asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, while a lunatic soldier discharged to pension is receiving treatment in a military or civil institution, any charge can, under the Regulations, be made against him for maintenance or treatment, providing that his disability is due, directly or indirectly, to military service; and, if so, will he state under what Regulation such charges can be made?

asked the Pensions Minister whether the care and treatment of a lunatic soldier discharged from the Army is regarded as an obligation of the State; and, if this is not the case at present, if he can assure the House that it shall be so regarded in future and without charge against either the man or his dependants?

The cost of maintenance in the case of a discharged man under detention in an asylum is chargeable against his pension under the Lunacy Act, 1890, and the Royal Warrant of December, 1914. I have now arranged that a discharged disabled man shall, while in an asylum, be treated on the footing of a private patient, his maintenance being paid for by the State. An extra payment of 3s. 9d. a week is made to the asylum authorities to enable them to provide suitable private clothing and other amenities for the man, and the 2s. 6d. is given to the man himself for personal comforts. Under Article 6 of the new Warrant and Order in Council special provision is made for the maintenance of the family and dependants of a man in an asylum whose disability is due to war service.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether a lunatic soldier who is a single man and without dependants can be retained in the Army and upon the regimental pay roll until he is pronounced by a medical authority incurable; and whether, if the man recovers prior to his discharge, there will be paid to him on his discharge a sum equal to the amount of pay he would have received had treatment not been necessary?

During the War certain classes of lunatic soldiers defined in an Army Council Instruction—of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy—are retained in the Army. Broadly, those so treated are those whose mental trouble may have been produced by war strain. A soldier so retained is credited with his pay.

asked the Pensions Minister (l) whether the wife, children or dependants of a discharged lunatic soldier are entitled to twenty-six weeks' payment of separation allowance and at the end of that period pension upon the scale appropriate until the man recovers, or, if he does not recover, upon the same terms as pension is issuable in the case of a deceased soldier; (2) whether he will state if the wife, children or dependants, either Class A or B, of a discharged lunatic soldier receive pension from the date of his discharge; and whether that pension is subject to any deduction for the man's treatment or maintenance in a civil or military institution?

The continuance of separation allowance (which is a matter for the Admiralty and the War Office) only obtains in case of death while serving. If a man in discharged as a lunatic his maintenance as a "Service," i.e., private patient, will be undertaken by the Pensions Ministry. As regards his family: if the lunacy is attributable to or aggravated by service his wife will, from the date following the man's discharge from the Service, receive the same allowance as would be granted to her if she had been left a widow, together with allowances for any children; his dependant will similarly be provided for. If the lunacy is not so attributable or aggravated, the gratuity, in most cases a substantial one, which would have been awarded to the man, will be administered by the Ministry in the interests of the man's family under the Lunacy Act of 1890.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, in the case of a lunatic soldier discharged to pension and undergoing treatment in a civil institution, medical examination other than by the medical authorities of the institution can be permitted at the instance of the man's parents or dependants; and whether a certificate of such medical examination can be accepted as authoritative to secure the man's discharge to the care of his friends?

asked the Pensions Minister whether, in the case of a lunatic soldier discharged to pension and undergoing treatment in a civil institution, medical examination other than by the medical authorities of the institution can be permitted at the instance of the man's parents or dependants; and whether a certificate of such medical examination will be taken into consideration with a view to securing the man's discharge to the care of his friends?

I would refer the hon. Members to Section 49 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, under which the relatives of a patient in an institution for lunatics may obtain authority from the Commissioners of the Board of Control for his examination by two medical practitioners. The certificates given after such medical examination are always most carefully considered by the Commissioners in connection with the question of discharge.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the peculiar circumstances of Private Issy Pressman, No. 55,522, 2/6th Essex Regiment, who is under seventeen years of age and enlisted without his father's consent; and whether, in case his father succeeds in his efforts to return forthwith to Russia, the son will be released to accompany him?

Further inquiries are being made into this case.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision given by the Central Tribunal concerning the proprietors of one-man businesses, he will consider the case of Gunner E. G. Finley, No. 223,347, 1st Reserve Battery, Royal Field Artillery, a dairyman, of 96, Holly Avenue, Jesmond, Newcastle, whose business, which has been built up entirely by his own efforts during the past nine years, is now slowly dwindling and almost entirely without guidance owing to the illness of his wife; and whether immediate steps will be taken to procure Gunner Finley's temporary release from the Army until such time as his wife is able to take charge of the business?

Inquiries are being made about this case, but I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 18th June to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs with regard to the principle underlying the decision referred to.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that the military authorities are calling up for re-examination under the Review of Exceptions Act men who are in possession of a certificate of exemption on medical and other grounds issued by a tribunal, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 6 of Section 1 of the First Schedule of Exceptions under the principal Act; and whether he will issue instructions that this practice is to cease in the future?

I am not aware that any men are being called up for re-examination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, who are in possession of any valid certificate of exemption. Men who were not excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916, are not subject to the 1917 Act at all. If, however, a man was excepted from the 1916 Acts, and had no military liability prior to the 1917 Act, any purported exemption which he held was inoperative as being an exemption from a liability to which he was not subject. To avoid possible misunderstanding, however, instructions were given to recruiting officers some time ago that certificates of exemption, although they might be in strictness invalid, were to be recognised as operative if held by attested men who had been rejected but not discharged, or by unattested men who had been rejected but had not been given a certificate marked "Rejected and therefore excepted from Military Service."

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the proportion of clerical and manipulation staffs of the 650 men in the Post Office exempted from military service as indispensable?

Roughly, the figure is equally divided between clerical and manipulative staff.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a conscientious objector, named George Pickles, stationed at Dartmoor, recently sent a telegram, on the instruction of the agents, to the Home Office Committee asking for permission to attend his brother's funeral and offering to pay his own expenses; whether, in spite of the fact that four days' leave were due to him, his request was refused; and will he say for what reason the Home Office refused this request?

Pickles telegraphed applying for leave for the purpose stated, and asked for a free pass to Leeds No leave was due to him, as all leave is now suspended, and the Committee decided that they could not make an exception in his case. He had recently had a week's special leave on account of his mother's illness.

asked why no reply has been sent to Mrs. Little, 2, Beacons-field Terrace, Westoe, South Shields, who, on the 3rd June, wrote to the Home Office Committee on Conscientious Objectors conveying to them her husband's request, who is now in Durham Prison, to be allowed to accept the Home Office scheme which he had previously refused; and if steps will be taken at once to put this man under the scheme?

The Committee has no power to send this man out to work, as he declined to have his case considered by the Central Tribunal with a view to his release under the Home Office scheme. The reply to his wife's letter was delayed owing to extreme pressure of work.

asked what action has been taken or is intended to be taken as a result of the decision of the Merthyr Tydvil stipendiary magistrate, delivered on the 19th June, in the case of Henry Thomas, who was dismissed from the Home Office settlement at Dartmoor and handed over to the military for return to the Army; and, in view of the decision of the stipendiary that, since the Central Tribunal had judged Thomas to be a genuine conscientious objector, be could not be a military absentee and was therefore discharged, will the Home Office immediately demand from the Army the recall of all men who have been returned to the Army under conditions identical with the case of Thomas; and will a stop be made by the Home Office Committee to any further illegal practices of this character?

In this case the magistrate appears to have been erroneously informed that the man had been exempted from military service by the Central Tribunal, and to have dealt with the case on that assumption. A decision based on this assumption does not affect the action of the Committee, which deals only with men who have not been exempted. No further action appears to be necessary in this case, so far as the Home Office is concerned.

With regard to the latter part of the answer, does it mean that the Home Office are not going to interfere with this young fellow who has been discharged by the stipendiary?

I do not think there is any question as to the decision of the magistrate.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether a concession granted by the Government of India to British soldiers resident in India whereby they could receive tobacco in parcels sent from home without being charged a second duty thereon is being construed as not applicable to officers of the Regular Army but only to officers in Territorial or garrison regiments; if so, will he say why this distinction is made; and will he take any steps to have the concession extended to them?

I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to his questions of 21st and 25th June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this concession is made to British soldiers, but that exception is made in the case of officers of the Regular Army? Are we to understand that officers in the Regular Army are not British soldiers?

If the hon. Member will do me the honour to read the answers to the questions which he has already put, he will find that I have already answered the question which he has just repeated.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the managers of the Ellerman Line are the persons responsible for the negligence reported by the inspectors of the port sanitary authority of Hull, and which resulted in the destruction in a soap works of tons of valuable Danish bacon; and whether, as his Department have already prosecuted several poor persons for wasting crusts of bread, he will commence criminal proceedings against Sir John Ellerman and his fellow directors of the Ellerman Line?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second point does not, therefore, arise.

asked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether on Tuesday, 5th June, a deputation from Smithfield Market, consisting very largely of the same persons who procured the holding up of Govern- ment imported mutton in March last in order to prevent a fall in the price of Scotch mutton, visited his Department and were interviewed by a person named Towle and suggested certain amendments to the Meat Trades Order; whether he will state what those proposals were, in order that the workers' committee for Smith-field Market and the riverside cold stores will be enabled to give the matter their consideration before any alterations in the Order are made; (2) the President of the Board of Trade whether a committee of the London Central Markets Association are seeking to influence his Depart-men with regard to the maximum prices of meat; and whether, before adopting any scale of maximum prices as suggested by these persons, he will take the opinion of the respective trade unions of the workers in the trade?

Two representatives of the London Central Markets Association were invited to discuss matters relating to the control of the meat markets with the head of the section dealing with such matters, who has similarly consulted all other sections of the trade. No Amendments were suggested to the Meat Sales Order, and the interview with them, as with others who have been consulted, was confined to obtaining information on technical questions necessary to a full examination of the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the majority of the cold-air stores and of the salesmen who handle Government meat are paying less than the trade union rate of wages recognised for cold-produce work by the respective trade unions concerned; and whether his Department, before trouble arises, will intimate to all these concerns that it is their duty to pay the standard rate of wages?

If my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of the rates of wages now being paid by the employers referred to, and of the wages claimed by the trade unions concerned, I will cause inquiries to be made.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his Department has issued a recommendation to local authorities that they should sterilise and place for sale for the purpose of human consumption the meat of cattle affected with tuberculosis, and that such meat should be disposed of to the poor; and if he can state how many authorities are acting on this suggestion?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that municipalities such as Aberdeen are acting on this suggestion, and that it apparently comes from the Local Government Board?

I believe that Aberdeen and one or two places are making experiments of this kind. The Local Government Board have not thought fit, on the evidence, to make any recommendation.

Would the Local Government Board on the evidence discourage the practice of selling sterilised tuberculous meat to poor people?

No, Sir. If municipalities are willing to make the experiment we should not put any obstacle in the way of their making it, but we are not prepared on any evidence that has yet been adduced to make any recommendation to the municipalities that they should make this experiment.

asked whether, owing to high prices and profiteering, meat within the last fortnight has been held up until it reached a putrid condition; and whether he will state the total amount seized by the inspectors of the City of London and the twenty-seven Metropolitan boroughs for each of the weeks ending 10th June and 17th June?

The Department has been in communication with the authorities referred to. I am informed that twenty-five authorities have not had occasion to seize any unsound meat during the period mentioned. I am making further inquiries as to the conditions under which considerable quantities have been seized by the inspectors in the City of London and the boroughs of Finsbury and Southwark, and I am communicating with the Ministry of Food.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the complaints of wastage in unloading grain in the Port of London; and whether he will state what steps the Government will take to deal with this matter?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have had careful inquiry made into this matter and cannot find that there has been any avoidable waste in unloading grain in the Port of London, or that any complaints have been made. Examination of a number of recent cases of unloadings shows in each case a wastage of less than 1 per cent., which is considered good discharge. It is possible, however, that my hon. and gallant Friend knows of a case which has not been brought to my attention, and, if so, I should be much obliged if he would let me have particulars to enable me to prosecute further inquiries.

Can my hon. Friend say whether this answer covers the case of ships unloading at private wharves?

I am afraid I have imperfectly heard my hon. Friend's question, but I shall be obliged if he will give me cases himself for inquiry?

(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the immediate lifting of the early Ayrshire potato crop; has he considered the wasteful effect of lifting the crop in an immature state for the purpose of selling it at high prices to the wealthier classes; and whether he has considered the advisability of postponing the digging for a fortnight, or any other period of time, in order to secure larger supplies of food?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him whether he is aware that large areas of the early potatoes were taken up in order to clear the ground for other crops, such as sprouts and cabbages, and that, therefore, the action asked for would be against the provision of food for the people?

It was pointed out to the House on 8th June that there are difficulties in the way of prohibiting the lifting of early potatoes and that the cleaning of the ground enables another crop to be sown. It is not, however, clear that the consumption of potatoes in July will be confined to the wealthier classes. For these reasons it is not proposed to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these potatoes are now being sold at 7d. and 8d. per lb. retail, and has the Department formulated any policy with regard to the new crop in the immediate future?

I am afraid I cannot answer the second part of the question without reference to the Food Controller.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen any of these early Ayrshire potatoes? They are remarkably well grown.

That is a matter for the Kitchen Committee.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the fact that there is now no Secret Service Department at the Ministry of Munitions, he will explain how the Department obtained a full report of all the speeches delivered at an aggregate meeting of the Engineering and Allied Trades Federation at Huddersfield on Sunday, 13th May, where only federated members were admitted on showing their Huddersfield contribution cards and where there were eleven doorkeepers who admitted no one unless guaranteed by one or other of the doorkeepers; and why, on the Monday morning following the meeting, the secretary of the federation was taken to Sheffield by the Ministry of Munitions and there shown a transcript of all the speeches that had been delivered at the meeting, and where he was also told that two of the speakers at the meeting had been marked, and that if the meeting had decided to strike these two would have disappeared during the night?

The suggestions contained in both parts of the question are inaccurate and misleading. The only information which the Ministry has received of the speeches made at the meeting referred to was vounteered by persons who rightfully attended. The secretary of the Engineering and Allied Trades Federation, who is also the secretary of the Local Labour Advisory Board, was invited to Sheffield to consult with representatives of the Ministry as to the best means of avoiding a strike in Huddersfield. There is no truth in the suggestion in the last part of the question as to the statements made to him on that occasion.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, the gentleman to whom he refers, the secretary of the Engineering and Allied Trades Federation at Huddersfield, is a man of the highest character and reputation, and that he has made himself responsible for the accuracy of the statements made in this question?

I am exceedingly surprised to hear that.

May I ask whether it is a fact that no one is sent at all from any of the Government Departments to attend any of these meetings to take a report?

I have answered the question on the Paper, that no one was sent by the Ministry to attend this meeting, and the information given was volunteered by men who had a right to attend the meeting.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether Alec Gordon was employed in the Clyde area; whether he acted there in co-operation with the police, who secured the conviction of John Maclean; and whether the reports of Alec Gordon to his superiors at the Ministry of Munitions will be shown to any hon Member desirous of perusing them?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. It is, therefore, not necessary to answer this third part.

If the third part stood alone, would it be answered in the affirmative?

asked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the fact that it is impossible to estimate within miles whereabouts an enemy bomb may drop, and the certainty that such action as ringing the bells of St. Paul's when a raid is anticipated will cause crowds from theatres and workshops to rush into the streets causing, in all probability, a greater loss of life than has as yet been sustained by any hostile raid, he will insist that no such warnings be issued except with the direct approval of the Defence Committee?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. For the reasons referred to in the question and for other reasons which have been stated in Parliament, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that it is undesirable in the interest of the public safety that public warning of impending air raids should be given in London. The warnings already given privately in quarters where special precautionary action is necessary will, of course, be continued. It is understood that the municipal authorities in London are willing to be guided by the opinion of the Government in this matter, and it appears therefore to be unnecessary to give any directions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Mayor of London has made a statement that he intends to ring the bells, and will he make it clear that it is undesirable that he should take that course?

I have had the advantage of an interview with the Lord Mayor since that time, and I understand that he agrees with the Government in regard to this matter.

Are we to understand that the ringing of the bells of St. Paul's will not take place?

I understand they will not, but there is no official direction on the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Mayor has made a public statement that he will not ring the bells?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the ill-treatment of prisoners taken by the Turks at Kut; and if he will take all possible further steps to secure the humane treatment of these men?

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Mile End yesterday.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that information has reached this country that Captain Blaikie, of the steamship "Caledonia," was at the time of writing being transferred from the officers' internment camp in which the German authorities had placed him to a soldiers' internment camp on account of the refusal of the British Government to pay the 100 marks per month necessary to enable him to remain in the officers' internment camp; whether this also applies to some sixty captains and officers of British merchant ships: and whether he will at once communicate with Lord Newton at The Hague and send instructions that the necessary arrangements are made forthwith with a view to ensuring that these officers will in future be treated as officers?

Such information has been unofficially received, but I cannot trace that there has been any refusal to pay monthly allowances to these officers. The matter has not hitherto been before the Government as a whole. The trouble appears to have arisen from a difference between the British and the German view as to the status of these officers. Instructions to the British delegates at The Hague are already being prepared, and will, I hope, be sent immediately. I am fully alive to the necessity of meeting the case of these gallant officers, to whom the country owes so much.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some eases the steamship owners have expressed themselves as perfectly willing, had they had any notice whatever with regard to this difference of opinion between the British Government and the German Government in this matter, to have paid the necessary 100 marks; that this money could have been got from other private sources if the Government had taken any objection to paying it; and will he see, whatever steps are taken, that this money is provided from some source at once?

Yes, I have heard that. As a matter of fact, both with regard to the British Government and the owners of the ships, I do not think there is any indisposition to pay. The failure has been due, I believe, to the want of machinery for meeting these particular cases, and that, I hope, will be immediately supplied.

asked the Prime Minister whether an invitation will be given to King Constantine to take up his residence in this country?

The answer is in the negative.

Would it not be in accordance with the policy of the Government to invite this gentleman over here, considering the fact that they have thought his dynasty more important than the salvation of Europe?

asked whether occupiers of land in Ireland who have signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings under the 1903 or subsequent Land Purchase Acts, but in whom their holdings have not yet been vested by the Land Commission, are assessed for Income Tax as owners and also as occupiers; and, if so, can he state why they are assessed as owners before the sales have been completed and ownership vested in them?

The execution of the agreement to purchase has the effect of transferring the equitable ownership of the land to the purchasing occupier, who is chargeable to income tax accordingly, but an allowance is made from the assessment in respect of the interest payable by him to the Land Commission.

Not having fully heard the answer, may I ask whether any decision in law has been taken as to whether it is the landlord, who is still the owner, or the occupier who should pay the owner's Income Tax?

As I understand it the question is of no importance for this reason, that although the tenant is liable, he has an allowance on the purchase instalment equivalent to the amount he pays.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the action of the London County Council in raising the question of the centralization of the administration of the Poor Law in county and county borough councils; and does the Local Government Board contemplate any action in this direction?

The London County Council have forwarded to the Local Government Board a proposal for the centralisation of the Poor Law administration within the county, with a view to the further equalisation of the Poor Rates. This proposal would involve legislation of a controversial kind, and I do not think it would be practicable to deal with the question at the present time.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the wages of the women telegraphists were fixed by two Parliamentary Committees of inquiry, after official evidence had been given as to the hours and conditions of employment; whether he is aware that the hours of employment on which the wages were based have been materially altered for the worse; and whether, seeing that the conditions have been varied by the Post Office, inasmuch as the women are now called upon to work until 10.37 p.m., he will direct that all women telegraphists of the Central Telegraph Office who are called upon to perform attendances covering hours of night duty shall be paid the equivalent age pay per hour of the men for all such, night duty performed?

The women telegraphists receive in respect of night duty; the same additional time allowance as male telegraphists—namely, one-seventh of the total duty performed between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. As regards the rate of pay I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 24th of May.