THE HOUSING QUESTION 
119 
Those are the words of an honest man. No wonder 
Sir Alfred Mond fails to understand them. 
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson hit the nail full on the head 
in the same debate, when he said :— 
. . Why cannot we afford it ? ” 
Sir F. Banbury : " Because we have not the money.” 
Mr. Thomson : " Did we tell that to the bondholders ? Surely 
we are as much pledged to provide houses as we are to provide 
interest for those who found the funds for War Savings Certificates 
and War Loans. When, a few weeks ago, it was suggested from 
these benches that economy might be effected by cutting down the 
rate of interest which was being paid on War Stock, a tremend 
ous howl went up from the economists on the other side, and I 
agree with them. But I ask that the same fairness and justice 
of treatment in redeeming promises which it is desired to give 
to those who invested in War Stock, in response to pledges given 
to them, shall be given in respect of the promises to the men who 
went overseas, and who were told that when they came back 
they should not suffer, that houses fit for heroes should be found 
for them. . . .” 
Sir Frederick Banbury, replying to Mr. Thomson, 
gave the true Coalition reply :— 
"... I am glad the Hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. 
Thomson) is in his place, because he commenced his rather 
unbusinesslike speech, if he will allow me to say so, by stating 
that we had made promises to pay interest to people who had 
invested their savings in war stock and that when people suggested 
that that interest should be cut down the answer was that promises 
had been made, and I understood the Hon. Member to say that 
he agreed with the people who objected to the interest being cut 
down, but he thought that because promises had been made to 
build houses the State should carry out those promises.