THE  HOUSING  QUESTION

3i

or  because—often  one  regrets  to  say  from  interested
and  party  motives—they  do  not  wish  to  carry  them
out  and  desire  an  excuse  for  not  building  more  houses.
In  short,  the  rents  must,  ipso  facto,  be  such  as  working-class ­
  people  can  afford  to  pay.  When  Sir  Alfred
Mond  spoke  as  quoted  above  he  was  permitting
himself  to  talk  nonsense.
It  is  true  that  emissaries  from  the  Treasury  have
frequently  informed  Local  Councils  that  if  they  do  not
fix  rents  high  enough  they  will  lose  some  of  the  subsidy.
But  this  is  ordinary  bluff  and  should  be  disregarded.
Government  Departments  often  bluff.  As  has  already
been  made  clear,  excessive  rent  is  not  legally  enforceable
by  the  Government.
As  things  are  there  is  a  tendency  to  allow  the  working
classes  to  be  defrauded  of  these  houses,  which  by  Act
of  Parliament  were  intended  for  them,  and  to  allow
the  houses  to  become  the  residences  of  quite  another
class.  It  suits  the  Treasury’s  book,  but  it  is  unjust,
contrary  to  the  will  of  Parliament,  and  ought  to  be
stopped.
Mr.  Inskip,  a  Conservative  Coalition  Member  for
Bristol,  said  in  the  House  of  Commons,  in  the  Housing
Debate,  on  the  nth  May,  1921  :—
“  What  dismays  me— I  have  made  enquiries  in  my  own  constituency—is ­
  that  I  am  very  doubtful  whether  the  right  people
are  to  occupy  the  houses.  .  .  .  They  were  intended  for  the
ex-service  man,  in  the  first  place.  He  was  generally  the  unskilled
man,  who  gave  up  his  own  house  and  put  his  wife  and  children
in  the  house  of  relatives,  and  now  that  he  has  returned  he  requires
a  house  to  live  in.  .  .  ,