asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what was the final balance credit to the State from the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg, Cape Colony, when the farm was closed down by order of the Army Council; to what fund was the sum credited; and when it was credited to the State?

This farm was not run as a public undertaking, and no balance therefore was due to the State. The credit balance amounting to £244 11s. 8d., when the farm was closed down, being a private fund, was assigned in 1910 to charitable purposes connected with the Army.

asked whether the whole of the Mounted Infantry cobs at: Longmoor have been handed over to the 15th Hussars; whether there is any other school for Mounted Infantry in Great Britain or Ireland; whether, in consequence, of these cobs having been taken away, no men can now be trained in Mounted Infantry work; and whether it is intended to abolish Mounted Infantry altogether?

The answer to all the four parts of this question is in the negative.

asked what is the number of boys of seventeen years of age and under now serving in the Special Reserve; and how many men are serving in that branch of the Service who have been rejected as medically unfit for ser vice in the Regular Army?

The latest figures available for ages are those of 1st October, 1912, when there were no men serving under seventeen years of age and there were 3,566 men serving between the ages of seventeen and eighteen. No information is available at the War Office concerning the second part of the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for information upon that?

As I explained to the House on previous occasions it would involve very great labour to obtain this information, and I have suggested to the House that as there is so much clerical work already they should not insist upon it.

asked the Secretary for War whether he will consider the, advisability of reducing the number of the Territorial Horse and Field Artillery and of supplying their places with any horse and field batteries of the Regular Army which he may be advised are now in excess of the required establishment?

As the officers and men now serving in the Horse and Field Artillery are now required for that arm, I am unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Territorial horse is not as efficient as those of the Regular Army?

That hardly arises out of this question.

asked how long it takes to train a horse for Cavalry work, and how long, for Mounted Infantry; whether, in the first instance, a horse must be a perfect fighting machine, whereas in the latter he is practically nothing but a means of trans port; and whether he has received any report on the suitability, or the reverse, of the Mounted Infantry cobs for Cavalry?

It takes a longer time to train a horse for Cavalry work than for Mounted Infantry work, the period varying with the age of the horse, his condition, his previous training, and other factors. I cannot accept the statement in the second part of the question. It has been reported to me that a large number of horses trained for Mounted Infantry are suitable for Cavalry use.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those horses are not suitable, a fact of which I myself have experience?

I do not know what difficulty the Noble Lord had with those horses.

Have any single one of those horses been through the ordinary Cavalry school training?

I have made most careful inquiry, and my military advisers have been through the matter very carefully, and they are of opinion that those horses are most excellent horses, especially for war purposes.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.

Yes, Sir. I said, in reply to the last part of the question, "It has been reported to me that a large number of horses trained for Mounted Infantry are suitable for Cavalry use."

asked whether the four Indian regiments stationed at Hong Kong and in South China draw Colonial allowance and also the British regiments both in North and South China, but that the one Indian regiment stationed at Tientsin in North China does not get this Colonial allowance; and, if so, what is the reason of it; and whether he will take steps to remedy this difference of treatment?

The allowances of the Indian battalion at Tientsin are different from those of the other Indian troops mentioned, but financially they are certainly not less advantageous. The British units are under British regulations.

Is there any reason why this should not be given the same as others in China?

It receives its allowance. On the whole I satisfied myself these are better off than the others.

asked what compensation a member of the Territorial Force receives for the loss of a limb during his drills; whether he is aware that a man named Gwyther, serving at Portsmouth as a Territorial Royal Engineer sapper, lost a finger whilst carrying out an ordinary night's drill of one hour, as distinct from his fourteen days' annual training; whether he is aware that, as there are no funds available, this man is being maintained by the voluntary contributions of his officers; and whether he can state if this is usual in cases of a similar character?

If a man of the Territorial Force is disabled by an injury incurred in and by the performance of military duty, whether at authorised drill or camp training, he is entitled either to treatment in military hospital with pay, or, if this is not necessary, to a gratuity not exceeding 3s. 6d. a day while disabled; the pay or gratuity is limited to six months, but in special cases an extension may be approved. If the disability necessitate the man's discharge as medically unfit he is eligible for a pension. Cases of injury are dealt with locally and there is no information at the War Office as to this case, but inquiry will be made and the Noble Lord will be informed of the result in due course. I may say my right hon. Friend is very much obliged to the Noble Lord for drawing his attention to it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps are being taken to hunt down anarchists in India, in view of the fact that the Viceroy has publicly stated that the recent outrages are the outcome of organised conspiracy?

It would not be in the public interest to make a detailed statement on the subject. I hope that the hon. Member will be content with a general assurance that no effort will be spared and no step left untried to unravel the organised conspiracy to which the murderous attack on the Viceroy is ascribed.

asked whether information acquired regarding the recent extension of, and rise in, the cultivation of Chinese opium is compatible with the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of China; whether His Majesty's Government has power to ensure the sale of Indian opium in Chinese provinces into which by treaty China is bound to allow its entry; whether His Majesty's Government will permit the ousting of Indian opium in order that the more injurious indigenous product may be substituted therefor; whether His Majesty's Government be lieves that any useful result can be obtained by the execution of innocent persons for using a stimulant; what effect the approaching cessation of the provision of Indian opium for China will have upon Indian finances; and whether the time has arrived to reconsider the arrangements made in 1911?

The information regarding this season's cultivation of opium in China is conflicting, and further inquiries are being made in the several provinces through the Consular officers in co-operation with the local officials. There has been a very large reduction of cultivation in China since the opium agreement with His Majesty's Government was made. In provinces not closed to Indian opium under Article 3 of the agreement of May, 1911, His Majesty's Government are entitled to require that the wholesale trade shall not be interfered with, nor preference shown to native opium. As I have more than once stated, Chinese methods of dealing with their own people are not a matter for His Majesty's Government. The effect of the suspension of the Indo-Chinese opium export trade on the finances of India is engaging the attention of the Government of India. I understand that no statement is at present possible, but the question is one for the India. Office. The last question is, in His Majesty's Government's opinion, premature.

Does His Majesty's Government now see any sign or probability that the Chinese Government will be able to carry out their share of the agreement?

We hope so. They are carrying it out in certain provinces.

asked whether the Rajah of Narajole has admitted that there was a seditious movement at Midnapur and has withdrawn as unfounded the charges he brought against the district magistrate, Mr. Weston, and other officials; whether this further confirms the correctness of the appellate judgment of the High Court of Calcutta reversing the findings of Mr. Justice Fletcher of that Court in almost every particular; whether any appeal against that appellate judgment has been presented to the Judicial Committee; and what steps the Government proposes to take in view of the shock to the confidence in single judgments of the High Court in certain cases, and of the expenditure of public money involved in the hearing from first to last of the Midnapur case?

The Secretary of State has seen an announcement in the general sense referred to. There has been no appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member.

Does the Under-Secretary mean to allow this matter to pass over seeing that it is only a part of certain unfortunate circumstances, and has he made the inquiries which I asked him to make as to the effect of the repeated reversals of these judgments upon the public in India?

I have told the hon. Member what the Secretary of State intends to do in this matter, and I cannot add to it.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the Viceroy's Legislative Council, on 18th September, 1912, Sir R. Craddock, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the replies to the latest reference on the subject, that made in 1911, indicated clearly both that the traffic in minor girls was on the increase and also that there was a sensible development of public opinion among the educated classes in favour of fresh legislation; whether he is aware that on the same occasion Sir R. Craddock stated that any required changes in the law ought to find a place in a Government Bill rather than in a private one and enumerated certain specific Amendments which the Government were prepared to endorse, including the raising of the age of consent; and whether he can say how soon the legislation thus foreshadowed is likely to be introduced?

The Secretary of State is aware that the language used by Sir R. Craddock was generally as stated, but he made clear that the Government would reserve its final decision, both as to the mode and scope of the legislation to be undertaken, until the opinions of the local governments and the High Court of Calcutta had been received. The views of these authorities were due by the 15th January last.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the case of John Leverton, who was received in the sanatorium at Nottingham, under the terms of the National Insurance Act, who was discharged after five weeks' treatment as incurable, and who died at the workhouse sanatorium twelve days after admission; whether he is aware that the arrangements made for sanatorium treatment are incomplete in many other places; and if, under the circumstances, he will take steps for their postponement until satisfactory and complete treatment can be assured to patients admitted to the benefits?

I have seen a report of this case, and am making further inquiry from the Nottingham Insurance Committee. I am not aware, however, that the arrangements for sanatorium treatment in Nottingham are incomplete. Sixy-nine cases of tuberculosis in Nottingham have received institutional treatment since 15th July last.

As this is only one of many cases which have been brought to my notice, would it not be advantageous and in the interests of sufferers themselves, that these arrangements, which are so unsatisfactory, should be suspended, and some more complete plans made; and will he inform me where these plans can be perfected while these tentative arrangements are in force?

I will inquire, but I have no information to suggest that there has been anything unusual in this case. It may be a perfectly normal case.

asked what was the total amount of the contributions paid by, and on behalf of, Frederick Richard Townsend, of Kennington, an insured person who died recently owing to his being unable to obtain proper medical assistance; and what was the value of the benefits which he had received under the National Insurance Act?

As I have previously stated, I am unable to make any statement in regard to this case until I have seen the report of the inquiry which has been instituted by the London Insurance Committee.

asked what arrangements have been made in the case of an insured person who has received medical benefit from a doctor in one locality, and who, having moved to another district within the year, requires a certificate of sick pay?

If an insured person moves from the area of one insurance committee to that of another he can, by giving notice to the second committee, obtain medical attendance, and also such certificates as are required to be furnished in connection with any claim for sickness benefit from a doctor on the panel in the second area.

Could the right hon. Gentleman see that a circular is issued informing people of that statement?

A circular to the insured persons or to the committees?

To the insured persons.

I will give what publicity I can to this statement, but to issue a circular to 14,000,000 persons is rather a big order.

asked (1) why, under the National Insurance Act, only arm splints are scheduled; what happens if an insured person breaks his thigh; and who supplies the thigh splints since chemists are only paid for those articles on the schedule; (2) whether, in view of the fact that medicated wool is not mentioned in the list of appliances to be provided as part of the medical benefits in terms of No. 27 of the Regulations in the Second Schedule to the National Insurance Act, insured persons are expected to pay for this themselves, seeing that medicated wool is almost an essential in most surgical cases; (3) whether, under the National Insurance Act, in the case of gauzes and lints, sal alembroth is scheduled; and, if so, whether regard was had to the fact that owing to the chemical action between the cotton and the alembroth this medication does not last at the outside for more than three months; and (4) whether the usual custom in hospitals and infirmaries is to have white or grey open-wove bandages six yards in length; whether under the National Insurance Act they are required to be only four yards; whether four yards are absolutely useless for binding an arm; whether calico for supporting purposes has always been used six yards in length and is now ordered to be three yards; whether crepe bandages have always formerly been made in five-yard lengths; whether under the National Insurance Act they have to be six yards; and will he state the reason for these changes?

The splints prescribed in the list of appliances are not restricted to arm splints, and the bandages are not restricted as to length, as suggested by the Noble Lord. The gauze and lint referred to were included because some doctors attach importance to their use under certain conditions, but doctors may, of course, use them or not, as they please. I am advised that the surgical dressings included in the list are adequate for the treatment of the surgical cases which fall within the scope of medical benefit.

Am I to understand that the splints for fractures can be got and are on the schedule?

As I understand all splints and apparatus can be got which will be required for these surgical cases, and which fall within the scope of medical benefit.

Is it the case that a broken arm falls within the scope and a broken leg does not?

No, I said the splints prescribed are not restricted to arm splints.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view- of the fact that no additional Grant is to be made out of public moneys towards medical benefit in respect of the first three months from the 15th January, 1913, but the whole cost of the provision of medical benefit for that period is to be met out of funds available under the National Insurance Act, the Supplementary Estimate for medical benefit relates to the period subsequent to the expiration of such three months; and, if so, why a Supplementary Estimate is being taken for the year ending 31st March, 1913?

It is proposed to proceed by Supplementary Estimate in order to obtain the sanction of the House at the earliest possible date to the incurring of expenditure upon medical benefit in excess of the amounts available out of contributions under the National Insurance Act. It is very desirable, regard being had to the provisions of Section 61 of the National Insurance Act, and in order that insurance committees may be in a position to enter into contracts for the whole year, that the whole amount available for medical benefit should be credited to the committees as soon as possible after the commencement of the calendar year, as indeed is contemplated by the financial provisions of the Act; and this cannot be done unless the money is issued from the Exchequer before the 31st proximo.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the result of paying out of this year's money what is properly charged upon next year will be to rob the old Sinking Fund?

We are adopting a course which no one has pressed more strongly upon us than the hon. and learned Member himself.

Is he aware that at the time I pressed that course upon the Government the Prime Minister, in an answer given to me on 9th January, said that no part of this money would be in respect to the first three months after 15th January, and whether in these circumstances it is not the case that the result of taking it out of this year's money will be to rob the old Sinking Fund?

No part. The Act contemplates that the insurance committees shall be credited on 1st January with the whole of the money required for medical benefits during the whole year, and in the present uncertainty that prevails among the medical profession it is essential that they should be able to make these contracts for the whole year and have the money as soon as possible to meet the contracts.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that panel doctors under the National Insurance Act have so much clerical work to do that they have not much time left to attend to their patients; can he say how many people have died because they were unable to get the services of a doctor under the National Insurance Act till too late; and what steps he proposes to take to alter this state of affairs?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second, therefore, does not arise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that people have died because they were unable to get the service of a doctor under the Insurance Act?

Certainly. I do deny it.

Are the verdicts of juries of no avail with the right hon. Gentleman? Does he treat those verdicts as waste paper?

I have heard of no verdict of any jury at all except a statement made by a coroner's jury, which is now subject to a judicial judgment by a Committee appointed by the London Insurance Committee.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not heard of the case of the domestic servant at Enfield?

I cannot accept the newspaper reports of these cases, because the facts are often found to be quite different.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this particular case?

If the hon. and learned Member will give me the particulars I will inquire into it.

Is it not possible that out of 15.000,000 one might inadvertently die?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of simplifying the clerical work now imposed on panel doctors under the National Insurance Act; whether any complaints have been received from such doctors respecting the labour entailed in filling in the day books; and whether there is a scheme for simplification now before the Insurance Commission?

Yes, Sir. The principal pressure of clerical work has been due to the initial work in connection with the selection of doctors and registration of patients at the starting of medical benefit, and this is not a difficulty which will recur. The Insurance Commissioners yesterday received a deputation from the National Insurance Practitioners' Association, who laid before them also certain proposals for simplifying the ordinary clerical work required to be performed by doctors on the panel. Those proposals are receiving the careful consideration of the Commissioners.

asked (1) if the proprietor of a drug store who has been in business for six years and previous to that was dispenser to a doctor for nearly ten years, whilst before that he was dispensing for three years to another doctor, is debarred from dispensing under the National Insurance Act, even in the case of prescriptions which do not contain scheduled poisons, although entitled to do so for private persons, while he may sell loose the drugs in the prescriptions; and what steps, if any, are to be taken to alter this condition of things, having regard to the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the 2nd August, 1911; and (2) if a man who has been a doctor's dispenser for six or ten years, but was running a drug store or store pharmacy for some time immediately prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act, is debarred from appointments under the Act open to a man of less experience who was a doctor's dispenser for three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act?

asked (1) if holders of the dispensers' certificate of the Society of Apothecaries at the time the National Insurance Act passed, but who were then unemployed, are debarred from dispensing under the Act; (2) whether, having regard to the inability of the Commissioners to make regulations to remove the disabilities imposed on many dispensers who are debarred from dispensing under the National Insurance Act, it is proposed to introduce amending legislation to give effect to the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given on 2nd August, 1911, that no one who was entitled to dispense should be cut out and that those already carrying on business should be protected; and (3) whether qualified apothecaries' assistants, whose qualification is accepted by the Local Government Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and His Majesty's prisons, are allowed to go on the panel for dispensing under the National Insurance Act?

asked (1) if a dispenser who has been for twenty-three years in his present situation, was previously regularly apprenticed to a chemist, has been engaged in the business of dispenser for thirty-three years and has dispensed many thousand prescriptions, and whose employers are now dissolving partnership, is debarred from being a registered dispenser under the National Insurance Act, while men who dispensed for doctors for only three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act are qualified; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to fulfil the promise that no one who was qualified to dispense before the Act would be cut out; (2) if a man who served a full apprenticeship to a dispensing chemist and has been an assistant to dispensing chemists in various parts of the country, was in 1885 dispenser to an important hospital, from 1893 to 1896 to a medical practitioner, and since then has been daily dispensing doctors' prescriptions behind a chemist's counter, and has had twenty-five years' varied experience in dispensing, is debarred from doing so under the National Insurance Act, notwithstanding the promise that no one qualified to dispense before the Act would be cut out by the Act; (3) if the rights of a certified assistant to an apothecary, preserved in Section 15 (5) (iv.) of the National Insurance Act, are subservient to the dispensing rights of licentiates of the Society of Apothecaries which are not preserved by the Act; if apothecaries' assistants have, from 1815, been acting as dispensers in hospitals, asylumns, infirmaries, and dispensaries, and to medical men without supervision; and will measures be taken to prevent men who have passed a lifetime as dispensers without supervision, but who, under the Act, can only dispense under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, from having their livelihood imperilled; and (4) if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can suggest any means whereby those bonâ-fide chemists who fulfil the conditions of Clause 3 (3) of the Medicine Stamp Act and are qualified to compound and dispense known, admitted, and approved formulas, and have acted as dispensary assistants or managers to chemists and druggists, and also all dispensers of three years' standing to doctors and public institutions, may submit their claims to dispense under the National Insurance Act either through the London and Provincial Druggists' Association or direct to the Insurance Commissioners, with suitable provisions for dealing with any objection to any name in a manner which will satisfy the association?

By Clause 15 (5) (3) the Insurance Act prohibits arrangements being made for the dispensing of medicines with persons other than persons, firms, or bodies corporate entitled to carry on the business of a chemist and druggist under the provisions of the Pharmacy Acts, 1868 and 1908. Unqualified persons who for three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act have acted as dispensers to duly qualified medical practitioners or to public institutions have a right under the Act to dispense in the service of such persons, firms, or bodies corporate, with the same rights and limitations as those existing before the passing of the Act. This Clause was deliberately approved by the House after a full Debate and without a Division. On an Amendment proposing to extend such a right to dispense to persons qualified under the Apothecaries Act of 1815, my right hon. Friend promised that no one who was qualified to dispense before the passing of the Act should be cut out of the Act; and a Sub-section protecting the interests of these persons was inserted on the Report stage. The Commissioners have no power to alter this decision of Parliament; nor have I any evidence at present that Parliament desires (apart from the possibility of meeting special cases of hardship) that dispensing under the Act should be generally done by unqualified persons.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given on 2nd October, was not carried out in the Amendment made on the Report stage?

I think it was carried out. I looked up the Debate to-day. It was in a specific Amendment, and my right hon. Friend promised that no one who was qualified to dispense before the Act should be cut out by the Act.

Is it not a fact that these men referred to in the question were qualified to dispense, and did dispense, for doctors for a considerable number of years, that the result of the Act has been to create a monopoly of pharmaceutical chemists, that these men are suffering in their business, many of them going into bankruptcy, and that this is fast becoming public scandal?

I do not think these gentlemen were qualified to dispense except under the surpervision of a medical man, but I would submit that the whole question would be a better subject of discussion than for question and answer.

asked what is the estimated amount of the State's liability for two-ninths and one-fourth of the cost of benefits, including the Grant in aid of medical benefit, and of the cost of administration of benefits accruing during January, February, and March, 1913, payment of which by the State is postponed until the year 1910–14?

The liability of the State in respect of charges accruing during the months of January, February, and March, 1913, for benefits other than medical and sanatorium benefits, and including the cost of administration, is estimated at £601,000. No part of the liability of the State in respect of expenditure on medical benefit incurred during these months is postponed to the financial year 1913–14. On the contrary, the whole of the charge on the Exchequer in respect of medical and sanatorium benefits for the year 1913 is chargeable to the Vote for 1912–13.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say specifically whether the two-ninths and the one-fourth in the new Supplementary Estimate of £18,000 odd is charged anywhere for this year?

I am not aware of any two-ninths or one-fourth in the Supplementary Estimate. The Supplementary Estimate is a Grant-in-Aid.

asked the names and present addresses of the doctors appointed by the Isle of Ely Insurance Committee for the Wisbech and Chatteris districts, and at what places they practised before their appointment by such committee; and what salaries or remuneration are to be paid to such doctors by the insurance committee?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester on Friday and on Monday last.

May I ask whether these gentlemen were not practically sent down as strike breakers as against the local doctors?

It has nothing to do with strike-breaking at all. The insurance committee has to provide medical benefit for the people in those areas, and the doctors were sent down in order to provide that medical benefit.

Is it not a fact that the local doctors would not serve?

For some reason or another they preferred not to serve under the Act; but that did not relieve the local committee of the obligation to provide medical benefit.

asked whether existing members of friendly societies living at Chatteris who are not insured persons under the National Insurance Act but who are entitled to claim to have medical benefit provided for them by the Isle of Ely Insurance Committee, are entitled to select their present doctors or are obliged to take the services of the London doctor brought in by the insurance committee?

Members of friendly societies who are not insured persons are entitled to receive medical attendance and treatment from the doctors who are working under the Act and they have the option of selecting those doctors for treatment on the same terms as to remuneration as insured persons.

asked whether the Prudential Assurance Approved Society is advising its members not to select a doctor on the panel until they actually fall sick; and to what fund the money will be put which is thus saved in medical capitation fees?

I am informed by the society referred to that there is no foundation for the suggestion in the first part of the question. On the contrary, in a circular letter of which I have received a copy they have issued instructions to all their agents to urge upon every member entitled to medical benefit the imperative need for promptly selecting the doctor they desire should attend them in case of illness.

asked whether the Government propose to introduce a Bill amending the National Insurance Act at an early date; whether a list of necessary amendments is now being prepared by the Insurance Commissioners; and whether an opportunity will be given to the Opposition to suggest amendments before any such Bill is introduced?

If and when experience shows that amendment of any details of the Insurance Act are desirable, legislation embodying such amendments will undoubtedly be introduced. The Commissioners will be glad to receive at any time and from any quarter any suggestions for possible improvement. Criticism up to the present, however, has been singularly barren in constructive suggestions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration in any future amendment of the Act the advisability of unifying the commissions and having one commission for the whole of the United Kingdom?

That is quite a possible amendment, but my own opinion is that the creation of four separate commissions was fully justified.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give approximately the date from which the last revision of the pay and conditions of surveyors of Customs and Excise took effect?

The present scale of pay of the surveyor grade dates from 16th August, 1911. Certain adjustments of salary were made in May last under the concessions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked whether surveyors of Customs and Excise are receiving extra remuneration for the duties they have been called upon to undertake in connection with the National Insurance Act?

I fear I can add nothing to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 5th December last on this subject.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will quote the sentence in the letter from the ploughman in Perthshire, dated 27th November, 1912, to the Scottish National Insurance Commissioners, in which the writer is alleged to have asked to be provided with forms or other means for the purpose of informing upon any of his neighbours who might be evading the National Insurance Act?

The Noble Lord does not correctly quote my previous answer. I stated that the Scottish Commissioners afforded the complainant the opportunity which he appeared to desire, of giving specific information of cases of violation of the Act. I am circulating the letter with the Votes, and I think he will agree with me in the interpretation placed on it by the Scottish Commissioners.—[See Written Answers this date.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the gentlemen who wrote ever asked for any letter of this type to be sent at all?

I will ask the Noble Lord to reserve any questions till he has read the letter.

asked whether, prior to the amalgamation, at the lowest rate then payable, the sum of £3 would have been paid to Customs port clerks for sixty hours' overtime?

At the lowest rate, namely, 9d. an hour, the sum payable for sixty hours' overtime would have been £2 5s.

asked whether, when the seventh hour was added in 1888, the new condition was imposed upon the then existing Customs clerks only upon promotion from the grade upon which at the time they happened to be placed?

The increase in 1887 of the actual attendance from six to seven hours every day was applied gradually to the then existing clerks as they attained an increase of salary by promotion to a higher grade or appointment to a post carrying a special allowance.

Would it not be possible to apply the same system now?

I will consider that.

asked whether, notwithstanding the fact that collectors' offices are at present and are to continue staffed on the basis of a daily attendance of seven hours, the attendance required from Customs port clerks at Manchester, Liverpool, and elsewhere before overtime is payable has been increased from seven hours daily, or forty-two hours weekly, seven between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., to a liability to serve forty-eight hours weekly, without regard to the former limiting hours, 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.; and whether, notwithstanding the increased liability, amounting to 280 hours yearly, the sole monetary grant given to Customs port clerks of the second class (lower section), and which can be taken as compensation whatever be the actual principle on which it is granted, is a sum of £3, which was based on the former average overtime of the class and is equal to the payment for sixty hours' overtime at the lowest rate formerly payable?

My right hon. Friend discussed this matter very fully with a deputation from the officers con- cerned on the 3rd May last, and announced that the Board of Customs and Excise will continue to staff collectors' offices on the basis of a normal seven hour day, extra attendance being only required when necessary.

asked whether pre-1908 candidates for Customs port clerk ships were informed that, if successful, they would be liable to perform duties not clerical?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer to a similar question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend on the 18th December last.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take this matter into consideration, in view of the statement of the Financial Secretary in June, 1908, when the two staffs were fused, that every endeavour would be made to see that neither should suffer?

I would like to see that question on the Paper.

asked when the Customs port clerks may expect an answer to their petition presented to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on 29th January, 1912, and containing many points not referred to by the Chancellor in his interview with the representatives of the Customs port clerks on 3rd May, 1912?

My right hon. Friend is rather surprised at the suggestion conveyed in the question that this petition has not been answered. Not only was it carefully considered by him, but as the port clerks know very well, he allowed their representatives to place their views before him orally at considerable length, before he announced his decisions to the deputation in May last.

asked whether, except in a few isolated instances at minor ports, the Customs port clerks performed only indoor clerical duties prior to the amalgamation; whether, when a clerk was required for service at a minor port to undertake duties other than clerical, it has been the practice to secure the consent of the clerk concerned before making such appointment; and whether, when he stated that the collectors' offices would be staffed on a basis of a normal day of seven hours, it was his intention to safeguard the Customs port clerks against an extension of their normal day if employed on outdoor duties without their consent?

Customs clerks, although mostly employed on indoor clerical duties, were always liable to be employed on outdoor duties at certain ports, the number of which has varied from time to time in the past. It was not the practice to obtain the consent of a clerk before appointing him to a port of this kind. The contingency referred to in the last paragraph has not, so far as I am aware, arisen.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman can announce now or before the end of the Session when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the relations between Imperial and Local Taxation will be issued?

I am not in a position to make any announcement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee was appointed specially with a view to reporting speedily, and has its Report now been postponed to the Greek Kalends?

No. It has been taking evidence on a very large subject, and it has been taking a large amount of evidence.

Is it not a fact that the Committee has reported; and, if so, what is the object of delaying the issue of the Report?

I think the hon. Member is quite mistaken. The Committee has not reported at all.

Has the Committee finished taking evidence?

I cannot say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that large boroughs are interested in this question, and they are waiting anxiously for the Report?

asked on what grounds houses are made subject to Increment Duty and not other products the value of which may fortuitously rise between one date and another?

My hon. Friend's question is based on an incorrect assumption, the value attributable to buildings being wholly eliminated in arriving at the increment value on which duty is chargeable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not answered my question. A tax which does not fall upon land value must fall upon something. It would not exist unless the house had been built. I want to know why the house has been singled out for this tax?

I cannot now enter into any argument on this point, but I certainly dispute the assumption contained in the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Why not, drop the tax now that you have got the valuation?

Would the tax have been levied if the house had not been built on that site?

Certainly. An Increment Tax may be levied on the value of land on which no house had been built at all.

But in this case there has been no increase in the value of the land.

I do not know the case to which the hon. Member is referring.

asked when the land valuation now proceeding will be completed; and what steps, if any, he pro poses to take in order to secure that the valuation roll, when complete, shall be open for public inspection?

The service of the provisional valuations will, it is estimated, be completed by the 31st March, 1915. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on the 12th March last.

asked, in view of the interest, taken by the public in the Land Inquiry, if he will say when he expects that the Report of that inquiry will be published; and whether it will include any definite recommendations for legislation?

As regards the first part of the question, I can at present add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 21st January last to the hon. Member for Dulwich. As regards the second part, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Report, as its contents are a matter for the Committee itself.

Will the report be upon the subject of the recommendations or merely a report of the existing conditions?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that taxation on agricultural land means taxation on what the land produces?

That is rather a disputable economic proposition.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the names of the Committee which has recently been collecting information on behalf of the Treasury with regard to the migration of labour from rural districts, the effect of land monopoly in the towns on the well-being of the community, and other kindred subjects?

I presume that the hon. Member means the unofficial Committee, which has been inquiring into various aspects of the land question. If so, I can only refer him to previous answers on the subject.

Is it not the case that those investigators owing to the fact of the names having been suppressed have been called "ferrets," "spies," and other opprobious names?

I am not responsible for that.

asked the Prime Minister whether the cost of a scientific questionnaire recently issued to obtain information witb regard to the present system of land cultivation, the waste attributable to the depredation caused by game, and loss due to lack of enterprise or insufficiency of labour will be defrayed from public funds; and, if so, on what Vote will such cost be borne?

The answer to the first branch of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.

asked the Prime Minister if the proposals for the regeneration of rural life, submitted in outline on Friday last at the National Liberal Club and announced since in greater detail, through the Press, represent the land policy of His Majesty's Government?

I am not aware that my right hon. Friend in his speech on Friday last formulated any proposals with regard to the land question. Any statements that have since appeared in the Press purporting to state the intentions of the Government are pure efforts of the imagination.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Will he say whether the statements that have been made in the Press and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement at the National Liberal Club do represent the intentions of His Majesty's Government?

I have answered that question. My right hon. Friend made no proposals at all. He dealt with certain evils and problems which he said required consideration. As to statements in the Press I recommend the hon. Gentleman to do as I do, and pay no attention to them whatever.

Does the use of the word "we" by a Cabinet Minister indicate collective Cabinet responsibility?

That is a question of grammar.

Is this a case of a Member of the Government being once more wrongly reported?

No, Sir, not at all.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions that proper notice shall in future be given in writing of the intention of Government surveyors or their assistants to visit premises or land for the purpose of valuation, so that there may be no recurrence of what took place on the farm of Mr. Gold, at Knowle, Warwickshire, on 31st December and 2nd January last, when these gentlemen put in an appearance without notice?

Notice is always given in writing whenever possible, and the convenience of occupiers is consulted so far as this can be done without seriously delaying the work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the valuer and his assistant did invade the farm and premises of Mr. Gold, at Knowle, in Warwickshire, without giving notice of their intention and proceed to do the valuation?

If the hon. Gentleman desires it, I will certainly inquire into the circumstances.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of claims made by the Commissioners Inland Revenue for payment of Increment Value Duty on builder's profits when there has been no rise in the value of the site, he will state what proportion of any given profit is deemed by the Commissioners a legitimate profit and not the subject of taxation and what proportion is in the nature of a fortuitous windfall and the subject of taxation; and on what principle the distinction is founded?

To obtain the site value of land on an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected, the difference between its gross value ascertained under Section 25 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which, if there is a building, included builder's profits not the subject of taxation, and full site value similary ascertained is deducted from the value of the consideration. The difference between the remainder and the original site value is the taxable increment, and any part of this not representing a rise in the value of the site, will be in the nature of a fortuitous windfall. The hon. Member will realise that there can be no constancy in the proportion between the taxable windfall, if any, and the non-taxable profit made by the builder.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a definition of a "fortuitous windfall?"

We very fully discussed it when the Finance Act was under discussion. I think I had to submit some definitions myself.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman suggest the term "fortuitous windfalls" was ever mentioned when the Act was under discussion?

That term or its equivalent was mentioned in very many debates by myself.

If the expression was used at all, was it not in connection with contradictions of any intention to tax windfalls?

It was used for the purpose of asserting that fortuitous windfalls were a legitimate subject for taxation.

If a man sold a horse for more than it was worth, would that be a "fortuitous windfall," and a subject of taxation?

May I ask whether this is the Government's idea of meeting the shortage of workmen's cottages?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the last year of new assessment prior to 1896–7, and to give figures showing the increase in Great Britain in the number of cottages and small houses under £20 annual value and of houses over £20 annual value, respectively, in that year as compared with that year next preceding it?

The last year of new assessment prior to 1896–7 was 1893–4 when the results as compared with 1892–3 were as follows:—

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Bill to provide for nurses' registration was passed through the House of Lords in 1908 with the assent of both parties; that this. Bill has been for nine years introduced into the House of Commons and supported there by Members of all parties; that within the past twenty years Acts for the registration of nurses have been passed in every British Colony and in thirty-four of the United States of America; and whether, under these circumstances, he can hold out hope that during next Session facilities may be provided for the Bill now before the House?

I can make no promise for next Session, but the claims of this Bill will be considered.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Under Secretary of State for India will be in his place?

I cannot give a definite day, but I hope my hon. Friend will be back about 23rd March.

Does the fact that this Minister was allowed to make a prolonged tour in India indicate an exceptionally long term of office, or anything else exceptional?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that militant suffragists convicted and sentenced to imprisonment have entered into a conspiracy, and publicly stated so, to defeat the due administration of the law, and to obtain their release from prison by refusing to take food; whether he has taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether if any sane person died owing to his or her refusal to take food the Home Secretary or prison officials could be indicted for manslaughter; if so, whether he will pro pose legislation to the House to prevent the administration of the law being defeated and brought into ridicule and contempt; (2) how many men and women were released from prison last year owing to their refusing to take food; whether any such persons have been convicted of felony; and (3) whether, seeing that militant suffragists convicted of offences against the law and sent to prison have publicly stated that it is their intention to defeat the due administration of the law by refusing to take food, and thereby to secure their release from prison, he will forthwith discontinue the practice of forcibly feeding any sane person, or any person or persons who have entered into a conspiracy of this kind, at the same time seeing that an ample supply of good food is provided for such persons?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question, and I propose to answer it along with two questions which my hon. Friend has addressed to me. During the year 1912 sixty-six Suffragist prisoners out of a total of 240 received under sentence were released from the prisons under my jurisdiction on medical grounds. With a few exceptions the condition of health which led to the discharge of these prisoners was due wholly or in part to their refusal to take food. None of them had been convicted of felony. There can be no doubt that the refusal to take food on the part of these prisoners and of others who were not released was due to concerted action. It has not been necessary to consult the Law Officers on the question of the feeding of prisoners, as in 1909 the High Court, in the case of Leigh v. Gladstone, in which this question was raised, definitely decided that it was the duty of the prison officials to take such measures as were necessary for preserving the health and lives of the prisoners in their custody. I am not prepared, in the existing circumstances, to propose to the House the legislation which the hon. Member's first question appears to suggest. I may, however, refer to the answer I made on Thursday last to a question by the hon. Member for the Morley Division, Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that a prisoner was convicted in Ireland of felony for endeavouring to set fire to a theatre; I do not understand that part of the answer in which the right hon. Gentleman says that no prisoner has been convicted of felony?

My answer was limited to prisoners under my jurisdiction. The prisons in Ireland are not under me.

Are we to understand that any persons who chose may commit outrages by destruction of letters and personal property, and making the lives of persons intolerable if they act on what are called "starvation tactics," and that even if a murderer is convicted and sentenced to penal servitude that person can be released by pursuing these starvation tactics?

My hon. Friend is really putting to me a hypothetical case. No such case has actually occurred in England. In a case of penal servitude it would be open to me to leave the prisoner out on licence and to bring the prisoner back to prison again. In the case of an offence for which penal servitude is not awarded I have no such power. If there were a case of murder, it would, of course, involve at least the punishment of penal servitude, and in that case I should have power to licence.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to prosecute for illegal conspiracy the militant suffragettes who are urging audiences to defeat the administration of the law by using these methods day by day?

That question should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

Has my right hon. Friend abandoned all attempts to find some other means of dealing with those people other than by forcible feeding?

I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would suggest any other means.

My right hon. Friend has the responsibility. I ask him, has he found it?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to accept the suggestion of forcibly deporting these people out of the country?

Where?

St. Helena.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the growth of monopolies in the production and supply of many of the necessities of life and the urgency of the question, he will introduce early legislation to deal with the matter?

I do not know-to what particular monopolies the hon. Member refers, but if he will submit to me any practical proposals they shall receive due consideration.

Has not this system of trusts increased very much under the pre sent Government? May I point out—

The hon. Member must find another time for replying.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the statement of the number of vacant pulpits in the Free Church of Scotland, taken from public information supplied by the Reverend Professor J. K. Cameron, M.A., principal clerk of the General Assembly of that Church, is denied by the Free Church authorities; and will he consider the ad- visability of appointing a Committee to inquire what is the true state of affairs, with a view to further legislation on the allocation of trust funds under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905?

In reply to the first part of the question, I understand that the Free Church authorities dispute the inferences drawn by my hon. Friend from the statement in question. I am not, as at present advised, prepared to promise a new inquiry, but I am not to be taken as saying that such an inquiry may not become expedient.

I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are considering, or taking steps to carry into effect, the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Public Records to the effect that a permanent Board should be appointed representative of the judiciary, the public offices, and the claims of historical study to superintend the administration and finance of the Public Record Office?

This and other recommendations of the Royal Commission are receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Master of the Rolls. As the right hon. Baronet is doubtless aware, the Commission did not suggest that the permanent Board, to which he refers, should be constituted during the tenure of office of the present Master of the Rolls. I am informed that in pursuance of the suggestion in paragraph 171 of the Report of the Commission Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy has appointed an Advisory Committee of historical experts to advise him on the selection of material and the execution of 1he various publications issued under his authority.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Women Suffrage Bill will be given first place next Session regardless of its fate in the ballot, and in preference to other Bills, regardless of their claims, including the Bill at the top of the list?

The Government are pledged to provide facilities for a Bill out of the time at their disposal.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that between now and the middle of next Session there is any possibility of the Cabinet agreeing to bring forward a Bill for the enfranchisement of women, and, if not, will he ask those who are against it to resign?

That is a question I should have to address to myself first.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, in introducing the Franchise Bill in the coming Session, to include provisions which will enable seamen, fishermen, and others whose business prevent their being usually able to register their votes on polling day, to record them through the machinery of an absent voter's list?