My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Forfar gas, and to move that it be now read a first time.

My Lords, in asking you to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon I need not trespass upon your Lordships' time for more than a very few moments, because I think I can say that the Bill is, practically speaking, an agreed one. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with any long history of the events leading up to its introduction. I can explain the position in two sentences. The payments due in respect of the Indemnity which was imposed upon China after the Boxer Rising of 1900 were, by the Finance Act of 1906, applied to the reduction of the National Debt. This Bill proposes to allocate these funds to purposes beneficial to this country and to China, in so far As the balance of the Indemnity still owing, both principal and interest, is concerned. This sum amounts altogether to £11,186,547. The payments are to be spread over a period of twenty-three years; that is to say, from the year 1923 to the year 1945.

The decision to utilise the funds in this way was taken by Mr. Bonar Law's Government towards the end of 1922, but the Conservative Government fell before it was possible to introduce the Bill in Parliament. The draft, however, of the Bill was in existence and that draft was taken, without alteration, by the successors of Mr. Bonar Law's Government, the late Labour Administration, and it was introduced in the House of Commons on May 26, 1924. It got as far as the Committee stage and passed through that stage in the House of Commons with certain Amendments, the chief of which was the introduction into the Bill of a provision for an Advisory Committee. But again a General Election intervened, and the Bill once more failed to reach the Statute Book. It was re-introduced in the same state by the present Administration on December 11, 1924, and in Committee in another place the only change that was made was that the Advisory Committee set up under the Bill, which you will find set out in Clause 1, subsection (2), was enlarged so as to admit of two Chinese members instead of only one. At the Third Reading, on May 4, this Bill was passed unopposed.

In brief, the purpose of this Bill is to make a gift to the Chinese people of the balance of the Indemnity, which was due in respect of loss and damage caused by the Boxer Rising of 1900. It is desired to make this gift to the Chinese people as a token of our respect and friendship for them, and especially in recognition of the help which the Chinese nation accorded to us during the great war. We wish to retain only so much control over the funds as will ensure that the money is spent in a useful manner, and we have no intention whatsoever of allowing them to be dissipated on selfish objects for the furtherance of purely British interests. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

My Lords, I do not rise to find any fault with what the noble Earl has said, as I am entirely in accordance with the principle of the Bill and the statement that the noble Earl has made as regards the way in which this question of the China Indemnity should be approached; but I want to say one or two words because I have been in communication with some Chinese missionaries, of whom one has spent his life in China for the last twenty-five years and knows more about Chinese life than probably any other man you could find anywhere. Now, his great desire—and I understand that that is the view of the noble Earl opposite—is that the attitude of Great Britain under this Bill should be one of great friendliness towards China, because he says that in his experience as a missionary he found a very large body of anti-British opinion in China, which is to be regretted from every point of view. I have heard that not only from him but from another source also. When, the other day, I came hack from Ceylon with two missionaries who were on their way home from China, both expressed practically the same view, pointing out the difficulties which they encountered owing to the anti-British feeling in existence at the present time.

Of course, we must recollect that the Boxer Rising is looked at in a very different way in China from what it is in Great Britain. We condemn it, and properly condemn it, as regards the tragic incidents which took place in connection therewith, but in China it is looked upon as a legitimate uprising of Chinese opinion against the too great thraldom of the foreigner and of foreign capitalists, and they do not regard our action on this China Indemnity Bill as an act of magnanimity but as an act of justice. That makes it the more important that we should place it on just lines, on which, I think, it is placed by the provisions of the Bill. We have to remember, too—and is important as regards our position in China—that some years ago the action we are now taking was taken by America, and that feet has had an important influence as regards the popularity of America in her dealings with China. In addition, the Chinese feeling at the present time is that we did not adopt a friendly attitude towards them in connection with the Opium Conference at Geneva. That is not a point which I wish to go into in any detail at the present time, but what is said in China is this: You have imposed conditions upon us with which we are unable to comply. I am not now saying how far that is accurate, but it is certain that it is the feeling largely held in China with regard to our attitude on the Opium Conference.

I understood the noble Earl to say that there were to be two representatives of China on the Advisory Committee. Originally there was only one; now there are to be two. That is a great advantage. The missionaries to whom I have referred were desirous that, if possible, there should be equal representation of the Chinese upon the Committee, but it is a distinct advantage that there should be two representatives as against the one which was suggested in the first instance. The purposes for which this Boxer Indemnity Fund is to be used are indicated in the Bill itself, and I am glad that they are not indicated too exclusively. I think the general view, particularly of missionaries in China, is that this Indemnity could most properly be used for educational purposes. I have had schemes brought to my notice, both with regard to its use for what we know as elementary education, and also with regard to its use for technical education—on the second point, particularly, on the footing that after sufficient education of that kind it would be possible for the head of a Chinese household to provide sufficiently for the whole of the household without undue weight being thrown upon them and without employment of children at too early an age. This is the basis of the whole matter. We ought to have co-operation and a very friendly attitude, as regards this Indemnity money, between China and Great Britain, and if we have that it will be not only to the advantage of China but also to the advantage of a number of British people who are resident in China, particularly those who are there as missionaries, or who are teaching English in the schools. I do not propose to say anything more on the present occasion. Anything that has to be added on behalf of the Party that I represent will be stated by my noble friend, Lord Arnold.

My Lords, I desire to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon having reached what I hope is the last stage in this matter, which has been going backwards and forwards in the ether House of Parliament for a long time past. I imagine that we have at last reached a point at which we can bring it to a final conclusion. And it is well, because I think that everybody in this House and most people in the country approve altogether of the purposes of this Bill, which has now got the hacking of the successive Governments of Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and the present Prime Minister. But I do not propose to touch upon the past history of this question, to which the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has drawn our attention. There is no objection to our doing so, but I do not think there is very much gain now.

Since the time when the obligation was undertaken, and willingly undertaken, or at all events stoutly undertaken, by China to pay this Indemnity there has been so complete a re-arrangement of the whole international conditions and of the whole positions of various nations concerned, that it is impossible to carry ourselves back to the year 1900 without feeling that we are in a different international situation altogether. The rearrangement has been necessary and right among all the nations concerned, on whichever side they then stood or stand to-day. Further, since this obligation was undertaken there has, in the last few years, been a resolve, put into practice on the part of most of the recipients of the Indemnity, that the money should not be put to their credit in the ordinary way but that it should be given back, under proper control, to China, for China's good. There are those in China and, probably, elsewhere who say it would be better to wipe out the obligation altogether—a mere cancellation, The spokesmen on behalf of this Bill, on either side, have reiterated the assurance, in which I entirely concur, that that would be an undesirable thing to do, because China wants to fulfil honourably an obligation which is hers and we want to help her honourably to do it. But we desire that when China does thus fulfil her obligation the result shall be that China herself will be the gainer. We desire that the money should be used in China under China's direction—I do not mean without any control from this country, but under China's direct management and for China's good.

That is the line taken by the United States, by Japan, to some extent by France (though that must be qualified a little, I think), and, in theory at least, by Russia. Some of the other nations, which received less considerable sums, have not undertaken to adopt the course we desire to take, and have not themselves paid the money back. But we desire to adopt it and that attitude is supported on all sides in this country and overseas. The only substantial difference is as regards the manner in which the money thus refunded should be applied. There are certain words in Clause 1 of the Bill which have been the subject of a good deal of change and controversy from time to time in the desire to see how we can best help China. As the words now stand, we are definitely pledged to give the money to be applied

"to such educational or other purposes, being purposes which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs beneficial to the mutual interests of His Majesty and of the Republic of China, as the said Secretary of State, after consultation with the advisory committee to be established under this Act, may from time to time determine."

There is practically no difference of opinion among those who have the interests of China at heart in thinking that education is the thing which China at this moment most desires and can most practically bring about, and when we are told that the chaotic condition of matters in China, owing to the wars and the rest, makes it almost absurd to give money for educational purposes, because it will not be peaceably or nationally spent, I think the contention betokens a lack of knowledge of the facts with regard to China.

I am necessarily in touch quite constantly with those who can speak from first-hand experience about China, both Chinese themselves and some of our own fellow-subjects who are working in one way or another in China, and I am surprised to learn how possible it is for this kind of thing to go forward without the ordinary life of China being really interrupted by what would seem to us, if we judged simply by the newspaper accounts, to be the raging of a bloodthirsty war in every part of the country. It reminds us of what the historians tell us took place during the Wars of the Roses in England, when war went on from county to county, with all kinds of troubles happening from time to time, and all the while the ordinary affairs of the country, its agriculture and its education, proceeded very much as usual. That seems to be the case in China. I do claim to know something about educational progress in China, what is planned and what is being accomplished. I say without hesitation that I believe the money will be well spent in promoting education in China, and that Chinese co-operation with us will be wisely and intelligently given and for the benefit of China as a whole. Therefore, I am entirely in favour of the educational objects.

When, however, it comes to the "other purposes" the matter is not quite so simple, because all of us are aware that there are schools of thought, or schools of action and ambition, in China which have other ideas quite different from educational ideas. These are speaking of railway development and things of chat kind, which, though they would undoubtedly be for the good of China, stand upon a different level, inasmuch as they concern the interests of some who are not Chinese quite as closely as they do the interests of the Chinese themselves. I shall therefore hope that when we come to Committee the question of these words may be considered and that the clause, either by the addition or omission of words, may be somewhat altered and modified. Those words have a curious history, and any one who is interested in the psychology of politics will find it interesting to turn to the Report of the debates which took place in Committee of the House of Commons in 1924, and compare it with what took place last week.

In 1924 the Minister in charge of the measure was the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ponsonby. He was opposed by the present Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Ronald McNeill, who moved an Amendment to omit the words "or other" in order to bring back the Bill to its educational character. This was stoutly opposed by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Ponsonby. Months passed and the thing has gone round, and now we have these two gentlemen on opposite sides of the House from those where they sat before, occupying exactly similar positions mutatis mutandis to those which their opponents occupied before. Thus we find on this occasion that the Amendment which was moved last year by Mr. McNeill is this year, in a slightly different form, moved by Mr. Ponsonby, but it is opposed by Mr. McNeill on the ground that, though he proposed a similar Amendment on the former occasion, it is an undesirable Amendment to carry. That, I say, is rather a curious example of the psychology of politics, showing the effect of the standpoint from which opinions are delivered or the conclusions reached.

That matter is the only subject which, so far as I know, is likely to be in the least controversial in regard to our giving, as we hope we are giving, effect to this Bill by passing it now. What we really care for, what I certainly care for, and what I think your Lordships care for, is that we should give evidence publicly in this way to the whole world to show that our attitude is not for the sake of commerce, nor for our own gain, not for our own advantage, but for the good of China, and that we should give effect to what it is now in our power to give effect to in order to promote the interests of China in regard to education or kindred work.

I shall probably find that it will be said, not perhaps in this House but elsewhere: "It is all very well for those who speak as the Archbishop does about education and to advocate it in China. We know that most of them think it will be a subsidy for missionary schools. There are missionary schools in China and they think they will get a subsidy out of this money." The best answer to that is that our foremost missionary society has passed a resolution in which they say that if anything of that sort is proposed they will not touch any of this money for the augmentation or advantage of the missionary schools which they control, and will not them elves share in the commission or controlling power of those who regulate the expenditure of this money, because they want to throw all the emphasis they can upon the policy that we desire to pursue of acting for China's good and through Chinese influence and Chinese agencies in the doing of it, in the largest and most generous way in which it can possibly be done, with no thought of advancing, except indirectly, the particular branch of educational progress with which they are identified. The missionary societies have nothing whatever to do with getting this money, or with the speeding of it.

I believe this gift that we are giving may affect for good or ill our whole relations with China for years to come, and I earnestly hope that we shall wholeheartedly vote for this Bill and thus bring to China a message, which I hope will be heard not in China only but throughout the world, of our desire to offer her this token or good will as evidence of our high hopes for her future. What is worth doing is worth doing well. Let us do it thoroughly. Let us give this money wholeheartedly. Let us see that it is expended to the advantage of China and show the Chinese that we are giving this money back to them for their own country's good.

My Lords, I would like to intervene for a moment or two before this Bill receives its Second Reading, and I believe I may be able to say something to make clear the position of the Labour Party in regard to the Amendment about which the most rev. Primate has spoken. As the noble Earl indicated, the Bill has been very much delayed owing to political happenings in this country in the last two or three years. Successive General Elections have intervened; otherwise this Bill would have been on the Statute Book at least two years ago. Circumstances, however, ruled otherwise. There is just the possibility of a misunderstanding on that account. We in this country understand the circumstances connected with these General Elections. We may not like General Elections, but we understand all about them. In China there is the risk that these delays will not be equally well understood and, therefore, our good faith in this matter may be suspected.

I think it is a matter for satisfaction that this Bill has now reached its final stages. This is a matter on which there may be certain differences of opinion, but for my part I should like to support the views of the most rev. Primate so far as they were directed to the application of this money to educational purposes. It has been said before, and I say again, that this Bill is really a gesture of friendliness from this country to China, and I think it will have its maximum effect in promoting good relations between the two countries if the money is used for education, and if it is made perfectly clear that there is no intention of using any of it for the commercial profit of Great Britain.

As regards the Amendment which was moved in another place, that Amendment was to confine the application of the money to educational purposes only, and to leave out the words "and other." It is true, as the most rev. Primate has said, that last year the Labour Government supported the Bill leaving the words "and other" in; that is to say, that the money was to be used for educational and other purposes. But the position has changed since then. In the first place, the composition of the Advisory Committee has been altered, and that makes a rather material difference to the prospects of what should be done with the money. In the second place, since last year there has been evidence of pressure for some of this money to be used for purposes which were not educational and were not, strictly speaking, social. I regret that the Government did not accept this Amendment, but I am glad to know it is their avowed intention, as stated in another place, to use at any rate the major portion of the money for education and that the balance shall he applied to objects which, at any rate broadly, are social objects.

At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the most has not been made of this occasion, for this is a golden opportunity, and that the maximum effect would have been gained in promoting good relations between ourselves and China by stating, without any reservation or qualification, that the money would be used for educational purposes, or, at any rate, for educational and cultural purposes. After all, the amount at stake is not very large. It is £400,000 for twenty-three years. That may seem fairly substantial until you consider that there are about 400,000,000 people in China. A very little statistical calculation would show that £400,000 a year spread amongst 400,000,000 people would amount, I think I am right in saying, to about a farthing each. So that there is not a great deal that can be done with this money, and I think that is an argument for applying it exclusively to educational and cultural purposes. Moreover, as the most rev. Primate has pointed out, the United States decided some time ago that this should be done so far as their money was concerned, and Japan has made a similar decision. But I think—and this is my final word—that there is still an opportunity of which I hope advantage will be taken, to see that that part of the British Indemnity money which is devoted to education shall not be spent only in Pekin, but that some of it shall be apportioned to and used by the provinces and provincial capitals. I think with this immense population of 400,000,000 persons all the money should not be used in Pekin but should be spread over a wider area.

Before I sit down, I should like to express my satisfaction that the Government have altered the composition of the Advisory Committee by the addition of another Chinese member. I will not say anything about the other alteration they made, because that is over. I think this is a very distinct gain, and I am sure it will meet with support in all quarters of your Lordships' House. I think it is a matter of general satisfaction that the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, has agreed to be the Chairman of this Committee. I hope the views I have ventured to express as to the money being used for educational purposes will be seriously considered by the Government. There is a large body of people in this country who take that view because they feel it is only in that way that the best can be made of the present opportunity.

My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had I not been asked to do so by the Secretary of the Chinese Association for the Promotion of Education. The words "and other," in reference to the purposes for which the money is to be used, have apparently produced in China a very considerable feeling or doubt as to the bona fides of the British intentions. There is a real fear that they conceal a purpose of giving China fair words and of securing that the bulk of the money shall be used for the promotion of British and not of Chinese interests. I am very glad indeed that it has been said again and again—one hopes that it will reach China and that it will be well understood—that our purpose is really to benefit China and not to benefit England. Yet I would press upon your Lordships, that in benefiting China you are benefiting not only England also but the whole world. That, I think, is an aspect of this question which has not been sufficiently understood or realised by many thinking people.

You have been reminded this afternoon that China has a population of 400,000,000. I would also remind you that the Chinese are the most skilful of races, and that when they have been brought into competition with white labour they have excelled it. The reason of their exclusion from California, from Australia and from British Columbia, is not that they are inefficient workmen, but that they are efficient. You cannot exclude the Chinese from China. China has rich coal mines, she has iron of exceptional purity, and she must, with her great population, become an essential part of our great industrial system. Moreover, the Chinese have a quality which white men have not. They are very tolerant of monotonous toil. We are always reading about, and have the greatest sympathy with, the complaints that the great burden of the worker here is the monotony of his toil, that he never sees anything completed, but repeats the same small piece of work over and over again. That, no doubt, is a grievous burden to the white man, but to the Chinese it is an attraction.

Surely a race like that must become an essential part of our great industrial organisation. One part of the industrial workers has one standard of ethics, one standard of comfort, and one set of ideals, and another part has a different and a higher standard of ethics comfort, and a higher level of education. Will it not be inevitable that the lower will tend to degrade the upper? Are we not beginning the first chapter of a very difficult period of our history—competition between Asia and Europe? Surely this is a time when every effort should be made to bring up the level of civilisation in Asia to that of Europe. I would press upon the Government to give the money to those forms of education which help men to think more. There is always a danger that education will become mere technical education, that the man shall be improved as a producer of things and not as a thinker. I would urge very earnestly on the Government that the education which China needs now is the education to make men able to think and understand the great problems which must open before that great country the moment there is anything like peace and order.

At present the greater part of the education of China, as you have been told, is under the control of America. That is owing to America's national and personal generosity. The generosity of America to China has been perhaps unprecedented in the whole history of the world, but it has had one or two unfortunate results. I remember that, owing to a misunderstanding, I was left for some time in a Chinese school, and I read the books which the Chinese boys were reading. They were in English, and the school was being taught in English. It was a school wholly staffed by Americans. The history that was presented consisted of just a reference to Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror and to the foundation of America, and then you came to the great fact, which to the Chinese seemed the greatest fact in the whole history of Europe, the rebellion of the American Colonies against England. The influence of a great deal of that teaching has been to persuade the Chinese that they must proceed through revolution. The Americans always speak of the secession as a revolution.

I think it is most unfortunate that English influence and education have not been more felt and that we have not been able to give the Chinese what I believe is the great message which England can give to all countries—that a country can develop without any catastrophic changes by peaceful methods, and, above all, by steadily maintaining a high ethical outlook. I should be betraying my trust in my religion if I did not say at once that I believe the foundation of our national greatness and that of Europe has been in our religion; yet I would not for a moment have our religion taught to the Chinese by being forced upon them. I feel most strongly that the essential difference of outlook in China and in England on the industrial question depends really on the religious teachers of the two nations. The Chinese revere Confucius the Sage, just as we revere Jesus Christ the Carpenter, and that Carpenter has built a house which has sheltered all men in difficulties in many callings, and has enabled the industrial system of the West to develop in the healthy way it has done; where it has developed in an unhealthy way it is because His teachings have been disregarded.

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one or two more words at the conclusion of the debate. I think it may be taken that, so far as the Bill is concerned, all those who have spoken have blessed the Bill. Everything that has fallen from noble Lords will be brought to the notice of the Government. All the speakers have dealt with one point in connection with this Bill, and that is to plead that the fund should be applied for the purposes of education in China. I must remind your Lordships that this point was debated very fully in another place, and as a result the words in the Bill were not altered; that is to say, the Bill now contains the words which have been criticised by the four speakers this afternoon, the words "educational or other purposes."

There is, of course, nothing to prevent any noble Lord, when we reach the Committee stage, proposing an Amendment to leave out the words "or other purposes," but I do make a strong plea to noble Lords that this should not be done. In the opinion of the Foreign Office it is not desirable that the scope of the Advisory Committee's work should be limited in this way. We are quite ready and anxious that a large proportion of this money should be spent upon educational purposes; we desire to encourage that object; but in view of the fact that the alteration of these words in the Committee stage of the House of Commons was not pressed unduly and that the Bill has reached us with the words "or other purposes" included, it is highly undesirable to have a controversy with the House of Commons on this subject. I am advised that an Amendment of this kind is undoubtedly privileged and would be rejected in another place.

My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships very long over this Bill. It is a short Bill and conies to us from another place. Its only purpose is to prolong for a period the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts of 1920 and 1923. As your Lordships know those Acts, taken together, have two effects. In the first place, they restrict, in the case of controlled houses, an increase of rent or the recovery of possession, except under certain conditions, for a period which would expire in England on June 24 next and in Scotland on May 28 next. Secondly, they establish, over a period of five years after these dates, a modified form of control under which the Courts will be able to refuse an application for ejectment which they may consider to be harsh or oppressive, or to be liable to inflict upon the tenant a greater hardship than refusal of possession would inflict upon the owner. The question which the Government had to consider when they came into office, was whether they should allow these provisions to lapse in May and June of this year, or whether they should be continued over a further period, and the answer to that question depended on whether the conditions to which the Statutes were due still continued in operation.

The Rent Restrictions Acts were passed owing to the grave shortage of houses, which was due, of course, to the war and other causes to which I need not refer. Their object was to protect a tenant from being turned out of a house which he occupied when no other home was available, and to prevent him being charged an excessive or exorbitant rent if he remained. I firmly believe that the great majority of houseowners are prepared to be moderate in their demands, but no doubt there are exceptions, and it is to these exceptional cases that the provisions of these Acts are directed. If that shortage has disappeared there is, of course, no case for continuing rent control. His Majesty's Government hold the view that rent control in itself is an evil, a necessary evil perhaps, but still an evil. It inflicts hardship upon owners of property, it prevents free sale, it checks enterprise, and should be removed at the earliest opportunity if the conditions admit of its removal. But if the shortage is still serious, then I think your Lordships will agree that the provisions of these Statutes should be continued for a further period.

The shortage of houses has, I am informed, passed its worst phase. There was a time when the increase of population needing houses was greater than the increase of house accommodation available for them, but that I am told is no longer the case. The building of houses has commenced to exceed the rate of increase of population needing houses and to overtake the arrears. Since the war some 450,000 new houses have been built, and the rate of building to-day is now something over 100,000 in every year, a figure which exceeds that which obtained before the war. It is hoped, if the process continues, and especially if the new methods of construction which are now being so carefully considered are put into operation, that the rate of building will be still further accelerated and that we shall be able fully to overtake the arrears. That process is not yet complete. It is quite plain that the shortage must continue and that a reversion to normal conditions must be postponed for some time to come.

The Government hold the view that the Acts should be extended, not for a long time, such as ten or fifteen years as has been suggested, but for a short time, so that the matter may be reconsidered should conditions improve, when the special restrictions of these Acts need no longer be prolonged. They therefore determined to ask Parliament to extend the Rent Restrictions Acts for a further two and a half years; that is to say, until December, 1927, in the case of England and until May, 1928, in the case of Scotland. Time intention is that in the year 1927 the whole position shall be carefully reviewed, and if it is then deemed necessary to prolong the Acts further, it can be done by inserting these Statutes in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill for that year and so prolonging their operation for a further period. The effect of the Bill, therefore, is to prolong the first period for two and a half years and the period of modified control, beginning at the end of the first period, for five years. Those are, shortly, the provisions of the Bill. I do not propose to anticipate any objections that may be taken—I do not know if any objections will be taken—in this House, and I content myself with moving the Second Reading of the Bill.

My Lords, in the course of the last two years Bills of this description have come before your Lordships with great regularity, and I think that on each occasion I have pointed out both the enormous importance of some such measure and the desirability of taking steps to prevent the need of its recurrence. The importance of the measure is, of course, due to the one simple fact that, by the action of the Government, the supply of houses was deliberately restricted during the course of the war, with the result that there was created an artificial monopoly in houses at a time when the need for them was exceedingly great. Unless there were some interference in the result of these circumstances people would be pressed to pay rent for houses far in excess of the means that they enjoy, owing to the fact that there are so few houses to be obtained. In spite of the operation of these Bills, there is no doubt that this state of things will continue, and, if we desire ever to heal labour troubles in this country, two things, in my opinion, have to be done. You have to see that the people are decently and comfortably housed, and you have to provide that the necessities of life can be obtained at a reasonable cost.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the Government should interfere with prices by artificial means. I am only pointing out that, unless and until, by the operation of economic laws, the price of living can be reduced to something comparable to that which it was before the war began, you will never know industrial peace. You cannot know it now because at the present time, in spite of the increase of wages, there are many large industries in which the actual earnings of the men, measured in terms of that which they receive, is less than it was before the war. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, shakes his head; I do not know whether it is his intention to disagree with me—

Oh, no!

If he did, I should at once overwhelm him with figures, which I will not for the moment use. It is not merely that houses have to be provided, but they must be provided at a rent which the people will be able to pay. It is no use whatever having a place filled with houses if the rent which is going to be exacted for them is beyond the means of the worker. This Bill deals temporarily with the position, and to some extent it does mitigate the difficulties to which I have referred, but I am satisfied that it is nothing but a mere palliation of the real difficulty, and, unless we see some means by which it can be faced and overcome, we shall never know anything like industrial peace and comfort in this country.

I have only to add, in conclusion, that when the noble and learned Viscount pointed out that houses are being increased by 450,000 a year and that the supply was now overtaking the demand—I was very glad indeed to hear this—he did not tell your Lordships another figure which, I think, we all have to keep in our minds. Notwithstanding all the disadvantages under which we are suffering, our population increases at the rate of 1,000 a day, or something like 350,000 a year. Since the war this gives a figure of something like 1,500,000 people. That is to say, there is a house only for every four people. I am glad to know that houses have overtaken population. But, unless the pace is kept up, you will find that population will very quickly overtake houses again.

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that this Bill can be looked upon only as a temporary palliation of what are really very great social diffi- culties. I do not think that anybody on either side of the House would differ from his view that one of the great movements which we should desire to see carried out in the social welfare of this country is that all the wage earners should be decently housed. But there is a further matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred only quite shortly. It is necessary, not only that people should be decently housed, but that they should be housed on such terms as they can afford to pay, having regard to the average of their earnings. It is no good providing houses of such a character that the rent makes it entirely impossible that they should be occupied by the wage-earning class.

I am perfectly well aware, as I have no doubt your Lordships are also, that one of the great difficulties in providing a sufficient number of houses is the consideration of how much rent a man can afford to pay who is receiving something like two guineas a week. This, if you regard it all round, is in the aggregate more than the average wage that the working men and artisans—I am eliminating agricultural workers—are, as a matter of fact, receiving at the present time. How is the proportion to be estimated? Can a man, for instance, afford to pay more than one-sixth of his income in rent? I think that this is the proper way of arriving at a figure. Supposing, for instance, the average wage were to be taken as £2 2s., can the working class generally afford to pay more than 7s.a week in rent? That where the real difficulty arises, particularly in respect of those persons who desire to regard this matter entirely from the economic standpoint, as does, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam.

I want to make two statements. First of all, from my experience of country life, I deprecate in the strongest possible manner the building of houses not sufficiently large or sufficiently equipped to be comfortably lived in by a man and his wife and family. I think that this is a fundamental mistake. I know that some persons have advocated, on economic grounds, a cheap class of house with inferior accommodation. I hope that this will never be accepted. I think it is the most reactionary principle as regards social welfare that could be adopted. If you start from that factor, and if you find that economically the wage-earner cannot afford to pay a rent which would give him accommodation of that character, what are you to do? We know that, under the various Acts for providing houses, a portion of the expense has been thrown either upon the Exchequer or upon the local authorities, and in my opinion, it is impossible to avoid that under existing conditions.

The Lord Chancellor referred another point. He said—and I think quite rightly—that the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Acts must be continued and that it would he quite impossible to allow them to lapse suddenly at the present time. My complaint would be of their not being continued for a sufficient length of time. In other words, an extension of two and a half years, followed by five years of diminished control, is not at all likely adequately to deal with what will be required before we get rid of legislative restrictions, if we ever get rid of them at all, but the noble Viscount has pointed out that in his view the building of houses is overtaking the demand for them. He says there are 450,000 built, and that 100,000 are being built annually, and he assures your Lordships—I have no doubt he is able to obtain adequate statistics—that at the present time building is at such a rate that they are diminishing the surplus demand, which, as the noble and learned Lord Pointed out, certainly exceeded the supply after the war, when for a period no houses of this class were built at all. Then the noble Viscount says this—and I take cognizance of it, because it may perhaps be referred to on a future occasion—that, although tile Bill is at the present time only an extension for two and a-half years, there is no intention, as I understand, that that should be the ultimate limit; but the ultimate limit must depend upon the time when what he will. I think, describe as the normal conditions have returned, so that there are sufficient houses for working class requirements. Everyone must hope that that will happen in two and a-half years time, but I think it is an optimistic form of prophecy to suggest that that result will be obtained in so short a time. If it is not obtained, then I think a further extension of time will be absolutely necessary.

The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out that, on a future occasion, this extension of time could be obtained under what is known as the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, which we pass from year to year. I see that there is some objection taken to the idea that it should be so extended because, in substance, you would not then have opportunity of discussion. I do not want to dwell upon that point myself, because my desire is from the other standpoint. I want to be assured, so far as we can be, that, if necessity arises, the same attitude will be taken in the future as is taken by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack at, the present time. I have no criticism to pass upon this Bill, and so far as we on this side are concerned we shall give it every assistance in its passage into law.

My Lords, no one will dispute what was said by Lord Buckmaster as to the necessity of people having proper housing accommodation at a reasonable rent, but I only question whether legislation of this character does tend is that direction. My view is that all these artificial laws, all these restrictions on the natural working of economic conditions, tend to retard, and not to promote, the supply of working-class houses. It is only incidentally I think that, as the noble and learned Lord stated, the present shortness is due to the action of the Government during the war in restricting the building of houses. That is not entirely the whole cause, because, after all, the shortness began after 1090, when the then Government, by its land legislation, caused a shortness of houses. However, that does not affect my argument, that the present measures for providing houses will not tend in the desired direction. When people have had the expense of building houses—and building houses is not at any time very prosperous undertaking—you discourage private enterprise if those who build are liable to get an inadequate return on the capital invested.

Secondly, it many cases you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, because there are plenty of small householders who bought houses before the war and are unable to get a proper return for them. That is grossly unfair, and if the Government want to do the just thing it seems to me that when, under the different Housing Acts, persons living in a house pay a third of the real rental value, and other people are unable to pay the rent which is demanded, then the local authority should make good the difference. But I am certain that the whole of this legislation does not promote, but actually retards, the supply of proper accommodation. I know I have been guilty of great audacity in venturing to speak after the three noble and learned Lords who have spoken, but I am confident that in voicing the opinion I have I have expressed the opinion of many other people.

My Lords, I should like to refer to the common sense view expressed by the noble Lord behind me. I remember perfectly well, when the first Rent Restrictions Bill was introduced, that I had the honour of opposing it, as being a Conservative, and as not having altered my view concerning the law of supply and demand. It was introduced in another place by the late Lord Long, and his argument in favour of it was not that the Government was stopping the building of houses, but that in Glasgow certain owners of houses, seeing the enormous increases in wages which occurred at the commencement of the war, had actually ventured to ask rather higher rents. The increase in wages was defended on the ground that expenses of living and the price of food had risen. Therefore, it was right that the labourer should have a rather larger income with which to buy these things; but it was quite wrong for the owner of a house to put himself in the same position and to say that because the cost of living had risen he must have a little more for his house.

We were told that it was only a Bill which would last through the war. As in the case of all those things, as soon as you commence in the wrong path you go on. The war ended a long time ago, but still we go on. Two years ago, I think, it was intended to abolish these Acts but then it was thought it would have rather a bad effect on a certain by-election which was taking place at that date, and the Acts were continued. Now we have Lord Parmoor actually saying that a man is to pay the rent which he can afford. Who is to judge whether he can afford a certain rent or not? I believe the noble Lord can afford a very much higher rent for his house in Wilton Crescent than he is paying now, and I should think that the Duke of Westminster is of that opinion; but I do not know who is to judge between Lord Parmoor and the noble Duke. The same would apply in every walk of life. I do not pretend to be better than anybody else, and I am sure that my idea of what I could afford would differ very materially from the idea of any one who had a house to let. But who is to make up the difference? The working man can only pay, say, 5s, a week, and the economic rent is 7s.; who is going to pay the difference?

Apparently noble Lords opposite and hon. Members in another place who hold the views of the noble Lord opposite, and to a certain extent the views of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Par-moor), think that there is some inexhaustible fund into which you can put your hand to remedy all the evils which exist in this world. There always will be evils in the world, and the more we endeavour to interfere with the law of supply and demand, the more we allow people to think that all they have got to do is to complain and then some good fairy will come forward and make their lives pleasant and agreeable, the more the prosperity of this country is likely to decline. I only hope that at the end of two and a-half years there will be no question about abolishing the Act, but that it will be abolished at once. I had a case only yesterday of some people who choose to remain in a house, not because they cannot afford to pay, but because they like to pay their old rent of 3s. or 4s. a week, instead of going to get a new house at 5s. or 6s., and great hardship ensued. This is a matter on which I feel very strongly, and it is a. matter on which I am quite certain that, if we attempt to fly in the face of political economy, we shall rue it.

My Lords, I should be very sorry if your Lordships were to think that I rise in order to support the common-sense view, as it was called, which has just been put before you by the noble Lord. I can only say for myself that if the basis from which he regards these matters is the common- sense basis, I must appear to your Lordships to be the veriest lunatic. This discussion has ranged over a rather wide area, and there are one or two simple matters connected with it, perhaps not more remote from it than some which have been already mentioned, which I desire to bring to your Lordships' notice. First of all, nothing has been said as to the large contribution towards the solution of this problem which has been made by some of the great employers of labour in this country. I was in a country parish in my diocese only yesterday afternoon, when one of my clergy consulted me as to the problems that are raised for him, and indirectly for me, by the erection by a great engineering firm in our countryside some two hundred houses. All that has to be taken into account.

Again, a great deal can be done, I am quite certain, by a wise insistence on the part of the local authorities erecting these houses, that they really shall be effectively occupied. Anybody who lives, as I do, within twenty miles of a great city must be conscious that too many of these newly-erected houses somehow get into the occupation of persons of whom I desire to speak with the utmost respect and with some envy—the week-enders. I never have week-ends myself, and am therefore not likely to join this company. But the week-ender has no right at this moment to be occupying in the County of Worcester, from Saturday mid-day to Monday morning if he has a motor-car—and he probably has—a house which is really erected (because in Worcestershire there is a shortage of houses) for the genuine Worcestershire people.

May I add that I do feel that there is a certain danger in the way in which these houses are apportioned between one set of applicants and another. I find, as I go about, rather too great a tendency to favour the young married couple, or perhaps some young man of influence who comes to the allotting authority and asks for a house because he wants to be married. What happens in the. mean time is that the married man of some years standing, with a family to his credit, and living in the most terribly overcrowded conditions—there was one who wrote to me not long ago from a mere railway hutment—is entirely set aside in favour of the young couple, or the young man who wants to get married, and whose housing problem is not at the moment really serious, although it may become so in due course. I am very much obliged to your Lordships for allowing me to make these remarks, which, I am well aware, are not strictly germane to the Bill, but everything that has to to do with the social welfare of the workers in this country is of concern to every one of your Lordships, and therefore I do not apologise for mentioning those points.

My Lords, some very wide questions have been raised, and I will content myself in replying on the debate to dealing with two questions only. First, in answer to my noble friends Lord Lamington and Lord Banbury, I would only say that, like them I do not regard rent restriction as a good thing in itself, but I am confident that if they had the responsibility which His Majesty's Government have to day neither of them would be willing to allow the Acts to lapse at once. I am certain they would be compelled by the logic of events to continue them, at all events for a time. The second question I want to answer is that of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, who wanted to know what we were going to do two years hence. With all respect to him, I do not think I ought to be asked to answer that question. As has been said, we think it right to proceed by short steps, to renew the Acts for a limited time only. As to what may happen in 1927, I can give no promise, except tint we shall then, of course, carefully examine the whole question and come to Parliament—we or some other Government—with such proposals as may then appear to be proper. In the meantime, we keep a free hand.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill will be read a third time.

My Lords, there are one or two matters that I should be glad to have an opportunity of mentioning with regard to Clause 3 of the Bill. There is one practical matter which will need to be considered at some time, which is: Under what conditions and what restrictions, and subject to what, regulations, this whole matter is going to be dealt, with, not only in the High Court but in the county court? As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows, there are various provisions of one kind and another for the making of rules, but there are different provisions with regard to rules of the High Court and of the county court. One advantage that we have in respect to this matter is that ultimately the Lord Chancellor has very much of a controlling voice as to what rules shall be adopted. At any rate, his power is very great in that matter.

What I wanted to ask my noble friend was whether, before this Bill is brought effectually into operation, he himself will take the responsibility—I know it involves some additional labour, but my own impression is That it is worth while—of seeing to the framing of a set of rules which will introduce a uniform procedure in the High Court and the county court and obviate some of the risk which some of my noble friends and I thought would probably arise from the introduction of a jurisdiction of this kind in the county court. It is a short matter and one which is very familiar to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I should be very glad if he would deal with it now, or later on.

My Lords, I will answer my noble and learned friend's question at once. I do not propose to take the sole responsibility either for the rules made for the High Court or for those to be made for the county court. Those rules are made by Committees of which I am a member, and of one of which I think my noble and learned friend is himself a member. I can assure my noble and learned friend that we shall do our best in those Committees to consider the points which has brought before us.

moved to leave out subsection (1), and insert the following new subsection:—

"(1) In cases in which—

"(a) both parents make a declaration to the effect that a person has been legitimated by this Act; or

"(b) the name of a person acknowledging himself to be the father of the legitimated person has been entered in the register in pursuance of Section seven of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874; or

"(c) the paternity of the legitimated person has been established by an affiliation order or otherwise by a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

"(d) a declaration of the legitimacy of the legitimated person has been made under the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, as amended by this Act;

the Registrar-General shall authorise the re-registration of the birth of such person, and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar-General may by regulations prescribe."

My Lords, I am afraid I could not advise the House to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. Its effect, if adopted, would be to substitute "may", in place of the expression "shall" and to impose an absolute obligation upon the Registrar-General if certain conditions are fulfilled. I do not know whether my noble friend is aware how often a registrar to-day, in registering ordinary births, has to exercise this discretion. He has to see that all the facts are brought before him, to test them if need be and to prevent any entry being made upon a register with a view, perhaps, to future litigation or to making evidence for future years. I am sure he has to use great discretion already in the exercise of his functions. If this Amendment was passed he would have no discretion and if people came to him and said: "This is the father of this child," or if certain other conditions were fulfilled, he would have to enter the child as definitely the child of his father. He would have to be satisfied of the identity of the mother and to see that those were the persons who were married. He must see that they were not married when the child was born, and other things, too. I can assure my noble friend that his Amendment would not only lead to confusion but might possibly have worse results.

In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move a privilege Amendment.

had the following Notice on the Paper:—

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Selborne, I beg to ask the Question that stands in his name on the Paper.

My Lords, the Honours Committee of the Privy Council has again been set up, and the following Privy Councillors have been good enough to signify their willingness to serve upon it and have been appointed:—Viscount Novar, Lord Merrivale, and the Rt. Hon. John Rawlinson, K.C., M.P. That is the answer to the first part of the Question. As to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, your Lordships will remember that a Bill with this object was passed through your Lordships' House under Mr. Bonar Law's Government in 1923, but was not proceeded with in the House of Commons. The matter has, of course, been under the consideration of the present Government again and the Government hope to propose legislation with the same object without delay, after having carefully considered its terms. I ought to add that, in the present condition of public business, I am not sure that I can hold out any great hope that there will be sufficient time in the House of Commons for the Bill to pass through all its stages. So far, however, as this House is concerned, there ought to be no difficulty.