asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the vote of thanks to the Services given in this House, no mention was made of the Royal Indian Marine; and whether, considering the services rendered by the Royal Indian Marine throughout the War, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?

With regard to the absence of a reference to the Royal Indian Marine by name in the recent vote of thanks, the Secretary of State for India desires to associate himself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on 21st November in reply to a similar question regarding the Royal Marines. Part of the Royal Indian Marine was taken over, as the Statute provides, by the Royal Navy shortly after the outbreak of war. Other members of the Service have done admirable work in conjunction with His Majesty's land forces and in the dockyards and marine establishments in India. His Majesty's Government appreciate fully the services rendered in these various directions.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give the House any information regarding the recent disturbances in Behar?

The disturbances to which the hon. Member refers were of a local character, being confined to parts of the Shahabad district, and of the neighbouring districts of Patna and Gaza, and arose out of disagreements between Hindus and Mahomedans about the celebration by the latter of the Bakr-Id festival. At this festival it is customary to sacrifice kine and other animals. Riots occurred in several villages, in the course of which there was some destruction and pillaging of property and loss of life and conflicts with the civil police. To restore normal conditions it was found necessary to patrol the disturbed area by a considerable force of military police and Regular troops. The Viceroy reported on 20th October that since the 14th of that month no disturbances had taken place, and that the troops were being gradually withdrawn.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the objects for which the Cotton Committee was appointed and the names of the members thereof, and can he say whether securing for the Indian cultivator an adequate price for the longer-stapled cotton when harvested is one of the objects in view?

The Committee has been appointed to consider the possibility of increasing the production of long-stapled cotton in India, and to submit recommendations as to the staff and organisation necessary for that purpose. Special attention will be given to the question of securing to the cultivator the higher prices which superior cotton should command by improvements in the system of marketing, and by the prevention of adulteration and mixing. Mr. MacKenna, the Agricultural Adviser to the Government of India, is President, the members being Mr. Hodgkinson and Mr. Wadia, who represent the British and India manufacturers, Mr. Henderson and Professor Roberts, agricultural officers, and Mr. Ashton, an irrigation officer.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether such jurisdiction as the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises over bishops in India excludes such jurisdiction as the Government of India exercises over such prelates, in consideration of the fact that they are in receipt of salaries paid from the Indian Exchequer?

Indian bishops enter upon their sees and perform the duties thereof by virtue of appointment by the Crown, and the letters patent appointing a bishop confer on the Government of India no authority over him as such.

asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the provision in the Government of India Act, 1915, that the Secretary of State shall superintend, direct, and control all acts, operations, and concerns which relate to the Government of India, if he will state on what Statute or other warrant of law the Cabinet has undertaken as a temporary expedient during the absence of the Secretary of State on his visit to India to decide urgent questions of the first importance?

The action of the Cabinet in this respect is not affected by the presence or absence of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the Secretary of State for India, like all other Ministers, habitually consults the Cabinet when questions of such importance arise as in his opinion require for their decision the collective authority of the Cabinet. In the absence of the Secretary of State his views will be presented to the Cabinet by Lord Islington in the same way as would be done if the Secretary of State, though present in England, were, by illness or any other engagement, prevented from attending the Cabinet personally.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet which is to decide urgent questions of the first importance in matters ordinarily disposed of by the Secretary of State for India in Council will be composed, in dealing with such matters, of any other officers of the Crown than the principal Secretaries of State; and if he will state the manner in which such decisions shall be recorded and the procedure used to secure consultation with the Council of India?

The constitution of the Cabinet will be unchanged.

asked whether, seeing that the Secretary of State for India is to be absent for several months outside the Realm, it is intended to arrange for the attendance of any other Secretary of State at the weekly meetings of the Council of India for the due performance of the duties imposed by the Government of India Act, 1915?

This is not considered necessary.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any increase in the allowance for food and lodging has been made since the War in the case of chief petty officers arid other officers not victualled on the Navy; and, if so, will he give the daily increase in figures and not percentages?

So far as chief petty officers are concerned, there has been no increase in the lodging allowance during the War. It stands at 1s. 6d. a day. The food allowance for chief petty officers not victualled on the Navy has been increased during the War from 1s. 6d. a day to 1s. 8d. a day. The same is true of warrant rank, commissioned warrant rank, and commissioned rank as regards the food allowance. In certain exceptional cases, however, naval officers not provided with Service accommodation and victualling are repaid the amount of actual charge for lodging which is in excess of the regulation rate. As regards chief petty officers, in any case in which it is represented that they are unable to obtain accommodation and food at a cost which is met by the amount of the regulation allowance for lodging and victualling, instructions are issued that they are to be billeted under the Navy Billeting Act.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether some further increase in food allowance is not reasonably due to these men?

It has been increased to 1s. 8d., as I have just said. I cannot give any assurance upon the matter except that it is one that shall be considered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the request of the twenty-one marines, Chatham Division, on one of His Majesty's ships, for leave made in the usual service manner in or about the month of November, 1916, has been received by the Admiralty and when; what has happened to this request; and whether he has now taken any and, if so, what steps to ensure that these men and the forty-two stokers on the same ship have immediate leave?

No trace can be found of the request referred to in the earlier part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, as I informed my hon. and learned Friend on Wednesday last, arrangements are now actually in progress to relieve all the men who have been three years abroad.

I desire to say how much I regret if, on the last occasion that I put a supplementary question on this subject, I imputed in any way that my right hon. Friend had not done everything he could in this matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that disappointment is felt by commissioned warrant and warrant officers in the Royal Navy at the limited number of promotions that have taken place in their ranks during the War; whether 5,000 men have been given the rank of lieutenant who, previous to the outbreak of war, had no connection with the Royal Navy; whether his attention has been called to the appeal made by commissioned warrant and warrant officers, Royal Navy, submitting that all deserving commissioned warrant officers of every branch, including chief Royal Marine gunners, shall, after five years as such, be promoted to the rank of lieutenant or equivalent rank for long and meritorious service, being retained in their various specialist appointments afloat or on shore, according to the requirements of the Service; and whether he has any statement to make to the House on the subject?

During the War 411 promotions of commissioned warrant and warrant officers to commissioned rank have been made up to the present, and a further number will be made shortly. During the same time approximately 5,000 temporary commissions as lieutenants, R.N.R. and R.N.V.R., have been granted, but no record is available of the number of cases in which the recipients were connected with the Royal Navy previously. The commissions so granted are temporary only and will be given up at the end of the War. The appeal to which my hon. Friend refers has been received.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that these men will be ready to give up their commissions at the end of the War?

They will do so. These 5,000 temporary commissions will be given up at the end of the War.

Are not the majority of these commissions not Naval but Volunteer commissions?

They are all volunteers. The great bulk of them are cashiers of banks, who have come to our assistance as paymasters, and we are very much obliged to them.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the serious loss of mercantile tonnage, and the consequent serious loss of life and foodstuffs and supplies, owing to the lack of destroyers; and whether or not naval strategy should be reviewed to concentrate on more effective anti-U-boat warfare and the safer convoying of merchant shipping?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Navy gives all the protection its resources and duties permit.

Is there any truth in the statement that the major part of the ships that are now being sunk by the U-boats are in the Irish Channel, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Irish Channel is sufficiently protected at the present time?

I cannot say anything as to the former part of the question, but the Navy is doing all it possibly can within its resources.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any available information with regard to the destruction of foreign hostile submarines?

No; I cannot add anything to what has already been said.

asked whether, when the steamship "A" (name given) was sunk, she had parted from convoy; if so, was it by Admiralty instructions she had parted convoy; whether at the time of being sunk she was provided by the Admiralty with any protection other than her own gun, and, if so, what protection; and how many lives were lost?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. If by the third part the hon. Member refers to the protection of a convoy, that part of the question, therefore, has already been answered. As regards the last part of the question, the latest report received states that thirty-eight passengers and thirty-nine of the crew are missing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this steamer had just passed a harbour of refuge, and was sunk off a point only 40 miles from a port, and that she might have been effectively escorted or convoyed by seaplanes?

No; I cannot say that, but I will put that point to my naval advisers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that seaplanes have proved the most effective mode of dealing with submarines?

Is it usual for the Admiralty to give orders to a steamship to part company from her convoy without giving her effective protection?

Yes, in circumstances where there is a reasonable prospect of safety. It must be considered, having regard to all the circumstances, because it must be remembered that we have a great many duties for these convoys to perform, and we do the best we can with our resources.

asked if any, and, if so, how many, vessels were sunk at about the same time and at about the same place as the steamship "A"?

I am advised that it is not in the public interest to furnish this information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this question conveys a fact.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any assurance that better protection will be afforded British shipping against the operations of enemy submarines in Liverpool Bay and the adjoining waters?

The forces available for the protection of shipping are used to the best possible advantage, their disposition being adjusted as circumstances require.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that enemy operations have been going on here for quite a considerable period; that there is a strong feeling of indignation growing up in Liverpool about it; and will he see that some measures are adopted to give greater protection?

I can only repeat that the resources at our disposal are used to the very best advantage according to our ability to meet the demand. We can do no more than that.

Does that mean that we are to expect that these sinkings are to go on?

Does it mean that the Admiralty are prepared to take no advice but their own?

Oh, no. In certain cases we have taken other advice.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the delay to ships and loss of the use of mercantile tonnage by the present system of convoy?

Yes, Sir. Some delay to shipping must necessarily result from any system of convoy sailings.

I do not wish to be severe on the Admiralty, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many inefficient methods adopted up to the present, and that steamers are kept waiting at least ten days for convoys, and that convoys have been sent out, notwithstanding what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller says, with fast and slow ships running together, with the result that the convoys go along at the rate of four or seven knots an hour?

If my hon. Friend has any views as to convoys not being worked as efficiently as they might be, I shall be very glad to have them, and submit them to my naval advisers. I have already taken note of his suggestion, which I will represent to my advisers.

I do not dissent from their being all at one speed, but from the speed of about four knots an hour for both fast and slow boats.

In view of the widespread impression—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—that there has been an avoidable delay, would it not be a good thing to have a friendly consultation with important shipowners?

I will certainly make that representation. My hon. Friend knows there have been such consultations already, and I am not sure that he has not been present at them, and we are much obliged to him for his assistance. If he can help us further as an expert, by all means let us have his advice.

In view of the very important questions—

Order, order!

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the unequal distribution of shipping at the ports caused by insufficient convoy protection; whether he is aware that fifteen large modern docks are lying idle in the Bristol Channel ports and that 45 per cent. of shipping is congested in the port of Liverpool, with consequent delays and wastage of tonnage, while 30,000 to 40,000 men are without work and enduring privation which is causing discontent; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The reply to the first part is in the negative, but it is true that the convoy system sometimes necessarily interferes with the purely economic distribution of shipping at ports. It is not the case that fifteen large modern docks are lying idle in the Bristol Channel ports, but it is true that at the date of a very recent report there were fifteen principal ports in the United Kingdom not being used for the discharge of general cargoes and grain, but in use for other important purposes. As to the port of Liverpool, the proportion of shipping there is not as great as is suggested in the question. It is true that there is shortage of work at some ports; the conditions referred to arise out of the exigencies of war, and, as my hon. Friend knows, it is impossible to avoid this. Generally, the best possible use is being made of United Kingdom ports in the very difficult circumstances which obtain.

Is there any truth in the statement that fast and slow ships are convoyed at one and the same time?

That is absolutely false.

Is there any truth in the assertion that there are from 30,000 to 40,000 dock labourers without work?

That is a statement which I have not been able to verify, but it is true, consequent upon the necessary uneven distribution of shipping in the ports, that there is a certain amount of unemployment at some of the ports. As there seems some misunderstanding as to my reply to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne), I should like to add that convoys, of course, sail at an even rate.

Will the Ministry take some serious steps to get these 30,000 or 40,000 men removed from the places where they are not employed to many of the ports which are short of dock labour?

Everything possible is done to increase the availability of dock labour.

This question was put on Monday, and I do not desire to put it again unless the right hon. Gentleman has anything to add to his previous answer.

No, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on Monday.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he will state on what authority the presidents and members of courts-martial varied the procedure of courts-martial prior to the Order in Council of 7th July, 1916, in view of the fact that the public were excluded from these courts; will he state the wording of any Admiralty Order under which they acted; whether any representation was addressed to the Admiralty as to the risk they were running of rendering the proceedings illegal through their failure to get an Order in Council or an Act of Indemnity from this House for breaches of the Navy Discipline Act under which Parliament governs the Navy; (2) on what statutory authority the public were excluded from the proceedings of naval courts-martial during the War prior to the Order in Council laid upon the Table on 11th July, 1916, in view of the fact that Section 65 of the Naval Discipline Act lays down that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Admiralty may only frame general orders for altering and regulating the procedure and practice of courts-martial if they are approved by His Majesty in Council on a Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but not sooner or otherwise, and such Orders are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament?

Again, I am afraid I cannot add to the answer given on Monday. In the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred on Monday, the Admiralty took the course it did in the public interest and with the prior concurrence of the Rear-Admiral and his legal adviser. The Admiralty Order to the Commander-in-Chief was that the Board had had under their consideration the possibility of leakage of confidential information. In order to prevent such a possibility, it had been decided that when the interests of the State would be imperilled by the taking of evidence in public, the Court is to be cleared. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. In the opinion of the Admiralty, no such risk was run.

Did the Admiralty exclude the public from courts-martial prior to the Order in Council? Are there any other cases where the public were excluded?

Speaking off-hand, I do not think there was before 1914. I think the first case was in 1916, but I am not quite sure.

Were the public excluded or were they not excluded before 1916?

I do not know of any other case, but it is quite true that it was not until 1916 that we adopted the Regulation by Order in Council.

Then in these cases we may assume that none of these courts-martial are secret and that any Member of Parliament may have access to the proceedings of any one of these courts-martial because they could not be held in secret?

I do not know about that. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question on the point.

Was it not ultra vires on the part of the Admiralty to hold these proceedings in secret?

No; that is not our view. Our view is that, under this Regulation, we are entitled to hold courts-martial in private.

Under what paragraph? Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any provision in any Act of Parliament or any Order in Council which entitles the Admiralty to hold these courts in secret?

No, Sir. I have already said so. But I can point to nothing to the contrary.

It is contrary to the common law.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that the Admiralty are overriding the Navy Discipline Act Section 65, which says that there must be an Order in Council and that such Orders in Council must be laid on the Table of this House?

It is not our view that under Section 65 we are bound to hold a court-martial in public.

You have to get an Order in Council.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether plans have been prepared for a mid-Scotland canal viâ Loch Lomond; whether plans will be prepared for an alternative route; and whether, when all data are collected with regard to practicability, cost, strategic, and commercial value, he will submit full particulars to the House of Commons before any final decision is come to?

As I have previously stated, Messrs. Armstrong submitted some time ago plans for a canal viâ Loch Lomond, and I understand that they have in preparation also similar plans for one by the "direct route." I presume that any decision reached by His Majesty's Government to construct a canal will require Parliamentary sanction.

May we take it that in preparing the final Report on the Mid-Scotland Canal the right hon. Gentleman will use the highest class of brains in the engineering profession, and see that a thoroughly independent Report is made; and will he also consider whether it would not be advisable in the interests of the country that the probable future of the Crinan Canal should be looked into at the same time, because it would make a thorough through route from the East to the West Coast?

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that a canal from Yoker to Grangemouth would be of very great value from a commercial point of view, see that very full and impartial consideration is given to the plans prepared for a canal by this route?

So far as we are concerned—and this is a matter of strategic importance to us—we are now preparing a Report for the Ministry of Reconstruction, and all the points raised by my hon. Friend, and all the relative facts from that point of view, will certainly be considered.

Would it not be a good plan to decide this by the hon. Member's system of the alternative vote?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether consideration has yet been given to the payment of disability pensions to the few long-service men who have received wounds and injuries during the War, and who, instead of being invalided, have been retained on active service?

It has been decided to adhere to existing regulations and practice whereby compensation on the injury pension scale of the men referred to by my hon. Friend is deferred until their final discharge from the Service. It is proposed, however, to arrange that while these men remain in the Service they shall suffer no pecuniary loss through loss of earning capacity; and, of course, if any of these men qualify for long-service pension while still in Admiralty service, such pension will be awarded, and their cases will subsequently be transferred to the Ministry of Pensions for an award on the injury scale when the time arrives for discharge to the shore.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the long answer he has given me has nothing whatever to do with the question? The men to whom I refer in no way benefit from what he has told the House.

With the greatest respect, I think I understand the question as well as the hon. Gentleman himself. The answer I have given is a precise answer to the question on the Paper.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is proposed to make a change of staff at the Post Office wirless stations in the British Isles; if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to replace the existing staffs, composed of Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve men, by operators who have received a short period of training at the Crystal Palace; and whether, seeing that the present operators have apparently given every satisfaction since the outbreak of war, he will reconsider the question of retaining them on their present work?

My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is answering a question by my hon. Friend, No. 98, which deals with certain aspects of this question. For the rest, no change will be made by us in the personnel of a station so long as it remains under the Post Office. We are proposing to take over certain further Post Office stations, and these may either be manned by naval ratings or by the present Post Office staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the statement of the Russian Foreign Minister that Roumania was, in the spring of 1916, offered such inducements as were then considered the utmost possible in order to induce her to enter the War; and whether subsequently further promises or offers have been made to Roumania?

I have seen the statement referred to, but am unable to judge, without further information, to what offers the Russian Foreign Minister was alluding. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was on instruction from or with the knowledge of the British Government that shortly before 9th October, 1917, the British, French, and Italian Ambassadors personally expressed to M. Kerensky in Petrograd their fears as to the state of Russia; and whether Sir George Buchanan reported that the American Government had declined to take part in this action?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand that the United States Ambassador did not participate in these representations, because he was without instructions from his Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir George Buchanan has received any Notes or communications from the present (Leninist or Socialist Coalition) Government in Petrograd; if so, what action has been taken upon them; and whether any of our Allies or any neutral Governments have relations with the present Government in Petrograd?

Two official Notes have so far been received from M. Trotsky by Sir George Buchanan. No action has been taken on them. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, so far as the Allied representatives are concerned. I have no sufficient information to enable me to answer about the representatives of neutral Powers.

Does Sir George Buchanan inform M. Trotsky that it is no use sending dispatches or communications to him, as they are totally disregarded?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir George Buchanan is in communication with any persons recognised as being representative of, or connected with, the Russian Government; if the answer is in the affirmative, who are those persons; if the answer is in the negative, on what date was Sir George Buchanan last in communication with the Russian Government, and with what persons was he then in communication; and whether Sir George Buchanan's letters and telegrams to the Foreign Office are subject at present to any censorship or delay on the part of the Russian authorities?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Sir George Buchanan was in communication with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the late Russian Government just before it was superseded. Sir George Buchanan's letters and telegrams are subjected to a certain amount of delay, but not, so far as I am aware, to any censorship.

Is it usual, or has it occurred before, that our Ambassadorial dispatches and communications have been subjected to any delay, and can any reason be given for this?

I should have thought the position of Russia was a very sufficient reason for such delay in communication.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the present Russian Government has appointed an Ambassador to the Court of St. James; and, if so, can he state his name?

Nothing has been heard officially on the subject of such an appointment since the fall of the late Provisional Government in Russia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to any new statement of Allied policy, whether His Majesty's Government will see to it that the rights of the Albanian peoples to self-government within their ethical boundaries are held as sacred as the rights of Armenians, Serbs, Jews, or Poles, and especially that their country be not used as a pool or a consolation prize?

His Majesty's Government have the warmest sympathy with the Albanian peoples, and would welcome any solution which, accompanied by adequate security against future strife, was of a nature to safeguard the full exercise of their national rights.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many men of military age classified A or B were taken on to the staffs of the War Trade Intelligence Department and kindred services after the passing of the Military Service Act; and what proportion of these men have since been released to the Colours?

The War Trade Intelligence Department have taken on six A and B men, who are still there; two of them were transferred from other offices; one has been reclassified as C3. The Foreign Trade Department have taken on seven men of whom three have since been released; of the remaining four, only one is B 1, one B 2, and the others B 3. The War Trade Statistical Department have taken on no men from outside, but have had five A and B men (Civil servants) transferred to them from other Departments. The War Trade Department have taken on one man classified B 1—he is still employed.

May I point out the cruelty of any endeavour to elicit information with regard to the action of the Foreign Office?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether President Wilson has in any way retracted as regards his declarations that the establishment of a League of Nations should be sought?

I am not aware of any announcement by President Wilson in that sense

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the intentions of official persons in Germany, directly or indirectly, to encourage polygamy?

His Majesty's Government learned recently that a neutral newspaper had called attention to the publication of a pamphlet in Germany entitled '"Complementary Marriage the only Sure Means of Building up a New and Powerful Army and Ennobling Morality." It was stated that this pamphlet had been officially, or semi-officially, spread broadcast both among the soldiers and the civil population.

Is it on mere newspaper statements by a neutral paper that the Foreign Office representatives in this House make important speeches?

All I said was that a neutral newspaper has made the assertion which I have just read out.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Noble Lord his Under-Secretary elaborated this in a speech in the country, and does he consider it worthy of the dignity of his office and of his relative to make such speeches on such miserable foundations?

That question had better be addressed to my noble relative. I hope the hon. Member himself will take to heart the views on newspaper evidence which he has just given us.

What are our sources of information if the Foreign Office withholds every information it can and leaves us to rely solely upon newspapers?

The hon. Member is complaining of me because I did use those sources.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from any Allied Government any communication of dissent or concern regarding the pronouncement recently made by Lord Lansdowne?

The reply is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement to the House on the subject of Lord Lansdowne's letter which appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" of 29th November?

The answer is in the negative.

Have the Cabinet fully considered the gravity of this document, as being an invitation to allow Germany to establish a hegemony over Europe on condition that the present dynasty is preserved?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the statement on war aims that has been made by Lord Lansdowne, and in particular because it urges President Wilson's policy of a league of nations, he will take steps to secure for it the widest possible publicity through the War Aims Committee?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many of the nine provinces of the Dominion of Canada laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors are in operation; and whether in each case these are permanent or for the period of the War only?

Laws restricting the sale and consumption of liquor on the lines of what is known as prohibition have been passed by all the Canadian provinces with the exception of Quebec, where the system in force is that of local option. The legislation is generally of a permanent character, but in Ontario and New Brunswick plebescites are to be taken in the first case in June, 1919, and in the second at some time after the War.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to give an assurance that no women or children were shot during the disturbances in Ceylon either by white men themselves or soldiers under their command?

Investigation has shown that one woman was accidentally shot by a patrol firing at some rioters. The facts were given in a reply to the hon. Member for Westmeath on the 30th April. No other case has been brought to notice, and I have no reason to suppose that any occurred.

Does the horn Gentleman think the word "accidentally" is a proper word in the case of the shooting of that woman?

Yes, Sir.

Were any of them children?

I am not aware of that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of prisoners of war taken on all fronts, Germans, Turks, and other nationalities, up to and including those reported on 26th November?

I will circulate the details and the dates in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the totals are as follows:—

Is there any chance of an interchange of prisoners with the Turks?

I must have notice of that question.

[ The following are the details referred to: ]

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in regard to the censorship of letters coming from abroad or going abroad, there is, in addition to the list of those exempted from censorship, a list communicated to the officials of the Censor's Department advising that no letters addressed to certain persons should be opened, though they are not included in the category of persons declared in this House to be exempt from censorship; whether the full list or a description of the classes of such persons will be communicated to the House; whether in that list are included relatives of ex-King Constantine; and, if so, whether the grounds of exception will be given in each case?

No, Sir; there is no such list.

Has the hon. Gentleman ascertained that as a fact, or is his reply intended to deceive the House?

I endeavour, so far as possible, never to deceive the House, and it is as I said.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the War Office are recalling men to the Colours who are at one and the same time time-expired and wounded; whether he is aware that a time-expired man who has been wounded is in exactly the same position as a man subject to the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act; and whether it is proposed to equalise the position of such men?

A man who was discharged from the Army on grounds of disablement and whose disablement is certified to have been the result of wounds received in battle or from the enemy is not liable to be re-called for military service under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, since he is expressly freed from liability by that Act. On the other hand, the liability of a man who was discharged time-expired does not arise under the Act at all, and, therefore, the provision of the Act relating to wounded men does not apply to him.

Are not they fully entitled to consideration?

I believe they are entitled to sympathetic consideration, but they have no rights under the Act.

Have they not the same rights under the Act as the men to whom my hon. Friend gave a pledge at the Liverpool election?

Not at all. The pledge I gave at the Liverpool election is the pledge I gave in the House.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that men serving in the Mediterranean on His Majesty's mine-sweepers and patrol vessels have not had leave for two and a-half years; and if he will endeavour to see that these men, as opportunity arises, are granted the leave due to them?

Nearly all the men on mine-sweepers in the Mediterranean who have served two years there have already been relieved. We hope before long that this will be true of all these men. As regards motor launches, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the Member for West Leeds on 19th November.

asked whether an order will be issued authorising, wherever possible, leave for Christmas to those men who are in the agricultural section of the Labour Battalion (Home Service), and who have not had leave for six months and over?

The general question of Christmas leave is being considered, and no instructions have yet been issued on the subject. It is hoped that the men in agricultural companies will benefit to the same extent as others.

Will instructions be issued in time?

Yes.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that men earning large wages as aeroplane engine-fitters are being taken from that work and placed in the Army in the motor transport Army Service Corps, and a short time afterwards sent back to their former occupation; and whether he can take steps to see that this waste of time and disorganisation of work, entailing, in addition, application to the Civil Liabilities Committee and inconvenience to the men's families, is avoided by inquiring beforehand whether these men are really required in the national interests in their present employment before calling them up?

My hon. Friend has furnished me with particulars of a specific case. The matter is one for my hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, who, I understand, will make inquiries and communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

asked the Under-Secretary for War why Joseph Quigley, forty-seven years old and father of six children, who enlisted for home service as baker in the Army Service Corps at Nenagh on 12th September, 1917, and now stationed at Bath, regimental No. 363,617, Bakers' Section, Army Service Corps, has not been put to his trade since joining up; if he will say why he has been put through a course of drill and raised from C3 to B1; and if it is the intention to break their agreement with this man?

All men of the supply branch of the Army Service Corps are sent to the depot at Bath for trade test and the necessary drill and instruction, and cannot all be employed at their trades there while awaiting posting. Private Quigley enlisted for general service, and on enlistment was classified C1 (now B1), not C3. The last part of the question does not arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Stephen Kelley, late senior wireless engineer of the 3rd Light Horse Brigade, Australian Engineers, found much needed water for thousands of men although he was wounded and had to be carried out of hospital for that purpose, he can now say why this man is now in London with a pension of only 7s. 6d. per week; and why, as he is now sufficiently recovered to be of the greatest service in finding water in Palestine, he is not so employed?

I have no information as to Sapper Kelley's pension, which is a matter for the Australian authorities. As regards his further employment, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave him on 13th November.

Is he going to do anything?

I pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on 13th November that Kelley was declared to be permanently unfit for any Army service by a board of consultants.

As he is able to walk and run about this country, why should he not do so in Palestine?

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether medical men in military hospitals who are over age have been replaced by Americans; if so, to what extent this practice has been carried on; and whether he will consider the possibility of utilising the services of elderly medical men for the examination of recruits so as to release for active service medical men of military age?

The services of medical officers of the Army of the United States of America are being made use of in the military hospitals at home and abroad, not only to release medical practitioners required for the Army, but in order to afford these officers opportunities of acquiring practical military experience with troops under service conditions. The medical examination of recruits is conducted under the instructions of the National Service Ministry, to whom this part of the question should have been addressed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of cases where medical men beyond the age are yet quite capable of doing ser- viceable work and are desirous of doing such work and cannot their services be utilised?

We always try to use the services of civil practitioners, but as the hon. Member knows there was at one time a great outcry in the House that we had been using civil practitioners too much.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if he can give any information as to the alleged ill-treatment of British, Indian, and native prisoners of war by Germans in East Africa?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Command Paper presented in September, 1917 (Cd.8689), which contains a full statement on this subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Resolutions in regard to alien enemies standing in the names of the hon. Member for Brentford and others have been unanimously approved by the Unionist Business Committee and the Unionist War Committee, representing the majority of his own supporters in the House; and whether, under these circumstances, he will give a day for their discussion?

I regret that it will not be possible for me to give special facilities for the discussion of this subject, which can be raised in connection with the next Vote of Credit, which will be introduced before the end of the Session.

As it is impossible to pass a Resolution, or to vote against the Government on a Vote of Credit, and there is a very strong feeling both inside and outside the House upon this question, will the right hon. Gentleman give a day, or even half a day, for discussion, even if the Session is extended over Christmas?

I really do not think it necessary. I think that the Vote of Credit will give full opportunity for dis- cussion, and if Members like to take the responsibility they can even take a vote. What is wanted I am sure is a discussion, and that gives the best opportunity.

asked if the redistribution proposals will be amended to meet the views of the Irish people; and why the agreement arrived at by the Speaker's Conference is not carried out by the Government?

I cannot add anything to the previous replies on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that nearly 2,000 acres of agricultural land adjoining Seaford, Sussex, have been taken over by the military authorities, and that several hundred acres of the best arable land in Sussex, which has not been and cannot be used for military purposes, is being neglected in such a way that the East Sussex War Agricultural Committee are anxious to take over the land, but cannot do so because it belongs to the War Office and not to a private owner; and whether he will take steps to see that land which is not required for military purposes, but which has been taken over by the War Office, should be subject to the Lands Cultivation Order in the same way as if it belonged to a private owner?

I have no information at present as to the matter brought to notice by my hon. Friend, but I will make inquiries at once and let him know the result.

asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to a response as unanimous as possible to His Majesty the King's call to prayer on Sunday, 6th January, the Government intend to order or recommend the closing on that day of all shops, cinemas, theatres, and other places of entertainment; and, having regard to previous occasions for solemn prayer before Almighty God appointed by the Sovereign, whether His Majesty the King will be advised accordingly?

The Government has no power to make such an Order as is suggested. The value of the response to the King's call to prayer will depend on its being spontaneous, and I do not doubt the nation will respond spontaneously and unanimously to the call.

Does the right Hon. Gentleman not think that the Prime Minister might join in the appeal by heads of religious bodies, to the nation to observe this day, and to close all unnecessary business on one day during the War?

I think the fact that this appeal has been made is the best recommendation that can be made, and I do not think it would be strengthened by the course suggested by the hon. Member.

asked whether, in view of the statement by Herr von Kuhlman that Germany was prepared to convey her war aims to the Allies, His Majesty's Government will take steps to avail themselves of this offer?

A declaration of war aims by Germany, which has not yet been forthcoming, would be considered by the Allied Governments.

asked the Prime Minister whether, once a week, he will make a statement as to British casualties and relevant facts, the House sitting in secret for the time occupied?

The answer is in the negative.

Does not the responsibility for the soldiers rest with every Member of this House, and how can they fulfil that responsibility if the Government refuses to give relevant facts?

The Government does not refuse to give relevant facts. Responsibility is left to the House of Commons, but it is also left to the Cabinet, which is responsible to the House of Commons.

Does that mean that if the right hon. Gentleman receives from Members of the House of Commons a request for the giving of facts in a Secret Session he will meet that request?

No; it means that if the House should demand from the Government anything which the Government is not prepared to give, it would mean that the Government no longer commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

Order, order!

The hon. Member has received a very explicit answer. If he wants any further information, he had better put the question down.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are satisfied that our losses in the field are balanced by the gains we make, and whether the Government—

Order, order!

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.