asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the pre-war price of home-grown timber purchased for Government requirements; the increase in price which has taken place since the outbreak of war; and the cause of such increase?

As the answer is a long one I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.— [ See Written Answers this date. ]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that by competition, largely of private buyers with Government buyers, prices of certain classes of timber have now been raised from 4d. to 11d. per cubic foot and will he state why our requirements were not commandeered at fixed prices as has been done in the case of coal, shipping and railways, and also of wool, hay and oats?

I am not aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware of the way in which persons insured against aircraft and bombardment damage are treated in respect of their claims when they have been agreed by the surveyors for the Government and the insured, and when they ask for payment of the agreed sum they are in some cases offered a reduced sum and informed by the solicitor for the Board of Trade that if this is not accepted their remedy is to present a petition of right against the Crown in the High Court; if it is suggested that this is to be the remedy for the recovery of small sums of money owing under this insurance scheme; (2) if he is aware of the delay that is taking place in the settlement of claims under the Government air-raid insurance scheme and the dissatisfaction which this is causing to insured persons who have suffered damage to their houses and property; will he say why the Government appoint surveyors to examine the premises and agree to the amount of the damage, and then when they have agreed to the amount they throw over their own surveyors and send down another from London, who seeks to reopen the question; and if this procedure meets with his sanction?

The vast majority of claims under the Government insurance scheme are paid when the assessor's report is received at the Government Office without further question. In a small percentage of cases it has been necessary to instruct a second assessor to inspect the damage and advise the Government either because the first assessor has considered the amount of the claim excessive and has been unable to come to an agreement with the insured, or because the War Risks Office were not satisfied that the first assessor had given sufficient attention to the question of damage not due to the risks covered by the Government policy or because of some technical insurance difficulty. It is open to claimants who are dissatisfied with the amounts offered to them to make further representations to the War Risks Committee, and such representations are always carefully considered. If a settlement cannot be arrived at in this way, it is still open to the claimant to proceed by petition of right.

Arising out of that very unsatisfactory reply, may I ask why the Government appoint a surveyor, and, after his report, pay no attention to it, and say that a petition of right can be bought when the man's property has been destroyed?

Do not the Government desire to give compensation without putting the people to abnormal cost?

I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. The Government is entitled to take necessary precautions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in the matter?

Certainly.

Does a Department of the right hon. Gentleman, after having appointed an umpire, refuse to take that umpire's decision?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether trade marks and patents of enemy businesses that have been sold or are being wound up by the Government have been definitely cancelled or transferred at a price to the British purchaser; and, if not, has any step been taken to prevent enemy firms continuing to work such patents or trade marks in this country after the war?

As regards patents, the general rule adopted has been that if these are solely the property of the firm or business being wound up, the transference has been allowed to the bonâ fide purchaser, except where it was desirable to retain control of the patents in the public interest. Patents not so transferred are subject to the Temporary Rules Acts, and the Board have power to grant licences thereunder.

As regards trade marks, if there is no other objection transference has been allowed where the firm or concern being wound up is not a mere agency for a firm in any enemy territory, and the mark is not shared between English and alien enemy firms. The registration of some trade marks which were regarded as inherently bad has been voided. The after war treatment of enemy property and rights, including patents and trade marks, is under the consideration of the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing legislation, if necessary, to carry out the last part of the question, namely, "to prevent enemy firms continuing to work such patents or trade marks in this country after the War"?

I have said that is under consideration now.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the capital of British Dyes, Limited, and also the aggregate capitals of all dye manufacturing firms in this country?

The issued share and loan capital of British Dyes, Limited, as at the 30th April, 1917, was £2,084,138. It is not possible to give the aggregate capitals of all the dye manufacturing firms in this country, as some of them are private firms, but in any case the nominal capital of the various firms engaged in the dye industry is no criterion of the actual capital employed.

asked what steps, if any, will be taken to increase the capital and production of British Dyes, Limited, and other dye works in this country, in view of the fact that five of the dye manufacturing firms in Germany show assets amounting in the aggregate to upwards of £35,000,000, including cash resources of approximately £10,000,000?

The Board of Trade have at present under consideration the whole question of increasing the production of dyes in this country, and considerable progress has already been made in this direction. I would point out that the assets of the five German firms referred to include those of their general chemical businesses, and no information is available as to what proportion is allocated to actual dye manufacturing.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has seen a communication from the Wexford Trades and Labour Council stating that according to the Coal Controller the price of coal at the pit should not exceed pre-war prices more than 7s. or 8s. per ton, whereas the people in Wexford have to pay 30s. per ton more; and if he will say where the extra sum of 22s. goes to, and if anything can be done to ease the prices of coal on the poor?

The price of coal at the pit's mouth should be 6s. 6d. per ton above the pre war price (or 9s. per ton in the case of coal from collieries in South Wales and Monmouth and the Forest of Dean, from which a considerable portion of supplies of coal for the South of Ireland is drawn), but increases in freights are largely responsible for increased prices of seaborne coal. The Controller of Coal Mines hopes to be in a position very shortly to issue instructions to local authorities in Ireland to enable them to fix retail coal prices under the Retail Coal Prices Order, and I understand that the question of freights on coastwise traffic is receiving the attention of the Shipping Controller. In the meantime inquiry is being made into the position at Wexford.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the announcement made to owners and users of motor cars that motor-spirit licences are issued subject to the condition that the car, the owner, or his paid driver holds himself at the disposal of the military authorities is in addition to or cancels the conditions under which a car can be used for a journey to a railway station or a similar purpose where no other means of conveyance is reasonably available?

The condition that the holder of a motor-spirit licence" shall hold himself or his paid driver, and his motor car or cars at the disposal of the military authorities for use in the event of a national emergency" is in addition to the conditions under which motor spirit may be used in a motor car as authorised by Motor Spirit (Restriction) Order No. 2, 1917.

Had not the military those powers already?

Yes, they have always had them, and it is only to make them quite clear that they are now incorporated with the licence.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will say what authority is to decide as to the legitimate use of a motor car under the Motor Spirit Restriction Order (No. 2), 1917, where a journey to a railway station or the fulfilment of necessary household affairs, other means of communication not being reasonably available, is put forward as a reason for the consumption of motor spirit and such use is held to contravene the spirit of the Order; (2) whether he is aware of the uncertainty caused by the Motor Restriction Order (No. 2), 1917, which prohibits the use of any petrol-driven vehicle except for certain specified purposes; and will the Board of Trade issue a more specific instruction defining more closely the right purposes for which a petrol-driven vehicle can now be used?

In the event of legal proceedings the proof of the purpose for which a motor vehicle is used lies upon the person using motor spirit on it, and the ultimate decision rests with the Court. The Order to which the hon. and gallant Member refers does, as he says, specify the purposes for which motor spirit may be used, and I doubt whether a more specific instruction is necessary at present.

Who in the first instance institutes proceedings, are they to be ordinary Police Court proceedings?

The police.

Police Court proceedings?

Yes.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what was the selling price of cement in this country for 1915, 1916, and 1917, and what was the selling price for the same class of cement sent to Holland for the same period?

The average value of the cement exported to Holland as declared by the exporters was 33s. 5d. per ton in 1915; 44s. 9d. per ton in 1916; and 54s. 8d. per ton in the first nine months of 1917. It is not possible to state the corresponding values of exactly the same quality of cement in this country owing to the absence of information as to the qualities exported, but I understand that the price of the best Portland cement delivered in London was quoted at 38s. per ton from January to May, 1915, and that it rose in value till it reached 45s. to 48s. per ton at the end of the year, at which price it stood throughout 1916 and January and February of 1917. During the ensuing seven months the price quoted was 50s. to 53s. per ton.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that an excessive quantity of cement has been leaving this country for Rotterdam; and, if so, whether there is reason to suppose that any of this cement has been exported into Belgium by Holland for the use of the Germans in building blockhouses or for other warlike purposes?

I venture to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch on the 24th October, in which I stated that no cement has been exported from the United Kingdom to Holland except under the most explicit guarantees against re-export. Consequently, there is no reason to suppose that any of it has found its way to Germany or Belgium. It can hardly be said that an excessive quantity of cement has left this country for Rotterdam—the quantity during the nine months ending September being about 41,000 tons, whereas the Dutch pre-war imports of cement from all sources for the years 1911, 1912, and 1913 averaged over 514,000 tons a year, most of which came from Germany and Belgium. Germany is still by far the largest exporter of cement to Holland, but she has been unable to maintain her full export trade this year, and an increased part of the Dutch demand has come to this country.

Is there any truth in the statement that Dutch statistics referring to sand and gravel are untrustworthy?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must give notice of that question.

Is it not a fact that 23,000 tons of cement were exported to Holland in August and September, or in the last few months, and, having regard to the answer by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, is it not the fact that in spite of our belief that no licences are being granted for cement that in the last week two ships have been loaded for Holland near the Tower Bridge?

I understand that the two ships referred to were loaded under licence granted before the issue of the Order in Council.

Is it not the case that owing to the export of sand and gravel from Holland to Germany we have stopped the commercial cables between this country and Holland: why did we stop them if there was no re-export?

I do not think that has anything to do with the question of cement. We have stopped the commercial cables between Holland and this country in consequence of the transit of sand and gravel from Germany to Belgium over Dutch waters.

Is it not the case that if we are sending cement to Holland which they had previously bought from Germany, and cannot buy now, we are helping Germany?

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer I have given, he will see that I mentioned that the imports into Holland at present are coming principally from Germany.

Is it not the fact that a far greater amount of cement is entering Holland from Germany than from this country; is it not the fact that German cement is rubbish; and that it is desirable to have British cement to make anything like good concrete foundations?

I have no information about that.

Have we stopped all export of cement from this country to Holland?

At the present time no licences are being granted for export.

Are two ships being loaded to go?

They are loading in respect of licences granted before the issue of the Order in Council.

Will anything be done to revoke the licences?

The hon. Membermust give notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a statement made by the French Premier on 19th October that the United States had made a declaration that they would stand by France until France had disannexed Alsace-Lorraine; and if the British Government have any information on this subject?

I have read M. PainleveÉ's statement as reported in the French "Journal Officiel." I have no information beyond this.

Has the right hon. Gentleman no information that the United States Government take the same view?

No, Sir; I have no information on this subject.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is now a difficulty in buying hay from the recognised dealers, especially felt by small carters and others, who can only buy limited quantities; whether this is due to delay on the part of the military authorities in releasing hay or to an attempt to establish direct sales between producer and consumer; and whether he will endeavour to remedy this state of affairs?

A large quantity of hay has already been released by the War Office to meet civilian requirements, and any difficulty that may be experienced by consumers in getting it would be due to the general shortage of labour, and to the shortage of railway trucks to transport the hay to the centre at which it is required. A producer is at liberty to sell released hay direct to the consumer, and the Board know of no reason why such direct sales should have the effect of curtailing supplies. If the hon. Baronet has any specific cases of difficulty in mind I shall be very glad to know of them, and will do my best to get them looked into promptly.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue a White Paper containing the numbers of all children of school age released from school attendance since the outbreak of War, in continuation of the Returns issued last year?

I am doubtful whether the last Return of the 16th October, 1916, which was only practicable because it was strictly limited in scope, has served any purpose which would justify its repetition at the present time, especially as the general position is more complicated than it was last year. I do not, however, intend to overlook the educational claims of these children, and I have no doubt that a complete Return of this kind will be necessary later on.

Would not the preparation and publication of such returns enable us to judge as to the number of children whose education has been prematurely interrupted, and for whom provision has been specially made?

Certainly.

asked the President of the Board of Education, whether his attention has been called to the increasing loss to education through the closing of the British Museum and other similar institutions; and whether he proposes to take any action in view of the prolongation of the War?

The Board of Education have no responsibility for the British Museum. A large part of the Victoria and Albert Museum is still open, in spite of the removal of the Board's offices to that building, and the Science Museum is open to students and the Geological Museum to inquiries on week-days. I, of course, deplore the necessity which led the Government in January, 1916, to restrict the use of such institutions, but I do not think the matter can be dealt with Departmentally.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any museums open in Germany?

I am afraid I am unable to say that.

Having regard to the prolongation of the War, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the proper authority with regard to the reopening of educational museums and institutions which have been closed?

asked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that in Birmingham the homes of munitions workers who have been absent from their work are visited by the Birmingham police; whether he can state at whose instigation this action is taken; and whether steps have been taken to have it stopped?

My right hon. Friend's attention had not previously been drawn to this matter. As a result of my hon. Friend's question, inquiries have been made, and I find that the Ministry of Munitions has not instigated the action referred to. From a report which has been sent me, it appears that the practice has now been stopped, nor have I any official information as to who was responsible.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a number of Irishmen, the majority of whom belong to South Wexford, are engaged in making munitions of war in Cheshire, and that they have been refused permission to visit their homes, although English, Scotch, Welsh, and Manxmen are freely permitted to do so; and, seeing that many of these Irishmen are anxious to visit their homes at Christmas, if he will promise them leave of absence for a few days?

I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will inform me of the names of the factory or factories in question I shall be prepared immediately to make inquiries.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the claim of clerks to surveyors of taxes to be allowed to count service prior to 1908 for superannuation purposes was recently submitted by the Board of Inland Revenue for favourable consideration by the Treasury; whether the claim was refused and, if so, on what grounds the refusal was based; whether, having regard to the precedents existing in the cases of the Customs' boatmen and women typists, and the statement of the Chairman of the Inland Revenue Board before, the Royal Commission in 1913 that the clerks' claim under this head had the complete sympathy of the Board, also to the fact that Clause 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, permits superannuation to be calculated on the basis of the total number of years of continuous service in the same capacity though only part thereof was established service; and, in view of the small expense which will be entailed during the next ten years, will steps be taken to secure this concession to the clerks' concerned?

The claim in question was considered and rejected in the present year. The Treasury cannot depart from the well-established principle which precludes the reckoning of service which is not rendered to Government as such for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914. Accordingly unestablished service rendered by persons in the employment not of the Board of Inland Revenue, but of surveyors of taxes, is not reckonable under Section 3 of the Act of 1887 under any circumstances.

asked what was the total cost of the War Savings meeting held at the Albert Hall on Monday last, 22nd October?

The approximate expenditure on the meeting was £220. In addition, there will be paid, if claimed, the out-of-pocket expenses of the unpaid officials of local war savings committees who were invited to attend. Many of these gentleman also attended special conferences held the same evening and the next day.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of claims (with amount) that have been settled up to the present?

I gather from this answer that none, as yet, have been paid; but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I shall be glad to answer it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to run any sort of meeting at the Albert Hall costs £100; how, then, does it cost the Coalition Government £220?

I shall be glad to consult my hon. Friend on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the instructions issued by one of his predecessors to the divisional police in Kensington to the effect that they were not to watch or report on Dr. Markel, who lives in Queen's Gate Terrace, have been cancelled; if so, will he give the date; and has Dr. Markel been interned?

I cannot find that any such instructions were given. Dr. Markel is a British subject, having been naturalised in 1889, and is not interned.

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this subject of enemy aliens on the Vote of Credit.

asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to give the House the result of his inquiry concerning the editing and publishing by the conscientious objectors at Prince town of a journal called the "News Sheet" expressly designed for disseminating their anti-social views; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?

I have now seen a copy of this news sheet which contains propaganda. The circulation of the paper will be prohibited.

asked the Home Secretary what description of work is performed by the conscientious objectors in the settlement at Dartmoor; and whether he is satisfied that the work is of national importance and that these men are working satisfactorily?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Plymouth on 9th May last. The work is for the most part agricultural, and if efficiently carried out is of national importance. Most of the men still at Dartmoor are working satisfactorily.

Is it not a fact that a large number of these men are engaged in making roads which are of no consequence whatsoever? Could not these men be more usefully employed in South Africa, Salonika, Mesopotamia, or some other places?

I should be glad to see them used in those countries. Most of the work is not road-making, but agricultural work, reclamation of land and cultivation. Those who are making roads are presumably making roads which are of use.

No, Sir.

asked what is the ration allowance provided for the conscientious objectors at Dartmoor?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Plymouth on the 9th May last. No alteration in diet has been made since that date.

asked whether, considering that there are conscientious objectors working at the present time in the quarries at Calais and in other places in France, there is any objection to sending the conscientious objectors now at Dartmoor to join them?

I understand that the men now working in France to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers are men in the Non-Combatant Corps. That is not the case with the men employed under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors, who refuse non-combatant duty.

asked the Home Secretary what is the known number of alien enemies still uninterned in this country; how many have been interned in the last three months; and how many have been released from internment in the last six months?

The number of male Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and Turks who have been exempted from internment or repatriation on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, and are still residing in this country, is 13,183. A large proportion of these are of friendly race, though technically alien enemies. The number interned in the last three months is about forty. During the same period, apart from those prisoners (mostly Austrians) who have been released on conditional licence to do agricultural work, thirty have been released for other reasons—such as men of friendly nationality wishing to serve in the British Army, men whose sons had done good service in the Army, and men released on medical grounds.

Does "this country" mean United Kingdom or Great Britain?

United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 13,000 represents the whole of the interned aliens in this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "Uninterned!"]

Uninterned; there are many more interned.

Are we to understand that it does not include women and children, and that besides 13,000 males there are also women and children in larger number?

I said in my answer male aliens. It does not include women and children.

Can the Home Secretary, or anyone in the Home Office or elsewhere, answer for the loyalty of the 13,000 uninterned?

It would be difficult to do that. All these men have been exempted in former years after inquiry by the Advisory Committee. I have from time to time revised the list and interned some of them. There still remain a very large number.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of that number have been guaranteed by prominent politicians?

I have no knowledge.

I will put down a question.

Why not send them to Holland with the cement?

asked the Home Secretary how many persons, not being enemy aliens, are at present interned under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Act?

One hundred and twenty-three.

asked whether the method adopted in the case of the Croat-Slav Palcic with a view to predispose him to enlist in the British Army is being officially and generally adopted in regard to all alien enemy subjects belonging to disaffected races under enemy rule who are males and of military age; whether he can state on what ground it has been thought necessary to intern Palcic while ordinary German and Austrian subjects, being males of military age, are still allowed to be at large in Dublin; whether he is aware that soon after the outbreak of the War he left his then employer and has since carried on the same class of business with success, and if any representations or allegations were made to the authorities regarding him prior to his internment by any person or persons with whom he was competing in trade or business; and whether the policeman who falsely represented to Palcic that he was liable to be conscripted did so with the sanction of the military authorities or of the Home Secretary; and, if not, whether this policeman is still retained in the police force?

The first two parts of this question were fully answered by me on the 24th and 25th instant. The answer to the third part is in the negative. As to the fourth part, the instructions to the police were that Palcic's attention should be called to the fact that he was eligible for service in a Labour Battalion. He was fully aware that he was not liable to conscription.

Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for ordinary German and Austrian subjects of military age being at large in Dublin?

That is not the fact.

asked whether Bernhard Wingfield now runs a munition factory at West Drayton; whether this man was a German just before the War; whether his name was then Wiesengrund; whether he now manufactures a powder used in explosives; and, if so, whether he is to be allowed to retain his present position?

I am informed that this man is managing director of the Power Plant Company, which is engaged on the manufacture of munitions, but not of a powder used in explosives, as suggested. He was naturalised in April, 1914, in the name mentioned. Investigations which have been made from time to time show nothing to his discredit.

Is it not a fact that this firm used to manufacture shells, and they were so defective that the contract was cancelled; and is it not a fact that this man is known to be a German, that the employés jeer at him and will not work for him properly for that reason?

I am afraid that the hon. Member knows more about this firm than I do. I have answered the hon. Member's question, but if he will give me any further facts I will promise to look into them.

Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's business to find out? What is he paid for?

I can only intern British subjects on the ground of some improper conduct on their part. If I have the least reason to suspect improper conduct on their part dangerous to the State I do not hesitate to intern them.

asked the Home Secretary (1) what number of officials are employed in the work of opening, examining, photographing, and resticking private correspondence; how many of these officials are of military rank and how many civilians; what other duties are entrusted to this Department; (2) how many warrants for the opening of private correspondence he has signed during his term of office; and whether the correspondence of any Members of Parliament or of any trade union leaders have been officially tampered with by these means during that period?

If the hon. Member refers to the postal censorship, that is a large Department chiefly engaged in the examination of foreign correspondence and under the control of the War Office. If he refers to the examination of the correspondence of enemy agents or of persons suspected of furnishing information directly or indirectly to the enemy, I cannot answer his questions. To give information during the War as to the exercise of these powers might defeat the object in view, which is to prevent assistance being given to the enemy.

Cannot the righthon. Gentleman state approximately the number of warrants issued allowing private letters in English correspondence to be opened?

I should prefer not to give any details.

May I ask whether correspondence of Members of Parliament has any special privilege in the matter?

Not as I understand the matter.

How many Russian Jews are in this Department and how many are of military age?

I believe there are none under the Home Office. As to the staff employed under the War Office, I have, of course, no knowledge.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the Bolo revelations in France, which have disclosed the fact that money derived from German sources has been used to subsidise newspapers of a professedly patriotic character; and whether, in view of these disclosures, he has taken any steps to ascertain whether British newspapers, particularly those belonging to the Harmsworth and Hulton syndicates, which propagate a similar policy to that carried out by the German subsidised French Press, are being similarly subsidised?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, we are on the lookout for German influence in all its forms, but it is not in the newspapers specially referred to in this question that it is likely to be found.

But do not the newspapers in question represent in this country exactly the same type of newspapers that received German money elsewhere?

I do not believe so.

Is it not the case, anyhow, that the Government would not dare to touch a newspaper owned by Lord Northcliffe?

That is not the case. I should touch any newspaper which I suspected of being so influenced.

asked the Home Secretary for what reason Inspector MacLean and other members of the police force visited the premises of the Black-friars Press on 4th October and ordered that the type employed in the printing of a journal called the "Workers' Dreadnought" must be melted down and everything connected with the paper destroyed; whether the printer was asked to sign an undertaking not to print any further issues of the "Workers' Dreadnought," and was told that unless this undertaking was given the whole of the machinery of the press would be dismantled there and then; whether the manager of the press was given an opportunity to consult his directors; whether he signed an undertaking; by what authority the police acted in this manner; and by what right and authority they demanded an undertaking not to print further issues of the newspaper?

The police acted in pursuance of a warrant issued by the competent military authority under Defence of the Realm Regulation 51. Under that Regulation any type or plant used or capable of being used for the publication of the newspaper in question was liable to be seized and destroyed, but upon the manager causing the type to be melted down and voluntarily giving an undertaking not to print any further issues of the paper the plant was allowed to remain. No request was made by the manager to be allowed to consult his directors.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that part of the question which suggests that the reason why this undertaking was signed by the manager was owing to the threat that the whole of the plant would be broken up if that were not done?

The whole of the plant used in printing this very objectionable number of the paper was liable to be seized. The manager requested that it might not be seized, and offered not to print the paper in future.

Is it not the fact that by seizing the plant rather than prosecuting the paper the Government avoid the necessity of fighting the case in open Court, and is not this action of the Government due to the fact that the last case under the Defence of the Realm Act was lost?

No, Sir; not at all. If we do not seize the paper until after a prosecution it is too late, because the paper is published Therefore, the right course is to seize the paper and to leave them the remedy if we have wrongly seized it.

Is it not a fact that this paper is now being printed elsewhere, and the only effect, therefore, of the action of the police is to prevent this particular firm from having the job of printing the newspaper; and, further, is it not a fact that this National Labour Press in Manchester had a successful action against the military and police under circumstances of a precisely similar character?

The paper may be printed elsewhere, but we seized this paper because of a particular offending article, and if the same offence is committed elsewhere the paper will be seized.

Was not the Government, by the Defence of the Realm Act, given power to prosecute papers, and why are they choosing a method which will avoid proceedings in open Court?

asked the Home Secretary whether a deportation order has been issued against Mrs. Luft, a British-born woman married to a German; if so, for what reason; whether she and her husband have been ordered to leave the country at once, leaving behind them two daughters, one only thirteen years of age; whether Mrs. Luft has a son serving in the British Army; by what authority the Home Office ordered the deportation of British women without trial; and whether this deportation order is to be carried out?

No deportation order has yet been issued in this case. Mr. Luft, a German, suffering from locomotor ataxy, applied for and was given a permit to return to Germany, and on information in my possession I thought it undesirable that his wife who, though British-born, is reported to be strongly pro-German, should remain in this country. I, therefore, caused her to be informed at the end of August last that she must accompany him and that if she failed to do so a deportation order would be made against her. Recently, as Mrs. Luft has been so badly advised as not to comply with this instruction, the warning has been repeated. I see no reason for altering the decision. The deportation order would be made under the powers conferred on me by Article 12 of the Aliens Restriction Order. I understand that arrangements have been made for the two daughters, one of whom is earning her own living, to remain in this country. The son, a British subject, who endeavoured to avoid military service, was arrested and is, serving in a non-combatant unit.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Elsie Frances Abel who, on 15th October, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment at the Guildhall, Hereford, for assault alleged to have been committed in the street during the excitement of some industrial trouble; whether he is aware that this work girl maintains her innocence and that the evidence was in some respects unsatisfactory and contradictory, and that identification was difficult as the alleged assault took place after dark; whether he knows that this girl, who has borne an excellent character as a worker, displayed conspicuous bravery on the occasion of an outbreak of fire in the factory by returning to her section, plugging many shells, and closing the windows, thus helping to prevent the danger of serious explosion; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he can see his way to take any action with respect to the sentence?

I am making inquiries about this case.

asked whether the general Order issued by the late Home Secretary relaxing the limitations imposed by the Factory Acts on the hours of employment of women and young persons is still in force; and, if so, whether he will now, in the interest of these persons, consider the advisability of withdrawing this Order which allows female young persons of sixteen years of age and boys of fourteen, subject to the approval of the superintending inspector of factories, to be employed on twelve-hour night shifts and also boys of fourteen to work overtime to the amount of fourteen hours per diem on three days of the week?

The general Order for munition works to which the Noble Lord refers is still in force, but its provisions are at present under review by the Home Office and Ministry of Munitions, and the points to Which he draws attention are receiving consideration.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the offices of an association called the "Industrial Workers of the World" in America were raided by the police there and the leaders arrested; that plans were found for the wholesale destruction of crops, machinery, and factories; that this association was found to have the same objects in Australia; that President Wilson in America and Mr. Hughes in Australia are energetically stamping out this dangerous association; and whether, as it has now been revived in London and branches formed in other towns, he will take steps to act in the same way as President Wilson and Mr. Hughes?

I am aware of the activities of this association in America and Australia. An attempt has been made to establish a branch in this country, but it has little or no support. All necessary action has been and will be taken.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether or not they have got a place in London from which they work, and is it not a fact that they have their association and friends in various towns in this country? Is that not a fact? Shall I give the right hon. Gentleman private information of the address in London?

I know all about the association in England. It has little or practically no support, and unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives it further advertisement it will have none.

asked whether, in view of the fact that the prison diet in force from 1901 to 1917 merely provided enough food to maintain health without allowing needless surplus, and that the present reduced diet is lower in scale than that in force in military prisons, steps, will be taken to bring the present civil prisoners' scale of diet up to the level of the diet of military detention barracks?

The answer is in the negative. The diet in civil prisons cannot properly be compared with that allowed in military detention barracks, where the prisoners have to perform arduous physical exercise in addition to their industrial work; but, in fact, the reports received from civil prisons show that the new dietary meets all reasonable needs, and the health of the prisoners generally has been well maintained.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to report the result of the reference back to the War Cabinet sub-Committee of the request made by the Joint Committee of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the General Federation of Trade Unions, for increases in the pay of the sailor and the soldier, particularly in respect of the able seaman, the stoker in the Navy, the private in the Marines, and the private in the Army?

This matter is receiving the active attention of the War Cabinet Committee, and I hope to be in a position to announce the decision of the Government next week.

asked the Prime Minister the nature of the inquiry which is to be made into the loss of the Norwegian convoy on 17th October; and whether it will be a court-martial on oath, a Court of Inquiry not on oath, or whether it will be a Special Court with power to call for all papers bearing on the subject of the Norwegian convoy system which have been in the possession of the Admiralty?

The usual court martial on oath will be held into the loss of the destroyers. The inquiry of the Admiralty into the matter of the attack on the convoy was presided over by myself. It was attended by the members of the Board concerned, together with the officers dealing with the matter in question. The Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, also attended. All relevant matters were discussed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to the conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, and has the court-martial to consider the conduct of the crews of the two destroyers?

The court-martial will consider the matters referred to them by the Commander-in-Chief. As regards the inquiry held at the Admiralty, I hope to give whatever information can be given in the public interest when I make my statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider his own responsibility in this matter if he presided over this inquiry?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the terms of reference for the inquiry into the loss of the Norwegian convoy, and the name and rank of the officer presiding over the deliberations of the inquiry?

I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs on Tuesday last.

That does not give the terms of reference to the court martial. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prior to this War every court-martial was held in public and now we get not the slightest information of any sort?

I understand that during the War no courts martial have been made public. After the result of this court-martial has been received, if it is thought desirable to give further information, it will be given.

asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has ascertained the time when the report was received that the German raiders were at sea; how long was this before the actual attack at 7 a.m. on 17th October; and, in view of the fact that all naval movements were controlled by Admiralty wireless, whether the inquiry will be able to pronounce judgment on the Admiralty arrangements?

With reference to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I hope to deal with this subject in the course of my statement on the Vote of Credit on Thursday next. As regards the second part of the question, I can only state that the assumption that all naval movements were controlled by Admiralty wireless is entirely incorrect. The Admiralty did not exercise any such control.

asked whether the right hon. Member for Trinity College is controlling the propaganda policy of the Government; if so whether he is acting in close co-operation with our Allies; whether such co-operation is carried on through the channels of the Foreign Office or otherwise; and whether the work of Colonel John Buchan and of the Right Hon. C. F. G. Masterman is now directed by the right hon. Member for Trinity College?

asked what are the special duties and powers assigned to the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the University of Dublin in connection with his office of Controller of Propaganda and Publication?

Sir Edward Carson has been asked, as a member of the War Cabinet, to undertake the general supervision for the Cabinet of the matters referred to in these questions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not give any more accurate or specific information of what the right hon. Gentleman's province is, what his special powers are, and of what has he control?

My right hon. Friend's duty is to supervise on behalf of the Cabinet the work of propaganda in the various Departments.

Has he control of the censorship?

No; certainly not. As the hon. Member knows, propaganda work has during the whole course of the War been conducted by various authorities and my right hon. Friend has undertaken the duty of co-ordinating the work of those Departments to prevent overlapping.

Is it the case that the duty of the right hon. Gentleman is to consider reports, sent to him by secret spies paid by the Government, of ordinary speeches made by Members of this House?

It is part of his duty to consider the general question of propaganda in this country.

Is there any reference to the Foreign Office or is it a Department working independently of the Foreign Office; for instance, if questions arise of importance, are we to address them to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Foreign Office?

The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I have already said that this work is being done by various Departments, including the Foreign Office, and my right hon. Friend's duty is simply to supervise and co-ordinate the work and report to the Government.

Are the paragraphs sent out to the Press with the compliments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, expressing concern at the health of the ex-Prime Minister, issued under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman?

I do not think the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and of which I know nothing, comes under propaganda work.

Is it part of the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to circulate information about the geography of the seat of war?

If he thinks it desirable, he will make that suggestion to the Department concerned.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Department responsible for the preparation of material affecting the terms of settlement is the Foreign Office, the War Cabinet secretariat, or the Prime Minister's secretariat?

The Department concerned is the Foreign Office, under the direction of the War Cabinet, and in consultation with other Government Departments.

Has co-ordination been fully provided for, so that a maximum of efficiency is secured at a minimum of waste and labour?

That was our object, and I think it has been attained.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session for the reform of our naturalisation laws?

It is not possible at present to fix any date for the introduction of this Bill, the draft of which is still under the consideration of the Dominions.

Will the Government introduce legislation upon the very urgent question of taking power to revoke certificates of naturalisation which have been improperly granted to Germans and others in the past?

As I have already informed the House, this subject has been submitted to the Dominions, and until we know what they think it is undesirable to take any steps in the matter.

Is not that a matter on which information could be very easily obtained and legislation enacted?

I do not profess to have any personal knowledge of the matter, but I am informed that this question does concern the Dominions, who are all affected.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the arrangements sanctioned by the Russian Government for a member of the executive of the Workmen's and Soldiers' Council of Delegates to attend the meeting of the Allied Powers to discuss war aims; and whether the British Government are intending to make any corresponding arrangement for the direct representation of British labour?

As far as I am aware, the approaching Conference is summoned not to consider the aims of the War, but the conduct of the War. The question, therefore, of the hon. Member hardly seems to arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression in Russia is exactly the opposite, as the Soviet has been passing resolutions, and is still discussing the question, without apparently any hint from its own Government, which is in touch with it, that the Allies' aims are not going to be discussed?

I am sorry I do not know what is the impression in Russia, but I have already informed the House that this Conference is intended to consider the prosecution of the War, and not war aims.

How comes it, then, that an answer was given to me the other day that this Conference was probably going to be held, when I stated in my question that it was being held in order to discuss the Allies' war aims?

I do not know to what answer the hon. Gentleman refers. Perhaps he had better put down a question to the Minister who gave it.

Is it a fact that every member from the Soviet in Petrograd has given consent to a Governmental Conference, and is it not a fact that Mr. Skoheloff is sent not as a member of the Soviet but as an actual member of the Government?

I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a definite answer.

It is so.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the speech by General Smuts in which he is reported to have said that he did not think it worth while to pursue the War until we had got rid of the Kaiser; whether this represents the considered opinion of the War Cabinet; and whether it means the abandonment of the policy of no peace with the Hohenzollerns?

I do not think that it would be right to answer any question dealing with possible terms of peace.

When General Smuts speaks in public, does he speak on his own or does he represent the views of the Cabinet?