asked the Secretary of state for India whether shipment of coffee: from Mombassa is permitted while coffee from South Indian ports is held up for w ant of freight; whether coffee and other articles of merchandise formerly shipped from ports on the Malabar coast. are now held up on the Coromandel coast; and whether he can hold out hopes of early provision of tonnage?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The shipment of coffee: from any of the places mentioned is dependent upon the uncertain contingency of space being available after all priority cargo ready for shipment has been loaded. I fear, therefore, that it is quite impossible to avoid inequalities such as those referred to, and that there is no likelihood of any improvement in the situation in this connection.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a larger number of animals were slaughtered for beef prior to the 1st January last than the corresponding period of 1916; and whether the supplies of home-grown animals for beef are greater or less for the coming four months than for the corresponding period of 1917?

I have been asked to reply. An estimate based on over 10,000 returns from slaughter houses in Great Britain indicates that in December, 1917, the number of cattle slaughtered for beef was 9.4 per cent. greater than the number slaughtered in December, 1916. The number of live-stock in the country is estimated to be less than that of a year ago, and consequently supplies of home-fed beef in the next four months equal to those of the same period last year can be forthcoming only at the expense of a further depletion of our livestock.

Is there any evidence that farmers are holding up beef animals?

I understand there was some evidence to that effect at the beginning of this year as the result of the recent Order fixing life prices.

Is there now any evidence of it?

No, I cannot say so at the moment.

May I ask whether large numbers were slaughtered last December by order of the Government for the supply of the Army, and that this is one cause of the shortage?

I shall have to receive notice of that.

Was the shortage due to the ridiculous Order given by the Food Controller? May I have an answer?

If the hon. Member thinks the question of sufficient importance —

I do.

Then put it down.

asked the Prime Minister what was the Food Controller's recommendation to the War Cabinet with regard to corn rations to racehorses; and what decision has been come to?

I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller informed the War Cabinet of the cereal situation before the decision to allow a limited amount of winter racing was reached.

Has it been decided to stop horse-racing altogether?

No; the decision of the War Cabinet, after receiving the information referred to in my reply, was not to that effect.

Is it likely to help on the economy campaign to continue horseracing?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the disastrous effect upon our credit in Canada and the United States, from whom we are borrowing money to live, to continue horse-racing in this country?

As my reply indicates, the Food Controller placed before the Cabinet the cereal situation before the Cabinet made its decision.

Does that mean that the suggestion of the Minister of Food on this question has been turned down by the War Cabinet?

It does not mean that the Minister of Food made any suggestion. He placed the facts of the situation before the War Cabinet.

May I ask the representative of the Prime Minister is there any reason why horse-racing is not stopped, considering the very serious shortage of cereals in this country?

I think the right hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of that question.

I beg pardon!

Well, I handed it over to the Food Controller. The only answer I can give now is that the other facts and considerations which should be taken into account were considered by us, one of which was that the amount of food involved was absolutely trifling, and that the effect on the habits of the people was out of proportion to the saving of food.

Is it not the opinion of the Cabinet that it will be impossible to keep up the breeding of horses if horseracing is stopped?

Of course, that consideration was put before us, but, judging by myself, the main consideration in making the decision was the interference with the habits of the people.

Are we to take it the Food Controller does not make recommendations to the War Cabinet, but simply places facts before them?

He does both, like every other Minister.

But in this particular case did he make any recommendation at all to the War Cabinet?

How does the right lion. Gentleman expect me to remember every recommendation made months ago?

Did the War Cabinet—

Will the hon. Member give notice?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will take steps to ascertain the figures of clearances of wines and spirits from bond from the Annual Returns of the Customs and Excise during the years 1914, 1915, and 1916; and whether he will amend the Regulations of supplies by basing the average over the three years instead of the year 1916?

Various points connected with the prices and distribution of spirits are now engaging the attention of the Food Controller, and the suggestion of the lion. Member will be considered in due course. The information referred to in the first part of the question will be utilised in this connection.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any Order has been made under Regulation 2 F of the Defence of the Realm Act for the purchase of tea by the Government?

No, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the percentage of deterioration per annum in the value of the food brought into the country under the existing system of preservation; and whether his Department is taking into consideration the application of scientific methods of food preservation in order to obviate this wastage?

There are no figures available which would enable me to answer the first part of the question. The application of scientific methods of food preservation in order to prevent wastage is under 'investigation by a Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, on which the Ministry of food is represented. The cold storage accommodation has already been increased and will be increased still further.

asked whether, with a view to creating confidence in the: grading of cattle committees to be set up; by his Meat (Sales) Control Order, the Food Controller will provide in his final. Order that the farmer and butcher representatives of the grading committees shall be respectively appointed by the local farmer and butcher associations, instead of being nominated by the auctioneer member of the committee, as is now commonly the practice under the temporary Order for the time being in force?

The representatives of farmers and butchers upon the grading comnittees set up under the Cattle (Sales) Order are being appointed by the Area Advisory Live-stock Committees, on which the local farmers' arid butchers' associations are already represented. It would, therefore, appear unnecessary to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Star Tea Company, on whose behalf Mr. W. G. Lovell, of the Ministry of Food, interfered with the Llanelly Local Food Control Committee in a letter, dated 7th December last, were fined £43 and costs at the Llanelly Police Court, and that in the course of the hearing a Mr. John Dunlee, of 85, Albert Street, Regent's Park, stated that lie bought the butter f.o.b. Cork at 238s. a cwt. and sold it to the defendant company f.o.b. Cork at 245s. 6d., making a profit on the transaction of £7 10s. a ton; and whether he will consider the possibility, in these days of food scarcity and high prices,. of eliminating such middleman's profits; altogether?

The profit, amounting to 7s. 6d. per cwt., was not in excess of that authorised by the Food Controller's Orders; the price charged was, however, in excess of that fixed by the local food committee. It is impossible altogether to dispense with the services of middlemen.

asked whether Mr. W. G. Lovell was appointed in October last to be deputy-chairman of the Department's Butter Committee; whether he is the official responsible for fixing the price of butter in bulk and in lb.; whether, before his appointment, he was managing director, or chairman of directors, of Messrs. Lovell and Christmas, Limited; whether Messrs. Lovell and Christmas do a large business in turning bulk butter into 1bs.; whether Mr. W. G. Lovell is still a holder of ordinary and preference shares in Messrs. Lovell and Christmas; whether 4,690 preference and 11,170 ordinary shares are held by the Lovell family; whether Mr. Robert Douglas Cubley, described by Mr. W. G. Lovell in his letter of the 7th December to the Llanelly Local Committee as the managing director of the Star Tea Company, still holds ordinary and preference shares in Messrs. Lovell and Christmas, Limited; and whether, having regard to the necessity of inspiring public confidence in the equitable administration of our food supply, he will consider the desirability of removing Mr. Lovell from a position which conflicts with his personal, family, and trade interests?

The answer to the first, third, and fifth parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second and fourth parts of the question is in the negative. I have no information:as to the matters raised in the sixth and Seventh parts. The Food Controller has always endeavoured to secure in every branch of his Department relating to supplies the services of a competent and experienced business man with full knowledge of the particular trade. Mr. W. G. Lovell is eminently fitted for such a post, and Lord -Rhondda is confident that his advice has always been given with an entire disregard of his personal interests.

asked whether there were in December last two wholesale prices for butter fixed by the Ministry -of Food—one for butter in bulk:and the other for pounded butter; whether the price of the latter was £14 per ton more than that of bulk butter; whether the expense of passing butter through the pounding machine and its general handling does not exceed 60s. per ton; and on whose advice did the Food Controller fix the price of pounded butter at £14 per ton over that of butter in bulk?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The information available shows that the cost of putting up butter in 1-1b. rolls, and of providing wrappers, very considerably exceeds 60s. per ton. The prices for butter in bulk and for pounded butter were fixed by the Food Controller, after consultation with the Advisory Committee for the Control of Butter and Cheese Supplies.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to a letter dated 7th December, 1917, from one W. G. Lovell, of the Ministry of Food, to the local food control committee of Llanelly and the reply of the committee dated 14th December; whether he approves of the attempt of a trading company to escape prosecution for profiteering by going behind the back of the local committee to officials of his Department; whether Mr. W. G. Lovell was authorised to write the letter of 7th December suggesting to the local committee the advisability of withdrawing the prosecution of the Star Tea Company; and, if not, what disciplinary measures have been taken to prevent the repetition of an action which has aroused both indignation and suspicion in South Wales?

The Director of Supplies of Butter and Cheese ascertained from the Star Tea Company that their profits derived from the transaction in question did not exceed those authorised by the Food Controller. He thereup in suggested to the Llanelly Food Control Committee that, in view of a possible misunderstanding, it might be advisable to consider whether it was worth while going on with the case. In so Writing Mr. Lovell does not appear to have exceeded the limits of the discretion vested in him as a responsible officer of the Department.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the letter of 7th December, and does he know that it contains many misrepresentations; and, in view of the facts, will he look into the matter and ascertain whether this gentleman did not exceed his authority in writing such a letter to the local food control committee regarding a company, the managing director of which is an important shareholder in his own private company?

I have had put before me the general information upon which my reply is based, but I cannot recall the letter referred to.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet completed the scheme of reorganisation of his Department for the purpose of meeting the needs of British commerce and industry after the War?

Yes, Sir; a White Paper giving particulars of the reorganisation of the Board of Trade -to meet the needs of British commerce and industry after the War was presented to Parliament yesterday, and understand that copies will be circulated to-morrow morning.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total value of all ships and cargoes of all descriptions sunk by enemy submarine and mine from 4th August, 1914, to the latest date on which he has particulars, and that date?

We are not in a position to give this information, nor is it considered in the public interest that it should be given.

asked whether the Admiralty informed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller that a certain steamer torpedoed on Christmas day while crossing from a French Channel port to an English Channel port was torpedoed while under Admiralty protection or escort?

It is regretted that the 4nformation given to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Con-troller was incorrect. The vessel in question was not being escorted at the time she was torpedoed.

Who was responsible at that date for giving to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller this incorrect information with such disastrous results to his reputation?

The information came by telephone, and we accept the responsibility, and regret that incorrect information was given.

Is it considered wise for the Government to make a statement in the public Press regarding shipping, contrary to the statement of the owners of the ship, who are more likely to know what happens to their own ship?

I have stated that the incorrect information is information for which we were responsible.

As this statement contains an attack upon a Member of this House, and the statement has been found to be inaccurate, has any apology been, or will any apology be offered, to that Member?

I have already raid that for the information which was incorrectly given the responsibility is ours, and I have said that I regret that that information was given. I do not know what more I can say.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman apologise only for the inaccuracy of the statement that has been made, and make no apology to the hon. Member who was wrongly attacked?

Really that not a question to put to me.

asked whether the steamer torpedoed on Christmas Day while crossing from a French Channel port to an English Channel port, and receiving such serious damage that over six months will be occupied in repairing, has been reported or returned in the published list of vessels unsuccessfully attacked; and, if so, on what date was it so officially reported?

Vessels damaged by submarine or mined are not included in any published list unless and until they become a. total loss, when they are included in the published list of the week in which this information comes to hand, with a reference to the week in which originally attacked. I ought, perhaps, to add that we do not apprehend that this particular vessel will take six months to repair. I think it desirable to say, further, that of the total number of British vessels damaged by enemy action for the ten months, January to October, 1917, inclusive, it has been found impossible to salve four only. Of the rest, the repair of more than half has been actually completed.

What is the use of returning in the official lists the number of vessels which are unsuccessfully attacked by enemy submarines when in a case like this, in which the ship is out of commission for more than six months, and in another case which I know, the ship is out of commission for twelve months, no notice is taken? May I correct the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the time which vessels take in repairing? Is he aware that the Director of Shipping has said that the repairs to this ship will occupy six months?

I consulted the Department this morning, and they say that it will not take six months.

Who said that?

The officer responsible. With regard to the other point, the vessels unsuccessfully attacked are not injured in any way. The vessels that have been attacked and damaged do not appear in the paper unless and until they become a total loss. Of all the vessels that have been attacked during the tea months which I have given it has been found impossible to salve four only. More than half of all the rest have been completely repair ed.

Is it not more important in the public interest to know the number of vessels damaged than the number undamaged, which is merely eye-wash? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the temporary repairs to this steamer at Portsmouth occupied a month, and that the permanent repairs, according to the Director of Shipping, will occupy six months?

According to such information as I have, the expectation is that it will not take six months to repair.

Well, we will wait and see.

asked whether the refrigerated steamer torpedoed and sunk on passage from a French Channel port to a British port was, at the time she was torpedoed, escorted by a naval armed vessel; and whether the captain asked for an escort or protection before leaving the French port?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is that no application was made for an escort either to the French authorities on the other side of to the naval authorities on this side If my hon. Friend understands that an escort was asked for, perhaps he will give me his authority, privately. He is aware, of course, that the vessel was defensively armed.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German authorities have stated that British hospital ships carrying a Spanish officer aboard would be immune from submarine attack; whether the British hospital ship "Rewa" carried a Spanish officer while in the Mediterranean; if so, whether this Spanish officer was landed at Gibraltar or a Spanish port while the "Rewa" was on a voyage to this country with wounded; if so, can he state why this Spanish officer was landed; and whether he has reason to believe that the presence of a Spanish officer on board would have prevented the ship from being sunk in the Bristol Channel on 4th January?

The Spanish agreement is confined to the Mediterranean, and the special guarantees given therewith refer to that sea only. The "Rewa" carried a Spanish officer while in the Mediterranean. He was disembarked at Gibraltar in acordance with the agreement. As the Bristol Channel is not covered by the Spanish agreement, the presence of the Spanish officer on board in that Channel would not have afforded any additional guarantee of the ship's safety beyond that given by The Hague Convention. It may be added that in the course of recent correspondence the German Government stated that the free navigation of hospital ships bearing the usual distinctive markings was guaranteed in the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea, with the exception of the English Channel, and that consequently such ships could move freely, provided they kept to the west of the line from Land's End to Ushant. This particular ship satisfied the proviso, as has already been stated in the Admiralty communication to the Press of the 8th January.

Does the right hon. Gentleman or the British Government attach any importance, the slightest importance, to any assurance given by Germany

I have done my best to answer the question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a convoy of about twenty ships left Falmouth on the 26th December; that within 14 miles of that port two new ships of 11,000 tons and of 10,000 tons, respectively, were torpedoed; and that one sank within thirteen minutes and the other was left in charge of an armed trawler, disabled, within 14 miles of Falmouth from 3 p.m. on the 26th to 4 a.m. on the 27th December, a period of thirteen hours, on a moonlight night; whether he is aware that the hostile submarine, having followed and further damaged the convoy, then returned and completed the destruction of the 10,000-ton ship at 4 a.m. on the 27th December; and what action the Admiralty has taken to show their appreciation of the perspicacity of those responsible?

It is true that two ships were torpedoed in this particular convoy, but the circumstances are somewhat different from those stated in the question. One of these ships was sunk; the other severely damaged. A destroyer and two armed trawlers were left to guard the ship that remained afloat, and on information of the attack reaching the base, two tugs and two trawlers were immediately dispatched to the assistance of the damaged ship. Unfortunately the tugs failed to find the vessel, and the report of an inquiry held to ascertain the reason for this has not yet reached the Admiralty. The gross tonnage of the vessels sunk was actually about half that stated in the question. One vessel was new, and the other one was built in 1907. The Admiralty have no information to lead them to believe that the submarine inflicted any further damage on this convoy. The circumstances connected with this attack are receiving full consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us why it was that this new ship was left for thirteen hours, 14 miles from Falmouth, on a moonlight night?

I have said that an inquiry is being held into that, but it was not the fact that the vessel was absolutely alone, because I have spoken of two trawlers remaining behind, and two tugs and two trawlers were dispatched.

When do you expect to receive the result of the inquiry?

There ought to be no delay. I hope it will be received shortly, and I will let my hon. Friend know as soon. as I get it

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many experienced British shipmasters would very much prefer to be without the protection afforded by the Admiralty?

That is a matter of very, very high policy.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships contracted for or building in America for or on account of Norwegian or other neutral owners were purchased by British subjects and or the British Government; how many ships contracted for or building in America were on account of British subjects c r the British Government; and the total cumber of all these ships that have been requisitioned by the American Government?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Twenty-nine Norwegian contracts in respect of ships building in the United States have been taken over by His Majesty's Government. So far as the Shipping Controller is aware there have been no purchases on private account by British subjects of ships contracted for or building in the United States on account of Norwegian or other neutral owners since the establishment of the Ministry of Shipping. Precise information is not available as to how many ships had been contracted for or were being built in the United States for private account of British subjects, but 169 steel vessels (including the Norwegian contracts above referred to) and two wooden vessels had been contracted for by His Majesty's Government. The American Government have requisitioned 158 of the above-mentioned steel vessels.

Is the lion. Gentleman aware that his information is, as usual, inaccurate?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what extra number of skilled and unskilled workmen could be profitably employed in the private shipyards of the United Kingdom for building mercantile tonnage; and what steps are being taken to supply the private yards with as much labour as can be economically utilised?

The additional number of skilled arid unskilled workmen that could be profitably employed on private shipyards at the present time is approximately 17,000, but this number will increase progressively during the year.

It is being arranged that a considerable number of skilled men shall be released from the Colours for work in the private shipyards and engine works.

Unskilled workmen are being drafted into the shipyards from non-vital industries, and, as stated by the Minister of National Service in his speech on Monday, the appeal for labour for shipyards has met with the most gratifying response; large numbers of men are coining forward, and are being rapidly put to work.

I would also add that the establishment of schools for training men in the use of pneumatic tools, to which I referred in the Debate on the Vote of Credit on the 13th December, is being proceeded with as rapidly as circumstances permit.

How is it possible to provide men for the new Government shipyards when you cannot at the present time meet the demands of the private shipyards on the West Coast?

We have a large number of men at work by substitution and replacement, and, with additions, we hope to provide all that are necessary for output.

Are the men employed at Government shipyards on the West Coast being obtained at the expense of private shipyards?

I have stated frequently that we are taking no men from our own Royal dockyards or private shipyards.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British shipbuilders are clamouring for labour, in spite of what is being done?

No doubt that is true, but we are not taking men from the private shipyards.

What labour is available for the private shipyards?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what reply has been sent to the appeal to the Prime Minister from Professor Georg von Wendt, the official messenger of the Finnish Senate, to permit food to come to Finland from America in order to prevent immediate famine in Finland?

A reply to the Finnish appeal was sent, on the 17th of November, to the effect that the state of supplies here unfortunately precluded any possibility of Finnish requirements being met from this country; and that, as regards the supplies from America, it was understood that a representative of the Finnish Senate was already discussing the matter with the authorities at Washington.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has recognised the Government of the Republic of Finland; and, if not, whether this step will be taken without delay?

His Majesty's Government have not yet felt able to recognise the Republic of Finland as an independent State, but they have instructed His Majesty's Consul-General at Helsingfors to enter into relations with the de facto authorities there for the transaction of business.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer candidly the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—which really lies at the root of the whole matter—is the Foreign Office infected by the policy of wishing to restore the corrupt monarchy of the Czar?

The hon. Member ought to put a question of that sort on the Paper for me to see.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the advisability of now issuing, in conjunction with our Allies, a Note stating specifically what the Central Powers must accept as regards the evacuation of conquered territory before peace can be considered, and what aims we shall pursue at the Peace Conference when it is held?

I do not think that anything need be added to the statements about war aims recently made here and in the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any official diplomatic means of communication with the Council of People's Commissioners which is the Government of Russia; whether any diplomatic official has been sent to the British Embassy at Petrograd; whether he is exercising the usual privileges of an Ambassador as regards couriers and other means of communication; and whether he is yet in a position to make any statement regarding the recognition of the Government at Petrograd?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Constantine Nabokoff is still in communication with the Foreign Office as in October, 1917; whether he will state the exact diplomatic relations existing with Russia; (2) whether M. Litvinoff, Russian Plenipotentiary in London, is recognised in any official capacity by the Government; if not, whether the Government has any channel of official communication with the Russian Government; what is that channel; (3) whether it is due to any decision of the War Cabinet that M. Litvinoff, Russian Plenipotentiary in London, is not allowed to receive telegrams from Russia; that his cables to Russia are held up; and that he is not allowed the usual courtesies given to other international representatives; and whether M. Litvinoff will now be allowed the facilities needed by his accredited mission to the British nation?

The question of the hon. Member for Leicester is the first of a series of four questions on the subject of our diplomatic relations with the Administration at Petrograd, and a single answer will perhaps suffice.

We have not recognised that Administration as being de facto or de jure the Government of the Russian people, but we carry on necessary business in an unofficial manner through an agent acting under the direction. of our Embassy at Petrograd.

The Bolshevik Administration have appointed M. Litvinoff as their representative in London, and we are about to establish similar unofficial relations with him.

M. Nabokoff, who was the Chargé d'Affaires under the late Republican Russian Government, will presumably remain in London until he is either confirmed or superseded in his post by a Government recognised as representing the Russian people.

The present arrangement is obviously both irregular and transitory. Though it cannot be fitted into any customary diplomatic framework, it is, in our opinion, the best that can be devised to meet the necessities of the moment.

Can the right lion. Gentleman tell us exactly the position of M. Nabokoff; whether he will be able to tender communications, or even advice, to His Majesty's Government, although he has been officially superseded by the authorities now in power?

I cannot say that he has been officially superseded, but I do not think I can really add anything to the statement in the answer, which I attempted to make clear, and which I think was clear.

In view of the attempt being made by the party to which M. Nabokoff belongs to foster revolt against the present authorities in Petrograd, can the right hon. Gentleman not make it clear that we have no part with persons who are plotting against the existing power in Russia?

I cannot add anything.

Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to follow the lead given by President Wilson, and the Government cultivate good relations with this Government, which, whether we wish it or not, is, de facto, ruling Russia? May I ask —

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he can add nothing to, his answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement that Mr. George Tchitcherine was sent back to Russia at the personal request of Mr. Trotsky was made on the authority of the Foreign Office; if so, by what channel was this personal request of Mr. Trotsky communicated; whether any subsequent communications have been received from him; and whether such communications have been returned to him simply acknowledged or diplomatically considered?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The release of Mr. Tchitcherine was decided on the recommendation of His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd, who had been informed by an official attached to the Embassy of the attitude adopted by Mr. Trotsky in the matter. As far as I am aware, Mr. Trotsky has not, since the early days of his assumption of office, endeavoured to open diplomatic intercourse with His Majesty's Embassy in Petrograd.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first part of the answer, denying that Mr. Tchitcherine was sent back at the personal request. of Mr. Trotsky, is in direct opposition to the information given to Mr. Tchitcherine himself by the Home Office?

I have said that the statement was not made on the authority of the Foreign Office.

asked the Prime Minister on what date and on what grounds the decision was taken to return to Russia Mr. George Tchitcherine, Mr. Peter Petroff, and Mrs. Petroff?

I have no further statement to make on the subject.

asked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements have now been made to reimburse parishes in Scotland for the cost of maintaining the dependants of Russian subjects who have returned to Russia under the recent convention?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife on the 20th December. The whole cost of maintaining the dependants of Russian subjects is reimbursed to parish councils from public funds.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether there are, in the Salonika Army, several cases of Staff officers and officers employed at the base and Army headquarters who have had more than one period of leave, while there are a number of regimental officers in that force who have had no leave at all for over two years; (2) if the leave parties from the Salonika Force are in two categories: the fortnightly parties, which are for officers and other ranks serving in front of divisional headquarters, and special parties, reserved for all ranks behind brigades; whether, for some months past, there has been no fortnightly party, while the special parties have been sent off constantly; and whether he will draw the attention of the Commander-in-Chief to this matter in view of the desirability of having a fair distribution of leave?

I have no information bearing out my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions, but the usual leave arrangements have been necessarily dislocated owing to recent movements of troops in other theatres. With regard to the other points in the questions, I am communicating with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will impress on the authorities concerned the necessity of allowing the officers and men who have served in the front line at least as good an opportunity for leave as those on the Staff and behind the lines?

I will bring the matter to the notice of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are men out there nearly three years who have had no leave?

The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

I am coming to a question on that point.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is. possible to consider the granting of leave to soldiers who have been for over two. years in the Balkans?

At the end of last November there were, unfortunately, seine 900 men who had had no leave, owing to the lack of transport facilities, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief informed me then that he was in full sympathy, and would take advantage of any facilities offered to remedy matters. I am communicating again with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and shall hope to hear that the position is improving.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect to hear from him on this matter, as it is one which excites a good deal of public interest?

I may say, on behalf of General Milne, that he has all along done everything possible to give the men leave, and I know for a fact that it is merely because of the difficulty of transport, recently in particular, that more leave has not been given. I am communicating with him to-day.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether similar inquiries have been made with regard to the troops Palestine and Mesopotamia, and whether there is any possibility of those troops getting leave?

The same difficulties arise so far as all distant theatres of war are concerned.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the statement made by the Chief Commissioner of Medical Service before the Select Committee on Medical Examinations that all members of the medical boards are civilians now is in accord with the facts; whether the president of the Derby recruiting medical board is a retired major, Royal Army Medical Corps, with no experience whatever of general practice; whether he still remains president of this board; is he aware that the conduct of this chairman has been notorious through the whole district for the way he has treated the men who came before him as recruits; whether he is aware that during the first seven weeks that this man acted as president of the medical board no less than six civilian doctors resigned; whether this president is now assisted, or was up to quite recently, by an elderly captain of the Royal Army Medical Corps; and whether steps will be taken at once to change the personnel of this board?

All members of the National Service medical boards are civilian medical practitioners. Certain of the presidents of the recruiting medical boards continued to act as chairmen of the National Service medical boards during the period of transference of the medical department from the control of the Army Council to that of the Ministry of National Service, but these have now been relieved with the exception of two, who will be relieved within a few days. The president of the recruiting medical board at Derby relinquished his position on 1st December, 1917, and has been succeeded by a well-known highly qualified civilian medical practitioner. Inquiries are being made regarding the alleged action of the late president of this board.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Field-Marshal Commanding the Forces in France personally reads and examines the records of all field general courts-martial upon privates in which the sentence of death has been passed, and that before confirmation the Field-Marshal Commanding the Forces consults the Judge Advocate-General in France; and, if this be an incorrect statement of the position, whether he will explain who is the superior authority, if any, who examines judicially the record of the courts-martial in these cases before confirmation by the Field-Marshal Commanding?

The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in France personally reads and examines the records of all courts-martial in which the sentence of death has been passed before he confirms the sentence, and in every such case receives the advice of the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in France before confirmation. He also receives reports from the Commanding Officer of the soldier under sentence and intermediate commanders. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

asked the UnderSecretary of State for War what is the average time that elapses between the passing of sentence of death on a private soldier of the Expeditionary Forces by field general court-martial and the carrying into execution of that sentence; whether many cases have occurred in which thirty-six hours only have elapsed between the passing of sentence and its execution; and if he will say what steps are taken under those circumstances to secure a proper consideration of the case by higher authority?

It is impossible to give the average time that elapses between the passing of sentence of death on a soldier and the carrying out of that sentence with exactness, because, in the first place, the proceedings do not always show the date when the sentence was carried out; and, secondly, it has not been found possible in the short time available to extract and examine every case since the commencement of the War received from every Expeditionary Force in order to make the necessary calculation. So far as I can judge, I should estimate that the average time would be somewhere about fourteen days. I am not aware of a single case in which the period has been so short as thirty-six hours. I think the hon. Member must be confusing the passing of sentence with promulgation of sentence, which takes place after confirmation and a comparatively short time before execution.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any medical examination of a soldier takes place after trial when the death sentence has been imposed and confirmed except where the soldier is wounded; and whether the records at the War Office reveal one solitary case in which such examination has taken place of a soldier executed for alleged cowardice whose defence was that he was suffering from shock?

I have written to France for full information as to the medical examination, particularly in shellshock cases. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await the reply.

asked the UnderSecretary of State for War if it is the practice to accept without opportunity of cross-examination the certificate of a military doctor that. a private soldier, hitherto suffering from shell-shock, has been passed as fit to take part in operations on the field of battle, as a complete answer to a defence in a charge of alleged cowardice or desertion, that the conduct complained of was due to the return of the symptoms which the military doctor considered had disappeared?

The answer is in the negative. The certificate of a military doctor cannot be received in evidence before a court-martial without calling the doctor as a witness to give evidence on oath upon which he can be cross-examined.

Can the. hon. Gentleman say whether the medical evidence in these cases is that of specialists in nervous diseases or of ordinary R.A.M.C. officers?

That is the point of a reply I gave before the Recess.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been conic to regarding the inclusion among the recipients of the 1914 Star of those French and Belgian liaison officers and interpreters attached to British units who rendered most valuable assistance during the period for which the medal has been awarded?

This question is still under consideration.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in the early days of the War the price paid for billeting soldiers at Carmarthen was £1 3s. 7½d. per week; that it is now 19s. 3d. for the first soldier and 17s. 6d. for each additional soldier; and whether, having regard to the increase in the price of food, he will consider the advisability of reviewing these prices?

The rate first mentioned by the hon. Member was admittedly too high, and was reduced in August, 1915. The reduced rate was increased in December, 1916, to the figures mentioned, which allowed for a further rise in prices. The question whether any further increase is now necessary is under consideration.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the recent increases of pay to soldiers have been granted to the men of the Non-Combatant Corps; if not, on what grounds have these men been refused the increase; and, in view of the fact that the men of this corps are a part of the Regular Army and are doing work which would in any circumstances have to be done by soldiers, why they are treated differently from other men in the matter of pay; and will the matter be immediately reconsidered?

Men of the Non-Combatant Corps share with others the relief from the compulsory allotment towards separation allowance and the abolition of hospital stoppages. The question of extending to them the recent increase in pay was considered by the Cabinet and decided in the negative. They belong to a special corps exempted by the tribunals from combatant service, and they are not employed in the danger zone. Their liabilities are, therefore, strictly limited, and their pay conforms to their liability.

Is the lion. Gentleman aware of the intense dissatisfaction of the men in the Infantry fighting forces at the great disparity of pay between them and the A.S.C. non-fighting force, and will he give some consideration to the men of making pay in both Services more equal?

I think that the main object of bringing about the recent increase in pay was to bring the rate of pay of the men who are actually fighting more nearly to the level of those who are not.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the uncertainty which appears to be prevalent in some of the county sub-committees formed in connection with the Cultivation of Lands Order for the purpose of selecting grass land for ploughing, he will state whether it is their duty in making such selection to bear in mind the needs of the milch cows and other horned stock at present on the farms, or whether the committees are to proceed without any consideration of the cattle?

The agricultural executive committees have been constantly urged to consider the maintenance of milk production. The real dearth of cakes and other concentrated feeding-stuffs must in any ease reduce the numbers of fattening cattle in the country, but it should be remembered that a larger production of both meat and milk is practicable from arable land than from a corresponding acreage of grass. Moreover, as the Board have only asked for the ploughing of one-ninth of the total area of grass, there is no reason to fear that the practical men composing the agricultural executive committees will take such action as would unnecessarily injure the live-stock interest.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will sanction the request of the Brixham Fisheries Development Committee to have two lights fixed at Tor Cross to safeguard the Brixham fishermen from trawling in the restricted area of Start Bay?

The Board have no authority to sanction the exhibition of lights. The decision in this matter rests with the naval authorities, to whom the Board have made several representations as to the difficulties under which the fishermen are working.

Will my right hon. Friend. assist matters in this respect, because it is a very serious thing to fishermen, who do not want to transgress the law, and who wish to add to the food of the people?

I quite agree that it is a serious thing for the fishermen, but there are certain considerations with the Admiralty as to the fixing of lights.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if there are 900 rooms in the Hotel Cecil building; whether the inspectors acting for his Department have made any Report on the use of this building by the Air Board; and, if so, will he state the nature of this Report?

The number of rooms in the Hotel Cecil is 665. The inspectors of the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation have made a Report to the effect that the accommodation occupied by the Air Board is being satisfactorily utilised.

Is it not a fact that this hotel was commandeered before it was inspected by the Department concerned?

No; it is not a fact.

asked how many new sets of buildings have been taken over by the Government since the House adjourned in December?

The number of premises taken over by the Government since the House adjourned in December is thirteen.

asked whether any additional building accommodation is now being demanded by Government Departments; and, if so, which Departments are making these applications?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The list of demands for accommodation is so extensive that, for the convenience of the House, I purpose circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the list referred to:

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he assented to the proposal to use the British Museum for the purpose of the Air Ministry; and, if so, under what authority he acted?

The proposal to use the British Museum for accommodating the Air Ministry was submitted by the President of the Air Board to the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation. A large amount of space was required, and this space was not available in any other single building except the British Museum. As Chairman of the Committee on Accommodation I submitted the proposal in principle to the War Cabinet for decision. The War Cabinet assented to the proposal. Later, as Lord Rothermere was able to considerably reduce his demands for space, the matter was again before the War Cabinet, and I was able to advise that there was no longer the same necessity for accommodating the Air Ministry in the British Museum.

In view of the fact that the control of the British Museum is vested by Act of Parliament in certain trustees, why was the decision of the trustees overruled by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Government?

The building of the British Museum is a Government building. It is under my Department, and is not vested in the trustees; and, obviously, the War Cabinet has the power of overruling the trustees of any museum.

As the British Museum is not available, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the taking over of Carmelite House for this purpose?

May I ask whether, before the right hon. Gentleman fakes over the British Museum, he will commandeer Buckingham Palace?

asked the First. Commissioner of Works whether he has entered into agreements with the Government Departments who have erected buildings in St. James's Park and other parks under his control providing for the removal of the whole of these buildings at the end of the War?

The Office of Works is the only Department which has erected buildings in the Royal Parks, and, as I stated in this House on the 19th December last, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicester, it is not intended that these buildings shall be permanent. They will be removed as soon after the declaration of peace as the interests of the State will allow.

Will the Office of Works have any regard at all for the open spaces of London?

I have very great regard for the open spaces of London, and no one would be more pleased than myself to see these buildings disappear.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, why are the latest buildings in St. James's Park being erected in a very substantial manner in brick and stone?

The reason of that is that I am unable to obtain any timber from the Timber Controller to erect them in timber.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what steps the Government have taken to carry out the recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure in their First Report to the House of Commons, dated the 24th October last, and specially that the Treasury should determine from time to time the rates of profit and should satisfy themselves that the principles adopted in settling the conditions of contracts were sound; that the Treasury should lend greater support to the financial branches of the Ministry, generally, in their efforts to promote economy; that the Treasury should insist upon a more complete co-ordination between Government Departments in the purchase of munitions of war and the materials required for their manufacture; (2) what steps the Government have taken to carry out the recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure in their Second Report to the House of Commons, dated the 13th December last, and specially that a more active financial supervision should be exercised by the Treasury over the Departments so as to ensure the adoption of sound financial methods in every province of administration, to prevent undue profits being made by contractors, and to prevent competition between Departments in purchasing supplies?

I would refer my hon. And learned Friend to the reply which I gave on the 14th instant to the right hon. Member for the Cleveland Division.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the suggestion that Bethlehem should be the scene of a Peace Conference; and if His Majesty's Government will let it be known to the Russian and Turkish authorities that every facility would be granted for delegates to attend if the Governments desire to use the Church of the Holy Nativity for this purpose?

The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman does not seem very practicable.

asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government, when early in 1917 it instructed Sir Douglas Haig to readjust the plans for the 1917 campaign which had been unanimously agreed on in November, 1916, by the military representatives of the Allied Powers, first consulted and ascertained whether Sir Douglas Haig approved of such readjustment?

The readjustment of military plans referred to was made after full consultation, and in agreement with the Commander-in-Chief, at a Conference between the British and French Governments and their military advisers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a protest from the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales against the action of the Government in constituting the Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to consider and report upon the steps to be taken to ensure the better coordination of public assistance in England and Wales without appointing a representative of the Association upon it; and if he will consider the advisability of appointing a representative of the Association upon the Sub-committee?

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, representing by direct election 556 unions and a population of over 34,000,000, have protested against the action of the Government in constituting a Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to consider and report upon the steps to be taken to ensure the better co-ordination of public assistance in England and Wales, and upon such other matters affecting the system of local government as may from time to time be referred to it, without appointing representatives of the Association on such Sub-committee; that the Association asks the Government to remedy this defect in the constitution of the Sub-committee; and whether the Government proposes to comply with this request?

asked the Minister of Reconstruction how many of the fifteen members, of the Sub-committee appointed to consider and report on the transfer of the functions of the Poor Law authorities in England and Wales have acted in the capacity of guardians of the poor, and thereby acquired practical acquaintance in the administration of the Poor Law?

I have explained, in reply to similar questions, that the Com- mittee referred to was not constituted on the principle of according representation to particular interests, and I have now received from the Committee a Report on the transfer of the functions of Poor Law authorities in England and Wales. I have sent copies of the Report, as promised, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock, and asked him to furnish me with the views of the Committee of the Association of Poor Law Unions upon it. I am hoping to arrange for the publication of this Report without delay, in order to enable all those interested to consider the proposals of the Committee.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary that a body like this, to deal with so considerable a situation, should have upon it representatives from a body that represents 556 unions and 34,000,000 people?

I have answered a great number of questions on the subject within the last few months, and I do not think I have anything to add.

asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has decided to publish the final Report of the Dardanelles Commission; and, if so, when it will be issued?

The War Cabinet, after most careful consideration, and acting on the advice of the General Staffs, military and naval, have decided that it is not in the public interest that this Report should be published for the present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this Report must be published in accordance with the express terms of the Act of Parliament? Is it proposed to amend the Act of Parliament?

No; we do not propose to amend the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament says that the Government must have the responsibility of deciding whether or not such publication would give information to the enemy. We have decided that it would.

The motto of a late Government was "Wait and see." Is it the case that the motto of the present Government is "Wait and not see"?

Has the decision been arrived at solely from strategical considerations, and in the public interest, or in deference to the possible effect that the publication of this Report might have upon the fortunes of certain members of the War Cabinet, and certain members of the Naval Staff?

That is a perfectly legitimate question if my hon. Friend thinks it possible to conceive a case of that kind—

It is!

But that has not influenced us in the least. We have taken our decision in consequence of the statement of the Naval and Military Staffs that, in their opinion, the publication of this Report now will give invaluable information to the enemy.

asked the Prime Minister whether he endorses President Wilson's message to Congress of 8th January last, and particularly whether the Government will co-operate in entire good will in the President's efforts to win Russia to active participation in the cause of the Allies, and will refrain from all acts that indicate unwillingness to accept to the full the establishment in Russia of the Republican régime?

No human being, so far as I know, has ever indicated any "unwillingness to accept "the Republican régime in Russia, which has been consistently welcomed in this country. It is quite obvious that all Russia's Allies must earnestly desire her "active participation in their cause."

Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to this matter to-night on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue have ruled for the purpose of assessing Income Tax that a secretary of a Territorial Force Association is not performing service of a military character; whether he is aware that Section 30 (1) of the Finance Act, 1916, states that where any person who during the current Income Tax year has served or is in service of a naval or military character in connection with the present War for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament is entitled to claim relief; and will he state what is the character of the services performed by a secretary of a Territorial Force Association if it be not of a military character as defined in the above Section of the Finance Act?

As at present advised, I am unable to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's interpretation of the Section referred to. I understand, however, that the matter is likely to come before the Courts for decision.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the South Wales newspapers were repeatedly forbidden by the Censor to publish any account of the sinking of the hospital ship in the Bristol Channel near Swansea by a submarine; what public interest was served by such suppression; whether the "Daily Mail" newspaper, which exclusively published the news on 8th January, had previously received permission to do so; if so, on what grounds was such preferentia1 treatment meted out to this journal; and, if not, what steps the Government intend to take to punish the only newspaper which refused to obey the Censor's orders.?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. In accordance with the instructions of the Admiralty, publication of news regarding this matter was suspended until the facts had been verified, and an official communication could be made to all the Press simultaneously. This communication was issued at mid-day on the 9th. January. The "Daily Mail" on the morning of the 9th published a statement that a hospital ship had been sunk, although the Press Bureau had refused permission for the publication of this statement. I fear that it is not possible to take proceedings against the "Daily Mail," but the action of that newspaper in publishing news which other newspapers had loyally held up, at the request of the Admiralty, has been brought to the notice of the conference of representatives of the newspaper proprietors.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability, without taking proceedings, of confiscating the type and plant and suppressing this paper?