asked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps have been taken in India since the outbreak of the War to reduce the consumption of intoxicating liquors; and whether, in view of the economic conditions arising from the War, it is intended to impose special restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of such liquors during the continuance of the War?

The duty on imported spirit has been raised, as has also in many areas the Excise Duty on country spirit. I am not aware that further measures are contemplated by the Indian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the Report on the administration of the Excise Department in Burma for 1914–15, it is stated on the authority of district magistrates and sessions judges that a large proportion of crimes of violence is directly or indirectly due to drink; whether the Inspector-General of Police has suggested to the local government that total prohibition should be tried as an experiment in the Bassein district; and whether, in view of the comparative immunity of Burma from drunkenness in the past and the growth of the evil in recent years, the Government will take steps to carry out the suggestion?

The answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Resolution of the Local Government on the Police Report for 1915, which states the reasons why the Government was unable to accept the suggestion. I do not think it would be wise in me at the present time to overrule its decision.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether King Thebaw, or any of his absolute and irresponsible predecessors in Upper, or any part of, Burma, prohibited the consumption of any particular article of food and drink by any or by all classes of the population; and, if there is no record of any such arbitrary act on the part of any of the absolute monarchs who governed Burma in ante-British days, if he will, should any such prohibition be suggested, withhold his consent from interference calculated to irritate a notorious for love of personal freedom, and to raise doubts in their minds as to the justice and impartiality of British rule?

I have no information on the first part of the question, and am not particularly impressed by my hon. friend's suggestion that I should take King Thebaw as my model.

Will the right hon. Gentleman follow any model that does not impose this tyrannical prohibition upon the people of Burma?

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the fixed minimum rate allowed to the Indo-European Telegraph Department in Persia in exchange from pounds sterling to krans and from rupees to krans; and what is the rate given to the troops engaged in operations in Persia and on the Perso-Afghan frontier?

Gazetted officers of the Indo-European Telegraph Department are paid in rupees converted into Persian currency at the official rate fixed quarterly on the basis of market rates. The present official rate is 280 krans per 100 rupees. Non-gazetted officers enjoy a minimum of 385 krans per 100 rupees on half their pay, and receive the other half at the official rate. A petition asking for a revision of these arrangements on account of the appreciation of the kran is under consideration. The Government of India have not informed me of the arrangements made for troops.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from the Government of India as to the arrangements made for the troops?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires me to do so, I will inquire.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state what arrangements have been made for the organisation of the Aden Field Force similar to that of other expeditionary forces?

The Government of India informed me in December of their intention to issue orders placing the Aden Field Force on a footing similar to that of other expeditionary forces. They had not then decided as to the grant of special field allowance. I am inquiring whether the orders have actually issued and what is the decision as to the special field allowance.

Thank you, Sir; the Aden Field Force will be very grateful.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Students' Department is to be maintained permanently at a total cost of upwards of £5,000 per annum; and whether the existence of this Department is due to an original recommendation by, or to a subsequent acquiescence on the part of, the Government of India?

There is no present intention of abolishing the Indian Students' Department, but a part of the work previously done by it has now been transferred to the university authorities of Oxford and Cambridge, and arrangements have been made which will reduce the cost. The Department was established by the Secretary of State in Council after an interchange of views with the Indian Government.

It is to be continued at a reduced cost?

Yes.

asked whether it is proposed that any action should be taken on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Public Services in India before the termination of the War?

The Government of India have been asked to consider and report upon the recommendations as soon as possible.

Does not this form one of those questions which the other day the Governor-General said were of a controversial character and which should not be dealt with during the War?

The Government of India consider—and I agree—that it is undesirable to postpone the consideration of this Report until after the War. Such a course would involve great delay. Whether, as the result of that, action before the end of the War may be suggested is another question on which I make no statement and do not desire to make one at the present time. But, at any rate, I think it is desirable that we should proceed with our consideration of the Report so that we may know what action we desire to take when the time for action comes.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say how many dockyard pensioners over sixty years of age are in receipt of pensions from 10s. to £1 a week; and whether, seeing that these men have served their country from twenty-five to forty years in the Royal dockyards and have little else to depend upon but their pensions, and that the cost of living has gone up some 50 per cent, since the outbreak of war, he can see his way to deal with them in the same manner as has been done in the case of old age pensioners, and give them such additions to their pensions during the period of the war as will enable them to obtain the necessaries of life?

The number of dockyard pensioners over sixty years of age in receipt of pensions from 10s. to £1 a week is, approximately, 1,200. As regards the latter part of the question, I can only repeat the information I gave my hon. Friend on the 26th October last, namely, that pensions to civilians employed in naval establishments are awarded by the Treasury under the Superannuation Acts, and the Admiralty has no power to augment allowances which are assessed in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. I would further add that the comparison which my hon. Friend makes with the old age pensioner is not altogether justified, because in the case of the dockyard pensioners the average pension enjoyed is about £40 a year.

Is it not the fact that these men, in many cases, have worked upon large numbers of ships which are now defending our shores: is it right that these men should be left with 10s. or £1 to live upon?

They certainly contributed their part in their day and generation to the building of our ships.

The rising generation?

Yes; certainly.

If it is shown to the Admiralty that there are men unable to find the necessary means of subsistence on the pension allowed them by the Admiralty, will the Admiralty consider the necessity of seeing that these men get enough?

It would not be a question for us, but one coming under the Superannuation Act, which is administered by the Treasury. But if hon. Members will communicate with me I will consider the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps in regard to the matter?

I do not know that I can take them in the absence of particular evidence such as that suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Benn).

Have these men the opportunity of working in the dockyards now?

There were some working at the outbreak of the War, but I do not think that many are so employed now.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are men of the Royal Naval Division now serving in France as soldiers whose wives receive a total separation allowance which is less in some cases by as much as 6s. a week than that received by the wives of private soldiers who are doing the same work; and whether he proposes to take any action?

All men of the Naval Division serving in France hold a rating not below that of able seamen, and so, from their ordinary pay, apart from additional allowances drawn in the field, could in every instance allot 8s. a week instead of 5s., the minimum allotment which carries separation allowance for a wife.

Will they get the same allowance for their children?

Oh, certainly!

As the soldier?

No.

Then, in spite of the answer, they do get considerably less than a soldier if they have a number of children?

No. I think my hon. Friend is under the impression that these men are the ordinary seamen that form the subject of a later question. They are able seamen, and their pay, against that of a private soldier of 7s. a week, is: Able seamen, 11s. 8d.; marine private, 11s 1d. Then there is a field allowance of 6d. a day if not billeted, and 4d. a day if billeted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men are prohibited from making an allotment larger than 8s., the result of which is that if there are children their wives get considerably less allowance than that of a soldier's wife?

No, they have higher pay. The minimum allotment is 5s. Some of the men get higher pay, which enables them to make a larger allotment. The average allotment for the Navy is about 12s. 6d. per week.

Are there men of the Royal Naval Division who are prohibited from making an allotment of more than 8s. per week?

There is not a maximum of 8s.; there is a minimum of 5s.

And maximum?

A minimum of 5s.; the maximum depends upon the pay.

Is it not the case that there is a maximum allowance they are not allowed to exceed?

Yes, Sir.

That is what I want.

Can my right hon. Friend say, in considering these allowances, that it is the case that the difference in the pay is explained by the fact that the sailor has to keep up his kit, whereas the soldier gets his kit supplied by the Government?

No, I cannot say that. The sailor gets higher pay, and my hon. Friend's point may possibly be one of the reasons for what has been stated. He has also greater opportunities for promotion. For these and other reasons the scale of the sailor is lower than that of the soldier.

He does not get the scale!

asked whether, under the conditions of this War, promotion is much more rapid in the Army than in the Navy; and whether the better prospect of promotion in the Navy can, therefore, be said to compensate for the lower scale of separation allowances in the case of men who have enlisted only for the duration of the War?

I am not aware that promotion is much more rapid in the Army than in the Navy. I would point out, further, that the initial rates of pay of men entered in the lower ratings of the Royal Navy for the period of hostilities exceed those of similar entries in the Army by from 1s. 9d. to 4s. 8d. a week in the case of the ordinary seamen and the stokers.

Is it not the case that the Navy, having remained more or less of the same strength, promotion goes on at the same rate as before, whereas in the Army, which has enormously increased, promotion is much more rapid?

I am not aware that the promotion is much more rapid in the Army than in the Navy.

Are there no examples of men in the Navy reaching the rank of petty officer within a year?

I would not like to say that.

asked (1) whether in the case of a sailor who is prohibited from making an allotment from his pay of more than 5s. a week to his dependent mother, the maximum allowance which the Admiralty will add to it is 5s. a week even in the London district; whether, in the case of a wife in similar circumstances the allowance which the Admiralty adds to the salor's 5s. is 2s. 6d.; whether many sailors' mothers are thus paid a total allowance, including allotment, which is 6s. a week less than is paid to soldiers' wives in similar circumstances; whether he proposes to take any action; (2) whether he is aware that the total separation allowance, including allotment, paid to sailors' wives and children in the lower ratings is in certain cases 6s. a week less than that paid to the wives and children of private soldiers; whether Admiralty orders have been issued advising sailors' wives under such conditions to apply to the Statutory Committee; whether he is aware that the Statutory Committee refuses to grant a supplementary allowance to bring Admiralty allowances up to the level of Army allowances; whether he proposes to take any action in view of this refusal; and (3) whether, in the case of a sailor who is prohibited from making an allotment from his pay of more than 5s. a week to his dependent mother, the maximum allowance which the Admiralty will add to it is 5s. a week, even in the London district, making a total maximum allowance receivable by the mother of 10s.; whether the maximum allowance, including allotment, receivable by a soldier's mother in the London district is 15s. a week; and whether he proposes to remove this disability imposed upon the dependants of men serving in the Navy?

The answer to the first part of question No. 11 is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I think my hon. Friend has used the word "wife" when he meant to use the word "mother." The allowance made in respect of an allotment of 5s. to the wife of a sailor of the lowest rating is 9s. 6d. a week, if she is a London resident. The allowance made in respect of an allotment of 5s. in favour of the mother would be 5s. in the case of a Reservist or a man entered for the period of hostilities, and 2s. 6d. in the case of active service ratings, subject to the measure of pre-war dependence in each case. As regards the last part of the question—and, again, I think my hon. Friend intended to use the word "mothers" instead of the word "wives" —the situation he depicts here, and in question No. 13, depends upon the twofold considerations of pre-war dependence and allotment from pay. Given a fairly high standard of pre-war dependence, it would be open to the soldier's mother, in consequence of the scale of allowances, to receive 6s. a week more than the mother of the ordinary seaman whose level of pre-war contribution to his mother's maintenance was lower.

I am satisfied that our allowances are framed so as to secure for the Service, as a whole, and in its many grades, what it amply deserves, fair and adequate consideration. There may be individual cases of hardship, and it was for the very purpose of dealing with those cases that the Statutory Committee was set up. I gather from my hon. Friend's question, No. 12, that the Statutory Committee refuses to grant a supplementary allowance to bring Admiralty allowances up to the level of Army allowances in these cases. I am communicating with the Statutory Committee, particularly with regard to the case of the ordinary seaman with children.

I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Admiralty have stated that naval pensions for long service are in reality deferred pay; whether naval pensioners whose total earned incomes and pensions amount to over £120 a year and under £300 a year are at present taxed at unearned income rate upon their naval pensions; and whether, in future, naval pensions may be taxed at the earned income rate when the total income from all sources does not exceed £300 a year?

Naval pensions are chargeable to Income Tax at the ordinary earned income rates appropriate to the total incomes of the pensioners.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the stoppage of separation allowances to dependants, especially wives, when they are being treated for illness in a public institution?

These cases must be considered on their merits, and may be dealt with better by the Statutory Committee than the War Office. We have been in communication with them on the subject, and I hope a decision may be announced shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he told me exactly the same three or four months ago? How are the wives of soldiers who are in hospital, and therefore deprived of separation allowances, to keep the houses going in which the children reside while they are in hospital?

I told my hon. Friend three or four months ago that these men are being looked after either by the Statutory Committee, or the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.

Is my hon. Friend aware that they are not being looked after? The Statutory Committee has no regulations which deal with them, and it has taken four months to do what my hon. Friend suggests now and they have not yet done it.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will address his strictures to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the number of wives and dependants in receipt of separation allowances up to 31st December, 1916?

In rough figures, three millions.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the annual cost of the recent in crease in separation allowances?

Approximately twelve millions for the Army.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information he has regarding the condition and treatment of British prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks?

The efforts of His Majesty's Government to obtain permission for the inspection by the American Embassy of the camps of internment in Turkey have so far been unsuccessful. Certain camps have, however, been inspected recently by delegates of the International Red Cross Committee, whose report His Majesty's Government hope to receive shortly. The information which reaches His Majesty's Government from various sources is to the general effect that, while the conditions under which officers are interned are tolerable, the situation of the prisoners of other ranks is most unsatisfactory.

asked whether the Governments of the Allied Powers propose in the after-war settlement to grant independence to the nationalities to whom they at present deny this right?

I have nothing to add to the statements which have already been made regarding the objects which the Allies have in view.

Would it not be best for the Government to set a good example by granting independence to Ireland instead of to other subject nationalities?

asked whether, in view of the general lack of knowledge as to the Czecho-Slovacs, for whose independence the Allies are fighting, he will issue an official statement as to the territory they claim and the form of government they desire to be established?

No, Sir; I do not think such a statement is necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the rumour going about that the Prime Minister has been making inquiries as to who the Czecho-Slovacs are?

asked whether all the followers of M. Venizelos, who had been imprisoned in Athens on account of their sympathies with his movement have been released?

So far as can be ascertained all persons imprisoned in Athens on account of their sympathies with Monsieur Venizelos have now been released.

Docs that mean all the persons imprisoned at the time the order for release was given, or is it a fact as has been widely stated, that a certain number of these prisoners were killed or executed previously to the liberation of the others?

I have no certain confirmation of any rumour of that kind. I can only speak to the question of the position of the Venizelist prisoners at the present moment. Some of them may have been killed earlier in the course of these unhappy occurrences.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries upon this point which is exercising the minds of a great many people?

Yes, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the policy of this country and of the Allies generally in regard to Greece?

I do not think that the present is an appropriate time for a general view of the Greek situation.

Is it not the case that such a statement has been made in the House of Lords? Why can it not be made here?

I am not aware that there has been any such general statement.

May we be assured that the cordial relations between His Majesty's Government and King "Constantino" are still being maintained?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will state what provision for the supply of alcoholic liquors, if any, is made in the Dominion Parliament buildings at Ottawa and in other legislative buildings throughout Canada?

I regret that I am not in possession of the information.

asked whether, considering the shortness of labour for agriculture and other purposes, His Majesty's Government will consider the question of applying the Military Service Act to Malta, Gibraltar, and Cyprus, and enrolling all available men in these places in Labour Corps for service in France, so as to relieve the British Labour Corps now employed there for work at home?

The circumstances of these Dependencies are of a very special nature, and a portion of their male population is already being employed on services con- nected with the War. I have been very anxiously considering this question, and am consulting the local authorities with regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Thomas M'Kessy, of Newcastle West, county Limerick, a boy of 16½ years of age, as his certificate of age forwarded to the military authorities proves, joined the South Irish Horse, and that his father applied to the military authorities for his discharge on the ground that he is under military age and not of robust health, which application has been refused; and whether, for the reasons stated, his discharge will now be granted?

Inquiries are being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.

Will the hon Gentleman give the House, definitely, the legal position with regard to such a question: Whether it is legal to hold boys at the age of sixteen in the Army against the wishes of their parents?

I cannot discuss that within the limits of question and answer.

Does not it simply require an answer, yes or no?

When the hon. Member is asking a question on some legal point, he might put the question down. Legal points require consideration.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the minimum age at which a boy is eligible to join the Army? Is there anything definite?

The minimum age is really eighteen, but we get a great many patriotic young boys who come forward and give a wrong age.

Having regard to the fact that this boy's father has stated, and that I have written to the military authorities saving, that he is not in robust health, what is the use of keeping him in the Army?

I have told my hon. Friend that I am making inquiries, and if the facts are as stated in his letter the matter will get full consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that a boy named Maurice Quinlan, of Newcastle West, county Limerick, who was under seventeen years of age when he enlisted in the South Irish Horse, stationed at Cahir, was retained against the wish of his father, who made application for him, while another boy, named John Flynn, who enlisted after December, 1916, in the same regiment, was discharged; that Maurice Quinlan's health was bad, as his father informed the military authorities, that he had to be conveyed back to barracks from his home against the local doctor's wishes at Christmas, and that since his mind got deranged, and he is now in a lunatic asylum; and whether, when in future the father of a boy under military age asks for his discharge, it will be granted by the military authorities?

It is the fact that the discharge of Quinlan was refused in accordance with the general practice. He is at present in an asylum, and as soon as he is fit for removal, he will be brought before a medical board for discharge from the Army. I have no information as to Flynn, and inquiries are being made. The discharge of soldiers under military age is not now authorised, unless under very exceptional circumstances, and I regret therefore that I cannot give the assurance asked for.

asked whether any communications have been received from Dominion Governments, in connection with the coming Imperial Conference, relating to the question of Home Rule for Ireland?

I have received no such communications.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware of the conditions of employment at the remount depots in Dublin; if he is aware that the wages paid and the hours worked are the worst of any employment in the United Kingdom, and that the labourers in many cases are being paid from 17s. to 23s. per week, and receive no war bonus, although promised to all Government employés, established and unestablished; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and (2) if he is aware of the conditions of employment at remount depots in Dublin; if he is aware that the wages paid by the Government and the hours which the men work cannot be equalled in any sweating den in London; if he is aware that these men wear war badges, work seven days a week for ten hours a day, and in many cases are being paid from 17s. to 23s. per week without war bonus; if he is aware that the war bonus was promised in the House to be paid to all Government employés, established and unestablished; if he will say whether these men will receive bonus; and, if so, will it be retrospective and be paid to all employés at depots?

Instructions were given by the War Office on 26th October last, under which these men should have had 26s. a week. They will now receive that rate with arrears from that date.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if Driver E. J. Phillips, No. 192571 Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), 2nd Army headquarters garage, British Expeditionary Force, aged thirty-six, married, one child, voluntarily enlisted in November, 1915, and was put in Group 40 as driver mechanic in the Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport) at the rate of pay of 6s. per day; if he was called up in June, 1916, and shortly afterwards was sent to France and for the last six months has been driving at the 2nd Army headquarters; if, when he got his pay-book, his rate of pay was 2s. 4d. per day; and, if so, will he explain why this man's pay has been reduced as it falls heavily on his wife, to whom he can only allow 1s. 9d. a day instead of 4s. 6d., and who consequently gets, with the child's allowance, £1 6s. 3d. instead of £2 5s. 6d.?

A group man could not be enlisted at a special rate of pay unless he joined immediately. When this man joined the special rate of 6s. a day was not in force.

asked how many officers employed in the War Office have seen active service during this War's?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when Secretary of State on 27th November last on this subject, and also to the answer given on 7th March by my right hon. Friend, who was then Under-Secretary of State, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Enfield Division. I have nothing to add to these answers. I regret there are no figures available.

Are the numbers greater or less than at the period of that answer?

I think they are about the same. I would like to point out that no men are more anxious to go to the front than those at the War Office, but in the interests of the service we must keep them here.

asked how many officers and men have not yet seen any active overseas service?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 30th November last to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. Every effort is made to send to the front all officers and men who are physically fit. I regret that there are no figures available.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why so many men who are physically fit are given so much service at the front, and so many who are physically fit are given so much leisure in this country?

We are always trying to exchange the men who have been at the front with those at home.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how they are getting on with that practice? How many men are they exchanging each week?

Cannot the hon. Gentleman make some arrangement for revising the staffs of the Home Command, which are only used for training purposes, and are far too large?

So far as I understand, every single individual in the training staff at home is necessary for training.

asked what is the present scale of allowance for bread, meat, and sugar per week for prisoners of war in this country, both officers and men, compared with the Food Controller's dietary list, in respect of those articles for the people of this country generally?

asked whether the rations allowed to German prisoners of war have now been reduced to the level, in respect of meat, bread, and sugar, of the allowance per head Indicated in the recent communications from the Food Controller's Department as applicable to the civilian population in this country?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present scale of allowance for bread, meat, and sugar per week for interned enemy civilians in this country compared with the Food Controller's dietary list, in respect of those articles for the people of this country generally?

The daily ration hitherto issued to prisoners of war in this country is: meat 8 ozs., bread 1½ lbs. or its equivalent in flour, and sugar 2 ozs. No rations are issued to officers, who pay for their own food. The question of the scale to which these rations should be reduced is, as I have already said, the subject of enquiry by a Committee representing the Departments concerned, and their Report may be expected immediately.

Is Donington Hall under the eye of the War Office?

Very much so.

What is the scale of bread, meat, and sugar per day, or per week, in regard to Donington Hall?

I am afraid I do not know, because the officers at Donington Hall have, I understand, to order their own rations.

The civilians in this country have to order their own rations, and they are asked to conform to a certain standard. Has the same plain request and the same plain demand been made upon the officers at Donington Hall?

Hitherto the scale for prisoners has been the same as for the combatant rank and file, but that does not apply to Donington Hall. The whole of this matter is to be revised by a Committee representing all parties, the War Office and the Home Office, who are hard at work revising it.

Will this Committee be asked to consult with the Food Controller as to what is a reasonable allowance for these men?

I am not a member of this Committee, but I understand a representative of the Food Controller is one of the members of the Committee.

When was this Committee set up? Did it not occur to anybody that it would be wise to consult the Food Controller before he issued his suggestions to the British population as to why there should be a double allowance for these German prisoners?

I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Member.

May I ask a simple question? When was this Committee first started?

Last week.

The hon. Member must put down any further questions.

asked the Prime Minister if he can state the nature of the appointment held by Mr. Trustram Eve in connection with food production; and what is the amount of his salary?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I say that I put an unstarred question on this subject last Thursday, and it has not yet been answered?

I am very sorry. I did not know it had been unanswered. I drafted an answer to it, and I will inquire why it was not given. Mr. Trustram Eve was appointed by the War Office about the time of the recent changes in the Ministry to stimulate the production of oats for Army requirements by the direct cultivation of War Department Lands now under grass and the encouragement of similar cultivation by farmers through the placing of forward contracts for the crops of 1917. Mr. Eve succeeded my right hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall as chairman of the Forage Committee. As he had to devote his whole time to the work he is compensated for loss of business at £250 a month. The changes which have since supervened have necessitated a reconsideration of the nature of this appointment, and the matter is now under my consideration.

Would it not be far better that the Board of Agriculture should have control of the production of food?

I think it is most desirable that all these matters should be under the control of one Minister, but at the time this appointment was made, owing to circumstances on which I need not dilate nothing special was being done. I saw that there was a very urgent demand for oats for Army requirements, and after consulting my advisers I deemed it necessary in the interests of the Army to make a special appointment, with a view to pushing on the production of throats. I consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, and also my Noble Friend the Food Controller, since he was appointed, and I asked if either of them would be prepared to take charge of this work at once and push on with it. I told them what we wanted. They asked me to continue until they were prepared to deal with it themselves.

Is this salary free of Income Tax?

Certainly not. It is subject to Income Tax.

How long have we to pay this salary?

Are we to understand that this gentleman's business is now closed?

What I said was that the necessity for this appointment was being examined and that I had the matter under consideration.

I mean his private business.

He is not able to attend to it.

Is there any written contract with the Department?

I think the arrangement is expressed by interchange of letters.

What notice would be required?

A month.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, with a view to enable our mercantile marine to increase the stocks of foodstuffs in this country, His Majesty's Government will, without further delay, prohibit the import of everything not absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the War or for our national existence?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. His Majesty's Government are at present considering the imposition of further restrictions with the object that the hon. Member has in view.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the nature and terms of the arrangement made by the War Office with farmers for breaking up grass land for the growing of oats?

The terms are set out in the contract, a copy of which I shall be happy to give the hon. Member. In effect it offers a bonus to farmers who plough up grass land in order to sow oats for the 1917 harvest, for the use of the War Office.

asked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether he has received a petition from the Allied Union of Operative Bakers, Confectioners, and Allied Workers, at Leicester, begging in the national interests for the prohibition of the sale of new bread, and the consequent abolition of night work for bakers, by the issue of an Order that bread is to be baked one day and sold the next; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in regard to the same?

A copy of a Resolution passed by this Society in favour of the prohibition of the sale of new bread was sent to the President of the Board of Trade, and has been forwarded by him to the Food Controller, who is, at present, conferring with representatives of the baking trade on the subject.

asked the hon. Member for Wilton whether the Department fixed a contract price for potatoes of the 1917 main crop; whether this contract price has since been withdrawn in favour of a minimum price guaranteed by the Government; and whether the minimum price to the farmer carries with it any protection against an extortionate price being charged to the consumer?

The prices announced for potatoes of the 1917 main crop were fixed by the Food Controller on the advice of the Agricultural Departments of Great Britain and Ireland. They are guaranteed minimum prices at which the Government will be prepared to purchase potatoes of the best quality. The question of protecting the consumer against extortionate charges will be considered should the necessity arise.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the first part of the question, whether a contract price was first fixed and whether that has since been changed for a minimum price?

I think that accurately describes what took place.

asked the hon. Member for Wilton if the Food Controller, in view of his statement that the barley, sugar, and other ingredients used in brewing are required for food, will explain why the continuance is allowed of their present rate of waste in brewing for another six weeks and thereafter at the rate of one-half that in 1914, or more than twenty-five million bushels of grain and more than one and a-half million cwts. Of sugar; and what further steps he proposes to save this foodstuff for the food of the nation?

The decision to restrict the use of materials in brewing to approximately 50 per cent, of the prewar level, as from 1st April, was taken by the Government after full consideration of all the existing circumstances. The Food Controller will not hesitate to recommend further restrictions if the necessity should, in his opinion, arise. The assumption that the conversion of foodstuffs into brewers' materials will continue undiminished till 1st April is inaccurate. This conversion as regards barley takes place when the barley is malted, and it is intended that further malting shall be stopped as soon as sufficient malt for the reduced output of beer has been made.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect parents now to stint their children of food, while these ingredients are being used for the production of alcoholic beverages?

I understand the whole question is about to be raised in Debate this afternoon, and I dare say the hon. Member will have an opportunity of presenting his views to the House.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that, although the contracts between the War Office and dental officers and the War Office and medical officers are to a very large extent identical, dentists do not draw ration allowance, consequently dental officers have to pay a higher rate for messing than is paid by medical and other officers; and can he see his way to place dental officers in respect to ration allowance on the same footing as medical and other officers?

The question of giving dental officers ration allowance was further considered, as promised in my reply to my hon. Friend's question of 7th March last, and it was decided that no alteration in the terms of the contract was necessary.

Is it not a fact that the duties of the medical officers and the dental officers are practically identical?

That is not the ease. There are material differences.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the under-estimates of our losses as compared with the French losses and the losses of our Colonial troops invented by the enemies' agents in France and America, he will state what to date have-been the total losses of men suffered by the Army and Navy of the British Empire since the beginning of the War?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Hanley on November 21st last. As stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 21st August last, in answer to the hon. Member for North Somerset, there is no objection to any Member being shown privately and confidentially from time to time the total casualties for all theatres of war.

In view of these under-estimates as to our losses, made by the enemy, in France and America, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the advisability of making an authentic publication of what our losses have been?

I will consider that.

Will the publication of these lists to Members of this House have any effect in meeting the false statements of enemy agents?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether nearly half the present production of beer goes to the Army; whether this would represent a consumption of over four barrels (144 gallons) per man per annum; if not, what quantity was actually supplied during 1916; and, if this quantity is not used by the Army, will he say what steps he will take to punish, under the Defence of the Realm Act, those who make such statements, which are detrimental to the Army, and likely to shake the confidence of our Allies who have either prohibited or severely restricted the use of all alcoholic liquor by their troops?

I am not aware of the source of the statements quoted by my hon. Friend, but whether detrimental to the Army or not, they are wholly at variance with fact. The consumption of beer through canteens at home was for last year approximately 1,500,000 barrels. This, I am informed, represents not one-half, but one-eighteenth of the total consumption of beer on the reduced basis in the United Kingdom. It is not proposed to take the action suggested in the latter part of the question.

Am I to understand that persons are to be privileged to issue false statements detrimental to the Army without any action being taken by the Government?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the pay of men transferred from the Army to Army Reserve for munition work, as well as the separation allowances of their wives, ceases on the date of transfer; whether he is aware that a considerable period frequently elapses before they receive any wages; and whether he will take steps to remedy the hardship thereby caused?

Army pay and allowances cease on transfer. I am not aware of any serious delay in the payments of wages, but; if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases that have come under his notice, I will inquire.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that supplies of clothing and food can be sent by parents and friends to officers and civilians interned as prisoners of war in Germany but are forbidden to be sent to private soldiers; will he say what is the reason for this distinction; whether lie is aware that the Central Prisoners of War Committee, in accordance with the War Office rules, can only allow one suit of underclothing and two pairs of socks to be sent to each private soldier once in six months; whether the Central Committee has approached the War Office to get this rule altered; and if he will have the Regulations amended so that civilians, officers, and private soldiers may be accorded equality of treatment?

Under War Office Regulations, parcels for both civilian and combatant prisoners of war in Germany must be sent through the Central Prisoners of War Committee, or one of its authorised associations, except in the case of officers. Among other difficulties, it has been found by experience that private parcels required examination in the Censor's, Department, and it would not be practicable to enforce the censorship in the many thousands of cases of parcels addressed to civilians and private soldiers. The allowance of clothing that may be sent to prisoners in Germany is as follows: One pair of boots, one pair of canvas shoes, two pairs of socks, two pairs of drawers, two vests, two shirts, one cardigan, one pair of gloves, one pair of trousers, one jacket, one kit bag, one cap, three handkerchiefs, and two towels (every six months), and one greatcoat (every year); for German camps in Russian territory there are, in addition, one fur or skin coat, one pair of long boots, and two pairs of lumbermen's socks or stockings (every six months). The amount of the above allowances has been recently discussed between the Central Committee and the War Office, with the result that the authorities have been unable to see their way to sanction an increase. I fear the only effect of carrying out the suggestion in the last part of the question would be to impose some disadvantage on one class of prisoners with no compensating gain to others.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) why, although the establishment of both branches of the Royal Regiment of Artillery has been increased during the present War and the promotion in the field branch has corresponded with such increase, to the extent that the last promoted major in the Royal Field Artillery (Major B.) has twelve years and two months' commissioned service, the promotion of the officers of the Garrison Artillery, i.e., heavy and siege batteries, which has been frequently specially mentioned by the Commander-in-Chief, is so slow that about 150 to 200 officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery who passed out of the Royal Military Academy some three years before Major B. did still only hold the substantive rank of captain; and (2) whether he is aware that in the Royal Garrison Artillery there are 175 captains with thirteen years' service and upwards, but in the Royal Field Artillery there are none, all having been promoted; whether he is aware that the twenty junior majors in the Royal Garrison Artillery have fifteen and a half years' service and the same number of junior majors in the Royal Field Artillery have only thirteen years' service; will he explain why a branch of the Artillery which has done such splendid service during the War has been so treated; and whether a further "Gazette" can be shortly published bringing the promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery up to the level of the rest of the regiment?

The statement contained in the questions are correct. The question of the state of promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery has been considered and it was decided that no action should be taken during the War.

Is there any possibility, having regard to those serious statements and their admitted correctness, of reconsidering this very important matter, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is causing great dissatisfaction amongst the unpromoted officers of the heavy Artillery?

I am aware of that, and I will consider it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes in the present. Session to restrict the introduction into this House of Private Bills for objects not connected with the necessities of public health or in assistance of the national efforts engaged in prosecuting the War?

I regret that it is not possible for me to add anything to what I said during the Debate upon the Address on 8th February.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause the full Report of the Court which inquired into the case of General Owen Thomas to be published, and also the evidence tendered to the Court?

It is not proposed to make any further publication of documents relating to the cases into which this Court was appointed to inquire.

In view of that answer will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why General Sir Owen Thomas was removed, and whether it was owing to inefficiency as stated on 28th June, or owing to military rearrangements as stated on 23rd December; and whether, in view of the fact that General Sir Owen Thomas has been charged in this House with inefficiency, he will now state to the House that that charge was not substantiated, or in the alternative publish the Report fully so that the House may judge for itself?

As the hon. Gentleman will remember, I made a very full statement with regard to General Sir Owen Thomas in the statement I made before the rising of the House in December. He will also remember that I pointed out that General Sir Owen Thomas's conduct was cleared, and my hon. Friend will excuse me if I remind him that only yesterday he appeared in the Honours List.

May I ask whether or not Sir Owen Thomas was removed owing to inefficiency, or in view of certain rearrangements in military matters, and if he has been cleared let the hon. Member say so?

I cannot add anything to the very full answer which I have given.

May I ask why he cannot publish the Report, or why he will not?

I do not think it is in the public interest to publish it. I think we have published sufficient to justify the disciplinary action which was taken.