asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a proposal was recently made to the Treasury to transfer the Class 1 clerks in a certain department of the Admiralty from a salary scale of £150 rising to £500, to one of £200 rising to £600; if so, from what source he proposes to obtain the £700 necessary to give effect to this proposal, seeing that Parliament has been asked to sanction only the amount based on the lower scale of salaries; what additional duties these clerks have been called upon to do since the Navy Estimates were prepared to justify the additional salary; what is the average period of the service of each of the clerks referred to; how many of them are at present in receipt of special allowances, and of what value are those allowances; whether, prior to sanction being given to the increase of the salaries of these clerks, an application was received from the Class 1 clerks of the other departments of the Admiralty to be granted the same increase as their colleagues; whether such application was laid before him; and, if not, by whose authority was any distinction made between the Class 1 clerks in the various departments of the Admiralty?

My hon. Friend is not correct in his statement of the facts in this matter, which are as follows: On the application to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board of the initial scale of £200—£500 for junior Class I. clerks, the Admiralty immediately applied for the restoration in their secretariat of this scale which had existed prior to 1896. The sanction of the Treasury to this request was not obtained in time for its effect to be shown in the printed Estimates for 1911–12, but the financial result as regards the current year will be insignificant in comparison with the figure suggested in the question, and the covering approval of this House will, in the usual way, be sought in the Appropriation Bill. As the decision is a general one, covering the future as well as the present, there is no question of special treatment for the particular gentlemen referred to by ray hon. Friend. The allowances remain as stated in the Navy Estimates. The reply to the fifth part of the question is in the affirmative. The application was laid before the Treasury.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can expedite the procedure as to dealing with the various classes of workmen's petitions; and if he can now state when he will be able to give the Admiralty's reply to the petitions presented last year?

The last annual petitions are being dealt with as quickly as possible; it cannot yet be stated when the replies will be issued, but there will be no unnecessary delay, the present practice being to issue all the replies together.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the following firms who are executing contracts for the Admiralty at their works in Sheffield do not pay the standard rate of wage to the joiners and other workmen employed by them, viz.: John Brown and Company, Cammell, Laird, and Company, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxim; whether, with the object of enforcing the conditions contained in the Fair Wages Clause, he will make inquiry into the matter; and whether, when doing so, he will consult the representatives of the men as well as the representatives of the firms?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the second part in the affirmative if particulars of any alleged infringement are lodged with the Department in the usual manner; to the third part, the reply is in the affirmative dependent on any particulars that may be lodged showing that there appears to be a reasonable case for inquiry.

May I ask whether he has received any representations from local trade unions upon these rates of wages; and, secondly, if facts are put before him showing that the standard rate of wages is not paid on Government contracts will he order an inquiry to be made?

I cannot say with regard to the first part of the question, but with regard to the second, if the hon. Member will give me detailed particulars certainly I will inquire.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been directed to the statement made in debate in the Turkish Parliament on Saturday, 8th April, that the Turkish Government is obtaining from Messrs. Armstrong two "Dreadnoughts" without armament for £51 per ton, as against £63 per ton paid by the British Government for precisely the same type of ship; and if he will explain why this country should pay more than Turkey for such ships?

I must refer my hon. Friend to a reply I gave on 12th April to a starred question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, and to a reply I gave to an unstarred question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith on 18th April.

Did the hon. Gentleman inquire from Messrs. Armstrong's, as they are specifically mentioned?

No.

Will he do so?

No, I cannot do so on the facts stated.

asked what was the displacement of the first battleships of the "Dreadnought" type to be built within a contract period of two years; and what is the tonnage, actual or estimated, of the latest ships which are to be built within this period?

The first contract-built battleship of the "Dreadnought" type to be built under a contract period of two years was the "Superb," delivered on 24th May, 1909, with a displacement tonnage of 18,600 tons. The next contract-built ship coming within this category was the "Vanguard," delivered on 28th February, 1910, with a displacement tonnage of 19,250 tons. The displacement tonnage for the latest "Dreadnought" ships now building has not yet been published.

asked (1) the cost per ton of hull, armour for hull, and machinery, of the latest Admiralty "Dreadnought" delivered from contractors? And (2) if he will state, as nearly as his information allows, what is the cost per ton of the hull and machinery of "Dreadnoughts" built in Government yards and of "Dreadnoughts" built in private yards in this country?

I can only repeat the general answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 12th April respecting the average cost per ton of "Dreadnoughts," adding that, after full consideration, I am of opinion that it would not be desirable to furnish the detailed information asked for in the present question, as such information would tend to disclose the actual weights of armour and hull respectively in our latest ships.

Is not the information practically public as to how much is paid for ships' tonnage and armour?

No. We do give in the Estimates the aggregate cost of the armour and the hull and the aggregate weight of the armour and the hull, but if we gave the cost per ton of the armour and hull separately it would be possible by a simple mathmatical calculation to arrive at particulars with regard to the weight of the armour of the ships, which is not given.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, as nearly as he is able, the cost per ton of the total displacement of Government dockyard-built "Dreadnoughts" on the one hand, and contractor-built "Dreadnoughts" on the other?

For the "Dreadnoughts" already completed the following are the particulars asked:—

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those figures for the contract-built ships work out at about £7 per ton more than Turkey is paying, according to the figures given in the Turkish Parliament?

I rather fancy my hon. Friend is referring to a statement as to the hull and machinery. I am referring to the total displacement.

Will the hon. Gentleman refer again to the report of the proceedings in the Turkish Parliament? He will there find figures for the total displacement, and those figures are considerably lower than we are paying in this country.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can communicate to the House any information concerning the armament and equipment of the German armoured cruiser "Goeben"?

The answer is in the negative.

asked if the officials of the Labour Exchanges took any steps to induce the registrars to employ as Census enumerators suitable unemployed men who were registered on the books of the exchanges; and if any such persons were actually found employment in connection with Census work?

The services of the Labour Exchanges were offered at an early stage in connection with the engagement of Census enumerators, and I understand that some unemployed persons were engaged as enumerators through the medium of the exchanges.

Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to give any figures as to the number of persons engaged through the medium of the exchanges?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he issued any instructions to the local officials who had the appointment of the Census enumerators that they should, as far as possible, use the Labour Exchanges for that purpose; and will he give the reason why schoolmasters, clerks, shopkeepers, and others in full employment were given this work, while qualified men out of work, registered at the Labour Exchanges, were ignored?

I may refer the hon. Member generally to the reply I gave on 13th February last to the hon. Member for West Leeds. I may add that one difficulty in the way of engaging unemployed men from the Labour Exchanges, as suggested in the question, lay in the fact that the enumerators had to be engaged some weeks before the Census Day. A man looking for work in February might not always be in a position to pledge himself to accept a job of only two or three days' duration at a particular date in April, and it was essential that there should be no risk of the selected men not being available when the Census had to be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, considering the necessity of protecting the breeding ground of fish in our inshore waters in order that our food supplies be maintained and employment provided for our fishing population, he would propose a revision of the North Sea Convention of 1882, so that the bays and firths round our coast be closed to trawlers and an extension be made of our territorial waters?

I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Montrose Burghs on 13th February last.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Clause 8 of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, providing that certain articles, the produce or manufacture of Japan, shall be free of duty on importation into the United Kingdom, would prevent the United Kingdom from imposing such duties for revenue purposes within eighteen months from the date of the treaty and thereafter, until the required six months' notice of the abrogation of the clause had expired; whether there was any recent precedent for such a restriction of the fiscal freedom of the United Kingdom; whether he consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the desirability of including this clause in the Treaty; and at whose instance this stipulation was adopted?

As regards the first part of the question, the United Kingdom would be unable, under Article 8 of the Treaty, to impose duties on the articles mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule until at least twelve months after 17th July, 1911, the date on which the Treaty comes into force. After that date it becomes a question of negotiation with the Japanese Government. If they gave their assent duties might be imposed forthwith, but in the event of their refusal at least another twelve months would have to expire before duties could be imposed on the articles above mentioned. There is no recent precedent for such an arrangement, but great care has been taken to preserve fiscal freedom. As regards the rest of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch on 11th April last.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Dominion, Colony, or Possession of the United Kingdom adhering to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, under Article 27 of that Treaty, must adhere to the tariff schedules in that Treaty; whether they must admit the goods enumerated in Part II. free of duty into such Dominion, Colony, or Possession; and whether there was reason to believe that any Dominion, Colony, or Possession desired to adhere to the Treaty on those terms?

Any Dominion, Colony, or Possession adhering to the Treaty under Article 27 would be entitled to the advantages of Part I of the Tariff Schedule thereto by virtue of the most-favoured-nation Article of the Treaty, but would not be under the necessity of admitting the articles specified in Part II. of that Schedule free of duty, since Article 8 is specifically confined to the United Kingdom. No notification has as yet been received of the intention of any Dominion, Colony, or Possession to adhere to the Treaty.

asked whether the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions were informed of the negotiations which were taking place for the conclusion of the Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and Japan; whether the responsible Government of any such Dominion was consulted as to the provisions of the Treaty or the schedules to that Treaty; and, if so, what was the character of such representations, and what suggestions were made by such Dominion?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The communications which passed between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments during the course of the negotiations were necessarily confidential, and I can make no statement with regard to them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the articles enumerated in Part II. of the Schedule to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty are correctly described in the prefatory note as either materials for industry or specialities of Japanese manufacture; and whether these articles are in fact competitive goods which are used in substitution for other goods of British or foreign origin?

No doubt some of these articles may be used in substitution for other articles, but this does not affect the substantial accuracy of the published description.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at whose instance was Article 27 introduced into the Anglo-Japanese Treaty; and whether any precedent existed for an Article in this form, especially in respect of the permission for a colony, having once adhered, to withdraw without the denunciation of the Treaty?

The provisions of Article 27 are in a form which has been adopted in recent cases of commercial treaties. Precedents will be found in the Anglo-Roumanian Treaty of 1905, and the Anglo-Servian Treaty of 1907.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to the official statement of the United States Treasury as to the value of the goods on which duties are to be remitted, and the amount of duties to be remitted, on imports into the United States and Canada under the Reciprocity Agreement; whether, in fact, the statement showed that the value of the goods and the imports remitted were considerably greater on the part of the United States than of Canada; whether this success indicated that concessions were being made without equivalent reciprocal concessions; and whether, even on the United States interpretation, concessions corresponding to those free concessions should be extended to most-favoured-nation countries?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I would rather not discuss at present the argument contained in the last two parts of the question, which appear to me to deal with matters of opinion rather than of fact.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he could ex plain how it was that if the Holmes' circular was written for his guidance, it was not submitted to him; and whether the said circular was submitted to the Permanent Secretary of the Board before circulation?

The regular practice is that copies of all such memoranda are filed amongst my papers at the time when they are distributed amongst the Board's officers. This is done in order that they may be available for my use when occasion arises. In ordinary circumstances they are brought definitely to my notice at the time of distribution. The date of the distribution of the memorandum in question happened to be during the Spring Recess, when I was absent from London, and on the following day a great national bereavement occurred which absorbed much of the attention of Ministers, and as no question arose at the time for decision by me in connection with the subject to which the memorandum referred, it was filed amongst my papers instead of being forwarded to me, so that I did not see it until February of this year, as already stated. With regard to the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the numerous answers I have already given on the subject, and in particular to my reply to the hon. Member for Taunton on the 27th of last month.

Is it not a fact that this practice of issuing secret and confidential circulars dates entirely since the appointment of the present Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education?

I should like full notice of a question of that character. My present information is that the fact is not as stated by my hon. Friend. Communications of a confidential character have always passed between the Board and its servants. That must of necessity be the case in all Government Departments.

Do I understand correctly that the circular was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman personally before issue, and that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not peruse it before issue is not due to any fault on the part of the Permanent Secretary?

It was not submitted to me for perusal; I have not stated that at all.

Was it submitted to the Permanent Secretary before issue?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I gave very full answers on this matter. I have stated over and over again that the circular was printed and distributed under sanction given by the Permanent Secretary and with the concurrence of the author of the Memorandum.

asked what were the taxed costs payable to the successful litigants in the Swansea school case; what additional costs beyond the taxed costs would be thrown upon the successful parties, and by whom they would be defrayed; what had been the total expense of the whole proceedings; and what proportion of the total expense was incurred after the legal adviser whom the Board sent down to inquire had reported that it was not advisable to take such action?

I assume that the hon. Member intends to refer in the last part of his question to Mr. Hamilton's Report. With reference to the first, third, and last parts of the question I am informed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department that the precise figures have not yet been arrived at and, with reference to the second part, that there is no information available. I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers on this subject given by me on the 5th, 11th, and 12th of this month.

When will the right hon. Gentleman know how much the Board of Education has to pay?

I cannot say when the Treasury Department will have made up their figures. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question a little later on, I will try to supply him with the information.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether appointments to junior examinerships which had fallen vacant during his administration had been bestowed by him almost entirely on graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, to the exclusion of those officers of the Board who entered by means of open competition?

On the general question of the qualifications required for members of the higher staff of the Board of Education, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6th April to the hon. Member for Taunton. Within the limits set by the minutes referred to in the answer to that question I have selected, to the best of my ability the most suitable men at my disposal. These appointments have been made without reference to the question whether the individual candidates had, in fact, been educated at one or other of the two universities named, and had or had not entered by open competition. In fact, out of thirteen examiners appointed by me eleven had Oxford or Cambridge degrees, one had a Dublin degree, and one had no university degree. During the same period there have been three appointments from the second division to staff clerkships with supervisory and other important duties?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he had received a request from the Athlone (No. 2) Rural District Council that a mail car service should be established between Athlone and Curraghboy to replace the present foot service, which is regarded as very unsatisfactory, as the distance is nine miles; and whether he would have the matter inquired into, with a view to meeting the wishes of the people of the whole district, as expressed by the district council's resolution?

I have received the application, but I regret that I am unable to comply with it, as the alteration would necessitate considerable additional expense on a service which is already carried on at a loss. I cannot agree that the existing arrangements are unsatisfactory. The post arrives at Curraghboy at about 9.0 a.m., and leaves at about 5.0 p.m.

asked the Postmaster-General if he could state the reason why at the last three examinations for women clerkships in the Post Office the total number of vacancies announced was forty, whereas in 1908 at two examinations there-were 320 vacancies; would he state if the decrease was due, or in part due, to the action of the Post Office in reducing the staff of women clerks; and, if this were so, on what grounds was that being done?

In 1908 many additional duties in the Savings Bank were entrusted to women, and accordingly an exceptionally large number of women clerks had to be recruited. The number of appointments filled last year may now be regarded as normal, though fluctuations must constantly occur in the rate of vacancies in every class.

asked the Postmaster-General if he has considered the possibility of improving the perforation of stamps and postal cards?

Yes, Sir, and I have arranged for certain alterations which will, I think, be found to improve the perforation both of stamps and of letter cards.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he would consider the desirability of providing that upon Coronation Day working hours in post offices and rural sub-offices throughout the kingdom should be assimilated to those prevalent on Sundays, in order that many employés may not be debarred from taking part in the national rejoicings?

I have decided that on Coronation Day the postal and telegraphic arrangements throughout the United Kingdom shall be, generally speaking, as on Christmas Day and Good Friday in England. Post offices will be kept open to the public during the same hours as on Sundays, except that at offices not ordinarily open at all on Sundays attendance will be given from 8.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Coronation Day for the sale of stamps and registration of letters only. There will be one delivery both of letters and parcels, and one collection.

How does that affect Scotland?

The same arrangements will prevail in Scotland as on Christmas Day and Good Friday in England. They are similar to Sunday arrangements, with some slight difference.

asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of sorting clerks in the Edinburgh sorting office who have, during the last twenty years, been appointed to the position of postmaster; and if there is any rule regulating such promotions?

During the last twenty years one sorting clerk and telegraphist employed in the sorting office at Edinburgh has been appointed to the position of postmaster. There is no rule regulating appointments to postmaster-ships. Such appointments are open to all classes of Post Office servants, and it is the practice to select from the candidates on each occasion the most suitable officer for the vacant appointment.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the valuable food reports numbers 12 and 13, just issued, deal with the bleaching of flour and with the use of calcium sulphate, and do not deal with the question of the food value of various flours as distinguished from the qualities chiefly regarded by millers and bakers; and if he will cause to be prepared, as early as possible, an authoritative report on the subject of flour manufacture solely from the point of view of the production of flour of the highest possible food value?

A report on the nutritive values of flour is in preparation and will shortly be issued.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that information will be issued?

Not before the report is ready.

asked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether, in view of Dr. J. M. Hamill's report on the effects to health of the bleaching of flour, and of the fact that after bleaching the same amount of flour will make more loaves of bread without increasing the nourishment, he can see his way, in the interests of consumers, and especially of the working classes, to prohibit the practice of bleaching flour? and (2), whether, in view of the fact that calcium sulphate used in the manufacture of bread is the same as plaster of paris, he can see his way to prohibit this article from being used to make bread in the future?

In reply to these questions, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to several questions on the same subject on the 10th instant. As I then stated, I am of opinion that some little time must be allowed for the consideration of the questions arising out of the recently issued reports.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that plaster of paris is used to poison rats, and should not, therefore, be allowed as food for His Majesty's subjects?

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me when that further report to the public is likely to be issued?

I am hopeful that the report may be ready in a fortnight's time.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the reports of the inspectors appointed by the Board to hold local inquiries in regard to appeals against closing and demolition orders are treated by the Board as confidential and not open to the inspection of the appellant, and in view of the fact that at present there is no appeal from the decisions of the Board to any court of law, he will be prepared to support or initiate legislation allowing an appeal to the High Court of Justice?

I am not prepared to support or initiate legislation of the character referred to. So far as any question of law may arise in the course of an appeal to the Board under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, provision is made by the Act under which the question may be required to be stated for the opinion of the High Court.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board, before revising or setting aside the report of an inspector appointed to hold a local inquiry in regard to appeals against closing or demolition orders, makes any independent inspection of the premises?

As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 27th March, the appeal is made to the Board, and the Board decide it after carefully considering the whole of the facts before them, and the hon. Member may assume with perfect safety that the Board will take any necessary steps to secure a knowledge of the facts.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state under what statutory or other authority the inspectors who hold local inquiries in regard to appeals against closing and demolition orders are appointed; whether their appointments are permanent or temporary; whether such appointments-cover other duties; whether they are paid by salary or by fees; whether any list is published giving the names of such inspectors; and, if not, what, if any, means exist of ascertaining their names and qualifications?

The inspectors were appointed under the Local Government Board Act, 1871, which governs generally the appointments to the staff of the Board; their appointments are permanent; they were appointed by way of addition to the staff of inspectors, and their employment in that capacity is not limited to cases of appeals under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909; they are paid by salary; the names of the inspectors added to the staff in consequence of the passing of that Act were given by me in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for East Marylebone on 19th April, 1910.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the acreage of the Crown lands in England let to agricultural tenants in holdings of fifty acres or less in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively; and what percentage such acreage bore to the 73,000 acres of English agricultural land belonging to the Crown?

The acreage of Crown lands in England let to agricultural tenants in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively, and the acreage of the land let for holdings of fifty acres or less in those years, with the percentages which the latter bore to the former, is as follows:—

Do the Commissioners communicate with the Small Holdings Commissioners in this matter?

I really cannot answer that without notice. It quite depends upon the circumstances of the case.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the complaints in the Press that the authorities of the British Museum refused to allow information concerning the Huth bequest to be made public except in one particular newspaper; if this partiality was shown with his knowledge and sanction; and, if not, whether he will issue to the responsible officials of the British Museum and of all other institutions supported out of public money directions similar to those recently issued to the director of the National Gallery?

I have had my attention called to the complaints referred to by the hon. Member, but I think that they are due to a misapprehension. The general policy pursued by the British Museum authorities is to send out official notification of any facts requiring to be made public to the Press through the recognised agencies, but to leave newspapers to make their own arrangements for special articles on subjects connected with the Museum. This is what was done in connection with the Huth Bequest. The original notification of the terms of Mr. Huth's will appeared in the Press generally. Detailed information with regard to the volumes acquired by the Museum was necessarily refused to all newspapers until certain doubtful points had been decided by the Court. After the decision on these points had been given, information was given to such newspapers as applied for it, and articles appeared simultaneously in "The Times," the "Daily News," and the "Glasgow Herald."

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question; whether he will issue similar instructions to those issued to the director of the National Gallery?

No, Sir; they do not appear to be necessary in this case.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is necessary to distinguish between newspapers in the way that was done in the case of the National Gallery and in this instance?

No, Sir; I have pointed out that there was no distinction made in this instance. All the papers were treated similarly.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give particulars of each of the schemes sanctioned by the Development Commissioners up to date?

The advance of £25,000 recommended by the Development Commissioners for purposes of forestry in Ireland is to be spent on purchasing several areas of vacant land in various parts of the country, on each of which a scheme of afforestation is to be carried out. The horse-breeding grant for Great Britain, amounting to about £45,000, provides, among other things, for the expenditure of £13,000 for the granting of premiums to stallions, of £10,000 for the encouragement of the keeping of brood mares, of £3,000 for free nominations for the service of mares by premium stallions, of £5,000 for the purchase of stallions, and of £5,000 for the registration of stallions. These figures are not absolutely fixed, because it was thought that experience might point to the desirability of some transfers between the different heads of expenditure. Of the grant of £10,000 sanctioned for horse-breeding in Ireland, two-fifths are for the registration and purchase of stallions, two-fifths for service nominations to mares, and one-fifth for the encouragement of the keeping and breeding of better mares of the Irish draught type. The grants for horse-breeding are designed to cover one year's operations, and are open to renewal year by year. The advance of £13,500 to the Stonehaven Harbour Trustees is to provide for the deepening of the harbour, by the removal of rocks, which seriously impair its value. A grant of some £9,000 has just been sanctioned by the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Commissioners, for agricultural research and investigation in England and Wales. This grant is an interim one for the present financial year, pending the settlement of a comprehensive scheme which, I understand, is now being discussed.

asked whether an application from the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee was forwarded to the Board by the Treasury in July, 1910, under the provisions of the Development Act, for consideration and report; whether the Board have yet made their report; and, if so, what was the date on which it was forwarded by the Board to the Development Commission?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The recommendation to be made by the Board with regard to it depends upon the arrangements made for the development and improvement of our fisheries generally, a question which is still under the Board's consideration.

Am I to understand that the Board have had this application before them for nine months, and have not yet made a report upon it?

As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, we cannot make piecemeal reports; we must deal with the whole fisheries question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Development Commissioners are arranging to distribute this money without waiting for the Board of Agriculture?

I do not think (hat is at all likely.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when it is proposed to issue the reports of the Departmental Committees upon swine fever and upon international trade in pedigree live stock; and whether such issue will be made before the Vote for the Board of Agriculture is discussed in this House?

The reports will be presented to Parliament. I am unable to say whether they will be issued before the Vote for the Board is taken, as I do not know when that Vole will be taken.

asked the Lord Advocate whether, with a view to meeting the claims of male assistant teachers in Scottish voluntary schools, steps wilt be taken to make the State's contribution to the pension fund uniform or to grade it according to service and status of such teachers; to make the minimum retiring or disablement allowance £2 per annum for each recorded year of service; to arrange that school boards pay the teachers' contribution to the pension fund for all teachers within their areas, where any contribution is made; and that such contributions as have been paid to the 1898 pension scheme be returned to the contributors without delay?

The answer with regard to all the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

Can the Lord Advocate say whether he has given any attention to the statement yesterday put forward on behalf of the assistants?

I have.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to a statement by Herr Eickoff, the German delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Brussels, that any earnest proposition for the limitation of armaments would be gladly considered in German official quarters, and that this statement was made with authority; and if he has any reason to believe that the German Government now takes a different view on the subject from that explained by him in the Naval Debate of 16th March. 1909, when he said that the German Government, replying in the most formal manner to British official representations as to a mutual reduction of naval expenditure, had more than once stated that German naval expenditure was governed solely by reference to German needs?

I have not seen the statement in question, but, of course, nothing said at the Inter-Parliamentary Union can supersede in authority statements made recently by the German Chancellor himself.

asked the Prime Minister whether ho has any official information to the effect that the British Ambassador at Washington, United States, America, has joined the Society or Order of Ancient Hibernians; and, if so, whether he will state what action, if any, he proposes to take?

I have no information at all from the Ambassador on the subject, and I do not consider it is worth inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the British Ambassador at Washington with a view to his contradicting officially the statement that appeared in the American Press that the British Ambassador was present at a largely attended banquet of the Ancient Order of Hibernians; that the British Ambassador's speech referring to Home Rule was rapturously applauded, and that he was elected a member of this Order?

I have already stated I do not think the matter is worth inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman circularise our Ambassadors abroad warning them against having anything to do with such disloyal societies?

No, sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it inadvisable for his Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to take cue side or the other?

I have the utmost confidence in our Ambassador at Washington, who is one of the most distinguished public servants in the State.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the Ancient Order of Hibernians is the extermination of the loyalist minority in Ireland?

asked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received a memorial from the Cockburn Association of Edinburgh regarding the insufficiency of the grant allowed for the upkeep of the Royal Park of Holyrood; and if he can state the terms of the reply sent to the association?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. No reply has as yet been sent beyond an acknowledgment; but on 30th March instructions were issued to suspend the work upon the roads pending the visit of the Secretary of the Department to Edinburgh at the end of this week.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give any indication as to the date on which the Budget statement would be made, in view of the effects which the prevailing uncertainty has on the business of those whose commodities and raw materials are subject to taxation annually imposed?

It is not yet possible to name a date for the Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his inability to state the number of persons who have returned schedules giving the amounts of their incomes liable for Super-tax, and the number of persons who are liable for payments of Super-tax for the financial year 1909–10, and the amount of Super-tax collectable for that period, is due to want of sufficient clerical assistance in the Treasury, or, if not due to this cause, to what cause it is due?

Owing to the delay in the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no final figures for the year 1909–10 are available as regards the Super-tax. Later on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position to consider to what extent information obtained in connection with that tax should be made public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to appoint a gentleman acquainted with London local government upon the Local Taxation Committee in view of the answer sent to him by the London County Council on this subject?

The answer is in the affirmative.

Will it be Mr. Harper?

I do not think the time has yet come to mention a particular name.

On what ground of public policy have the Government declined to appoint a gentleman best qualified by knowledge and experience to represent London interests in this matter?

I think it is for the Government to consider what person is best qualified to represent London.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been made in the negotiations for the purchase of the Jermyn estate, Castle Cove, county Kerry?

The Congested Districts Board have recently made an offer for the estate referred to, which is at present under consideration by the owner.

asked whether the agent of the Fuller estate, Cappagh, near Cahirciveen, interviewed some of the tenants on 23rd March and undertook to communicate with the landlord with a view to the sale of the property; and can he state what action has been taken by the Congested Districts Board to complete negotiations with the landlord of this estate?

The Congested Districts Board have no knowledge of the interview referred to. Communications have been addressed to the owner by the Board, but no definite reply has yet been received as to whether he will negotiate with them for the sale of his estate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the annual training of the York and Durham Infantry Brigade has been fixed to take place at Haltwhistle, Northumberland, from 18th June to 2nd July; and whether, as such an arrangement will deprive many of the men of the full enjoyment of the national holiday on the occasion of the King's Coronation, and a" the absence of the troops from local centres on that day will cause disappointment, he will consider the desirability of an alteration of the date?

The training of this brigade has been fixed as stated. The place and dates are those recommended by the general officer commanding-in-chief, Northern Command, after full consideration of all the circumstances, and it is not therefore considered desirable to make any alteration.

asked by what authority the view is entertained at the War Office that there is no difference in the nutritive value of home-killed and imported chilled meat as supplied under contract for the troops; and whether, in view of the allegation that the Swift Meat Company and other American firms previously extract by machinery the juice of the meat for conversion into bovril and other soups, he would cause analyses to be made from time to time of such imported meat, in order to ascertain the actual and relative amount of nitrogenous and other nutritive matter contained in it?

The view entertained at the War Office is based on a report of a scientific investigation by Samuel Rideal, Doctor of Science, London, published in 1907. The extraction of juices from the meat previous to refrigeration is a process of which there is no knowledge in the War Office, and I am informed that if such process did take place the carcase would bear such signs of it as to render detection certain on ordinary inspection.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from our Ambassador at Washington if there is any additional information to that already possessed at the War Office?

I think we have all the information. I do not think the practice referred to exists.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

I do not think it is necessary to inquire from our Ambassador at Washington on a technical point on which the experts probably are better informed. If the hon. Member wants to raise the whole question of the meat contract, I may say we are making inquiries in many directions, and have taken action in the last twenty-four hours. On the specific point the answer is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a vast difference between chilled and home-killed meat, and that there is no nutriment in chilled meat?

asked why the Infantry of the Special Reserve have had their annual training extended to twenty-seven days, whilst the Royal Garrison Artillery, the scientific and highly technical branch of the Service, have only fifteen days' annual training?

The question of the period of annual training for the Garrison Artillery is now under consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fifteen days' training is inconsiderable and insufficient?

I say the question is under consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question why the Infantry of the Special Reserve have had their training extended whilst the Artillery have only fifteen days?

I do not think I could go into the whole question of the training of the different branches of the Territorial Force at Question time without greatly inconveniencing other hon. Members who have questions on the Paper. It is a very technical matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any representation was made to him, before the visit paid by him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Dartmoor, that the case of David Davies required revision?

Yes, Sir, I had received a petition from the convict himself. I had had before me the facts of his history and of his latest offence, and I had already decided on his early release. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum I prepared some time ago in this case, which will give him the fullest information.

Was the right hon. Gentleman accompanied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th October at the time when he made the inquiry on the spot at Dartmoor?

No, Sir. I decided to review the sentence I think more than four months before I visited Dartmoor with the Chancellor.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he went into the case on the 24th October, when he was at Dartmoor, and, if so, will he ask the Chancellor to correct the misrepresentations he made as a result of that visit?

I will send the hon. Gentleman the Memorandum, which deals very fully with the whole of the proceedings for which I am responsible. With regard to what the hon. Member says about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not aware that any such misrepresentation exists.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the whole record of David Davies was before the Home Office authorities when he was sentenced to a term of preventive detention; if he examined that record before deciding to release him; and if he is now able to give to the House the promised information as to the movements of Davies since his release?

The Home Office is not concerned with a prisoner's record be fore he is sentenced. I examined Davies's record very carefully before deciding to release him. I am glad to say that nothing has come to my knowledge which confirms the opinion held in certain quarters that he was enticed away for a political purpose. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman for his question; but the case is now sub judice, and, in the interests of justice, I am sure the House will not wish further reference to be made to it at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what quarter was the opinion held that Davies had been enticed away for political purposes?

No, I do not propose to. It should be enough for the hon. Member that I have had evidence before me to the effect that the opinion was held in quarters competent to judge. I am bound to say that nothing has occurred to confirm that suspicion, at least, nothing has come to my notice. I take this opportunity of making a disclaimer which I am sure will put the hon. Gentleman and others who may have qualms of conscience at ease.

Was that opinion held by any responsible person except the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Yes, it was.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot now see his way to entirely withdraw the charge? I asked him a few days ago on behalf of my constituency to do so, and he then stated that the matter was sub judice. I ask him to entirely withdraw the charge if it has no foundation.

I can add nothing to what I have said in my answer, which, I think, should have the effect of setting hon. Members' minds at rest.

Whom does the right hon. Gentleman suspect of enticing this man away for political purposes?

It is always a very bad thing to harbour suspicions, and nothing could be more foolish than to state your suspicions after the original ground for them has been considerably modified.

Not withdrawn.

Will the right hon. Gentleman in future refrain from making such allegations?

I shall make no promise about the future.

asked whether it is permissible, under the existing regulations of the Home Department for pit ponies to foe worked for two shifts of eight or nine hours out of the twenty-four; and, if not, what steps are taken to prevent this being done?

There is no provision in the existing law as to the length of the shift for which animals may be worked; but it is the duty of the inspectors of mines to examine into the care and treatment of the animals used in a mine, and to report any cases of cruelty or neglect. The Royal Commission on Mines, in their third Report, recommend that it should be enacted that pit ponies shall not be overworked and shall have adequate periods of rest, but do not think it practicable to lay down any general rule prescribing the length of the shift.

Is there any present provision for these pit ponies obtaining water between their shifts?

I cannot answer that question without notice. The matter has been investigated by the Royal Commission, and action will be taken which has never been taken before to secure the proper treatment of these ponies.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has any official information showing that the German Government has expelled Mormon missionaries from any portion of German territory; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to expel and exclude Mormon missionaries from this country?

I have no official information on the point, but inquiries are being made through the Foreign Office. I am unable at present to make any statement as regards the second part of the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is public knowledge that the German Government did, six years ago, peremptorily expel Mormon missionaries from Germany on the grounds of their faith being against the interests of public morality; and is he aware that as late as last year the twelve apostles of Mormonism who went to Germany for purposes of propaganda were peremptorily expelled?

I have not yet made the inquiries which are necessary. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us as to the character of this propaganda.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that of the official estimate of 755 Chinese seamen who deserted or were paid off from vessels in the port of Liverpool during the year ending 31st March, 1911, many of these alleged seamen were really passengers and were entered on the ships' articles as members of the crew for purposes of expediency in evading the Aliens Act or economy in avoiding payment of the Suez Canal passenger dues by the owners or agents of these vessels; and will he say in how many instances the passage money from China has been prepaid by or on behalf of Chinese employers or agents located in Liverpool, and how many of these 755 Chinamen entered this country under in denture obligations similar in terms and conditions to those applying to Chinese labourers introduced into South Africa prior to 1906?

Inquiries are being made of the police, but I am not at present in possession of any facts supporting the suggestion that many of these seamen were really passengers. I have no information in regard to the latter part of the question. If the hon. Member has any definite information of specific evasions of the Aliens Act by the bringing in of alien immigrants as seamen, no doubt he will communicate it to me.

In view of the remarkable want of information in his department with regard to the Chinese, will the right hon. Gentleman take stops to see that the information at his disposal is kept up to date, as in the case of the Board of Trade; and if he thinks this is a desirable thing, will he consider the advisability of devoting more time to the affairs of the Home Department and less to the Parliament Bill?

I hope the hon. Member will not assume that there is any difference of opinion between us on the subject, either in regard to Mormons or Chinese.

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee) to remove the time limit of the Bill, and to make it perpetual is not in order, being outside the scope of the Bill.

I beg to move to leave out the words, "the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "reasonable prices."

I do not think we can accept this Amendment, if only for a technical reason, which I think will be apparent to the hon. Member on consideration. If he will look at Section 106, Sub-section (3), of the Act itself, he will see the prices for the time being authorised by Parliament must be paid. Parliament can only authorise prices by setting out in the Schedule, or in some other manner, the precise prices to obtain. It would, therefore, be impossible to adopt the words the hon. Member proposes. With regard to the actual prices paid, I should suppose the Committee would think it more desirable, and no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman would find it more convenient, to deal with particular points when we come to the Schedule. If that be not so, and if it is desired to pass the Schedule without discussion I can, of course, say a word upon the point now, but assuming that not to be the case it is not possible to accept the Amendment for the reason I have given. We must act on the price list authorised by Parliament.

The point raised by my hon. Friend is certainly not met by the Amendment; I should like to point out that the authorised prices are exceedingly small and under no circumstances can they be deemed to be remunerative to those to whom they are paid. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that, during the last twenty years, the cost; of articles has gone up. These prices have been fixed for a very long time and consequently they do require revision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some indication that this question is being considered at the War Office with a view to increasing the prices.

I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that 4d. is certainly not enough for a soldier's breakfast consisting of 4 ozs. of bacon, 6 ozs. bread, and a pint of tea, with milk and sugar. Why should the War Office punish publicans more than the Government have done? The Schedule may have done very well in the year 1846 when things were very much cheaper than they now are under Free Trade, but at the present time I can only say that the man who has to provide these things is out of pocket. That cannot be the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly the prices ought to be revised. I think we should have some statement that these items will be reconsidered, and that something will be done so that those who are compelled to supply the soldiers shall not actually lose thereby.

The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should discuss these prices when we reach the Schedule. I think it would be better to do so now, for we may never reach that Schedule. One of the most important points in the Army (Annual) Bill certainly ought not thus to escape discussion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will seriously contend that these prices are fair and just, not merely to the provider of the meals and accommodation, but also to the soldiers themselves. We may be told that there is no more money available for the purpose and that they have to do the best they can with what they have got. Probably the right hon. Gentleman cannot alter the prices, but he might at any rate give an undertaking to communicate with the Secretary for War with a view to these things being revised. Could not the list be made a little more elastic, so as to remove any injustice which may be proved to exist, and so also as to secure a little better accommodation for the soldiers themselves? Either the man who provides lodgings and food for the soldiers under this Schedule is bound to be out of pocket or else the soldiers will be given accommodation which we would not give to those confined in our public institutions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that there shall be further consideration on this matter before the Bill of next year is introduced.

I recognise the discretion with which hon. Gentlemen have approached this question. I may point out that this matter was fully considered at the time Mr. Buchanan was in office. He went into it very carefully four or five years ago, and some Amendments were then made. It is possible that, since then, there has been a rise in price of certain articles, but I cannot agree that that rise is due to the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt). I will represent what has been said to the Secretary of State, and I can undertake that we will keep a watchful eye on the Schedule, so as to give fair remuneration to the persons who are liable to billeting. When a great many soldiers are billeted in a town or village there is really very much less cost than in the case of an isolated traveller, and, of course, that fact is taken into account in the Schedule. I can only repeat that I will represent to the Secretary of State the wishes expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if there has been a rise in price since Mr. Buchanan revised the Schedule, any items thus affected shall be reconsidered.

This is a very old grievance, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to give it consideration. He must be aware that the difficulty has been accentuated by the action of the licensing magistrates who, for many years, have not permitted the publican to increase his accommodation, and have thereby put him to the expense of providing elsewhere in the town the accommodation which is required. Where there are places through which troops are constantly passing from camp the people, knowing the publicans to be at a great disadvantage, have charged them extremely high prices for the accommodation required.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the question of introducing a fuller maximum price because it is provided that the maximum is to be not more than the price laid down in this Schedule, and even if he thought the people were not being paid sufficient he could not under this Schedule pay them any more. Ho would not have the power to do so, and I would ask him whether he would consider the question of either bringing in new prices ill the next Army (Annual) Act or amending in this one the maximum prices that are laid down for the various provisions

I certainly want to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his Amendment, because I think the prices are too low. I think if the Under-Secretary will look at the prices which are put down here and then for a change go to a Rowton Home he will find that the prices at the latter are considerably higher than he wants to pay for billeting soldiers. It is quite possible that in very big centres he may be able to get the accommodation provided for these prices, but when you consider the case of billeting in out-of-way places, it will be found that it is impossible to get decent food at the prices which the Bill suggests. It means that the soldier gets an inferior quality of rations, as of course we may take it that the licensed victualler does not have the same advantage as the hon. Gentleman in supplying the Army, and he probably cannot get home meat, so that he would get very inferior foreign meat. The time when soldiers are on the march is a time when they ought to be well fed. You have in your Army a large number of boys in time of peace, and when a boy has a very heavy day behind him, and a very heavy day in front of him, he should be well nourished. If he is not the consequence is he starts marching and being unfit, falls out. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not think he has marched as far as I have, and I say that the result is that you have these boys falling out, and very likely they are laid up. I do not for one moment think that sentiment will move the official representatives of the War Office. They cannot afford to be sentimental, but have to be businesslike, or try to be so. If they are businesslike they will find out that it is greatly more expensive to have a soldier falling out, and having to be attended in a nursing home owing to insufficient food, than feeding him properly on a march.

I think perhaps I ought to have an understanding about this matter. If we are going to discuss it in such detail as the Noble Lord has discussed it, then we ought not to have another discussion on the Schedule. On the other hand, if we are to have a discussion on the Schedule, we ought to postpone this Debate until we arrive at that stage. If it is understood that we do not discuss the questions over again, I am content that the discussion should go on.

On the point of Order, Sir. There is an Amendment on the Paper in my name to the Schedule to leave out "Lodging," and insert "Orderly Room," and I would ask whether it would be in order to discuss that on the Schedule if the general discussion is taken now?

I cannot refuse an Amendment to the Schedule, but this particular Amendment we are discussing is to leave out "the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act," and insert "reasonable prices." Anything that we do now, unless we specifically decide to leave out the Schedule, will not interfere with the consideration of an Amendment to alter the language of the Schedule, but what I desire is that we should not be discussing the same matter twice. I am quite willing to meet the convenience of the Committee about it.

If matters are not discussed now I suppose they can be raised on the Schedule if we have not discussed them before.

On the point of Order, Sir, may I explain that before the Noble Lord and one or two other Gentlemen came into this House, it will be recollected that I suggested that we should take the general discussion on the Schedule, but I understood from hon. Members and the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that it would be more convenient to take the discussion now. I only rise to explain that to the hon. Gentlemen who were not in the House at the time.

I put down a very short Amendment on the question of oats, which I am interested in, and which I should like discussed on the Schedule.

The Noble Lord's Amendment would not be excluded by anything which takes place now.

It appears to some of ray hon. Friends and myself that we may never get to the Schedule, and as we may never come to that point, perhaps we had better discuss the question now. If you would allow us to do so, Sir, we should like to proceed in that manner.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to reconsider the Schedule, and he left over these matters for reconsideration. Of course, if that promise is carried out now for the purpose of this present Bill it might alter the views of the Committee whether it is more convenient to take the discussion now or on the report of the Schedule, when he has had time to look into the matter; if, however, his promise is only to affect some future Army Act it will probably be more convenient to take the discussion now.

I really want an understanding whether we are to discuss it further now in detail. I simply want that understanding so that we do not discuss it over again in detail when we arrive at the Schedule.

My hon. Friends around me and myself would like to give you an assurance that we would not discuss it on the Schedule when the time comes. I think it is fair for me to say that from what I hear from my hon. Friends. I should like to add my voice to the proposals that the maximum should be raised, and to the contention that the amount of money which is given for the food of these troops when on the march is not sufficient. It is evident that neither the soldier nor the licensed victualler is pleased at the amount of money which is paid for food. There are two reasons why it is unsatisfactory: first, that the licensed victualler cannot possibly do it at the price in a way to give himself satisfaction; and, secondly, the soldier cannot be pleased with the accommodation and food which the licensed victualler gives him for the price named. So neither of them is satisfied. That seems to me to be rather an incongruous and unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am in the position of being able to speak for both of them, because I am in the unhappy position of belonging to the licensed victuallers' trade, and in the more unhappy position of having been in the past a soldier and not being one now. I wish I could reverse the position, and he a soldier now instead of a licensed victualler, but unfortunately that is to be im- possible. I know we have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, and that it is simply a question of business with him, and that he has to do the best he can. But I hope he will see his way to raise this maximum, which is satisfactory neither to the licensed victualler nor to the soldier, who ought to be fed well, especially when he is young and is on the march with a hard day's work in front of him.

I am sure everyone on this side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, will be only too anxious to do all he can for the soldier and to raise this maximum if possible. I think he will give consideration to the arguments which have been used from this side, and which, I am sure, would be supported by hon. Members opposite if they could make the same use of the Debate that we can. A certain amount has been said about this being unfair on the licensed victualler. We do not want to do anything which is unfair to him. But the point which appeals to me is that under these conditions it is the soldier who will suffer, and if the soldier suffers you are making the Service more unpopular, making the conditions more uncomfortable and doing a very bad thing for recruiting. I know there are a great many publicans who have done their utmost in the past, and will no doubt in the future, in spite of these very low prices, do their utmost, even at a loss to themselves, to see that our soldiers are comfortable, and get all that they ought to have. I do not think it is fair that the State should put this burden on them. Every one knows that the right hon. Gentleman would be most anxious to meet this, and I am sure he will do his utmost, but I hope he will give us some assurance that this scale is not finally settled, but is liable to reconsideration, if not now, at any rate another year, so that we may feel that some result has been attained by raising this question.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how often these prices are revised—whether they are looked into every year or copied from year to year? I do not quite agree with some of my hon. Friends who ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until next year to revise these Schedules. I should like them to go into it directly and revise it before it comes to Report. It has been shown that these prices are very inadequate. The calculations of the War Office place the board and lodging of a horse per night exactly at 2d. less than the board and lodging of a man. I do not know on what basis that can be calculated, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a great deal has been said for the revision of the prices, and I hope he will assure us that he will go into the matter as soon as he has time, and bring up some revised prices before we come to the Report stage.

I quite agree that a good deal has been said which would lead us to be willing to go into the question of revising these prices, in particular the point raised by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) as to the prices paid in Rowton Houses. It is four years since this matter was revised, and I think it is about time it was revised again. It will not be desirable, from our point of view, to revise it before the Report stage, but I give the assurance that we will go into the matter and see whether it would not be reasonable to bring up alterations in the Schedule on the next occasion when the Act is revised. Personally I do not think there is much in the idea that the soldier suffers. I believe the licensed victuallers do the soldiers uncommonly well. It may be more than we are entitled to expect from them, but that is a matter which I pledge myself we will consider. I can assure the House from what I have learned about the matter that the soldiers are welcomed and are done well, and whether the remuneration to the victualler ought not to be slightly increased is a matter which we will consider, as we have been asked to.

I should like to ask whether there is really any probability of the prices being raised. Are we being put off with a mere excuse, or do we really understand that they are to be taken into consideration with any chance of their being raised. If not, my Friends and myself will go to a Division.