asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a dry dock, suitable for repairs to small ships, 220 feet by 50 feet was filled in at Ringsend, Dublin, and is at present being used as a coal bank; if, having regard to the demand for shipbuilding and repairing facilities, he will request the owners of this property to put it to its rightful use; and if he will state the names of the owners and how it came into their possession?

There was an old dock in use twenty years ago. It fell into disuse, and was filled up several years ago. The land is now occupied by a coal yard, and would require very considerable capital expenditure to make it of service. If reconstructed, the use of the dock would be limited to vessels of a small size. The second part of the question is a matter presumably for the Shipping Controller in the light of the facts just given. I have no information as to the last part of the question.

asked what action, if any, has been taken during the War to minimise the cost to the seaman of the upkeep of his kit, having regard to the rise in prices of clothing materials in this country; and what arrangements have been made towards providing him at Government expense with such additional clothing equipment as he requires to meet the exigencies of war service, whether by way of supplementing his kit or otherwise?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the practice in peace time is for the prices at which clothing is sold to the seamen to be revised annually upon the basis of actual cost. When the first revision of prices became due after the outbreak of war, the question of relieving the seamen of the full burden of the enhanced cost was considered, and it was decided that in revising the prices each year during the War the rule should be adopted not to advance the price of any article more than 10 per cent. each year, whatever the actual increase of cost might be. A revised list of prices on this basis was issued in 1915 and again last year. This year, however, it has been decided, as a further concession, not to make any increase at all in the prices, and the revised prices brought into force last year, which are generally very considerably below cost prices, will therefore continue without alteration. With regard to the second part of the question, special arrangements have been made to provide the men at Government expense with such extra clothing as is required for their protection and comfort under war conditions. For example, a gratuitous issue of warm clothing, including winter cap, woollen drawers, jerseys or cardigan, comforter, gloves, mittens, thick socks and stockings has been made each winter to men serving afloat in home waters and on other cold stations. Conversely, special light clothing has been approved to be supplied to men on tropical stations. The establishments of protective clothing, such as Duffel suits or coats, oilskin suits, sea boots, and watch coats, carried by His Majesty's ships for issue on loan to ships' companies, have been considerably increased in order to provide for all contingencies. Every man is supplied with a life-saving belt, and special protective equipment is provided for use as necessary.

Would it not be possible for the Government to provide for the upkeep of men's clothing?

That raises a very large question.

asked whether there is one supreme naval commander of the Allied naval forces in the Mediterranean; if so, whether, with due regard to national safety, he can state that officer's name; and, if there is no such supreme command, whether the position will be reconsidered with the view of strengthening the combined naval efforts of the Allies?

The supreme naval command in the Mediterrannean is in the hands of Vice-Admiral Gauchet, the French Commander-in-Chief.

asked why petty officers and men of the Navy who have completed time for pension since the outbreak of hostilities only receive an extra 2d. a day detained pay and, in the case of petty officers, only receive the extra allowance. on their pensions for petty time in addition to detained pay, while petty officers and men who completed time for pension before the outbreak of hostilities and have been called up for service receive their full rate of pension in addition to the full pay and allowance for which they are qualified; and whether the Board of Admiralty will now allow petty officers and men who have completed time for pension since the outbreak of hostilities to draw their pensions in addition to their full pay and allowances, in a similar manner to petty officers and men who completed time for pension before the outbreak of hostilities?

The position of men who have completed time for pension since the outbreak of war is receiving the consideration of the Board.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the extent of the naval co-operation in the recent coastal battle on 11th July at Lombartzyde, when our military forces had to yield ground on the coast?

My right hon. Friend the First Lord is not prepared to discuss this question in public, as it is obviously not in the public interest to give such information to our enemies.

asked whether members of the Royal Naval Air Service are allowed to go up and attack enemy aeroplanes whilst flying over land or only over the sea?

The Royal Naval Air Service work in the closest co-operation with the Royal Flying Corps in regard to home defence, and invariably attack enemy aircraft whenever and wherever seen.

Does that answer my question?

Certainly.

They are allowed to attack over land and sea?

Certainly.

asked whether the aeroplanes that escorted Princess Mary on her journey to Southend-on-Sea were fighting aeroplanes?

I am informed that Princess Mary was not escorted by any aeroplanes of the Royal Plying Corps.

Can the hon. Gentleman account for the fact how all the London newspapers stated that she was?

I am responsible only for my own office.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether members of the Royal Flying Corps are allowed to attack enemy aeroplanes whilst flying over the sea or only over the land?

The Royal Flying Corps are allowed to attack hostile aircraft over land or sea.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient cohesion between the naval and the land Aid Services?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a large number of aeroplanes have recently been out of action owing to the lack of spare parts; whether the manufacturers are instructed to supply a sufficient number of spare parts for every machine made; and will he say who is responsible for deciding that the proportion of spare parts is requisite and for seeing that such a proportion is consistently maintained?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part of the question, the proportion of spare parts per machine is decided by the two Services, who prepare the schedule referred to. Additional spares required for the further maintenance of machines beyond the original spares are ordered by the Supply Department on receipt of requisitions from the Services.

Is it a fact that this shortage of spares is affecting the training of our pilots, and also that several brand-new machines, such as Spads, have recently been dismantled in order to provide requisite spares for similar machines?

Every effort is being made to effect a remedy, but the large number of new machines has overtaken the supply of spares, which were not available. Everything is being done, however, to ensure a supply.

Does the hon. Gentleman think there is sufficient cohesion between the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Flying Corps?

Yes, Sir; but that does not arise out of this question.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information concerning the impending Conference of the Allies in Paris to consider the military and political situation in the Balkans; and whether the same Conference will consider, at the request of Russia, the existing treaties, other than the Pact of London, which the Provisional Government of Russia desires should be reconsidered?

I have no information to give as to the subjects which will be discussed at the approaching Paris Conference beyond that which is already in the hon. Gentleman's possession.

asked whether a date has yet been fixed for the Conference in Paris to reconsider the peace aims of the Allied Powers; and whether the representatives of the American Government and of the Belgian and Servian Governments have been invited to attend this Conference?

No date has yet been fixed.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered or attempted to answer the latter part of my question whether the representatives of the American Government and the Governments of Belgium and Serbia have been invited to attend the Conference?

The day has not been fixed. The whole suggestion comes from Russia, and presumably the invitation will be a Russian invitation. Nothing, so far as I am aware, has been settled on the point to which the hon. Member refers. A great deal obviously turns upon the date on which the Conference is to be held.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that Lord Hardinge will not be sent to this Conference?

That does not arise out of this question.

asked whether the King of Greece has committed any breach of constitutional conduct; and, if so, whether the Allies will consent to his continued occupancy of the throne of Greece?

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the new King of Greece has refused to sign a decree presented to him by M. Venizelos summoning the Greek Chamber; and whether he will make a full and frank statement on the situation in Greece and the Balkans on the Vote of Credit?

I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 17th instant. That reply by my right hon. Friend (Lord R. Cecil) was in the following terms: "Greece is at present in process of settling down to a constitutional regime after the abnormal events of the last two years. I do not think anything would be gained by discussing points of detail during this period of transition." I must ask the House to accept that.

Are we to take it as a point of detail that this new King, who was nominated by the late King Constantine, has refused to sign a decree call- ing the Greek Chamber which was laid before him by M. Venizelos? Is that a point of detail?

The point is entirely covered, really, by my answer. The point is this, that it is not in the interests of Greece that her affairs during this period of transition should be discussed in foreign Parliaments.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not make any statement as to the situation in Greece on any condition on the Vote of Credit?

That must depend on what the condition is, and what statement it is possible to make. That is quite a different thing from answering questions put on the responsibility of hon. Members dealing with separate details, which I do not think it is in the interests of Greece should be discussed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he considers that it is in the interests of Greece that this nephew of the Kaiser should refuse to obey the Constitution?

What has that got to do with the question on the Paper? My sole point is this: Greece is working out, and rapidly working out, and I believe successfully working out, her own salvation. Do not hamper her task.

rose —

Order.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this country under two Treaties has guaranteed to Greece Constitutional Government, and is he supporting the new King in making the Government unconstitutional?

It is because we have guaranteed Constitutional Government to Greece that I make this appeal to the House.

asked why a passport to Canada has been refused to Mr. J. Hunt, 111, Mersey Street, Warrington, whose wife and seven children are living near Toronto, and who is anxious to join his family, seeing that this man is over military age and his application for a passport was endorsed by the Mayor of Warrington; and whether the decision of the passport office will be reconsidered?

Mr. Hunt, whose age is forty-four, is domiciled in this country and is engaged in useful employment here. His application was considered by the Director-General of National Service, and was refused in accordance with the general policy that British subjects engaged in or capable of work of national importance should not be granted passports for purposes of emigration at the present time. If there are any special or urgent circumstances connected with the case it will be again considered, if further representations are made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many natives are on the million acres of native reserve land which it is proposed to alienate from the reserve areas; and what steps have been taken to provide new areas for and compensate the natives in the event of their ejection?

The decrease in the total area of the reserves is the result of a number of adjustments in different places, and it is difficult to give the exact number of natives affected. The total existing reserves are about 20,000,000 acres, with a population of about 400,000, giving about 50 acres of land per head. The rearrangements recommended by the Commission involved reductions of 6,000,000 acres and increases of 5,000,000. The resulting changes have engaged the careful attention of the Commission, and I would refer the hon. Member for details to their Report, which will shortly be laid.

Is it not a fact that the area of native reserves in Rhodesia is considerably greater than the area of reserves in any other territory in South Africa, with the exception of one Protectorate in which the climate is largely unsuitable for Europeans?

I would not like to commit myself exactly to that, but I believe that it is true.

asked whether the Rhodesian Chartered Company's claim to the commercial ownership of the entire land of Rhodesia, with the exception of land alienated to white men, also includes the claim to the commercial ownership of the whole of the native reserves; and whether, as stated by Sir Starr Jameson, His Majesty's Government has sanctioned cutting down these reserves by over a million acres, which will be immediately at the disposal of the public in the interests of the commercial accounts of the chartered company?

The company's claim no doubt extends both to land within and without the reserves. Whether they own it as a private or only as a public asset is a question for the Privy Council to decide.

Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that this land will not be alienated until that question has been settled?

No; I do not think it possible to give any such guarantee, but the whole question of what can be done will, I imagine, follow the decision on a reference to the Privy Council.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Government has given its sanction? He did not reply to the latter part of the question, but I assume that no such sanction has yet been given.

I think that no sanction has yet been given, definitely.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any intimation has been definitely conveyed to the sugar growers of the Empire that on the cessation of hostilities they will be granted a preference in the market of the United Kingdom over sugar produced in Germany and Austria?

I am not aware that any definite intimation of the kind referred to has been conveyed to sugar growers.

Is it not time to let the Dominions know that they will receive this definite preferential treatment over Germany and Austria at the end of the War?

That raises a great question of policy.

Are we on the side of the Colonies or on the side of the Germans—that is what I want to know?

As sugar is such an important article of food, is it not time that this Government should take steps to have sugar beet grown in the United Kingdom?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that a steamer has just arrived in this country from the States with wheat and flour; if he is aware that the Ministry of Shipping charged no less than 93s. 5d. per ton on wheat and 108s. 9d. on flour; if he is aware that the amount paid to the company owning the vessel for this service was 10s. per ton on time basis; if he is aware that every extra 10s. per ton charged for carrying wheat to this country is an extra charge of at least one halfpenny upon a 4-lb. loaf; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (1) if the steamship "Westmoor" recently completed a voyage under the direction of the Ministry with a cargo of wheat from a northern range United States of America port to the United Kingdom; whether the receivers of the cargo were the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Messrs. Spillers and Baker, Limited, and Messrs. Sclater and Procter; whether this wheat cargo was in fact for the account of the Wheat Commission; if so, why was the freight fixed by the Ministry at 19s. 3d. per quarter, or about 89s. per ton, while the amount paid to the company owning the vessel was about 9s. per deadweight ton on time basis for this six-weeks' round voyage; for what reason the consumers of wheat in England are deprived of the benefit of the 9s. and are saddled with the burden fixed by the Ministry at 89s. per ton and collected by the Ministry on this basis; (2) whether the steamship "Exmoor" recently arrived in a United Kingdom port from the other side of the Atlantic with a cargo of wheat and flour, the rate of freight on which was fixed and charged by the Ministry of Shipping at 20s. 3d. per quarter, or 93s. 5d. per ton on the wheat and 108s. 9d. on the flour; whether the amount paid to the company owning the vessel for this service was about 10s. per ton on time basis for this seven weeks' round voyage; whether there was any precedent in 1914, 1915, or 1916 for a toll of 93s. 5d. per ton on imported American or Canadian wheat or 108s. 9d. on flour; and for what reason the Ministry exacted this toll from the British consumer?

These three questions deal with the same point, namely, the allegation that the Ministry of Shipping is charging an excessive freight rate on grain from North America. As I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, on 11th July, the course taken in making these entries on the bill of lading, for which there are good and sufficient reasons, entails no burden on the consumer in this country, who pays the actual cost of carriage and no more.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say if there are two prices charged in the shops, one for bread, wheat or flour which comes by these ships, and another price for bread, wheat or flour which comes by neutral or other ships?

No; there is one price only charged by the Wheat Commission to the consumer. It is the actual cost of the food itself, plus the actual cost of the carriage.

Then why is the price of the 4-lb. loaf so high at the present time?

Is it not the case that the food brought on British ships is charged more than the actual 9s. paid for carriage?

I have said again and again that the Wheat Commission charge the actual net cost of carrying the goods.

But if 9s. only is paid to the carriers, 9s. is the cost of the carriage?

Whatever the actual cost is, that is paid by the Wheat Commission, and no more.

Is it not the case that the figure charged by the Shipping Controller is an artificial charge, and that the actual charge is 9s., which is paid to the shipowner?

I have tried to explain, as clearly as words at my command will allow, that the figure in the bill of lading is a purely fictitious figure— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—put in for reasons which I shall be pleased to explain to my hon. Friend or any hon. Member, and if that answer will not give satisfaction, I am sure another question will be put on the Paper.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly explain, if the freight is so low, why the price of the 4-lb. loaf is so high?

As my hon. Friend knows, and I have stated quite clearly to this House, the actual freight on corn is not a substantial factor in the cost of bread.

Who is getting the difference between the pre-war rate of 6s. and the present price? Is it the shipowner or the Government, or are the consumers paying?

No one has got any such difference as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Was not the pre-war rate 6s., whereas now it is over 90s.?

Further questions should be put down.

asked whether at the outbreak of war the Colonial Office consented to finance the war operations of the British South Africa (Chartered) Company; if so, how much has been advanced to the company up to the present time; on what conditions; and whether the advances made are to be returned or are in any way made a charge on the company's income or properties?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but advances have been made to the company from time to time in respect of extraordinary war expenditure on the same terms in regard to interest as advances to the Dominions. The amount advanced to date is £700,000. The question of the responsibility for such expenditure remains to be settled, and the advances have been made without prejudice to the ultimate settlement of this question.

Is it not a fact that the British South Africa Company has not itself engaged in any military operations at all, but that the forces which it has always maintained have been taken over and used by the Crown for military operations?

What was the extraordinary war expenditure which they have got to deal with?

The hon. Member must not take me as assenting to the statement that the company entered into extraordinary war expenditure as such. That question will come up later; but the expenditure that has been incurred is in connection with the policing of the borders of the protectorate between German East Africa and Rhodesia during the continuance of hostilities in the former country.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether drafts for the infantry are being made from men in the Royal Army Medical Corps at Blackpool who joined that service on conscientious grounds and are deprived of the opportunity of stating a case before a tribunal?

Instructions have been issued under which any men drafted from the Royal Army Medical Corps who claim to be conscientious objectors to combatant service will have their claims investigated, and if they are substantiated the men will be transferred either to the Non-Combatant Corps or back to the Royal Army Medical Corps.

By whom are these things to be investigated?

By the War Office.

Is that retrospective?

Yes.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of James Brightmore, who was confined in a pit 12 feet below the level of the ground for eleven days and nights in Cleethorpes Camp, and for four days of that time obliged to stand ankle deep in mud and water; and whether, if this form of punishment is considered excessive and unjust, any redress will be given to the man who has suffered it?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now make his promised full statement on the Brightmore case?

The allegations made are substantially correct, I regret to say, and the case arose firstly because Private Brightmore was not given the option of trial by court-martial, but dealt with summarily by his Commanding Officer; and secondly, because, having been awarded detention he was not committed to a detention barrack in accordance with regulated proceedings. My hon. Friends will be glad to learn that the matter was brought to the attention of the Director of Personal Services on the 28th June, and on the same day that officer caused the dispatch of a staff officer to Cleethorpes Camp to specially investigate and interview Private Bright-more, as also any more conscientious objectors who might be with that unit, and to hear their complaints. As a result the irregularities immediately ceased. I would add that the Army Council take a grave view of the action of the authorities responsible for these irregularities, and are considering what further action in the matter will be appropriate.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the question of making any amends to this man for the torture which he has suffered, and would it not be humane to liberate him immediately?

May we take it that my hon. Friend's answer means that the officers responsible for this will be brought to severe punishment? And, without pressing him to-day, will he be prepared to make a further statement on the question to the House?

I do not think that I can reasonably be expected to add anything further to the latter part of my answer, in which I say that the Army Council take a grave view of the action of the responsible authorities.

Who are these officers?

Those primarily responsible would be the brigadier-general and the officer commanding the battalion.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question, whether any redress will be given to the man who has suffered this illegal punishment—that is down on the Paper?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has any knowledge of death sentences being passed upon men in France who have overstayed their leave at home; and whether he will state what punishment is usually given for such conduct?

In view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Army Act, such a situation as is suggested by my hon. Friend cannot arise. The punishments suitable will be found by reference to paragraph 583 (11) of the King's Regulations, and the degree of severity depends upon the attendant circumstances.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether promotions in the Yeomanry are being antedated to 1914 and those in the Artillery only to 1916; and, if so, why both are not placed on the same footing?

Substantive promotions are being carried out from the same date in each of the two arms mentioned. In some cases the "Gazette" notice includes the retention of a temporary rank from a back date.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Henry Degwell, No. 37735, E Company, South Staffordshire Regiment, was enlisted at Lichfield, and has since been sent overseas, although he was under treatment for tuberculosis at the time when called up for military service; and whether, in view of Army Order 908, of 1916, he will order the return to England and discharge of this man so as to save him from further strain upon his health as well as to avoid the chances of infection of his companions in arms?

The medical authorities in France have been instructed to arrange for this man to be medically boarded with a view to his return to England for discharge. I am making further inquiries as to the circumstances in which he came to be accepted for service.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that the men on the labour battalion transport work at Dunkirk are compelled to work under conditions that does not obtain in the port of Le Havre; whether, having regard to the fact that these men, who are dockers and many of whom are sixty years of age, are constantly working in the danger zone, subjected to air raids and bombardment from the enemy, making adequate sleep and rest impossible, have still to work seven days a week, and are frequently even without bread, he will take immediate steps to remedy a state of affairs causing discontent among the men?

I understand that these labour men work continuously in shifts of eight and a half hours, with a rest of half an hour. This arrangement was made at the request of the men. The weekly day of rest has lapsed on some occasions recently owing to stress of work, but will be resumed when conditions permit. No complaints as to food have been received in respect of the units which I understand my hon. Friend to have in mind.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether a man who was rejected by an Army medical board on 8th March, 1916, but not given a rejection paper, and was given absolute exemption on grounds of ill-health by a military Service tribunal on 23rd March, 1916, is not liable to be called up under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, as it is understood was stated by the chairman of the London Appeal Tribunal on Thursday last after consultation with the military authorities?

The Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, applies only to men who were previously excepted from, and therefore not liable for, military service. The fact that the man to whom my hon. Friend refers obtained exemption from the tribunal in March, 1916, appears to indicate that he was not excepted from liability, since if he had not been liable there could have been no reason for his applying for, or obtaining, exemption. It was decided by the High Court in a test case that rejection did not necessarily involve discharge from military service. If this man is not a man to whom the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, is applicable his certificate of exemption remains valid unless and until withdrawn by the tribunal. If, however, he was in March, 1916, in fact an excepted man and not liable for military service, the certificate granted by the tribunal had no validity, since it was a purported exemption from a liability to which he was not subject. In this case he is liable to be sent a notice under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, upon which he has the right of making a new application to the tribunal within thirty days of the notice. If my hon. Friend will give particulars of the man in question inquiries can be made as to his exact position.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War, whether he is aware that a draft is being sent on foreign service from the horse transport section, Army Service Corps, stationed at Blackheath, without any of the men included having had an overseas leave; if he is aware that the last draft sent on foreign service from this unit was sent under similar conditions with regard to overseas leave; and whether he will endeavour, if reasonably possible, to get the departure of the present draft delayed until the men have had an opportunity of visiting their families?

I understand that the men of this draft who are under orders for overseas have been given embarkation leave A smaller draft under orders has also been given three days' leave, but owing to their special destination I regret this cannot be extended. The last draft left without special embarkation leave owing to their being urgently required overseas, and I am sorry that this cannot always be avoided.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he will take action to redress the grievance of a soldier who, after passing the trade test for the Mechanical Transport Department at South Farnborough, was sent for to see an officer, who asked him if he would sign for a period of four years followed by four years in the Reserve instead of for the duration of the War, the inducement held out to the soldier by the officer in question being that men who enlisted for four years followed by four years in the Reserve would belong to the Royal Flying Corps, and if any men had to be transferred from the Royal Flying Corps into the infantry it would not be the men who so enlisted but those who had enlisted for the duration of the War, the men enlisting for four years being subject to transference into the Navy alone, if transferred at all, whereupon the soldier signed on for the longer period in response to the inducement held out to him, and yet has just recently been transferred into the Infantry?

I think that the man to whom my hon. Friend refers must have been taken for the normal period of service in peace. I have no information as to what took place at the interview, but I am afraid that the man must have got a wrong impression of what was said to him, as all officers of the Royal Flying Corps who deal with recruits have been aware of the provisions of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the House of Commons Tribunal on 21st June, at which the military representative stated that the authorities had power under an Order in Council to send a calling-up notice to men whose appeals were still pending and to insist on its taking effect; and whether, in view of the instructions in the Notes on Administration that no man can be called to the Colours until his case is finally disposed of, he will take steps to inform the military representatives and the public accordingly?

I am informed that no such statement as is attributed to the military representative at the House of Commons Tribunal was made by him on the 21st June or at any other time. It is a fact, however, and was applicable to a case before the tribunal on that date, that where a man's application has once been finally disposed of by the tribunal, an application for a rehearing does not preclude the man being called up and that under the Additional Regulations for tribunals under the Military Service Acts, 1916, made by Order in Council on the 23rd February, 1917, a case cannot be reheard after a notice has been sent to the man calling him up for service with the Colours except with the consent of the Army Council.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the practice of the War Office which forbids a-la-suite officers to give a certificate as to the physical condition of any man likely to be brought before a tribunal; whether this prevents men getting medical certificates from their own doctors; and whether he will take steps to have this injustice removed?

There is no objection to such officers furnishing statements as to the physical condition of individuals for the information of Medical Boards to assist them in forming an opinion.

Is it not the case that the Army Council Instruction forbids any Royal Army Medical Corps officer giving a certificate regarding a man's illness?

I believe that is so.

Will the hon. Gentleman not see that the opinion is available to the Board when the Royal Army Medical Corps officer in civil practice has been medically attending on the man affected?

My personal view is the request is a very reasonable one, and I will call the attention of the Department to it.

The hon. Gentleman promised the House, in connection with the Revision of Exceptions Bill, that medical certificates would be taken into consideration by medical boards, and how can those certificates be obtained if Army doctors are prevented from giving them?

My hon. Friend's suggestion does not refer to medical boards, and, if he will read the question, which gave me a great deal of trouble this morning, he will see it refers to medical certificates before tribunals. I gave him a definite answer.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the practice of allowing officers in charge of drafts travelling long distances of incurring expenses in refreshments has been stopped; and, if so, why has this action been taken?

I am not sure to what my hon. Friend refers, and I have written to him for further particulars.. I will look into the matter on receipt of his reply.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a non-commissioned officer who is recommended by his commanding officer for a commission receives his pay as a noncommissioned officer during the time he is at an officers' training school?

Subject to certain conditions, as regards acting rank, the reply is in the affirmative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the agreement as to prisoners recently concluded provisionally at The Hague Conference has yet been ratified by the German Government; and whether he is now in a position to communicate its terms to this House?

The answer is in the negative. The British Minister at The Hague will let us know as soon as he hears that the agreement has been ratified.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can give any explanation of the circumstances under which two German officers recently escaped from Donington Hall; how many previous escapes from the same place have been recorded; whether prisoners are at any time given permission to go outside the grounds of Donington Hall; whether they are allowed to receive civilian visitors; can he say how the escaped prisoners came to be supplied with civilian clothing, and will an inquiry be ordered into the present administration of Donington Hall?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the three inmates of Donington Hall who escaped on Saturday last have now been recaptured: if so, will he say whether they will as a punishment be confined in cells 6 feet by 9 feet, as are-British officers who attempt to escape in Germany; will he explain how these officers have been described as having made their escape in civilian clothes; and will he arrange to dress officer prisoners whose uniforms are no longer serviceable in disused scarlet serge or some similar noticeable uniform?

I am informed by the military authorities that they have not yet received a report from the Commandant of the Camp at Donington Hall as to the circumstances under which German officers have recently escaped from that camp or how they obtained civilian clothing. All German officer prisoners are obliged to wear uniform under all circumstances. Two of the three officers have already been recaptured. Four officers escaped or attempted to escape from Donington Hall in 1915. In accordance with a reciprocal agreement with the German Government, prisoners at Donington Hall are permitted to go out-side the grounds on parole, and are accompanied by an officer and an orderly. Permission is given at the discretion of the Commandant for these prisoners to receive civilian visitors. The recaptured officers will, on conviction, be sentenced to an appropriate term of military confinement at Chelmsford. The question of an inquiry will be considered on the receipt of the Commandant's report.

Are we to understand that it takes over a week to bring a letter from Donington Hall to the War Office, and that the War Office does not immediately ask for an explanation; and, further, can he say, as Donington Hall is surrounded by barbed wire which is connected with electricity which gives a great alarm if touched, how were these officers able to get outside the immediate grounds of the house and outside the whole estate?

I presume it is the duty of the Commandant to report at the earliest possible opportunity. I am afraid I can only repeat the information that is supplied to me.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those German prisoners are allowed to receive private parcels from Germany?

All prisoners, officers and men, are allowed to receive parcels in both countries.

May I ask whether he has sufficiently assured himself that the German authorities are adhering to the terms of the agreement referred to?

I know that in a great many places they are. I have not heard any complaints that they are not—at any rate recently.

Are German prisoners allowed to receive parcels not only from Germany, but from persons in this country?

Yes, I believe they are.

Is it not the case that all such parcels are most carefully examined at Donington Hall before they are delivered?

Certainly.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any contracts or orders to provide troops with goods of any description have been given to the firm of J. Lyons and Company, Limited, since their conviction for supplying putrid meat to the troops at White City, Hammersmith, early in 1915; if so, what was the nature and character of the contracts or orders so given?

Invitations to tender for Army contracts were withheld from this firm after the occurrence referred to until April last, when it was decided again to allow them an opportunity of competing. They now bold a contract for baking bread from Government flour for the troops at various stations.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any information concerning the present place of internment in Turkey of General Townshend; and whether he has any news concerning the state of the General's health?

I am informed by the military authorities that, so far as they are at present aware, General Townshend is interned at Constantinople, and that his state of health appears to be excellent.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can state at whose instance the order was given to the Press to suppress in the report of the meeting addressed by the Minister of Munitions at Plumstead the fact that Sir William Robertson also appeared and spoke; and whether the reason can be given for this suppression; (2) whether he attended on Friday evening a meeting of munition workers; whether he was accompanied by Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff; and whether he gave directions to the Press Bureau that no full or uncensored accounts of this meeting should appear in the Press?

asked the Undersecretary of State for War (1) whether it is part of the duties of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to address meetings; whether Sir William Robertson frequently addresses meetings at the wish of the Army Council or on his own initiative; in particular, why he went on Friday evening last to address a meeting at Woolwich; and whether in future Sir William Robertson will be instructed to make fewer public speeches; (2) whether he is aware that a meeting of Woolwich munition workers was addressed last Friday evening by the Minister of Munitions and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff; whether the instructions given by the Press Bureau were to prevent Sir William Robertson's name being mentioned in this connection; if so, at whose request was this direction given; and what reason can be given for the reticence shown concerning this meeting?

My right hon. Friend the late Minister of Munitions asked Sir William Robertson to accompany him to Woolwich to a meeting of munition workers and to address them. At first Sir William Robertson expressed unwillingness to comply, but he consented on being assured that it was in the public interest that he should do so. He compiled some notes of what he proposed to say, and at the request of my right hon. Friend he gave them in advance to the Press Association. He intended to express to the meeting the thanks of the Army for the work they had done, and to impress upon them the necessity for continuing to produce the maximum output of munitions. In face, however, of the interruptions to which he was subjected Sir William Robertson failed to deliver his speech. Accordingly he asked the Press Bureau to tell the Press to refrain from publishing the speech; and as he understood that the interruptions which brought about the failure were not concerned with himself, he informed the Press Bureau also that he thought it better that no mention of his share in the visit should be made. An erroneous impression might easily have been created that the interruptions indicated an attitude on the part of the meeting either critical of or hostile to the soldiers whom he was representing on the occasion. I should add that no instructions on the subject were given to the Press Bureau by the Minister of Munitions.

May I ask whether it is considered by the Government in the public interest to limit the liberty of the Press, and whether this tamer of Hindenburg is anything but a muzzler of the Press?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for more aeroplanes, he can give any reason why the workers in the aeroplane shops of certain large factories in Birmingham, Bolton, and elsewhere are now on short time?

There are two contractors for aeroplanes in Birmingham, and both have a large number of aeroplanes on order. In Bolton there are no aeroplane factories. As regards the rest of the country, there are a few cases where the work on certain components is ahead of the work on other components, and this unbalancing may cause some temporary diminution in the working hours on this particular operation or process. This is not singular to aeroplane factories, but occurs to a slight extent in all industries.

Have the Government any idea of the output of aeroplanes in Germany; if so, are they keeping pace with them?

That question had better, I think, be put down.

asked the Under-secretary of State for War whether he is aware that discontent exists over the prolonged delay on the part of the War Office in giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee which recently considered the question of promotions in regard to Reserve of Officers, Special Reserve, and Territorial officers; whether he is aware that numerous cases exist of such officers attached to Regular regiments who have served for eighteen months and upwards at the front who have been decorated for their services, and during that period frequently held the post of acting captain, have received no substantive promotion and are often reverted to positions of second-lieutenant and placed under officers who have seen little or no active service but are Regular officers in the regiments to which they are attached; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I will lay the Report on the Table to-morrow with a note showing how far the recommendations have been approved by the Government.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that any attempt to leave Ireland out of the Representation of the People Bill will be resented by all classes in Ireland; and if he will state the Government's proposals in the matter?

I think the hon. Member had better wait till we come to that part of the Bill.

asked the Prime Minister if the Government have set up a Committee to consider the question of local government after the War and, if so, what are the references to such a Committee; and can he state the names of the persons appointed on it?

I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to an un-starred question which appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset on Monday last.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need to avoid waste of public time and money and to prevent the removal of public servants from their posts to give evidence, and in order not to commence a lengthy series of inquiries, he will submit the following issue to the House: namely, whether it accepts generally the findings of the Commission it appointed to inquire into the Mesopotamia Expedition; and whether it resolves, while forbidding the further employment in high and independent office of the head of the Indian Administration and of the head, under him, of the Indian military authorities, to leave the other military officers concerned to be tried by courts-martial at their own option or at that of their immediate superiors?

asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be afforded the House to vote on the question of the proposed Commission in regard to Mesopotamia?

The Government has given further attention to the question of the action which it ought to take in regard to individuals whose conduct was criticised in the Mesopotamia Commission's Report.

In view of the considerations urged during the recent Debates, and the objections raised to further inquiry (as a preliminary to executive action) in the case of the persons implicated in this Report, whether the inquiry were by any existing tribunal or by a Special Statutory Court to be set up for this purpose, His Majesty's Government has decided not to proceed further with their former suggestion.

In coming to this decision they have also been influenced by the undesirability of diverting the thought and energies of the Legislature and Executive, at this critical time, from the prosecution of the War. As regards the soldiers, the Government have decided that they should be dealt with by the Army Council in the ordinary way. The decision of the Army Council as to the action taken by them will be announced as soon as possible.

As regards Lord Hardinge, the Government, on the representations of the Foreign Secretary, who alone is in a position to judge, has decided that it would be detrimental to the public interest if the Foreign Office should be deprived, at the present juncture, of the services of Lord Hardinge as Permanent Under-Secretary of State, and has, therefore, refused his resignation, which has been for the third time proffered.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give an early opportunity to the House of Commons to review that decision?

As I stated, in answer to a question, one of the reasons for the decision is that in our opinion, after the two days' recent Debate, sufficient time has been occupied with the subject. There are opportunities open to the House in the ordinary way. The Adjournment, for instance, can be moved or a vote of censure on the Government can be moved; but, so far as we are concerned, we do not think any good will be obtained from further discussion.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Lord Hardinge, who has done much service before, has not added to those services by offering his resignation, and will he not reconsider this the only feature connected with this matter which does not give general satisfaction?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate the services of the late Secretary of State for India?

I have already stated that if it had been in the power of the Government to refuse the resignation of my right hon. Friend we should have done so. It is in our power to refuse this resignation, and I have now announced the decision of the Government.

I beg to give notice that at the conclusion of questions to-day I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, as suggested by the Leader of the House, in order to raise the question whether the resignation of Lord Hardinge ought not to be accepted.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of Lord Hardinge's retention in the Foreign Office, as the friend and confidante of the late Czar, will have on the American people?

I do not see how that question can possibly arise. Whatever justification there is for the desire to remove Lord Hardinge must be connected with the Mesopotamia Report, and the raising of other issues is simply a proof of prejudice against him.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Lord Hardinge's twice proferred resignation was caused by circumstances which had nothing whatever to do with the Foreign Office, whether Lord Hardinge's desires were brought to his notice or before the Cabinet, or whether the refusal to accept the resignation was, as stated, the personal act of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

The refusal was the personal act of the Foreign Secretary.

Will Lord Hardinge's desire be brought once more to the notice of the Government?

Of course, the Government knew of it, and the announcement I previously made gives our decision upon it.

( at the end of Questions ): I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a -definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the refusal of His Majesty's Government to accept the resignation of Lord Hardinge."

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past eight this evening.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to publish the Memorandum submitted on the 30th January, 1914, by General Sir Beauchamp Duff's predecessor pointing out all the vital deficiencies of military preparation in India; and whether the Government of India ever transmitted this document to the Secretary of State for India or to the War Office?

As regards the publication of the document, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for India on the 10th July to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. The Memorandum was received at the India Office from the Government of India.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the House will rise for the Summer Recess?

I shall make a statement after questions in reply to a question as to the business which it is proposed to take before the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent events and discussions, he will consider whether Indian administration might profitably be the subject of consideration by a Committee of the nature of one of the reconstruction Committees now considering domestic affairs?

I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will allow a discussion on the Motion which appears in my name on the Paper on Indian Government? ["That as liberty and a free union of free peoples has been the chiefest virtue and strength of the British Empire, that as our mission to extend self-government to subject races without regard to our advantage is now fortified by the war of democracy against autocracy, that as Indian peoples in this great war against tyranny have fought and died side by side with Englishmen, therefore, in the opinion of this House, the time has again come to give proof of our faith by extending to the peoples of India a generous measure of self-government and the assured prospect of complete freedom within the union of the British Empire."]

No, Sir; I can see no opportunity of giving a day for a discussion of that subject.

asked the Prime Minister if he proposes to give the House an opportunity of discussing Indian administration at an early date either upon the Indian Budget or otherwise?

I regret that I do not think it possible to afford an opportunity for this discussion before the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the suggested reference to the proposed Committee on Finance; and whether he intends that its sittings shall commence before the Recess?

I hope that the Committee will commence its sittings before the Adjournment, and the following are the proposed terms of reference: That a Select Committee be appointed (1) to examine the expenditure which is now being defrayed put of monies provided by Parliament, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided upon by the Government may be effected therein; (2) to make recommendations in regard to the form of Parliamentary Estimates and Accounts, the system of control within the Department and by the Treasury, and the procedure of this House in relation to Supply and Appropriation, so as to secure more effective control by Parliament over public expenditure. The Committee may appoint one or more sub-Committees to investigate such matters as the Committee may deem necessary for the purpose of making such recommendations, and the Committee may appoint from outside its own body such additional members as it may think fit to serve on such Sub-Committees.

Is it proposed that this Committee shall have power to recommend the appointment of permanent Committees to supervise expenditure?

If the hon. Member will look at the second part of the terms of reference he will see that the Committee has power to make any recommendations dealing with the subject.

That subject is not, I take it, specially referred to?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the terms of reference?

Will the powers of the Committee include those to call for persons, papers etc.?

Of course; that power always rests with a Select Committee.