asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has given his personal consideration to the Regulations issued by the Treasury towards the end of March on the subject of the payment of Income Tax by officers of His Majesty's Fleet; whether he is aware of the extra expenses entailed upon naval officers since the outbreak of the War; whether he is aware that the effect of the imposition and collection of Income Tax from naval officers in the month of March has forced these officers to curtail by a serious proportion the amount of pay allotted to their wives and families; and whether, seeing that, in view of the increase in the cost of living, these wives and families are in need of a larger rather than smaller allowances, he will, if war rates are to be charged, recommend to the Treasury that the minimum for which increased war rates would apply should be £500 actual naval pay?

No Regulations were issued by the Treasury towards the end of March on the subject of the payment of Income Tax by officers of His Majesty's Fleet. The only instructions relative to the collection of the increment in tax under the Finance Act of last December were issued by the Admiralty on the 17th of that month, and directed, inter alia, that "immediate steps should be taken to reduce the allotment in any case where the officer's net pay, i.e., after deducting Income Tax and providing for mess charges, is insufficient to meet the amount of the allotment"; in other words, that immediate action should be taken to ensure that the consequent reduction was distributed over the three remaining months of the financial year. Further, it does not appear to be a general fact that officers have been forced to curtail, by a serious proportion, the amount of pay allotted to their wives and families. The accounts for last quarter so far received have been examined, and as a result it is found that only in some three or four cases has the allotment been reduced owing to the additional taxation, and in none of these has the reduction exceeded £2 a month. It is possible that other cases may exist where a larger reduction has been necessary, but it seems clear that the hardship has been greatly exaggerated. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the last point he raises is one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may, however, invite his attention, as regards the concessions granted for 1915–16, to Section 25 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and, as regards the further concession proposed by my right hon. Friend for 1916–17, to the information given on page nine of House of Commons Paper, No. 50, of 1916.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say how many of the Irish rebels who have surrendered are, or appear to be, under the age of sixteen years; and how many are, or appear to be, of or over the age of sixteen years and under the age of nineteen years?

The War Office have no information on this point.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether any men of the London Scottish, No. 9 Camp, D Company, now at Sandhill Camp, Longridge Deverill, near Warminster, have been refused leave because they objected to vaccination; and, if so, whether this violation of the rights of the men will be stopped immediately?

I would remind my hon. Friend that no officer or man has any right to leave which is given to those whom the commanding officer considers deserve it. If a man refuses to be vaccinated, which he is within his rights in doing, it is within the discretion of the commanding officer to grant or withhold the privilege of leave.

also asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that men in the l/3rd W.R.D., R.E., 62nd Division, Larkhill, Salisbury Plain, are being subjected to petty annoyances, such as pack drill in parade hours, fatigues after hours, and threats of compulsion, because they object to vaccination; and whether he will inform the officer commanding that he is exceeding his duties in dealing with conscientious objectors to vaccination in this way?

No complaint in the sense stated in the first part of the question has been received. Instructions have been issued setting out the proper way of lodging complaints.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the importance attached to voluntary enlistment, and of the desire of many married men to join the Army voluntarily, he can say that, if they do not wait to be enlisted by Statute on the appointed date, but attest or enlist voluntarily before that date, they will be given the option of not being called up before the appointed date, but will be allowed that measure of time to arrange their domestic and other affairs, or will they be called up with their groups if these are called in advance of the appointed date?l

Men who attest voluntarily will, if their group has already been called up, get a month's grace from the date of attestation before having to present themselves for service. If their group has not been called up they will get a month's grace from the date of Proclamation by which they are called up.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if his attention has been called to the case of Private H. Watkinson, No. 2,989, 5th Battalion East Lancashire Regiment, who, because he refused to do some painting work when ordered by one of his officers because he was refused any extra pay for it, and who for so refusing was sentenced by a court-martial to forty-two days' detention in Lewes Gaol, his pay also being stopped, causing suffering to his wife and family; and whether in circumstances like these he will take steps to prevent the family of a soldier being punished for an offence they could not prevent?

My attention had not previously been called to this case, and I cannot undertake to interfere with the sentence passed by the court-martial, which is subject to review in the ordinary course by the authorities duly constituted for the purpose. Forfeiture of the pay of a soldier convicted by court-martial follows by Act of Parliament.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Warwick Gaol is to be closed on 1st June next; and whether, in view of the fact that there is an existing staff there and that there is a military depot at Warwick, he will consider the advisability of making use of the gaol for the prisoners who have been brought from Ireland?

Adequate accommodation has already been provided.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether soldiers who have earned promotion in the fighting line in Gallipoli or France have had this promotion taken from them, together with the extra pay of their rank, for no crime, in Scotton Camp or elsewhere; and, if so, will he explain the reason?

Promotion earned in the fighting line has not, so far as I am aware, been taken from any non-commissioned officer except for misconduct, inefficiency, etc. If any case has happened, then, if particulars are given, inquiries could be made. If the hon. Member is referring to acting rank, then I would refer him to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division on 2th September.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of posting men who are medically unfit after return from the front to the Army Reserve, or of demobilising them in the case of Territorial units, so that they could return to their home comforts for a few months while receiving massage or other medical attention by attending daily the nearest military hospital?

From a medical point of view the proposal is not advisable. The men described are much more likely to get fit to return to duty if, on discharge from hospital, they are treated in command depots, where they have the advantage of medical treatment and graduated exercises under proper control.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Newton, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was authorised by the Government in every respect in regard to his interview with the Dutch newspaper "Handelsblad"; and whether his reference to Holland's rights with respect to the Scheldt was of such a character as not to compromise the rights of Belgium and the principles of Articles 108 to 117 of the Congress of Vienna as affirmed by the Treaty of 15th November, 1831?

With regard to the first part of the question, Lord Newton spoke with the same authority as that which attaches to the utterance of any other Minister of the Crown under similar circumstances. As regards the second part of the question, Lord Newton very rightly said, in reply to a question put to him by the correspondent of the "Handelsblad," that, of course, Great Britain adhered to any promise which she had given to Holland early in the War touching Dutch rights of the Scheldt. There is nothing in this to affect the provisions of the 15th of November, 1831, and the Congress at Vienna does not, therefore, arise.