asked the-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention, in the event of the financial houses forming the body known as the six-Power group deciding to-renew their understanding or agreement at the end of the year, that the Foreign Office should continue to support that group in its action relative to the financing of China; or whether he will inform the English section of the six-Power group that they will not be supported by the Foreign Office to the detriment of other English financiers who may be willing to undertake Chinese business?

I am not aware that the agreement between the six-Power group is likely to lapse at the end of the year, but in any case the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter of Chinese loans has been clearly defined since the House met, and I have nothing to-add to the answers which I have already given on this subject. With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Member will be aware from the correspondence which has just been published that a condition of the support given by His Majesty's Government to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank was that the British group should be expanded. The promise of support to the six-Power group applied to the period of negotiation and issue of the reorganisation loan.

asked whether His Majesty's Government has official information from a Portuguese source to the effect that many of the slaves liberated from the Portuguese dependencies of San Thomé and Principe are frequently put ashore on the mainland, where they are left to starve; and that in the early part of this year fifty slaves died in the out skirts of Benguella from neglect and starvation?

My information with regard to labourers repatriated on the expiration of their contracts, is that the Governor-General of Angola is now doing all in his power to provide for them and find them work. He recently informed tho Acting British Consul at Loanda, who sees no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information, that of the hundreds of people repatriated to Benguella in the first six months of this year only seventeen died. They received medical attendance, and their death was in most cases due to the change of climate, although in a few cases it may have been due to general weakness as a result of lack of food.

asked whether the eleven Portuguese who, according to the admission of the Portuguese Government, were found guilty of acts of slave traffic were expelled from the Portuguese Colonies of West Africa, or whether they were only expelled from the provinces in which they had been engaged in the slave trade?

The hon. Member no doubt refers to the case of eleven Portuguese who were accused early last year of slave dealing and other crimes in the Portuguese Colony of Angola. The crime of slave dealing was not proved against them, but I understand that they were expelled from the Colony of Angola and not merely from a province of that Colony.

asked if any representation on behalf of Germany has been made to the Foreign Office with reference to Lord Roberts's speech on the 22nd October?

No representation has been made to us on behalf of Germany, and I should very much deprecate any suggestion that either Government should make official representations to the other about unwise or provocative speeches made in either Germany or Great Britain by persons who are no; in a position to control the policy of their respective Governments.

Having regard to the fact that Earl Roberts was Ambassador Extraordinary to tho Court of Berlin to announce the death of the late King and tho accession of the present one, and that the very highest distinction of the German Empire, the Order of the Black Eagle was conferred on him, should not some representation be made to the German Empire that his speech is not in accordance with—

The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is undesirable.

asked the Secretary for War if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Lord Roberts on 22nd October, in which he said that it is the present policy of Germany to attack this country as soon as her preparations are complete; and whether, in view of the friction such language creates between this country and Germany, he will take steps to prevent a representative of the British Army using such language concerning a friendly Power?

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether ha is aware that on 16th May, 1889, attention was directed by means of a question in the House, to remarks of a political character made by Viscount Wolseley in a speech delivered at Oxford in his private and not in his official capacity, and that Mr. Edward Stanhope, who was then Secretary for War in the Unionist Administration, stated that he was unable to defend Lord Wolseley's language and had so informed him; and whether a similar course has been or will be taken on this occasion in regard to the speech of Lord Roberts respecting a power on terms of amity with this country?

On a point of Order. Am I right in saying that questions of which private notice has been given are usually asked at the end of questions on the Paper?

This is supposed to arise out of the question on the Paper.

I have not received the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Swift MacNeill).

I sent a special messenger.

I spend a great deal of my time at the War Office—out of the House.

I sent it to the War Office.

I cannot verify the. accuracy or inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement. I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Roberts, who made these remarks, is still a high official of the British Army—a Field Marshal—and does he think those remarks are consistent, having regard to the Wolseley precedent?

Does the right hon. Gentleman acquiesce in acknowledging that such speeches are subversive of discipline, and set the worst example possible to the Army, and will he bring to the notice of the Field Marshal the stricture passed by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the answer he has just given.

As I have just said, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statement of my right hon. Friend, and I have no doubt whatever that the answer he has given will receive the fullest publicity, and will be read by all concerned.

Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty as Minister to take official notice of this gross breach of discipline, and will he, as Minister, bring it to the notice of Lord Roberts?

The hon. Member is only asking the same question, to which a reply has already been given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Shuja-ud-Dowleh assumed the Governorship of Tabriz on 2nd January of this year after the Russians were in control of the town; whether Mr. Shipley, the British Consul in Tabriz, reported this appointment with approval; whether he is aware that the Persian Government were repeatedly urged by the Russian Government to formally appoint Shiga to the position, but refused to do so, and subsequently appointed Sipahadar; and whether, having regard to the fact that Shuja-ud-Dowleh has been responsible for atrocities perpetrated on Persians known to be Nationalists, representations will be made to the Russian Government for his removal from the Governorship of Naraga and as acting-deputy to Sipahadar in Tabriz?

The first three parts of hon. Member's question do not quite correctly convey the facts to which he refers. He will find the Russian attitude and the views of Mr. Shipley towards the entry of Shuja-ed-Dowleh clearly indicated in No. 32 on page 9 of Command Paper 6264, and the Russian attitude towards his appointment in Nos. 200 and 208 of the same Paper, to which it may be added that the Russian Government subsequently acquiesced in the appointment of Sipahadar. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I explained our attitude in this matter to the hon. Member in my answer on the 22nd and can really add nothing further to it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount of the cash balances of the Government of India, irrespective of the sums belonging to the Gold Standard Reserve, held in England at the present time; and how they are employed?

The cash balances of the Government of India (irrespective of sums belonging to the Gold Standard Reserve) held in England on the evening of the 22nd instant were as follows:—

Will the hon. Gentleman say the names of the banks and firms who had the use of this money?

I have not got the information at the moment.I will get it.

Why does the hon. Member say "held in England," instead of "held in Great Britain"?

asked what profit, if any, from the coinage of new rupees has been available for addition to the Gold Standard Reserve since 31st March, 1912; what is the present amount of the reserve; and to what extent it is held in England in sterling securities and gold, respectively?

The amount added to the Gold Standard Reserve since 31st March, 1912, is £520,000. The reserve is now made up as follows:—

Did not the Commission recommend that the whole of the security should be held in gold, and to what extent have they depreciated during the last few years?

I cannot answer that without notice.

Is it in order in a question of this kind to say "England" when "Great Britain" is meant? England is a very offensive term.

I am sorry that the word "England" should offend the hon. Member.

asked if there has been any coinage of new rupees from purchased silver since 31st March, 1912; what, if any, purchases of silver have been made by or on behalf of the Government of India since that date and at what prices, and at what dates, and through what agencies or firms they have been made?

Thirty-one million, four hundred thousand new rupees have been coined from purchased silver since 31st March, 1912. The silver has been purchased through Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Co. It would not be in the public interest to state the amount at the present time; but the Secretary of State will be glad to-supply the information later if it is asked for.

Has silver ever before been purchased by the Government of India from the firm mentioned?

No, it has not. The Secretary of State had reason to believe that there was likely to be a speculative rise, and therefore decided that it would be in the public interest to employ a firm which had not been employed before.

Was not this bullion always purchased before by the Bank of England?

I cannot answer that without notice.

Has this coinage been minted in London or in India?

If the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I will inform him.

asked whether the fact has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for India that, while the pay of the engineers of the Public Works Department and of the police has been augmented in recent years, the pay of the East Indian Railway engineers, despite increased responsibility, remains what it was in the early days of the Indian railway system, while the pay of the subordinate staff of the Indian railways has been increased; and whether, having regard to the claims of the East Indian Railway engineers to a higher scale of pay in accordance with the arrangements made in this respect for the raising of the pay of officials in other departments, the Secretary of State will take steps to secure this concession and thus remove a grievance?

The salaries of these officers are fixed by the East India Railway Company, subject to the final sanction of the Railway Board. Questions relating to them have been recently considered by the Railway Board, who are of opinion that no increase is called for. The Secretary of State does not propose to take any action in the matter.

Was this increase refused because it might cause discontent in connection with private companies?

I have no knowledge that that is the case. The Secretary of State carefully considered the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the allowance for motors made to Yeomanry adjutants in the Western Command who are required to make a census of horses in their district; and how this allowance compares with the amount granted for the same purpose last year?

The allowance made is that laid down in paragraph 364A, 364B, and 364E, Allowance Regulations, according to the circumstances of the case. The allowance is the same as was granted under similar conditions last year.

asked whether In fantry officers who are adjutants of Territorial regiments and cyclist corps are employed in the duty of classification of horses for Army purposes; and whether there is any test of fitness to carry out this work?

The adjutants in question are employed on the classification of horses when the general officer commanding-in-chief considers that they have the necessary qualifications.

asked whether officers engaged in the work of classification of horses for Army purposes are periodically informed of any removals of horses from their districts; and, if not, what arrangements are made to prevent horses being classified in two or more districts; and whether owners of horses are compelled to part with their animals, if required, on mobilization?

Horses are classified once a year, and, as far as possible, in all counties at the same period of the year. Of the quotas allotted for mobilisation 25 per cent, extra numbers are included to cover such comparatively rare cases as those mentioned in the question. As regards the last part of the question the reply is in the affirmative.

asked whether considering the fact that twelve years has hitherto been the longest period fixed for promotion by length of service of lieutenants to the rank of captain, the Secretary for War will now take into consideration the question of fixing twelve years instead of thirteen as the period in which lieutenants in the Royal Garrison Artillery should be promoted, if otherwise qualified?

As I have already explained to the House, this is merely a temporary expedient to relieve the congestion amongst the subalterns in the Royal Garrison Artillery. It is not considered necessary to reduce this period of qualification in the direction suggested.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the period is likely to last?

I should not like to say that off-hand. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a specific question.

Is there any reason why this temporary expedient should not follow the previous precedent in the matter?

I do not know to what previous precedent the hon. and gallant Member refers, but it must have been a temporary expedient for relieving congestion in exceptional circumstances, namely, the South African war.

Will the Secretary for War also take into consideration the case of the Mounted Artillery, whose promotion is equally congested?

It is an unfortunate circumstance that there is this congestion. It is nobody's fault, and we are endeavouring to remedy it as best we can.

asked what total sum has been expended upon the purchase and renewal of furniture for officers' messes and officers' quarters, and what sum per annum has been received from officers as rent for such furniture since the system was commenced; what percentage of interest do the latter amounts show on the total outlay; and whether officers have to make good damage to such furniture by fair wear and tear?

There are no statistics readily available to show the total expenditure on purchase and renewal. The annual rent is, approximately, £22,000, and this is estimated to be, approximately, 2 percent, on the total capital outlay. Fair wear and tear is included in the rent, and for this officers are not charged.

asked if the Secretary for War will consider the advisability of allowing an employer of Territorial soldiers exemption from Income Tax on a certain amount of income for each employe he allows to go to camp for fifteen days, for instance, to exempt £10 of income for each employé who so attends?

The suggestion will receive consideration with other schemes which have been brought to my notice, but I would point out that the proposed bonus would operate unfairly as between employers who are liable to Income Tax and employers who are exempt.

asked how many representatives of the British Army have been officially appointed as military attaches to the combatants in Tureo-Balkan States, and to what arm of the Service do they belong?

Only those attaches who were already on the spot have been permitted by the various belligerent Powers to accompany the forces in the field.

Is it not possible to have present any officers who know something of Infantry and Cavalry?

It so happens that those who are there belong to the Artillery and other arms. It was a mere coincidence, but the facts are as I have explained.

asked whether it is proposed to proceed with the scheme for transferring the administrative department of the Southern Command from Salisbury to the village of Harnham, just outside the city; if so, what is the object of the proposed transfer; and what is the estimated cost both of the necessary buildings and of constructing a new road for direct access to the city from the proposed site across the intervening marshy' land and rivers?

It is proposed to proceed with the erection of a building for the offices of the Southern Command headquarters on a site near Harnham, purchased for the purpose. The present offices are in several separate buildings, held on lease, which are inconvenient and in many respects unsuitable. The cost of the buildings is estimated provisionally at £25,000. A new road for direct access to the city is not considered necessary.

asked the reason for the reduction, as from the 1st inst., of the pay of from ninety to a hundred men employed at the headquarters of the Southern Command?

There has been no reduction of pay. It has been decided, however, that the circumstances existing at Salisbury are no longer sufficiently exceptional to justify the continuance of a special rate of 1s. per diem ration allowance approved in 1901, and (his has been reduced to the usual rate of 6d. per diem.

Does the hon. Member realise that this reduction of ration allowance involves a loss to each private of 3s. 6d. per week out of a total of 11s. 8d., after paying for his lodging accommodation, and whether Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien himself has not protested against such reduction?

No; it was only a temporary increase under the special circumstances, but now the circumstances are ordinary again, the old rate has been brought into force.

asked whether anything has been done by his Department to give greater facilities for promotion from the ranks to commissioned positions in the Army; and, if so, what is the nature of his proposals?

The matter is engaging I the serious attention of myself and my advisers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any more hope than is to be gathered from his saying that he is considering a subject on which there have been debates during four or five years?

I realise that the matter demands urgent consideration, and I hope before very long to make some statement on the subject. I fully admit its importance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Admiralty in order to see if he cannot act with the tame celerity as they have acted?

T cannot admit that the Admiralty always act with great celerity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many appointments were made in connection with the Commissioners of Valuation Office in Ireland since the passing of the Finance Act; how many of these appointments were rendered necessary by the Finance Act; how many additional valuers are now engaged making valuations in Ireland under the provisions of this Act; and what is the amount expended on salaries in this Department at present as compared with the year 1909?

The answer to the first part of the question is 115, to the second 110, and to the third 25. With regard to the last part of the question the amount expended in salaries, wages and allowances of officers in 1911–12 was £38,837 as compared with £22,985 in 1909–10.

asked how the 292 valuers appointed for land valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, who do not hold certificates of the Surveyors' Institution or of the Auctioneers' Institute, were. selected; and how the distinction between those who had been appointed and were found unqualified from those who were found to be qualified was arrived at?

The 292 valuers referred to were in every case selected by the superintending valuer concerned, on, evidence of capacity obtained by interviews and written references from previous employers. No valuer so appointed has been found unqualified for the work which has been allotted to him.

asked the figures upon which it is estimated that the distribution of the Improvement Fund has resulted in a saving of fourpence in the pound on agricultural rates?

It is clear that the growing requirements of motor traffic would in any case have necessitated a large increase of expenditure on roads, and so far as Grants from the Road Improvement Fund will relieve the rural road authorities of this expenditure they will be a relief to agricultural rates. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave to Lord Morpeth on 15th June, 1909, he will see that my estimate that the benefit to agricultural landowners would be equivalent to a relief of fourpence in the pound on the rates included also the saving to be derived from the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act. On that basis the fourpence is an under estimate.

Has the right hon. Gentleman referred to his own speech, in' which he said the fourpence referred exclusively to the £600,000 for road improvements, on 9th June?

On 15th June, six days after the date the hon. Member has given, I made it perfectly clear. I included old age pensions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give figures to substantiate that?

There would be no difficulty in showing that there was a good deal more than fourpence.

May I take the answer to mean that he considers the local authorities are bound to maintain roads in suitable condition for motor traffic without any such Grant?

I did not express an opinion as to whether they are bound or not, but all I know is that before the Grant made by the Government an enormous sum of money was being expended in order to keep the roads fit for motor traffic.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the Commissioners have invariably demanded local expenditure before giving a Grant?

I agree. I think they demand something like half. But for this the whole of it would be borne by the local authorities.

Is it not the fact that they demand the expenditure of an equivalent amount?

That is what I say, and they are contributing half.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to appoint any further secret committees of inquiry into other sources of wealth besides that from land, seeing that land is not now the chief source of wealth in this country?

Before the question is answered, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a Committee of the nature described in the question is actually being formed now, and whether it will meet with his approval?

I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. T will refer the hon. Member (Mr. Lane-Fox) to the answer that I gave on 15th October to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham.

Is the reason for that answer that from his point of view the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the appointment of such a secret Committee is a gross blunder?

I really do not know what is the premiss on which the hon. Member draws that inference.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Land Union is prosecuting secret inquiries from directors of friendly societies?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information in his possession showing that the Land Union is carrying out a land inquiry on similar lines to that of his unofficial Committee?

I was referring, on the occasion that the hon. Member has in mind, to the secret investigation that the Land Union carries on into the methods of land valuation.

May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by secret inquiries into the methods of land valuation?

I mean investigation which is carried on privately, and I may remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman when I asked for the names in a certain case he refused to give them, and I followed the precedent since.

May I ask you, Sir, whether there is not some protection for hon. Members when a question is put, as a question was put the other day, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the reply is that it was a falsehood—that is the expression which was used?

The use of that word when applied to the statement of an hon. Member is out of order. When an hon. Member accuses a Minister of stating falsehoods he cannot claim the protection of the Chair.

On a point of Order. May I ask you whether that was not the exact expression used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in reference to the statement made by my hon. Friend behind me, the absolute statement that the statement was an utter falsehood.

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was here or not on that occasion, but the matter was dealt with at once by me, and it was shown clearly that the statement did not apply to the statement of the hon. Member for Warrington, but to a report in a newspaper from which he had quoted.

If I may add a word, I stated that I was not charging the hon. Gentleman with falsehood in the matter, but only the Press reports.

The matter was dealt with on the spot.

asked what has been the total amount received by the Road Board since its formation; how much of that amount has been promised in loans and grants; how much has been actually disbursed and how much remains in hand; and how much local authorities have had to spend as a condition of receiving assistance from the Board?

The total amount received by the Road Board since its formation up to the 30th September last (including interest on investments and loans) was £2,580,778, and the balance in hand in cash and investments was £2,081,779. The amount granted was £804,172 of which £408,053 has been paid in respect of work done, and the amount advanced on loan was £71,460. The additional amount which the Board have indicated their willingness to advance towards works, the details of which are still under discussion with highway authorities, was £1,514,700. The expenditure of local authorities on works towards which grants have been paid is estimated at £136,000. This expenditure was not incurred under the terms of conditions contained in grants, but represents the difference between the total expenditure of the highway authorities on road improvements and the grants made by the Road Board on the applications of these authorities.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that it has been his own practice and that of his predecessors to furnish the latest available figures of the yield of different branches of the revenue at any time during an Autumn Session, and that the yield of Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty up to 7th November, 1911, were stated by the Secretary to the Treasury on 14th November last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division; and whether he will now state the yield of Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, and Reversion Duty, respectively, for the first six months of the present financial year?

I must ask the hon, Member to refer to my answers to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Bark- ston Ash on the 27th February and 5th March last, respectively, in which the matter is fully explained.

May I ask whether it has not been the invariable practice to refuse any figures of revenue in the spring before the Budget lest they might anticipate the Budget statement, but when there is an Autumn Session, that it has been the invariable practice to give any figures that have been asked for as to the yield of the revenue?

That is not what I am informed by those who are in a better position to form an opinion on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question which he has not yet answered in any answer he has given, namely, was not an answer given on this point on 7th November, 1911, as mentioned in my question?

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, if he had taken the trouble to refer to the question which had been put by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, he would have found that was the exact point there, and on inquiry I reverted to the precedent which up to that had been invariably followed.

asked if Increment Duty on transfer of property by demise, or sale of properties purchased under the Land Purchase Act, in Ireland has been collected; and, if so, to what amount?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the deduction of £100 from the Parliamentary salary for 1912–13 in respect of expenses is a concession from himself or has been made in pursuance of Section 51 of the Act 16 and 17 Vict., c. 34, as stated on the official memorandum?

As I have repeatedly stated in answer to previous questions, the deduction was made by my instructions under Section 51 of the Act 16 and 17 Vict, cap. 34.

Is a uniform deduction of £100 considered in all the circumstances a fair compliance with the Statute?

I think so.

Then will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority the Income Tax Commissioners refuse to allow the same deduction in other cases?

That is a question the hon. Gentleman has put once before, and I can only repeat the answer I then gave.

May I ask whether what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks is better or the Statute is to prevail?

I have done what I consider my duty under the Statute. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with it, he has his remedy.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Lord Althorp, as leader of the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer, entered in September, 1831, a protest, in which he was supported by the House, against attempts in the House of Commons to make the Government responsible for statements made by Gentlemen who were not Members of the Cabinet, as contrary to the customs and usages of the House of Commons; and whether the Cabinet, in accordance with this position will decline to hold themselves responsible for the language of subordinate Members of the Government or to reply to Parliamentary interrogation or criticism in respect thereof?

On the occasion to which, I presume, the hon. and learned Member refers, Lord Althorp was disclaiming Cabinet responsibility for an expression of opinion (on a difficult point of constitutional law) which had been volunteered by a subordinate Member of the Government in the course of Debate. I think that each case must be judged by its own circumstances.

Would it be possible for Members of the present Government to arrange roughly among themselves the broad lines of their policy before they allow juniors to go chattering about the country?

Does the right hon. Gentleman admit the full responsibility of the Government for the utterances of Members of his own Cabinet?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has always exercised the greatest liberty of whatever Government he has been a Member?

May I ask for an answer to my question?

I cannot answer a question put in an abstract form. If the hon. Gentleman will give a concrete case I will consider it.

Was not Mr. Gladstone's attention directed to a speech of the Member for West Birmingham, and did he not say that it was none of his business to lecture his colleagues?