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?