asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the disabilities affecting the sick-berth staff regarding pay and promotion; whether he is aware that since the outbreak of war the calling up of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade has materially affected promotion in the ranks of the sick-berth staff; that the new comers are receiving pay equivalent to that of first sick-berth stewards, men often of some twelve years' service; that the admission of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade causes advancement, always slow in this branch of the service, to become still slower, and that men of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade are frequently placed over men of the sick-berth staff possessing greater experience; and can he see his way to extend a higher rate of pay to the sick-berth staff and give them automatic promotion?

The calling up of the Auxiliary Sick-Berth Staff (St. John's Ambulance Brigade) during the period of hostilities cannot possibly affect the general rate of promotion in the active service sick-berth staff. The members of this Reserve receive the rates of pay which were fixed for them. So far as I know, it is not correct that men of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade are placed over men of the active service sick-berth staff possessing greater qualifica- tions and experience. I may say, generally, that it is not in contemplation to make any general change in the conditions of the active service sick-berth staff, the conditions of service for which have already been carefully considered and considerable improvements made in recent years.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men resident in the Dunfermline district who have been employed at Rosyth dockyard for some months past are being paid off so that they may be induced to join the Army, while their places are being filled by men, both single and married, who have been sent up from the South; whether the married men thus introduced are receiving a higher wage than that received by those from the locality who have been recently employed; and whether this preferential treatment of English over Scottish workmen is either equitable or conducive to true economy?

The suggestion conveyed in the earlier part of the question is not correct. We have, of course, found it necessary to transfer men from the Southern yards, particularly mechanics and skilled labourers of the classes needed and accustomed to dockyard work and routine. But, on the other hand, we have secured, and shall be glad to secure, as many suitable men as necessary and possible from the locality, constant representations having been made to the local Labour Exchanges to that end. As regards the reference to the higher wage paid to the transferees, we have felt in justice compelled to give these men subsistence money until they have had time and opportunity to move their homes, and also a special addition to their wage of 2s. a week to cover other inconveniences involved in setting up new homes. But, if I may be allowed to say so, to construe this into a preferential treatment for English workmen over Scottish workmen is absurd. We have, I am glad to say, the privilege to have in our employment everywhere a considerable number of Scotsmen, many of them in high rank, and it is worth noting that this alleged prejudice against Scotsmen has had this curious result in this particular case that the highest post in the dockyard itself is held by a Scotsman, namely, Commodore Bruce.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that sums of money are being transmitted by postal or money orders by Belgians in England and Scotland to their relatives and friends in Belgium; as no acknowledgment of the receipt of these remittances reaches the sender in England or Scotland can he state what guarantee there is that these moneys do not get into the hands of the German authorities in Belgium; and if he can ascertain whether the money is given to the recipient in cash or in goods, and through what agency it is given?

No such information is in the possession of the Foreign Office. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish particulars of the cases which have come to his knowledge inquiry will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how much the French Government contributes to the Commission for the relief of Belgians and French in the occupied territory; how much is contributed by the Belgian Government for the relief of Belgians in Belgium; whether the whole of the latter sum is contributed out of the British Loan; whether he can state what portion of the public subscriptions in cash received by the Commission for Relief, and amounting to £2,214,220 during the twelve months ending November last, was raised by Great Britain, the British Colonies, and America respectively; and (2) at what date the contribution by His Majesty's Government of £100,000 a month to the relief of the Belgians began, when these monthly contributions ceased, and for what reason were they stopped; at what date the loan of £1,000,000 a month to the Belgian Government began and on what conditions was the loan made; and whether any portion of the loan was earmarked for the feeding of Belgians; and, if so, how much?

I am informed that to answer these questions would involve a large amount of labour and the consumption of a great deal of time, and I do not think it would be in the public interest that this additional burden should be placed on those who are carrying out a policy to which His Majesty's Government are bound by every obligation of gratitude and honour.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information to the effect that the warp and the woof of all or nearly all the textile material used by Germany in the manufacture of all or nearly all the Zeppelins since the outbreak of war was made in our own factories; if so, when information of this trade first reached the British authorities; and if effective steps have been taken to put a stop to it?

I have no information to this effect.

Has the right hon. Gentleman got any unofficial information?

No, I have not, but I should be very glad to receive any if my hon. Friend has got some.

asked what is the effect of recent legislation in Sweden on the endeavours of the British Government to restrict the trade of Germany by private agreements?

The War Trade Law, which is probably referred to, only became law on the 13th April, and it is impossible to predict what its effect will be. This will depend on the manner in which the Swedish Government make use of the wide powers which it confers on them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Danish merchant, Herr Otto Madsen, who broke faith by sending consignments of coffee to Germany after pledging his word to keep them in Denmark, has been and will be kept on the black list; whether he is aware that Herr Otto Madsen, following the decision of the Colonial Ware Dealers' general meeting, resigned his position as vice-chairman; and whether, instead of allowing our representatives in Copenhagen to pursue a weak course, instructions will be issued to them to request that Herr Otto Madsen should be expelled from the Merchants' Guild, and no longer get the good faith attestation papers enabling him to obtain imports?

I would refer the hon. Member in reply to the answer to a question about this firm on 21st March. It would be contrary to the public interest to deal by way of question and answer in this House with the composition and scope of the so-called black list.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the answer did not state what happened to Herr Madsen? Is the question still sub judice as far as the Government are concerned?

I must request my hon. and gallant Friend not to ask me to say what exactly is the practice. I cannot go any further than the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the memorial of the Sinhalese people, with or without appendices, and also a copy of his reply to the same?

The memorial in question appears to have been widely circulated in this country, and I see no sufficient reason for reprinting it at the public expense. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Gentleman with a copy for his perusal, if he desires, and also a copy of my reply.

Is this memorial properly described as the memorial of the Sinhalese people?

That description is not applied to it officially. I do not know what description may be applied to it unofficially. I should hesitate to endorse it in these circumstances.

Seeing that we have had the official statement from one side of a very large number of people—122,000—would it not be well and for the public benefit to have a publication of the other side of the question?

I see no reason for printing it. The hon. Member will have ample opportunity for discussing it or of getting it raised if he wishes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence that has passed between his Department and the Dominion Government of Canada respecting the Economic Conference shortly to be held in Paris?

On the 15th of March I telegraphed to the Governor-General, saying, "An Economic Conference of the Allies is to be held at Paris on the invitation of the French Government. The representative of this country, and, I presume, of the other Allied Governments, will attend so far as arrangements after the War are concerned for the purpose of discussion only, and this Government will not be committed in any way in regard to trade after the War. If, as a result of the Conference any action should be contemplated no step will be taken without full consultation with the Dominions." The Canadian Government, on the understanding that nothing is to be done at the Conference which will commit them in anyway, have expressed themselves content with the arrangements made. It is not proposed to lay Papers.

asked the Prime Minister what representation Ireland and Scotland are to have at the approaching Economical Conference in Paris commensurate with their respective contributions in men and money to the War, compared with the contributions of any self-governing Dominion having representation at that Conference; and by whom are the representatives of Ireland and Scotland, respectively, to be chosen?

No self-governing Dominion will have a representative at the Conference, and the hon. Member's question therefore does not arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether any instructions have yet been drawn up for the Imperial representatives at the forthcoming Economic Conference at Paris; and, if so, will he place these instructions upon the Table of the House before the Adjournment?

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

Will any instructions be given?

I would not like to commit myself to that. No instructions have yet been given.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the communication sent by the Imperial Government to the Dominions explaining the scope of the proposed Economic Conference in Paris has also been forwarded to the Government of India; and whether he is able to give an assurance that the representatives of India will take part in the full discussion with regard to questions affecting trade after the War?

The Government of India have been informed of the scope of the Conference, and have been assured that if, as the result of the Conference, any action should be contemplated, no step would be taken without full consultation with them as with the Governments of the Dominions.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of certain officers who have been attached to the General Staff of commands, without any pay or allowances other than the ordinary pay of their rank, for instruction in General Staff duties and for the purpose of relieving the pressure of work falling upon the General Staff officers on the establishment, it is the intention of the Army Council to officially recognise the work of these officers by granting them Staff appointments or such other official recognition as they would seem to merit?

The object of attaching selected officers to Brigade, Divisional, or Headquarters Staffs for instruction is their ultimate employment, if found suitable, in temporary Staff appointments. In this sense the answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, but he must not draw the conclusion that every officer so attached will necessarily be given a temporary Staff appointment.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will say why Mr. Ernest Blythe has been transferred from the place in which he had been ordered to reside; where he is now; and the nature and conditions of the restraint to which he is subject?

Mr. Ernest Blythe was ordered to proceed to Abingdon and there to report his intended place of residence to the police and to the competent military authority. He reached Abingdon on Monday, 10th April, and by Wednesday night had reported his address neither to the police nor to the competent military authority. On 13th April he was arrested under No. 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations for failing to comply with the order issued under No. 14 of those Regulations. He is now in custody and will be brought to trial on this charge to-morrow.

Why has this man been denied the right of trial by jury?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Paddington Tribunal is correct in holding that Denis Moran, son of a widow wholly dependent on him, whose sight is certified by the official oculist at the White City to be, right eye, with glasses, 6/18, left eye, with glasses, nil, is fit for secondary or Home military service, and that in the event of his weak and inflamed eyes becoming blind on exposure he and his mother would be pensioned; if such decisions are incorrect, will that tribunal be so informed; and will Moran's appeal be considered by the Central Tribunal?

I will have inquiry made into this matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the case of Thomas E. Parry, No. 35,042, 3rd Cheshires, who died on the 4th March, after having been passed into the Army for general service though subject to fits from infancy, and being obliged, notwithstanding his complaint to the medical officer, to march 8 miles?

I have asked for a report on this matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the sentences of two years' imprisonment with hard labour passed by a district court-martial on two members of a non-combatant corps stationed at Kinmel Park for disobedience to orders; whether he will give the names of the two men; whether he will state the circumstances under which this sentence was given; and whether the Secretary of State will advise the release of these men conditionally on their undertaking to obey orders in future?

The court-martial proceedings in this case have not yet reached the War Office. Attention will be given to them as soon as they arrive. In the meantime I cannot express any opinion on the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many conscientious objectors have been deprived of their liberty by military authority for refusing to obey the judgments of the military service tribunals; where they are imprisoned; and under what discipline are they as to food and clothing and communication with their friends?

I have no information on the first two parts of the question. The answer to the third part is that the treatment which soldiers under punishment receive is contained in Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons, which are statutory and authorised under Section 133 (2) of the Army Act, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

How many of these men are in prison?

I do not know. I dare say the information can be obtained.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take in the case of Harold Brook, a conscientious objector under the Military Service Act, 1916, who was arrested at Pontefract on 11th April, and marched through the streets of Pontefract escorted by six soldiers, to be jeered at by the people; and if the military officers have received instructions to revive the pillory in the case of conscientious objectors?

I have called for a report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that nothing is done to outrage the patriotic feelings of the people of Pontefract?

I will see that that is safeguarded.

asked the Prime Minister what action the Government propose to take in the cases of men who have been refused exemption under the Military Service Act, 1916, and who are prepared to resist military duties to the utmost, but who will undertake work of national importance for which provision is made under the Act, and with the object of avoiding the trouble which will otherwise follow; and, in order to utilise the services of these men in the most useful and economical way in the national interests, will he make arrangements by which these men may be allowed to engage in national work of importance outside the military machine?

The men in question are soldiers under military law, and they must be dealt with as such.

Seeing that that is precisely the answer that I got to a similar question last week, may I ask whether the Government are willing for this state of chaos to continue, where men who have been guilty of precisely the same military offence are in some cases being sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour and in others discharged and handed over to the civil authorities for employment?

I do not think that that is an accurate statement of the case.

It is.

I am afraid I cannot accept it. It all turns on whether the cases are precisely similar. According to my information there are great variations in the cases. The Government are watching the development of this part of the Act very carefully. I am bound to say that the agitation carried on here on behalf of the conscientious objector is doing the greatest possible harm to the cause of the genuine conscientious objector.

Is not the way to put a stop to the agitation for the Government to see that their own Act is impartially and judicially carried out?

Everything possible is being done.

asked the Home Secretary whether the small number of conscientious objectors under the Military Service Act, 1916, who are now in prisons controlled by the Home Office is exclusive of those punished by the military authorities?

I understood that my hon. Friend's question on Monday referred only to the prisons under my jurisdiction, and my answer related only to them.

How many have there been under the military authorities?

I do not know. That question should be addressed to the representative of the War Office.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of doctors were appointed by recruiting officers in the early period of the War to examine recruits at a fee of 2s. 6d. per head; whether such fees were from time to time paid; whether he is aware that many doctors, during the period of rush in December, 1915, gave up their private practice and, with the help of assistants working twelve to fifteen hours a day, examined and passed a number of recruits, but have been refused payment of anything more than £2 per day, representing sixteen recruits; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the matter?

The ordinary fee is 2s. 6d. per recruit examined, and this regulation was in force at the beginning of the War. But in February, 1915, it was modified to the effect that where considerable numbers were examined £2 should be the maximum payment for a full day's work.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that notices have been sent out at Carmarthen to persons who were postponed recently by the local tribunal that these postponements are going to be reviewed on the application of the recruiting officer; that the recruiting officer did not appeal to the Central Tribunal against such postponements; whether it is the policy of the War Office that the decisions of the local tribunal should be reviewed by the same tribunal before the term of postponement has expired at the caprice of the recruiting officer; if not, whether he will take steps to allay the irritation and discontent caused in Carmarthen and district by the injudicious conduct of the recruiting officer by removing him to another district where he will understand the language of the people and where his methods may be appreciated; and (2) whether he is aware that Private W. D. Charles, No. 2,350, of the 1/7th Battalion Welsh Regiment, was refused exemption by the local tribunal at Llanelly in January last, and that he then joined the said battalion; that he appealed to the Central Tribunal, which gave him in March last two months' extension till 4th May; that the War Office, upon representation made to them of the facts, wrote to the recruiting officers that Private Charles was not to be called up till 4th May, instead of ordering his company commander to give him leave till 4th May; that owing to this blunder on the part of the authorities Private Charles was not given leave till 14th April; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Private Charles shall have an extension of his leave which will give him the two months' extension granted by the Central Tribunal?

I am calling for a report on these two cases.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of William George Winchcombe, a lad of seventeen, who is now a private in No. 2 Battery, Wessex Brigade, stationed at Rollestone; whether he is aware that the lad's mother, who is a widow, has applied for his release and has furnished a birth certificate proving that he was born on 20th August, 1898; and whether, under these circumstances, he will order the lad's release until he attains the age of eighteen years?

I explained to the House the course followed by the military authorities in cases of this nature in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November, 1915.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer said that boys under seventeen would be discharged apart altogether from their physical condition?

Yes, under seventeen, they are.

asked the Prime Minister if his statement to the attested married men's deputation that men who had been led to attest on the strength of misleading promises made to them would be released if they could prove such to be the case extends to the cases where men were told by canvassers that they must first attest or otherwise they would not be allowed to appeal for exemption?

In the statement referred to I carefully guarded myself against pronouncing on the validity of any particular plea for exemption, and I must adopt the same attitude on the question put by my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of any intimation having been given to married men who were led to attest on the understanding that all available single men would be first called to the Colours that large numbers of single men would, with the assistance of a Government Committee set up for the purpose, be exempt on the plea of conscience from the dangers of military service and enabled to fill positions vacated by attested married men when called up?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if men who have been given non-combatant service under the Military Service Act, 1916, have already been sent to France or are about to be sent there; will he say what kind of work these men are doing in France or will be put to do; if they are being sent to erect wire fences under the enemy fire; and, if so, is this held to be non-combatant service?

Men who have been granted exemption from combatant service under the Military Service Act have been appointed to companies of the Non-Combatant Corps. These companies will shortly be sent to France. They may be employed in road-making, hutting, timber cutting, quarrying, sanitary work, loading and unloading of ships and vehicles, and digging, provided they are not employed in the firing line. They will not be employed in erecting wire fences under enemy fire.

Why not?

They would run away.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is with the approval of the War Office that the Parliamentary Committee for the Cirencester Division of Gloucestershire have published letters in the local Press, signed by the chairman and joint secretaries, asking the inhabitants of the district to hunt out men who they think should come under the Military Service Act, 1916, or who are no longer indispensable in their work, and promising that under no circumstances will the names of the informants be disclosed?

I was not aware that the Parliamentary Committee mentioned had taken the steps described in the question. It is the duty of everyone, I think, to assist in giving effect to the laws passed by Parliament, and I cannot condemn the action which this committee is said to have taken.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has any information that any abuse has prevailed by reason of the privilege given to men at the front to communicate with Members of this House without their letters being censored, provided such communications are addressed to Members at the House?

No, Sir, no abuse has been discovered, so far as I am aware, by reason of the immunity from censorship of letters coming to Members of either House of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster. It is with reference to communications in the reverse direction that there is evidence of abuse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I did not mean to bring any charge against hon. Members; I did not mean that. It is apparently simple for the notepaper of this House to be obtained by wholly unauthorised persons, and I have evidence that it has got into very undesirable hands. It is also evident that there is no difficulty in posting letters within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. In these circumstances, I am prepared either on my own responsibility to withdraw the privilege of immunity from censorship or, if the House thinks that this course should not be taken without further examination, to set up a Select Committee to investigate the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I first raised this question I only asked that permission should be given to men at the front to write direct to Members of this House, and not for permission for letters to go out; and this was the undertaking that he gave?

I do not remember that; I am much obliged to my hon. Friend; therefore I will ask the House generally to inform me, through the usual channels, whether they think that this is a matter which deserves so heavy machinery as to have a Select Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—or whether they will permit me, on my own responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—to withdraw the immunity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, as a matter of fact, that there are a great many postal pillars in the House which are open to the public, and could he not get over the difficulty by confining the postal pillars to places where Members only could post?

Really, I think that to be inconvenient.

Would it not be possible to have a pillar-box for Members alone?

No, Sir, I am afraid that there are some clever people who would nullify that arrangement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a privilege is given in connection with the Army that is not given in connection with the Navy; why should this be desirable in the one case and not in the other?

I am not aware that there is not the same immunity in the matter of the censorship with regard to the Navy.

There is a censorship with regard to the Navy.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Robert Miller, No. 9513, I.M.F., Royal Sussex Regiment, Railway Road, New-haven, who joined the Army on 25th November, 1913, being at that time in perfect health, was vaccinated eight days later, and suffered so severely from the operation that after nine or ten weeks in the hospital attached to the barracks of the East Surrey Regiment he bought himself out of the Army; whether, after suffering for two years from the effects of vaccination and bringing his case to the notice of the War Office, he was, in January or February this year, examined twice by an Army Medical Board and awarded a pension of 4s. 8d. per week for six months by the Chelsea Pension Board as some recognition of the fact that his illness is due to vaccination in the Army; whether, in spite of this admission by an Army Medical Board of the man's illness and the fact that eruptions of the disease were on his face at the time, two Army doctors (out of three) who examined him at the White City on 7th March passed him as fit for service; whether, since rejoining the Army, he has been found incapable of heavy work and given light duty; and whether, in the interests of the Army, he will see that this sick man is at once discharged?

This case has already been brought to notice by the Anti-vaccination League, and a report upon the facts as stated by that league has been called for.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that recruiting officers seem to have no information with reference to the fact that only those who had actually reached the age of nineteen would be taken for service; and if he will give orders that it is their duty to give every information to applicants?

Yes, Sir; as our attention was directed to some want of uniformity of action, fresh instructions on this matter are being issued.

asked the Prime Minister whether service in the Forces of the Crown and the production of munitions of war are both works of national importance and are both in urgent need of men; and why it has been found necessary to set up a committee to discover other works of national importance in which workers are needed until the requirements of the Navy, Army, and munitions have been met?

Under the Military Service Act, 1916, a local tribunal may grant to an applicant seeking exemption on conscientious grounds a certificate of exemption conditional on his being engaged in some work of national importance. The committee referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was set up to advise tribunals desiring assistance as to what service of national importance such applicants could or should undertake.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether steel helmets have been supplied to the forces or any of them now engaged on the River Tigris and the River Euphrates?

No, Sir. I understand that the steel helmet is not suitable for use in the climate of the regions named.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the steel helmet issued to the troops weighs 32 ozs., and is not ventilated, and therefore very unsuitable for its purpose; whether there is in existence a pattern helmet, properly ventilated and only weighing 16 ozs.; and whether the War Office will consider substituting this improved pattern for the one in use?

The service steel helmet weighs 32 ozs. Improved internal fittings are now being made which will improve the ventilation and render the helmet more comfortable. The helmet has given great satisfaction and has saved many casualties. It is not proposed to alter the pattern. I know of no helmet weighing 16 ozs. that possesses equal resistance properties.

Can the hon. Gentleman state the weight of the French helmet?

Not without notice.

Is not the French helmet much better and more efficient and 8 ozs. less in weight?

I am aware that that is entirely incorrect.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it has been found necessary to arrange for canvas covers to be supplied for wear over the British Army steel helmet, owing to the reflection of light from the top of the helmet in bright or wet weather; whether he can state why this defect was not provided for when the helmets were first issued in bulk; and how soon the troops will be fully supplied with these covers?

Experience has shown that the smooth dome of the helmet may reflect the light to some extent in bright or wet weather. Steps are now being taken to remedy this defect.

Arising out of the reply, will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: When this, difficulty will be properly remedied?

It is being remedied, not by the provision of covers, but by doing something to the helmet itself.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that an order has been issued to the British Expeditionary Force, and that covers are being provided for every helmet?

All I have to say to that is that the Munitions Department has not been asked to provide them.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that active hostilities have been and are in daily progress in various parts of the Western front, that the whole French army has been wearing steel helmets for several months, and that British casualties and deaths that would be avoided by the wearing of steel helmets occur frequently; and whether he will state the approximate date by which the fighting forces of the British Army will be fully supplied with steel helmets?

The propositions set out in the first part of the question are, I think, correct. I cannot inform the hon. and gallant Member by what date the steel helmets will have been all supplied. I would refer him for a statement of some considerations which bear upon this matter to the answer by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions to my hon. Friend the Member for the Inverness Boroughs on the 17th April.

May I inquire whether the feelings of those officers who were to take men into the trenches inadequately protected are ever considered in connection with this question of the supply of helmets?

Yes, Sir, always!

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) the number of Cavalry captains with fifteen years' service and over who are being superseded by Infantry officers of fifteen years' service; in view of the fact that nearly all these Cavalry officers are fighting at the front, he will now consider their claim to promotion; (2) whether, in view of the fact that British captains in the Indian Army, both Cavalry and Infantry, are now receiving sympathetic promotion to the rank of major without increase of pay after sixteen years' service, as the result of the promotion in the British Infantry after fifteen years' service, and as this promotion granted to the Indian Army is identical with that which should be granted to the British Cavalry for captains of fifteen years' service and over on 17th February, 1916, he will now reconsider the position and promotion of these officers; and (3) whether he is aware that majors are not transferred from Cavalry regiments to In- fantry battalions but are merely attached to Infantry battalions; and, seeing that this procedure creates no vacancies for majorities in Cavalry regiments, so that the promotion of captains of fifteen years' service is not thereby accelerated, will he say what action he proposes to take?

All these three questions raise in different forms the same point. As I have before stated, the promotion of officers of the Infantry to the rank of major after fifteen years' service was decided on in the interests of the Service and not of the individual. No necessity for the adoption of similar measures exists in the Cavalry which has not been expanded, and no steps are in contemplation. I may add that for many years promotion in the Cavalry was far more rapid than in the Infantry, and that those interested in the Cavalry did not then press for Infantry promotion to be accelerated and still less for Cavalry promotion to be retarded. The hon. and gallant Member must therefore be regarded as a late convert to the principle of sympathetic promotion all round. As regards question 19, I cannot admit that the case there quoted is analogous to that of the British Cavalry.

How many officers have been superseded by this system?

I cannot possibly say.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received an urgent request from a town on the South-East Coast for two aeroplanes for defence against raiders; whether the mayor of such town has offered to pay for such machines; and what is the reason why they cannot be sent?

The Mayor of Ramsgate has asked that two aeroplanes should be allowed for the protection of the town. The provision of such aeroplanes does not depend upon the willingness of the mayor to pay for either the cost of the machines or the cost of providing the personnel. It depends upon considerations which it is obviously undesirable to refer to in the House or in any public place. Bait the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that every possible step is being taken to protect the South-East Coast.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty when anti-aircraft guns are firing simultaneously at an object of the individual gunners spotting their shots, he will consider the advisability of the introduction of distinctive coloured bursts, and thus enable each gun to estimate and correct the range?

The suggestion is one that has been frequently made, and has been the subject of numerous experiments in our own and in foreign armies. It has, however, been found to be impracticable, and, so far as known, has never been adopted in any country.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the number of air pilots killed or seriously injured during the recent Zeppelin raids; whether he has satisfied himself that these casualties were not due to the employment of machines unsuitable for night flying and to the effects of inadequately lighted landing places; and can he say why losses in the air are not as fully and promptly recorded as losses in the field?

Since the 1st January four pilots have been killed or have died of injuries and one was badly injured and has since recovered. The aeroplanes used by these officers were all eminently suited for night flying and in no cases were the accidents due to inadequately lighted landing places. The same procedure is followed in reporting casualties at home as in publishing those which occur abroad.

Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to supply him with further evidence that these accidents have happened owing to unsuitably lighted aerodromes?

No, Sir. I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to do anything of the kind. My information is that they have occurred through other causes than inadequately lighted landing places.

Have any complaints reached the right hon. Gentleman from residents in the neighbourhood of these lighted stations complaining that such lights act as a guide to the enemy when flying over their neighbourhood, and that only recently very grave disturbance has been caused by the use of these lights; and whether he can see his way to order that they should be removed from places where there is considerable residential property?

My right hon. Friend was good enough to bring to me complaints in the sense he mentions, but I would point out to him that landing places are important, and room must be found for them somewhere. Of course, I agree with him that it is desirable that they should be as remote as possible from thickly-populated parts of the country, and, so far as I am aware, that is so. With regard to the special case my right hon. Friend has in view, I will have further inquiry made.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake, when a Zeppelin raid is expected, to notify the area in order that the people may clear away from their homes until the danger passes?

That, of course, is a totally different question, but it is invariably done.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to consider any representations from owners of undefended property damaged in recent air raids in Scotland, with a view to some compensation?

No claim for compensation can be considered from property owners who have omitted to insure under the Government scheme for aircraft and bombardment risks.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the only defence for those people is the insurance scheme?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the charges of inefficiency and intrigue and also the allegations concerning the deaths, losses, and injuries among our flying men made by the Member for East Herts applied equally to the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps; whether he will now give an assurance that the terms of reference to the Committee the Government have promised to appoint will be so framed as to include both branches of the Air Service; and will the Committee be given such powers as to enable them to make effective recommendations?

I will consider this suggestion with the First Lord of the Admiralty.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of recent statements, he can say if the Government have any approximate figures as to the number of Zeppelins and other enemy aircraft built or building; whether the localities of the Zeppelin and enemy aircraft factories and their principal bases are known; whether any considered offensive policy for the defence of the country by attacking these factories and bases has yet been determined upon; (2) whether the public speeches of Lord Montagu have been brought to his notice; whether, before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess he can make any statement which will reassure the public that the resignations of Lord Derby and Lord Montagu have been taken by the Government as exposing the futility of the Joint Air War Committee and the necessity for the immediate appointment of a body which shall have real executive power; and (3) whether the resignations of the civilian members of the Joint Air War Committee have resulted in the cessation of the meetings of the Committee; and, if so, can he give any reason why the expert representatives of the two Services should not continue their deliberations?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called, either by Lord Derby or Lord Montagu, to the elements which have done so much to mar the efficiency not only of the Committee known as the Air Committee but of the Air Service itself; whether he is aware that friction also still exists between the two Services themselves and between officers in high positions in the same Service; if he will take steps to put a stop to these quarrels; (2) if he can suggest any idea of the date when he will give the promised day for the discussion on our Air Services; whether he can hold out any hope that the Government intends so to co-ordinate the present system of control that, while the Navy and the Army shall each retain the necessary power over the actions of their own units, there shall be one single responsible chief of the Air Services, presided over by an advisory committee consisting of men with unquestioned knowledge and experience in actual flying as now practised as well as in aircraft construction and organisation; and (3) if he can inform the House whether the Committee from which Lord Derby and Lord Montagu resigned will be re-constituted with the fuller powers recommended by these Noble Lords, and in such a manner that its chairman or president shall become the Minister responsible to this House for the efficient administration and supply of our Air Services?

My Noble Friend Lord Curzon, at my request, has carefully examined the whole of the aircraft situation, and as a result of that examination he has presented a Report which, without disclosing its precise contents, I may say recommends large changes in organisation. It is under the consideration of the Cabinet, and I cannot say at this moment the final decision at which we shall arrive.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction existing amongst experienced and practical flying men with the methods still dominating the Royal Aircraft Factory; if he is aware that, while it is admitted that the O'Gorman régime produced in pre-war days an excellent flying machine, the machines which have been lately favoured by the Royal Aircraft Factory are by no means the best obtainable for war purposes; and if he will now place this factory and the whole question of aircraft supply under the Ministry of Munitions?

The Royal Aircraft Factory is not responsible for the selecttion of the types of aeroplanes to be used by the Royal Flying Corps. I do not, therefore, quite understand the first two parts of this question. As the statements made in the first two parts of the question are not in my opinion correct, the last part of the question does not, I think, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain acting paymasters employed in Army pay offices at home are in receipt of a higher rate of pay than senior field cashiers employed at the front; whether field cashiers are chosen and drafted to foreign service from the class of acting paymasters at home, and have, in addition to constant personal danger and discomfort, financial responsibility amounting in some cases to the handling of a million francs a week or more of public money, whereas the duties of acting paymaster involve neither personal danger nor financial responsibility, and they can live in conditions of comparative comfort; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to remedy such an inequitable state of affairs?

A certain number of acting paymasters at home who are performing really superior duties have been granted an extra allowance of £50 per annum. Field cashiers are found from among acting paymasters at home and, as their title implies, are concerned with the handling of public money. In some cases they are exposed to danger, though no casualties have been reported. Their present pay is considered adequate to their work.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state on what grounds the Army Council have decided that a soldier must be discharged from the Army directly it is determined that he is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and without giving him any period of treatment first, as is done in the case of all other diseases from which soldiers suffer even when rendered unfit for service; and whether he will state the Regulation under which this action is taken in respect of this one disease?

It is considered that a man suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is unfit to serve as a soldier. It is essential that these cases should be specially treated in a sanatorium at as early a date as possible. With this object, in the man's own interest, arrangements have been made with the National Health Insurance Commissioners and the Local Government Board that soldiers found to be suffering from tubercle of the lung shall (be discharged the Service at once and admitted to a sanatorium. The Regulation under which the discharge of the soldier is governed is King's Regulations, paragraph 399.

Is it not possible to alter the Regulations, and put this disease on all-fours with other diseases so as to give soldiers a period of suitable treatment before they are discharged from the Army?

I do not say it would not be possible; such a thing, I think, might be possible; but whether it is desirable or not is another matter. I will engage, however, to have the matter investigated.

How does my right hon. Friend explain that these soldiers can go into sanatoria when there are no vacant berths for civilians on the waiting list in London alone, and we have had to reduce the number of beds considerably owing to the shortage of money, which the National Health Commissioners refuse to supply?

That is a question pertaining to civilians, about which I do not know and I cannot possibly know. I understand that my hon. Friend suggests that all available room is taken up by soldiers.

No; there is not room for civilians.

I understand that soldiers are accommodated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is absolutely no sanatoria accommodation available either for soldiers or civilians who live in the London district?

Hear, hear!

Is it not the fact that the greatest difficulty in getting these men to go to sanatoria is owing to the fact that no separation allowance is granted if they go there, and is not that a point to consider?

If they are discharged from the Army, of course they will get no separation allowance.

Ought they not get treatment before they are discharged?

I will have the matter looked into.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that the huts in the rest camp at Ypres are unprovided with fuel, so that the men coming out of the trenches are unable to dry their clothes; and whether he will take steps to supply sufficient fuel?

I was not aware that these huts were unprovided with fuel. I have brought the hon. Gentleman's statement to the notice of the proper authority.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the artists working in Cornwall, including several members of the Royal Academy, are still refused permission to paint out of doors; whether they have applied to the Government to have the Regulations forbidding out-of-door painting modified and that this was promised at an early date at least three months ago; and whether, seeing that the season suitable for out-of-door painting is well advanced and that further delay would be a serious matter for the artists, he will at once give instructions to have the Regulations modified?

I understand that steps are being taken to make permits more easy of attainment. The War Office and the Admiralty are in communication on the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether members of the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps will be allowed to take their discharge if found inefficient, or from other causes fail to receive commissions?

No, Sir. The individuals in question are attested Territorial soldiers.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Second and Third Line battalions and other units of the East Lancashire Division would have been over established strength if the men of the 45th Provisional Battalion, who signed for Imperial service under the War Office letter of 28th December, had been sent to those battalions chosen by such men?

Men are not required at present for the 2nd or 3rd Lines of the East Lancashire Division, the 1st Line of which is not in France, but men are required for other formations which are likely to see active service. These men will, I believe, welcome the opportunity of serving their country in the manner and in the place in which their services are most valuable.

asked whether Territorial soldiers who did not sign for Imperial service, under War Office letter of 28th December, have been attached to the units chosen by themselves; and whether he will now see that the unconditional promise contained in War Office letter of 28th December is kept without delay with those men who did sign for Imperial service?

The Home Service Territorial soldiers who did not sign Army Form E.624 are at the present time either still serving in Provisional Units or, in the case of those coming under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, have become members of Class B of the Army Reserve. In regard to the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to what I have already stated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strongly-felt grievance of these men in being attached to battalions other than those they themselves have chosen in the terms of the unconditional promise of the War Office, and will the War Office fulfil those terms?

I have stated on more than one occasion that it is necessary to ask these men to serve in that part of the Army where their services are most required. I would ask my hon. Friend not to associate himself more in sympathy with the men who consider themselves not to have been properly treated in this matter, but rather to encourage them to think that they are doing the best and most patriotic duty they can perform by serving at the place and in the manner in which their services are most required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this cuts at the root of the Territorial system?

The War cuts at the root of many things.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for members of the Volunteer Corps who take part in Easter manœuvres to get the necessary passes on the railway lines, or railway tickets at reduced rates, to enable them to go to and from their place of abode?

Arrangements will be made for the issue of railway warrants to members of Volunteer Corps who are employed on military work under the orders of the War Office or General Headquarters, Home Forces.

Are we to understand that that applies to ordinary manœuvres?

Where manœuvres are carried out under the orders of the War Office or General Headquarters.

Will the Volunteers, when they come under the Act of 1863, be allowed to travel at single fare for the return journey, as the old Volunteers used to do?

This question only relates to Volunteers taking part in the Easter Manœuvres, and my reply is limited to that.

I went a little further, and asked the hon. Gentleman to extend his answer?

I cannot go further now.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War when he proposes to carry out his declared intention to enlist those canteen employés in France who are not called up for more active service; and if he is aware that resignations of these men are constantly taking place owing to the uncertainty of their position?

It is not proposed at present to call up any of the men employed with canteens in France.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the anxiety amongst horse-keepers and farmers in Leicestershire in consequence of the new Army Order and Regulations restricting the sale and purchase of hay and straw; whether he is aware that it has been the custom in Leicestershire for horsekeepers to buy their fodder mainly from farmers or by auction in the hay markets; whether he is aware that the new Regulations will preclude the producers from selling by auction and will close the hay markets and compel horsekeepers and stock-breeders to apply to dealers for their requirements, who are not in a position to meet this new demand; and whether he will cause the new Army Order and Regulations to be reconsidered, with the view of enabling horsekeepers and stock-breeders to supply their normal requirements from the farmers or by purchase at auction without drawing upon the supplies required by the War Office?

I have not heard, previously, of the anxiety referred to in connection with the new Orders relating to hay and straw, nor do I think that its imposition need have the effects which the hon. Baronet suggests.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Statutory Rules and Orders, dated 29th January, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with Section 3 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, are intended to, and do, apply to all Courts exercising the powers contained in such Act; whether such Rules specifically state that they shall apply to County Courts, the City of London Court, and the High Court only; whether there are and, if so, what other Courts having concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the Act which are not bound by or mentioned in the Preliminary to the Statutory Rules and Orders mentioned, and whether a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, namely, Police Court, does possess such concurrent jurisdiction, and is not bound by such Rules; if a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is not bound by such Rules and Orders, what is the proper authority controlling the same, and the Rules and Orders governing the decisions given therein; and whether he will cause the proper authorities having the control of the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and other authorities not subject to such Rules and Regulations, to place such Courts in the same position as County Courts, immediately altering the present legislature in order that, the various authorities exercising the powers under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, may be in a position to exercise their judicial functions in conformity with each other and thus prevent a tenant against whom proceedings are instituted by his landlord in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction from being denied the same relief which he would be entitled to if his landlord had instituted similar proceedings against him in a County Court?

The Statutory Rules and Orders referred to in the question apply, as stated in the preliminary Rule, only to County Courts and the City of London Court, except that Rule 3, as to applications under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, applies also to the High Court. The Act binds all Courts, including Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; but it appears that the only part of the Act directly affecting Courts of Summary Jurisdiction is Section 1, Sub-section (3), and no Rules appear to be necessary for the purposes of that Sub-section. A tenant against whom proceedings are instituted by his landlord in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is entitled to the full benefit of the Act, and no further legislation appears to be required.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on the 23rd March last His Majesty's Justices of the Peace in Petty Session held at the Victoria Courts, Corporation Street, Birmingham, upon the application of Alfred E. Hudson, of Weston Stores, Tyseley, landlord of Nos. 66 and 68, Weston Lane, Tyseley, directed that warrants should be respectively issued directing constables to enter and take possession of these two dwelling-houses and to eject therefrom the tenants thereof, who are two railway servants named Thomas Roberts and Robert Callow; whether he is aware that, by paragraph 14 of the Statutory Rules and Orders, dated 29th January, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with Section 3 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, provision is made that, should subsequent circumstances render it just so to do, an application may be made on notice to the Court in which proceedings, namely, for ejectment, are taken under the Act, and power is given to that Court to suspends, discharge, or otherwise vary such order made by that Court; whether he is aware that, such subsequent circumstances in the before-mentioned case of Roberts and Callow having arisen, an application was made to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at the Victoria Courts, Birmingham, under paragraph 14 of the said Rules, and that on the 12th April last such application was dismissed by His Majesty's Justices of the Peace at the said Court, who refused to allow the applicants, Roberts and Callow, to call evidence in support thereof, the chairman stating that the Bench had grave doubts as to their powers of reversing a decision, namely, on the 23rd March, 1916, made by the magistrates in this Court under the Orders made by the Lord Chancellor; and whether, as Great Western Railway servants are compelled by the rules and regulations of the company to live within one mile of their work at the locomotive yard, Tyseley, and that owing to shortage of house accommodation in that district no other suitable houses are available, he will take immediate steps to prevent the warrants being issued and the tenants ejected, having regard to the fact that these men are respectable and responsible tenants against whom no allegation of waste or of conduct which was a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or his adjoining tenants was made, and whose only misconduct is that they refused to pay their landlord a rent which exceeded the standard rent as provided by the Act?

The Rule referred to in the question does not apply to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. As to the particular case mentioned, inquiries are being made.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to conflicting decisions under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, as to deductions by a tenant from his current rent of a lump sum which in the aggregate amounts to and represents the difference between the standard rent and the weekly sum which he has paid, and as to whether the increased rent is irrecoverable from the landlord; and whether, in view of the desirability of uniformity and the urgency of preventing friction between landlords and tenants and a feeling of dissatisfaction of both classes on account of conflicting decisions and of the ambiguous nature of this legislation as it at present stands, he will introduce amendments to the Act or new legislation, or other proper means dealing with the points raised and settling the ambiguities before referred to?

If my hon. Friend will send me a note of the decisions to which the question refers, I will make inquiries.

asked whether the Government have now decided to what purpose the Royal gift of £100,000 is to be put?

asked the Prime Minister what the Government propose to do with the £100,000 presented to them by His Majesty; and, if no decision has yet been come to, would he consider allotting the money to the new Pension Committee in order that a special King's Pension might be granted to badly wounded and incapacitated men from the Navy and Army?

I am not yet in a position to make an announcement on this point.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a Glasgow Socialist has been convicted and sentenced to three years' penal servitude for interfering with the production of munitions urgently required by the nation, he will introduce legislation making such offences, on conviction by a jury, high treason, punishable by death?

I do not think the legislation suggested is required.

Seeing that the danger caused to the country by the action of these men is much greater than that caused by spies in many cases, why should they not be subject to the same penalty?

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that on 5th May, 1915, he decided that a primâ facie case had been made out for an immediate advance of wages to coal-miners, who demanded a 20 per cent. advance to meet the increased cost of living, notwithstanding that the then rate of wages was the highest ever paid in the federated area, he is aware that the increased wages paid to miners since this date represents a charge on the present basis of approximately £25,000,000 per annum above the wage bill prior to the War; will he therefore say why he refuses during the War to make any increased grant to old age pensioners; whether he is aware that it is impossible for these old people to live on 5s. per week in view that the price of food has risen 49 per cent. above pre-war rates; whether he is aware that it is only owing to the kindness of the poor to the old age pensioners which enables them to exist; and whether he will allow the House to decide whether an increased grant should be made during the War?

With regard to the first part of the question, I must point out to my hon. Friend that my decision did not involve the expenditure of public money. With regard to the second, I must refer him to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Leeds on Tuesday last.

Will the Prime Minister give the House an opportunity of deciding this question? Is he aware that these £25,000,000 granted to the miners is a charge on the capital of the country?