asked the Under-secretary of State for War if any officer or officers in the 3rd Royal Sussex Regiment have any right or authority to prevent or prohibit Private C. M. Ramsey from communicating with a Member of Parliament; and if Private C. M. Ramsey, of the 3rd Royal Sussex Regiment, 5th Company, Newhaven, who enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps in January last, and has been transferred to the Royal Sussex Regiment in opposition to his express wish, has been illegally transferred to the latter regiment?

My hon. Friend will find in paragraphs 445 and 439 of the King's Regulations the conditions to be observed by a soldier who desires to obtain redress for any grievance for which he may think he suffers. Application to a Member of Parliament is not the correct course, and it is not in the interests of discipline that serving soldiers should take this course. As regards the latter part of the question, I find that Private Ramsey was transferred from the Royal Army Medical Corps to the 3rd Sussex Regiment on the 2nd June and did not raise any complaint until September. It appears also that he served previously for five years in the 3rd Volunteer Battalion of the Royal West Surrey Regiment, and, according to his attestation paper, enlisted on the 18th January, 1915, for general service. His transfer was not illegal, and he does not appear to have regarded it as undesirable until a considerable time after it was effected.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the right course for Members to pursue when addressed by soldiers in regard to grievances in which no question of discipline may arise?

The right course is for a soldier to approach his adjutant or commanding officer through the regular military channels.

I would like a definite answer as to whether an officer has the right to prevent a soldier from communicating with a Member of Parliament if he wishes to do so. I have not had that answered.

I am bound to say that that is not a very easy question to answer. As I have stated, it is not desirable for soldiers to communicate with Members of Parliament, and if my hon. Friend wishes me to say anything further he would be entitled to quote the representative of the War Office as saying that it is an undesirable course, and that he hopes it will not be persisted in.

Is it not the case that there is expressed provision both in the King's Regulations and I think in Section 22 of the Army Act in which application for help from outside sources is expressly, if not directly, prohibited?

I think that is quite correct.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware of the complaints of the prices charged at the canteens on board the respective troopships to Egypt; and whether, if any complaints are brought to his notice, he will take action in the matter?

The canteen prices on board transports are regulated by the Admiralty, and any complaint would be referred to that Department. There have been one or two complaints received which have been so dealt with, but as there has been no special report on this matter from the great majority of transports, it would appear that the arrangements generally are satisfactory.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the Army supplies of flour, bacon, canned meats, clothing, etc., acquired and forwarded to their destination by the Army Service Corps and to the fact that no contract exists for receiving, storing, inspecting, and dispatching these goods to the troops; will he state why an exception should have been made in the matter of frozen meat, in view of the fact that, in its hard frozen condition, the only inspection possible is such as a butcher's foreman would make for general average condition and appearance; and whether, as a result of this exception, the cost of receiving, storing, and dispatching beef is increased?

The conditions under which frozen meat is obtained for the Army are totally different to those relating to the receipt and distribution of flour, bacon, and the other commodities referred to, and no useful comparison can be made such as the hon. Member suggests.

Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that this is about the fortieth question on the same subject put by the hon. Member for West Ham in the last few months, and can he give an estimate of the time spent by the War Office in answering these questions?

I cannot commit myself to the precise number of questions asked by my hon. Friend, but he has asked a very long series of questions dealing with this particular question. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that the preparation of answers to these questions throws a very heavy burden of work upon officers who are already overworked. If my hon. Friend has any scandal in his mind, or if he thinks there is anything that ought to-be thrashed out—brought to light, let it be dealt with in debate, rather than by this continual system of interrogation.

I am considering the health of the troops, and I am going to fire away as long as I can.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state if contractors have or have not refused to put up meat in ½ 1b. and ¾lb. tins; if, in view of the continual representations that have been made as to the waste involved in issuing the 1-lb tins, he will give definite orders for the issue of a number of ½1b. and ¾lb. tins; and if he is aware that packing ½ lb. and ¾lb. of meat in a 1-lb. tin does not meet the difficulty, as meat packed under such conditions; decays with rapidity?

Contractors have not refused to put up meat in ½lb. and ¾lb. tins, and they have not been asked to do so. The daily ration of preserved meat is ¾lb., and it would not be economical to pack it in smaller quantities. The last part of my hon. Friend's question shows that he has not fully understood the reply I gave on this subject on the 11th November. The 1-lb. tin referred to is known in the trade as a nominal 1 lb. tin, but it holds only ¾lb.

Is it not essential that the meat should be fit for immediate use, and that it should not be absolutely uneatable through salt brine?

That is not included in the question of my hon. Friend.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that seven men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 12th battalion, 34th company, now at the Davidson Road Hospital, South Norwood, whose only crime is the exercise of their legal right to refuse inoculation, have been punished by deduction in pay for badges, buttons, red crosses for arms, and numbers on shoulder straps, and by being put on extra fatigue duty; that they have been repeatedly told that inoculation is compulsory; and whether he will stop this persecution of men for putting trust in his word, and reprimand the officers guilty of such misconduct?

I do not know from what sources my hon. Friend derives the allegations contained in his question. I have had the men interrogated and I have now received a report under date 12th November, that every man denies that he was told inoculation was compulsory. I am further informed by the officer in command of the hospital that none of the statements contained in the question have any foundation in fact.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether adequate provision has now been made for the winter drainage of the camps and the shelter of the men on the Peninsula of Gallipoli; and whether the plans of the authorities in this respect have been now carried out?

I have no quite recent information on this point, nor have I thought well to telegraph my hon. Friend's question to the General Officer Commanding in Gallipoli, but the General Officer Commanding gave an assurance, some two months ago, that all the necessary arrangements were in hand, and as all demands for material have been and are complied with without avoidable delay I have no reason to suppose that the plans have not been carried out.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that some employers who have induced many of their employés to enlist by promising to make up the difference between the civil and military pay of such employés, and to keep their places open for them and to take them back after the War, are now themselves being urged to enlist, regardless of the fact that such employers, being indispensable to the continuance of their businesses, will if they themselves enlist consequently be unable to keep the promises on the strength of which their employés enlisted; and will he state what steps will be taken in such cases?

I am informed by the Director-General of Recruiting that every such case will be considered upon its merits.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether in the early stages of the War men were recruited for the Army Service Corps (packers and loaders) at a remuneration of 1s. 8d. per day; if he is aware that the pay now being offered to recruits is 3s. per day, and that dissatisfaction prevails among the men who enlisted under the old conditions; and if he proposes to remedy the grievances?

The men rated as packers and loaders in the Army Service Corps are paid 1s. 8d. a day now as before. The men to whom 3s. is paid are labourers possessing special qualifications. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the Prime Minister if, in the event of insufficient unmarried men offering themselves to be attested voluntarily for service in His Majesty's Forces, the other methods of enlistment foreshadowed by him are methods of compulsion for those who have failed to realise their national obligation to serve on an occasion of national emergency?

In answer to this question and one which was put to me yesterday, I must refer to and repeat what I said in the House on the 2nd November. It is my confident hope and belief that no question of resort to coercive methods will be found necessary, and that the appeal to the sense of patriotic duty, which is now being so energetically pressed by Lord Derby and his committee, will elicit an adequate response from all classes, and in particular from the young and unmarried men of the country.

May I ask whether the speech that the right hon. Gentleman delivered on 2nd November still holds the field with regard to the conditions that he would require to be satisfied before compulsion could be introduced?

I am not aware of anything that is excluded or extended since that date.

May I ask whether there is not a discrepancy between Lord Derby's statement issued last Thursday and the Prime Minister's statement of 2nd November?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

I am not aware that there is, but that is rather a matter for argument.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many married men are now enlisting in the belief that not one of them will be called up until every unmarried man in the country is called up?

I do not know why that belief should be entertained.

HON. MEMBERS: You said it.

It is quite clear there must be cases where it must be left to the discretion of the local tribunal and with regard to which it might be proved that unmarried men should not go.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the authority of his name is being used by responsible recruiting committees in the country for statements to the effect that there is free choice of corps until 30th November, and after that date there will be no option; and is he also aware that the Glasgow recruiting committee published an advertisement in the "Glasgow Herald" yesterday, undercover of the Royal Arms, with these words:—"Enlist before 30th November. If you do not, the Prime Minister has pledged himself and his Government that compulsory means will be taken"?

If the hon. Member will give me notice I will look into the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Local Government Board himself announced on Saturday last that compulsion had been decided upon?

I do not think my right hon. Friend did anything of the kind. Compulsion cannot be decided upon except with the assent of Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will say if the Government regard it as being, from a national point of view, economical to enlist for military service indispensable and irreplacable experts who are engaged in conducting overseas commercial operations which add to the financial strength of the nation and to its taxable capacity; and, if the Government regard such action as uneconomical, will they take prompt steps either to prevent the enlistment of such experts or, if enlisted, to put them back into a special class which will be one of the last classes to be called up?

I am not aware of the cases that the hon. Member has in mind, but if it is found that experts of the class referred to have enlisted due steps will be taken to release them or put them back through the existing machinery.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the London County Council is withholding certain scholarships which have been won unless the scholar agrees to join the Army; and if this action has the support of the Board of Education?

I understand that the Council have allowed all scholarship holders fit for military service to postpone their scholarships if they desire to point the Forces. The cases of such students as desire to take up their scholarships forthwith are considered on their merits, with special reservations for medical students and students engaged in munitions work. The matter is wholly within the discretion of the council, and does not require the Board's approval.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that men employed by his Department at South Kensington who joined the Army or Navy previous to 31st October had their service pay made up to the pay they were receiving at the time of enlistment and were also promised their employment again at the end of the War; if he is aware that men who are desirous of enlisting now are informed that they will not have anything added to their service pay nor will their situations be kept open for them; and will he explain why there is this differentiation in the treatment of these men?

So far as I am aware no distinction is drawn in respect of service pay between men who enlisted before and after the 31st October. A distinction is necessarily made between members of the Board's staff and temporary substitutes engaged since the outbreak of war. The former are eligible for the usual benefits on enlistment: the latter, by a Treasury Rule laid down for all Departments, are debarred from these benefits.

asked the Home Secretary if he proposes on behalf of the Government to express some appreciation of the action of the seamen and firemen of the port of Liverpool, many of whom are Irishmen, in protesting against men of military age leaving the United Kingdom during this crisis?

I feel sure that the patriotic motives of the seamen and firemen to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are generally appreciated.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War who is responsible for the publication in the Press of His Majesty's late appeal for recruits; whether he is aware that in some districts certain papers have been used and certain others, which are more widely read, have been ignored; and whether he will rectify this discrimination forthwith?

His Majesty's message to his people was issued by the Press Bureau to the newspapers through the news agencies; in addition copies were supplied by the Publicity Department of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee to morning and evening newspapers, Sunday papers and provincial weekly newspapers. The distribution was general, and there was no reference to party or any other similar irrelevant consideration. If there were any omissions they were purely accidental, and I am sure that the Publicity Department of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee would be glad to remedy them.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether men of military age having experience of hospital administration work can be utilised in similar work for the War Office instead of joining the combatant ranks?

There are no purely administrative appointments in connection with military hospitals. The officers in charge of these hospitals must be qualified medical men, as their duties necessitate their acting in that capacity. I would suggest that the gentlemen whom my hon. Friend has in mind would do best to join the combatant ranks.

asked the Under-secretary of State for War how many doctors, holding commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, are employed on purely administrative work?

As I have just stated, there are no purely administrative appointments in the Royal Army Medical Corps. To ascertain the number of Royal Army Medical Corps officers who are doing administrative work in addition to professional work would entail much labour, and I would ask my hon. Friend not to press for this information. It may be assumed that the proportion is a large one, and includes every commanding officer.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 19th of October last the son of a Mrs. Bishop, of 10, Jeyes Road, Gillingham, Kent, serving in the Army Service Corps, British Expeditionary Force, sent a registered post letter to his mother containing a £l note; that the registration of the letter is admitted by the Post Office, and also the fact that the letter has never been delivered; that the Post Office repudiate all responsibility, alleging that the whole mail was lost in transmission from the field post office to a base post office in France, and that the Post Office had no control in the matter; will he state to what circumstances the loss of this mail was due; whether the same was captured by the enemy and under whose control the mail was at the time of the loss; and will he in the circumstances cause the £l to be paid to Mrs. Bishop, who is a poor woman?

The facts are as stated. The exact circumstances of the loss of the mail are not known in the War Office, but the mail was under the control of the Military Authorities. As regards compensation the War Office has followed the Rules of the Post Office, under which I understand that as the loss was not due to neglect or dishonesty on the part of any Postal official, no compensation is admissible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire to what the loss of this mail was due?

Is was due to military operations.

That is so vague. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what were the military operations resulting in the loss of the entire mail?

I have made inquiry into the matter, and also into the loss of the poor woman's sovereign, and I am informed that it was due to military operations. It is not certain that the mail did not fall into the hands of the enemy. Therefore, I much regret having to give the answer which I have given. I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that. Supposing we were to give way in this trumpery case, it might involve the public Exchequer in very large expense, depending on the precedent of that one pound case.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to this poor woman the sovereign is not a trumpery matter? Will he say on what grounds he accepted a registration fee, and then refused responsibility for the parcel so registered? Is it not a fact that these military post offices are at least five miles behind the firing line? What are "military operations?"

I am glad to make quite plain that, of course, I never intended to convey that the loss of £1 is a trumpery thing to a poor woman. All I meant was that it was of very small account to the War Office, but that if it were refunded, and that this were taken as a precedent, it might involve the State in the loss of a very large sum. In a case of this kind the War Office has always observed the Post Office regulations. If we should persuade the Post Office to alter their regulations, we should have no difficulty in following the principle suggested. Registration, I should point out, is not insurance. Registration only implies that the Post Office will do its best to secure the safe delivery of the packet. If there is no dishonesty or neglect on the part of the Post Office, then no refund will be made. In the case of insurance it would be otherwise.

asked whether the military authorities have now considered the question of giving all veterinary surgeons serving in His Majesty's Force equal chances of promotion; and whether the policy will be for the future discontinued of promoting those veterinary surgeons who have only joined the Forces for a year over the heads of older and more experienced Territorial officers as a means of retaining their services?

I can at present add nothing to my reply on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the greatest dissatisfaction among these officers at the way they are being treated?

I was not aware of that, but I will bear the case in mind.

I beg to give notice that I will at the earliest opportunity, if possible to-night, draw attention to the treatment of these veterinary surgeons of the Territorial Force.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if his attention has been called to the case of a discharged soldier of the Royal Scots Fusiliers named R. Armstrong, who had been sent from Netley to Maybole poor-house; if there is no better provision than the poorhouse for such cases; if not whether he will consider the advisability of making such provision; and will he explain why the man was not sent to his wife and family?

I am having inquiry made into this case.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Mrs. Rogers, of 4, Frederick Street, Chatham, is entitled to separation allowance under the following circumstances, namely, that 87206, Private M. Rogers, was serving in the Grenadier Guards at the outbreak of war, his father being then alive and supporting his wife and family; and that in December last the father died, leaving his widow and family without means, and since that date Private Rogers has been allowing his mother 3s. 6d. a week; and, if not, will he take steps to amend the Regulations so as to cover her case and enable a grant to be made?

I regret I can only refer the hon. Member to what I said in Debate on the 21st June as regards cases of this kind. The Select Committee, after very careful consideration, decided against such claims as far as grants from Army funds are concerned. The case will be one for the consideration of the new Statutory body.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, in advance of legislation promised with reference to the resealing in England of Scottish confirmations, including no English estate other than war loan, etc., authorise the Bank of England to accept Scottish confirmations as a good title to such public stocks, so as to relieve executors in Scotland from the payment of unnecessary costs?

Resealing is required by Statute (Section 12 of 21 and 22 Viet. c. 56), and my right hon. Friend has no power to dispense with it in anticipation of legislation.

asked whether in future the Income Tax officials in Scotland are to be instructed to collect Income Tax on deposit receipts in bankrupt estates even in cases where no dividends whatever are-paid to the creditors in those estates?

There is no necessity for the issue of any instructions in this matter. The interest referred to, as my right hon. Friend indicated in reply to my hon. Friend's question of the 3rd November, is chargeable to Income Tax under the general provisions of the law.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the advantage of the tax: on incomes of £121?

My hon. Friend has asked several questions on this matter-Perhaps he will confer with me as to the exact case to which he refers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the combined effect upon controlled establishments of Section 4, Sub-section (1), and Section 5, Sub-section (1), of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and Clause 34, Sub-section (1), of the Finance (No. 3) Bill, and whether, as a result of these sections, the controlled establishments, under the Munitions Act, would have to pay to the Exchequer all profits earned in excess of 20 per cent. above the standard amount of their profits, and also, in respect of the same business, under the Finance (No. 3) Bill, to pay to the Income Tax authorities 50 per cent. of profit so limited, whereas a non-controlled establishment will merely be liable to pay 50 per cent. of excess profits by way of Income Tax; and whether he will take steps to equalise these burdens or, in view of the provisions of the Finance (No. 3) Bill, to repeal the provisions of the Munitions Act for payment of excess profits to the Exchequer, and bring all such controlled establishments under the provisions of the Finance Act simply.

The Excess Profits Tax is limited by the Finance (No. 3) Bill, to accounting periods ended prior to 1st July, 1915, and consequently the results suggested in the question will not arise. The arrangements to be made as regards businesses which in virtue of the passing of the Munitions Act have become since 1st July, 1915, controlled establishments are receiving consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state approximately the number of weekly wage earners who are at present assessed for Income Tax by the General Commissioners; whether any serious defects have been discovered in this mode of assessment of such weekly wage earners; and whether these weekly wage earners who have hitherto been assessed for Income Tax by the General Commissioners will, under the Finance (No. 3) Bill, be assessed by the General Commissioners or by the surveyor of taxes?

As regards the first part of the question, I regret that no data are available on which to form an estimate of the number of weekly wage earners hitherto in assessment. It would, however, in any case be small relatively to the numbers in prospect under the provisions of the Finance Bill. As regards the remaining part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend on the 11th November.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question as to whether weekly wage earners hitherto assessed by the General Commissioners will continue to be assessed by them?

I think that that question was answered on the 11th November.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the question.

That is a matter which was dealt with in Debate on the Bill. It is not a question of any defect in the existing arrangements, but of the very large number of new wage earners who are being introduced.

Does the Government fully adhere to the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, that it is not proposed to take anything from the General Commissioners which they had got, and that all employed persons with whom they now deal will be left to them?

The proposals in the Finance Bill deal practically entirely with a new type of Income Tax payer. My right hon. Friend has been in constant communication with those representing the General Commissioners, and probably the form of his proposals to the House of Commons embodied in consequential Amendments submitted will meet with their approval.

asked what objection exists to taxing the profits of cooperative societies at the source?

If Income Tax were assessed on the societies as such, instead of on the liable members, it would be necessary to repay much the greater part of the sum collected to the very numerous members who are exempt. Such a course would not only run counter to all principles of economy in administration, but would also occasion much unnecessary trouble to a considerable section of the public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the advisability of paying in War Loan, in whole or in part, salaries or wages defrayed by the Treasury and whether he proposes to take any action in this respect?

As at present advised my right hon. Friend does not see his way to adopt this suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information that Sir Ernest Cassel, a member of the Privy Council, recently subscribed in New York for £1,000,000 of British War Loan Stock at a discount bearing interest, at 5 per cent. free of Income Tax; and, if so, whether British subjects are entitled to subscribe for British War Loan Stock issued in America and thereby escape Income Tax?

My right hon. Friend does not consider it would be in the public interest to give details of individual subscriptions. As regards the second part of the question, the Treasury have already indicated in a Press notice of the 5th October, the undesirability of persons or firms in the United Kingdom purchasing the Anglo-French Loan issued in the United States, but they have not, of course, the same objection to British subjects investing in the loan funds already in America at the date of its issue. I would add that generally speaking holders of the loan resident in the United Kingdom will be liable to Income Tax on the dividends as in the case of income from other securities held abroad.

As to the return of this stock to the holder, £3 16s. British stock, at 5 per cent. in America, if it is held there, is it not the case that the owner will not pay the Income Tax?

But he will pay the Income Tax.

Not if it is taken in the name of an American company.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Local Government Board for Scotland issued a circular in August asking each local authority to appoint a committee to inquire and report what savings in public expenditure could be effected in the various departments of the local authority; if so, will he say what was the response to this request, and in how many instances such savings committees were appointed?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on Thursday of last week.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a different question, and that it is one referring to the appointment of the committees?

The answer applies to both the points. My hon. Friend will agree with me that it is very undesirable to spend unnecessary money and give unnecessary trouble with regard to statistics at the present time when staffs are depleted.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government have it in mind to commandeer prior to next spring, and thereafter apportion to the public, supplies of meat, bread, and petrol, or how otherwise is it proposed to prevent the waste of the two former to the ultimate detriment of the very poor and the increased export of gold abroad for their provision, or of the latter to the serious detriment of Service requirements; (2) whether, with the view of enforcing economy and reducing the export of gold, the Government will forthwith consider the desirability during the War of confiscating all undoubted luxuries imported from abroad upon their arrival at British ports, and of levying a fine of £100 for every offence upon all persons owning and using exclusively for their own pleasure expensive motor cars and carriages, wearing silks, satins, and costly furs and jewellery, or consuming in their houses or providing for their guests meals consisting of more than three courses; whether he realises that, in the event of legislation being passed without delay authorising such confiscation and the imposition of such fines, patriotic public opinion would usefully supplement and simplify the machinery for its enforcement; and (3) whether he will consider the desirability, in the interests of national economy and for the avoidance of waste, of making it a penal offence for any householder to introduce into his house, or any tradesman to sell to such householder, meat at the rate of more than ¾ lb. for each occupant, or for any person, whether civilian or soldier, to throw away, destroy, or permit to putrify or decay, any unconsumed meat or bread, the penalty in the case of soldiers being imposed upon and payable by the commanding officer of their regimental or other unit?

The particular measures which the hon. Member suggests are not at present regarded as expedient or likely to achieve the object which he has in mind.

May I ask whether recommendations on these lines are outside the purview of the Committee which is supposed to be sifting on the subject of national economy?

It is not only supposed to be sitting, but it is sitting; and those purposes are not outside its purview.

Does the Committee propose at an early date to make any recommendations in order to put a stop to the waste and extravagance that is going on in every direction throughout the country?

That is the subject which is engaging the earnest and continuous consideration of the Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that owing to the pressure of work due to the Budget, the Committee had not met for two months?

No, no!

HON MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "He said so!"

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has been able to obtain any information about Archdeacon T. Birley, A.M.C.A., who was taken prisoner by the Germans in East Africa and interned in an unknown place and about whom no information is obtainable in ordinary channels?

The name of Thomas Howard Birley is included under the heading "Priests" in a list of prisoners of war in German East Africa furnished to the British naval authorities by the Governor of the German Protectorate in June last. It was stated at the time that all the prisoners were in satisfactory health, and that no cases of death from disease had occurred.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London and North-Western Railway Company have refused to accept, since the middle of September or about that date, all traffic to or from Scotland, except perishables for markets and Government stores; if so, will he say whether this action has the sanction of his Department, and how trading is to be carried on if railway companies are permitted such action; and will he take any means to improve on this condition of matters?

I am forwarding my hon. Friend a copy of a letter from the London and North-Western Railway Company, from which it appears that, owing chiefly to the pressure of Admiralty coal and other Government traffic, restriction on traffic to and from Scotland were necessary between certain dates, but that the coal traffic has now been partially diverted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the London and North-Western Railway Company should be more hampered by this traffic than the Scottish railways? Is it due to less efficient management on the part of the London and North-Western?

I could not undertake to assess the amount of ability as between the Scottish and the English railways. There is of necessity a greater amount of traffic on the London and North-Western Railway than on the Scottish railways.

Is it not a fact that the Scotch really have to come bogging to poor England for locomotives to haul their traffic?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of the firm of A. Wulfing and Company, also trading as the Sanatogen Company, at 12, Chenies Street, London, W.C.; whether the sole member of this firm is Johann A. von Wulfing, a German alien enemy resident in Berlin; whether the London manager of this business is one Max Muller, a German alien enemy of military age resident in England; whether this firm has received a licence to trade in this country, and, if so, for what reason and on what terms; and whether he will take steps under the Trading with the Enemy Acts to appoint a controller of this business, with the powers of a receiver and manager, for the purpose of winding up the business and selling it to a British company or British subjects?

The proprietor and manager of A. Wulfing and Company are as stated in the hon. and learned Member's question. No licence to trade has been granted to the firm, and having regard to the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Trading with the Enemy Proclamation of the 9th September, no such licence would appear to be necessary to enable the branch of the business in this country to be carried on. In October last year I appointed an Inspector of the business, and subsequently I appointed a Supervisor in accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Acts in order to ensure that no trading with the enemy takes place, and that the profits are paid over to the Public Trustee as custodian of enemy property. As at present advised, I do not think it necessary to apply to the Court to appoint a Controller.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the firm of A. Wulfing and Company, also trading as the Sanatogen Company, of 12, Chenies Street, London, W.C.; whether the sole member of this firm is Johann A. von Wulfing, a German alien enemy resident in Berlin; whether the London manager of this business is one Max Muller, a German alien enemy of military age resident in England; and whether, in view of the fact that there are British subjects capable of managing this business if required, there is any adequate reason why Max Muller should not be interned?

As explained by the President of the Board of Trade in reply to an earlier question, the London business of the Sanatogen Company is now independently carried on in the interests of this country under a British supervisor appointed by the Board of Trade, and any profits are paid over to the Public Trustee. The case of the individual referred to was carefully considered by the Advisory Committee, who, in view of the special circumstances, recommended that he should be exempted from internment on condition that a bond for £1,000 for his good behaviour was entered into by two British sureties.

Are there not British subjects just as capable of carrying on this business as this German alien enemy?

He is not carrying on the business. It is being carried on under a British supervisor. As regards this individual I apprehend that he has special knowledge of the special processes involved.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire and ascertain whether there are not British subjects perfectly well able, at least as well able as this alien enemy, to manage this business?

I have already made some inquiries, I will make more. I can assure the hon. Member if that is so there will certainly be no reason for keeping this Gentleman uninterned.

Who will get any benefit from these profits after the War is over?

The Prime Minister has explained that that is a matter which is in contemplation of being dealt with at the end of the War.

Is Sanatogen a necessity for the country? Are there not British products which could take its place equally well?

I believe it depends on whether we can manage to preserve good nerve.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state when he proposes to issue a revised postal guide containing the recent alterations in the rates and charges of the postal, telegraph, and telephone services?

The Post Office Guide is issued quarterly, and a new edition giving the revised rates will be published on the 1st of January next. It is impracticable to arrange for an earlier issue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of issuing some pamphlet to the post offices, so that the public may get to know what the changes are, as they are very much inconvenienced at the present time from not knowing?

Yes, I will consider that. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to the matter.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the effect of reassessing cottage property during the present War on the cost of living in working-class houeholds; if he is aware, for instance, that the assessment committee of the North Bierley Board of Guardians, by raising the assessment of a number of cottages from £8 a year to £9 a year and thereby abolishing the discount for collection which is allowed on account of property rated at not more than £8 per year, has imposed an additional charge for rates equal to the sum of 10d. per week on the cottages in question; and whether, having regard to the burden now borne in working-class households by reason of high prices, he will circularise assessment authorities advising them to refrain from increasing assessments on cottage property at present?

I learn that a revision of the assessments of property in the union has been in progress for some time and is nearing completion. Persons aggrieved by the increase in their assessments can appeal against the new figures. I cannot at present undertake to advise assessment authorities in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, but I will look further into the question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the owners of cottage property in Upperton Road, Plaistow, have placed the collecting of the rent since the War commenced in the hands of certified bailiffs; that notice has been given to tenants that on and after Monday, 8th November, rents will be increased from 8s. 6d. per week to 10s.; if he is aware that a soldier's wife lives in one of the houses and that twelve months ago the rent of her house was 8s. per week; and if he intends taking action in the matter?

The hon. Member has been good enough to send me particulars of the cases to which he refers, and I am having inquiries made into them.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any of the protests made by the Public Boards' Trade Council and other local bodies in Dublin against the action of the Local Government Board in delaying the housing of the working classes; whether he is aware that the Dublin Corporation have acquired sites and condemned and demolished thousands of insanitary dwellings within the last two years; and, as this was done in the belief that the Local Government Board would sanction the loans to build houses for the working classes, will he state whether his Board will withdraw their opposition and thus allow the corporation to receive Grants sufficient to enable them to continue the housing of the workers, and if he can state when they will receive the money?

At a meeting of the corporation held on the 25th October last a resolution was passed protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in not having induced the Treasury to sanction certain housing loans within the last two years. The corporation have acquired sites and demolished houses, and since the commencement of the War loans have received the sanction both of the Board and the Treasury amounting to £75,000 in respect of some large building schemes. Regarding more recent schemes, loans to defray compensation claims have been sanctioned, but the question of sanctioning further loans for the erection of houses has been deferred for the present in accordance with the Board's circular of the 4th May last conveying the Treasury restrictions as to capital issues; this circular applies to all local authorities.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state in what form and at what period the accounts of payments made from moneys provided by Votes of Credit in the financial year 1914–15 will be presented to the Public Accounts Committee?

The Appropriation Account of the Vote of Credit for 1914–15 will be brought before the Public Accounts Committee, together with the other Appropriation Accounts for that year, in the usual way early next Session. It will be rendered as set out in the Treasury Minute of the 20th August, 1914, subject to certain modifications embodied in a further Treasury Minute which will be presented shortly.

May I take it, then, that so far as the Public Accounts Committee is concerned the control of this House over public expenditure will not be lessened?

It will not, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will direct that, where a person is sentenced to death under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, upon conviction on indictment, and his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal is dismissed, the sentence shall not be carried into effect until the lapse of such period as shall enable an appeal to the clemency of the Crown to be made and considered; and (2) whether he will direct that in all cases of persons sentenced to death in this country by courts-martial such period shall elapse between the confirmation and execution of the sentence as shall enable an appeal to the clemency of the Crown to be made and considered?

In the cases referred to, after the dismissal of an appeal reasonable time is allowed to elapse during which any application for the clemency of the Crown can be made and considered.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state what Secretary of State is responsible for advising His Majesty's with respect to the prerogative of mercy in cases of persons sentenced to death in this country by courts-martial and upon conviction on indictment under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, respectively?

In the first cases referred to in the question, the responsibility rests with the Secretary of State for War; in the second, with the Home Secretary.

asked the Prime Minister what is the present role, in the prosecution of the War, of the Committee of Imperial Defence; what is its present composition and how often does it meet; what are the matters on which it advises; whether it was its duty to report at the start of the War on the sufficiency of equipment and munitions, and also on the anticipated strength of the British Expeditionary Force; and, in that case, whether its advice coincided with the position in which the country found itself in August, 1914, or with the preparations which have since been necessarily made to carry on the War?

The functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence have in the main been absorbed by the War Committee, the members of which were announced by me in the House on 11th November. The War Committee meets several times a week as a rule. The particular questions referred to in the fourth part of the question were at the start of the War entirely within the sphere of responsibility of the War Office, and the Committee of Imperial Defence had no duties in connection with them unless asked for their advice by the responsible Department.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction felt in this country with the Consular service before the War, he will agree to the appointment of a business Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report on the question of the relations of the Consular service to the trading community, more especially with the object of being prepared for after-war competition and conditions?

I would remind my hon. Friend that the organisation of the Consular service has only recently been investigated by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, and that the question of the relations of the service to the trading community was dealt with in the Report. The whole subject, however, is receiving the careful attention of His Majesty's Government, and I do not think it necessary to appoint a further Committee.

asked the Minister of Munitions if the patrol men at Cammel Laird and Company, of Birkenhead, a controlled establishment, have to perform duty every other Sunday without pay; if the night patrol men are not paid for weekend duty, and have to put in five hours a week more than the day men without pay; and, if so, will he take steps to have these things put on a fairer basis?

My right hon. Friend has made inquiries of the firm on this subject, and is informed that the patrol men in question on day duty are engaged at a weekly wage conditional upon their working each alternate week-end. Should they be required to work at other week-ends they are paid for such extra duty. The night men are engaged and paid weekly for seven nights per week with one night's holiday every four weeks, and should they be required to work any additional hours they are paid for same. The hours worked by the day patrol men vary from those of the night men, inasmuch as the former have to move about the works all day, while the latter only patrol for two hours at a time with intervals of two hours rest. It is understood from the firm that there-is no difficulty in bringing a grievance before the management, and in these circumstances my right hon. Friend considers that this course should be adopted in the first instance if there is felt to be any grievance in this case.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the dismissals from the Valuation Department, he would be willing to employ in his Department such dismissed officials who, being ineligible for military service, have shown a capacity for work of organisation?

Applications for employment made by ex-officials of the Land Valuation Department, who are ineligible for military service, will always receive careful consideration in the event of suitable vacancies occurring. It must, however, be remembered that a large number of the posts in the Ministry, other than those of a purely subordinate character, require some technical experience.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that the women being-employed on munitions in the Glasgow and West of Scotland district are almost wholly taken from the working classes who have heretofore been engaged in industrial employment; that the other classes of trade, such as carpet weaving and muslin manufacturing in which these women had been engaged, have become depleted of workers; whether he is aware that numbers of women who had not before worked in industrial employment offered themselves for munition work and were refused; that such women have been accepted in Dundee and Aberdeen with most successful results; and whether he will advise the munitions employers throughout the country to engage women not formerly in industrial employment, so that the whole body of labour may be increased in the country?.

My right hon. Friend's, attention has been called to this matter, and measures for dealing with the difficulty referred to by my hon. Friend are being taken in conjunction with the Board of Trade.

May I ask whether the Department has recommended that the services of women who have not before been engaged in industrial work should be utilised?

reply was inaudible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the expressed inability of France, intimated on the 28th September, 1914, to act in accordance with Article 11 of the Berlin Act which provides for the neutralisation of Central Africa, he will say whether the other articles of the same Act must still be regarded as binding on the signatories?

As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 21st September, the provisions of the Berlin Act have the same validity to-day as before the War.

asked whether the obligation imposed on the signatories of the Berlin Act to respect Article VI. of that instrument still remains effective; and whether there is actually at the present time any restriction on the importation of arms, ammunition, and spirits into Central Africa?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the copies of correspondence relative to the neutralisation of Central Africa, placed in the Library of this House on 9th November, contains less than 450 words; and whether, in view of the interest taken in this subject, the correspondence can now be published?

The hon. Member for Blackburn asked for the publication of certain specified documents. These documents have been placed in the Library. The only other diplomatic correspondence on the subject consists of communications with the French and Belgian Governments. I have no objection to placing copies in the Library, but the consent of the other Governments would have to be obtained.

In view of the very great interest felt in this question abroad, as well as by a certain number of people at home, will the Noble Lord obtain, if possible, the consent of the other Governments to the publication of the documents?

The matter will be considered.

Does the Noble Lord seriously suggest that the neutralisation of Central Africa has any validity at the present moment?

Certainly; the Berlin Act remains in force, except so far as it has been abrogated.

Is it not far better that the words to which the hon. Member refers should remain in oblivion?

All these questions arise from profound ignorance of the real facts of the case.

asked which members of the Cabinet were consulted with regard to the proposal to neutralise Central Africa presented by the Spanish Government in August, 1914; which members of the Cabinet were consulted with regard to the proposal to neutralise Central Africa presented by the United States Ambassador on the 24th September, 1914; what was the date and the purport of the decision of the Committee of Imperial Defence on this question; and were the Ministers consulted on these three occasions all aware of our obligations towards the natives and towards the signatories of the Berlin Act when they assented to the proposals of the Foreign Office?

As regards the first two branches of the question, I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on October 28th, except that the Ministers who considered this question were the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and my right hon. Friend; nor, as regards the last branch, to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Somerset on July 28th regarding the extent of the obligation assumed in this matter by the signatories of the Berlin Act. The views of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the subject were given to the Government on two occasions—in November, 1898, and January, 1911.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give further information in regard to the alleged action of the Barber Steamship Company, of New York, and the conveyance of German goods from Rotterdam to New York, and thence to the United Kingdom?

I am informed by the Barber Steamship Company that they have only had two steamers from Rotterdam to the United States of America since the beginning of the War, and none since March last. Nothing was imported on either of the two steamers mentioned, and consequently nothing carried by their vessels can have been re-shipped to this country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of removing an undeserved slur on the reputation of an honourable firm.

asked when His Majesty's Government proposes to lay before Parliament Papers containing the Foreign Office dispatches addressed to foreign Governments, together with the replies thereto, on questions arising from the War and the exercise of maritime rights, such as those which have already been from time to time partially published in the daily Press?

If the hon. Member will be good enough to specify any particular Papers to which he refers, I will see what can be done as to laying them upon the Table, with due regard to economy and other public interests.

Why should Parliament not have all these dispatches? Why should there be this secrecy on the part of the Foreign Office? Why should not all these Papers be laid?

I may have misunderstood my hon. Friend's question. I understood him to complain that certain dispatches which had been published in the daily papers had not been laid on the Table of the House; therefore no question as to secrecy arises in connection with these dispatches. If I misunderstood my hon. Friend, perhaps he will put down another question to make more clear what he desires.

I think my Noble Friend is referring to a previous question of mine which has nothing to do with this question. But I will put another question on the Paper.

asked, touching the statement in the Foreign Office Memorandum of 17th June, 1915, published in the daily Press of 25th June, and stating that His Majesty's Government had then paid to American owners of cotton captured or detained at sea sums exceeding £450,000, and had then found the cotton claimed by Swedish or Dutch firms, what was the exact sum then so paid and to whom; whether any and, if so, what other sums have been paid in similar circumstances in respect of other goods than cotton, either before or subsequent to that payment; and what is the total of all sums so paid up to date in respect of all goods whatever?

From the question it would appear as though His Majesty's Government had made payments both to American and to Swedish or Dutch firms for the same cotton. This is quite erroneous. The procedure adopted has been to pay, under expert advice, only to-the holders of the original bill of lading, or, failing the production of such documents, against bank guarantees securing His Majesty's Government against any future claims arising out of the production of the original documents. The exact sum paid, under the conditions described, up to the date mentioned in the question, was £449,789 1s. 4d., which was entirely paid to American shippers. As no circumstances of the nature suggested by the hon. Member have arisen, the answer to the second part is in the negative. The total amount of disbursements made up to date is not at present available.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many lieutenants (gunnery) have been appointed from the mercantile marine and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve since the outbreak of the War to 1st September, 1915, and how many lieutenants (gunnery) have been appointed during the like period from the chief gunners and gunners of His Majesty's Navy on the active list; whether he is Aware that when the rank of lieutenant (gunnery) was created on the 28th March, 1903, there were 31 lieutenants (gunnery) appointed and that the number of chief gunners was then 32 and of gunners 719, or 812 in all, and that on the 1st September, 1915, there were only 33 lieutenants (gunnery), whilst the number of chief gunners had increased to 236 and of gunners to 1,069, or 1,338 in all; and will he take steps to increase the number of lieutenants (gunnery), so that the proportion of lieutenants to chief gunners and gunners shall be maintained at least at the ratio at which it stood on the 28th March, 1903?

Assuming that the first part of the question refers to the number of lieutenants, Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve performing gunnery duties in the Royal Navy, the reply is that approximately 40 lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve are so employed, and no lieutenants of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The number of chief gunners and gunners promoted to lieutenant in the period mentioned is six, three of whom have been specially promoted for service in action, In addition, between the outbreak of War and the 1st September, 1915, 18 mates, formerly warrant officers or petty officers, have been promoted to lieutenant, and 122 promotions to mate from warrant officers and petty officers have been made. In 1903 there were 31 lieutenants promoted from chief gunners, 62 chief gunners, and 719 gunners. On 1st September last the figures were 40,238 and 1,066 respectively. As regards the last part of the question, it cannot be admitted that promotion should be governed solely by a rule of proportion. Length of service must play a large part.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, touching His Majesty's Order in Council of 11th March, 1915, and His Majesty's decision thereby announced to adopt further measures in order to prevent commodities of any kind from reaching or leaving Germany, will he state, or give a Return stating, how many ships of how much aggregate tonnage have since that date been detained by the vessels of His Majesty's Fleet, or by other vessels having His Majesty's commission, on suspicion of carrying such commodities to or from Germany, and how many of such detained ships of how much aggregate tonnage have had to be released to continue their voyage because of licences issued to them, or of orders for their release emanating from His Majesty's Government; or, alternatively, will he say what proportion of the total ships and of the aggregate tonnage so detained since that date has been so released; and whether the total so released amounts to more than half the ships or tonnage detained?

To give an answer to my hon. Friend's question would, I am afraid, involve an expenditure of time and labour which I scarcely think would be justifiable at the present juncture.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the way in which the chief carpenters of His Majesty's Navy have discharged their duties during the War, he will now grant them the extra 1s. a day increase in pay on their entering on their fifteenth year of service and thus place them in the same position as gunners, seamen-gunners, signal boatswains, boatswains, and other warrant officers in His Majesty's Navy?

It is not proposed to make any change in the scale of pay of carpenters in the Royal Navy.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have recently contracted with the British Petroleum Company for 300,000 tons of fuel oil; whether he is aware that Germans are largely interested in this company even if they do not control it; whether this company is actually delivering oil in vessels which were until recently flying the German flag; whether he is aware that this oil can be obtained from purely British firms and why, under these circumstances, contracts are placed with firms in which Germans are interested?

The oil in question is obtained from a large American producing company, and could not be procured of the required quantity and quality from purely British firms. The British Petroleum Company have for a number of years acted as agents for the American company in question. They do not freight or handle the oil at any stage, but merely deal with the correspondence and remission of payments. The position of the British Petroleum Company, though it was not specified by name, was fully explained in my reply of the 25th November last to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor. I shall be happy to send my hon. Friend a copy of that answer. So far as I am aware, the British Petroleum Company is not employing for any purpose vessels which have recently down the German flag.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War why captains now doing major's work in the Artillery at the front do not receive the pay of the rank or, after long service, promotion, whilst subalterns replacing seniors in the position of a captain of a battery become entitled, after one month in that position, to the temporary rank of captain, and thus obtain the same rank and pay as those in command of batteries; and is it for the purpose of economy, or is it intended to promote direct from captain to colonel?

I presume the hon. Gentleman is referring to four-gun batteries which, under their establishment, can be commanded by either a captain or a major. If such a battery is in command of a captain, he cannot be considered to be doing a major's work. In a six-gun battery, on the other hand, the establishment provides for a major to command. The analogy suggested in the question between the treatment of a subaltern replacing temporarily a captain, and of a captain in command of a four-gun battery is not correct. It is not intended to promote direct from captain to lieutenant-colonel.

Is it not the fact that captains who take the place of majors who have been killed are left for a long period still in the position of captain, with only the rank and pay of major?

As I have often explained in this House, the duties of captain and major are interchangeable. To say that because a captain, being in command of these four-gun batteries is doing major's work would not be true. If a captain were placed in command of a six-gun battery then it would be true to say that that captain ought to be promoted to major within a reasonable time.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has considered the suggestion that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot at present preside over the Public Retrenchment Committee owing to the pressure of business, the Committee should immediately resume its sittings under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with an addition of Irish Members, for the consideration of possible economies in the Irish Departments of administration?

The Retrenchment Committee is a totally different thing from the Finance Committee of the Cabinet. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the reply is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice; Whether he can give the House any information with regard to the critical situation in Persia?

As will be seen from to-day's Press, various outrages have recently taken place on His Majesty's Consular Officers in Persia; and, in view of all that has happened and the presence of German and Austrian officers in Persia, we have not been without apprehension for the safety even of British and Allied Legations and subjects at Teheran. For this reason some Russian reinforcements have advanced towards the capital as the only means of giving protection. The Persian Government have been expressly informed of the pacific intentions of the troops, whose one aim is to afford protection to the foreign colonies in case of need. Certain proposals have recently been received from the Persian Government, and are engaging the attention of the British and Russian Governments. As in the past, so now, His Majesty's Government's one desire is to maintain the most friendly relations with the Persian Government, provided the latter make real efforts to prevent attempts being made by our enemies on British and Allied officials in that country. It must be remembered that the whole trouble comes from the proceedings of German and Austrian officers and agents in Persia

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether his attention has been called to a meeting proposed to be held in the Albert Hall on Thursday next, which appears calculated to convey a wholly false impression of the unity of the country in the face of the enemy; also whether the Government intends to take any steps to forbid the meeting?

Prussianism!

I understand that the proprietors of the Albert Hall were induced to let the building on the representation that it was to be used for a patriotic meeting. They have since learnt with surprise that it is intended to use it for the purpose of denouncing the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I regret that the promoters can find no better way of exhibiting their patriotism than by giving a false impression that the Government is not generally supported in the prosecution of the War. To attempt to stop such a meeting by Government action would be to give it a wholly false importance. The proprietors of the Albert Hall will doubtless consider the propriety of permitting their building to be used for such a purpose at such a time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the authorities of the Albert Hall have already cancelled the meeting? I have seen a statement to that effect in the Press this afternoon.

I had not heard of it.

Has the Press Bureau suggested a joint attack upon this meeting in the Press?

No, Sir; the Press Bureau has made no such suggestion.