asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of complaints made by traders about the time occupied in the transportation of bacon from the port of arrival to its destination, the time on the railway usually taking about a week, with the result that the goods arrive in a very bad condition and large quantities have to be destroyed; and whether something will be done in the interests of food economy to improve this state of things?

I have received no recent complaint of delay in the transport of bacon by railway, but if the hon. Gentleman has any serious case of the kind in mind, I will look into it if he will let me have the necessary particulars.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether the cargo of meat which was lost recently by the sinking of a steamer after leaving Plymouth could lave been discharged at that port; whether accommodation exists at Plymouth for the storage of meat; and, if so, whether such accommodation could be materially increased?

The meat cargo of the steamer in question could have been discharged at Plymouth, but the results would have been very unsatisfactory, as is shown by the experience of previous cases. There is a small amount of cold storage accommodation at the port. The whole question of the cold storage accommodation at this and other places is being dealt with by the Food Controller, and I understand that over 9,000,000 cubic feet of additional cold storage space are under construction, or in contemplation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any restriction against the export of matches, paper, and whisky, and, if so, what; and whether, in view of the shortage of these articles, he will consider the desirability of prohibiting their export altogether?

The export of matches to all destinations has been suspended, and an Order of Council will shortly be issued regularising this prohibition. Whisky is at present only prohibited to be exported to neutral European countries, but I will consult the Food Con- troller as to whether he thinks it advisable that the scope of this prohibition should be extended. As regards paper, there are in force prohibitions affecting a few special descriptions, but the export of paper in general has not hitherto been prohibited. The exports are very much smaller than a year ago. I am considering in consultation with the Chairman of the Paper Commission, whether the circumstances are such as to make a prohibition of export desirable in this case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to permit those who want a little whisky to get some?

asked the President of the Board of Trade upon what information the Board decided that Messrs. Werths Brothers should be exempted from internment as being experts in the diamond-die industry; what steps they took to ascertain whether there was any real need for their continuance in business; by whose authority it is that the firm states on its letter paper that they are under the special licence of His Majesty's Government; and whether he is now prepared to give directions for the winding-up of this firm?

An order to wind up the business of Werths and Company was made on the 15th February last. The Controller who was appointed to conduct the winding up was authorised to retain Mr. Werths' services for the purpose of completing certain orders for diamond dies which were under execution in regard to which considerable expert knowledge was necessary. The business was eventually sold by the Controller, and there is no doubt that the purchaser bought the business with the intention of retaining the services of Mr. Werths, as without his expert knowledge and relations with the French manufacturers of the dies it was practically of no value. No undertaking was, however, given by the Controller, or by the Board of Trade in regard to the retention of Mr. Werths' services, nor have the Board decided that he should be exempted from internment, as that question is not within their jurisdiction. I have no information in regard to the firm having stated on its letter paper that they are now under the special licence of His Majesty's Government, but I will make inquiry and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to addresses to members of the Brass Masters' Association and manufacturing jewellers delivered in Birmingham by Mr. Paish; whether he was authorised to suggest to them that instead of their own representatives abroad they should allow the collection of orders in South America to be undertaken by Government officials, who would carry their samples as commercial travellers; whether such officials have been appointed; if so, how many of them and to what countries have the operations been extended up to the present time; what expenses have been incurred in connection with this matter; whether any Estimate will be laid before Parliament, or other means provided for obtaining its sanction for this new development of Departmental activity; and whether he will make a general statement with regard to this matter?

I am sending my right hon. Friend a copy of the Report recently presented to Parliament of the proceedings of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence, on page 7 of which he will find a full account of the recommendations of that Committee with regard to the conduct of commercial investigations respecting the prospects of development of certain British trades in particular overseas markets by officers jointly selected, and paid by the Department of Commercial Intelligence and the representative trade associations. No suggestion has been made either by the Committee or by any representative of the Department that orders should be collected on behalf of the firms concerned. Mr. Paish is secretary of the Sub-Committee appointed by the late Advisory Committee on Commercial intelligence to deal with this matter, and he has in that capacity communicated with various associations either by letter or by personal interview. I am glad to say that arrangements on the lines recommended by the Committee have been made with the associations representing the jewellery and allied trades for a joint mission to South America, and I hope that further arrangements on similar lines for the benefit of British trade will be found possible. No expenditure has so far been incurred, but the Treasury have sanctioned an expenditure not exceeding £5,000 for the purpose of these investigations, and this will be open to criticism in the usual manner on the Estimates of the Board of Trade.

I understand that none of these travellers have yet been dispatched. Will my hon. Friend say that before this step is taken Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing it?

No; I can not assent to the description of these gentlemen as travellers. It is not at all an accurate description. The work is much more analogous to that of encouraging the exhibition of goods abroad, a principle which has, I understand, received quite general approval.

Will they ask for orders?

They are not authorised to apply for orders.

Are there on the Advisory Committee any representatives of the Commercial Travellers' Association in this country?

Not that I am aware of. It was a Sub-Committee of the larger Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence, of which I believe the personnel is published.

Will the Report of these gentlemen, with their recommendations, be submitted to the House?

The Report has already been published. I think that it is No. 8815, this year. Therefore it is open to any Member of this House to get it for the sum of 2d. or to have it delivered to him.

Before the Government adopt the policy embodied in the recommendations of the Committee, will the House have an opportunity of considering that policy?

I shall have to consult the Leader of the House, but I think that the principle has already been approved authoritatively. It is analogous to exhibitions in foreign countries. I do not think that there is any need for discussion of that in detail in this House.

Was not this Mr. Paish down in Birmingham recommending the brass trade to form a syndicate for a cartel?

No; I think that he was making a report simply on the question of an association for the purposes of the export trade. It was in response to an invitation that he went down in order to talk about the matter to them.

asked whether all the German-held shares in the English and Continental Casing Company Limited, have been sold; and, if so, to whom and why it is necessary in that case to continue two German directors?

All the shares held by German subjects in the English and Continental Casing Company. Limited, have been sold, and I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the purchasers. Of the present directors of the company one is a naturalised British subject of German origin, and the remaining four are British-born subjects.

asked whether the Government has under consideration the desirability of forming an all-British oil company, free from all foreign interest and foreign control, for dealing with the development of oilfields outside the British Isles and particularly in British colonies, dependencies, and Allied countries?

The whole question is under careful consideration.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the able and convincing speech of the chairman of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, in which there is a great deal of public money invested, and will he give the matter careful consideration?

I have read the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are giving careful consideration to this matter. I do not think it advisable to go into it at present.

Are you taking any steps to secure petroleum in this country?

That is a matter which is being dealt with by the Colonial Secretary.

Is it not being held up?

asked whether, considering that rubber bathing caps are particularly perishable and most unlikely to be stocked now so far in advance of next year's summer trade, and in view of the fact that these caps could possibly be used to make gas masks or for other warlike purposes, why licences were granted during the last three months for the export of 1,912 of these caps to Switzerland; and whether their export to a country marching with Germany will in future be prohibited?

The amount of rubber goods exportable to Switzerland is determined by the Allied International Commission in Paris. The amount of the goods in question that have been so far dispatched is considerably less than that which has been agreed upon, and they will be perfectly serviceable for next season's use. In the present abnormal condition of trade it is not always possible to secure manufacturing or transit facilities for the season most convenient to purchasers. His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the Société Suisse de Surveillance have violated their agreement to prevent the re-export of these goods to enemy countries.

Does the Noble Lord think that Swiss traders are going to the expense of importing these rubber caps by parcel post for the sake of stocking them for next year's trading season?

There is great difficulty in obtaining them, and many of these caps were ordered months ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of Sir George Buchanan's statement that the British Government cannot recognise any Russian Government without first assuring themselves of that Government having the sanction and approval of the Russian people, it is the policy of this country to recognise no government in Russia until the constituent assembly now being elected is in a position to support the ruling authorities?

In dealing with circumstances which change rapidly from day to day nothing is gained by laying down hard and fast rules for dealing with eventualities which have not yet occurred.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether communications to Sir George Buchanan from M. Trotsky are treated as non-official; (2) whether the Government recognises that persons accredited to this country as ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary are entilted to immunity from arrest and imprisonment; and (3) whether Russia is still in alliance with this country for the purposes of the War; and, if not, whether Russia is now regarded as a neutral or belligerent Power?

With respect to these questions, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to four of his questions on Thursday last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that on matters quite outside our knowledge obtained from the papers, we are to have no information whatever?

Information in my possession, and which is not in the possession of the hon. Gentleman, is published when justifiable and in the public interests.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the public interest was never urged in the reply given last week?

Is the position today that the right hon. Member and the Government have made a complete fiasco of our conditions and relations with Russia, and does not he think that it might, perhaps, be well to inform the House about what is going on?

I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Vote of Credit.

asked whether the British Ambassador has yet reported what the terms of peace would be which the present Russian Government would desire; and whether those terms differ in any important respect from the war aims of the Western Allies?

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to discover what the policy is supposed to be?

I am in constant communication with Sir George Buchanan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has noted the recent statement by President Wilson that had our war aims been made plain at the very outset the sympathy and enthusiasm of the Russian people might have been once and for all enlisted on our side; and whether he will, on the Vote of Credit, set out with greater clearness our war aims?

I have read the statement referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I do not presume to anticipate the judgment which the hon. Member may think fit to pronounce on any speech which it may be my duty to make, either on the Vote of Credit or on some other similar occasion.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise in regard to the speech of President Wilson that there could not be a more strong and clear condemnation of his policy?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise how fully President Wilson, in his remarks with regard to Russia, endorsed the views expressed from these benches?

I do not happen to have noticed that circumstance.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements by W. Trotsky that the Russian Government are aiming at a general peace, and that he had no idea of a separate peace; and whether that is confirmed by official information?

Yes, Sir. Such a statement was contained in the communication published by the Council of Peoples' Commissioners, in their official organ, on 1st December, the text of which has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd.

asked who is our representative at present with the Roumanian Government; where he now is; and whether he is in daily or regular telegraphic communication with the Foreign Office?

Sir George Barclay is His Majesty's Minister at the Roumanian Court. He is now at Jassy, and is in regular telegraphic correspondence with His Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the position of Roumania; whether the Government and the Allies continue their material support of our Roumanian Allies; and whether supplies can still be sent to the Roumanian Front?

I cannot with advantage say anything more than that the gallant Roumanian Army has been obliged, by circumstances beyond its control, to conclude a military armistice.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that applications are being made to the Dart-ford County Court for ejectment orders under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, on the ground of wanting for reasonable occupation, and that these orders which are being made are mainly in regard to houses occupied by munition workers who are unable to obtain other houses in the same district; and, in order to avoid this evasion of the intention of the Act of 1915, will he put in force the powers to prevent the ejectment of munition workers in the North-West Kent munition areas which are now in force in Barrow-in-Furness?

As a result of representations which have been received concerning the Dartford area, arrangements have been made for a full inquiry into this and neighbouring districts to ascertain whether it would be desirable that an Order should be made applying Regulation 2 A of the Defence of the Realm Regulations to the district.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether it is proposed to separate the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey and the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, which were brought under one control in 1909, and to remove the present superintendent, who has had ten years' experience there; whether, since the amalgamation of these two factories under the present superintendent, very considerable economies have been effected both in administration and production, whilst the output has so increased as to meet all requirements since the beginning of the War; whether the officers it is intended to appoint to superintend these factories have had previous experience in similar factory management; and whether the inconvenience and expense caused by the dislocation of the present system will be compensated for by any material improvement?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Owing to the increasing demands on the two factories referred to, the work of superintendence has outgrown the capacity of any one man, and as the retirement of the present superintendent has become due in the ordinary course, the opportunity has been taken to divide the control. The new superintendents have both had previous experience of factory management, and are well fitted to assume the responsibilities of the posts to which they have been appointed. I hope that the advantages to be gained will outweigh any temporary inconvenience that may be caused.

In view of the valuable services rendered by the present superintendent, will adequate provision be made for him in his removal?

I do not know what provision is being made, but I will inquire.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received a Report as to the progress and recommendations, if any, of the Board of Referees on Profits of Controlled Establishments; how many sittings this Board has held within the last six months; whether any changes have been made in its personnel during this period; what is the annual cost to the State of this Board, including salaries, rent, rates, taxes, printing, posting, and stationery; and whether this Board is to be continued?

I have been asked to answer this question. The Board of Referees on Profits of Controlled Establishments was set up under the provisions of Section 5 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915. No appeals have yet been heard by the Board, and consequently it has not held any meetings. Its personnel is unchanged. No expenditure of public funds has been incurred. Under the Finance Bill it will be necessary to continue this Board, as appeals may be made to it.

Are we to understand that no applications have been made to hear appeals, and that all firms in this country engaged on munitions work are satisfied with their assessment?

I do not put the claim so high as that. I said no appeals had yet been heard.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received a report as to the progress and recommendations, if any, of the Wages of Munition Workers Committee; how many sittings this Committee has held within the last six months; whether any changes have been made in the personnel of this Committee during this period; what is the annual cost of this Committee to the State, including salaries, rent, rates, taxes, printing, posting, and stationery; and whether this Committee is to be continued?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to take this question. I have no knowledge of any such Committee.

Might I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Reports of the House?

If the hon. Gentleman will identify the Committee, of course I will make inquiries.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received a Report as to the progress and recommendations, if any, of the Ministry of Munitions Financial Advisory Committee; how many sittings this Committee has held within the last six months; whether any changes have been made in its personnel during this period; what is the annual cost to the State of this Committee, including salaries, rent, rates, taxes, printing, posting, and stationery; and whether this Committee is to be continued?

I have been asked to answer this question. The Ministry of Munitions Financial Advisory Committee meets once a week, and its sub-committees meet two or three times a week, as occasion demands. The personnel has been strengthened recently by the appointment of some additional members. The members of the Committee do not receive remuneration. The Secretary is unpaid. There is no expenditure of public money except for pens, ink, paper, and for the use of one room. It is proposed to continue the Committee, whose work is of real value.

Are any members of this Committee of military age or military fitness?

I believe not.

asked the Pensions Minister whether Private Edward Leach, late of the Montgomeryshire Yeomanry, a discharged soldier who, as an insured person, was entitled to sanatorium treatment under the National Insurance Act and was provided with such treatment by the Montgomeryshire Insurance Committee, has had the sum of 1s. per day deducted from his disablement pension during the time he was in the sanatorium receiving such treatment, his sickness benefit for the period having been paid by his approved society to the insurance committee under the provisions of Section 12 (2, b ) of the National Insurance Act, 1911; and, if so, whether the amount so deducted will be refunded to this discharged soldier?

I have no doubt that the facts generally are as stated. The deduction of 1s. a day is made in all cases where any part of the cost of treatment in an institution is borne by the Ministry, or otherwise by public funds. In the case of institutional treatment for tuberculosis substantial grants are made by the Exchequer towards the cost of treatment for discharged disabled men. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that a man entering a sanatorium has an allowance equal to the highest rate of disablement pension to provide for his maintenance. The amount thus deducted during treatment in an institution is not refunded to the man on discharge from the institution.

asked the Pensions Minister whether he has yet taken into consideration the case of a London telephone operator named E. J. Colling, late Royal Field Artillery, who was invalided out of the Army in April, 1917, after being in hospital for nearly nine months, the result of a breakdown in health caused by his duties in France; and whether, after giving careful attention to all the facts, he is prepared to grant the pension to this man considering that all he has received has been a gratuity of £30?

As I promised the hon. Member in my answer to him on the 12th of last month, I consulted the special medical board with regard to the case of Mr. Colling, whom they have now re-examined. They are of opinion that the gratuity of £30 properly covers the disability until the end of February, 1918, when the case will be resubmitted to them for reconsideration.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will look into the case of Mr. Nicholas Stoker, of Low Square, Walbottle, Newburn, county Durham, whose appeal claim for separation allowance on account of his son has heen before the Appeal Committee for the last ten weeks; and will he see that a decision is reached immediately in conformity with the recommendation of the local pension committee?

A decision has been recently reached, and payment has been made, with effect from 11th January, 1917

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, pensioned Civil servants who come back to help the Government in time of war are not entitled to receive more, including salary and pension, than their old salary of pre-war days; and, if so, whether these men, particularly those with small salaries, will be allowed to receive the war bonus, the same as other Government workers?

Pensioned Civil servants re-employed by their Departments, whose pension is completely suspended during the period of re-employment, may be allowed any war bonus to which they may be entitled under the terms of this circular, notwithstanding that it may raise their total emoluments above the rate of pay which they received at the date of retirement. Re-employed pensioners, whose pensions are not completely suspended, may also be allowed the benefit of any war bonus to which they may be entitled under the terms of this circular; but under Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, they may receive only so much pension as, with their pay, including the bonus, does not exceed the amount of their pay at the date of retirement. In these cases it should be understood that the remuneration for the purpose of the limits specified in paragraph (2) above shall be their total emoluments, including any sums received in respect of pension.

Am I to understand, on the first point of my question, that the withdrawal of the suspension of the pension is to be made separately to the Treasury or to the Department concerned, to enable them to get the war bonus?

Since the hon. Member drew attention to this point in the question I am making inquiries of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions, to ascertain if any hardship has arisen from the operation of the Section of the Act which I quoted. It is obvious that where bonuses are given it may often happen that it is desirable for the man to surrender his pension. I am making inquiries into this matter, and I shall give my hon. Friend the result of the replies.

Will the hon. Gentleman inquire at the Post Office as well?

Yes.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, now that this House has directed that conscientious objectors should be disfranchised, he will issue an Order preventing them acting as teachers in elementary and secondary schools, where they have far more opportunities for evil than in any other position?

I have no authority to issue any such Order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular advising the local education authorities of the grave danger of allowing these doctrines to be taught in our schools?

It would be the greatest breach of trust in any case if any teacher were to promote pacifist or any other form of contentious political doctrine in the schools, and I am happy to assure the hon. Member that the occasions on which complaints have been made of a teacher having failed in this respect are very few and far between.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was done in those cases in which complaints were made?

I have no official knowledge. As the hon. Member is aware, there is no direct relation betwen the State and the teacher under our system, though there is in the Prussian, and consequently I have no official knowledge as to the relation between the local education authorities and the teacher, but I think the matter can be safely left to the local education authorities.

May I ask after the valuable statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, if anything of this kind occurs again he will consider the advisability of taking steps to deal with it?

Is not the example of these men, who are permitted to act as; teachers to the young, very prejudicial, and will he not advise the local authorities in proper cases to dispense with their services?

Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the issuing of instructions to the local education authorities that it should be a condition of the employment of a teacher that he should declare that he is a Tory and a Jingo?

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman recognises patriotism as a political doctrine?

We are getting into a debate.

asked the Minister of National Service whether, owing to scarcity of shipping in the Bristol Channel ports, 30,000 to 40,000 men are without work and enduring privation which is causing discontent; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to utilise these men on work of national importance?

The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed as to the number of men at the Bristol Channel ports who are unemployed. Employment at the ports necessarily depends upon the arrival of ships, and owing to the system of convoys now in force arrivals are irregular. Out of some 4,000 dockers who are generally employed, about 40 per cent. are unemployed at the present time, but the arrival of ships would immediately affect the situation. The local officers of this Ministry are alive to the desirability of securing any surplus labour for essential work elsewhere. A representative of the Ministry of National Service is being appointed to the local port labour committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a police raid was carried out on the 20th ultimo at the offices of a publication called "Satire"; what was the purpose of this raid; if he is aware that on the 30th ultimo the police raided the rooms of the editor of this journal and took away the whole stock of the paper, the blocks, order and subscription books, manuscripts, correspondence files, pictorial postcards, printed circulars, stamped wrappers, the property of the journal, and also a Yost typewriter, carbon and writing paper, private pictures and photographs, private correspondence, and £4 10s. in cash, the private property of Mr. L. A. Motler; if these articles have been returned; and, if not, will he see that they are returned immediately?

On 20th November the police entered the premises at 127, Ossulton Street, in accordance with a warrant issued by the competent military authority under Regulation 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and removed the press, blocks, and documents used in the production of the paper mentioned. No papers other than those connected with the issue of this paper were removed. The editor's rooms were also visited with a warrant, and a number of documents connected with the issue of the paper were removed, but no stationery was taken. The money was detained temporarily by the police because there was no responsible person present to whom it could be handed, but it has now been returned to the editor.

Is it necessary for the defence of the realm that the police should take away an old typewriter and carbon paper?

No, Sir; generally speaking, it is not, but my hon. Friend will understand that a good many things have to be taken together.

Is there any intention on the part of the Home Office to raid the offices of the newspaper with wide circulation which advocates the shooting of Members of this House?

That hardly arises out of the question.

asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that, in the course of an inquisitorial examination by the police of a householder at Redhill some days after a raid for pacifist literature, he was ordered to make a statement as to the activities of the members of his family; can he state whether the facts elicited have been regarded as satisfactory, namely, that of his sons one is a captain in an Indian regiment, another a lieutenant in the King's Own Lancashire Regiment and has been wounded in France, and another is a private in the London Scottish; and that of his daughters one is a Voluntary Aid Detachment nurse who was in charge of typhoid cases at Alexandria and has since been on duty in France, another was on duty as a nurse behind the Belgian lines in Flanders, and another is attending the children of soldiers; and, under these circumstances, does he propose to tender an apology; (2) whether he is aware that, on the occasion of a raid upon a private house at Redhill in search of pacifist literature, the police ordered the householder's wife to remain on the premises during the search which took six hours and forty minutes; that, on representing that she had to meet a son at the local railway station who had been invalided from France after ten months in the trenches and who had been transferred to the local hospital, they permitted her to proceed to the station under the charge of two constables; and can he state under what authority this was done; (3) whether, when a raid for pacifist literature is being conducted which lasts for six hours and forty minutes, he will give instructions that the police shall go properly provisioned and so not require to billet themselves upon the householder, as on the occasion of the recent raid at Redhill; (4) whether he is aware that the police, having failed to find any literature with reference to peace or war on the occasion of a raid on a private house at Bexhill, returned several days later and subjected the householder to an inquisitorial examination as to his ancestry with a view to discovering whether he had any taint of German blood; and can he say by what authority this was done; (5) whether, in view of the fact that the police recently subjected a householder at Redhill to an inquisitorial examination to discover if he had any taint of German blood in his ancestry, he can say whether such a circumstance is considered to be in itself an incriminating fact; (6), whether, in view of the fact that in the course of an inquisitional examination by the police of a householder at Redhill some days after a raid for pacifist literature, he was asked whether he bad been at a meeting at which aliens, naturalised or otherwise, were present; and can he say whether such association is incriminating; and (7) whether, in view of the fact that the recent police raid on a private house at Redhill in search of pacifist literature proved that the authorities had been misled; and, in view of the fact that there is reason to believe that private animosity is the cause, will he state the source of the information upon which the police acted so that redress may be sought by legal procedure?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 5th December to his questions and to that addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division.

May I ask whether the advocacy of Free Trade is to be regarded as seditious and to subject any man to inquisitorial examination by police officers as in this case?

That suggestion is as fantastic as those contained in the questions.

Was there any prima facie ground whatever for raiding this man's establishment?

Yes, Sir.

What was it?—It is a scandal. I will raise this matter on the Vote of Credit.

In view of this inquisitorial examination by the police on Mr. Blackie, will the right hon. Gentleman state whether having any German connection subjects a man to examination no matter how high his position in the country may be; or if having been present at a meeting at which a German attended also subjects him to examination, even though the German be a member of the War Council?

No, I do not think such attendance does. I have made a full statement with regard to Mr. Blackie, and I do not think any service is rendered to him by these questions.

I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to night.

asked the Home Secretary whether the cash, stamps, books, documents, stationery, literature, and generally all the property of the International Free Trade League, of 28, Victoria Street, S.W., which the police seized have been returned; and, if not, will he state the reason?

This property has been returned.

asked whether the books of the International Free Trade League, of 28, Victoria Street, S.W., prove that at the time the police raided the premises the number of members of the League was in excess of fifty?

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the answer is in the negative.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he raids these premises, and what purpose is being served by this policy, worthy only of Castle-reagh?

That does not arise on this.

Do I understand that the police reported that there are not fifty members of this society?

That is so.

asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make any statement with regard to the intentions of the Government in connection with Regulation 27 c under the Defence of the Realm Act?

I understand that I shall have an opportunity of making a statement on this matter at the end of questions to-day.

asked the Leader of the House whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the Defence of the Realm Regulation 27 c, which deals with the publication of leaflets?

In consequence of communications received from the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the members of the late Cabinet with whom he acts, and from representatives of the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress, the Government have reconsidered that part of the Defence of the Realm Regulation 27 c which requires leaflets relating to the War to be passed by the Directors of the Press Bureau. The principal object of the Government is passing the Regulation was to prevent the circulation of a leaflet which infringes Regulation 27 or 42 before the authorities have knowledge of it, and so to give an opportunity of taking proceedings in time. The Government have come to the conclusion that this object can be attained if Regulation 27 c is amended by leaving out the words requiring a leaflet to be "passed" by the Press Bureau and inserting words which will compel any leaflet which falls within its provisions to be submitted to the Bureau seventy-two hours before it is printed, published, or distributed. They have accordingly determined to modify the Regulation in the manner described, and also to introduce an exception for documents issued only for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate at a pending Parliamentary election.

The result will be that every leaflet falling within Regulation 27 c will be submitted to and examined by the Censor; and if it contravenes the Regulations steps can at once be taken to prevent its issue, the ultimate decision resting in case of dispute with the Courts. The course proposed will have the additional advantage that it will no longer be the duty of the Press Bureau to give its sanction to pamphlets which, although not illegal, may nevertheless be of an undesirable nature.

Is not the position now just as bad as it was before? Is it not a fact that every pamphlet and leaflet has still to be submitted to the Press Bureau, and that as soon as it is submitted, the Government, before it is issued, can descend upon the premises of those who issue, seize all the remaining copies, and at their own discretion under Regulation 52 c, without bringing it before a, Court of law, confiscate or destroy those copies? Does that not mean that the Government still has the power to suppress criticism of itself without bringing the matter before a Court of law?

No, Sir; that is not a true statement of the position. It was intolerable that leaflets infringing the law should be issued and distributed before we had a chance of stopping the issue. We desire to retain the power of intervening in time, and we do retain it under this Regulation as modified, but there is this difference: Whereas under the present Regulation the decision as to the stopping of a leaflet was in the hands of the Director of the Press Bureau, that is no longer the case. The decision will be the decision of the Government, and if there is a dispute the Courts of law will decide the matter.

Is it not the case that it is useless to modify Regulation 37 c even with this correction unless at the same time you modify Regulation 52, which gives the Government power to destroy and confiscate leaflets without bringing them before a Court of law?

I think the hon. Member means Regulation 51, for that gives power to intervene. I think that Regulation must be retained.

Is there not this difference between Regulation 37 c and 27 c, that the final decision as to whether a leaflet was proper to be circulated rested solely with the Censor, whereas in future it will rest entirely with the Court of law? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the position is what has just been stated by the late Home Secretary? Does Regulation 51 give the power at their own discretion, if they consider a pamphlet or document suspicious, without putting it before a Court of law, to destroy or confiscate it and deal with it in any way they like? And is it not a fact that in all the raids which took place during the last few months under this Regulation, the right hon. Gentleman has seized and retained pamphlets in regard to which he dare not prosecute before a Court of law.

The hon. Gentleman is again mistaken. Regulation 51 gives power to the police, and to the competent military authority, but they can only intervene when they are satisfied that the offence comes within the Regulation. They can only seize on that footing. If they are wrong, the Courts of Law will set them right.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the chief constable for Stoke-on-Trent in commanding the municipal authorities on Thursday afternoon last to cancel the letting of the Victoria Hall, Hanley, for a public meeting called for the next night to hear an address by the hon. Member for the division on the subject of Lord Lansdowne's manifesto; and whether this action was taken under his instructions?

My attention had not previously been called to this matter, but I am making inquiry.

Has not the sanction of the Home Office first of all to be secured before the police can take any action and, if so, how is it that the right hon. Gentleman does not know?

It depends upon the facts of the case.

Do not the Defence of the Realm Regulations governing these matters require that the sanction of the Home Office or Home Secretary must be obtained before a meeting can be prohibited?

That is the ordinary way. There are exceptions in urgent cases.

Are we to understand that Members are to be precluded from addressing their constituents during war-time?

The Tories are not!

Does there exist any authority to prevent a Member of this House addressing his constituents?

I should be very reluctant to do that, but where a meeting is announced and we know there is likely to be disorder, I must take steps.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that action was taken in this case because the meeting would have demonstrated the popularity of Lord Lansdowne's views, and for no other reason?

I have already said I know nothing about the case, but I am making inquiries.

Is it not the case that the hon. Member has addressed his constituents several times without any disturbance, and what was the reason that disturbance was anticipated on this occasion?

asked the Home Secretary if he will state on what grounds the Rev. William Riley was refused permission to continue to give addresses at religious services to the men at the Prince-town Settlement by the Home Office Committee?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the 26th November.

asked the Home Secretary whether the conscientious objector who recently shot with a revolver another conscientious objector at the Princetown Settlement was licensed to carry firearms; and whether any steps were taken to prosecute the offender for a breach of the law?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The man in question absconded from the Work Centre shortly after the occurrence referred to, and steps are being taken for his recall to military service.

Are we to understand there is no discipline at the Princetown Settlement to prevent men absconding?

There is.

asked whether, in the event of the age limit under the Military Service Acts being raised, members of the Volunteer Force will have an equal right of appeal as ordinary civilians to a civil tribunal?

This being a hypothetical question, it is not possible for me to return an answer to it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest deterrent to-day against volunteers joining is the feeling that they may be penalised by so doing and treated in the same way as the Derby recruits were treated? If he could make a statement that they would not be penalised it would greatly assist recruiting.

That is argument more suitable for Debate.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have under consideration the raising of the age limit under the Military Service Acts; if so, to what age it is proposed to raise it; and what notice, if any, will be given before the same shall come into force?

I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone on Thursday last.

asked the Home Secretary whether Hugo Werths and his brother are still trading as German agents in the City and at Wood Green; whether Hugo Werths was exempted from internment because the Ministry of Munitions considered him indispensable, as his firm were experts in the diamond-die industry and agents for the principal French firms; whether he has now ascertained that this is not the fact; and whether he will take the necessary steps to intern the partners in this firm?

I am informed that one of these partners was interned in 1915, but the other partner, Hugo Werths, was exempted from internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I am making inquiry as to what is the present value of Mr. Hugo Werths' work to this country, and will consider whether he can properly retain his exemption.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that George Hornung, director of the English and Continental Casing Company, Limited, of Leeds, has never been interned, although his English-born son has had to be interned owing to his anti-English speeches; whether he is aware that F. Jaeger, another director, was interned, but let out and got away to America, and will he say how this man got a passport; whether he is aware that Louis Wille, the third director, is a naturalised German of anti-British proclivities; will he say how many Germans have been released from internment to work in this firm; and how many Germans are now working for them at their various branches?

I have made inquiries about these persons. George Hornung was exempted from internment in June, 1915, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. He has resided in this country for thirty-three years, and obtained a discharge from German nationality before coming here. It is not the case that his son has had to be interned; both his sons are British born and are serving in the British Army in France. F. Jaeger, who has resided in this country for over twenty years, was released from internment in January, 1915, on account of his state of health. He was granted a permit to go to America in April, 1915, in accordance with the practice then obtaining. Louis Wille, who became a naturalised British subject at the age of fifteen by virtue of the naturalisation of his father in 1885, has, I am informed, resided in this country for forty years. I have no information that he is of anti-British proclivities. The English and Continental Casing Company, Limited, are engaged in supplying surgical gut and goldbeater skin to the Government, and of their 310 working people some fifteen are Germans with a special knowledge of the manufacture, nine of these having been released from internment

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of President Wilson's statement to Congress on 4th December that America does not wish in any way to impair or rearrange the Austro-Hungarian Empire and desires to secure for the people of the Turkish Empire the right and opportunity to make their own lives safe, their own fortunes secure against oppression or injustice, and from the dictation of foreign Courts and parties, it is now intended to revise the war aims of the Allies as stated in the Allied Note to President Wilson in January, 1917?

We have consistently expressied our readiness to confer with our Allies on the subject of war aims.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the relation of the answer is to the question on the Paper?

The first part of the question deals with the Note of President Wilson. I do not propose, I do not think it is my business, to deal with President Wilson's Note. The part of the question that I think it may be right to deal with is the last part, whether "it is now intended to revise the war aims of the Allies as stated in the Allied Note to President Wilson in January, 1917?" The answer to that is that we have consistently expressed our readiness to confer with our Allies on the subject of war aims. That is perfectly well known, and it is the only answer that I can properly give.

Is it the intention to do so?

Why has no council been held for the revision of war aims as requested again and again by the Russian Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present status of the Dominions and the importance of having regard only to the main lines of direction in dealing with those States, he will dissociate the affairs of the Colonies from those of the Dominions by the creation of a separate office or Ministry to deal with the Dominions?

The Government are not prepared to adopt the proposal in the question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the Secretary of State for the Colonies does not think it worth while to attend—[ At this point Mr. Long took his seat on the Treasury Bench ]—when important questions greatly affecting the Dominions are put?

No, I had not noticed that. But I think it would be a great mistake for the House to assume that they should not take an answer from an Under-Secretary, which, obviously, has been prepared by the Head of the Department.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an Under-Secretary has no responsibility, whereas these matters greatly affect public opinion in the Dominions, and it is rather infra dig for—

That is rather a long supplementary question, and goes far beyond the question on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger of the Government and the House of Commons getting out of touch with the affairs of the Dominions on account of the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies being distracted by a great amount of routine work having no relation to the Dominions, he will reconstruct the Colonial Office so as to secure better efficiency and more harmonious working?

As there is, in my opinion, no foundation for the statements contained in the question, I do not propose to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that there is no foundation for what I suggest, or is he again simply reading a set question which has been before him?

I am not reading a question—

An answer, I meant!

I am reading an answer which I myself prepared

asked the Prime Minister whether, though he should be unable to come frequently to the House, he will arrange that important statements of policy, for which the Leader of the House has not sufficient responsibility, shall be given in the first place to the House, and that, unless the national interest otherwise commands, he will allow these pronouncements to be debated in the House?

The course suggested in the question has, so far as possible, been adopted.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to notice that the Prime Minister thinks it proper to make important statements of policy in the City rather than in this House, which alone is charged with the functions of leading the country?

That is, I think, entirely contrary to the experience of the House. The Prime Minister has found time again and again, when important statements have had to be made, to make them here, and he intends to continue that course.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to observe that this is not entirely a tied house and that there are independent Members who mean to defend their own rights and the privileges of the House?

Will the Prime Minister make a statement on the War on the Vote of Credit?

That will depend upon whether he thinks it is necessary to do so. Up to the present it does not occur to me that it will be necessary, and I have not yet discussed it with him.

Is it not better to do it here than at a frugal dinner at Gray's Inn?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the vital necessity of securing unity of command in the Western theatre of war and the danger involved in the setting up of the analogue of the Aulic Council, he will use all the influence of his office to obliterate the obstacles to real and effective unity; and whether he is prepared now to make an announcement to that effect in the House?

I can add nothing to statements already made on this subject.

Does not the analogy of the Aulic Council awake the right hon. Gentleman to the realities of the situation?

I never heard of it before.

Is there not one man of grit and illumination among you?

The analogy of the Aulic Council has not had that appalling effect upon me?

asked the Prime Minister if Mr. William Sunday has been invited on behalf of the Government to visit this country, and for what purpose?

The answer is in the negative.

May I ask whether an invitation has been sent to Mr. Sunday with the knowledge of the Government, or through any of the Government Departments?

I think not. I know nothing more about it than the answer I have given.

Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the War Aims Committee if they have asked Mr. Sunday to come here as a competitor of the Prime Minister?