asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the full protection from acts of war to which Allied merchant vessels are entitled in American ports, whether the attempts made to blow up Allied ships by bombs placed in the cargo by German sympathisers have now been brought to an end; and whether any representations have been made to the American Government in this matter?

As regards the first part of the question I cannot undertake to say that no further attempts will be made, but all possible precautions are being taken. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

asked whether it is proposed to issue a translation of the recent French official report, dealing with the German exploitation of Belgian food and other supplies, as well as factories, mines, works, slaughterhouses, and means of communication; and whether, in view of more recent evidence at their disposal, the Government are still satisfied that the supplies sent through Mr. Hoover are not contributing to the German rule and exploitation of the country?

I do not know to what report the hon. and gallant Member refers. I know of no published official report on the subject issued by the French Government; but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will inform me in private what is the document to which he refers.

There have been extracts in the Press.

asked whether all British Ministers in neutral countries have been instructed to notify British traders in those countries that the Government's policy of commercial reprisals against alien enemies in neutral countries, as formulated in the Trading with the Enemy (Extension) Act, is to be regarded as continuous and will not terminate on the declaration of peace?

This question will receive careful consideration in connection with the recommendations of the Paris Conference.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Government still deny the authenticity of the secret circular of instructions for the capture or slaughter of the Irish Volunteers; will he explain for what purpose large quantities of rifles, ammunition, explosives, and other warlike requisites were stored in the College of Surgeons and in Trinity College, Dublin, before the insurrection?

I have no information about any secret circular of instructions such as the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I will make inquiries, though I have little doubt that the hon. Member has discovered a mare's nest.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman been aware of this document of secret instructions since last April? Is he not aware that it was read at a meeting of the Dublin Corporation before the insurrection?

No; I am wholly unaware of that.

Is he not aware that these facts are within public knowledge, and that it cannot be described as my mare's nest?

asked by whose orders and under what Act the school children were prevented from holding their usual dancing and singing competition in connection with the local show at Coachford, county Cork; whether it was done with the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and, if not, has any intimation been given of disapproval?

I have no information that the children were prevented from dancing at the local show at Coachford, county Cork, but inquiry will be made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment all these musical accompaniments of local shows are being prevented by the military authorities? Will that prohibition be withdrawn?

I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that inquiry will be made. I cannot do more.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War who is responsible for having left Messrs. Lemas and Manning lying wounded in a court yard in the Custom House, Dublin, for three days of the insurrection, thereby complicating their neglected wounds with other sickness, and prolonging their time in hospital; whether he is aware that one of them is dying from pneumonia then contracted; and what the intention of the Government is with regard to these cases?

I am making inquiry about this matter, and that mentioned in the next question:—

8. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the military authorities administering martial law in Ireland have yet allowed any civil investigation of the looting done in houses under pretext of searching them, the picking of the pockets of prisoners, and of the persons shot and buried surreptitiously; whether property so acquired is deemed to belong to the individual soldier taking it; and whether any inquiry will be made or allowed to be made into the disposal of such of this property as soldiers do not use, as table linen, for example?

With reference to Question No. 8, which has been dismissed in this manner, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that claims for property taken by soldiers from houses that they have been searching will be heard by a Civil Court?

That question does not arise.

asked the Prime Minister what in the nature, of reparation has been, or will be, made to the widow of Thomas J. Clarke, executed, for the watch and large sum of money on his person at the time of surrender; for the private property taken from her house after her husband's execution; for the shop goods, worth £300, appropriated or destroyed by the military who made the house a mili- tary station; whether any articles not destroyed will be restored and the rest paid for; and whether any civil tribunal will be set up to investigate such cases?

I am inquiring whether the facts are as they have been communicated to the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, Whether any civil tribunal will be set up to investigate such cases?

It must depend entirely on the answer which I receive to my inquiries.

asked the Prime Minister how many prisoners are now in penal servitude in connection with the recent insurrection in Ireland; whether any but those are undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courts-martial; and whether, having regard to the character of the Courts and to the circumstances, the Government have considered the advisability of treating them all as prisoners of war, subject to effective security of detention?

According to the latest returns received from the Home Office 125 prisoners are now in penal servitude. This is an inclusive total. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

The right hon. Gentleman has given an answer which is totally unintelligible. Will he say how many Irish prisoners are in penal servitude under sentence of court-martial?

asked when it is proposed to publish the dispatches relating to the operations in East Africa from the commencement of hostilities in 1914 up to 12th February, 1916, the date from which Lieutenant-General Smuts assumed command?

It is not proposed to publish the dispatches in question, but due consideration has been given to the names of officers mentioned for distinguished service by the commanders concerned.

Is there any reason why these operations should not have a dispatch?

It is not considered in the public interest that they should be given to the public just now. A time will arrive, no doubt.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that time will arrive?

I should say at the termination of the War.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the circumstances which caused Private Albert Ellis Brook, of the 1st Battalion Cheshire Regiment, to take his own life, consequent upon his discharge from hospital as unfit for further service and the taunts which he experienced from those who, not knowing the facts, treated him as a shirker; whether he is aware that Private Brook was badly wounded at Mons, where he was captured by the enemy, and for a year was imprisoned in Germany, where he suffered much ill-treatment by the German authorities, being afterwards exchanged; and whether, in view of these circumstances and to prevent other discharged wounded men being similarly treated, the War Office will cause a badge, armlet, or some such distinctive device to be supplied to every man who has been rendered permanently unfit for further service on their discharge from hospital which shall indicate that they have been injured in the defence of the Empire and have not escaped from service under the plea of a conscientious objection?

I am unaware of the circumstances which led to Private Brook taking his own life. He was wounded in the arm and captured in August, 1914, and was exchanged as a prisoner of war and admitted to the 3rd London General Hospital on the 25th August, 1915, and was discharged as no longer physically fit for war service in December, 1915. He was awarded a pension. It has been ascertained that, through an oversight, Private Brook did not have an armlet issued to him. Upon the general question of the issue of armlets, I would ask the hon. Member to await my reply to the next question on the Paper.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the badges which are to be issued for men discharged from the Army on medical grounds are now ready for issue; and whether he can state fully the steps which are to be taken with regard to the award of the medal for bravery and other medals and decorations for special war service.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause it to be announced at all battalion headquarters, in the United Kingdom that upon discharge of a soldier as no longer physically fit for war service he will be entitled to an armlet indicating the fact of service and of the reason of discharge; and will he cause a specimen of the armlet used for the purpose to be exhibited in the Tea Room.

No, Sir. Manufacture will necessarily take a little time, but I hope that the badges will be available shortly. Every effort is being made to expedite matters. The hon. Member will have seen in the newspapers a statement of the medals, etc., which a man may earn by war service. A sample of the new badge can be placed in the Tea Room.

May we take it that the badge will not take the form of a brassard or armlet, but that it will be a badge of some other form?

As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter does not rest entirely with us; therefore I do not want to give any pledge. My personal idea is that it will not take the form of an armlet. I may be wrong.

I do not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that men in such cases as that mentioned in my question do receive any badge which will protect them against the danger of being mistaken for so-called conscientious objectors, who are very properly regarded with loathing and contempt.

Oh, oh!

If the hon. Gentleman raises controversial matters of that kind in a question, he cannot expect to get an answer.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man residing in Isleworth was taken into the Army on the 18th instant, although his own medical doctor certified that he was suffering from very serious kidney disease, and that the case was brought to the notice of the authorities at Hounslow Barracks without avail; and whether any consideration is given to the report of a man's own private doctor?

No, Sir, I am not aware of the facts stated, but if particulars are furnished to me immediate inquiry will be made.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the treatment received by Ithel Davies, of the 4th Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, at the military detention barracks, Mold, while serving his sentence for refusing for conscientious reasons to obey military orders; whether, on the first day of his detention, he was knocked and dragged about for ten or fifteen minutes by two or three officials so that he was bruised and sore all over; that he was then handcuffed for hours; whether he was given any dinner; whether the same treatment was meted out to him the second day with the addition that shovelfuls of mud and stones were thrown over him, and that he was placed in irons and a straight-jacket until bed-time; that on the third day one of the officials brutally ill-treated him and hit him in the face and broke his nose; whether, while in that condition, a sergeant tried to drill him by himself and on his refusal dealt him many blows; whether Ithel Davies was released on 7th June and returned to the camp at Whittington, near Oswestry; whether he has been court-martialled again for disobedience to military orders; what sentence has been passed upon him; and what is proposed to be done to him after such sentence has been served?

I have caused full inquiry to be made into this case, and, as a result, I can give my hon. Friend this information: All those who had Private Ithel Davies under their charge deny that he was ill-used. The statements of the N.C.O.'s in question on this matter were taken by the visiting officer. No complaint was made to the visiting officer by this man. Private Davies was examined by the medical officer on 24th May, 25th May, and again on 7th June. On each occasion he was found to be fit; he never complained of sickness, nor called attention to any marks of violence from ill-treatment or injury of any description. He was also asked on the day of his release by the medical officer whether he had any complaint to make, and he answered "No." I think this question shows the desirability of treating these allegations of ill-treatment with great caution; otherwise I fear there is some danger of hon. Gentlemen being imposed upon, or at all events placed in a false position. I have no information as to whether this man has been again court-martialled.

In view of the discrepancy of the statements on both sides, will the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent inquiry into half-a-dozen of these cases?

What I meant was that the answer I gave yesterday might give rise to some misapprehension on the part of hon. Members. We have appointed an investigator who is independent in the sense, with no party to serve, and as he has no previous knowledge of these cases he goes down with a perfectly open mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman's investigator see Private Davies himself and ask if he has the letter containing these allegations?

The statements were made, first of all, by a non-commissioned officer to the visiting officer. No complaint was made by the man to the visiting officer.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer this part of the question: Whether the investigator, who, I understand, has been sent down by the War Office, has seen Private Davies, and asked him the specific questions?

I am afraid I cannot answer that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the cases in which conscientious objectors, while in detention barracks, have been deprived of their bibles; whether he is aware that this has been especially the case at Horfield Barracks, Bristol; whether this has been done on War Office instructions; and whether a general order will now be given that bibles are not to be taken from prisoners under any circumstances?

Inquiry is already being made into this allegation.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Lance-Corporal Barker at Pries Heath Camp, Whitchurch, in kicking, hitting, and bullying the conscientious objectors placed under his charge; and whether he will have an inquiry made into their ill-treatment from headquarters and prevent any repetition of such conduct?

A report on these allegations has been called for, but has not yet been received, but in the meantime I must not be taken as in any way accepting the correctness of these allegations.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the fact that there is evidence to show that the military authorities in many instances are testing the bona fides of the conscientious objector by subjecting him to physical violence, he will take steps either to prohibit this procedure or to promote legislation to provide a scale of punishments to test conscientious objection and so secure uniformity of treatment; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that some officers appear to consider that they are entitled to test the bona fides of a conscientious objector by subjecting him to treatment of the nature of torture; and can he say whether any steps have been taken to correct this impression?

The bona or the mala fides of an insubordinate soldier does not concern the officer whose duty it may be to punish him under the Army Act or "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons." The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Is it not a fact that these men are being subjected to ill-treatment for the purpose of compelling them to forego their conscientious objections?

No, Sir; I do not think that is so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when the parents, wife, or near relative of a conscientious objector has reason to believe that he has been subjected to physical violence, he will permit an examination of the man to be made by a doctor instructed by the person so informed, in order that the truth as to grave allegations of ill-treatment may be established?

No, Sir; such an examination cannot be permitted. A soldier possesses a statutory remedy under Section 43 of the Army Act for bringing to light any grievance under which he deems himself to be suffering.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday asked hon. Members to make individual inquiries before putting down questions, how can they arrive at the facts unless some opportunity is given them of getting an independent examination of a man who says he has been subjected to ill-treatment?

All I suggested to hon. Members was that they should themselves ascertain the facts if they possibly could. If my hon. Friend tells me they cannot do it, I must bow to that, but I should have thought there were methods which could be employed to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case, supposing any ill-treatment occurred, to justify an inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest any method by which such an investigation can be made?

I can suggest many.

Let us have one.

An one in the district would surely be cognisant more or less of the facts. My hon. Friend has many acquaintances in and around those places, and he can easily ascertain from them.

Is it not a recognised fact that any soldier has the right to appeal to a higher officer if he thinks he is ill-treated?

Yes, Sir, and I have just stated that fact in answer to the question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will take means to draw the attention of Members of Parliament to Army Council Instruction No. 897, which forbids officers and men of the Army from bringing forward grievances through the medium of solicitors or of Members of Parliament; and does this instruction apply to officers on half pay or in the Reserve of Officers, and to men in the Army Reserve not yet called up for service?

The instructions in question were addressed to persons who are subject to the Army Act, and, in these circumstances, I have no doubt where soldiers disobey the King's Regulations and are dealt with accordingly, they will, themselves, bring the matter to the attention of third parties who have interested themselves on their behalf, with a view to interventions by third parties ceasing. The answer to the last part of the question is that if and when the officers and men mentioned are subject to the Army Act, the instructions in question will apply to them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that no soldier will ever be put in a worse position by bringing forward his grievance through the medium of a Member of this House?

Well, Sir, I cannot give any such undertaking, but, of course, such is not intended. If, however, a soldier were to continue to do what is laid down as a contravention of the Regulations, then I cannot say that he would not deserve some punishment.

Arising out of that, can my right hon. Friend tell us why soldiers who are also Members of this House can do this kind of thing in the House, and our constituents cannot do it through us?

asked whether (1) in the form of field punishment known as crucifixion the fixing of the limbs is sometimes so tight as to allow of no mobility at all; whether any instructions have been issued to safeguard against this occurring; and (2) whether all soldiers sentenced to the form of field punishment known as crucifixion are examined by a medical officer before undergoing punishment?

asked whether, under the French Military Code, soldiers can be subjected to any punishment of the nature of field punishment No. 1, commonly known as "crucifixion"?

I am not aware whether, under the French Military Code, there is any punishment similar to the nature of field punishment No. 1. The expression "crucifixion" is one not known to military law, and is one which I have not heard except in questions put by, and speeches made by, hon. Members. The instructions for field punishment have been laid before Parliament, and I am not aware that, prisoners have been subjected to any greater restraint than is allowed by these instructions. Soldiers are not examined before undergoing punishment, but a medical officer is available should his services be required.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken medical evidence as to the very serious effects that may sometimes be produced by this punishment on men who have not a strong physique?

I will read that part of the Army Rules relating to field punishment which bears on the point:

"Every portion of field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of the field punishment must, be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender's health."

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perfectly well known that this punishment is known as crucifixion in the ranks of the Army?

The right hon. Gentleman has just now contradicted that statement.

Call it a "joy ride."

The officers call it that.

asked whether the increase in recruiting record in Ireland has stimulated the flow of recruits; and whether the War Office are satisfied with the present and future prospects of recruiting on the voluntary basis in Ireland?

The circumstances of the moment in relation to recruiting and affairs generally in Ireland do not seem propitious for making a statement of the kind suggested in the question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the pay in cash to second-lieutenants of Infantry of the Line serving at home varies from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a day and the pay of first-lieutenants is 1s. a day more, he can see his way to extend to subalterns of the Line serving at home the same privileges as to grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities as have been granted to those serving in the ranks?

I regret I am not yet in a position to inform the hon. Member of the decision in this matter, but I expect to be able to do so in a few days.

I will put my question down on this day week.

asked whether any understanding has been arrived at that married men over thirty years of age employed in the retail grocery trade are to be exempted from military service; and whether this understanding extends to proprietors or managing sales men over the age of thirty employed in the retail butchers' trade?

My right hon. Friend is not aware of any understanding of the kind mentioned.

asked whether, in regard to an application for exemption from the sole head of a business which would be ruined if he was called up for military service, and who has dependants, he has advised the tribunals to have regard to any allowances and other assistance which may be available; whether the tribunals are also to consider the fact that these allowances will not be continued after the War, and that, owing to the business being lost and the man having no capital to start afresh, he and his dependants may be permantly reduced in status and deprived of their means of earning their livelihood?

It is for the tribunals to deal with each case on its merits, taking account of all relevant considerations, including such matters as are referred to in the question.

asked with regard to the recent regulations for tribunals under the Military Service Acts, whether he has observed that in Section 17 of the accompanying circular he has stated that among the cases of serious hardship in respect of which exemptions may be granted is that of a man whose future business or career would be ruined and the fruits of much effort and expenditure probably lost, whereas in the regulations, Section II. (1), the references to such cases are apparently limited to men having families; whether the circular properly indicates his recommendation; and whether the tribunals are to understand that among the cases in which they are authorised to grant exemption is that of a man, without family or dependants, whose business would be ruined and the fruits of much effort and expenditure lost?

The Instruction in the Regulations was inserted in order to redeem the promise given in the course of the discussions on the recent Bill that the case of married men with dependants who were the sole heads of businesses should be specially referred to. Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the circular deal with a variety of cases of serious hardship with which the tribunals may have to deal. The circular expressly indicates that not all cases of serious hardship are covered by the words of the Instruction.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he will see that, where one member of a family joins the Royal Naval Reserve in terms of the Military Service Act, 1916, and has not yet been called up, no injury is thereby done to another member of the same family by any tribunal to which he may be appealing refusing to recognise the first member as effectively transferred to-the Naval Reserve, and will issue instructions to that effect?

My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to issue special instructions on this matter. It is for the tribunal to take due account of all facts relevant to a case.

asked the Home Secretary by many of the leaders of the Anti-Conscriptionist movement who have been sentenced by courts-martial to terms of imprisonment have since been released; whether these men of military age have restarted their efforts to break down the Military Service Act immediately on release; whether he is aware that Clifford Allen, the chairman of the "No-Conscription Fellowship," urged men of military age at a meeting at 186, Bishopsgate, on 8th April, to defy the Military Service Act, and promised assistance to all who were absentees, and that Clifford Allen was sentenced to a term of imprisonment; will he say whether he is now at liberty; and will he say whether he addressed a meeting at the offices of the National Council against Conscription, at 22, Bride Lane, E.C., on Tuesday evening, the 20th instant, at six o'clock?

The answer to the first past of the question is that there have been no releases, so far as I am aware, and the second part does not therefore arise. I am informed that Mr. Clifford Allen did urge men to defy the Military Service Act, and that he promised assistance as stated. Mr. Clifford Allen has not been sentenced. He is still at liberty, but is due to report for service on the 30th June. The meeting of the executive committee took place from 4.30 to 6.0 on the date mentioned.

asked whether Donington Hall has been given up as a place of internment for prisoners of war, or whether it is proposed to give it up; whether there is any, and, if so, what limit to the supply of wines and spirits and beer for German officers interned there so long as they pay for them; and whether an American bar has been arranged there for their use?

There is no intention of giving up Donington Hall as a place of internment for prisoners of war. The consumption of light wines and beers, which alone are permitted, is strictly limited by the Commandant. There is no American bar. I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would have given the administration credit for being more sensible than appears from his question.

What is the amount of wines and spirits allowed?

The amount is a question which involves figures, and the hon. Gentleman did not ask me that I cannot give the figures at the moment

Are the prisoners allowed to buy wines and spirits at a time when we are not allowed to buy them in our own clubs?

That is another question of detail which I cannot answer on the spur of the moment. I should think it doubtful that any such privilege was granted.

Is it not time that this treatment ceased in view of the treatment received by our prisoners in Germany?

I had hoped that my answer conveyed to the hon. Member the impression that no such privileges do exist. If I am not able to convince the hon. Member that is not my fault.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman could.

The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply.

asked what was the total cost of the maintenance of Donington Hall during the year 1915?

I regret that the figures are not available for the period prior to 1st May. Apart from capital outlay and the original cost of furnishing, the cost of maintenance for the last eight months of 1915 amounted to £2,250.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether about twenty non-commissioned officers and men of the 1st/10th London battalion were promoted temporarily while on active service in Gallipoli, and since their return to this country have been paid according to the new rank given to them while overseas; whether he is aware that recently new orders were issued reverting these men to the rank they held before proceeding overseas, which order in effect makes them liable to refund Service money paid to them by their battalion on the higher rank scale, in one case amounting to as much as £35; and whether he will at once issue instructions which will prevent any financial liability falling upon these men?

I will have inquiry made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put this question down a week ago, so as to give him time to make inquiries?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men are employed in certain Scottish recruiting offices at 24s. a week, or 3s. 5d. a day for seven days; and whether he will inquire into this scale of payments, with a view to increasing them?

The minimum was recently raised to 26s. a week.

asked whether, after the outbreak of War, Trebitsch Lincoln acted as a censor in the War Office; and, if so, when, and for how long, and what duties he performed, and on whose recommendation and on "whose appointment he became a censor?

Trebitsch Lincoln was employed in the Postal Censorship for about a month, from the 20th August, 1914, to read Hungarian letters. His work was unsatisfactory, and shortly after being reprimanded for annotating letters, he expressed a wish to retire, and his resignation was accepted. As regards the last part, the usual references were aked for and given.

Whose references were they?

They were references from persons who believed in him.

Who?

I cannot say.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know?

No, Sir!

If I ask, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

Yes, I will.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in the Territorial Force and New Armies field companies of Royal Engineers are invariably commanded by majors, whereas in the Royal Engineers of the Regular Army, although the establishment equally provides for a major to command such companies, no captains are promoted even to temporary rank while holding such appointment; and will he say why, if it is necessary for an officer commanding a field company to have the rank of field officer in the case of the Territorial Force and the New Armies, there is an equal case to give Regular officers the same temporary standing?

The hon. and gallant Member correctly states in the first part of his question the usual practice, although it is not invariable. The answer to the second part of the question is that promotion in the Royal Engineers (Regular) is carreid out regimentally as a whole and not by individual units.

Is it not time to recognise that we have only one Army for the purposes of the War, and to do away with the preference which is now given to the Territorial Forces over the old Armies in the matter of temporary promotion?

It is a very difficult problem which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises. I am unaware that undue preference has been given to the Territorial Forces.

Could the right hon. Gentleman in this matter of temporary—

That scarcely arises; it is more a matter for Debate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the names of the firms to whom contracts have been given for making fur coats for the Army?

The names of firms with whom such contracts are placed are published monthly in the "Labour Gazette" issued by the Board of Trade.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of these firms are English firms; that they are either German or Austrian, or firms with German or Austrian names?

No, I was not aware of that. But there is a difference between a German or an Austrian firm's name, and a German or an Austrian firm.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is one English firm in this matter?

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly give notice of these questions? They are not on the Paper.

asked what, if any, arrangements have been made on and after 30th June for carrying on the work hitherto carried on by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society in respect to the advancement of money in the matter of soldiers' pensions; and whether if new bodies are to be brought into existence they will be charged with the duty of giving advice where advice is needed, a duty which has been carried out by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society?

The Regulations (Part II.) made by the Statutory Committee under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, provide for the advancement of funds in respect of the pensions of discharged sailors and soldiers. In reply to the latter part of the question, I may remind the hon. Member that local committees are charged by Section 4 (d) of the Act with the function of giving information and advice to applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they do give this advice?

They have instructions to give adequate advice, and no doubt they will give it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a soldier refused an increase of pension by the Chelsea Commissioners can thereafter apply to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension?

It is, no doubt, competent for a soldier to make an application to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension in the circumstances mentioned j but the Committee would think it undesirable, without full communication with the Chelsea Commissioners, in effect to revise the decision of the Chelsea Hospital Medical Boards. The Committee have, in fact, communicated with the Commissioners in cases of this kind, and when they have been able to supply fresh evidence the Commissioners have shown themselves very ready to reconsider the matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that would prejudice the case of an applicant or not?

No, Sir; it would not be at all prejudicial.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the chief warders employed at Woolwich Arsenal are now paid for overtime worked up to twelve hours in any one week, but that the ordinary warders receive no pay for overtime whatever; whether he is aware that three warders worked 130 hours, 120 hours, and sixty hours, respectively, during the first twelve months of the War; and whether he will undertake to see that the ordinary warder receives similar treatment, as far as overtime is concerned, to the chief warder?

The chief warders at Woolwich Arsenal have to attend for very long hours and are not paid for the first three hours of overtime on any day. The ordinary warders work in shifts of about eight hours, and are paid at a consolidated rate, which was fixed to cover overtime. Though it has not been possible in the time available to verify the statement of the number of hours overtime actually worked, I understand that they show weekly averages greatly below those which prevailed when the consolidated rate was adopted.

asked the Minister of Munitions how the licences in Annan stand with regard to the operation of the Local Veto Act in Scotland; and whether the Board of Control is to take out what has been paid for them prior to the operation of that Act, or is the scheme a temporary one?

It does not appear to me that the operation of the Local Veto Act in Scotland will be prejudiced by the action taken by the Central Control Board at Annan.

Does that mean that the licences in Annan will be subject to the veto of the people in 1921?

Yes, I think that is so.

Is it a fact that the licences in Annan are free from the inspection of the police and are outside the power of the licensing authority?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether the Control Board has achieved any reduction in the consumption of alcohol; whether they have instituted any counter-attractions; and, if so, where and of what nature?

If my hon. Friend will refer to the recently published Second Report of the Control Board (Cd. 8243) he will find a full account of the work of the Board, both upon its restrictive and upon its constructive side.

Has my right hon. Friend read that himself and does he know that it does not deal with the question of the restriction of consumption?

asked the Minister of Munitions what is the nature of the agreement made by the Board of Control at Carlisle; whether the arrangements with the breweries include their tied houses outside the area; what is the nature of the Redemption Scheme, or whether this department is one of a Permanent Board?

The Control Board have decided to acquire the licensed trade interest, including the breweries, in the city of Carlisle and the immediate neighbourhood. The precise extent of the area and other details are now under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the Act and Regulations under which the Control Board was constituted, namely, the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915, and the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, 1915.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the tied houses belonging to the brewers which will be even outside the area of consideration will be dealt with in the Carlisle experiment?

I should like to have notice of that question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any estimate of the cost of this operation?

Yes, I have received an estimate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state anything like the sum?

That would certainly be very undesirable before the valuation.

Will the arrangement continue after the War?

I hope so.

asked the Minister of Munitions when the Report of the Treasury Advisory Committee on certain proposals for the State purchase of the licensed liquor trade, the issue of which as a Parliamentary Paper was promised on 6th April last, will be published?

I understand that the Treasury are now taking steps to issue the Report as a Parliamentary Paper.

May I ask what that answer means? Will it be issued within a few days or week?

In about a week's time.

asked the Minister of Munitions the result of the inquiry which has been held into the working of the orders of the Central Control Board for the County of Wilts; whether at some of the principal towns no evidence^* has been called for from anyone but the police; and whether he has received any information as to how the Order affects home-trade brewers and the agricultural population generally?

I am informed that as the result of an inquiry by one of their own officers into the operation of the Order for the Southern Military and Transport Area (including the county of Wilts), in the course of which large numbers, of persons in responsible and representative positions were interviewed, in addition to the police, the Control Board have come to the conclusion that the Order is working satisfactorily and that the particular complaints which have been made regarding it cannot be met without interfering with the main object of the Order.

asked the Minister of Munitions if he can now make a statement, without risk of conveying any useful information to the enemy, on the reserves of shells and guns at the outbreak of the War, and the explanation of so many lost months in organising the resources of the country for the maximum production of shrapnel, high explosives, and guns?

I do not think that it is in the public interest that such a statement should be made.

Will an inquiry be made into this matter at the end of the War?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any provision has been made or is proposed to be made for the parent of a soldier who was not actually dependent on him before he joined the Army, but who, through age, or illness, or bereavement, has been deprived of the means of support, and would naturally have been expected to be supported by the son who has been called up for military service?

The Regulations issued by the Statutory Committee provide that a local committee may, subject to certain limits and conditions, grant a special separation allowance equivalent to the amount which in the committee's opinion the soldier or sailor might presumably have been expected to give if he were living at home.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether an order for 150,000 tents has been placed with a firm who are not tent makers; and, if so, were the tent manufacturers given the usual opportunity to tender for the contract, and were the prices of some of the contractors below those of the successful firm of non-tent makers; was a maximum price paid to this firm; and, if so, will he explain why this was done; and is he aware that, against the general recommendation of the Home Office, the firm in question being so favoured with contracts is employing workwomen on night work and advertising for further women to work at night, whilst the workers in the same trades in the east and south-east districts of London are out of employment?

An order for 150,000 tents was placed in June, 1915, with a certain firm after they had satisfactorily executed orders for smaller quantities. The contract has now been completed. Two hundred and nineteen other firms were invited to tender at the same time, and every suitable offer lower in price and some higher in price were accepted to meet the Army requirements. The point regarding the employment of women at night should apparently be addressed to the Home Office.

Do I understand that all the tenders that were sent in were accepted irrespective of price?

I do not say all were accepted, but I say 219 other firms were invited to tender, and, speaking from memory, I do not think it is going too far to say that everybody who could make satisfactory tents at a satisfactory price was given an opportunity of doing it.

Irrespective of price?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why there is such continued delay in paying in officers' field, lodging, fuel, and light allowances; whether he is aware that many allowances for February were not paid to the bankers till 25th March and that those for March were only credited on 3rd May; and, in view of the fact that many officers now live on their pay and allowances, he will take steps to expedite payment?

I am not aware that there has been any general delay in these payments, but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have details of the cases which he has in mind I will make inquiries.

asked whether the owner of a restaurant in the City, who pays £800 head rent, and whose total income under restricted hours, excluding any salary to himself, is £500, has any right of recovery against his landlord; or, if the Government has decided that licence holders must suffer losses by the action of a Government Department, should these losses be shared by all those having a revenue from the property instead of being confined to the actual man who carries on the business?

These would seem to be legal questions to be settled between the various persons interested in the property, and I do not think that any Government Department would be in a position to offer advice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to relieve cases of this kind from excessive taxation to which they are subjected?

I think I must have notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why deductions from the interest paid upon the 4½ per cent. War Loan on 2nd June last was made at the rate of 5s. in the £ for the whole period of six months, whereas during four months of that period the authorised rate of tax was 3s. only; and upon what principle does he justify this excess and unauthorised taxation?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, as under the law Income Tax was deductible at the rate in force when the interest in question became payable, namely, 5s. in the £.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Customs and Excise Departments are insisting that persons attending band performances in our public parks, and paying 1d. for the use of the chairs placed together round a bandstand, must also pay the Entertainments Tax; and whether this is in accord with his statement that there would be no duty on charges made for programmes or for seats at such performances?

In the case of band performances in public parks, the Entertainments Tax is not leviable on any payment made merely for the use of a chair provided such payment is not in any sense made, directly or indirectly, for admission to an enclosure. But when the arrangement of the chairs is such as to constitute an area reserved for the occupants of the chairs, the payment must be held to be a payment for admission to an entertainment and is subject to tax accordingly.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received and submitted to His Majesty's Government a resolution passed by the corporation of the city of Glasgow urging that the liquor traffic be prohibited in Scotland during the continuation of the War, and that equitable provision be made for those who are affected thereby; and whether the Government proposes to take any action in this respect?

I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, which I understand has also been sent to other members of the Government. I am not in a position to make any statement in answer to the last part of the question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent conviction of a tenant of a Crown farm named Sydney Worth for continued offences under the National Health Insurance Act; and whether, seeing that this unmarried man and his father and brother own and occupy several thousands of acres of other agricultural land, he will consider the advisability of the Crown resuming possession of this most suitable farm in order that it may be available for use under the provisions of the Small Holdings Colonies Bill now before Parliament?

As I understand that the farm in question is held under a lease which has still several years to run, the question of the resumption of possession by the Commissioners of Woods, and of the suitability of the farm for a small holding colony do not arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the Game Laws until after the War, so as to release for national service, both military and civil, all those men who are still being employed as game-keepers, also to relieve the police who, in game-preserving districts, are still devoting time in putting the Game Laws into operation; and further to prevent the damage to growing crops, and consequent wastage of food?

I fear that the action which I understand my hon. Friend to suggest might be regarded as controversial in view of the fact that game preserving has been very largely decreased, if not wholly abandoned. I shall be glad to hear of any cases in which this may not be the case, so that action may be taken through the War Agricultural Committees, which would, I believe, be likely to be more practicable and effective than legislation. It should, I think, be remembered in this connection that no keepers of military age are in any way entitled to exemption from military service on account of their occupation, and that the older men who now alone remain are doing good work in helping to keep down rats and rabbits. They have also in many cases, which are worthy of general imitation, been lent for the purpose of helping farmers at the times of year when they most need help.

asked the Prime Minister whether an early opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the resolutions adopted by the Economic Conference of the Allies at Paris?

Yes, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how hon. Members who wish to discuss those resolutions can do so?

Through the usual channel.

asked whether the Government will approach the railway companies with a view to their running excursion trains at cheaper fares during 6th, 8th, and 9th August, Saturday Monday and Tuesday, for the two Bank Holidays, subject to military exigencies, in order to provide those engaged upon Government work with the necessary change of air and environment to enable them to recover health and strength after their prolonged labours at high pressure during the past few months?

I am informed by the railway companies that they think that with their depleted staffs it will be as much as they can do to handle the traffic which is expected on their lines on the occasion of the August holidays, and that it will not therefore be practicable for them to run excursion trains at reduced fares, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the Board will publish the evidence upon which were based the Introduction and Part I. of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the settlement and employment on the land of discharged sailors and soldiers.

The Committee did not consider it necessary that the evidence referred to should be published, and for this reason and for the sake of economy this view is also that of the Board.

Can any hon. Member who particularly wishes to make use of this evidence have a copy for his private use?

Yes; we would do our best to make it available. Copies exist, and by permission of the person giving evidence I should think it might be made use of.

asked the Postmaster-General whether parcels up to 11 pounds weight can now be sent to soldiers at the front for the ordinary charge for postage; and, if not, whether he can see his way to restore the ordinary rates and conditions for sending parcels to men who are serving their country abroad?

The reason for the reduction in the maximum weight of parcels for the Expeditionary Forces is the necessity of keeping within reasonable limits the number and bulk of the parcels sent overseas. Nearly 100,000 parcels a day are dispatched to France—a number which heavily taxes the resources both of the cross-Channel steamships and the military transport overseas. The step was taken after full discussion with the military authorities, and I fear that I can hold out no hope under existing conditions of a return to the former maximum weight of 11 pounds.

Was not the reason given for reducing the weight of parcels owing to the very large number at Christmas and the New Year?