asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the number of officers now employed at the War Office exceeds the number employed before the War; if so, will he state the additional number now employed; and whether he will take steps to immediately reduce the number to the pre-War level at least in the interests of economy and efficiency.

Before the War there were 174 officers employed at the War Office. At present the number is 325, and it will be reduced by 1st April, 1923, to 297. The number is fixed with a view to the efficient performance of the work of the War Office and is subject to frequent and careful review in the interests of economy and efficiency. The present volume of business in the War Office, as measured by the average weekly influx of correspondence, is more than twice what it was before the War, and a staff no larger than the pre-War staff would not suffice to discharge it.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate a further reduction after the 1st April?

I have said that the matter is continually receiving attention, and as the liabilities left to us in liquidation of War claims are met, the staff is gradually reduced.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the reorganisation of the times of work at the War Office? Is he aware that there is very little work done there after half past four?

The conditions of work in the War Office are the same as the conditions in the Civil Service generally.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that it is now usual to arrest and bring to trial by court-martial men who deserted from the Army during the War; and if he will take action in the matter?

I am aware that, under the Army Act, men who deserted during the War are liable to arrest and trial by court-martial, but the normal practice when a case comes to notice is to discharge the soldier without resorting to trial and without withdrawing him from his civil employment. Trial is reserved for serious and special cases. If the hon. Member has any cases in mind which do not appear to be covered by this policy, the particulars—if he will supply them—will receive sympathetic consideration.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman had any talk with the Secretary of State about giving the men in question a free pardon, and, if so, will he tell the House what is the result of that conversation?

The Army-Council have considered this matter, and although they do not wish to proceed against the great majority of cases, they conceive it to be not in the public interest to give up the right of bringing men to court-martial in exceptional cases.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the War Office, through the Press, some time ago asked the men who were deserters to give their names and addresses for the purpose of completing the Army Records of men who served but who were deserters, and at the same time the War Office practically gave its word that if these men came forward they would not be dealt with, and will ho give a guarantee that that appeal will not be used against men for the purpose of arresting them?

That only bears out what I say, that in the vast majority of cases no legal proceedings are taken whatever.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that steps are being taken to alter the present method of employing a cartage contractor to deal with the transport of Army clothing; and whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent the passing to military units work at present done by civil labour?

I do not know what case the hon. Member has in mind, but I could not instruct any military authority to incur unnecessary expense in hiring civil transport when Army transport is available.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been made as to the issue of medals to the troops engaged in suppressing the Arab rebellion in Iraq in 1920; and is he aware that General Haldane, addressing the troops on the termination of hostilities, told them that they would receive medals for the campaign?

The matter is still under consideration, and no decision has been reached. In regard to the last part of the question, I understand from Sir Aylmer Haldane that he gave no such promise as is suggested.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of widows of ex-officers and men who died whilst serving His Majesty's forces during the War erected on war graves at their own expense memorial stones, prior to the Imperial War Graves Commission undertaking the supply and erection of such memorials; and whether any provision has been made whereby an equivalent refund or grant, including the cost of erection, may be authorised, after investigation, towards the cost of any memorial in lieu of the memorial since offered in such cases by the Commission?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the circumstances. The Imperial War Graves Commission have given consideration to the matter, but have not seen their way to make such a grant.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to accept any special case for consideration?

I am afraid that, once you make exceptions, it is impossible to draw the line, and notice was given as early as possible in the War, in 1916, that tombstones could not be put up in France. It has been very thoroughly considered, and I can hold out no promise of any change of policy.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the total amount of money spent, respectively, on completed and uncompleted locomotives at Woolwich; when the 50 completed locomotives were handed over to the Disposal Board for sale; what prospects are there of such sale; whether railway companies at home and abroad have been notified; and what is to happen to the 50 locomotives which are 70 per cent, completed?

I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first part of the question, I am advised that the 50 completed locomotives have involved an expenditure of £780,000 and the 50 uncompleted, £551,000. The date on which they were reported as available to the Disposal Board for sale is 6th September, 1921. The prospects of sale at present are not good. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the affirmative. It is not intended to complete the remaining 50 locomotives and the parts will be sold as they lie.

Do we understand that the 50 completed have not yet been sold?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea why it is impossible to sell these locomotives? Is there any cardinal defect in the Design?

I should be only too glad if the Noble Lord could sell them for us. There is not a very good market at present.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information as to the present number of schemes agreed upon with the Dominion Governments or private organisations under the Empire Settlement Act?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on this subject in the written answer printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 30th November.

Are the Colonial Office making every effort to get schemes submitted to them, and accelerating investigation?

I may inform my hon. Friend that I took the chair for the first time this morning at a meeting of the Overseas Settlement Committee, and I will certainly do all in my power to accelerate these schemes.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the existing conditions of unemployment in this country, the Government has under consideration any schemes for facilitating emigration to the Colonies; and whether the subject of emigration will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference?

The policy embodied in the Empire Settlement Act of this year should be regarded as a constructive plan for developing the resources of the Empire and for developing trade within the Empire, rather than as a means of dealing with the present abnormal unemployment in this country. Under this Act the Government are empowered to co-operate with the Governments of other parts of the Empire in schemes for granting State aid to suitable land settlers. Schemes for assisting passages under the Act have already been agreed upon with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of New Zealand. Schemes are also under negotiation for land settlement in several Australian States and in Ontario. It would be premature for me to make any statement at present upon the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the shortage of man-power in the Colonies, that facilitating emigration should be the central feature in developing the resources of the Empire?

I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend both in regard to the emigration of women and juveniles. The matter will be pressed, in every way possible, before the attention of the Imperial Economic Conference.

Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been directed to the speech of Earl Haig last Friday, and before any further emigration is recommended, will the matter there spoken of be looked into?

My attention has been called to the speech this morning, and a letter on the subject has been addressed to the High Commissioner for Australia. But I would point out that the remarks referred to emigration prior to the operations of the Empire Land Settlement Committee.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Overseas Settlement Committee has been re-appointed; whether the recent election has necessitated any changes in its personnel; and, if so, what changes have been or will be made?

The Overseas Settlement Committee is still performing the duties with which it was entrusted by the late Government. The only changes in personnel resulting from the recent election are those referred to in my reply of the 30th November.

Will the hon. Gentleman continue to have the assistance and co-operation of his predecessor who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty?

I hope so: on every possible occasion.

Is Labour likely to have further representation on this Committee?

The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) is the only Labour Member of the House on the Committee; if the party desires a further representative I shall be happy to consider it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the Overseas Settlement Act, immediate provision can be made to advance outfit money and arrange for the payment of the passage money for families now in this country who may be desirous of joining their husbands residing overseas within the British Empire, on similar lines to the work carried on in 1911, 1912, and 1913 by the Imperial Home Reunion Association of Canada?

Under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, the Secretary of State would be prepared to co-operate with the Overseas Governments concerned in agreed schemes for assistance with passages, initial allowances or otherwise, whether by grant or by loan as may be deemed expedient, to the families referred to, provided that the contribution of the Secretary of State did not exceed half the expenses of the scheme. At present, assistance towards passages only can be given under the Act to suitable persons in this country who intend to settle in Australia and New Zealand, but assisted passage agreements have not as yet been entered into with the other Dominions.

Will the hon. Gentleman simplify the machinery? Many wives are waiting to join their husbands; can they have immediate facilities for doing so?

I shall certainly look into that.

Can the families apply direct to the Overseas Department or have they to go to an organization?

They can apply direct.

How is it possible for families to go out?

Women and children are going out.

Is it possible that we who are members of boards of guardians in various parts of the country should have the opportunity of getting husbands repatriated from the Colonies, so that they may come and keep their families?

Why?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the 11 territorially elected members of the Ceylon Legislative Council have resigned in a body as a protest against the action of the Ceylon Government in forcing through the Council the scheme for increasing the salaries of officials by means of the officials' votes; that this salaries scheme will involve heavy additional taxation upon the people of Ceylon, and that the scheme was carried in council by 19 official votes against 18 unofficial; and whether he will reconsider the whole question?

I am aware that certain of the unofficial members of the Ceylon Legislative Council have resigned. The scheme for increasing the salaries of all grades of the Government service was carried in the Council by 19 votes to 18, the majority consisting of three elected and two nominated unofficial members and 14 official members. The additional taxation involved is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, by no means heavy, and the burden of taxation in Ceylon is very light in comparison with that in colonies of similar importance. The increase of official salaries was considered by the late Secretary of State to be essential, in view of the widespread discontent in all grades of the Government service; the Secretary of State has concurred in this view, and sees no reason to reconsider the matter.

Does this not make rather a farce of representative government in Ceylon; and may I ask whether the Secretary of State took into account the present acute depression in Ceylon?

I think that was taken into account; The decision was made before my Noble Friend assumed office. It would be quite impossible to go back upon it now.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can yet make a statement as to the franchise question in Kenya Colony? Or as to segregation of Indians in both Kenya and Uganda?

My predecessor has had a series of conferences with my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India on the more important questions affecting the problem of the Indians in Kenya Colony. On taking over, I have already had a further consultation with my Noble Friend at the India Office, and, as a result, further communications are being sent to the Government of Kenya forthwith. Until a reply has been received from the latter, I regret that I cannot make any further statement on the progress of the negotiations. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will endeavour to arrive at an early solution of this difficult problem. With regard to segregation in Uganda, I may add, with reference to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on the 24th May, that it has been decided to suspend the Kampala town planning scheme, as well as the other schemes of the kind, until a decision is reached on the general question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Proclamation has yet been issued in Hong Kong emancipating the mui tsai; and by what date it is anticipated that this system will be finally abolished?

A Proclamation has been recently issued by the Governor on the lines indicated in the statement made in the House by Mr. Churchill on the 21st March. It is expected that the local legislation necessary to secure the abolition of the mui tsai system will be enacted in the near future, and that the administrative machinery to implement it will be completed early in 1923.

Are not homes for these mui tsai who are emancipated being provided in Hong Kong, or what is being done to get them away from their servitude?

I am afraid I do not know that off-hand, but I will look into the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can announce the decision of the Government in regard to enlarged representative government in the British West Indies following upon the Report of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood)?

The observations of the Colonial Governments of Jamaica, Trinidad and the Windward Islands were asked for in regard to the Constitutional reforms proposed in the Report of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. No reply has as yet been received from the Government of Jamaica, but, in the case of Trinidad and the Windward Islands, replies have been received, which are now under consideration, or form the subject of further discussion with the Governors, and in regard to the three Windward Islands are nearing completion.

asked the Under-Secretary of Stale for the Colonies (1) what number of Chinese indentured labourers are already on the island of Nauru; what is the period of indenture; and how many women are accompanying the Chinese;

I am informed that approximately 80 Chinese mechanics and 490 Chinese labourers are employed in Nauru. They are not indentured, but after arrival invariably ask for agreements, though this is in no way compulsory. They usually engage for two years. There is a defined Chinese settlement but no compound, and Chinese are only restricted to their settlement at night. They are not accompanied by women.

I gather that the remarks which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary made on the Commission are not fully substantiated?

I do not know exactly to what remarks my hon. Friend refers. If the hon. Gentleman will look into the Official Report of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and the explanation given by the High Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Australia, I think the matter is very fully dealt with.

Is it a fact that these labourers were in compounds?

I understand that there are no compounds.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the difference between a confined area and a, compound?

The object of the confined area is that the Chinese shall live apart. They are confined in their settlement for social reasons at night. In the daytime they can go anywhere they like throughout the island.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to provide labour, other than Chinese, for the phosphate industry of Nauru?

Labour from the native races of the Pacific has always been employed in addition to Chinese at Nauru as far as possible. At present about 360 are employed. Recruiting in the Caroline Islands has ceased, but it has recently been possible to obtain Papuans.

Is there any supervision at all over the provision of this labour?

I understand supervision is in charge of the administrator of the island who is under the Commonwealth Government of Australia.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British Colonial officials in Hong Kong have made arrangements for the supply of Chinese indentured labour in Nauru and Samoa?

No, Sir; but the Government of Hong Kong has afforded the Government of New Zealand certain facilities as mentioned on pages 6 and 7 of Cmd. 919, and I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations in regard to the arrangements effected by the Government of New Zealand.

Is not the working of the industry of the whole island in the exclusive control of a commercial and private company?

No, I believe not. I believe the greater part of these plantations are still under the control I have named.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies under what Vote and heading or sub-heading was the sum of £167,000 for the new residency for the High Commissioner in Bagdad shown in the 1919 and/or later Estimates?

No specific provision for this service was made in Estimates prior to the 1922–23 passed last Session. The expenditure by the Iraq Government prior to 31st March, 1921, of about £60,000 on the residency was in effect refunded to them in the general Grant-in-Aid on account of the civil deficit in Iraq to 31st March, 1921, under sub-head J1 of the Middle Eastern Services Vote (Supplementary) for 1921–22. The sum of £91,656 0s. 11d. in respect of military expenditure in 1920–21 and 1921–22 has been repaid to the War Office, and will be found charged in the Appropriation Account of the Middle Eastern Services Vote for 1921–22. The balance of approximately £15,000 was expended by the Iraq Government in 1921, but no refund in cash to that Government is contemplated. The amount will be set off against sums due by the Iraq Government to His Majesty's Government.

Was this expenditure not sanctioned by the Government in 1919? How then was it that no specific provision was made in the 1919 Estimates for it?

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I am perfectly certain that in this case the Iraq accounts were divided between the India Office and the War Office, and until the Middle Eastern Services were set up, there was a great deal of confusion in these matters.

Was it actually hidden away in the War Office Estimates by the late Secretary of State for War?

Is it not a fact that when these Estimates were before this House in the last Parliament, we were told that the money was required for soldiers' barracks, and was it not in fact devoted to building this residence?

Evidently, as I informed the House the other day, £167,000 has been spent on this residence.