Did the British Government pay the French for the land the British used for trenches ?

[corisande]

I was reading "Laughter goes from life"  by  Thomas Penrose Marks

He refers to the British paying the French a rent for the land that the British used for their trenches. I thought this a bit far fetched and tried to clarify what was happening, but ended up more confused.

I found this exchange in Hansard in 1929 . It is so "political speak" that it is difficult to determine what , if anything the British paid, and for what

Can anyone enlighten me as to what happened on "rent" payments. I have tried the forum index without success

FRANCE (BRITISH WAR PAYMENTS).

HC Deb 23 April 1929 vol 227 cc717-8 717

§ 50. Mr. SEXTON

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount paid during and after the War for trenches occupied by our troops in France, or for the transport of British 718 troops while in France by rail or any other means of transport, and for any land purchased in France to provide for the burial of British soldiers killed in action, respectively?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

No payment was made for trenches in the battle area occupied by British troops in France; £25,500,000 was paid for the transport of British troops on French railways, of which £17,500,000 was paid to the railway companies through the French Government and £8,000,000 was by a special agreement, set off against the French War Debt to this country; the French Government presented to the Imperial War Graves Commission as a free gift all the land used for the burial of British soldiers killed in action and accordingly no payments were made for the purchase of land for this purpose.

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN

Is it a fact that money was paid for trenches which were used for training behind the lines?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

The principle upon which the British Government and the British nation embarked upon the War in France on French territory was that we paid our war expenses, and, following out that principle, various arrangements were made which can, of course, from time to time be represented in an unfavourable light by persons who by implication or otherwise have anti-French bias.

§ Mr. SEXTON

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer that no rent was paid for the occupation of trenches with the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) on the 15th May, 1923. In Volume 164, column 212, of the OFFICIAL REPORT the Under-Secretary of State for War, in reply to my hon. Friend, said: Trenches—

§ Mr. SPEAKER

This is a matter which is more suitable for debate than for question and answer.

Mr. BECKETT

Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the French landlord cannot be blamed for taking rent which British landlords were very glad to take?

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, corisande said:

I was reading "Laughter goes from life"  by  Thomas Penrose Marks

He refers to the British paying the French a rent for the land that the British used for their trenches. I thought this a bit far fetched and tried to clarify what was happening, but ended up more confused.

I found this exchange in Hansard in 1929 . It is so "political speak" that it is difficult to determine what , if anything the British paid, and for what

Can anyone enlighten me as to what happened on "rent" payments. I have tried the forum index without success

FRANCE (BRITISH WAR PAYMENTS).

HC Deb 23 April 1929 vol 227 cc717-8 717

§ 50. Mr. SEXTON

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount paid during and after the War for trenches occupied by our troops in France, or for the transport of British 718 troops while in France by rail or any other means of transport, and for any land purchased in France to provide for the burial of British soldiers killed in action, respectively?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

No payment was made for trenches in the battle area occupied by British troops in France; £25,500,000 was paid for the transport of British troops on French railways, of which £17,500,000 was paid to the railway companies through the French Government and £8,000,000 was by a special agreement, set off against the French War Debt to this country; the French Government presented to the Imperial War Graves Commission as a free gift all the land used for the burial of British soldiers killed in action and accordingly no payments were made for the purchase of land for this purpose.

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN

Is it a fact that money was paid for trenches which were used for training behind the lines?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

The principle upon which the British Government and the British nation embarked upon the War in France on French territory was that we paid our war expenses, and, following out that principle, various arrangements were made which can, of course, from time to time be represented in an unfavourable light by persons who by implication or otherwise have anti-French bias.

§ Mr. SEXTON

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer that no rent was paid for the occupation of trenches with the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) on the 15th May, 1923. In Volume 164, column 212, of the OFFICIAL REPORT the Under-Secretary of State for War, in reply to my hon. Friend, said: Trenches—

§ Mr. SPEAKER

This is a matter which is more suitable for debate than for question and answer.

Mr. BECKETT

Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the French landlord cannot be blamed for taking rent which British landlords were very glad to take?

An interesting aspect. It seems to me that a fee was perhaps paid to French landlords in the rear areas for land used for training, just as some British landlords charged for use of their land, whereas some provided it for free (the latter often members of the aristocracy).  It doesn’t seem that much different to the payment of householders for soldiers billeting, which occurred both, in Britain and in France.  In the former I recall that seaside towns became very reliant on this income given the reduction in summer tourists and holidaymakers.  People always make money out of war, distasteful though it is. 

Edited 5 February , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[corisande]

Thanks @FROGSMILE . AS you say money would clearly have changed hands for lots of "services provided"

What intrigued me here was how evasive Churchill was on answering the Parliamentary Question

And I never managed to find in Hansard the earlier question referred to here. The question was aborted by the Speaker, but I could not found it. I thought it might shed further light on the custom

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer that no rent was paid for the occupation of trenches with the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) on the 15th May, 1923. In Volume 164, column 212, of the OFFICIAL REPORT the Under-Secretary of State for War, in reply to my hon. Friend, said: Trenches—

 

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, corisande said:

Thanks @FROGSMILE . AS you say money would clearly have changed hands for lots of "services provided"

What intrigued me here was how evasive Churchill was on answering the Parliamentary Question

And I never managed to find in Hansard the earlier question referred to here. The question was aborted by the Speaker, but I could not found it. I thought it might shed further light on the custom

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer that no rent was paid for the occupation of trenches with the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) on the 15th May, 1923. In Volume 164, column 212, of the OFFICIAL REPORT the Under-Secretary of State for War, in reply to my hon. Friend, said: Trenches—

 

Yes I understand your point about evasive answers.  Typical of the Houses of Parliament methinks and exactly what so many of Joe Public complain of in British politics.  My impression is that Churchill was defending the French (recent gallant allies and with whom we wished to trade) from what might well have been baiting by the opposition.

As regards the “trenches” it seems to me significant that there was no mention of which trenches and where they were.  My guess is that it related to trenches somewhere like Etaples, or similar, and that payment was indeed demanded by private landowners for their ground used for training in rear areas in and around the base. Certainly not for the front line.

Edited 5 February , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[charlie962]

This was an earlier reply. Pretty brief!

FRENCH TRENCHES (BRITISH OCCUPATION).

HC Deb 30 April 1923 vol 163 c1008W1008W

§Mr. AMMON asked the Prime Minister if a rent was charged by the French Government during the War for the trenches used by the British troops serving in France?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.

[corisande]

Thanks Charlie

That must be the question referred back to in 1929. As you say pretty brief

I suppose I feel that this is "politician" speak on this question. They answer the question, but only the question that is put.

It seems clear that the British paid some money for French land, and if they wanted land for training, R&R, out of the line camps. etc.. then they would have had to rent that land

It is an area of the war that I never really had thought about, but you do actually see today the very thin line of the Western Front, which was where "the war" was concentrated - everything else was open to negotiation with local land owners, and that is a lot of land.

I wonder how much the British Government actually paid for this land use, certainly Churchill in 1929  or Lt Col Guinness  in 1923, were not keen to answer. It is  difficult/impossible to get the mathematical answer

[FROGSMILE]

25 minutes ago, corisande said:

Thanks Charlie

That must be the question referred back to in 1929. As you say pretty brief

I suppose I feel that this is "politician" speak on this question. They answer the question, but only the question that is put.

It seems clear that the British paid some money for French land, and if they wanted land for training, R&R, out of the line camps. etc.. then they would have had to rent that land

It is an area of the war that I never really had thought about, but you do actually see today the very thin line of the Western Front, which was where "the war" was concentrated - everything else was open to negotiation with local land owners, and that is a lot of land.

I wonder how much the British Government actually paid for this land use, certainly Churchill in 1929  or Lt Col Guinness  in 1923, were not keen to answer. It is  difficult/impossible to get the mathematical answer

I think that you’ve summed the likely situation up perfectly.

[charlie962]

It does seem pretty extraordinary that the British government had to pay SNCF for troop transport to defend France (and thus defended Britain). I never thought that this wasn't paid by the French government. 

SNCF had a bad reputation for certain acts in WW2 although one shouldn't forget brave acts of the cheminots as part of the Resistance. Shows the difference between individuals and big business. But let's get back to WW1...

[charlie962]

Still railing..

Did the French charge the Americans?

Did the British charge the Americans?

[corisande]

10 hours ago, charlie962 said:

Did the French charge the Americans?

Did the British charge the Americans?

That is the logical progression of the facts. It is interesting that nobody on the forum can really answer this.

It is strange in conflicts that vast amounts got paid out for particular things, but never really were recorded openly

What started me off was the writings in "The Laughter goes from Life". What was actually written was

"He asks us if we are aware  that the English Government  pays rent to the French Government for the land which is occupied by British troops. From the sea to the Somme, the land is hired out, and thousands of pounds are paid monthly. We are staggered."

Which fits with what has been written in this thread. But Churchill was evasive in 1929, and nobody really has pursued the question before or since

[Matlock1418]

18 hours ago, corisande said:

He refers to the British paying the French a rent for the land that the British used for their trenches. I thought this a bit far fetched and tried to clarify what was happening, but ended up more confused.

I found this exchange in Hansard in 1929 . It is so "political speak" that it is difficult to determine what , if anything the British paid, and for what

Can anyone enlighten me as to what happened on "rent" payments. I have tried the forum index without success

Would likely seem only a small part of the overall picture.

In 1926 Churchiill and others were discussing 

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

HC Deb 24 March 1926 vol 193 cc1233-95

 https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1926/mar/24/inter-allied-debts

The way they spoke - and those figures made my eyes water - Politicians eh?

M

[charlie962]

The same questions must have arisen in WW2.

One could view it as a manner of giving financial aid to another country. Rather than give a lump sum with no accountability as to how it is spent, why not link it to particular transactions. 

Smoke and mirrors.

Same dilemma today, trying to be sure aid ends up in the right place!

Charlie

[corisande]

33 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Would likely seem only a small part of the overall picture.

In 1926 Churchiill and others were discussing 

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

HC Deb 24 March 1926 vol 193 cc1233-95

 https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1926/mar/24/inter-allied-debts

The way they spoke - and those figures made my eyes water - Politicians eh?

 Thank you for that link. As you say eyewateringly large sums discussed , like

 But when you think that over a long period of 62 years there is a demand to transfer £3,000,000,000 across the Atlantic to the United States of America

That is an extraordinarily complex debate, and it is difficult to separate the smoke from the mirrors of who owed whom what. Italians, French. Russians, Germans, Americans, British

And more interestingly would be who actually pay whom in the long run

It may be on my part part mixture of  naivety or chauvinism or gullibility, but I had the impression that the UK paid US in full in the fullness of time, but many of the other debts lapsed

 

[charlie962]

42 minutes ago, corisande said:

eyewateringly

Remembering that today's pound is 111.29 times higher than the pound in 1916.

Edited 6 February , 2023 by charlie962

[FROGSMILE]

The billeting arrangements alone for the largest Army Britain has ever put into the field would have been substantial.  Once trench warfare had become an intransigent normality then each and every brigade was rotated on a fairly routine timetable and each required billeting when not in the line.  Old barns and warehouses, other farm buildings, and housing suitable for officers’ messing, plus substantial areas of pasture for draught animals to graze and in winter be under some sort of cover, would all have had to be paid for.  To the farmer, and even small holding, with normal life upturned in the midst of war, they had to make a living somehow.

Edited 6 February , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[charlie962]

I suppose one should read this Hew Strachan book.

https://www.amazon.com/Financing-First-World-War-Strachan/dp/0199257272

[corisande]

7 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

I suppose one should read this Hew Strachan book.

 Thanks, Looks fairly definitive.

I might get it and read it on holiday. I should think it is heavy going!

[charlie962]

27 minutes ago, corisande said:

heavy going

I think I'll have a go too. It does help to understand how we got to where we are today. 

Wiki merely says the British financed the Allies until 1916 when they ran out of money and the Americans took over. Very simple really. Remained the same ever since. Presumably the Great War debt was rolled into the WW2 account and postwar plans which we have only recently seen the end of? 

Fascinating subject, rather like war reparations, where nothing is absolute.

[healdav]

14 hours ago, charlie962 said:

Still railing..

Did the French charge the Americans?

Did the British charge the Americans?

I can tell you that the Americans regarded whatever they could get their hands on as being a rightful payment. I have a form like a payment sheet for pencils, headed "Booty in reparations of Expenses of war" on which they detail a short length of line built by Austrian troops in Luxembourg to avoid the capital and air raids. The Americans costed everything down to the sleepers and the nails, and wanted to be paid more for it than the entire national budget at the time. Magnanimously, they said that they were not charging for the value of cuttings, embankments, etc.

After a lot of argument, the bill was cancelled. The US Embassy being in the forefront of telling the army to get lost.

I would guess that the Americans would try to charge the French for everything they could.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I was re-reading one of the addenda to my grandfather's diary today. In this addendum he is describing the occasion on which he was one of five men to represent the 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers at the unveiling of the Givenchy Memorial to the 55th Division on 15 May 1921, so this passage would have been written after that, but before he penned the very last entry in his diary on 30 March 1928.

In the passage that I quote below the ceremony has taken place, and Norman, my grandfather, is describing how he took the opportunity to revisit old haunts around Givenchy before everyone had to catch the homeward train from Cuinchy. The final sentence, which I have printed in bold, is the one that is of most interest for the purposes of this thread. Norman was not in a position to have any special knowledge on the subject, as he was just an ordinary middle class man, working as a chemist at Lever Brothers in Port Sunlight. But his record is nevertheless valuable as showing what  an ordinary middle class man, of reasonable education, who no doubt read his paper every day, understood to be the case at the time. It will be noted that it accords very closely with what Frogsmile and other have surmised earlier in this thread.

I rambled about the country looking at old landmarks, Canal Sub-sector Right – the Tunnels, The Brickstacks, our old HQ near Windy Corner, Harley St – then via the Tuning Fork Switch to GORRE CHATEAU. The departure from CUINCHY was delayed so that we could make the best of our time to visit the old haunts.

It was surprising the progress which had been made by the farmers, although there were no houses re-built, yet many had returned to live in huts as temporary homes. They had worked hard on the land and many were looking forward to reaping their third harvest since the War.

We learnt that their work was not altogether without its dangers, for many times had the peaceful plough turned over unexploded shells and bombs with disastrous and tragic results.

We were also told that occasionally they came across the sight of old dug outs blown in and discovered the remains of our troops, and this during peace time working. Many places were even in 1921 just the same as in the war days – with the craters – the shell holes and the barbed wire.

It was a memorable and interesting day and it helped one to realise more than ever the tremendous hardships these French Country folk had suffered and were still suffering, and it was a happy idea when many of our large English cities adopted these French villages as their children to help them rebuild their homes, additional help to that given by the French Government. It may be of interest to record that even the British Government had to pay a rentage to French landowners for ground used purely for military purposes – even though we were at war although there were certain prescribed areas viz – those immediately in the Front Line Areas which did not come under this ruling.