In its circular of March 1921, the Ministry of Agriculture says:

The Ministry notes with satisfaction that a considerable measure of success has followed its first appeal, which it should be remembered is merely a plea for the adoption of clause 9b. of the Model By-laws of the Ministry of Health. The demand for humane killers is spreading in every direction. Men engaged in slaughtering have welcomed the latest models, and in many cases have stated that they are delighted to be able to go through their work without being forced to resort to the crudities of the more familiar method.

Mr. Thorning, Meat Inspector, Borough of Plymouth, says :Since the by-law requiring the use of humane killers came into force, in April, 1918, considerably over 200,000 animals have been slaughtered here. I have had no reason to complain as to the condition of the meat, neither have I received any complaints from the butchers.

It is worth noting with regard to the "danger" objection that the insurance companies have not raised the premium for slaughtermen where the humane method has been adopted. The superintendent of a very large slaughterhouse in Scotland was instructed to go into the question of insurance in order that the Town Council might know exactly how they would stand in the event of the humane method being made compulsory. He found that the insurance would not be one penny more than it is at present.

In addition to the torture inseparable from primitive methods of killing, badly constructed and badly kept slaughterhouses are a source of very real mental and physical suffering to animals; but the subject is a large one and would require an article to itself. The Admiralty Committee's Report contains most valuable information on this matter, and it is particularly interesting to note that the admirably arranged slaughterhouses at the Stonehouse, Chatham, and Gosport Victualling Yards were the practical outcome of its investigations and conclusions. The committee said :

As an animal cannot speak it is impossible accurately to determine to what extent it does or does not suffer from fear, but there is no doubt that cattle especially show great reluctance to entering the slaughter chamber and can only be dragged in by the employment of considerable force. The presumption is that what they chiefly object to is the smell of blood, but whether this can be proved or not . . . the question is of such vital importance from the standpoint of humanity that it seems clear that the animal should be given the full benefit of the doubt.

It is good news that the Animal Defence Society, Old Bond Street, London, have begun to build a model slaughterhouse at Letchworth, which will be an example of what such a place can and should be.

In conclusion. All animals-cattle, sheep, pigs and calvescan be easily and painlessly killed with humane killers, and they are so killed in many continental countries and in many parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland. If this is so and nobody will dispute it-how much longer are we going to tolerate the present cruelties?

I suggest that housekeepers should only buy meat from a butcher who will guarantee that all his animals are killed with a humane killer; and I further suggest that everybody should do all in their power to get local authorities to make humane slaughtering compulsory. The various societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals will gladly give advice as to how this can best be done. To anybody who does not feel convinced of the great need for reform, all I can say is, Go and see for yourself.

When I hear

Crying of oxen that in deadly fear,

Rough men, with cruel dogs about them, drive
Into the torture-house of death, alive,

How can I sit under a tree and read

A happy, idle book, and take no heed?"

LETTICE MACNAGHTEN

HOUSING SUBSIDIES

I. Housing, etc., Acts 1919, 1923, 1924, and 1925.

2.

Report of National House Building Committee. Cmd. 2104. 1924.

3. Reports of Committee on Alternative Methods of Building. Cmd. 2310 and 2334.

4.

1925.

Memorandum on Finance of Housing Act of 1924.

FTER October 1st this year the Minister of Health and the Secretary for Scotland have to review the existing housing subsidies offered under the 1923 and 1924 Acts. The review is obligatory under Section 5 of the 1924 Act. According to the official circular explaining the measure for which Mr. Wheatley was responsible :

The rates of contribution both for houses subject to special conditions and for houses not subject to such conditions are fixed by the Act in the first instance for houses built for the first two years only. After October 1, 1926, the position will be reviewed in consultation with representatives of local authorities and, if the cost of building and other conditions warrant a reduction, the contribution for houses built during the next period of two years will be reduced. A similar review will be made every two years during the continuance of the scheme. That is to say, there must first be consultation with the local authorities; and then the cost of building since 1924, and the possible trend of prices during 1927 and 1928 have to be considered. While there is no suggestion of terminating the subsidies, but only of reducing the rates of contribution, the 1924 Act was so drafted that loop-holes are available should the Government wish to call a halt to their rapidly increasing bill for houses.

Few taxpayers realise the stupendous amounts that have been spent since the war on the provision of working-class houses. The amounts already paid by the Treasury under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923 and 1924, as given in the Annual Reports of the Ministry of Health, are as follows:

By March, 1926, the total spent is certainly nearing fifty millions, while the liability for approximately 200,000 Addison houses will remain upon the present taxpayers and their children and grandchildren for sixty years from the date on which the original loans were granted. Thus when some of the houses, which in certain cases are already becoming slums owing to their shoddy construction and the use of unseasoned wood, will no longer be in existence, the National Exchequer will still bear the burden of an annual charge which, subject to variations in rates of interest, will amount to from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 a year until 1980.

So far the burden of taxation only has been considered, but part of the cost of houses built under Dr. Addison's Act also falls upon ratepayers, theoretically to the extent of a penny rate, but actually, where the expenses of repairs exceed a certain sum,

VOL. 243. NO. 496.

T

the liability may be heavier. According to an official reply given to Mr. Neville Chamberlain on December 21, 1925, the contribution from the rates under the 1919 Act already paid out, is estimated to be £4,750,000.

It is early days yet for any reliable estimate to be made as to the total liabilities on both taxes and rates that will eventually be imposed owing to the operations of the 1923 and 1924 Acts. But already the estimated capital value of Government contributions paid, or to be paid, on 240,604 houses authorised under the Chamberlain Act, is £18,045,300; and for 88,954 houses authorised under the Wheatley Act, £14,232,640. Although the Exchequer is less burdened than under the 1919 Act, the actual loss for Chamberlain and Wheatley houses falling upon the ratepayers is not limited, and no official estimate has yet been published as to their heavy obligations.

There is, too, a tendency, at present just visible, that is causing some anxiety to local authorities. Populations are migrating. For example, the growth of the Dukeries coalfields in north Nottinghamshire will probably mean the immigration of 40,000 persons into this district, and already many new villages are being built by colliery companies. If the Kent coalfields develop, as is expected, an influx of population of 278,000 is estimated. In both cases it is hoped to draw miners from Derbyshire, and in consequence Council houses built since 1919 in that county may possibly be tenantless in ten years' time, owing to the decrease of population. Not only in the coal industry, but in iron and steel, there are movements of works taking place to sites nearer the coast in order to save heavy freight charges, and these are bound to affect future housing. If, as a result of these migrations, many municipally owned houses in a few years' time cannot be leased or sold, the losses estimated above as falling on public funds must be greatly increased, as there will be less revenue incoming. These considerations are already making the more far-seeing local authorities go slow with their housing

schemes.

In any case it is certain that the amounts actually spent up to the present time must be some fifty millions. Further the future commitments in which we are already involved cannot be disowned, however serious may be the financial condition of the Treasury. Although few people can be found who will regret