come of it. But it is well to point out that if further claims were admitted by the Government as a whole, so far as the East Coast of England is concerned, there is no knowing where similar claims might not come from in the future. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will be content if I merely tell him that I shall do my best to bring his specific suggestion to the notice of the authorities concerned.

The matter I have to bring before the House is of a totally different character from those which have occupied the House during this afternoon sitting. I want to raise the question of undisclosed trading profits. It is, I believe, a constitutional axiom that this House alone has a right to impose upon the people the burden of taxation. I take that as my first premise. I venture to put another one before the House. It is this, that to-day the Government is asking that the House should give it a War Credit, and we find ourselves compelled to ask those who want this money—for we desire to know—what they have done with the amounts which by this time must run into many, many millions, about which they have said nothing, and the burden of which upon the persons who have contributed them has been a very real and a very heavy one? I lead up to my subject by reminding the House of the very large number of articles of which the Government, for proper reasons—reasons which I do not canvass or disagree from—have felt it their duty to commandeer the total supplies. Such, for instance, as wheat, wool, leather, iron, steel, and I am told that presently timber is going to be added, and perhaps a number of other things. These, by the urgent needs of the fighting forces of the Crown, both afloat and ashore, at home and abroad, are being drawn in enormous quantities, and in order to meet these vital times the Government have arranged to make themselves perfectly secure, and the whole of the supplies have been taken over, have been commandeered, to use a common expression. I do not propose to-day to go into the Government's dealings with all these things. It must be understood when I refer to only one that it carries with it an illustration of the main point of my argument. At the same time I am by no means unconscious of the fact that by the Government's dealings in some of the articles, say, wheat, wool and leather, there are differences in the method as there may be differences in the disposition of the undisclosed profits to which I refer.

5.0 P.M.

Let me deal, first of all, with leather. I express regret to the House for returning to this subject as soon again after having mentioned it in the House. When I did so before, I had the advantage of having on the Government Bench the right hon. Gentleman who faces me now and his colleague, the greatly respected Financial Secretary to the War Office. My experience when I raised this question and made some cogent inquiries was that I was met by a blank look of astonishment on the faces of the two right hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred. They rose from their seats and left the House, and had it not been a point concerning matters of real and national gravity, I am sure that would have been a source of amusement to those who saw it. I believe I am to be favoured to-day with a statement of the results of the efficient inquiries of the right hon. Gentleman who faces me (Mr. Baldwin), and we all know how closely he goes into the various details of his Department, and I hope more light will be thrown upon this question than I have been able by the most industrious questions and inquiries so far to elicit.

The subject is leather. The Government commandeers the whole supply, and it is obvious that they have a right to do so because a large demand is made upon them. The demand for leather is vitally important, and the Government takes possession of an enormous quantity of this material, always largely in excess of their requirements. They take from it what they find is necessary for their immediate call, and then they have a large balance immediately remaining. This they market, but they do so under peculiar circumstances. They put it on the market at a price greater than that at which they bought it, and whether the leather passes into the hands of the currier or the leather merchant, or directly into the hands of the boot-makers, it starts on its journey with a largely added increment to the first civilian representative into whose hands it passes. I am told in one particular case that no less a profit was placed as a minimum upon the leather intended for the use of officers' leggings and boots than 70 per cent. I am bound to say if that is the idea of His Majesty's Government as to what business men are entitled to charge, they have very rosy ideas which will have to be disillusioned sooner or later.

This profit has to be paid by the man who buys the article. There is not only the original cost to the Government, but there is also the profit of 70 per cent. in the case I quoted, and every successive hand through which the article passes before it reaches the consumer will demand, and rightly demand, a further profit. So that by a method of arithmetical progression the cost to the consumer may very easily be doubled by the time he gets the article, and we find, as the outcome of this procedure, that we get a species of tariff reform under a veil under which the public, as a whole, all being users of footwear and leather articles, are being, as it were, flogged in the dark, feeling the whip, writhing under its blows, but yet not able to see the hand that wields it. The profit, whether it is 70 per cent. or more or less, goes back to the Department that made the sales. I have to ask, What is done with that profit? I have not seen any figure which shows that this profit is disclosed or that the House has any knowledge of its magnitude. In view of the enormous undertakings of the Government, who have become by far the greatest trading company in the whole world, it must run into large numbers of millions. But it comes back into the Department, and I have evidence given to me that this profit is paid over into the Government Department—in the case of leather into the War Office Contracts Department. What happens to it then neither my informant nor certainly I myself have any knowledge. The War Office has no right to levy a tax in that way on the civilian—no constitutional right whatever! The Treasury has no right to do it; only this House has a right to make these charges, and I do not believe that that position can be contested.

I am not saying here, nor would I for a moment say, that the Government is doing an improper thing by taking over a far larger amount of raw material than it can immediately use. It ought not in any circumstances to run any risk of shortage, and it must therefore, have balances to sell; but the business point is that it should sell those balances, and hand over, in toto, all the profit made to the Treasury, and then demand a return from the Treasury of the costs it has incurred in connection only with those margins, and not with the amount dealt with for the purposes of Army or Navy supply. A further reason is this. I have not the smallest confidence in the War Office at any time with regard to its business methods, and to-day, in a matter of this kind I should have, if possible, even less. That may seem an ungenerous thing to say, but the House will bear with me if I point out how, in this time of national emergency, we have brought to the assistance of all the Government Departments all sorts of business men from every walk in life, and I admit they are doing their best. On these technical matters, however, you want experience, and you want men whose life has been spent in dealing with these things. You have here a Department which has taken over gigantic commercial undertakings, and which has the slenderest technical knowledge of them, almost wholly confined to the experience picked up as they have gone on. They are dealing with these countless millions of property, and this is a sum that is wholly undisclosed. I have good reason for believing that they take a certain proportion for working expenses, and if they hand any amount over to the Treasury at all the public knows nothing about it. I have called the attention of the House to this because I feel that when they are asking for money, as they are doing today, we have a right to expect that they will inspire the confidence of the House that they are dealing with these great public funds in a thrifty, economical, and sound business manner. Surely none of these methods can be employed here if anything like what I say really takes place in regard to their dealings in all these various articles, the total supply of which they commandeer. I feel that the Treasury ought to defend itself against this or, if there be no defence, that it ought to give a full and clear explanation. The sums involved are enormous. The methods adopted are forced upon us to a large extent by the pressure of the present crisis in our national affairs, but there should be a careful husbanding of the rights and privileges of this House in matters of taxation and of personal burden upon the taxpayer; and, further, there should be a most open declaration of all dealings in matters of business. These great Departments, in many details, are the laughing stock of the business community, who know the right way and see the wrong way obstinately and persistently taken. I ask to-day for a declaration of these profits and for some explanation of the position as it really is. I would rather be proved hopelessly wrong than right. I would rather it be shown that I have discovered a mare's nest here than that there should be the slightest shadow of truth in what I have said; but I fear that my complaint is too well founded. At this time, when money is being spent broadcast, you need to make people feel that it is well spent, and I urge this claim upon the right hon. Gentleman, trusting that he will be able to give us some clear light upon it.

I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give the speech of the hon. Member that consideration which it deserves. The case which he presented is certainly one which deserves the closest investigation. It is most interesting and one of the greatest importance. I would like to offer a few observations on the Vote that we are about to pass, and more particularly with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday. He spoke of our great achievement in lending something like £1,000,000,000 to our Allies. He said that we had lent to Russia £568,000,000, to France £402,000,000, to Italy £313,000,000, and to the smaller Allied countries £119,000,000. He went on to speak of what we have done more particularly with regard to Italy. He said that we had stabilised the Italian Exchange by creating credits from time to time, which had enabled us to supply Italy with a considerable amount of goods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) pointed out that while that was a very remarkable achievement there was another side of the picture, namely, what we ourselves owe to the United States of America. It follows, of course, that if you wish to maintain the exchange, more particularly of these countries where we have established these credits, that you will have to continue these credits. This difficulty of the exchange in Italy is not likely to decrease in the future, but rather to increase, and what I have to say to-day has reference more particularly to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the future fiscal policy of this country. He has specifically said that the Government is now committed to the schema of Preference. I wish to show the connection between the question of exchanges and that policy. In order to correct the exchanges with Italy, France, and Russia, we have lent them considerable sums of money, in the same way as the United States have maintained the exchange with this country by the continuous credits they have given to us. If that continues, it follows that we shall be in a very embarrassed position if the War were brought to a speedy conclusion this year. Therefore it is of value to consider the matter, because we ought to look ahead and take measures in preparation for peace. We shall have to rectify these exchanges somehow or other. There are only two important ways of doing that. We stabilise the exchange with Italy to-day by giving Italy ever and ever increasing credits. We do not anticipate —it is a fair assumption—being asked to do that after peace and for ever. Therefore, in what way can Italy rectify that exchange? She must either send us gold or goods. The same applies to our other debtors, such as France and Russia.

If the Government should attempt to put into force, as they have indicated it is their intention to do, a policy of Preference and interfere with our present fiscal policy—I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of Preference—I would respectfully suggest to those Tariff Reformers, of whom there are some in the Government and in the country, that apart altogether from their views on Tariff Reform they should pause before endeavouring to put us in a very critical state when we resume peaceful and normal conditions. In the nature of things, if those countries to whom we have lent a thousand millions altogether are to repay us some of those debts, and if we are going to rectify these exchanges, those countries must either send us gold or goods. I do not think Russia is in a position to send us gold or that Italy is. Therefore, we ought to do nothing now which, when normal conditions return, will interfere with the free flow of trade. Whatever may be the merits of the fiscal policy of which the Government, and more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer is enamoured, if they were to introduce it clumsily or prematurely—any alteration in our fiscal policy must necessarily create a certain disturbance of trade—when War comes to an end, it would be a most unfortunate thing to do, and would lead to embarrassment and possibly to serious panic and disorder. Therefore, I should like to emphasise the fact that our continuous credits have brought us to this pass. I am not concerned to discuss whether it was wise to do it. I have often protested against this more or less artificial method of stabilising the exchange. We now have an excess of imports this year which may run into £1,000,000,000, as compared with exports, and the difficulty of rectifying it is accentuated by the continuous process to which I have referred. I wish particularly to draw attention to that point as one which might possibly receive some consideration from the Treasury, quite irrespective of their views on the fiscal question.

Another point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew particular attention was with reference to our loan policy. He drew attention to the great success of the War Bonds policy, and showed that in 1917 the total amount of the War Loan amounted to some £948,000,000. He gave some details with regard to War Savings Certificates and pointed out that War Bonds, of which he is particularly enamoured, came to £917,000,000. He has always rather taken credit to himself as a strong advocate of that form of borrowing, and with some pride he was able to give these figures and, as he thought, congratulate himself and the country upon the great success of that policy. The borrower has to have some regard to the character of the security which he offers, because, if he does not offer a security that is popular the Loan will not be a success. War Bonds have a duration till 1922, 1924, and 1927, whereas the long-term loans have a duration till 1929 and 1947. The State has to consider not altogether what is likely to be popular with the investor, but what is likely to be a sound investment from the Treasury point of view. If the War should happen to come to a close you will be faced with a great demand for capital, and these enormous short-term obligations will very likely be presented for repayment. Therefore, if you have endeavoured during this period, when the class of investments is more or less limited, to fund your operations into a long-term loan, you give the country more time to recuperate and to return to health than if you have a large amount of short-term investments which may be presented to the Treasury and which may cause embarrassment when you have, as you are bound to have after such a war, a great scarcity of capital and a great difficulty in funding these operations. I therefore suggest to the Treasury, what they are no doubt bearing in mind, that the mere success of their short-term loan operations should not incline them to forget that while with a greater effort—because it would require a greater effort to get out a long-term loan—it is of enormous advantage to the Treasury and the country if you can fund a great deal of this short-term indebtedness and place it, as it were, behind you so as to give you a longer period for recuperation.

We have had during these two days most valuable Debates on the necessity for economy, and references have been made to the Select Committee's Report on expenditure, but the greatest economy of all would be if there were some prospect, as we believe there is, of bringing the War to a speedy close. The hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to the question of leather and the operations connected with leather. In the Committee's Report there was some reference to a company which made enormous profits. We have had Debates in this House in regard to excess payments made by the Ministry of Munitions. All these things appeal to everyone who has the interests of efficiency and economy at heart, but in the nature of things we are apt to have them in such a great war as this. Therefore, the greatest economy of all would be if we might hope that we were within some reasonable distance of the War being brought to a conclusion.

We had a statement the other day from Lord Lansdowne which merits consideration by all of us. Many of us may not agree with the Noble Lord in everything he says, but at any rate he is regarded throughout Europe as one of the greatest masters of diplomacy and statecraft, and he suggests that this country and the Allies should explore every honourable avenue of peace. He does not suggest in any sense of the word giving way on what is fundamental or vital, and I think when we consider the very grave financial position which we are in, when we have regard to the great waste of human life, we must desire an end of the War. When we read descriptions of men brought from the other side of the Atlantic knifing and bayoneting, although I am no Quaker, and I recognise that you cannot have war without bloodshed, yet I think the world is beginning to realise what an enormous tribute of human life has been paid in this War; and when we know that the flower of our youth has come forward, and are still prepared to come forward and do their part, we who have some responsibility should support any statesman or any Government who will do something to shorten this terrible War. Next Sunday, as you have informed us, Mr. Speaker, in St. Margaret's and in many other churches throughout this land, we shall ask the blessing of Almighty God upon what we believe to be our just cause. I hope and pray that we may mingle with our observances there and in other churches a deep and earnest prayer for a speedy and honourable peace.

If my hon. Friend (Sir W. Essex) saw any fleeting expression of surprise on my ingenuous countenance the other evening it was not surprising that he had introduced this subject, but surprise how he had managed to introduce it on the particular Bill under discussion, and what I said was, "How did the hon. Member succeed in bringing the matter under discussion?" I propose to deal very briefly with the points raised, and I hope to be able to say something that will bring satisfaction to him. My only regret is that, on a subject like this, in which there is an enormous mass of detail, he has picked out for special comment one article—leather—which is dealt in by the War Office and on which, if I had known he was going to choose that particular article, I might have been able to get more details, and I might have taken up the challenge on that particular point. But in the remarks which I am going to make I propose to speak generally on this question of the trading and on the point which the hon. Member raised about what he called the undisclosed profit. I myself, as much as the hon. Member or any Member of this House, would be only too pleased if it were possible to publish in detail statistics connected with every form of trading that the Government does. But there is an obvious reason why this has not hitherto been possible, although after the War it will, of course, be possible to lay bare a great deal that has to be concealed at present. The reason why in the Estimates given by my right hon. Friend in introducing the Vote of Credit so many things are lumped together as miscellaneous, is that we dare not run the risk of letting our figures appear in such a shape that our enemies may be able to glean information as to the expense we are put to and as to various details of our expenditure on such necessary things as ships and food and various articles which are used for common and general consumption in this country.

If such details were available it might have been possible for them at various times during the campaign to have got very much more definite information as to the progress and value of the submarine campaign than they would have got in any other way. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House realise to the full how successive Governments have been driven to control the purchase of raw material and the manufacture of certain articles one after the other as the War has progressed. And I am sure, equally, that it must be apparent to them how rapidly the demand has increased at various stages of the campaign, so that sometimes at short notice large amounts of material have been procured from all parts of the world. In the case of many of these articles it is impossible, as my hon. Friend admits, to have too much of the raw material for this reason. We have to remember that this country has been up to the present very largely the reservoir for the whole of the Allies, and from time to time, from the beginning of the War, enormous demands have been made on this country as the one European country, at any rate, that can help to make up supplies for other countries for various things of prime common necessity, such as woollen clothing and boots, quite apart from munitions. I think that what I have said is self-evident. What I am going to say now, I think, will be self-evident if hon. Members will give it a moment's thought. My hon. Friend complained that no profits were handed over to the Exchequer. He would like to see the profits handed over, I suppose, as they are made or at specific times. I think, perhaps, I may make what I have to say more clear if I use ordinary plain commercial language on what is an ordinary plain commercial subject. If it were really a trading transaction like trading transactions in ordinary businesses, there would be balance-sheets periodically, every six months or twelve months, and the profits would be divided among the shareholders and the cash would be paid out.

But the position of the Government is entirely different. In the first place, speaking generally, over the whole period, as to the raw materials with which the Government deal, the intention of the Government is to make no more profit than will cover the expenditure. Therefore, speaking generally and broadly, the question of profit does not arise; but more than that, the business which is being carried on is a continuous business, and stocks are constantly being replaced. Some of the stocks which come along are seasonal stocks, only coming at certain times, so that at certain periods there are larger quantities of them in this country than at other periods. But, in all cases, the business is a continuous business, a business in progress, and which must be continuous until the time of liquidation comes, which is the time when the War ends and the necessity ceases for the Government to control these materials. Then the liquidation, to use a commercial term, will take place. The business will be wound up, and we shall then see, at the close, whether on the continuous trading there has been a profit or not; and if there has been a profit, then, of course, it is an asset, and will be returned as such to the Exchequer. After all, even if it were possible in these multitudinous transactions to ascertain with accuracy, as we go along, what was being made, and we found that we were making a profit, and paid it into the Exchequer, it would only mean paying in a credit one day and having to draw out the money again the next to finance purchases as we go along. If there are profits being made, those profits are being kept in the business and are being used for the purchase of further raw materials, and to that extent they are available for being used without drawing on the Vote of Credit. That is the theory of the State's trading in raw materials, and I hope I have succeeded in making that plain to the House. One word more with regard to a subject as to which I have apologised to the hon. Member opposite for not being able to deal with it—one item of the many items into which I have not gone into the detail I would have liked. If the hon. Member cares to discuss the matter with me I shall be only too happy to give him such detailed information as I can, and I hope and believe he will find that the figures he stated are considerably wide of the mark. I hope the House will feel that I have dealt adequately with this subject, and will now allow the Report stage to be taken.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there have been paid into the Treasury any profits at all on any of these trading operations?

I cannot give a definite answer to that, but I should doubt it very much.

There was one statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, which was so important that I am surprised it has not received adequate attention—in fact, there has been no mention of it at all—in this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman told us the amounts which had been advanced to foreign Governments, and we can congratulate him on being now able to tell us what assistance we have given to our Allies. We have reason to congratulate ourselves on this statement, first, because we have been consistently refused information up to the present, and second, because the amounts are less than we anticipated. We were told that Russia had been advanced £568,000,000, and the information was conveyed to us in a rather curious form. The words used were that the debt was "from the Russian Government or the Russian people." I can quite imagine there is good ground for thinking that the old Russian Government, if it existed still, or if it were to be re-established, would acknowledge that debt. But to tell us that it is due from the Russian people is very remarkable, and on the earliest possible occasion I want to say that from such information as I get the Russian people is a very different thing from the old Russian Government. I rather regret, therefore, the peculiar form of words used. I hope very much that the time may come when the Russian nation—I will not speak of the Russian Government or the Russian people—may recognise that their liberty has been won through great tribulation and many vicissitudes with the assistance of the Allies. I trust also that this debt, enormous as it is, may be left aside without any suggestion that it is owing to us from the Russian people—that it may be left aside until better days. We may all hope to see the time when the Russian people will have nothing but the friendliest feelings towards us, and will in some substantial way be able to make amends for the huge expenditure and great sacrifices we have made on their behalf. But if that day is to come, and if it is to come soon, we ought to make our position with regard to the Russian people clear.

For my part I think two great mistakes are being made now by our Government and possibly by the Allies. The first is that they do not recognise that Russia is absolutely exhausted and that that exhaustion dates at least a year and a half back. The exhaustion of Russia, materially, financially and militarily, was complete before the Revolution, and the great mistake of our Government was that even when Mr. Kerensky in the early days of the Revolution, told them that Russia was absolutely worn out, they did not face that fact. You cannot go on extracting help from a dying man, you cannot extract it from him in a bitter and prolonged struggle like this, and to imagine that you can do so is simply folly. The second fact that the Government will not face is this, that after a year of revolution Russia has attained a certain stability in one respect, in that it has adopted, I believe more or less permanently, a new form of democratic organisation. That organisation is based on what is called the Soviet. It is not parliamentary, and it is not constitutional in the sense that we are constitutional in having parliamentary institutions as the foundation and fibre of our national existence. All the other democracies of the world are based on parliamentary institutions, but Russia has established a democracy based on the Soviet. The Soviet principle is something quite new. It is in effect this, that each small locality establishes a standing committee which is renewed every three months, the members of which standing committee may have their authority withdrawn by the vote of the people at any date and for any reason, and these local Soviets are united through a machinery rising to the highest authorities in the land. They are based, not on elections in the ordinary sense, but on the principle of the permanent mandate of the people authorising its representatives. [An HON. MEMBER: "To shoot the upper classes!"] They certainly do not shoot the upper classes. Many of the upper classes are now finding their place in the Soviet Government.

Only on the 8th of last month a new constitution was adopted by the Russian nation. The fact of this adopting of a constitution has been previously kept out of every Allied newspaper. It is known in the neutral countries, but it is not known here, that on the 8th July a new constitution, based upon the Soviet principle, was established throughout the whole of Russia, and that in this adoption of a constitution were concerned not only the Bolsheviks, but the other Socialists, and especially the Social Revolutionists, the very party to whom we attribute—and some of their members are able to take that to themselves, I daresay, the assassination of Mirbach and Eichhorn, and a definite attempt to take up arms at the moment against Germany. Therefore, though the Bolsheviks may fall, and though we may have a different Government coming into power, yet I believe that the Soviet form of Government is better established to-day than any other Government has been since the War, because it has much more prospect of lasting even than the Czarist regime. I regret that the Government and the Allies refuse us the knowledge of these facts. You cannot face the position in the East of Europe, on which so much depends, without knowing and facing the facts there. This, the Government, as I understand, has refused to do. I am, of course, quite willing to admit that we are opening a new campaign on the Murman coast, and, personally, I have no objection whatever to military measures being taken against the Germans dominating the Murman coast and the whole of the province of Archangel, and making it a base for submarines. I certainly think it is a most desirable and an obviously reasonable object to take measures—even military measures—to prevent that. But we have now developed a campaign there, and we are not allowed even to be told which of the Allies are taking part. We are not allowed to be told who the general is in command—and this is a very important matter—because if a Russian is in command we ought at least to know to what party he belongs.

There has been an unfortunate statement put about—I hope it is not true—that General Gourko, the leader of the Monarchist party—a very small party, it is true—is in command of that expedition. If so, we ought to be told, and, of course, the fact will be known in Russia long before it is known here. But if that is the case, this expedition can only appeal to the great mass of the Russian people as an attempt to set up the monarchy again. I ask again and again for some moderate information which will reassure us, and, even more important, reassure the Russian people. You are not going to succeed in this Murman expedition if you are going to have the whole of the Russian people against you, and you run the risk of having the whole of the Russian people against you if you allow statements to be made which are most detrimental to the Allies, and most suspicious to ninety-nine out of every hundred Russian subjects, if you do not take the trouble to deny it. I believe you can deny it, but I certainly think some statement ought to be made upon the position. It could be easily made without giving away any military secrets. It could be easily made in such a form as to reassure hundreds, thousands, and millions of the Russian people who are anxiously waiting on events, and I cannot let this occasion pass without voicing my protest, which I am sure will be shared by many in this land and by millions in Russia, against a policy of secrecy and suspicion. This matter, at any rate in my mind, is so overwhelmingly important that I should not be doing my duty if I did not call the attention of the House to it.