asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Consular officers of foreign origin there are in the British Consular Service; what is the approximate annual amount received by unsalaried British Consulate officers of foreign origin as stamp fees and office allowances; what is the smallest salary received by any British Consular officer; and whether, in view of the lessons taught us by the War, the Secretary of State will see his way clear in future to employ only men of British birth as British Consular officers?

The answer to the first and last parts of the question is that there are none but British—born subjects in the salaried Consular Service. Vice-Consuls are placed on a scale of salary, with a minimum of £300 per annum, rising gradually to £500. They do not retain "stamp fees" in addition, but in those cases where they are appointed to independent posts, they are granted office allowances to cover the cost of the upkeep of the office. The amount of stamp fees and office allowances received by unsalaried Consular officers varies according to the amount of fees collected and to the expenses of the post. It is not comparable to salary. The total amount provided for 1915–16 was £108,446, of which about 7 per cent, was paid to posts where the unsalaried Consul was a foreigner. Foreigners are only appointed to posts which are unsalaried, where no suitable British subjects are available, and where no appointment at all would otherwise be made.

Is it the intention of the Government to appoint in future unsalaried Consuls of enemy origin?

I have already dealt with that by question and answer in this House. I do not know that I have anything to add. No person of enemy origin will be appointed, whether salaried or unsalaried.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in view of the lapse of time, whether he is now at liberty to state the reasons of the Foreign Office for granting a free conduct to Captain Boy-Ed, formerly German military attaché in the United States; whether he is aware that Captain Boy-Ed was at the head of an organisation engaged in forgery, murder, and arson in the United States; whether he is aware that Captain Boy-Ed is now organising the occasional U—boat operations off the American coast from Lübeck; and whether, in view of the uniformity with which German diplomatic representatives violate the neutrality of the countries where they are guests, the Foreign Office will announce that no further safe—conducts will be granted?

As stated in reply to the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division on 22nd December last, Captain Boy-Ed was given a safe—conduct in deference to the officially expressed wish of the United States Government. At the same time, in view of his activities referred to in the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government felt that his capacity for injuring the interests of this country would at least not be greater in Germany than they had been in the United States. His Majesty's Government, therefore, acceded in this instance to the request of the United States Government, and have since seen no reason to alter this view. With regard to the rest of the question, I have no reason to doubt that all that my hon. and gallant Friend says about Captain Boy-Ed's activities is true. Some of it is officially known to be true. But I do not think that anything would be gained my making the announcement suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any neutral Government has yet intimated a desire that, in proof of the good faith of the Allies, a joint declaration should now be made by them of their concurrence with the claim of small nations to representation equally with themselves in the International Peace Conference to follow the War; in either case, whether such a declaration will be made; and whether the small nations will be named in it?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the rest, I can express no opinion.

Do all the Allies concur in this?

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can obtain through neutral Powers information as to what uses our Embassies are put to in the enemy capitals; and if he finds that they are not duly respected will he seize the German, Austrian, and Turkish Embassies here?

The British Embassy or Legation buildings in enemy capitals are, I believe, being used, if at all, by the United States representatives, under whose protection they have been placed.

Is the Noble Lord aware that the Embassy at Sofia has been seized?

No, I am not aware of that. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give me information on the subject.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on what date a passport was issued to Miss Emily Hobhouse; if any particular destination was mentioned therein, and, if so, what destination; were there any limitations therein, and, if so, what limitations; whether Miss Hobhouse gave any reasons for requiring a passport, and, if so, what were the reasons given by her?

Miss Hobhouse was—given a passport on 5th March, 1915, to travel to Italy, where she stated that she—wished to go for the benefit of her health. The lady having returned to this country, her passport was, on 29th November, 1915, furnished with a visa by the military permit office entitling her to proceed once more to Italy. She made a stay in Switzerland both on the outward and' homeward journeys, though she appears to have made no mention of any such intention when applying for the visa to leave this country. There was no limitation on the use of the passport specified in the document itself, except in so far as the mention of destination amounts to such.

May we assume then that this lady obtained the passport under false pretences?

Everyone must draw his own conclusions from the answer I have given.

Is the Noble—Lord going to take any further action in this matter?

I imagine Miss Hobhouse will not be allowed again to leave the country.

Has the Noble Lord's attention been drawn to a report in the "Times" yesterday that six Russian ladies have been received by the German Empress, and is there any particular reason why an English lady should' not go to inspect camps in Germany?

Is there no means of bringing to justice a lady who goes abroad for the purpose of betraying her country?

My hon. and learned Friend will see that that is not a question which it is possible for the Foreign Office to answer. He may, if he desires, put it to the legal advisers of the Crown.

Is it not the case that immediately on her return to this—country Miss Hobhouse offered to give every possible information she had to the Government?

I do not know anything about that, but I know that the general opinion of the House—and I believe of the country—is that Miss Hobhouse's activities have not been in the interests of this country.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any record is preserved of the particular circumstances under which passports for the Continent are granted to individual British subjects; if so, will he say on what representations by Miss Emily Hobhouse was a passport for Switzerland granted to her; whether she obtained a further passport from a British Consulate in Switzerland; and, if so, under what circumstances and on what representations by her was such passport obtained?

The papers on which passports are granted at the Foreign Office are preserved. The passport which was in the possession of Miss Emily Hob-house was not issued for Switzerland, but for Italy, in March, 1915. It was issued on representations that the visit to Italy was necessary for reasons of health. The passport issued to her at Berne was for a direct return to this country only, and was given for that specific purpose.

By what methods did she obtain leave from the Government to go to Germany?

It is impossible for me to say. She must have done that, of course, through the German authorities, and not through any intervention of the British.

Does that require any sanction by the authorities of Switzerland?

That will be a matter for the German Government, I presume. She would have to satisfy the German authorities that she was authorised to center Germany. It has nothing to do with the British.

When she applied to have her passport visé did she give any reason for visiting Italy? Was it again for her health?

The application for a visé would not come to the Foreign Office, as I understand it. The Permit Office grants the visé, and I am not quite sure whether the Permit Office is under the Home Office or the War Office—probably the Home Office, in accordance with directions given by the War Office.

Will some arrangement be made so that this sort of thing shall not occur again?

It is a very rare case, I am glad to think. The hon. Member will understand that when a passport is issued in the ordinary course it is valid for two years. When the immediate object of the journey is accomplished and the owner of the passport returns, before he or she can leave this country again he or she has to obtain a visé from the Permit Office. That is a matter which, strictly speaking, is not under the control of the Foreign Office. Once they have granted their passport their function, as I understand, is at an end.

asked what particulars are required to be given by an applicant for passports to the Continent with respect to the purpose of the intended journey and the places or countries he intends to visit; which, if any, of such particulars have to be endorsed on the passport either before leaving England or in the course of travel; whether any undertaking is required to be given by the applicant limiting the scope of his travel after arrival on the Continent; whether any precautions are taken to prevent him entering territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy or having communication or dealings with the enemy; and whether it is a punishable offence to obtain a passport by false statements relating to any of these matters?

Applicants for passports are required to state the country to which they desire to travel and the purpose of the journey, and the country concerned is endorsed on the passport. The destination and purpose of journey are again inquired into by the military authorities when the passport is presented to the Permit Office for the necessary visa, and such particulars are incorporated in the visa if granted. After arrival at the stated destination, journeys to other countries would depend upon they regulations locally in force. Permission to travel to enemy territory would certainly not be given by His Majesty's Government, who would take every precaution in their power to prevent such a proceeding if they had any reason to anticipate it. False statements in the declaration made by an applicant for a passport would constitute a punishable offence.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Esher is charged with any military or diplomatic mission in France; and, if so, what Department he represents?

Lord Esher has no definite military or diplomatic appointment, but he is charged from time to time with particular tasks of a military character.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if a special permit was issued by him on or about 14th December, 1914, for a Mr. Hochstetter to leave this country for Guatemala to assist in the management of the business in that country of Messrs. Rosing, Brothers, of Basinghall Street, E.C.; is Mr. Hochstetter an enemy alien; has he held a commission in the German Army; if so, will he say why he was not interned at the beginning of the War; and why this special licence was issued?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. There existed at that time no sufficient grounds, in view of the general policy then adopted, for interning this man or for refusing him a permit to leave the country for South America; but in the early part of 1915 the practice became much stricter; and a similar permit would not now be granted.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangements can or have been made to enable British women and children now detained in Belgium to return to this country; whether he has any information as to the detention of Mrs. James Alfred Ashley and her two sons, aged five and two and a half years, in Brussels since the outbreak of war; and whether he will consider the possibility, by exchange or other means, of securing their repatriation?

A considerable number of British women and children have been allowed to leave Belgium in the past and have been enabled to do so by the provision of special trains arranged through the good offices of the United States Legation at Brussels. Since November last, however, no such facilities have been allowed by the German authorities, "who now refuse to permit the departure of British subjects of either sex from Belgium. Every effort has been made to secure the repatriation of Mrs. James Ashley and her children, but hitherto without success. A strong protest has recently been made against the detention in Belgium of British women and children.

How many are there now?

I am afraid I cannot say without notice.

Is it possible to prevent the expatriation of German women from this country back to Germany until British women who are in Belgium and in France are repatriated too?

I shall be glad to bring that suggestion before the notice of the authorities.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the neutral countries have made any protest to Germany with regard to their treatment of British and other prisoners of war; and what steps are being taken to keep a complete record of German atrocities since the outbreak of hostilities?

We are not aware of any neutral country having protested to Germany as to her treatment of British or other prisoners of war. Steps have been taken to keep a record of German breaches of International Law since the outbreak of hostilities.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the 7,000 German prisoners who are to be ox—changed for 600 British prisoners are in all cases men over forty-five years of ago; are they to be at once repatriated, or are they to be given the option of remaining in the United Kingdom; and, in the latter case, will such prisoners be given their freedom?

The arrangement for the mutual repatriation of British and German civilians, which is now being negotiated, applies only to men over forty-five and only to those who desire to go. It is not proposed to release those who do not desire to go. I should explain that the numbers involved are not yet definitely known.

Why is it that those who do not desire to go back are given the option?

The hon. Member should give notice of that.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether Patrick Noble, migratory labourer, of Ballinamorrogue, Castlebar, county Mayo, now Private, No. 54283, I Company, 3rd Battalion King's Liverpool Regiment, has protested against being forced into military service on the grounds that he has never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain and that he has come to England only for a special temporary purpose for a few months of each of the last three years and returned home in October or November when his special work was completed; wheeher he is aware that Noble has been suffering from a diseased hip and consequent lameness during the past seven years and that he has been a patient in hospital continuously since his enlistment; and will steps be taken to have this case fully investigated and Noble discharged on its being found that he is exempt from the operations of the Military Service Acts?

I have made inquiries, and I am informed that Patrick Noble was not forced into military service. He presented himself for enlistment at Seaforth Barracks, and was posted to a regiment in the ordinary way. Noble has been in hospital since the 25th September.

asked the Secretary for War (1) if he will have further inquiry made into the case of Michael Nolan, of Cloonagleeragh, Turlough, county Mayo, No. 85152, Royal Garrison Artillery, 4 Hut, Lenan Head Battery, Donegal, who, having come to England as a migratory agricultural labourer in March last, was seized by the military authorities on a farm at Mouldsworth and forced into military service, although he had never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain; is he aware that Nolan denies emphatically the statement that after his arrest he enlisted voluntarily; will he take steps to have Nolan, whose two brothers are in the Army, discharged from military service and permitted to return to his home in Ireland; (2) if he is aware that William Caine, of Cortoon, Newport, county Mayo, a migratory agricultural labourer, who left home for England on 19th June last, was arrested at 13, Darwell Avenue, Petercroft, near Manchester, and pressed into the Army, although he has never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and that Sergeant McGuire, Royal Irish Constabulary, Newport, in reply to official inquiries, has stated that before leaving home Caine reported to him that he was proceeding to England for a special purpose; will steps be taken to have Caine discharged from the Army on its being ascertained that he is not liable to compulsory service under the Military Service Acts; (3) if he will have further inquiries made into the case of John Battle, farmer's son and migratory labourer, of Muccanagh, Turlough, county Mayo, who on coming to England in March last for a special purpose was arrested under the Military Service Act on a farm at Knowsley, near Prescot, and forced to join the Royal Garrison Artillery at Gosport; if the military authorities are now satisfied that Battle was never ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and was, therefore exempt from compulsory military service; if so, will he be offered his discharge from the Army and allowed to return home to Ireland; (4) whether Luke Carney, of Castlebar, county Mayo, No. 5836, 7th Reserve Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, D Company, who left home in February last to take temporary work in Coventry, was arrested there on 5th September under the Military Service Acts, confined in a cell for sixteen hours, tried at the police station, handcuffed, and handed over to the military authorities, his plea that he was never ordinarily resident in Great Britain having been disregarded; will steps be taken to release Carney from military service and to permit him to return to his home in Ireland; and (5) if he will have further inquiry made into the case of Thomas M'Hale, of Oughterard, Turlough, county Mayo (Private, No. 4683, R.L.N., C Company), who was arrested on a farm at Holmes Chapel and forced into the Army in May last; whether he is aware that M'Hale is an agricultural labourer, who for years had come to England for a special purpose and returned home to Ireland on the completion of his work every year, and that he has never been ordinarily resident in Great Britain; whether he is aware that a registration paper produced at his trial and purporting to bear his signature was neither signed nor authorised by him; and whether steps will be taken to have M'Hale discharged from military service and allowed to return to his home in Ireland?

The cases of all the men mentioned have been tried in the Civil Courts, which have in each case decided that the man is liable to military service. It is not proposed, therefore, to discharge any of them.

Is there any Court for a young man who comes over here on the invitation of the Department and is run into military service, although he is assured that he is exempt from it and the military ask him to come over?

The hon. Member knows that it is a question of fact. The man in question has an opportunity to establish the facts to the satisfaction of the Court, and where he does so he is not liable to military service. Where he fails to establish the fact to the satisfaction of the Court he is liable.

One of these young fellows has been taken, handcuffed, run in, tried at the Police Court, and rushed into a regiment. Is that the way to do it?

asked whether the Committee of Inquiry set up as a result of the passing of the Army Act Amendment Act of this Session has made its Report; and, if so, is he in a position to inform the House of its conclusions?

The Report has not yet been received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the results to the House when the inquiry is complete?

I must consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the lack of sleeping accommodation in the neighbourhood of Victoria Station for soldiers who are obliged to spend a night in London on their way between provincial centres and the front; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 24th October on this subject. My Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State is personally going into the matter with the General Officer Commanding the London district.

asked what is the nature and effect of the protection certificate issuable by recruiting officers on application by men in categories C2 and C3?

The effect of the certificates duly issued by recruiting officers to men referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend's question on 24th October is, that they have this certificate to show if they are called upon to produce a certificate of exemption. It is also an indication to an employer and others that the man is not a deserter or absentee from the Army, and that he may therefore be taken into employment. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the certificate in question.

It does not give a man any security as to the period in which he is called up, as to whether it will be a month or two months?

No.

Then are we to understand that there is not even a declaration of intention?

asked the Secretary for War whether the promised inquiry into the tortures inflicted upon three soldiers named Beardsworth, Dukes, and Benson is to be held by civilians or by soldiers; whether he is aware that Beards-worth and Dukes were informed on Thursday, 19th October, that an inquiry was to be held in respect of the allegations of brutality made by them at the court-martial, and that they were called upon to prepare their defence; that on Saturday, 21st October, they were moved to the detention room where privacy is impossible; that they have been refused even pen and paper, and also denied the opportunity to see their wives, any friends or witnesses, or even their solicitor; that the adjutant on Monday informed their solicitor, Mr. S. E. Doods, that they could not have a legal representative at the inquiry; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a judicial inquiry shall be held for the purpose of getting at the facts and not whitewashing the officers?

I do not think it is realised that the allegations which have been made by Privates Beardsworth, Dukes, and Benson are to the effect that offences have been committed against them which are punishable under Section 37 (1) of the Army Act, and under these circumstances the matter must be regarded as strictly sub judice . I do not understand the hon. Member when he suggests that on 19th October Beardsworth and Dukes were called upon to prepare their defence. These men have been tried by court-martial for their offences, and punishment has been awarded, so the question of their defence does not arise. It appears that Beardsworth and Dukes have been called upon to give evidence in support of their allegations of ill-treatment. With regard to the statement that they have been moved to the detention room, it seems obvious to me that the committal of these men to civil prison under the terms of Army Order No. X. of the 25th May has been delayed, as their evidence is required and, in consequence, they have been detained in military custody. At the same time their sentence is running. Under these circumstances they are naturally not permitted to see their wives, friends, witnesses, or solicitor, their situation in these respects being governed by the "Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons." If the adjutant informed Mr. S. R. Doods that these men could not have a legal representative at the inquiry he was perfectly correct. As I have before stated, these men are witnesses, so the question of their legal representation does not arise. With regard to the hon. Member's request that I will ensure that a judicial inquiry shall be held, I can only repeat that the allegations are that offences have been committed under Section 37 (1) of the Army Act, and if those allegations are substantiated the procedure to be followed will be found by reference to Section 46 of the Army Act.

Are we to understand that these men are denied any legal assistance in the preparation of the evidence which they are to give to this inquiry?

All they have got to do is to tell the truth.

Will the other men who are on their defence have legal assistance?

Is it not a fact that this inquiry has been brought about owing to charges of a very grave nature made by these men against officers and non-commissioned officers, and is it considered possible that these men, serving in the ranks, can fully substantiate their charges unless they first of all have access to a solicitor, and, secondly, are allowed legal representation?

That is in the nature of argument.

asked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the wounded soldiers in the Royal Pavilion Hospital at Brighton as to the quality of the food supplied to them and the method of serving it; and whether he will cause some inquiry to be made into the matter?

Yes, Sir; I am aware that there has been some dissatisfaction, and an inquiry has already been instituted into this matter.

asked whether the figure of 3,600,000 given by the senior Member for Trinity College as being the number of men in Great Britain of military age who have been exempted from military service is an official figure?

As 1 informed the hon. Member on the 24th instant, the exact number of exemptions varies from day to day. I would rather give no figures until the discussion on man-power that has been promised by the Prime Minister.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say where this figure was obtained?

No, I cannot.

asked the Secretary for War whether, in view of the virtual failure of all plans for substitution, he will now contemplate taking all men up to twenty-two, extending the age year by year as may be found necessary and leaving industry to readjust itself by natural means?

As the present scheme of substitution has only recently come into operation, I think the hon. Member will agree that it is too early to call it a failure.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recruiting officers throughout the country have found it absolutely impossible to get the Ministry of Munitions or the War Office to work together on this question, so as to get a satisfactory scheme of substitution? If he has not heard that, will he have inquiries made?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the War Office are fully alive to the difficulties. We are doing our very best to adjust matters.

Would it not simplify matters and ease the work of the War Office, if the suggestion in this question were adopted?

Have any substitutes in fact been found up to the present time?

asked what arrangements are being made in respect of men now in Categories B and C who are to act as substitutes for fitter men now in industry and agriculture, but about to be drafted into the Army; whether the men returned from the Army to farmers and other private employers will have any voice as to their wages and conditions; and what measure of industrial freedom these returned workmen will enjoy, seeing that they are to be at the service of private employers concerned for their private gain?

Men who are placed as substitutes will be in a position, so far as industrial freedom is concerned, similar to that of men who hold conditional exemption from tribunals on occupational grounds, unless they have entered into a civil contract or have enrolled as Army Reserve munition workers. Conditions and wages are made quite clear to men before they undertake work as substitutes.

Is the hon. Member aware that the military people in various parts of the country are continually laying it down in speeches that the employers will have special power over these men, and that if they misbehave in any way or? displease the employers they will be at once thrown back into the Army?

No. As I explained last week to the hon. Gentleman, there is no such thing contemplated by the military authorities; and if anybody says so he is making a very grave mistake.

It is not what is contemplated, but what is actually done that we are complaining of.

I am not aware of a single case in which it has been done.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Major Bassingham last week at Montgomery Appeal—

How can the hon. Member be aware of these things? Hon. Members must really exercise some control.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Appeal Medical Board to examine a man passed by the Hounslow Board for general service, but certified by a local practitioner to be absolutely useless for the Army; whether he is aware that the Staines Tribunal, of which Sir Edward Clarke is president, have granted the man temporary exemption, and have announced that the exemption will be continually repeated until the man obtains a medical re-examination; and whether he will inquire into the action of the Appeal Medical Board in this case?

This case is down for hearing at the Guildhall on 7th November before the Appeal Tribunal, and it is not possible, therefore, to say anything further on the subject at present.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inquest at Stoke Newington on George C. Gorday, a private in the Army Service Corps, who was passed at the beginning of June for general service; whether he is aware that medical examination after death revealed that the man had no kidney on the left side and that the right one was extensively diseased; that on visiting Bethnal Green Military Hospital a day or two before his death he was given some pills and told to have his teeth seen to; that the jury found that death was due to acute kidney disease and that his condition should have been discovered when he "was examined for the Army; and whether steps "will be taken to provide a thorough medical examination and to prevent the recruitment of unfit men?

I am calling for a report on this case.

asked whether, if an attested or an unattested man is called up for service and he was over forty-one years of age on 24th June, 1916, he is exempt from service?

An unattested married man or an unattested man deemed to be married who came within the operation of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2) on the date of the passing of the Act (25th May), is not liable to be called up for service if he had attained the age of forty-one years before the 24th June (the appointed day). The unattested married man and the unattested man who is deemed to be married who did not come within the operation of the Military Service Act 1916 (Session 2), on the 25th May, is not liable to be called up for service if he had attained the age of forty-one years? within thirty days of his coming within the operation of the above—mentioned Act. Similarly the attested married man and the attested man who is deemed to be married, who if he had been unattested would not have become liable under the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), will on production to the recruiting officer of proof of age be relegated to the Reserve.

Does that mean that the man who is forty-one, when he is called up, is exempted from service in accordance with the statement of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor?

That is not the answer.

What is meant by the reserve?

Is security given to the man in that position that he may not be called up at any time?

asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the question of man-power; and if he can state whether it is the intention of the Government to make all men up to the age of twenty-five, physically fit, join the Colours before raising the age limit?

The Man-Power Board are procuring returns from the various Government Departments in respect of the men employed up to twenty-six years of age, but the returns are not yet sufficiently complete to enable any conclusion to be formed.

Will there be inquiry as to first-grade clerks and second division clerks?

I understand the inquiry will include everyone available for military service.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to straighten out the present recruiting tangle and remove anomalies and hardships by the introduction of a Military Service (No. 3) Bill?

No, Sir, there is no intention at present to introduce such a Bill.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a day this or next week to deal with the question of Man-Power?

Facilities will certainly be given for such a discussion, but I am afraid I cannot yet name a definite date.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when a day will be given?

I hope it will be soon, but the delay has been caused by the Man-Power Board having been so busy in making new arrangements that have been found necessary

asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Man-Power Committee will be submitted to this House?

The Man-Power Board was set up for the purpose of deciding differences of opinion as to the distribution of labour arising between Government Departments, and it is, therefore, improbable that the Board will issue any public Report, especially as many of the facts involved are highly confidential and could not be published, but the Board will publish instructions from time to time when necessary for carrying its decisions into effect, as was done in the case of the Order of 29th September, 1916.

Before a day is given for the discussion of man-power, will there be anything issued by the Man-Power Board for the guidance of Members of the House?

I cannot at present indicate anything that could usefully be published, but the matter will be considered?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the making of a Return of the number of men of military age in various employments—munitions, for instance?

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that from the time of the passing of the Military Service Acts until the present month the Government have consistently stated that they would respect the pledge given in this House that men over forty would not be called up; if he is aware that on the 16th February Lord Derby wrote, through his secretary, Colonel Henderson, that when a man reaches his forty-first birthday he automatically becomes ineligible for military service; that in a printed leaflet, No. 61, published with the approval of the War Office, it was stated that a man's age is reckoned from the present not from the past, therefore a man who was forty-one yesterday is not liable to be called up to-day; and whether, in view of these facts, he will extend the time for making applications to tribunals in all cases of this kind so as to mitigate, as far as possible, the special hardship that will be caused by the recent Order?

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give any estimate of the number of men who would be available for the Army if the age limit was increased to forty-two years?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to call up for military service men who have passed their forty-first birthday before receiving the calling—up notice from the recruiting officer; and, if so, whether he will say on or before what date an attested man must have attained his forty-first birthday in order not to be liable to be called up?

I have already made a general statement on this matter, and to that I have nothing at present to add. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already promised a day for the discussion of the supply of men for the Armies in the Field, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by its discussion in the meantime by means of questions and answers. My hon. Friends will, moreover, have seen since they put down their questions the official statement published in the Press on the 28th instant.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for so gross and deliberate a violation of the pledge as in this case?

Oh, yes, there is.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he has answered No. 92. May I ask whether he can really give an answer to that question which asks what would be the number of men available if the age limit were raised to forty-two?

The answer is that I do not think it would be desirable to give this information until the debate in the House. I gave exactly the same answer to another hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that in the interval before the debate on this question, the pledge to these men will not be broken?

The War Office have issued a circular on the subject, as I have explained to the House.

And which is in violation of the pledge.

It is not.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of employing men over military age in working the antiaircraft guns in this country, and thus release for active service abroad the large number of young officers and men at present engaged on this work?

Men over military age are not suitable for anti—aircraft work which is performed mostly at night and requires considerable activity. The policy is to employ men not fit for general service as far as possible, provided sufficient men with the necessary physical qualifications can be obtained.

Is it not the case that there is a great number of young men, not necessarily acquainted with the machinery, who are associated with this work?

asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the majority of men in Categories C2 and C3 are not likely to be required for the Army, but that the uncertainty hanging over them all seriously handicaps them in ordinary business operations, whether he can give a larger measure of security to the majority of them by saying that in the first instance only those who are unmarried or below a certain age will be called up, and that he anticipates that this will satisfy all Army requirements?

I am afraid that, in view of the exigencies of the military situation. I am not able to give any such general assurance as the hon. Member suggests.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has previously told me that these men are very unlikely to be called up, but that a certain proportion will be. As a proportion are to be called up, there is a paralysing uncertainty over all the rest which is destructive to business enterprise. In view of that fact, can he adopt any measure whatever to give these men the maximum possible security?

I sympathise with these men in the difficulty in which they are placed. The matter has been very carefully considered, and I am afraid I cannot give the general undertaking for which my hon. Friend asks.

Seeing that only a small proportion are to be called up, can the hon. Gentleman now select that proportion, and say, "These men will be called up first," thereby giving security to the others?

I am afraid not. I should have been glad to do that if I could. My hon. Friend suggested it last week. We looked into it, to see if it could be done, but I am afraid it is impossible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Derby has already given a pledge that the men in Class C 3, sedentary work, will not be called up?

I am not aware of that at all.

I have it in my possession.

If there is a declaration of intention, will that give security to anybody?

I am afraid I cannot give a declaration of security.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men in the Army Pay Corps classified under Category C have been asked to elect either to accept a reduction in pay from 4s. to 1s. 8d. per day or to be discharged; can he state how many men have elected to be discharged; and whether these men will be notified as early as possible as to the date of their discharge in order that they may make arrangements for return to civil life?

The 4s. rate of pay was given to men of the Army Pay Corps who on enlistment were fit for general service. Those in receipt of this special rate who become unfit for service abroad are given the option of being transferred to the Reserve or of accepting ordinary rates of pay. This is in accordance with the general arrangement under which all men who have been enlisted at special rates of pay and who are found unfit for service abroad are being dealt with. The actual number of men who have elected to be so transferred cannot yet be stated. They will not be retained longer than is necessary in the public interest and until released they will continue to draw their special rate of pay. They cannot be released until efficient trained substitutes are forthcoming, and they will be told of the date of their realease as soon as it can be determined in each case.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men who had been previously rejected as unfit for the Army and who had not been asked to present themselves for re-examination before the 1st September have since received calling—up notices and been harassed in various ways; and whether he can take steps to instruct certain recruiting officers as to the law in this matter and to impress upon them the fact that their actions should be in harmony with the law?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on the 26th instant.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see at any rate that these men are called up and not arrested in the first instance?

Where a man has been rejected and has not received a notice before the 1st of September and there is no dispute about the facts and he is called up, what steps must he take to get the calling—up notice cancelled?

It is the date of the dispatch of the notice and not the date of its receipt that counts.

There is no dispute about the date.

In those cases the man in question will have an opportunity of making his case in Court.

What steps does the man himself take to secure that when there is no dispute about the facts and he is called up, the notice will be cancelled?

My hon. Friend perhaps had better give me notice.

Is it not the case that the man who knows his legal rights is let off, but that if he is ignorant you take advantage of his ignorance?

asked the total number of conscientious objectors to military service who have been sent to France; in what circumstances are conscientious objectors being sent to Ireland; and whether some have been tried, or threatened with trial, by field general court-martial, a procedure depriving them of legal assistance?

I have no information as to the total number of conscientious objectors who have gone to France. I understand that some 300 have gone to Ireland on the request of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief for employment on some military work. The last part of the question is inaccurate in its suggestion that trial by field general court-martial deprives the person tried of legal assistance.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is that the accused are to be allowed legal assistance in these other cases, and the accused in Ireland were denied legal assistance before the same tribunal?

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is taking any action upon the illegal decision of the Glasgow Appeal Tribunal which recently dismissed the applications of two men of eighteen years of age, members of the International Bible Students' Association, who claimed exemption on conscientious grounds, the tribunal dismissing the claim on the ground that persons of such immature years could not have definite convictions on such matters; and, if he has not already taken action in the matter, will he do so at once on the ground that this is a distinct violation of the Military Service Act, which gives to all men of military age the right to claim exemption on grounds of conscience?

The information furnished by my hon. Friend is not sufficient for the identification of the cases to which he refers. Perhaps he will give me the names of the men and the dates of the hearings.

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has given instructions to the Governor of Barlinnie Prison to release William W. Findlay, a conscientious objector, serving a second term of imprisonment as a conscientious objector, who has now agreed to accept the Home Office scheme; and, if not, will he do so at once?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This man was not found by the Central Tribunal to be a genuine conscientious objector to military service, and he will therefore remain in prison until the expiration of his sentence, and will then be returned to his unit.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieutenant Hiscock, recruiting officer, Gravesend, granted an exemption to F. C. Honeysett, conditional, whilst employed by the A.P.C.M. (1900), Limited; will he say whether an exemption will be granted on condition that the man remains in the service of one particular employer; whether Lieutenant Hiscock has granted any more such exemptions; if so, how many; and what action will be taken in regard to them?

Inquiry is being made into this case.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner M. Cowan, now serving with the 32nd Battery of the Royal Field Artillery, at Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow, was arrested in Rathfriland, County Down, on 16th August, whilst working on his mother's farm and forced into the Army; whether he has ascertained that Cowan was only a few months in Scotland in his life, was not ordinarily resident there, and had returned permanently to Ireland a year before his arrest; and whether, as he is therefore illegally detained and has, moreover, been found to be physically unfit for drill, he will now be released?

I have sent urgent telegraphic inquiries, but it has unfortunately not yet proved possible to obtain information as to Cowan's medical condition.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the Candaian units officers are gazetted full lieutenant on first appointment, and that there are many second-lieutenants in the other units who have served since the early months of the War and have received no promotion; and whether he has considered the advisability of promoting all second-lieutenants to be full lieutenants after completing one year's service?

The facts as regards Canadian units are as stated by the hon. Member. In the British Army the promotion of officers to lieutenant depends on vacancies, and it is not proposed to alter this.

Under the existing system are there not glaring anomalies?

I think that is very possibly the case.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to give an option to be passed into the Army Reserve of munition workers to men called up under the Military Service Act other than those who have claimed an objection to military service and who have obtained conditional exemption from a local or appeal tribunal?

All men who are called up under the Military Service Acts and are classified as B2, B3, C2, or C3, and can be spared from the Army, will be given the opportunity of being enrolled as Army Reserve munition workers, if they are suitable.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the military authority who will be called on to decide what men in each training reserve or provisional battalion who are not fit for general service are surplus to the requirement of their unit and can be allowed to volunteer to leave their unit to undertake civil employment in the Army Reserve of munition workers; and is this option possible for all those not placed in Category A?

The selection of these men will be in the hands of officers commanding units and representatives of the Board of Trade. Only men in classes B2, B3, C2, and C3, who are surplus to the requirements of their units, will be eligible for transfer.

asked whether, under the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915, and the Military Service Act, 1915, all soldiers who are now being transferred from departmental to combatant corps retain their old ranks and rates of pay and allowances?

Rank is retained when substantive. Detailed instructions are about to be issued as regards pay.

asked the Secretary for War whether he will submit to Members of this House the evidence on which John M'Neill was sentenced to imprisonment for life in connection with the late rising in Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that John M'Neill used his influence to dissuade his followers from illegal acts, he will advise his immediate liberation?

I shall be glad if the hon. Member will postpone this question.

I will postpone it—until what date?

I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

rose.

The question has been postponed.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that many men belonging to the Sherwood Foresters were wounded during the recent rebellion in Ireland, and that many were recommended for promotion or other distinction for their bravery; if he can state whether the former are to be allowed to wear stripes similar to those given to men wounded in France; and whether the latter are to receive the honours for which they have been recommended, and when?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12th October to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division. The names of those who are considered worthy of reward will not be overlooked, but the hon. Member will be aware that the majority of the honours given so far have been given in connection with services rendered in France and in the other theatres of war.

Can any distinction be drawn between the cases of men serving by fighting the Germans in France and those who were occupied in putting down an outbreak of traitors in Ireland?

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will certainly see that there is a difference.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the number of funerals from Dublin to Glasnevin after the suppression of the insurrection which even the nearest relatives were not allowed to accompany, with the official reason for this prevention, and the number of coffins burst open on the way by the military and police; whether anything was found in any of the coffins to justify this desecration; in view of the Irish feeling that the dead should be inviolable, who ordered it; whether the remains of Messrs. Sheehy Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre, when being stealthily conveyed by the military, were similarly stopped and examined; whether they were in separate coffins; in what condition were the remains of those summarily executed at Richmond Barracks conveyed to Glasnevin; whether they also were stopped on the way and examined; and by whose order was no priest allowed to attend them before execution?

I am unable to state the number of funerals. Dublin was full of armed rebels, and it was necessary to try to prevent them or their arms leaving. A cordon was established and police officers attached to the pickets to pass innocent people through. Passes were issued to such people, and all supplied with passes allowed through. Funeral parties without passes were allowed to pass one relative and the driver only. No coffins were opened by military or police except one, which was empty. The fourth and fifth parts of the question do not therefore arise. Messrs. Sheehy Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre were buried by their relatives and every facility given to them. The answer to the seventh part of the question is in the affirmative. There were no executions, summary or other, at Richmond Barracks.

asked whether Captain Colthurst has been dismissed from the Army; and, if so, on what date the dismissal took effect?

This officer was retired on 10th June, 1916.

What is the difference between being retired and being dismissed? Does the answer mean that this officer was retired with full pay, or with half—pay, or with any pay? This is a very important question, and I think that we are entitled to an answer. Has the War? Office retired this gentleman, and is he drawing public money after having been convicted of four murders and being declared by the War Office to be a lunatic?

I should not like to answer that without notice. I really must ask the indulgence of the House. There are over ninety questions every day to be answered. Personally, I was en-engaged at a War Office Committee up to two o'clock, and so I could not investigate this matter. I simply give the answers handed to me. It is not possible to go into all these matters. I am not sure that it might not be left to the House to curtail the number of questions. It is interfering very seriously with the work of the Department.

I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I shall repeat the question next week.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that early this month a letter addressed to the prisoners-of-war branch of the Red Cross at Geneva was stopped by the Censor and returned to the sender here in England; whether this letter only contained a statement that the writer had been notified of his son being wounded in France on 16th August, and that as no further news had come to hand the writer concluded that his son might be a prisoner of war and that the writer would be grateful if inquiries might be made; and will he state why this action was taken?