asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the appeal made to him by the sub-post masters for an increase in their remuneration to meet the increased cost of living; and will he state what he intends to do?

I have received no appeal from sub-postmasters for an increase in their remuneration on cost-of-living grounds. With regard to the representations made to me on behalf of the general body of civil servants, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford).

Is it not the case that since that time the cost of living has gone up five points, and when will the Chancellor give consideration to the claims which are being made? When will the point be reached at which he will consider the position?

Representations on the subject are made from time to time, but, as I have explained, the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that there has been an appeal to me by the sub-postmasters.

If everybody is to have his income made up to meet the increase in the cost of living, will the Chancellor say who is going to pay for the war?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the promotion of Civil Service conscientious objectors who were exempted from military service 1914 to 1918 on grounds of conscientious objection over the heads of ex-service men of relative seniority and of admitted Departmental merit; and whether, in view of the present war emergency and the need for the support of the whole community to the war effort, he will reconsider the policy of His Majesty's Government as announced in this House on 12th July, 1938?

As regards the first part of the Question, the selection of a particular individual for promotion is a matter for the head of the Department concerned, in the light of all the relevant circumstances. No preference is given over senior ex-service men of equal efficiency and I see no grounds for altering the decision conveyed by Treasury Circular of 10th September, 1929.

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not realise that this circular has completely altered the position, and that men who have not done their duty to their country have been promoted over the heads of the men who have done their duty?

My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that what he is referring to is a question that arose in an individual case 25 years ago, and I think the Treasury regulation was in the circumstances a reasonable one.