asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the number of German steamers sheltering in the ports of neutral countries; whether he is aware that many of these steamers are potential commerce destroyers; and whether, in view of international welfare and commerce, the Foreign Office will make representations to these neutral countries of the danger arising out of the presence of these German steamers in their ports, with a view to their internment or disablement or use by these neutral Governments under proper safeguards or of handing them over to Allied Governments for commercial use, making it clear to these neutral Governments that Germany's aim and object is to diminish or destroy all mercantile vessels, irrespective of nationality, with a view to prevent or destroy international trade and commerce while conserving German mercantile tonnage for immediate use on the termination of the War?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have on many occasions since the War began drawn the attention of different neutral Governments to the responsibility they would incur if enemy vessels were to leave their ports and take part in belligerent operations, and will continue to make similar representations if and when they seem to be desirable. The precise measures which may be required to safeguard the neutrality in this respect of the neutral Governments concerned must necessarily be left to those Governments. As regards the utilisation for commercial purposes of German steamers lying in neutral ports, the matter is one in which the initiative must lie with the Governments concerned.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain why British statutory listed enemy or pro-enemy firms were permitted by the British authorities to ship cargo at Buenos Ayres by the steamer "Santa Barbara," which sailed from that port on or about 1st November; whether the agent or broker for this steamer is a British subject residdent in Buenos Ayres; and whether this agent has been prohibited by the British authorities from accepting cargo from enemy or pro-enemy statutory listed firms in the steamships "Panaman" and "Kentuckian" previously loaded by this agent at Buenos Ayres for the United States?

The cargo in question was shipped under a contract made before the shippers were placed upon the statutory list; the remaining parts of my hon. Friend's question do not, therefore, arise.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether a parcel of wolfram ore was shipped by a British statutory listed enemy firm on board the steamship "Ohioan" loaded at Buenos Ayres; whether the agent who loaded this steamer is a British subject resident at Buenos Ayres; whether the steamship "Ohioan" sailed from Buenos Ayres for the United States on or about 16th September, calling at Montevideo en route; if so, whether the British authorities compelled this parcel of wolfram ore to be discharged from the ship and landed at Montevideo; whether this parcel of wolfram ore was afterwards shipped on board the steamship "Kentuckian" for the United States; whether the principal steamship agent in the River Plate was the same in both cases and a British subject; and will he explain this transaction?

The ore in question was shipped by one Melber, who is not on the statutory list; but as suspicion was aroused that this shipment was being made on behalf of a firm on the statutory list, the agent of the steamship company was asked to make inquiries, and as he could not get a satisfactory reply he caused the ore to be discharged at Montevideo. It was afterwards ascertained that the real shipper was a mining company not on the statutory list, so it was forwarded to the consignee by the steamship "Kentuckian." The agent in question is a British subject.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether some bales of rubber were shipped on board the steamship "Hostilius," at Montevideo, by the firm of Otero Borrazas, on or about the 12th October, for the United States; whether the "Hostilius" sailed from Montevideo on or about the 13th October; whether the British Minister at Montevideo notified Messrs. Dodero Brothers, the Montevideo agents of the steamer, on or about the 19th October, some six days after the steamer had sailed, that the shipment made by Borrazas was on account of Stofen Schnack Miiller, a Brazilian firm, whose name is on the British statutory list for Brazil; whether the name of Borrazas is yet on the British statutory list of enemy or pro-enemy firms for Uruguay, and, if not, why it is not on the list; whether the British Minister at Montevideo endeavoured to hold Dodero Brothers responsible for this shipment; whether the responsibility for this shipment lies with the British Minister at Montevideo or Dodero Brothers, seeing that the name of Otero Borrazas is not on the statutory list; whether representations have been made to the Foreign Office here, through diplomatic channels, from Allied Ministers in South America, of the bond fides, loyalty, and zeal of Dodero Brothers in supporting the Allied cause; whether the British Minister at Montevideo will be instructed by the Foreign Office to perform his own duties, and not altogether rely upon steamship agents at that port to do his work when he fails to give them proper instructions or advice regarding firms whose names are not on the statutory list; and whether, in the absence of such instructions or advice or the appearance of a firm's name on the British statutory list, steamship agents are, expected by the Foreign Office to refuse to engage cargo from a merchant or shipping agent who, in the absence of his name appearing on the British statutory list or of such advice, is presumably a loyal or neutral shipper?

The facts are substantially as stated in the question. I cannot free Messrs. Dodero Brothers from responsibility for accepting the shipment of rubber made by Otero Borrazas since Messrs. Borrazas were known in Montevideo as far back as July last to be acting on occasion for the statutory-listed firm of Stofen Schnack Miiller, which is on the Statutory List. Messrs. Borrazas as a neutral firm of independent standing have not been included in the statutory list pending the result of representations which it is hoped will shortly lead to their giving a definite undertaking not to act for enemy firms in the future where British facilities are concerned. If such an undertaking is not given the firm will be placed on the statutory list.

With regard to the last part of the question, the statutory-list policy of His Majesty's Government can only be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter by the closest co-operation between His Majesty's representatives abroad and the agents of British shipping companies, which co-operation is usually most loyally given.

His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that His Majesty's Minister at Montevideo has failed in the performance of his duties.

As the Noble Lord's reply is very unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice I shall deal with both question and reply at early date, either in Debate or otherwise.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement about an alleged offer by the Central Powers of peace to Belgium on the following terms: That the country is to be restored to them, their independence guaranteed, and financial assistance given for its economic rehabilitation; and, in the event of these terms being refused, an intimation has been given to Belgium that the very existence of her monuments, public buildings, institutions, and towns is threatened?

I have seen a statement to this effect in the Press, but I have not up to the present received any confirmation from the Belgian Government.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the German Government have made any alteration in their regulations established in 1915 for the treatment of British prisoners, including their accommodation, clothing, feeding, etc., and whether the agreement remains in force by which the German Government pledged themselves to communicate any alteration to the British Government?

No alteration in the regulations has been communicated to us; the reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

asked whether the Allied Forces went in the first instance to Salonika on the invitation of the Greek Government; if so, by what official representing the Greek Government the invitation was conveyed; on what date and in what precise terms; and whether M. Venizelos has denied that he, when Prime Minister, gave that invitation?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I returned to a similar question from the hon. Member for West Clare on 8th November last. I have nothing to add thereto.

The Noble Lord has not stated by what official the invitation was given, at what date or its terms. Will he inform the House on these points?

I am afraid I can add nothing to my previous reply.

Was not the reply to my question equally ambiguous with that given to-day?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the placing of the whole of the departments in connection with the linen and textile trades in Belfast under the operation of the Trade Boards Act?

I am not in a position to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member on this subject.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why he cannot give the information?

I know the question is receiving the serious consideration of the Department, and we are not without hope of being able to make a statement shortly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the necessity for the fullest possible information, so far as the workers are concerned, in connection with the Belfast linen trade, he will take steps to have an independent report supplied monthly to the "Board of Trade Gazette" by some person in whom the workers have confidence and who has a knowledge of their needs and conditions, and, if possible, that a report should be supplied also by a direct representative of the Irish Textile Workers' Union?

The Textile Operatives' Society of Ireland already supply monthly information as to the state of employment in the linen trade to the local correspondent of the Board of Trade in Belfast, and the particulars are embodied by him in his report. The society may communicate direct with the Board if they prefer to do so.

asked the right hon. Member for West Essex, as representing the Kitchen Committee, if he, in conjunction with the members in the Committee over which he presides, will approach the Government with a view to their giving the Members of the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing their wishes as to the propriety, under present national conditions, of suspending the sale of intoxicants at the bars and other places of sale in the House of Commons, or at least imposing upon the Members of Parliament similar restrictions to those already imposed on their constituents?

I regret that I have nothing to add to what was said in Debate on the Resolution moved by the hon. Member on 20th April, 1915. On that occasion my right hon. Friend, who is now the Leader of the House, said:

"Obviously this is a question which ought to be discussed by Members of the House as individuals, and not in connection with any party ties."—[OFPICIAI. REPORT, 20th April, 1015, col. 228, Vol. LXXI.]

Those of my colleagues on the Committee that I have seen are still of that opinion, and it is for the hon. Member to again ask the House for time to discuss it, and to issue an Instruction to us, on the lines adopted, which we will endeavour to carry out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman call us together under his chairmanship to discuss this matter?

Not having that title, I can hardly answer that question.

May I ask a representative of the Government if he will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House an opportunity of really deciding this question?

I will communicate that to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Munitions the reason of the delay in issuing the revised circular L 2 dealing with women's wages; and when the revised circular will operate?

My right hon. Friend is issuing a revision of L 2 dealing with the rates for women engaged on work done by men other than skilled men immediately. He hopes to issue soon after that a further Order dealing with the case of women employed on work customarily done by fully-skilled men.

When will that Order come into practical operation, so that the women can have the advantage of it?

The first Order will be issued this week. We hope the one referred to in the second part of my answer will be issued in the week following.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether between 200 and 300 women are under notice of discharge at Park Royal Cartridge Factory, Acton; if he can give any reason why these women are being discharged just before Christmas; and if he intends taking any action in the matter with a view of seeing that these women are found work of some kind?

The facts in the first part of the question are as stated. The reason for the discharges is that a considerable drop in supply of material rendered necessary either a reduction of hours or a reduction of hands, and the former alternative was strongly opposed by a majority of the employés. I regret the necessity for these discharges, but I understand that the Employment Exchange do not anticipate difficulty in finding other employment for the women.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why arrangements could not be made where women are going to be discharged from this or any other factory by which employment should be found for them somewhere else, so that they should not be out of employment in the week before Christmas, or any other time?

The first consideration in the employment of workpeople is that there is need for the product they produce. All possible steps have been taken in this case and all other cases to see that the names of the women are immediately placed before the machinery that exists, namely, the Employment Exchanges, in order to see that everything is done to find them other work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the new Government with reference to the Irish political prisoners now in this country, both those untried and those tried by secret court-martial; and when and to what extent the policy will come into operation?

I am not able at present to add anything to the answers on these subjects which I gave last Thursday and Friday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this subject before Christmas?

I do not think I shall be able to do that.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the ill-feeling and discontent in Ireland caused by the continued internment and imprisonment of the Irish prisoners; if he proposes to adopt any scheme to remove the ill-feeling; and if he will recommend their release and, pending release, that they should be treated in a manner suitable to prisoners of war?

I have nothing at present to add to the answers which I have lately given on this subject.

When may we expect some statement in connection with the Irish prisoners? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of parcels of foodstuffs that have been sent to Irish prisoners have been returned to Ireland, and that the prisoners have been denied parcels of food sent by their friends?

That is not a matter which arises out of the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member puts down a question, I will make inquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the terms of reference to Sir William Goulding's Committee re ruined property in Dublin asked it to advise how on analogy the several claims of uninsured persons could be fairly dealt with; whether there is now an intention of differentiating between the claims of the insured and the uninsured in the question of rent; whether there is any thing in the terms of reference to justify such different treatment; if so, will he quote the words, or whether supplementary instructions were given privately to the Committee; and, if so, by whom; and whether the ex-Premier conveyed the impression that sufferers were to be compensated alike whether insured or not?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Property Losses Committee came to the conclusion, in the exercise of their discretion, that loss of rent is normally a consequential loss which would be excluded under the terms of reference, but that in view of the fact that it is sometimes treated as a building loss covered by a fire policy, they would be justified in admitting such a claim when there was insurance. The last inquiry in the question is not one which I can answer, but I may say the Government has acted and is acting in conformity with the promises of the late Prime Minister.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Control Department whether he is aware of the amounts of maize and other foodstuffs given to pheasants and other birds and to beasts ferce natures; and whether steps are being taken to stop this waste?

The hand-rearing of game by means of food fit for human consumption is, under present circumstances, to be deprecated. The necessary powers to stop game preserving are being obtained, and will be exercised.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the clauses put in leases by landlords compelling tenants to keep up the stock of game, and how does he propose to deal with that?

I am not aware of such clauses.

I have just signed one.

If such clauses exist they will be carefully watched by the Department which I am now serving.

Under what Statute will the Regulations be made?

I cannot add anything further to the reply I have given.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Control Department whether, having regard to the scarcity of cane sugar and the difficulty of the poor in obtaining even a limited quantity of it, and considering that glucose is a variety of sugar which from a physiological point of view is as nutritious and as easily digested as cane sugar, that glucose can be prepared in large quantities and cheaply by the several factories already making it in this coun- try or their extensions, and that the sole objection to it as a sweetening agent is that it is not sweet enough, but this can easily be overcome by the addition of a suitable quantity of saccharine, he will encourage or undertake the manufacture of glucose and the addition of saccharine thereto as a means of providing for the people a nutritious sugar, cheap, and in no respect injurious, and thereby solving the sugar difficulty?

As the raw materials from which glucose is made would have to be imported, and would occupy more tonnage than an equivalent amount of sugar, there would not appear to be any advantage in offering special encouragement for the manufacture of this article. Moreover, as matters now stand, it is probably of greater importance to adjust more accurately the distribution of sugar than to increase its quantity or the quantity of possible substitutes. The possibility and desirability of extending the use of saccharine for flavouring purposes will be considered, but I should point out that saccharine has no food value.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adopts and sanctions the proposal of the Earl of Crawford to authorise the use of selected portions of common land for the purposes of food production; and, if so, why the scanty land possessions of the common people are preferred to the broad acres of private landowners?

The proposal to take powers to use selected portions of common lands, if necessary, for the purpose of food production during the; War was announced by the late President of the Board of Agriculture in another place on the 29th ult., after it had been sanctioned by the Cabinet. It is embodied in an Order in Council dated the 5th inst., a copy of which I will send to my hon. Friend. It is not proposed to take common land where other suitable land is available.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are millions of acres of land out of cultivation, and cannot he deal with those instead of taking commons and parks?

We shall take that land before we take common land.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether men on joining the Navy as seamen or stokers are charged 28s. 6d. for their uniform overcoats; whether they are allowed to wear any other overcoats than the uniform overcoats made for the use of the Navy and charged for at the above rate; whether he recognises that this charge is a burden on men with dependants; and whether the Government can now see their way to supply overcoats free of cost to seamen and stokers and also refund to men who have already paid for their overcoats the sums paid by them?

Overcoats form part of the "optional" kit of naval ratings. They are not included in the free kit issued to new entries. The issuing price to any man who wishes to take one up is not 28s. 6d., but 28s. 2d., a figure I may say below the actual cost price to the Admiralty. To add an overcoat to the compulsory kit and include it in the free kit on entry would entail very heavy initial expense upon the Crown; and, moreover, would throw upon all ratings the burden of the cost of subsequent upkeep of this article of kit whether they wanted to wear an overcoat or not. Many men do not take one up. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that Service oilskins, watchcoats, duffle suits, warm-lined rubber suits are provided for issue "on loan" to men upon exposed duties.

Is it not as necessary in winter for an ordinary seaman to have an overcoat as it is for him to have any other part of his uniform; and in view of the hardship entailed on these men, will the Admiralty reconsider the regulations under which a charge is made for overcoats?

I really do not think there is any hardship. Whenever a man is on exposed duty he has the right to the loan of an overcoat. For the rest, many men do not wish for an overcoat, because if it were issued to them on entry they would have to replace it from their own pockets.

Why should they?

That is the rule.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that that is a distinction which works unfairly with seamen as compared with soldiers, and that the Admiralty make a seaman pay for his overcoat which is as necessary to him as it is to a soldier? I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring this matter under the notice of the Board of Admiralty?

Certainly, I will, with pleasure, but I must point out that it is not right to take one item and compare sailors with soldiers and say that the sailor is treated worse than the soldier. That is not a complete comparison. You must take the whole field of pay and promotion before you can say that one person is worse treated. To say that the sailor is worse treated is not true.

Of course, the sailor is worse treated.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the distress which is officially admitted to exist amongst the women workers in the linen trade in Belfast?

I am advised that special measures of relief are not required to deal with the distress to which the hon. Member refers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Ministry of Munitions to have munitions works in Belfast?

I know the Minister of Munitions is giving special attention to the possibility of employing labour in that way.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will take steps to have the Small Holdings Act applied to Ireland in order to provide sustenance for the sweated workers in the linen trade in Belfast, who are deprived of the necessaries of life owing to low wages and lack of employment?

The question of the best means of increasing the food supply of Ireland and of whether legislation is necessary for that purpose is engaging the attention of the Irish Government.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the monitors and monitresses in Irish national schools are paid a small salary as a contribution towards their upkeep, and of the fact that the value of this salary has largely depreciated owing to the increased cost of living, he will take steps to see that the amount of the salary is increased during the War?

I cannot add anything to my answer on Thursday last to the hon. Member's question on this subject.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of the consultations between the various Departments with reference to the dismissal of assistant teachers and the reduction of grade salary of principal teachers owing to the condition of average attendance of pupils; and whether the application of the Commissioners of National Education for power to suspend during the War period the operation of rules requiring a withdrawal or reduction of salaries of teachers consequent upon a decline in the attendance of pupils has been granted?

I cannot at present add anything to my reply to the hon. Member's question on Thursday last.

May we not hope soon to have the answer of the Department on this question, which is becoming extremely urgent in Ireland?

The matter is being attended to with all possible urgency.

Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Board of Education that it should set itself to the matter, which practically affects the existence of many assistant teachers in Ireland?

The matter will be further dealt with. It is not either overlooked or neglected.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press the matter on the Treasury?

I will press it in every quarter in which pressure can be used.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Viceregal Commission on Education has made written recommendations in connection with this matter, and will he see that they are carried out?

I have not those recommendations in my mind.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that on Sunday, 3rd December, a number of men of the 63rd Battalion Training Reserve stationed at 20th Camp, Kinmel Park, Denbighshire, were paraded and drilled, and that on arrival at the camp were unable to obtain dinner, as there was not enough food to go round; and whether he will endeavour to stop the practice of strenuous drilling on Sundays and make inquiries into the alleged lack of food?

I have made inquiry, and I find that the feeding arrangements on the occasion in question were quite satisfactory, and that there was no question of any shortage of food. No complaints were received from the orderly officer nor from any non-commissioned officer or man on that day. No drilling is done on Sundays beyond what the exigencies of the Service require.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that many officers of junior rank at the commencement of the war gave up substantial incomes to accept commissions in the Army, and that many such officers have wives and families to maintain on their pay; and whether, seeing that the pay is 7s. 6d. a day in the case of a second lieutenant, 8s. 6d. a day in the case of a lieutenant, and 12s. 6d. a day in the case of a captain, he will at once take steps to raise the rates of pay of officers to such figures as, having regard to the increased cost of living, will enable them to maintain themselves and families in a manner suitable to their position?

I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers in the first part of his question, and would remind him that the Government appointed the Civil Liabilities Committee to relieve the hardship of such cases. As regards the second part, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply I gave him on the 16th November.

Does the measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers deal with capital or income liabilities?

I think it includes both.

The answer is so unsatisfactory that I will call attention to the whole matter on the Adjournment at a very early date.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is in pursuance of instructions from the War Office that Mr. MacMillan, hay buyer for the Army in county Wexford, having the use of a motor car for himself and of motor bicycles for several assistants, and having several clerks, all Protestants, has offensively boasted that he will not employ a Catholic; and, if this boast does not represent the policy of the present Government, will the practice be stopped in this and other cases?

I have no information as to the alleged statement by Mr. MacMillan. The War Office has, of course, not issued instructions of the kind suggested.

Was the appointment of twelve Protestant employés in the county of Wexford due to recommendations made by the hon. Member for Derry, who is the only Irish representative on the Forage Commission, and, in view of the fact that this hon. Member is a large exporter of all kinds of Irish produce, will the Government, or whoever is responsible for the formation of the Commission, see that an Irishman who is absolutely uninterested as regards forage of every kind will be appointed on the Commission?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing does not help recruiting in Ireland?

I am informed that the authorities at the War Office are making inquiries into the allegations contained in the question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that dissatisfaction is expressed by the local authorities in Houghton-le-Spring at the withdrawal of ring-papers and draft books by paymasters before new issues are ready, thus depriving soldiers' dependants from drawing their allowances regularly, and suspending such payment for indefinite periods, to the inconvenience and injury of dependants; and will a guarantee be given that books will not be withdrawn until new issues are in order, to prevent hardship to those who depend on their weekly allowance?

I explained to my hon. Friend in the reply I gave him on the 16th November that the official orders forbid the withdrawal of these papers and books until new ones are received. The cases he has in mind probably refer to draft books which have expired at the end of a quarter. If he will furnish me with particulars of cases I will inquire into any avoidable delays.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Private Patrick Reddin, No. 4260, Leinster Regiment, was serving at the front up to 29th November, 1915, when he was reported missing at headquarters, and has not since been heard of; that up to that time his mother, Mrs. Sarah Red-din, Forge Street, Mountmelliek, Queen's County, was receiving an allowance of 3s. 6d. per week; that since then no allowance has been received by Mrs. Reddin; and, as she is in need of such allowance, will inquiries be made with a view to granting her a pension or gratuity?

Mrs. Reddin is in receipt of separation allowance in respect of her husband who is serving. Inquiries are being made as to the son, and the result of the inquiries will be communicated to the hon. Member in due course.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give figures showing how many recruits have been obtained for the Army by the substitution of discharged or Reserve soldiers for necessary men employed in agriculture; and whether recruiting by substituting soldiers for necessary men is? being practised in industrial and non-agricultural employments?

It would not be in the public interest to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. Substitution is proceeding in connection with a great number of industrial and non-agricultural employments, as well as in connection with agriculture.

asked if Irishmen desiring to transfer from English regiments to Irish regiments will be allowed to do so?

In the case of units serving abroad this is already within the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief under whom the applicant is serving. At home Irishmen are given the option of being posted to an Irish unit when they are called up.

If soldiers on active service who received leave and are now at home wish to transfer to Irish regiments, can they do so?

That must rest with the commanding officer in the field, where possible.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Lance-Corporal Bermingham, No. 26,459, joined the 8th Battalion, B Company, Royal Munster Fusiliers, on 6th May, 1915, and was afterwards transferred to the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers; that he was wounded in action, and that his mother, Mrs. Bermingham, Templemore, county Tipperary, who was dependent upon him, has never received any separation allowance; and whether he will have her claim investigated and full separation allowance granted to Mrs. Bermingham from the date of her son's enlistment?

Inquiries will be made and the hon. Member informed of the result in due course.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet able to inform the House as to the result of his inquiries into the form of field punishment, popularly known as "crucifixion"; and whether it is proposed to make any modification in the Regulations with regard to it?

There are several questions sdealing with this matter on the Paper for to-morrow, when I hope, although I cannot to-day make any promise, that it may be possible to make a statement. In the circumstances perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to excuse me from anticipating to-day the eventual statement.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether men of the Non-Combatant Corps now at Newhaven have been recently employed in loading munitions, although a formal promise was given to them when on parade that they would not be employed in handling ammunition; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the difficulties that have arisen at Newhaven in consequence of the employment of men from the Non-Combatant Corps, including drafts from other commands, to replace dock labourers who were threatening to strike; and whether he is taking action in the matter?

I will answer at the same time Question No. 48, and I must at the outset express regret that my hon. Friend included in his question military information which, in the national interest, should not appear in a question. It is the case that the N.C.C. companies have been employed at the place mentioned to augment the available civilian labour, which which was insufficient for the work requiring to be done. My hon. Friend will recall that when the N.C.C. was raised it was decided that it should be composed of men whom the tribunals found to have a genuine objection to fighting or taking life, but. who were considered fit for labour work in the Army. I am not aware that any question ever arose, or has arisen, as to what kind of work they should do, provided always that they were not trained with arms or employed anywhere where a man might be called upon to use his arms in self-defence. If, as is suggested by my hon. Friend, any promise inconsistent with what I have just said was made, the officer who gave it exceeded his authority.

Seeing that this question was on the Order Paper ten days ago, and that I called at the War Office about the matter, why was it not suggested privately that it was not in the public interest that the question should be put upon the Order Paper—when it would at once have been withdrawn?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

I gave notice.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider the possibility of granting to all, soldiers and sailors serving at home who obtain Christmas leave a prior right of travel over civilians in such railway facilities as are available?

asked whether the Government have reconsidered the question of Christmas leave restriction and the facilities of travelling in connection therewith for soldiers serving at home; and whether any statement can be made as to the proposal that civilians should share the necessary restrictions?

The question of leave at Christmas has been carefully reviewed since the Debate on Thursday last, and we have done our best to meet the views which were then expressed. The arrangements are briefly as follows:

1. Men on leave from the front will have priority over all other travellers.

2. Leave may be given to men under training for service abroad up to 10 per cent. of the unit. Those men will proceed on leave on 21st December.

In addition to that, leave may also be given to men whose training is finished without restriction as to numbers or the days of travel.

3. To men in the Home Forces leave may be given up to 10 per cent. of the unit, and these men will proceed on leave on 21st December.

4. Men of the Royal Defence Corps will be dealt with by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces.

5. Officers and men employed under the Minister of Munitions will conform to arrangements made by the Minister.

6. As far as possible, soldiers will have priority over civilians on the railways on December 22nd–25th inclusive.

7. Arrangements have been made for allowing New Year leave to Scottish regiments in lieu of Christmas leave.

When the hon. Gentleman says that leave up to 10 per cent. may be given to those serving at home, are we to understand that the commanding officer has discretion to refuse all leave, even the 10 per cent.?

It always is so.

Does it mean that the commanding officer in his discretion can nullify the Order of the hon. Gentleman?

Yes. Of course he can, and the Army Council does not impose upon the commanding officer any obligation.

Is not that the very thing that happened at Winchester last summer, when the hon. Gentleman made a promise, and the local authorities entirely nullified it?

Will facilities be given to Members of this House who will be going home?

Members of the House have insisted upon soldiers having priority.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the official statement that the War Department has recently placed contracts for 5,000,000 yards of dowlas for bedding, the bulk of which order has gone to the Belfast manufacturers, and that the Department has also under consideration tenders from Belfast firms in respect of linen tent duck, he will insist that the contractors for this work shall be bound by the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause, or, failing that, that the rate of wages should be determined by a trade board specially constituted for this work under the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, more especially since it is officially admitted that the wages at present paid to many of these workers are insufficient to maintain them?

Yes, Sir. These orders are placed subject to the usual conditions of War Office contracts, of which observance of the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House is one.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Russian Government has asked that Russian Jews in this country shall be compelled to return to Russia?

No such request has been received.

asked the Prime Minister whether seats will be found in Parliament for the Controller of Shipping, the President of the Board of Education, and other members of the Ministry who are not Members of either House?

It is hoped that the Presidents of the Boards of Trade and Education will shortly be Members of this House. In the meantime it is not intended that the Controller of Shipping shall be a Member of either House of Parliament, but his Department will be represented by an Under-Secretary who will be a Member of this House.

Would it not be better for the Controller of Shipping to be in this House?

He does not think so. He thinks he can more usefully employ his time outside.

Is it not a question for the Government to consider, rather than the Controller?

Is the Controller of Shipping to be understood to be a Minister of the Crown? Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that from the Revolution to the present time a Minister of the Crown has been identified as a Member with either the House of Commons or the House of Lords?

I am aware of the constitutional doctrine stated by the hon. Gentleman, but the present is a very exceptional time, and I think the House will agree with the Government that what they have to do is to get the work done in the best way possible.

asked the Prime Minister the exact duties and powers of the Con- troller of Shipping; whether he has any authority to limit in any way the shipping demands of the Admiralty and the War Office; whether the control of fishing, pleasure, and private vessels is also under his control; and whether the powers of Controller of Shipping will be settled by legislation or otherwise?

The hon. Member will no doubt be willing to await the introduction of the Bill, which deals inter alia with the office of Controller of Shipping, and which is the first Order on the Paper to-day

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Food Controller is to exercise his administrative functions while the Bill giving him his powers is still before Parliament; if so, under what Statute will he have such powers; and, if such powers are already possessed by him, will he say why he should not continue to act under them?

Pending the passing of the Bill to confer statutory powers on the Food Controller, it has been arranged that the Board of Trade should exercise, at his request, their powers under Regulation 2F of the Defence of the Realm Regulations for purposes of food control.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the necessity for national economy in food and the amount of good food expended on pet dogs, such as Pekingese, Pomeranians, Yorkshire terriers, and the like, he will consider the desirability of placing a heavy annual licence of not less than £5 a head on these animals?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary said a day or two ago that there was no intention whatever to attack dogs during the War, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to make any economic policy on these principles, whether he will begin first with curs of every description, and then with rats?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion as well as any others made to me in reference to taxation.

asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the new arrangements now in force with regard to the sending of parcels of food to British civilian prisoners of war in Germany prevent relatives from sending food which they themselves purchase, even when sent through the recognised central committee; and whether this arrangement can be modified so as to allow invalids and others requiring special diet to receive parcels of food chosen for them by their families who know their individual needs?

I am sorry to have to ask my hon. Friend to postpone this question until to-morrow, when I hope to give a fuller and more satisfactory answer than I could to-day.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the Censor is now opening letters from France where it is clearly shown on the envelope that the persons to whom they are addressed are Members of Parliament; if this is done because Members are suspected of being lacking in discretion, or why is it done; will he say whether, in practice as well as in theory, the correspondence of all Members of Parliament is treated in the same way, without discrimination, or does the procedure apply only to selected Members; and, if so, on what basis and by whom is the discrimination exercised?

All mails coming from France are liable to be submitted to the Military Censor. No discrimination is made between different Members of the House. I need hardly say that it is a mistake to suppose that the opening of a letter by the Censor constitutes any reflection either on the writer or the recipient. The object of the censorship is to prevent the enemy making use of indiscretions, to which experience shows that even the best-intentioned persons are liable.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his own letters are opened?

Personally, I am not a privileged Member.

Will the hon. Member agree not to open mine?

asked if it is now the practice to refuse applications of noncommissioned officers who are recommended by their commanding officers for commissions as signal masters in the signal service, and whose applications are well supported by their military superiors, if the candidate's age is over forty-one years, notwithstanding that his commanding officer reports him to be so physically active as to be able to carry out any duties which he may be called upon to perform in that capacity, or is there any other age limit?

It has been found necessary to fix a limit of age for applicants for general service cadetships in the signal service. Vacancies for signal masterships are few and applicants many, so that the fact that a commanding officer recommends a candidate does not necessarily imply that he will obtain a cadet-ship.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will now revoke the detention regulations on Irish cattle, seeing that the country has now been free from foot-and-mouth disease for about three years; and is he aware that the present long detention of 10 hours not only tends to increase the price of food but dislocates the cattle trade, causes loss to the owners, and does not improve the condition of the animals?

In reply to the first part of the question, I will refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Waterford by my predecessor on the 12th instant. With regard to the last part, the Board's information does not support the contentions made therein. The trade having now settled down to the new conditions, appears to enjoy advantage by the arrangement. The period of rest, after landing, benefits the animals and improves their market value to an extent which more than covers the slight additional cost to the owners.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the time of detention at the ports in Ireland and the detention in Great Britain, and will he not reduce that time to a minimum?

I will consider that point.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have received application from Patrick and James Doran, who were evicted from their holding at Clonkeen, in the parish of Taughmonconnell, county Roscommon, in or about the month of January, 1893; and if the Commissioners have given consideration to their application to be treated as evicted tenants for the purpose of reinstatement, and, if so, what is the result?

The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The holding in question is in the occupation of another tenant, and the Commissioners have informed the applicants that they are not prepared to take any action in the matter of their applications for reinstatement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give facilities for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Kerry with reference to the new rules and examination time-table of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland; and whether he is aware that unless such facilities are given on some evening at the close of public business within the present week the Intermediate Education Board will be enabled to destroy the system of science teaching which has been in force for the last fifteen years, by enforcing a new system of written examination for science, against which all educational bodies in Ireland have protested?

It is impossible for the Government to give facilities for this Motion at the present stage of business.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these rules were only laid on the Table of the House on Thursday, and that I gave notice immediately, and that if this House adjourns for 30 days-the rules cannot be dealt with by the House of Commons?

It will be possible for the hon. Member to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment any evening. I think that will be the most convenient course.

Would it not be better, under the circumstances, for the Government to give every encouragement to the science teaching instead of throwing obstacles in the way?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of throwing these rules into the waste-paper basket?

I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the fact that the late Prime Minister promised me an opportunity of discussing the question of the Irish prisoners, unless I received before the close of the Session a satisfactory private assurance on the matter. Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to remind the present Prime Minister of that promise, and to ask him if he can make a reference to the question of the Irish prisoners to-morrow and to say that, if he cannot do so, I will request him to give me an opportunity before the Session closes of discussing the matter, as I am assuming that he will consider himself to be bound by the pledge of the late Prime Minister?

I shall, of course, convey what has just been stated to the Prime Minister, who will be here tomorrow.

Will any opportunity be given during the present Session of discussing the question of votes for soldiers and sailors and the setting up of a special register for the purpose?

It is obvious that if the House is to prorogue this week it would be impossible to give facilities for a discussion of this kind.

Will the Government announce their intention with regard to the matter before the Prorogation?

When will responsible Ministers be in the House to reply if a question is put down?

I think to-morrow.

What will be the business for the rest of the week?

I have now been able to get the time table of the work which the Government think has to be done during this Session. I think that it will be possible to prorogue on Friday of this week. It will not be easy and can only be done if it is the general desire of the House that that course should be taken. In addi- tion to the business which is down on the Order Paper there are the following items which have to be dealt with:

• The Appropriation Bill.
• The Volunteer Bill.
• The Acquisition of Land Bill.
• The Pensions Bill.
• Supply (Army Supplementary Estimates), and two Bills which have not yet been mentioned—
• The Counties and Municipal Boroughs Loans Bill, and
• The War Loans Bill.

These last two are concerned with the finances of the country. They were prepared by my right hon. Friend who preceded me in my present office. He thought it was necessary to have them, and I take the same view. One, the Corporations Bill, is to enable corporations, if they think fit, to borrow money elsewhere than in the United Kingdom. The War Loans Bill will be in exactly the same terms as the previous Bill. Its object will be to enable the Treasury, if they think the time opportune, to issue a Loan even if the House is not sitting. That does not, of course, mean that there is any intention at present of taking that course, but it has been thought that it might happen that it would be wise to do so, and I hope that the House will give us the facilities to make it possible for us to adopt this course if considered desirable. If this is to be done the Bill will have to be treated as a non-controversial Bill on which there can be no discussion. To-morrow it will be put down as a purely formal stage on the Resolution, and its subsequent stages will have to be gone through by special Resolution enabling more than one stage of the Bill to be taken on the same day. That has been done more than once, and if it is the general desire of the House to rise on Friday I do not think that there will be any objection to that course.

Am I right in assuming that the Bill will be a Bill authorising the issue of the Loan, but without at the present time specifying the particular terms?

The Bill will be in precisely the same form as that in which it was arranged by my right hon. Friend.

What is the alternative if we are not able to rise on Friday?

Then we must sit next week.

If the House passes the Bill authorising the issue of a Loan, and if a Loan be issued under it, will there be no opportunity for the House to discuss the terms of the Loan?

That would necessarily follow, but there is no intention at the present time, in taking this Bill, to issue a Loan at once, and I am sure that my predecessor will agree that when a Loan is being carried through it is not generally advisable to discuss its terms before it is issued.

Unless my memory fails me, it has generally been the custom, when a Loan is being issued, to communicate its terms as soon as the Loan is being issued, and to receive the authority of the House. Now, as I understand, what might take place might be that the House might not meet for three or four weeks after the issue of the Loan, and therefore the money might be obtained without the authority of the House; but I quite see, of course, that it would not do to give the House the terms of the Loan some few days before it is issued; but it has generally been done on the same day, unless I am mistaken.

I quite agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend. Of course the formal authority of the House will be given in the Bill to which I refer. I agree also that it is very undesirable that a Loan of this kind should be issued when the House is not sitting, and that course will only be adopted if the Government, the Treasury, and those who advise us think that there is some disadvantage in postponing it until the House meets again.

Have the Government any intention of asking the House to pass the Bill promoted by the Trustees of the National Gallery in another place?

No; it is not down in the list which I have read out, and, as at present advised, we have not any intention of proceeding with it.

Is the fact that the War Loan Bill is being taken an indication that we are to have an unusually long Recess?

Not at all. It is simply that if we think it opportune we may take advantage of the situation before the House meets again.

How long will be the period of adjournment of the House?

My right hon. Friend will understand that owing to the illness of the Prime Minister I have been able to see him but seldom. I have seen him this morning, and our present intention is to Prorogue on Friday if we can. The House will reassemble by Proclamation of the Sovereign, which is expected to take place early in February.

Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with enemy princes?

It is not the intention to introduce a Bill this Session. I promised the hon. Gentleman who raised this question the other day that it will be gone into. That is being done, and there will be no delay beyond what is unavoidable.

Before the Resolution is adopted, may I ask the Leader of the House for some explanation of this Motion; and is he aware that it is very unusual indeed? I understand that there is no precedent for it as far as this House is concerned, and my information from a responsible authority is that it ought not to be made save under very exceptional circumstances. The circumstances, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, are hardly to be characterised in that way. So far not one word of the Bill has been considered by the House. It is rather an unusual thing, also, because the whole effect that the Bill may have upon the House will undoubtedly be determined by the indication of the scope and purpose of it given by the right hon. Gentleman who may be in charge of the Bill. I would remind the Leader of the House that it is not proposed to go further with this Bill than the Second Reading of it to-night, so that it is difficult to see where the question of urgency really arises. It is not, in my judgment, as if the progress of the Bill would be at all materially delayed if the right hon. Gentleman did not press this Motion; and in view of all the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that unquestionably the right hon. Gentleman can get his Motion, as a matter of form, next day, before the Committee stage, I do not think the Financial Resolution is one that ought to pass out of the control of the House until after they have had fuller information from the Government on the Bill.

It is not the case, I am informed, that this is unprecedented. There have been precedents for it during the War, and at least one before the War, but I quite agree that it is not a desirable course. The reason why I ask the House to agree to it is this: If my hon. Friend will calculate the number of days, he will see that it is necessary to get it through all its stages in time to pass. I would point out that the House will have power to stop the Bill in its later stages, if it so desires. There must be an opportunity for some discussion on the Second Reading, Committee, and Report stages. The putting down of this Motion is due to the fact that we want to get the Session ended before Christmas, but that is a matter which entirely rests with the House itself, and it is for it to decide whether or hot to take the exceptional measures necessary to secure the Bill passing in time.

I am not at all sure that this is going to help my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, the position is that in regard to this Money Resolution, which is now, I suppose, in the Clerk's desk, no one in this House knows any- thing whatever about it. In the ordinary way you cannot take two stages of the Money Resolution on the same day, and, therefore, when the Committee stage has been passed, on the Report stage you can go to the Vote Office and get the Resolution in print, and we should know something on the Report stage about what is being done. If you take the two stages of the Resolution to-day, the House will not in the least know what it is doing. I am not endeavouring in any kind of way to be unreasonable. It is not the whole Bill which is founded upon the Money Resolution. It is only one Clause of it, and if we were not to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend my belief is that the situation would be as follows: We should pass the Money Resolution after the Committee stage, and that would not in any way interfere with the Money Resolution. To-morrow we could take the Report stage' of the Money Resolution, and the Committee stage afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that is so. You could go on with the Committee stage of the Bill until Clause 6 or 7, I believe—it is the Clause in italics—and then get the Money Resolution. You will not want the Money Resolution until you have got the Committee stage on Clause 7. If my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so, I do not think that he is losing anything, while he is preserving a custom or a tradition of the House which is very desirable.

I am sure the House knows that I do not pretend personally that this is the best course to follow, but I was informed that it was the best method of getting the Bill completed. I have made inquiry, and I find that there will be no loss of time in adopting the course suggested by my right hon. Friend, and therefore I do not in the circumstances propose to press the Resolution.

I think we should have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount involved under the Resolution. We find that under this Bill there are three separate Ministers: one of them permanent, and two of them axe temporary, being only for the period of the War, but in addition to that under Clause 7 there is a very wide provision made as to the possible appointment of new Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries. I do not know exactly how many new Secretaries are to be appointed under this Clause, and I think it is obviously right that the Committee before passing the Resolution should, in the first instance, know exactly the salaries of those Ministers for whose appointment the Bill provides, and secondly, as to the number of Under-Secretaries which the Government intend to appoint under the Bill and the remuneration which will be paid to the Under-Secretaries. I hope the right hon. Genitleman will give an answer to this point.

It is almost impossible to give an exact estimate as to the cost of a Bill like this, but my hon. Friend can make a calculation for himself. The Bill provides for three new Ministers—

At £5,000 a year?

Three at £2,000 a year each.

That is £6,000.

As to Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries their salaries will be determined by the Treasury, and my hon. Friend may feel quite sure that the amount of their remuneration will not exceed, but probably may be less than the remuneration now paid to Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries.

Will the Under-Secretary represent the Controller of Shipping?

Yes; he will.

As the Controller is an expert in shipping, will he have an Under-Secretary who is an expert in shipping?

We are now on the question in relation to money. The House can make some calculation as to the amount involved, but it is impossible for us to know exactly at this moment what the Treasury will sanction. It will not be, as far as I can see, a very large sum. I hope with that statement hon. Members will postpone discussion on the financial part of the Resolution until we come to the Second Reading.

I desire to make a protest against the statement made by the Home Secretary that they have not yet made up their minds as to the scale of salaries. I wholly object to the principle underlying that statement. It reminds me of a system which always horrified me and which will yet come to be recognised as an evil precedent. This House ought to know before it votes money what is going to be paid to each servant of the Crown. I object on principle to the idea that we are going to do it on the cheap. The danger of the Bill is that it opens the way to an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries, and if a Member is to be invested with the power to appoint an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries at £500 per year or whatever the salary is to be, it would be a degradation of this House and a departure from the whole principle that has ruled this House for 200 years, and which was the result of great and prolonged struggles to put an end to Ministerial corruption in this country. I therefore could not allow this matter to pass sub silentio, and the idea that it did not matter how many Under-Secretaries were to be appointed, provided the salaries were cut down.

I wish to reinforce what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I do think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to let us know the number of Under-Secretaries and what their salaries are to be. If we do not know those two things, what is the use of asking the House of Commons to pass the Resolution, since we would simply be voting money for an indefinite number of Under-Secretaries at indefinite salaries. I do enter a strong protest, but, if the information I ask for is given, I am sure there will be no objection to passing the Resolution.

I have not the least desire to withhold information from the House. I know pretty well what is proposed, and the number of Secretaries is limited by the Bill. In Committee on the Bill I will undertake to give the figures.

I do not want to oppose the Second Reading, but I do ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the question as to the Controller of Shipping. The Home Secretary said that he would be represented in this House by an Under-Secretary. If an expert is required in anything, he is required in shipping, and yet, according to the statement made, we shall have no opportunity of any intelligent replies here. It is one of the most vital subjects of the day, and the whole concern and welfare of the country and the prosecution of the War depend on the proper handling of merchant shipping. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision as to the Controller of Shipping not having a seat in this House.