asked the President of the Board of Trade if the result of the arbitration between the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Dublin Port and Docks Board is yet known;and if he will state the decision of the arbitrators in the Kynochs and Arklow and Dundalk Railway workers disputes?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The arbitration awards in the cases of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Dublin Port and. Docks Board and the Dundalk Railway workers were issued to the parties on the 8th and 2nd August respectively. In the case of Messrs. Kynochs, Arklow, the award will be issued as soon as a question as to the particular classes of workers to be included has been made clear.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether on 18th January last a Glasgow firm applied to the War Trade Department for a licence to export horse-hides to America and that the application was refused; whether in reference to the above, on 17th February the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow wrote to the Department asking whether there had been a change of policy and on what grounds the application had been refused; whether, having received no reply, the hon. Member wrote again to the Department on 16th March and 10th April and finally, on 14th April, was informed that owing to War Office requirements no horse-hides could be exported; whether, in view of the fact that since January licences to export horse-hides have been issued to various firms, such as F. A. G. Medd, London, Messrs. Hermann Brothers, London, and Bernard de Jong, London, he will state the reason for this differential treatment; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the manner in which these licences have been granted or refused?

I have been asked to answer this question on behalf of the War Trade Department. I am informed by the War Trade Department that the facts stated by the hon. Member in the first two paragraphs of his question are correct. The omission to reply to the letters received 'from him before the 10th April was due in part to the loss of two experienced officers who left the Department for military service and an expression of regret was tendered to the hon. Member by a letter dated the 12th April, and was accepted. It was explained in the same letter that owing to the requirements of the War Office it was not possible to grant licences for the export of any horse hides and that the firm on whose behalf he had written was so informed in February. Upon the third paragraph I should explain that as I stated in replies to previous questions, the issue of licences for the export of horse hides is made upon the recommendation of the War Office to which the applications are referred. I understand that great importance is attached to the retention of English horse hides and that a discrimination has been made between these hides and Cape and Egyptian horse hides which have been treated as being rather in a different category. There has, therefore, been some differential treatment in the issue of some licences to the firms named in the question, and the refusal to recommend the issue of a licence upon the application of the Glasgow firm which applied to the best class of hides. The question is one of extreme difficulties for several reasons and the Order of the Army Council notified on the 10th July under which all horse and mule hides were taken over, represents a policy which could only be defined after very carefully considering the resources of the tanners and their capacity for dealing with these classes of hides. The subject has been most carefully considered and it is not thought necessary to institute any inquiry at the present time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the account which is given in the answer of the letter which was sent to me is not in accordance with the facts; that there was no mention made in that letter of two experienced officials being withdrawn, but that I was told that the officials who were responsible for the delay had been severely censured; further, is he aware that this Department is dealing with trade amounting to many million pounds sterling, and that the doubt which has arisen as to its impartiality in this matter has caused great disturbance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—in the commercial classes who are affected, and will he grant an inquiry into the matter?

That is in the nature of an argument.

I was not aware of the group of facts as stated by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should explain that the War Trade Department is not under the control of the Board of Trade. The position is rather an anomalous one for me. I have been requested to answer questions in this House for the War Trade Department. The representations the hon. Member has just made to me shall be made the subject of inquiry. I am very anxious that I shall not be expected to make replies in the House which cannot be substantiated.

Can the hon. Gentleman state which Department is specifically responsible?

I am really in some doubt myself. The Department that seems to be more closely attached is the Blockade Department of the Foreign Office, but I will inquire as to which Department the responsibility is attached.

Is the Government in doubt as to whether it has control over this Department?

No, Sir; there is no doubt about the Government having control. The only question is which Department should accept responsibility.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether railway fares have been increased in Ireland; and, if so, have they been increased to the same extent as in Great Britain?

The issue of excursion and other classes of cheap tickets has been discontinued in Ireland, but the increase of 50 per cent. in ordinary railway fares is not operative there.

Why are Irishmen allowed to get off helping to pay for the preservation of the Empire as well as to get off fighting for it?

The 50 per cent. increase of fares was never intended for revenue purposes. It was purely a restrictive device, and it was not felt to be necessary in the case of Ireland.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the complaints made by munition workers and others as to the overcrowding and want of passenger accommodation in third-class carriages on the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company's trains from London stations to the Woolwich district; is he aware that on these trains there are many empty first-class carriages not allowed to be used; and will he instruct the Railway Committee to specially inquire into this matter at once and also provide further third-class carriages?

No recent complaints about the Woolwich train service have been made to me, but, in view of the special difficulties under which the working of traffic in that district is necessarily conducted in present circumstances, I am afraid that overcrowding cannot be altogether avoided. I am, however, sending the railway company a copy of the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade if fourteen members belonging to the National Union of General Workers employed at the Tower Collieries, Hirwain, South Wales, received fourteen days' notice to leave their employment because they refused to leave the union, of which they had been members for many years; and if he will take action in the matter?

I have been asked to reply to this question. No intimation of the dispute referred to has been received at the Ministry of Labour, but inquiries are being made into the matter.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Timber Supply Committee propose training women as timber measurers; whether there are experienced men available who are over military age; and, if so, whether these men will be given the opportunity to fill the positions and save the expense of training women while this labour can be obtained?

In view of the scarcity of timber workers, a limited number of women are being trained experimentally as timber measurers and clerks and as cutters of pit-wood and tops, both of which are comparatively light occupations. Men with timber-working experience are required for work of a more arduous nature for which women are unfitted, and applications from men timber measurers-are being absorbed as vacancies occur.

Are these men being given all the opportunities that can be given them of filling these positions or have they been excluded from applying?

I understand that there is a real demand for their labour and that they are given opportunities.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the National Service Department asked the Royal borough of Salford for volunteers to work on the land, and that 600 or 700 men volunteered; whether the farmers in the district refused to employ them, and what steps the Department now proposes to take?

The Board are not aware of the position referred to in the first two parts of the question, but are making inquiries.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service if he will give a Return of full-time and part-time officers employed in connection with the Department in Wales whose salaries are £200 and upwards?

Eight officers, whose salaries are £200 per annum or over, are employed by the National Service Department in Wales. They include one agricultural Commissioner at £500, three agricultural Sub-commissioners at £250, and four sub-area substitution officers at £260 per annum.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give the names and the salaries as signed to each?

I have given the salaries, but I am afraid I must ask for notice as to the names.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service if he will state how many National Service Volunteers have been enrolled in Wales; for how many of these has employment been found; and how many persons have been released for the Army for whom substitutes have been found by the Department in Wales?

The number of volunteers enrolled in Wales is 20,231. No separate register of placings in Wales has been kept, and considerable labour would be involved in obtaining the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend. In any event the National Service Department has not the required information regarding placings prior to 1st May, up to which date the placing of National Service Volunteers was exclusively entrusted to the Employment Exchanges. If my gallant Friend particularly requires the fuller information asked for, I will endeavour to procure further details.

asked how many substitution officers and assistant officers are employed by the National Service Department; what is their remuneration; and how many substitutes have been found for men released for the Army during the month of July?

The number of substitution officers and assistant substitution officers employed by the National Service Department is 240. Of these 148 are paid by the Department salaries of £268 per annum and one of £105 per annum. Of the remainder, eighty-one are loaned to the Department and paid by the War Office, and ten are voluntary (unpaid) officers. During the month of July 1,528 substitutes were found by the Department for men released for military service.

What are these officers doing now?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Department is being reconstituted.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service if he will state the expenditure of the Department from the commencement to 1st August, and the number of men and women for whom work has been directly found by the Department?

The expenditure of the National Service Department from the commencement of the Department to 1st August was £192,709 6s. 1d. Of this, approximately £87,000 was spent on the publicity campaign under the original scheme of National Service. The number of volunteers placed in employment since the commencement of the Department is 19,951. In addition, the services of 9,817 part-time workers have been utilised, and the Department has carried out the distribution of 68,595 soldiers and civilians whose services have been lent for agricultural work. The number of women who have been placed in various forms of employment is 14,256, making a total of 112,609 men and women whose services have been utilised by the Department.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in many parts of the country, poultry keepers are unable to make use of the stubbles for poultry owing to the presence of foxes; whether the food supply of the country is thereby reduced and the shed grain largely wasted; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take?

The Board have repeatedly been in communication with the Association of Masters of Fox Hounds, through whose efforts the numbers of foxes have been kept under in districts in which they tended to become excessive. No representations have been received from poultry keepers in the sense indicated in the question, but if the hon. Member knows of any neighbourhood in which the number of foxes will make it unsafe to turn poultry on to the stubbles the Board will be very glad to take action.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the result of the ploughing trials of motor tractors at Burgess Hill, Suffolk, on 28th July, 1917; and whether, having regard to the superiority in power and efficiency and cheapness in working of the Whiting-Bull tractor as demonstrated by the tests, the Food Production Department will reconsider their views on the subject and will now purchase Whiting-Bull tractors and give equal facilities for their introduction and use to those which have been given for the Ford tractors?

My right hon. Friend has seen the reports of this test in the Press, but has no official knowledge of the results referred to in the question. No notification was made to the Board that the trial was to take place and the circumstances, as since ascertained, were not such as would justify the Board in attaching any importance to the alleged results. In reply to the second part of the question, the Food Production Department, after the most careful consideration, is unable to alter its views as to the un-suitability of the Whiting-Bull tractor to the needs of the Department, and does not propose to purchase any machines of this make.

Was this trial arranged so that all the competitors had fair notice, or has the hon. Gentleman any information as to whether it was conducted in the form of a proper trial to which any importance can be attached?

No; we have information that it was not a proper trial at all.

Has not my hon. Friend information that in the case of one tractor no notice was given of the trial which was to take place?

That is so.

Is it not the case that the trial, which took place in secret, was a bogus affair—that only one got notice, and the others had no notice at all?

I think something of the kind happened.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to a comparative test of three makes of motor tractor arranged on his own farm by the Director of the Agricultural Machinery Department; whether he is aware that the test was undertaken without the knowledge of the representatives of two of the three tractors, but within the knowledge of the third; whether one of the unrepresented tractors was required to haul horse-ploughs, whereas the represented tractor was fitted with a special machine-plough and specially prepared for the test; why these preferences were allowed by the Director of the Agricultural Machinery Department, and the result given an official complexion by publication in association with his name; and whether he is aware that such tests under such conditions are misleading, and calculated to injure the reputation of his Department for authoritative and impartial judgments upon a matter of public importance?

The incident referred to was not an official trial, but a private demonstration held at the request of a particular firm. It was not, in fact, carried out under conditions which render it possible to compare the tractors engaged, and any conclusions from it on the merits of the tractors would be misleading. No official decision or action was contemplated or taken in connection with it, and nothing was published on the subject officially or even with the consent of the Controller of the Department. I may add that the Department does not decide as to the suitability or otherwise of tractors. Such decisions are taken by the Board of Agriculture. The Department merely endeavours to provide tractors of the nature ordered by the Board of Agriculture.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to control his own director of agricultural machinery who provided this opportunity at his own farm and allowed the public to think that it was an official trial, with the result that the owner of the rival tractor has taken advantage of it to advertise the tractor all over the country?

The hon. Member is not right in his statement of facts. I understand the director did not allow the public to think as the hon. Member suggests. He allowed three tractors to run on his farm. There is, of course, no objection to that so long as it is not represented as an official test. It was not so represented.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the director has explained how he came to arrange this misleading test, how it is that publicity has been given to results which under the circumstances he must have known would have no value; and whether it is intended to retain this gentleman in his post as Director of Agricultural Machinery?

With regard to the publicity given to the matter, the Director had no hand in it, and, as I said in my answer, the publication was not done officially or even with his knowledge.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that the head of this branch of the Ministry of Munitions, who is responsible for supplying these tractors to the order of the Government, was permitted to organise what is now admitted to be a bogus trial for the purpose of pushing one make of machine and to discredit the sale of others? Does not this action show him to be quite unfit to retain his post, and is this the same Mr. S. F. Edge whose business morality was scathingly condemned by Mr. Justice Scrutton—

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the advertisement now in the papers stating that the representatives of the Ministry of Munitions and the Irish Board of Agriculture and a long list of officials were present at this trial, and by implication stating that this was the best tractor on the market?

My attention has been called to the advertisement which was unauthorised and is misleading.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that equal publicity is given to the true account of this misleading affair?

I think my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have taken the steps necessary to give publicity to the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement about the position in Greece, and especially whether Greece is at war with Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey?

Greece is at war with the Powers mentioned in the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that, as reported in the Command Paper 7860, of 1915, pages 538, et seq., telegrams vitally affecting the issue of war or peace were exchanged between the King and the Kaiser and the Czar, and that in the King's telegrams he speaks as if he assumed direction of affairs, the practice will become reestablished or re-affirmed whereby the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs communicates directly with the Governments of foreign countries?

Since no change of practice has taken place, it is plain that there is no former practice to re-establish.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Irish Trade Union Congress has decided to send delegates to the Stockholm International Conference; whether such delegates have applied for passports to go to Stockholm; and, if so, whether he intends to grant passports for this purpose?

No passports have been applied for, nor, if application were made, would they be granted.

Does that mean that the Government has decided that no passports shall in any case be granted to delegates to the Stockholm Conference?

It does not mean that. Whether that be a true statement or not it means exactly what I have said.

Why are the Irish trade unionists differently treated from British trade unionists?

I did not say they were treated differently.

Is it not a difference when you out-and-out give the Irish a refusal and do not say whether you are going to give a refusal to the British delegates or not?

The hon. Member forgets that he put the question down and the question is confined to the Irishmen. I followed the rules of Order and answered the question on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will intimate to Parliament that no British subject shall under any circumstances be permitted to meet delegates of any Allied or enemy country to discuss our sovereignty in India, Ireland, Malta, Egypt, and elsewhere, and our spheres of influence in Persia and in other countries; and what obstacle exists to adopting the attitude in this behalf publicly announced by M. Ribot to be that of the French Republic?

asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has considered their attitude to the Stockholm International Conference; whether the policy to be pursued has been discussed with, or agreed to by the Allies; and what action it is proposed to take?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his recent declaration that we cannot allow sectional organisations to direct the War nor to dictate peace, the Government will refuse to permit anyone from this country to attend the proposed sectional Conference at Stockholm?

The Law Officers have advised the Government that it is not legal for any persons resident in His Majesty's Dominions to engage in a conference with enemy subjects without the Licence of the Crown duly given. The Government have decided that permission to attend the Conference will not be granted, and the same decision has been taken by the Governments of the United States, of France and of Italy, with whom His Majesty's Government have been in communication on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the Statute or Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act or other legal enactment on which the Law Officers of the Crown have based their opinion?

I am about as competent as the hon. Member himself to criticise the law or the Law Officers, but I understand that it is done under the common law of the land.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his recent declaration that the Government would consider whether it is desirable that a member of the Government should retain a dual position, he can now inform the House of the decision of the Government on the subject?

I did not expect that my Noble Friend would put this question on the Paper in view of what has taken place since.

( later ): I beg to ask the Leader of the House—who I presume for the moment is the Prime Minister—a question of which I have given him private notice. Before doing so, I should like to explain that when I gave notice of it the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) from the War Cabinet had not been announced, nor had the letter to him from the Prime Minister been published, and as that letter of the Prime Minister to the right hon. Gentleman to some extent answers my question, I thought it right to explain before putting the question, which is, "To ask the Leader of the House whether the participation by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle in the Conference of the Labour party on Friday last and the advice which he then gave to the delegates assembled had previously received the sanction and approval of his colleagues of the War Cabinet; whether the speech he delivered on that occasion was made by him as a member of the War Cabinet or as Secretary to the Labour party; and whether the very full and explicit statement of the terms of peace which the Labour party would be willing to accept, and which it has announced will be laid before the Stockholm Conference, has been submitted to and approved by the War Cabinet; and whether they are prepared to allow the functions of the Government and Parliament as representing the whole of this nation in this vitally important matter to be usurped by any unauthorised body which, however important, can only claim to represent a section of the British people?

Any part of my hon. Friend's question which was not answered by the letter of the Prime Minister was answered by me to-day in reply to a question when I stated that the Government would not give sanction for the attendance of British subjects at any Conference with the enemy.

I understand my right hon. Friend has some statement to make about business?

It will best meet the convenience of the House, I think, if the first four Orders on the Paper are postponed. This will enable the Adjournment of the House to be moved from this bench, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) will, I understand, make his statement on the Motion for Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in the list of Allied nations to whom the King addressed messages of friendship and of encouragement on the occasion of entering upon the fourth year of war, Russia was omitted; whether it is still possible to rectify the situation caused by this omission; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take?

A message from His Majesty the King to the Russian Prime Minister and the Russian people, which has been communicated to M. Kerensky by His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd, appeared in the Press of the 8th instant.

Was the communication made at the same time that the communication was made to the other Powers?

That I am not quite sure about.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an assurance that this country will not be committed without the consent of Parliament to liability to support any present Ally in future years by armed force in the retention of territory that may be secured through conquest in the crrrnet War?

It would be an obvious waste of time to attempt to discuss questions of this nature at the present moment.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether a Memorandum of the Military Establishment Branch of the Ministry of Munitions, dated 16th May, 1917, states in effect that officers of the Territorial Force attached to the Ministry are not eligible for promotion whereas officers of the Regular or New Army are eligible; and what is the reason for the distinction?

The Memorandum in question was based upon Instructions issued by the Army Council and communicated to the Ministry for the information of any officers of the Territorial Force who happened to be serving under the Ministry. So far as concerns promotions, it deals only with Territorial officers, and no inference can be drawn from it with regard to other officers.

asked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the Clay Cross Iron Company, which is a controlled firm, are refusing to pay overtime rates in accordance with trade union rules and conditions; and will he take action in the matter?

Inquiries are being made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that Messrs. Andrew and Company, Limited, Toledo Steel Works, Sheffield, have up to the present time refused to pay the recent 3s. award granted to engineering and iron foundry firms; if he is aware that the firm in question have stated that they do not intend paying unless instructed by the Government; and will he take action in the matter?

I understand that the firm in question are not a firm of engineers, nor have they a foundry; they are not therefore directly affected by the award of 14th July. They have, however, asked for, and received, the Minister's sanction for applying the award to their men, so far as they are not men whose wages are regulated by the sliding scale.

asked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the Sheffield Gas Company, which is partially a controlled firm, are only paying the women workers 25s. 6d. per week for fifty-three hours; whether he intends insisting upon the company in question paying the woman workers in accordance with the circulars already sent out in the recent award that has been given to women for an extra 2s. 6d. per week on the present rates of pay; and will he take any action in the matter?

No gas company in Sheffield is controlled. If the question refers to the Sheffield United Gas Light Company, this is a certified undertaking. Orders applying to certified undertakings the Regulations as to women's wages which are in force in controlled establishments are now in preparation. They will include the Order prescribing the advance of 2s. 6d. per week, and will operate from 1st September.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that 130 war-time allotment holders at Deakin's Farm, Coventry Road, Birmingham, have recently received seven days' notice to quit at the instigation of the Ministry of Munitions; is he aware that this action will cause the crops which these allotments would have produced, and the labour involved, to be wasted, and that it will have the effect of lessening the food supplies of the locality which these men were encouraged to assist; is he also aware that the action of his Department was entirely unnecessary, as there is an equally suitable plot of land available for its purposes which might be acquired without any detriment to the food supply; and if will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The facts, generally, are as stated in the first part of the question. The loss of the crops is much regretted. The land in question was selected after careful consideration, and no other vacant land was equally suitable. The new works in question are urgently required to meet a highly important demand, and any alteration of site would not only cause delay, but necessitate modification of the scheme, which would cause loss of efficiency.

Has the alternative site been inspected and considered?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Munitions what area of land was taken over or arranged to be taken over by the Ministry of Munitions for the purpose of munition works and how much of this land is it now intended to retain; has compensation been paid to any of the tenants and owners dispossessed; and what is the total sum spent or contracted to be spent on the area now decided to be relinquished, including all contracts for the erection and pulling down of buildings, roads, water supply, and drainage, and the amount agreed for compensation for broken contracts and owners' and tenants' claims?

I understand that the hon. Member refers to the scheme for the construction of an explosives factory in the West of England which has been abandoned. The area of land taken over under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which is being relinquished, is 1,656 acres. It is not at present proposed to retain permanently any of the land taken over, and reinstatement is being proceeded with as speedily as possible. Arrangements are now being made for the return of the displaced tenants to their holdings, and the question of compensation is being dealt with. Compensation has already been paid to certain tenants. The total sum spent or contracted to be spent is estimated at about three million pounds. The payments already made, or about to be made, in respect to work done and material supplied amount approximately to £1,150,000, against which there will be some recovery for material and plant.

I understand most of this money is wasted. Can my hon. Friend state what the total loss of money would be?

No, I cannot state that until the account is made up.

asked why it has not been possible to publish yet the accounts of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) relating to the Carlisle area; when the Board first started operations in that area; and when it is intended to publish the account?

The Board began taking over houses at Longtown in January, 1916. The taking over of the houses in the city of Carlisle itself was spread over the period from July to November, 1916, and consequently no accounts which could be published at present could indicate the annual income of the undertaking. In these circumstances, I see no reasonable possibility of compiling anything in the nature of a statement of account at present, but the Control Board are desirous of publishing such a statement as soon as practicable.

asked whether the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) are prepared to publish accounts showing the profits earned in the case of each of the licensed houses owned by them, and showing the specific purposes to which such profits have been applied, including grants of moneys to local institutions, etc., in each local control district?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 8th instant, and to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Rush cliffe Division on the 3rd May.

Why is it not intended to give the usual full information as to how these public moneys are being applied, and why the accounts are being published in such a summarised form that no one can form a true impression of how the money is applied?

As to the form in which the accounts are published, I am assured by the Board of Control that all the information has been given which is usual in connection with similar undertakings.

Is there any objection to informing the House what profits are made in the individual houses owned by the Board, and how these profits are applied?

The view taken by the Control Board is that it is not usual to give returns in regard to individual houses, but only in regard to the undertaking as a whole.

Are not we as shareholders in this business entitled to full information?

I am most anxious that information should be given, but the information should be full.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether it is proposed to utilise horse chestnuts for the purpose of manufacturing alcohol for munitions purposes; and whether arrangements will be made for the gathering of chestnuts by school children and other voluntary workers during the autumn for that purpose?

It is proposed to use horse chestnuts for certain purposes, and arrangements are being made for collecting them.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that the Stavely Iron Works Company and the Clay Cross Iron Works Company, which are controlled firms, have not up to the present time decided to pay the recent award of 3s. granted to engineering and foundry works; if he is aware that several Chesterfield engineering works are awaiting the Ministry of Munitions' sanction to pay the award; and will he take action in the matter?

Neither the Stavely Iron Works Company nor the Clay Cross Iron Works Company are firms to which the award referred to applies. The Stavely Iron Works Company, however, received the sanction of the Minister on the 4th August to pay in accordance with the terms of the award and the Clay Cross Iron Works Company paid the advance on the 10th August for the first week in August. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am not aware of any engineering establishment in Sheffield which is awaiting the sanction of the Minister to pay in accordance with the award. The terms of the award have been communicated to all the firms concerned, and sanction to pay has been given to all who have applied for it. If my hon. Friend has information as to any firm which is still awaiting sanction and will let me know, I will have inquiries made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the recent Hague Conference concerning prisoners of war will only release 400 civilian prisoners from the Ruhleben Camp to Holland, the Government will approach other neutral countries with a view to early measures being adopted for the transfer to those countries of the British civilian prisoners still remaining in Germany, many of whom have been interned there for nearly three years?

His Majesty's Government are in full sympathy with the objects which my Noble Friend has in view, but he will appreciate the fact that by the recent Hague agreement we have assumed considerable obligations. Until the repatriation, or transfer to a neutral country, of prisoners of war under the present provisions of the agreement is advancing satisfactorily, it is thought undesirable to increase our present undertakings. In this connection I would mention that, although The Hague agreement has been ratified by both Governments, the German Government have not yet assented to the shipping arrangements for carrying it into effect, and have not yet replied to our suggestion, made so far back as 11th July, that the port of Hull should be used for this purpose.

asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the Government will now endeavour to arrange a conference with Turkey similar to that recently held at The Hague with Germany at which an agreement can be concluded for the better treatment and the exchange of prisoners of war?

This question is engaging the anxious attention of His Majesty's Government. There are, unfortunately, greater difficulties involved than existed in the case of Germany.

Can we assume that the Government view the suggestion sympathetically and that they will do their utmost to carry it out?

I think I may say confidently that they are doing their best to carry it out.

asked whether any steps are being taken, or can be taken, to effect an agreement with Austria-Hungary on the subject of prisoners of war?

If the Austro-Hungarian Government make proposals on this subject, I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government will take them into consideration. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the number of Austro-Hungarian prisoners in British hands is many times greater than that of British prisoners in Austria-Hungary.

asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) what steps have been taken to see that officers of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are included in the arrangements made for the exchange of officer prisoners who have been two years or more in captivity; and whether he will take special steps to see that claims to inclusion of these officers will not be overlooked?

I would refer the hon. Member to chapter 3, paragraph 11, of The Hague Agreement, which provides for the internment in a neutral country of officers who have been in captivity for not less than eighteen months, subject to accommodation being found for them. The Agreement mentions no particular class of officer, and it obviously includes those of the naval and military forces of the Crown, and the Admiralty are including the names of the officers of these Services in their list. There is no reason to think that this construction of the Agreement will not be accepted by the German Government.

asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether any Report has been received of an inspection of the Schwarmstedt Prisoners of War Camp in Germany by the Netherlands Government; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House?

An official of the Netherlands Legation has visited Schwarmstedt Camp, and his Report has been received. The conditions at the camp are bad in many respects. Liberal promises of improvement have, however, been made by the German authorities, and we have requested the Netherlands Minister to have the camp reinspected shortly. For reasons which I have explained to my hon. Friend, it is thought better to treat these official Reports as confidential.

Can I or any other hon. Member see confidentially the Report referred to?

I must consult my Noble Friend.

asked the Minister of Reconstruction whether the terms of reference for the Committee appointed to promote trade between Belgium and the British Empire are intended to include preferential tariff arrangements with regard to trade between the British Empire and Belgium, and include the consideration of the encouragement of Belgian shipping by coaling advantages, port facilities, and other means within the British Empire; whether he can say why no representative of the Colonial Office is included among the members of the Committee; and what steps are being taken to ascertain the views on the subject of the representatives of the Dominions governments?

The terms are very wide, and the topics referred to by my hon. Friend are certainly not excluded. The Committee is purely advisory and departmental. It has power to add to its numbers and, if it should appear to be advisable to do so, representatives of the Dominions and the Colonial Office will be added to it.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the Report of the Commissioners of Industrial Unrest on the North-East Coast which points out that the earnings of miners, owing to the absence of transport facilities, are such as fall short of a living wage, and recommend that such should be assisted by Grants; and, if so, will immediate steps be taken to give effect to such recommendation?

I have seen the Report referred to. As the Commissioners point out, the remunerative employment of the workers on some form of national work would seem to be the most appropriate remedy. Grants have, however, been made for the assistance of miners in the North-East Coast district in cases of distress.

Are the grants to be made so long as the distress continues?

Each case has to be considered, but the same policy will continue to be pursued. We hope that before long it may be possible to employ these men in some remunerative employment.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any communication from the Aldershot local tribunal regarding the action of the chief engineer at the central power station, Aldershot, in securing protection from military service for a young contractor and his single employé previously engaged on contract work at the camp; whether he is aware that these two men were added to the staff at the power station after the tribunal had considered their cases and had either rejected their appeals or intimated that there would be no further renewal of their exemption; whether he is also aware that, with the addition of these two men to the staff of the power station, two competent electricians already on the staff, both married men, had their protection from military service withdrawn; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. A complaint regarding the cases referred to was submitted to the War Office some time since by the Aldershot Tribunal, and inquiries were made. I am informed that the men who were added to the staff at the Aldershot Central Power Station were employed on quite different work requiring a different kind of skill from the men who were released for military service. The former are employed upon new work, consisting of the installation of lighting and power services in buildings newly erected. The latter were em- ployed on the maintenance of existing installations requiring a less high degree of skill and less physical strength. The release of the latter was not in consequence of the employment of the former, which, as stated, was not for work of the same nature.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many editors and leader writers have been granted exemption from military service without their individual claims being dealt with by tribunals?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 9th instant and to a written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke on the 10th; instant.

I would like to get some reply, because the last time the hon. Gentleman stated that he was unable to give me a reply, and I presumed that as the War Office could not give me a reply I should address the question to the Local Government Board.

The War Office can give no exemptions. Each case is decided by the tribunals.

Then why can I not put my question to the President of the Local Government Board?

May I point out that my hon. Friend has put his question in reference to cases which have not been dealt with by the tribunals. If they are not dealt with by the tribunals they do not come under the Local Government Board.

Then will the hon. Gentleman inquire how many editors and leader writers have secured exemption? There might be enough to win the War.

I am sure that none have been exempted by the War Office.

In the early days of the Military Service Act was there not an arrangement made between Lord Derby and the Newspaper Proprietors' Association for exemptions?

I was not aware of it.

How many of these gentlemen have been granted leave to carry on their business, like Dr. Seton Watson?

The hon. Member must give notice of that.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has observed in the Report of the Select Committee on the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act that, in spite of the Army Council Instruction issued by him when he was Secretary of State for War, secret instructions were issued by officials under his control which destroyed the value of his own instructions; and whether he intends to take any disciplinary action?

My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War declines to accept the description given of this incident in the terms of my hon. Friend's question, and is not prepared to regard it as calling for any disciplinary action.

As a matter of fact, the letter referred to was issued by Sir Alfred Keogh under proper superior authority. It was intended to deal with what, all those responsible agreed, was a real danger. Whether as the result of the issue of the Army Council Instruction of the 7th September or not, wholesale rejections, especially in certain parts of the country, were taking place of men who were useful for Army service though admittedly not up to the standard required in combatant units. It was, therefore, necessary to point out to the officials responsible for such rejections that Army service comprises a great variety of occupations answering roughly to those to be found in civil life and that men capable of performing such service in the Army must not be rejected. This was regarded as a perfectly legitimate corrective to administer to those by whom the mistake was being made, and it was quite properly addressed to them direct by their immediate official superior. The recipients of the letter had already had the Council Instruction, and obviously the two were to be read together. The letter was marked "confidential," and not "secret," and if my hon. Friend will read the rules in paragraphs 1857–1864 of the King's Regulations dealing with the military distinction between these terms he will realise that no official would have marked as "confidential" a letter intended by him to secure, what I gather my hon. Friend alleges to be, the sinister purpose of securing by a subterfuge a modification of the declared policy of superior authority.

Does the hon. Gentleman notice that this question does not rest with his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, but with the Prime Minister? The question I want answered is why the present Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for War issued to the public an Army Council Instruction and subsequently allowed that Instruction to be gone behind by officials of the War Office, and whether he proposes to take any disciplinary action? I do not know whether the Leader of the House can reply to my question, which is addressed to him obviously as representing the Prime Minister, and has nothing to do with my Noble Friend?

The answer which has been given does reply to the question. It is purely a question of War Office administration, and should be answered by the War Office.

How can we attribute rejections to an Army Council Instruction of 7th September before that Instruction could have reached the officials affected?

Are we to understand that when documents are issued from the War Office confidentially that it does not mean that these documents are intended only for the use of certain individuals and are not intended to be used for the public, and, if so, what is the position when you find that, in a confidential document of that kind, the subject-matter is a public matter?

I have already pointed out in my answer that these documents have got to be read together. The first is an Army Council Instruction of 7th September. The other is a confidential document issued by superior authority acting under proper instructions.

Why cannot the documents be issued in the same way if they are to be read together? Is it not the case that the public document was issued in consequence of a pledge given in this House, and that the other was issued to evade that pledge?

That is not the fact I think that I have covered the whole ground completely in my answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Isaac Hall, a negro born in Jamaica, is serving a sentence of imprisonment as a conscientious objector; and whether he will inquire into the legality of his arrest?

This man appeared before the Central Tribunal and was offered employment under the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors, but refused to accept it. He, therefore, remained in prison until the expiration of his sentence in March last; he was returned to his unit and was again convicted by court-martial, and is now in Pentonville Prison. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the War Office.

asked the Home Secretary whether Charles Allen, a conscientious objector serving a sentence in Wormwood Scrubs, has applied to undertake work under the Home Office Committee; whether his application has been refused; and, if so, for what reason?

This man has been before the Central Tribunal, who reported that he could not be said to have any real conscientious objection to military service. The Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors are, therefore, unable to offer him employment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Edward Hurley, chairman of the United States Shipping Board, is about to make a tour of the United States shipping yards with the object of speeding up the work of new construction; and whether Mr. Hurley has made several representations to the head of the British Mission as to the difficulty in addressing the workers unless he is furnished with full information as to the destruction and replacement of shipping?

The British representatives in Washington have been placed in complete possession of the facts of the situation.

asked the Prime Minister whether the hon. Members for the Scotland Division and North Galway have, with his knowledge and approval, gone to America to collect party funds; whether he consulted with either of these hon. Members, either personally or otherwise, before they undertook this mission; and whether it will be open to politicians of parties other than the Irish Nationalists to proceed to foreign countries on similar political missions?

I have no information except what I have seen in the Press.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question. If these gentlemen are allowed to go on political missions to other countries why cannot we?

Personally I do not think that I should offer any objection.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the treatment of Government employés who join the Army; if he is aware that, according to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the representatives of men with five years' service who die are entitled to receive a year's salary computed at the rate which he was drawing at the time of his demise; if he will see that, in cases where young Civil servants who joined have been killed in action before they had completed five years' service, their representatives be paid the year's salary; if he will make inquiries into the case of Private John A. Doyle, No. 26,612, 10th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, who was an assistant clerk, abstractor class, in the Board of Trade, London, and joined the Army voluntarily and was killed in action in October last; and if he is aware that his widowed mother spent all she had on this boy's education and is now refused pension, gratuity, or compensation from the War Pensions Committee and is also refused the benefits of the Civil Service Superannuation Act which she would have received had her son died at home instead of fighting for King and country?

The period of service required to qualify for a death gratuity under Section 2 (1) of the Superannuation Act, 1909, is five years, and I cannot undertake to introduce legislation to amend this provision. I may add that, where the statutory conditions is fulfilled the death gratuity is paid under the Civil Superannuation Acts, in addition to any sum which may be payable from Army funds.

asked the Prime Minister whether any Minister outside the War Cabinet has the right to put forward any suggestions to the War Cabinet in regard to naval or military operations?

There can be no hard and fast rule in such a matter, but any Minister would of course be entitled to put his views before the Head of the Government, and it would be for him to decide whether they should be considered by the Cabinet.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Munitions has lately put forward a suggestion as to naval or military operations?

I do not think that is a sort of question that ought to be put, but perhaps it will be more convenient if I state that no such suggestion has been made.

asked the Prime Minister whether the agreement entered into between the French Government and the Government of the ex-Czar of Russia by which Germany was to be deprived of territory on the left of the Rhine as well as Alsace-Lorraine had for one of its objects the destruction of German industries by depriving them of their supplies of coal and iron in accordance with the policy supported by the Paris Conference; and can he give any assurance that the War will not be prolonged for such aims, the achievement of which would only benefit the promoters of capitalistic enterprises?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Northampton on the 1st instant, from which he will see that I have no information on the subject. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not had his attention called to the statements made by the French Prime Minister in regard to these matters? It is curious that the Foriengn Office should have no information on a matter which is of public interest.

The hon. Member is making observations.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the grounds on which General Smuts was chosen to address a Proclamation to the Dominions on the occasion of entering upon the fourth year of the War; whether General Smuts on that occasion represented the Government of this country; and, if so, whether he will represent the Government on all important occasions when it is desired to communicate with the Dominions jointly?

I am informed that the message referred to was a purely personal one. The last two parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

Was it not sent by General Smuts as representative of the Government?

No, Sir; I have no doubt that it accurately represented the views of the Government, but it was sent by General Smuts as representing General Smuts.

May I ask who paid for the telegram, in order to establish who sent it?

I cannot say.

Is it not the case that General Smuts is a member of the War Cabinet, and is it desirable that individual members of the War Cabinet should be playing off their own bats so often?

The suggestion of the hon. Member is that no member of the War Cabinet is either to write a letter or make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in regard to his Proclamation to the Dominions, General Smuts consulted the Cabinet as to replacing the term Empire by that of Imperial Commonwealth; if so, whether the term Imperial Commonwealth will be used instead of Empire in all public documents; and if the matter be not definitely decided, whether the word Imperial will be omitted as having no better warrant than that of Empire?

The answer is in the negative.

Will the Dominions be consulted as to whether they consider themselves as living under an Imperial regime?

I have already told the hon. Member more than once that the term "Empire" has been used for several hundred years without exception being taken to it.

Are we not living in new times, and has not the time arrived to abolish these fetishes?

asked the Prime Minister if the Government have any official knowledge to the effect that a secret conference has recently taken place in Switzerland at which French, British, and German financiers were present, the purpose of which was to aim at an immediate peace such as would arrest the growth of International Socialism and the rising tide of revolution throughout Europe, and that this object was to be attained by a direct arrangement between the belligerents in which national claims would be entirely subordinated to considerations of world finance?

I have no knowledge of any such conference.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement was made in a semi-official paper called the "New Europe," and that it states on unimpeachable authority that the conference mentioned did take place?

I do not know on what information this semi-official or official organ made the statement on the matter. Certainly we have had no information of the kind.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he has at any time during the past twelve months given any pledge or promise or expressed himself in favour of the nationalisation of shipping either during or after the War; and whether he is aware of any other Cabinet Minister or Ministers having done so; if so, will he give his or their names; (2) whether the Government have appointed any committee or similar body to consider the question of the nationalisation of British shipping either now or after the War; if so, whether the committee have arrived at any decision; and will he state what that decision is?

The answer to both questions is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Dominions have already made generous provisions for supplying land and capital for their returning sailors and soldiers, he can now say why the Government have not made similar provisions for our own sailors and soldiers who wish to become owners and cultivators of land in this country; and whether he will at once consult with the Dominion Governments as to an Imperial scheme for settling our sailors and soldiers on the land in this country and in the Empire after the War?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the Empire Settlement Committee (Cd. 8672), which has just been published, and will be communicated to the Dominion Governments. This Report is receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

If the Dominions can provide land, why cannot the Government provide land in this country for returning soldiers and sailors? If you can find land in Ireland, why not in England and Scotland?