asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Regulations for drafting men for sea service in their turn are not adhered to; and will he take steps to ensure that, except for special reasons to be reported to the Admiralty, all men shall be drafted for sea service strictly in their turn?

So far as the exigencies of the Service permit, men are drafted strictly in their turn. Drafting is carried out under the personal supervision of the officers concerned and the Regulations give them discretion to select men out of their turn for special reasons. It is not proposed that such cases should be reported to the Admiralty.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that from March, 1905, to June, 1912, six clerks serving in the Royal Marine establishment in London have been promoted to the warrant rank of superintending clerk, and that during the like period only one has been promoted from the several divisions and depots; and whether he will consider if some step can be taken to ensure a larger share of promotion to those serving in divisions and depots?

The numbers are as stated, except that there were two promotions at the divisions during the period mentioned. The non-commissioned officers required for the General Staff, Royal Marines, at the Admiralty are selected from among the most capable and efficient non-commissioned officers of the several divisions of the corps, and their claims for advancement to warrant rank are carefully considered in common with others when vacancies occur, either in London or at the Royal Marine Divisions. On promotion to warrant rank they are usually retransferred to the divisions or to the Royal Marine Depot at Deal, as required.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Herbert Charles Day, of His Majesty's ship "Hearty," was tried on the 5th September, 1912, by court-martial for striking a lieutenant and sentenced to eight months' detention, and that his defence was that a private letter written to him by his mother had been opened by those in authority on the ship; will he say whether this was true; whether whilst under detention Day struck a chief petty officer, for which he was also tried and sentenced; whether, seeing that under the King's Regulations, Articles 761, the opening of the letter was wholly unauthorised, he will see his way to advise the remission of any part of the sentence remaining to be served, and in the circumstances of the case take steps to prevent the sentence recorded from militating against the man in regard to his pay and ultimate right to pension; and whether due steps have been taken to secure absolute privacy of all correspondence addressed to the men of His Majesty's Navy in the future?

Day was tried by Martial on the 5th September, 1912, on charges of: (1) and (2) improperly leaving ship; (3) willful disobedience of a lawful command of his superior officer; (4) striking his superior officer, a lieutenant. With regard to the third and fourth charges, the accused urged that a private letter written to him by his mother had been opened by the captain's order! The accused was found guilty on all four charges and was sentenced to eight months' detention. On the ground that the opening of the letter was not justifiable in the circumstances, the Admiralty directed that the sentence should be reduced to four months' detention. On the 1st October, Day was again tried by court-martial for striking a chief petty officer in the detention quarters at Chatham and was awarded nine months' detention, the two sentences to run consecutively. The Admiralty, however, directed that the second sentence should run concurrently with the first. The opening of the letter, though improper, cannot be accepted as a justification for striking a superior officer, and the Admiralty are not prepared to reduce still further the effect of the sentences awarded by the courts-martial. Steps are being taken to prevent the improper opening of private correspondence in future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to allow private letters to be opened?

Will the First Lord still consider whether something cannot be done to reduce the second sentence; and does he not think that the feeling of anger with which the man was probably possessed really accounted for the second offence which he committed while under detention?

I am not prepared to recommend any further exercise of clemency in this matter. Striking a superior officer is one of the gravest offences anyone can commit. Any complaint of improper treatment by an officer of a man can always be referred by the captain of a ship to the Admiralty. The man has a right to make such a complaint, and if he had made such a complaint it would have been investigated and the cause of it properly dealt with. There is no excuse whatever for behaving in such an extraordinary manner.

Is anything to be done to the man who opened the letter improperly?

That matter has been dealt with. I should like to have notice of any question on that.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the dormitories occupied by the cadets at Osborne, to the want of ventilation under the floors, absence of fireplace, large window space, and system of heating (with the result that the rooms are always either draughty or stuffy), and the construction of the walls; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to their sanitary condition?

The Departmental Committee on the education and training of cadets, midshipmen, and junior officers, in the course of their inquiries, paid special attention to the sanitary condition of Osborne College, and their Report is at present under the consideration of the Board.

asked, in view of the fact that in the spring of 1915 we shall have in home waters, including Gibraltar, only thirty-one completed ships of the "Dreadnought" type to Germany's twenty-three, this being equivalent to a superiority of 34.8 per cent. only, what measures are being taken to increase our superiority to the 60 per cent. regarded by the Admiralty as essential?

I have repeatedly stated that it is impossible to debate these matters by question and answer. It is much better to wait till the Estimates are presented in due course.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the question that Gibraltar is in home waters?

I think that my general answer really covers that point, as well as all the others included in that and similar questions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman call Gibraltar in home waters, when it has taken me, in a good ship, nearly five days to come from Gibraltar to Southampton?

No, Sir. The ships stationed at Gibraltar are available for the defence of home waters, and are considered among the resources we draw upon for that purpose.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman state in his own speech that it was three and a half days' sailing from the North Sea to Gibraltar?

All these questions of distances and the time it takes ships to traverse distances of sea water are very well-known, and can be verified by reference to any of the ordinary works.

Is it not a fact?

asked how many armoured ships of the pre "Dreadnought" era not launched more than fifteen years are now possessed by Great Britain and Germany, respectively, and what will be the corresponding figures in 1920?

The figures asked for by the hon. Member are as follows:—

January, 1913.
Great Britain—
Battleships	…	…	28
Armoured cruisers	…	…	34
Total	…	…	62
Germany—
Battleships	…	…	18
Armoured cruisers	…	…	8
Total	…	…	26
January, 1920.
Great Britain—
Battleships	…	…	2
Armoured cruisers	…	…	7
Total	…	…	9
Germany—
Battleships	…	…	4
Armoured cruisers	…	…	3
Total	…	…	7

The "Lord Nelsons" are not included in these figures. If they are added, the totals are sixty-four and eleven, respectively. I know no reason why a fifteen years' age limit should be any accurate or reasonable measure of the strength and efficiency of warships

asked what was the total increase in the personnel of the German navy made or provided for between 1904–5 and 1912–13; what further addition is provided for in the estimates for 1913–14; what increase has been provided for in the personnel of the British Navy since 1904–5; and what addition is it proposed to make in 1913–14?

The figures asked for by the hon. Member are as follows:—

Germany.
Voted in 1904–5	…	…	38,128
Voted in 1912–13	…	…	66,783
Increase	…	…	28,655

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it satisfactory that Germany should have added four times the number of men as Great Britain?

Yes, Sir. I do not see any reason to doubt that the provision which we have made and are making for the manning of the Fleet is not adequate to our needs, having regard to the relative progress of foreign navies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of men in the Navy last year was over 1,000?

I understood that the view held on the opposite benches was that it was between 5,000 and 20,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the statement of the numbers borne upon the Estimates last year the shortage was over 1,000?

The hon. Gentleman should give notice. The question does not directly arise.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a labourer at Chatham Dockyard who has received instant dismissal, it being alleged that he presented himself for work under the influence of drink; whether the man was discharged without being given an opportunity of being heard; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to allowing the man an opportunity of defending himself against the charge, and, if the circumstances have not warranted dismissal, re-instating him in his employment?

My hon. Friend no doubt refers to the case of a labourer who was refused admittance to the yard when going on night duty on 12th October last in consequence of being drunk. The case was subsequently investigated by the general foreman of works, and the man, who was present, made no request to see a superior officer. The man was given no opportunity of defending himself against the charge of drunkenness at the moment of his exclusion from the yard. I made inquiry when I was at Chatham at the end of October, and having regard to all the circumstances was satisfied that justice was done in this case.

Why was there a difference of treatment between the men who were concerned? One, I understand, is an engineer, and he was stopped temporarily, and this man was stopped altogether.

I do not know about the other case. I understand my hon. Friend says that on account of being drunk he was suspended for a week. I assume that the officers who adjudicated upon the cases were guided by the circumstances and the previous record of the men.

May I ask that the man who has been dismissed may have a chance to defend himself or to put his side of the case?

The case was investigated.

asked if the contribution of India to the Navy for the maintenance of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters is now fixed at the round sum of £100,000 per annum; and, if so, what relation does this sum bear to the cost of the construction and upkeep of the Navy at the present time?

The Government of India contribute a fixed sum of £100,000 annually for the maintenance of certain ships in Indian waters. The amount of this contribution is under consideration. A repayment is also received from Indian revenues for the services of ships temporarily employed in the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. The repayments for the latter service were £108,500 for 1911–12, and are estimated at £64,000 for 1912–13. As regards the latter part of the question, the contribution of £100,000 represents 221 per cent. of the net total of the Navy Estimates for 1912–13 (including the Supplementary Estimate), and 30–712 per cent. of the cost to the Admiralty of the East Indies Squadron.

Is not the proportion now considerably less than it was ten years ago, therefore the contribution is proportionately less compared with the total vote for the Navy in the last ten years?

I do not think I can go into that without proper notice. These things are considered from time to time, and, of course, we shall be very glad to receive money from any source.

Before any addition is made to the charge, will the people of India be consulted as would be the people of Canada or Australia?

I think that question should be addressed to the representative of the India Office.

Is not the account as regards India far more than balanced by her enormous contribution to the Army?

It is far from my wish to debate these general matters.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the pay of a leading seaman when afloat is 3s. 3d. a day whilst a coastguard of the same rating only receives 3s. 2d. a day, and has to find his own food out of his 3s. 2d. whilst the seaman afloat has his food free; and if he will consider the advisability of raising the pay of the coastguards, which was fixed about forty years ago and has not been raised since then notwithstanding the increase in the cost of provisions and living generally?

The pay of a leading seaman afloat at the new rates is 2s. 2d. to 2s. 4d., and the cost of his ration 10d., a total cost of 3s. to 3s. 2d. The pay of a leading boatman in the coastguard is 1s. 9d. a day, in addition to provision allowance of 1s. 4d., a total of 3s. 1d. Leading seamen can earn, in addition, from 3d. to 11d., or in a few cases 1s. 7d., for specialist gunnery duties, which do not fall on the coastguard. All leading boatmen (coastguard) receive 1d. a day for gunnery duties, and in many cases can earn from 2d. to 5d. a day for specialist signalling and wireless telegraphy duties. The coastguard are provided with quarters on shore for their families, whereas a married man in the Service afloat has to pay house rent. Both the seaman afloat and the coastguard receive good conduct pay up to a maximum of 3d. a day. As previously stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, it is not proposed to increase the pay of the coastguard.

Is it not a fact that the pay of coastguards was fixed about forty years ago, and that since then there has been no increase, whereas the price of food has greatly gone up?

I cannot say, but if a seaman afloat gets more than a coastguard he does special duties which the coastguard does not do. The coastguard, too, has a house and garden.

asked what was the naval standard of the present Government before the introduction in March last of the 60 per cent. superiority in ships of the "Dreadnought" class?

I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to the full statement made in this House by the Prime Minister on the 26th May, 1909.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me a definite answer to a question so straightly put as this?

asked at what date the Government adopted the policy of putting an end to naval rivalry between Germany and this country by proving that we cannot be overtaken in our programme of naval construction?

There does not appear to be any necessity for entering upon these general matters at Question Time.

The right hon. Gentleman made the statement before a very large audience at the Guildhall only last November. Does he, under these circumstances, consider that he cannot give me a reply in the House of Commons?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, having regard to the statement made in the memorandum on naval requirements, prepared by the Admiralty for the Government of Canada, that in the year 1909 eight capital ships were laid down in Great Britain, whereas only six capital ships were so laid down in that year, if he will take the necessary steps to correct this error?

The four contingent capital ships of the 1909–10 programme were all ordered on the 4th January, 1910, and work was begun on them at once, although their keel-plates were not actually laid until the new financial year had opened. The statement referred to means that in the financial year 1909–10 eight capital ships were sanctioned by Parliament, and their construction was begun. This is true and calls for no correction.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to a question put to him by an hon. Member opposite last week he made the statement that six ships only were laid down in the year 1909?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement as to the condition in which His Majesty's ship "Torch" and His Majesty's ship "Prometheus" were sent to sea whilst in commission on the Australian station in 1911?

The "Torch" was first commissioned on 14th January, 1897, and remained continuously in commission until 31st December, 1905, when she was ordered to be laid up at Sydney Dockyard as available for subsidiary purposes of war. On 6th September, 1910, the Commander-in-Chief was asked to report the general condition of the hull and machinery, etc., of the "Torch," and whether the vessel could be commissioned for service without general refit; if not, to state the rough approximate cost of refit. The reply was to the effect that the general condition of the ship was good, and that she was ready for commission at three weeks' notice without general refit. The cost of docking and painting and refitting the rigging was stated to be £354. Orders were therefore given on 4th January, 1911, to employ the "Torch" on work connected with the duties of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific in place of the "Pegasus," which was being paid off in March, and Commander E. C. Carver was appointed to her command. This officer arrived in April, 1911, and the ship was commissioned on 4th May, 1911. Instead, however, of only spending £354 the sum of £1,080 was spent, the difference between the two amounts being accredited to the "recent discovery of additional defects."

In the course of the repair the accessible parts of the hull and fittings were examined whilst the ship was in dock, and certain apparent defects were made good, and, according to the yard officers, all that was necessary for the ship's seaworthiness was done before she sailed in May, 1911. During the time which elapsed prior to the return of the "Torch" to Sydney in December, 1911, certain defects presented themselves, but nothing seriously affecting the seaworthiness of the ship made itself patent, and although the fracture of the main shaft and dropping of the screw-happened, it cannot be traced to any defect in the material. After the return of the "Torch" the Commander-in-Chief decided to have the ship thoroughly repaired, and she was accordingly docked in March, 1912, and a thorough examination of the hull was made by stripping off the sheathing outside and removing the cement inside. It was then found that the bottom plating under the boilers was badly worn, and it may be assumed that this state of things existed, at any rate partially, when the "Torch" was commissioned in May, 1911.

The Regulations prescribed that an examination of the cement coating on the inside surface of the bottom plating should be made, so far as it is accessible, on every occasion when a ship comes under repair in the yard, and that the ordinarily inaccessible positions should be examined periodically or whenever the ship is recommissioned. This is prescribed both by King's Regulations and Foreign Yard instructions. No such survey was held on the "Torch" between December, 1905, and March, 1912, and as the ship was not in commission at the time she was brought forward for refit, it appears that the Regulations governing the supply of the certificate of completion of defects did not apply in this case.

The state in which the "Torch" was found to be in March, 1912, showed that when she went to sea in May, 1911, she was not in a thoroughly seaworthy condition, and for this the captain in charge and officers of Sydney Dockyard were responsible. It is improbable that a Court of Inquiry would elicit more facts having an important bearing upon the case than the comprehensive report already furnished by the Commander-in-Chief, and I am advised after very full consideration that none of the officers concerned have actually committed such a breach of the regulations as would render them liable to disciplinary measures under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act.

In the opinion of the Board the deficiencies which have been revealed were due to a lamentable want of judgment and common sense, as well as to a lack of businesslike capacity. The captain of the dockyard will receive the severe censure of the Board of Admiralty for the lax administration of the establishment in his charge and will be informed that but for his recent relief, he would have been superseded in his appointment. The officers of the yard immediately concerned will also be informed that they have incurred their Lordships' serious displeasure for the unsatisfactory manner in which they have discharged their duties.

It may be added that the position of Sydney Dockyard is in a state of transition at the present time, and there is no reason to believe that similar laxity exists elsewhere. A full inquiry will be made into the manner in which the regulations are being carried out at the dockyards abroad with a view to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such an incident.

In making the foregoing statement I have confined myself entirely to the case of the "Torch." The circumstances attending the breakdown of the "Prometheus" on the voyage to Hong Kong have been the subject of a separate inquiry, as explained in my answer of the 18th of December, and were mainly due to a lack of supervision and defective organisation in the engineers' department of the ship. In so far as this ship is concerned, the breakdown in the machinery did not have a bearing upon the administration of the

As this is a very serious matter I will take an early opportunity of raising it on the Motion for Adjournment.

May I ask when the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing this instance of lax administration?

All the regular opportunities will arise in the course of the year, and these will serve as vehicles for discussion.

Is that to be postponed in favour of Home Rule and the gerrymandering of the Register?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will make friendly representations to the Liberian Govern- ment to the effect that risk to the health and prosperity of British possessions in the vicinity of Liberia, as well as to Liberia itself, is involved in the export of coolies to St. Thome and Principe, wherein sleeping sickness is believed to prevail?

Sleeping sickness is not believed to prevail at San Thome and, as the hon. Member was informed on 1st January, I have no reason to believe that Liberian natives are being recruited for Principe.

asked the Secretary of State for War, if he will consider the advisability of giving promotion to subalterns in the Royal Garrison Artillery after eleven years' service, having regard to the fact that this is the limit of time for promotion in the Royal Engineers?

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a question put on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division of Leicestershire on Tuesday, 29th October.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the undertaking which he gave in July last, that lieutenants in the Royal Garrison Artillery should be promoted to captains after thirteen years' service, has yet been given effect to by publication in general orders?

I considered that sufficient publicity was given by the question put by the hon. Gentleman and the answer made to him. Steps were, of course, taken at once to ensure that the undertaking given should be carried into effect when the first opportunity for promotion arose. The first promotion under the new rule falls due early in May.

Is there no intention to start to promote lieutenants before they have thirteen years' service?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the block of promotion was caused by a very large batch of officers being selected at the time of the South African war. We have done something to alleviate that matter, but I cannot undertake to go further at the present time.

What will be the length of service of the officers to be promoted in May?

If the hon. Member will refer to the answer, he will see that when they come to have thirteen years' service they are due for promotion.

Will it be fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years?

I cannot say without notice.

Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not put this branch of the Service on the same basis as the Royal Engineers?

Yes, Sir; there is a very real objection which I stated in the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

asked when the quarters for married officers which are now under construction at Tidworth are likely to be ready for occupation; what rent it is proposed to charge for them; and what percentage this rent will bear to the original cost?

These quarters will be ready in April. The rent to be charged is still under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the new machine gun mountings will be issued to the South Wales Infantry Brigade before the 1913 annual training?

This question is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether 22-bore rifles have been issued to Yeomanry regiments for miniature range work; whether these rifles have also been issued to Infantry regiments of the Territorial Force; and, if not, whether he will state why they have been issued to Yeomanry and not to Infantry regiments?

The Yeomanry have the 22 short rifle. The Territorial Infantry-have at present 22 tubes for use with 303 long rifles, but in due course will get 22 long rifles as the present tubes wear out. The Yeomanry were given the 22 rifles before the Infantry because the Yeomanry have short rifles and the stock of short 22 tubes for use with 303 short rifles had already been exhausted.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to commanding officers of Territorial battalions by having their adjutants detailed to take the present horse census that is being made; whether he has considered how far the efficiency of the battalions suffers by the adjutants being repeatedly employed on this census instead of attending to their regimental duties, and how long he has so employed them; and whether he proposes to continue it?

Qualified adjutants of Territorial Force units, as well as a number of Regular officers, were employed last winter and are being employed this winter in making a census of horses suitable for military purposes in certain defined districts. The size of these districts has been left to the discretion of the general officers commanding. Instructions were given that the employment of adjutants should not interfere with the performance of their other military duties. Adjutants will be continued on these duties. It is not considered that the efficiency of battalions suffers there from.

Do these adjutants get any extra pay for this extra work?

No, Sir, they do not get extra pay—at least I do not think there is any case where they get extra pay. Of course, we endeavour to see that they do not suffer financially in any way through performing the extra work.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that recruiting must suffer if adjutants are taken away at the period of the year when all the commanding officers are trying to do their best to promote recruiting.

In the instructions originally sent we impressed upon the general officers commanding-in-chief, that this duty should not interfere with the primary duty of the adjutants to battalions and regiments to which they are appointed. I believe that in all cases that is being carried out. If the hon. Gentleman has in his mind any particular case, I will be grateful to him if he will bring it to my notice.

Were all travelling allowances paid to these adjutants?

All proper travelling allowances are, of course, paid, and if there is any case in which that has not been done, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will bring it to my notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major E. M. Perry was gazetted to his majority in the Army Veterinary Department without having had any previous experience in that Department; whether this is contrary to Regulations; and whether he thereby became senior to many officers who have served longer in the Department than he has had experience as a veterinary surgeon?

This officer, who was formerly a major in the Royal Field Artillery of the Territorial Force, was appointed to the Veterinary Corps of that force, and was gazetted major in error. The error was brought to notice at once and steps taken to correct it.

asked whether the Secretary of State for India has received a report regarding the fate of Hastings House, in Calcutta?

The Secretary of State has not yet received a report regarding the future use to be made of the house and grounds at Hastings House.

asked whether the Government of India has submitted to the Secretary of State for India proposals calculated to enable the Government of India to preserve touch with the centres of commerce, of which Calcutta is the most important, and as contemplated in the Government of India letter, Home Department, No. 1243, dated Simla, 24th October, 1912, to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce; and, if so, what has been the disposal of such proposals?

No proposals have as yet been received on the subject from the Government of India.

asked whether the news of the bomb out rage on the Viceroy of India was known to a news or other telegraphic agency in London before it was received by the India Office; and, if this is so, what length of time elapsed between the first and the official receipt of the news?

The first intimation of the outrage reached the India Office at 10 a.m. on the 23rd December in the form of a cable from Reuter's representative in India addressed direct to the Secretary of State. The first official telegram reporting the occurrence in detail and communicating the medical report on the Viceroy's condition was received in London at 3.30 p.m. This telegram was sent on the authority of the Governor-General's Council. I would remind the Noble Lord that all the high officials of the Indian Government, including the Members of Council, were occupied for some time after the occurrence of the outrage in carrying through the Durbar and the programme of the day, in accordance with the order given by Lord Hardinge after he was wounded.

asked if the Indian Government has now ascertained the origin of the statements that were cabled from India about a month ago to the effect that certain Indian princes had met and were prepared to recommend that India should give to this country a number of battle ships and cruisers; and what steps they proposed to take to prevent such reports being cabled over as facts?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second, the Secretary of State does not consider that any action is necessary.

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it very unfortunate that exaggerated statements like this should be sent over and get a wide circulation and that no contradiction of them should appear?

It is not for me to express a mere opinion.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will explain why the beginning and end of each letter published in the Return of the correspondence with the Bank of England, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, and the India Office is omitted; and will he supply a copy showing by whom and to whom each letter is addressed?

The Return has been presented in a form which economises space and printing, and is in accordance with various precedents. The letters are signed by and addressed to the parties concerned, or their authorised representatives, and the Secretary of State sees no reason why the expense of reprinting with the formal details asked for should be incurred.

As it is important to know who wrote these letters and to whom they were addressed, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will not go to the expense of printing them, to send me a copy personally?

The White Paper does state to whom the letters were addressed. If the hon. Member wishes to know the exact beginning and ending in any particular case, certainly he will be informed.

asked why, if Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company thought on 28th May that the silver purchased on behalf of the Government could be deposited at the Bank of England without rousing any suspicion, they wrote on 16th April recommending the India Office to postpone their purchases, entailing a further brokerage fee to themselves in addition to 3 per cent. on the cost, in order, as they then said, to avoid any premature transaction with the Bank of England?

If the hon. Member will refer to the White Paper he will find that the firm did not on 16th April recommend the postponement of purchases, but wrote to the India Office expressing practically the same opinion as in the letter of 28th May, and asking for instructions. The Secretary of State decided on postponement, mainly in order to avoid making payments in May which, for the reason explained to the hon. Member on 3rd December, would have become widely known at an early date.

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the proposal for postponement did not come from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company?

If the hon. Member looks again at the text of the letter he will see that they ask for instructions on the point.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the letter written on 24th May last by the India Office to Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, in which it is asked that all bars or boxes of silver to be shipped should bear distinguishing marks, which would enable them easily to be traced to the source of supply and so identify the seller in case it should be necessary to claim a refund, and to the reply of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company of 26th May stating that all the bars and dollar boxes they ship have identification marks; and, in view of this correspondence, will he explain the statement which appears in the letter dated 13th November from Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to the India Office to the effect that, although the Department's orders had been large, they formed at times but a portion of their business (which involved a considerable number of clients), and that supposing they felt justified in divulging the names of those clients with whom they did business on the same days as with the Department it was impossible to disentangle from the list those which provided silver for the Department?

The first letter showed that each bar or box of silver shipped and found defective could, in case of need, be traced to the seller. The second letter was understood to mean that, owing to considerations of time and convenience, it is not practicable for a broker to deliver on each occasion to each buying client the particular bars or boxes bought under the contracts made to satisfy his requirements. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the latter statement, which is in no way inconsisent with the former, represents the recognised practice of the bullion trade.

Is it not a fact that the second letter expressed an opinion, not of expediency, but of impossibility—that it-was as impossible to disentangle the firms who supplied silver for the Government of India as it was to distinguish the juice which came from any particular grape in wine?

I am afraid that the hon. Member again is not putting the matter quite correctly. They did not say "impossible." They said "not practicable."

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on 11th September last, the day on which Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company purchased £600,000 of silver for the Government at 29⅛d., the market price of silver in London was 28 13–16d., and the parity of silver in China, where the silver was purchased, at the rate of the exchange of the day on London was under 28d., thus making the price actually paid more than 1d. above market price; and whether, seeing that 1d. on £600,000 of silver is equal to about £24,000, out of which the cost of freight, insurance, and interest on shipping the silver from China to Bombay would not amount to more than £4,000, he will say to whom the £20,000 unaccounted for was paid?

I gave the hon. Member full information on this subject in reply to his question of 26th November. The Secretary of State has no information in support of the statement now made that the price of silver in China on the date mentioned was 28d., or 13–16d. less than the London price, nor does he understand how such a difference could exist.

How did the hon. Member arrive at the figure £24,000, seeing that the supposed loss is only £2,400?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the members of his unofficial Land Committee are drafting a scheme for providing a minimum wage for agricultural labourers?

I cannot undertake to state what action is being taken by a Committee which is purely unofficial.

asked the total value of goods manufactured in Great Britain in 1907, according to the Census of Production Act; the total value of net imports of manufactured goods for that year; and what percentage the total imports bear to the total value of goods manufactured in this country?

The value, at the place of production, of the final products of the industries within the scope of the Census of Production, is calculated for 1907 at between 1,241 and 1,256 million pounds (exclusive of duties). The value of the net imports of manufactured food, drink and tobacco products in 1907 was £74,600,000, and that of net imports of completely manufactured goods, i.e., of goods other than those which were used in further processes of manufacture in the United Kingdom, was £49,700,000. These sums represent, respectively, about 6 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the value of the final products of industries in the United Kingdom just stated. For further particulars I may refer the hon. Member to pages 21 to 30 of the General Report on the Census of Production (Cd. 6320), in which the output of the United Kingdom, taken as a whole, is discussed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman in his Department or can he secure information which would show what were the manufactured imports of Germany and of the United States, respectively, in relation to home manufactures.

I should require notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Income Tax now derived from real property and from other sources respectively?

The Income Tax identifiable as having been paid in respect of the ownership of lands and houses amounted in the year 1911–12 to £10,159,000 (net). The Income Tax from other sources amounted to £31,157,000. The last mentioned figure includes, however, a considerable amount of tax on lands and houses owned by railway, water, and mining concerns, which is covered by the general assessment on the profits of the undertaking.

Does the first mentioned figure include Income Tax under Schedule B which is paid by farmers?

I should doubt that. That would not be strictly a tax on land, but a tax on the profits of an industry. I will look into that matter.

asked what was the number of Post Office contributors under the National Insurance Act on the 1st January of the present year; how many of them are of the male and how many of the female sex; how many are engaged in domestic service; whether any Post Office contributors have received sanatorium benefit; what arrangement has been made to supply this insured class with medical benefit when it becomes statutorily due; and what is the average amount standing to the credit of each Post Office contributor?

The number of deposit contributors on the date named was 480,000, including 320,000 men and 160,000 women. No distinction is made, or required, between persons engaged in domestic employment and those in other forms of employment. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the affirmative. The arrangements made with doctors in each district include provision for deposit contributors without distinction between them and members of approved societies. I am afraid I cannot give the information asked for in the last part of the question, as it is not required for any administrative purpose and would involve a calculation based upon 480,000 separate accounts.

asked how many whole-time doctors will be required to complete the panels under the National Insurance Act; the total cost of the same; whether a special branch of the Commission will be required to direct and supervise their work; and, if so, what arrangements are proposed to be made in the matter?

The accession of doctors to the panels during the past few days has been so rapid as to make it impossible to state where, if at all, any opportunity for the establishment of a salaried service will occur. It is possible that such a service will be instituted in three or four districts, but no statement can be made at present.

If the rush of doctors to join the panels has been so rapid, how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the large deficiency in the London area?

I am not aware of any deficiency in the London area.

Is the number of doctors in the London area sufficient to carry out the duties under the Insurance Act?

I have not examined the numbers, but I should think from what I have seen that there will be more than sufficient.

I will repeat the question on Monday.

asked whether several assurance agents at Tod-morden, employed by the Prudential Assurance Company, have been discharged for publishing a protest against alleged irregularities and illegalities in the methods adopted by the supervisory staff of the company in the Todmorden district for obtaining assurance business; whether he is aware that complaints of this nature are not confined to Todmorden but are widespread; and whether, if sufficient evidence is placed before him as to the need, he is prepared to consider the advisability of setting up an inquiry into industrial assurance?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer this question. I have no information as to the facts stated in my hon. Friend's question, but if he will furnish me with evidence of the illegal acts referred to, I shall be pleased to consider whether the matter is one in which any action should be taken by the Board of Trade.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the result of his inquiries into the cause of the increase in the number of small houses and cottages in Great Britain having fallen in the year 1910–11 to 10,651, as against increases in the year 1905–6 of 112,838, and in the four succeeding years of an annual average of over 80,000; and, in view of the urgency of the housing problem, what action he proposes to take?

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. Member's question of the 1st instant by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am investigating the matter and hope soon to be in a position to give an answer to the hon. Member.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to grant the petition of the surveyors of Customs and Excise of Excise origin for a reconsideration of their case, with a view to the Grant of the retrospective application of the new salary scale as from 1st April, 1909, when the two services were amalgamated, the right to such retrospective application having been conceded to other grades in the service by the amalgamation committee?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on this subject on the 11th ultimo.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the officer of Customs and Excise in charge of the Excise Station No. 11, Edinburgh collection, committed suicide on 6th December; if he was, from the date of entering the public service in 1907, attached to the Customs Department up to 25th July, 1912, when he was transferred to Edinburgh and put through a short course of instruction in Excise work; if, after a short experience on general Excise work, he was put in charge of the 11th Excise Station on 3rd December, which is an important brewery station; if the officer had ever before had charge of breweries; if he is aware that this station had been vacant for nine months, eight separate officers having had at times temporary charge of the station; that the work was in consequence much in arrear; and that the officer in question, though on the testimony of his superiors a thoroughly capable man at work in which he had had experience, was driven to despair by being put to work which it was impossible for a Customs' trained officer to perform; whether he is aware that there are many cases at present where officers, surveyors, and collectors without Excise training are in charge of Excise work, and that enormous mental worry is being suffered and the efficiency of administration being impaired in consequence; and, for the sake of the men and in the interest of the public service, will he instruct the Board of Customs and Excise to stop the practice of putting men to duties for which they are not equipped?

Mr. Williams, who committed suicide on 6th December, was an officer of Customs origin who entered the service in June, 1907. In July, 1912, he was transferred to Edinburgh and given instructions in Excise work, including the survey of breweries. After instruction he was employed in assisting or officiating in various stations until 24th November, when he went on private leave. On return to duty on 3rd December he was assigned to Edinburgh 11th Station, consisting of brewery and general business. He had not previously been in charge of brewery business. The 11th Station had been without a permanent officer for eight months, but temporary officers had been employed and there was no serious accumulation of arrears. I cannot accept the suggestion that the work was responsible for Mr. Williams' action. In reply to the latter part of his question I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on the 11th ultimo. I may add, however, that, speaking of the service as a whole, the Board of Customs and Excise are confident that where it is necessary to employ men, whether of Customs or Excise origin, on work hitherto assigned to the other branch of the service, the men so employed will prove competent to perform the new duties without detriment to the efficiency of the service or to themselves.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the work of the station was not in arrear, and it is reasonable to believe that a station which had been without a permanent officer for nine months, with eight temporary men in charge, could have the work up to date?

I am assured by the Customs and Excise authorities that there was no accumulation of work; and that that certainly was not responsible for the poor man's suicide.

If the officer did not commit suicide because he was overwhelmed with the work, why did he do it?

I can only give the hon. Member the information I have got. I have made personal inquiries into the matter, and I was assured that there was no arrears of that kind at all, and that there was nothing out of the ordinary. He committed suicide within three days after he had entered upon his duties.

Has the Board of Customs and Excise had any report from Edinburgh in regard to the suicide?

I cannot say. I should like to have notice of that question.

asked the number of appointments to surveyor ships of Customs and Excise during the last nine months from officers late of Customs and late of Excise, respectively; and whether by such appointments the proportion of promotions to survey or ships of officers of Customs origin was increased far beyond the normal expectation under pre-amalgamation conditions to the detriment of the prospects of officers of Excise origin who otherwise would have succeeded to supervisorships?

There have been 104 officers of Customs origin actually appointed to surveyor ships during the last nine months. No such actual appointments of officers of Excise origin have been made. As regards the latter part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question which he put to me on the 5th ultimo.

Seeing that it is admitted in that reply that 104 Customs officers have taken posts to which Excise officers were looking forward, and would have been promoted to if the amalgamation had not taken place, is not this a serious loss of prospects for the Excise service owing to the amalgamation?

If that is so, and it puts the Excise at a disadvantage at present, the disadvantage will be redressed in the future.

asked how many first-class examining officers of Customs have been selected for appointment as un attached surveyors of Customs and Excise; how many Customs port clerks have been selected for a similar position after a competition limited to their own grade, at which only thirty-six men competed; and how many collectorships formerly Excise collections have been filled by officials of Customs origin and how many collector-ships formerly Customs have been filled by officials of Excise origin?

There have been 104 first-class examining officers selected and appointed, and twelve port clerks have been selected for appointment. Sixteen collections (eight Customs and eight Excise) have been combined or are in process of being combined into eight joint Customs and Excise collections. To these joint collections have been appointed five collectors and one assistant collector of Customs origin and three collectors and two assistant collectors of Excise origin.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, under the proposed new regulations for the Irish cattle trade, shippers of lambs will be required to send the mothers along with the lambs, or during the detention period at the port of landing will the railway or shipping companies be required to provide milk and sucking bottles or other substitutes for the maternal supplies, or is the trade in Irish lambs for slaughter to be put an end to in favour of the New Zealand frozen variety?

I have no reason to suppose that the number of unweaned lambs conveyed from Ireland to Great Britain unaccompanied by their dams is such as to present any difficulty when the proposed Order is in operation.

asked if the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture has been called to the pre valence in some parts of Devon of the disease in sheep called liver fluke or cawd; if he is aware that this disease prevails in wet seasons; and will he cause scientific research to be made into the character of the disease with a view of discovering a preventative or cure?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Liver fluke is a parasitic disease commonly found on damp pastures in various parts of the country, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a leaflet on the subject issued by the Board. Arrangements have been made for the scientific investigation of diseases of this character at Birmingham University with the assistance of a Grant from the Development Fund.

Is it not the fact that the destruction of snails is the best preventative of this disease?

If the hon. Gentleman asks me a question as to the remedy for the disease, he must give me notice.

asked the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of the House in discussing the Franchise and Registration Bill, he will arrange for the issue of a statement containing all the provisions of previous Acts of Parliament relating to the registration of voters which are not repealed by the Bill but which assume a new form in virtue of its provisions?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The information desired is contained in a return to an order in my name, dated 15th July last, Parliamentary Paper No. 252, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

asked if the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the letter from Mr. Gerald Montagu to the Postmaster-General as to the circum stances in which certain Marconi shares were purchased by the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company for their Amsterdam correspondents, Wertheim and Gompertz; and if he can state in what manner the attention of Wertheim and Gompertz was called to the advantage of this particular investment?

I have seen the letter referred to in the Press, otherwise I have no knowledge of these matters.

asked, in view of Section 47 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and of the promises of the Unionist Government in the Debates on that Act and of the Liberal Government in the Debates on the Land Act of 1909, that while Ireland should be held liable for the price of the land sold under those Acts, with interest, the bonus in excess of price should for historical and economic reasons be treated as an Imperial and not as an Irish charge, if the Prime Minister will say whether that policy is to be adhered to or reversed under the Government of Ireland Bill?

I can only endorse the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member on Monday last, that the Government are not aware of any promise that in the event of the establishment of Irish Home Rule this charge should not be regarded as an item of Imperial expenditure in respect of Ireland; but any evidence to that effect, and any other relevant consideration, can and will be taken into account when the legislation on the question of land purchase, which the Government have promised to introduce, is being framed and discussed.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the Debates on the Irish Land Bill, 1903, every section of this House treated the bonus as a free Grant distinct from the price of the land for which Ireland alone would be answerable; that the Section to which I have referred is consistent with that, and that the right hon. Member for Dover, who was in charge of that Bill, still holds that the bonus was intended to be an Imperial charge?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state the reasons which led the Advisory Committee to sanction the proposal to leave the design of the new Government buildings in Scotland in the hands of the officials of his Department; and whether he will state by what process an independent architect of high standing is to be selected?

The existence of an Architectural Department in the Office of Works involves the general principle that designs and plans should be prepared, as a rule, within that Department. The Committee examined the designs and model of the proposed buildings, and decided to ask for the advice of an architectural assessor. Sir Robert Lorimer has kindly consented to act in that capacity, and the Committee are now waiting his report.

Will the final decision rest with the Committee or with this House?

The responsibility for the design will rest with the First Commissioner of the Board of Works.

When the Works Depart-partment was constituted was it not intended or works of a comparatively minor character?

I should not like to say that is so; perhaps the hon. Member will give notice.

Has the First Commissioner the necessary amount of knowledge and experience to enable him to decide?

Has he ever been in Edinburgh, or docs ho know anything about Scottish building and architecture?

The First Commissioner took every step to ensure that this building shall in every respect be one worthy of the position and in consonance with Scottish opinion.

But has he been in Edinburgh?

I cannot say.

Find out, then!

What is the size of the model on which the Committee has come to this conclusion?

I cannot say the exact size, but it is a considerable model. Hon. Members have been invited to inspect it. Perhaps the Noble Lord will do so.

Were any full-sized drawings of the details submitted to the Committee in amplification of a small model of that size?

The small model was not of the size indicated by the Noble Lord, but no doubt drawings did exist in the office.

Was the independent architect chosen by the First Commissioner himself or called in by the Committee?

I think the name was approved by the Committee and by the general consensus of public opinion.

Was the selection left to the Committee in the first instance?

That I cannot say without notice.

asked whether the Edinburgh University buildings, the M'Ewan Hall, the Usher Hall, the Art Galleries, and the Scott Monument were all the fruit of open competition, and that the King Edward VII. Memorial at Holy-rood is to be open to competition among architects; and whether, therefore, in view of the fact that the proposed Government buildings on the site of the Calton Gaol will be the most important public building in Scotland, he will accede to the desire of the entire architectural profession to throw the designs of these buildings in the first instance open to public competition: and will he say how the small committee of four arrived at their decision that an open competition would be unnecessary, in view of the fact that they neither saw nor considered any alternative designs?

No doubt the facts stated by my hon. Friend as to other buildings are correct. I have just replied to the remainder of the question in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how this Committee of four arrived at the decision that this was the best design when they had only one design before them?

The Committee decided this would be a good and suitable design, subject to the advice and assistance of Sir Robert Lorimer.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman will give the name of the independent architect of high standing who has been called in to assist the Advisory Committee in their examination of the designs for new Government buildings in Scotland: whether a fee will be paid to the architect in question; and whether the First Commissioner of Works has received any representations on the subject from associations of Scottish architects?

As I have already stated, Sir Robert Lorimer has, at the request of the First Commissioner, consented to act, and he will be paid a fee for so doing. The First Commissioner has received representations on the subject from association of Scottish architects.

What attitude does the First Commissioner of Works take up with regard to these representations?

In so far as they fall in with the course he intends to take he approves of them.

May I ask whether he has not since this question was put down seen representations from other and more important sources'?

I am not aware of any formal communication to the Office of Works since the question was put on the Paper.

May I ask whether Sir Robert Lorimer is to give his opinion at present, or is he to act in consultation with the Office of Works throughout?

He is to be in constant and unintermittent consultation.

Has the First Commissioner ever been in Calton Gaol?

What is to be the amount of the fees?

That matter has not yet been decided.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in connection with the conversion of the London Institution into a School of Oriental Languages, he will consider the possibility of making a new road from Finsbury Circus to South Place; and whether the construction of such a road would afford a suitable site for the School of Oriental Languages and at the same time, by appreciating the value of the property, help to meet the necessary charges?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will lay his suggestion before the City Corporation. The construction bf a new road in the city would not be a matter for the First Commissioner to carry out.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the Report of the sanitary inspector of the Darfield Urban District Council regarding a house-to-house visitation made by him in the district; whether he is aware that thirty four-roomed houses are each occupied by two families, and that in 102 cases a proper division of the sexes cannot take place; and whether he will bring pressure to bear upon the council to provide adequate accommodation?