asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information that the German officers' corps of the old army still exists; and whether it is officially recognised by the German military authorities?

The number of officers with the present army is restricted by the Treaty of Versailles to 4,000. All other regular officers have been retired on pension, or with a gratuity. The German authorities have recognised a society known as the Deutscher Offiziers-bund as the channel of communication for regulating questions affecting the pensions or other economic interests of ex-officers. This society has been formed since the War for the protection of those interests. There are other associations of officers which are not recognised, and which are in the nature of political associations.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information that the so-called peace army in Germany of 100,000 effectives consists almost entirely of noncommissioned officer instructors?

I am aware that about half the rank and file of the present German army were noncommissioned officers in the old army. This is due to the fact that the majority of the volunteers for long service were of this class.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the German mobilisation laws have yet been repealed?

The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control have reported that the German Government have repealed all laws relating to mobilisation, with the exception of the law of 13th June, 1873, relating to requisitions in time of mobilisation. The Commission have demanded the repeal of this law also.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the limitation of the German Army to 100,000, the Estimates put forward by the German Government compare favourably in the matter of expense with the Estimates of the other European Powers?

The whole question of the German Budget, including the Army Estimates, is at present being examined by the Guarantee Committee of the Reparation Commission, and I regret am unable to anticipate their opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the mobilisation organisation of the German Army; whether the arrangements for mobilisation in pre-War days are still in existence; whether he has any information as to the operation of the 12 years' term of enlistment in the German Army; whether this has now been put into force; and whether large numbers of men of military age have been passed through the ranks of the Reichwehr for short periods of training?

Article 178 of the Peace Treaty unconditionally forbids "all measures of mobilisation or appertaining to mobilisation,' and I am unable to confirm that any such measure exist. The 12 years' term of service is in force, and its operation is being supervised by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control. I have no confirmation of the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for War how long Messrs. Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths and Company have been engaged in the preparation of the trading accounts of the Navy and Army Canteen Board for 1919 and 1920; and when their Report will be available for the information of the House?

The firm in question has been employed as auditors of the accounts of the Navy and Army Canteen Board since the inception of the organisation in 1917. I am unable to give a date as to when the accounts for the years in question will be available for the information of the House, but I can assure my hon. Friend that they are being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer has been returned for months past and that at the end of last Session we were told we could hope for the accounts in eight days?

Are we to understand that the accounts for 1919 are not yet completed?

Can the right hon. Gentleman definitely state what is the trouble, and why these accounts are being withheld?

I am sorry if anyone thinks they are being withheld. I am not suggesting there is not some justification for the thought, but I can assure the House I am getting the accounts pushed forward as quickly as possible. They are extremely complicated and complicated also by the fact that there were three organisations, each of which went into liquidation and each one passed some part of its assets and stocks to the next organisation. I hope the accounts will be available for the House in a short time. It is no use my saying eight days or a month, because I really cannot give a guarantee.

May I ask whether, in view of the great public interest in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will give the House an assurance that these accounts will be presented in ample time for a discussion, if necessary, to take place on the Floor of this House with regard to them?

Is not the delay due mainly to the difficulties of realisation?

I do not want to take refuge in that. There has been great delay in apportioning the current stocks between each one of these organisations, and it has been due also partly to difficulties of realisation. But I may say this: I shall have to come to the House presently either for a Vote on Account or for a Bill to implement the undertaking to the Ex-Service Men's Associations to hand over the profits of the canteens, and at that time there will be an opportunity for the fullest discussion of this question. I do not want to deprecate questions, but I have half-a-dozen every week, and to them I can only give the same answer.

Will the Report be available on that occasion?

It is obvious the House must have the information which will enable it to come to a decision on that occasion, and before then the accounts must be available in some form or other for the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the date on which the War Office sent a letter of indemnity to the late Controller, Expeditionary Force Canteens; the date on which the latter handed cash and War stock to the War Office representative; the amount in sterling thus represented; what was the amount allocated from this source to the United Services Fund; the amount retained by the War Office; and for what purposes that money was utilised by the War Office?

As regards the first part of the question, the letter was dated 4th February, 1921, but was given to the joint liquidators, who did not hand it to the authorities of the Expeditionary Force Canteens until the transfer of their assets had taken place. In regard to the remainder of the question, the transfer, which was made to the joint liquidators and not to the War Office, took place on the 14th February, 1921. The value of the assets thus transferred, taking the securities handed over at their nominal value, was about 3,306,000, out of which £2,500,000 consisted of Funding Loan. Of this total, Funding Loan to the nominal value of £1,000,000 was allocated to the United Services Fund, and the balance remains in the hands of the joint liquidators.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information to the effect that in the early summer of 1920 Suleiman Rabbub and other well-known Bethlehem Arabs applied for a concession for electric light and power, agricultural development, and motor transport in the Jerusalem district and Jordan valley; that they stated that they were already in possession of a capital of half-a-million and would have no difficulty in raising £2,000,000 or more if necessary; and that Suleiman Rabbub was informed by the administration that no concessions were being made at the time, but that the application would be considered later; whether he will inform the House whether a Report has been received on this application; and, if so, what was its nature?

No information on this subject is on record either in the Colonial Office or in the Departments which dealt with the administration of Palestine during the period referred to. The officer administering the Govern- ment of Palestine has been instructed to ascertain the facts and report them to, me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give particulars next Tuesday in the Debate?

I hope I shall have the information by then.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the introduction of electric light into Bethlehem is a glaring piece of vandalism?

I think that if my hon. Friend visited the Holy Land he would, see a great many glaring pieces of vandalism, which are not half so scientific or beneficial as the introduction of electric light.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the cause of the murders of Captain Bond and Captain Makant in South Kurdistan on 18th June; whether these murders are associated with that of Lieutenant Mott, killed at Halabja in South Kurdistan on 1st June, the death of Flight-Lieutenant Hudson in Iraq on 6th June, and the death in action of Captain Fitzgibbon in January last; and whether there is any change in the general attitude of the South Kurds since they showed their loyalty to the British Government during the Iraq rebellion in 1920?

The hon. and gallant Member has no doubt seen the Report which, after being communicated to the relatives of Captain Bond and Captain Makant, was published in the Press this morning. The murder of these two gallant officers was due to an act of individual treachery on the part of a local frontier chief. I greatly deplore their loss; but I am assured by Sir Percy Cox that no political significance need be attached to the incident; that it is not connected in any way with the other occurrences mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. There has been no change in the general attitude of the Southern Kurds.

What steps are being taken to arrest the said chief who is reputed to have done this act, and is it possible to arrest him?

Troops are moving; both cavalry and infantry are operating in the district, the Air Force is recon-noitring in the air, and we hope to bring the authors of this disgustingly treacherous breach of a parley to which these officers had been bidden to summary punishment and execution in the shortest possible time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no connection between that and the quite similar murder of an officer only a fortnight before?

I am advised that there is no serious political significance to be attached to this incident. Of course, there is a considerable amount of uncertainty and unrest in regard to these very turbulent Kurdish frontier troops. Everyone who has to come in touch with them runs considerable risk.

Is it not a fact that during the Arab rebellion of 1920 there was no difficulty, no disturbance, and no turbulence in the whole of South Kurdistan?

I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman is anxious to demonstrate that there is some much better political policy to pursue. He will have an opportunity in the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote.

Are not our officers exposed to these constant dangers in Kurdistan simply through the alteration in our policy by the landing of the Greeks in Asia Minor?

That cannot be argued now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it has been decided to curtail the period of summer time for the future; and if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that this would cause among the very large urban populations in the country?

As I stated in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Summer Time Bill, the Government are prepared to recommend some reduction of the period proposed in the Bill. That period was originally proposed in order to secure uniformity with France and Belgium, and was longer than the period recommended by the Home Office Committee in 1917. The extent of the reduction will be a matter for discussion in Committee and in the House. I am well aware of the strong feeling in favour of Summer Time which exists in the towns, as I am also aware of the feeling against it which exists in many rural areas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the overwhelming bulk of the population of this country lives in the large towns?

This Bill has gone to a Committee. The matter cannot now be argued.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the date when the Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories will be laid before Parliament?

The Report will be presented to-day.

Shall we be able to discuss the Factory Department of the Home Office Vote? Will the right hon. Gentleman put it down?

I am not sure when the Stationery Office will be able to publish the Report. It is presented to-day.

Is it not most unusual to have the Debate on the Home Office Vote before the Report, is in hon. Members' hands?

It was asked to he put, down in the usual way.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the Ministry of Labour's Report, the Government has caused an inquiry to be made into the conditions of employment of boys in scaling ships' boilers?

Yes, an inquiry was made, and I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer which I gave to him on this subject on 3rd August last. I regret that no opportunity has been found this Session for dealing with the matter by legislation, but it will not be lost sight of.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman introduce such a very non-contentious Measure during the present Session so as to redeem it from absolute sterility?

If the Noble Lord had as much correspondence about it as I have he would not say it was non-contentious.

asked the Home Secretary whether any steps have been taken by police authorities to remind members of police forces of their right to appeal to an independent person nominated, by the Secretary of State against the opinion of a police surgeon who may recommend their discharge from the force on medical grounds; and, if not, whether he will instruct police authorities to inform any constable whom it is proposed to retire on a medical certificate of his right of appeal under paragraph 2 of Statutory Rules and Orders No. 1450 made under Section 12 (8) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921?

In the Metropolitan Police the Rules have been published in Police Orders, and I have no doubt that police authorities generally have taken adequate steps to make the Rules known to members of their forces. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any information to the contrary I shall be glad to consider it.

Is it not a fact that complaints are received by men who have been discharged that they did not know of their right of appeal; and, if that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman see that instructions are given to the various police authorities that the men when they are discharged are notified that they have a right of appeal if they should so wish?

No, I have not heard of those cases. If I may be told of them, I will go into them.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement or give any figures to show the work actually carried out by the Naval Wing of the Royal Air Force during the past 12 months?

Beyond stating that I an satisfied with the progress which has been made in the development of aircraft co-operation with the Navy during the past 12 months, I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to make any detailed statement of the work performed, or to give any figures of the flights carried out.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the discussion on the Air Force Estimates he failed to give any item of information relating to the work of the Naval Air Service, and a wide impression exists that the power provided by the Air Ministry is not adequate for the work which that service has to do?

The "wide impression" is largely created by my Noble Friend. Next year I will do my best to make up for it.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is increasingly possible to substitute air forces for naval or military forces and thereby effect considerable economies, he will reconsider his decision and place the Air Minister on a footing in the Cabinet where air propositions will not be overruled by naval and military arguments put forward without a proper consideration of the air side of the question?

I have nothing to add to my answer of the 22nd June. I do not accept the allegation in the last part of the hon. Member's question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the rise in the price of Argentine beef since the end of 1921 has been greater than the normal seasonal rise; and, seeing that there is reason to suppose that this rise is due to the operation of the American meat trust does he propose to take any action to safeguard British consumers?

Up to the middle of June the rise in prices of Argentine beef was not much greater than the ordinary seasonal increase. In the third week of June, however, there was a sharp rise in wholesale prices both of Argentine chilled beef and of Scotch beef. My right hon. Friend has no knowledge that meat prices have been manipulated by any particular interest, but he will be grateful if the hon. Member will furnish him with any precise information of such manœuvres.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the sum total values of the exports of alcoholic beverages to the United States of America, Canada, Mexico, and the West Indies, from what was the United Kingdom in 1913 and in 1920?

The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to give the reply. The answer involves a statement of figures which, with the approval of the House, my right hon.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) when he will introduce the conventions and recommendations arising out of the last Labour Conference at Geneva for the consideration of the House;

(2) if he is yet in a position to say when he will submit to the House the recommendations and conventions arising out of the last International Labour Conference?

The conventions and recommendations of the last International Labour Conference at Geneva in October and November last are at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I am not in a position to make any definite statement at present.

Can I be told whether it will be introduced this Session, having regard to the fact that if it be not, it will be out of date?

That question, which involves Parliamentary time, ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Would it not be disgraceful if we did not fulfil our obligations under this Convention?

There is no intention not to fulfil our obligations.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Standing Committee on Rings, Trusts and Combines, which was officially stated to be investigating for the purpose of promised Government legislation, had a final meeting on 18th May, 1921, and unanimously passed a resolution that this inquiry should not be allowed to lapse; whether he is aware that the Committee served without remuneration, so that it could have continued investigations in spite of the lapse of Section 3 of the Profiteering Act; and whether the whole of the work of the Committee has been made available to the public?

This question has been referred to the President of the Board of Trade. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. No remuneration was paid to the members of the Committee, but after the expiration of the Profiteering Acts no powers remained under which the production of evidence could be compelled. All the results of the Standing Committee's work have been made available to the public so far as was compatible with the provisions of the Acts regarding confidential evidence.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it was officially stated on 20th June, 1920, that the reason for the delay in introducing legislation dealing with trusts and combines was that the Committee was still investigating and, on 22nd November, 1920, that the Government proposals would be based upon the recommendations of the Committee appointed in 1918 and which reported in 1919; whether the Government have now come to the end of the period of consideration; and, if so, when the promised Bill will be introduced?

This question also has been referred to the President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend is aware of the statement made on the 22nd November, 1920, but he is unable to identify the first answer referred to. With regard to the last two parts of the question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him by the Leader of the House on the 15th February last.

asked the Prime Minister whether the question of the creation of a Ministry of Defence has yet been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence; whether a Sub-committee has been appointed to investigate this matter; if so, what is the composition of this Committee; and when is it anticipated that a decision will be arrived at?

The question of the creation of a Ministry of Defence has been referred to the Standing Defence Sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which will consider it at an early date.

Can the Prime Minister say when that Committee is likely to report?

I cannot say at the moment, but I will make inquiries, and let my right hon. Friend know.

I will put down another question.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that following an inspection by his Department of the venereal diseases clinic at Dewsbury, a recommendation has been made by the inspector that an irrigation but should be provided to ensure the service being efficiently carried out; whether, upon receipt of that Report, the, local authority has prepared plans and estimates for the erection of the building, and that his Department decline to admit any part of the cost to be made available for purposes of Government, grant; that the infirmary hoard, upon whose premises the clinic has been established, have inti- mated that, unless the irrigation but is provided, the treatment of veneral disease upon their institution must terminate; and whether, having regard to the fact that the existing machinery of administration has received the approval of his Department from its inception, he will make the necessary extension available for the grant and allow the work to proceed?

The recommendation made by my Department was that the present facilities for irrigation at this clinic should be improved, but not that a separate but should necessarily be provided. My Department have not refused to admit part of the expenditure for grant. Plans and particulars of the proposed but have been submitted, and are under consideration. Grant will be available in aid of the approved expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the disbanded Irish regiments are entitled to pensions, and what will be the aggregate value of such pensions to officers and men; whether efforts have been made to secure work for them or positions of trust, and if as a condition of granting such pensions they have been asked to take the oath of allegiance, whether steps have been taken to prevent any of them from joining the Irish Republican Army; and if any of them have been invited to join units of the British Army?

I might explain to my hon. and gallant Friend that the disbandment of these units does not involve the compulsory retirement or discharge of all the individuals composing them. The only officers who will be compulsorily retired prematurely are the officers who are retrenched as surplus to the general requirements of the Army, and the only soldiers who will be compulsorily discharged prematurely are the special short service men who are discharged under the terms of Army Order 181 of last month. Officers and soldiers of these categories will be compulsorily retired and discharged respectively throughout the Service as a whole, whether the units to which they belong are disbanded or not, and will receive the special compensation authorised by Army Orders 179 and 180. The remaining officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the disbanded units will be offered the option of continuing in the Service by transfer to other corps, and the non-commissioned officers and men who do not accept such transfer will receive the special compensation authorised by Army Order 180. I cannot at present give the figures asked for in the first and second parts of the question. As regards the third part of the question, steps to assist the retrenched officers to find work are under consideration. The answer to the fourth and fifth parts is in the negative and to the last part in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state how many Departmental lists of names to be recommended for honours are prepared on each of the bi-yearly occasions?

As has already been explained, all Departments are asked by me to submit their recommendations for my consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to the Departmental lists, there are any other lists submitted to him?

Oh, yes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are the people who present the other lists?

There are recommendations that come from every quarter. Every Prime Minister gets suggestions of names from every quarter.

Who suggested Mr. J. B. Robinson's name? Was it a Departmental suggestion?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the lists submitted by him, a description of the services performed by these gentlemen is appended to the list?

Certainly.

As this question is being discussed in the House of Lords, will the right hon. Gentleman say why we cannot discuss it here?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to a description of the services of the gentleman, the amount he has paid is also added?

Does the right hon. Gentleman receive lists of recommendations by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury or from any of the Party Whips?

Certainly. In that respect I follow the precedent established by other Prime Ministers. I have never departed from precedents in this respect. Recommendations certainly come from the Patronage Secretary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the request made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) for a discussion, so that the points that are now being raised in the House of Lords on this and other matters may be discussed in the House of Commons?

A question is to be put to me at the end of Questions on that point.

Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a point of order for your consideration. The following question has been refused at the Table, as I think you are aware:

"To ask the Prime Minister if he can give a definite assurance that no money or other consideration of money value has been paid, or passed either directly or indirectly, in connection with any of the honours recommended by the Prime Minister in announcing the list of honours on the 3rd of June this year."

Might I explain, Sir, before you answer on the point of Order as to the reason why this question has not been allowed to be put, that it has been carefully drafted so as not in any way to infringe or even suggest the infringement of the undoubted and unchallenged Royal prerogative in the bestowal of honours. I should be the last to do so. May I point out also for your consideration that it is not suggested in the question that any improper inducement has been offered to the Crown in any shape or form in the bestowal of honours. That again is unthinkable and would not on any account be suggested. I would also mention for your consideration that there have been Debates more than once in this House on this very question when a Motion has been put down and there has been a free discussion of recommendations made by the Prime Minister for the time being as to the bestowal of honours, and complaint has been made within the public knowledge that money has been subscribed to party funds in connection with recommendations made for the bestowal of honours. The intention of the question is to ensure that the advice offered to the Crown shall not be in any way influenced by money considerations offered to the Ministers, or for party funds.

I think I can best answer the hon. and gallant Member by quoting some of the rulings of my predecessor on this matter. I have gone into them carefully. On 21st February, 1907, a question similar to that of the hon. and gallant Member was tendered. Mr. Speaker Lowther declined to allow it to be put on the Notice Paper, on the ground that the Prime Minister had no responsibility to the House for any advice which he might tender to His Majesty respecting the distribution of honours.

Further, on 11th July, 1907, with regard to another question as to a Peerage then recently announced, Mr. Speaker Lowther said:

"A question cannot be asked of the Prime Minister as to his responsibility for any advice he might give to the Sovereign in the recommendation of honours."

Further, on 22nd January, 1908, the same ruling was referred to at Question Time in the House, when an hon. Member asked the Prime Minister, then the right hon Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), whether he would give an opportunity for discussing a Motion in the name of a certain hon. Member. The Prime Minister having answered in the negative, a question was put to Mr. Speaker Lowther to the following effect:

"Whether it is not the fact that it is the undoubted right of an hon. Member of this House to question the Prime Minister upon the advice given by him to the Sovereign in his capacity as Prime Minister upon any subject whatever."

Mr. Speaker Lowther then replied:

"It rather depends upon what meaning the hon. Member attaches to the word 'question.' If the hon. Member limits it to asking questions at Question time I say 'No.' If he means to extend it to criticism at the proper time, and raised in the proper way, I say 'Yes.' "

Further, on 17th March, 1920, Mr. Speaker Lowther refused to allow the matter to be discussed on the Report of Supply.

I cannot see my way to depart in any respect from these rulings of my predecessor. The hon. and gallant Member will see, I think, that the result of these rulings is that the matter may be raised on a Motion, but cannot be properly raised at Question Time, or in a Debate in Supply.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities at an early date for discussion of the subject, which is of great public interest.

May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the House can raise the question on the Prime Minister's salary? If this House vote a salary to the Prime Minister, surely it should have some control over his actions?

That is a question which has often been dealt with by my predecessor, and I think it is covered by two parts of the rulings which I have quoted.

I gather that the rulings of your predecessor are confined to questions of Supply, but they do not indicate that a Motion may not be made and a day given for discussion of this matter. In the circumstances, I hope that the Prime Minister will fix a day for debate.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is already a Motion on the Paper, supported by a hundred Members of his own party?

I am quite aware of what is on the Paper. With regard to time, I naturally consult those who have been making a forecast of the time at our disposal, and I am afraid that I have to give the same answer as I gave in reply to a previous request for more time, and that is that the time at our disposal is not merely very limited, but that we have already exceeded our anticipations as to the programme of the Session, and if there is any addition of business at all we shall have to sit very much later into August than we had hoped when we originally sketched our business for the Session. In addition to that, there is the anticipation that an Autumn Session may be necessary in order to deal with the Irish Constitution. All this is on the assumption that nothing new arises to demand the attention of the House. After the Debate yesterday, that is more than anyone would care to predict. It is not impossible—I hope it is not probable, and I sincerely trust it will not be the case—that the House may be called upon to take up some time in discussing the affairs of Ireland in connection with events in that country, perhaps, in the course of the next week or fortnight. In these circumstances it would be quite impossible for the Government to find time for any other Motions that have been demanded in respect to a great many matters and signed by a great many Members.

In view of the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out—no doubt, it is serious—cannot the Government see their way to set up a Committee of Inquiry of the kind, without any discussion? That will save the time of Parliament and will greatly pacify the public mind, which is much excited on this subject.

Considering that "Hansard" shows that this subject was debated under a Conservative administration, and that similar charges were made in 1886, and again against the Campbell-Bannerman administration and the Asquith administration, and once more is made now, does the right hon. Gentleman not think, as evidently the same principles prevail in all the parties when they are in power, that it is time the House of Commons had another chance of discussing this question?

I agree. I have heard at least one or two discussions on the subject in the time of previous administrations, but they were almost invariably under a Motion for which private Members had balloted. It was open to Members of the House to ballot for an opportunity to discuss this subject. I am by no means ruling out the possibility of discussion of that kind. As far as the Government are concerned, we have no objection in the least to a discussion. All I care for is that the same principles should apply to all administrations. You should not have one set of principles to apply to one administration and another set of principles in order to criticise another administration. Before F came to any decision with regard to an inquiry, I should like to know what the character of the inquiry is and how far it is to extend. It was thought that I had given a flippant answer when I said it was entirely a question of how far back you went. I did not mean in the least the origin of the peerage. What I meant to say was that we have simply followed the precedent of, at any rate, the last 30 or 40 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, if there is a discussion I shall be glad to say so and to prove it. What I want to know is how far back this inquiry is to extend? That is why I gave that answer to the question the other day.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the House is concerned with is not what happened in the past but to know whether we cannot in the future get rid of this detestable system?

Have any new circumstances arisen which call for an inquiry of this kind and the appointment of a Committee? According to the impression left by Members who have asked these questions, it has been the custom almost from time immemorial, for the Prime Minister to recommend certain people to His Majesty for honours. In my experience and recollection it has always been left to the unfettered judgment of the Prime Minister whom he recommends. If any hon. Member has a fault to find with any appointment which has been made it might be quite legitimate to raise that particular question, as it has been raised in another place. It seems to me however that the questions addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in this House were of a most general and undefined character. I think we ought to have something more definite before saying that there should be an inquiry.

Does not the Prime Minister think that all he has said—assuming it to be absolutely correct, as, of course, I assume it to be—shows the importance of having this subject inquired into, so that the public may really know what are the fixed principles which the right hon. Gentleman says exist in reference to this matter. Does not he think it is really doing a great deal of harm, not only to his Government, but to the whole belief of the country in the purity of public life, when these charges are constantly being made, that no efficient and proper reply should be made?

The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is not merely recently that this has been said. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) pointed out, these charges have been brought against Administrations for the last 40 years, and have been discussed in this House. The principles have been discussed in this House, and the House has repeatedly reaffirmed the present method. If the House wishes to depart from that method, then I agree it is within the competence of the House to make recommendations upon a proper Motion. It was open to the Members of the House to ballot for an opportunity for that purpose earlier in the year, and had there been a universal desire—had there been a desire on the part of the majority of Members—for a discussion upon the subject, it would have been easy for the Government, earlier in the Session, to find time for that purpose; but to ask that we should find time late in the Session, when we are overpressed with work, and when there are possibilities that we may be pressed even further with work—that, I do not think, is fair to those in charge of the business of the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean there will be no opportunity until the ballot next year?

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, if it is the intention of the House to have a discussion on this matter, it will be possible for you to rule that any hon. Member who has already taken an honour, will not take part in the discussion except to explain how he or his predecessor came to have the honour conferred on him?

I am afraid that would be a rather severe tax upon the Chair.