asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has any intention to recommend the issue of letters patent setting up High Courts of Judicature for the province of Burmah or the province of the Punjab?

As regards the Punjab the Secretary of State for India has announced that after the War, as soon as financial considerations permit, a High Court will be established for the Punjab. As regards Burma, he has received no recommendation from the Government of India on the subject.

asked what are the causes of the delays of the Government of India in creating the university at Rangoon for the province of Burma, seeing that sanction was given a long time ago?

The establishment of a university at Rangoon has been agreed to in principle, but the Government of India have not yet been able to submit to the Secretary of State for his sanction a detailed scheme for constituting it, or for providing the funds necessary for its formation and maintenance. The matter is still under discussion between the Local Government and the Government of India. It is hoped that it may be possible to utilise the experience of the Commission which, under the presidency of Dr. Sadler, is now inquiring into the state of the Calcutta University.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether pensions are only granted to the widows of Indian soldiers who have fallen in France or in other theatres of war and not to the children; whether, in the event of the death of the widow, the orphan children are left unprovided for; and, if so, whether orders will be issued for the continuance of the pension to the orphan children?

An Indian soldier may nominate his wife, or a child, or certain other near relatives, to receive whatever family pension may be admissible on his death. The pension under present Regulations ceases on the death of the nominated heir, but the Secretary of State in Council has under consideration proposals for continuing the pension to the children where they are unprovided for.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state to the House the result of his visit to Beachley, Gloucestershire, on the 8th instant; whether he is satisfied that the 106 former inhabitants of the village are now all suitably housed; and will he undertake that those who can now earn less wages or whose occupation as fishermen or otherwise have been destroyed will have compensation offered them, having regard to the impossibility of working people appearing before the Losses Committee?

I visited Beachley, accompanied by officers of the Admiralty and the Directorate of Lands, and I was advised that all the former inhabitants have either found alternative accommodation, or are still in their cottages. All the fishermen are at present watching on the upper reaches of the Wye, under the Fisheries Association, as is their usual custom during the close season, and proper housing accommodation will be ready for them by the time they return at the commencement of the coming season. I understand that all the tenants are being professionally advised as to their claims. No cases are known where less wages are being obtained by any of the tenants owing to the entry by the Department, but as no claims have as yet been received, it is impossible to speak definitely as to this.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider any application that may be made to the Board of Admiralty by the professional advisers of these men?

Subject to whatever limitations may be imposed upon our action, we should consider representations sympathetically.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the treatment by the Admiralty of Captain Gladney, late master of the British steamer "Thomas Holt," requisitioned by the Admiralty and employed as a cargo transport; whether he is aware that Captain Gladney became objectionable to the principal naval transport officer at Southampton because of his criticism of the loading and handling of his ship and the use of the same; and that the principal naval transport officer at Southampton made charges against Captain Gladney of insurbordination, want of discipline amongst his crew, etc., because Captain Gladney had carried out the instructions of his owners in regard to ship's articles, and disciplined members of his crew for absence without leave, and reported such complaints to the Admiralty; whether any inquiry into these charges was ever made by competent authorities, with Captain Gladney present at the same; whether the Admiralty insisted upon the owners of the steamship "Thomas Holt" removing Captain Gladney from his command; whether he is aware that Captain Gladney has, in consequence, been out of employment for a prolonged period, incurring financial loss and loss of prestige; and that he, being desirous of serving his country, offered his services in other capacities to the Admiralty and was refused; whether he is aware that the Admiralty have recently informed the owners, in response to their repeated requests, that Captain Gladney may be reinstated in command provided the steamer does not go to Southampton, but that if the steamer proceeds to Southampton he must not be employed; whether he is aware that, as the owners have no control over the movements of this ship, she may at any time be ordered to Southampton; and whether this treatment of this British shipmaster, who for a prolonged period constantly risked his life crossing the Channel between British and French Channel ports, will be continued or whether he will give instructions to forthwith give orders for this proviso to be cancelled, so that Captain Gladney may once more take command of the steamship "Thomas Holt"?

I have now read the papers concerning this case. In certain important particulars the statements in the question are not correct. But I need not now go into those. We have decided that it is fully established that Captain Gladney's attitude towards the principal naval transport officer was undoubtedly at fault, and calculated to make his very onerous duties impossible. We are of opinion that Captain Gladney, further, put himself entirely in the wrong in refusing to give evidence at the Court of Inquiry. But in view of his owners' continued confidence in him, and of the fact that he has been unemployed now for six months, we shall raise no further objection to his command of the transport "Thomas Holt."

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Court of Inquiry—will he see that in all cases involving in effect the loss of his command of his merchant ship there will be an inquiry into the circumstances before a decision is arrived at?

I cannot say offhand. In this case that course was taken because the circumstances were followed by a serious result, and any case of that character, of course, would be inquired into.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling amongst the officers of the mercantile marine at the overbearing treatment on the part of the transport officers, and will he endeavour to reduce that friction as far as possible in the interests of the nation?

May I ask whether the maintenance of discipline is just as important at sea as anywhere else?

This was not at sea, but in port.

I was not aware of the suggestion which my hon. Friend (Mr. Houston) has made, but I do know that in this particular case the transport officer is a very courteous gentleman.

Simply to remove misapprehension, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the masters of merchant ships know more about the handling of those ships than those naval officers?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether vessels torpedoed or mined, but which reach the shore and subsequently become total wrecks, are included in the official list of vessels sunk; and, if so, at what period are they so returned as sunk in the official list?

Yes, Sir; they appear in the list of the week in which they are reported as total losses, with a note intimating the week during which the casualty originally occurred.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state categorically whether merchant steamers used as auxiliary cruisers or as patrol vessels, or vessels under demise to the Crown, or vessels carrying oil, coal, or other cargoes, owned by the Crown or a Government Department are included in the official Return of vessels sunk by torpedo or mine?

Merchant vessels used as auxiliary cruisers or as patrol vessels are not included in the official return of vessels sunk by torpedo or mine. As they are exclusively devoted to naval work they are properly shown as naval losses. The other vessels mentioned in the question are included.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that it has been officially stated that five enemy submarines were sunk on 17th November; and how many have been sunk since that date?

The answer to the first part of the question is Yes; and to the second part it is not proposed to give the information.

On what ground did he refuse to give this additional information, seeing that it was in the public interest, or in the political interest of the Government, to give an answer to the earlier part?

The Prime Minister received official information from the Admiralty on the morning of the 19th, and he made a statement in the course of the Debate on the 19th. It will be a matter for consideration whether it is expedient to make any further statement.

Are we only to expect any information relating to these matters only from the Prime Minister and not from the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Information was given by the First Lord in his speech.

Are we to take it that the Prime Minister is the only person able to give information to the enemy without any proceedings being taken against him?

My hon. Friend asked that question once before.

You did not answer it.

I do not say I did.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and description of the Admiralty vessels which escorted the steamer "La Blanca" from Plymouth on her way to another Channel port at the time she was sunk?

It is not desirable to make public the arrangements adopted for the escort of merchant vessels.

Are we ever to get any information; is it always to be kept secret?

My hon. Friend will see, on reflection, that there are very good reasons why the enemy should not know the sort of escort he may expect to meet.

If you had provided better escorts, the result might have been different—

The hon. Member is now beginning an argument.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any and, if so, what facilities will be allowed to Navy men at home stations in all parts of the country to avail themselves of the Christmas holidays; and if special railway fares will be allowed these men in order to allow them to visit their homes during these holidays?

My hon. Friend will of course realise that war conditions make what is known as "Christmas leave" out of the question. We shall do what we can, however, to meet the case of the boys' training establishments, and also to meet the permanent staff of other shore establishments.

As regards the latter part of the question, any officer or man who may secure leave at Christmas will be entitled to the issue of a free railway warrant to his home, provided he has not already exhausted his right to the same under the Regulations.

In any case where an officer or man is not thus entitled, he will be supplied, if he gets leave at all, with a reduced fare voucher enabling him to travel at one-third the fares at present chargeable to the public.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in answer to the 1914 petition, presented by the yardcraft ratings, these men were given a rise of pay to be followed by a triennial rise; that the first triennial rise was due on 1st October, 1917, but has not yet been paid; will he explain why the undertaking entered into by the Admiralty has not been carried out, and if it is contended that the grant of 2d. a day on the 1st January, 1917, must be taken in lieu of the triennial rise; is he aware that the Admiralty letter 23,218 D 30,925,14 states that it has been approved to grant an increase of 2d. a day in the minimum rate of wages of all adult yard-craft ratings below the rate of mate and third engineer, i.e ., ordinary seamen, able seamen, stokers, leading stokers, and harbourmen, who are paid in accordance with the authorised Admiralty scales of yardcraft ratings and are borne on dockyard books; and how this Order can be held to replace the undertaking given in reply to the 1914 petition?

Since the introduction of the improved scales of pay on 1st October, 1914, the minimum rates of pay of the yardcraft ratings referred to in my hon. Friend's question have been raised by the amount of the triennial increment provided in the scales. Consequently, it becomes a question whether a further increment becomes due after three years from the introduction of the scale or after three years from the later advance. The War Office and the Treasury are both concerned in the matter; we have been in communication with those Departments and hope to give a decision at an early date.

May we expect an answer before Christmas?

I will do my best to get it, and will tell my hon. Friend when I do so.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware of the numerous oases of distress that occur amongst the dependants of mercantile marine ratings serving in Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and similar ships; whether a considerable time frequently elapses between the discharge of such men through disablement attributable to their employment and the receipt of gratuity or pension, and between the date of joining and the first receipt of allotment; and whether these men can be dealt with like other naval ratings and thus come within the powers of war pensions committees; and (2) whether he is aware that mercantile marine ratings serving in Fleet Auxiliaries and similar ships are under naval discipline, and that when deprived of pay as part of a punishment their dependants lose their allotments and receive nothing; and whether steps can be taken to put these men on the same footing as naval ratings in this respect?

It has been brought to my notice that men of the mercantile marine serving in Fleet Auxiliaries when disabled, and also their dependants, when the men first join or are deprived of pay as part of a punishment, suffer hardships. The question of obviating, or, at any rate, largely minimising, them in future has been receiving the sympathetic consideration of the Admiralty, and I hope it will be possible at an early date to make an announcement as to the measures which have been decided.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officer attached to the Royal Naval Division, who was promoted to commissioned rank for gallantry in the field and awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal while serving in Gallipoli in 1915; whether he is aware that this officer acted for many months as acting lieutenant in command of a company both in Gallipoli and subsequently in France; and that, while acting as lieutenant in command of a company in France, was awarded the Military Cross in recognition of his gallantry at the taking of Beaumont Hamel in November, 1916; whether he is aware that, this officer was subsequently invalided home and, upon rejoining the Royal Naval Division depot at Blandford, was reverted to the rank of sub-lieutenant while other officers junior to himself and who had served under him in the field have received promotion; whether, in view of the Report of the Churchill Committee, he can state any reason why this officer, who received his commission and has been awarded two decorations for gallantry in the field, should not have been confirmed in the rank in which he acted for many months; and whether the question of giving this officer his promotion and dating the same back to November, 1916, will receive immediate consideration?

The question doubtless refers to a member of the Royal t Naval Volunteer Reserve, who was drafted for service as a petty officer with the Royal Naval Division to Gallipoli in May, 1915, and granted a commission as acting sub-lieutenant on the 14th June of that year. He was then posted to another battalion of the Royal Naval Division, having previously been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal. He was subsequently invalided and was later drafted to France, where he won the Military Cross, and on the 21st January last was wounded and invalided to England. Throughout his service there is no record of this officer ever having been granted any other rank higher than sub-lieutenant, though it is possible that he may have commanded a company temporarily for brief periods. There is, therefore, no question of his ever having been reverted to that rank. The last two parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what conditions reductions such as are referred to in the question are made in the Navy. Is it entirely in the hands of the senior officers to reduce junior officers?

There has been no reduction in this case. He was commissioned as acting sub-lieutenant. He might temporarily take charge of a company, but that is not substantive rank, and when he gives up that command he goes back to the substantive commission he holds.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is the authority for recommending promotion?

At this time, when the Royal Naval Division was under the command of the Admiralty, it was the Adjutant-General Royal Marines through the board, and later the War Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the increasing food shortage in the Netherlands, especially in consequence of the withholding of leave to Dutch ships laden in New York to leave for Dutch ports; whether he has information of German offers, in certain events, to supply food to Holland; and whether every effort will be made by the Allies to prevent dependence of neutral Powers on enemy resources?

I have no official information with regard to the first two parts of the question. The Allies are constantly considering the matters dealt with in the last part.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in regard to the future disposition of Palestine, he has kept in mind the century-long interests of France in that region; and whether, in all the steps hitherto taken and in the promises made, such as that of the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem, he is acting in complete accord with the representatives of the French Republic?

The hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension that in our policy in Palestine we shall fail to show the fullest consideration for the opinions of our Allies.

While recognising that, has an accord been already established, so that the Allies are working together in this matter?

Yes; we are working in the fullest accord.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Finland is now an independent Republican State; whether it is so recognised by the British Government; and, if not, what is the precise international status of Finland; (2) whether the Ukraine is now an independent Republican State as recognised by M. Terestschenko, the late Foreign Minister of Russia; whether it is so recognised by the British Government; and, if not, what is the present precise international status-of the Ukraine; (3) whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the Russian Embassy stating that it did not recognise the present Maximalist régime in Russia; whether that statement was communicated to the Foreign Office before publication; whether it was issued on the advice or with the expressed approval of the Foreign Office; and whether the Foreign Office recognises that M. Nabbokoff is still entitled to represent the Russian Government in this country; and (4) whether he is aware that the amount invested by British private persons and companies in Russia is about £60,000,000; and what measures are being taken to preserve this property for further development and renewed commerce after the War?

With respect to these questions, I think it better in the public interest to give no reply.

Can not the right hon. Gentleman give some reasons? Is he in possession of no information, or is it that he fears that the information, if given, would weaken the Government in the eyes of the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The reason is the reason I have indicated, that the question is put quite obviously, not for the purpose of obtaining information, but for the purpose of embarrassing the Administration of the country. I do not think that the public interest would be served by answering it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer simply imputes motives, and that is a very unusual course?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a complete collection of the secret documents published by the Lenin party in Petrograd, with Notes stating how far they are authentic and accurate?

The documents in question ought not to have been published, and I do not propose to republish them.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the fact that in one of the leading journals of this country there has appeared an alleged reproduction of these documents from the Petrograd Press, and does he think it right in the public interest to leave the public in a state of uncertainty as to whether those documents are accurate or not?

I am not responsible for what the journal in question has done, and I do not know which journal it was.

The "Manchester Guardian."

I do not think there is anything to be gained, nor do I think it would be an advisable proceeding by the Government, which does not approve of the publication of these secret documents, to make itself a party to their republication.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman last week inform me he was sure to receive all these documents published in Petrograd from Sir George Buchanan, and will he say whether he has received those documents or not?

The hon. Gentleman had better put a question down.

May we take it that the policy of the Government is to keep secret from the public documents of which they have no knowledge, and of which they ought to have knowledge?

We have made public the information which we think in the public interest ought to be made public. Of course, a lot of the documents have nothing whatever to do with this country; they have got to do with the Governments of our Allies, and the notion that we should republish documents relating to our Allies is, I should have thought, too absurd to deserve attention.

May I ask whether, in the case of those documents which concern us alone, and the secret treaties which were made in our name, so that we may know whether they are true, the Government refuse to publish them?

asked whether the published statement by Sir George Buchanan was made on Instruction from the British Government or made on his own responsibility?

Sir G. Buchanan was fully justified in making the statement referred to in the question which was, in fact, largely based on a telegram of my own.

Was it entirely based on that telegram? Is Sir George Buchanan entitled or authorised to make speeches, on his own responsibility, addressed to the Russian people?

Sir George Buchanan's discretion is trusted, and ought to be trusted, to make what declarations he thinks fit in the public interest, knowing the general views of the policy of His Majesty's Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know which part of the interview of Sir George Buchanan was based on the telegram which I sent, and which was not directly based on it, I shall be happy to lay it on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent revelations of the treatment of Roumania by the Ministers of the late Tsar during last autumn, he will lay upon the Table all the correspondence which took place between the Russian and Roumanian Governments and the British Government during the three months previous to Roumania's declaration of War?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the spread of the Republican movement in South Africa; whether it has been stimulated by his own efforts to introduce the principle of Imperialism with a view to imposing it subsequently upon the Dominions; and whether he will give the assurance that the Government has renounced all designs in that direction?

No, Sir; there is no foundation for the suggestions made by the hon. Member in the second and third parts of his question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Republican party in South Africa is becoming the dominant party; and if they should set up the Republican flag there will he take appropriate steps to secure that that event is marked by the necessary éclat?

That does not arise on the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has recently consulted any representatives of Australia on the subject of Imperial federation; whether he is aware that the vast majority of the population in Australia are opposed to the Imperial principle; and whether the Government will avoid taking any steps, whether by legislation or otherwise, calculated to run counter to the desires of the Australian people?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative, and to the third in the affirmative.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take any pains whatever to acquaint himself with the sentiments of the Colonies, or does he shut himself up to his own official futility?

Sir, the Dominions and the Commonwealth have their own Governments, who are quite capable of expressing their views, and to inform me, if they desire me to be informed, of any special circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has recently had in contemplation the question of the abolition of State governorships in Australia; if not, whether it will now consider the matter; and whether, if it be ascertained that the sentiment of the Australian people is opposed to these governorships, he will proceed to put an end to the system without delay?

The answer to the first two questions is in the negative.

Again, has the right hon. Gentleman taken any pains to consult—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—to ascertain the views of the Australian Government on this subject?

"Order, order!"

Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order—

If the hon. Member's question is important, he ought to put it down on the Paper; if unimportant it need not be asked.

But Mr. Speaker, when I put a question that is perfectly legitimate, though I bow to your ruling, I would suggest that there is a reciprocal obligation to protect me when I am in the right.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was after communication with him on the subject that Sir Arthur Stanley, the State Governor, delivered his speech to the Royal Agricultural Society of Victoria; if so, whether the views expressed in it were meant to be conveyed as coming from His Majesty's Government to the people of Australia; if not, whether Sir Arthur Stanley has communicated with him on the subject since the delivery of the speech; and whether it is his intention to ask Sir Arthur Stanley to return to England?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered by the Governor of Victoria, Sir Arthur Stanley, at the luncheon of the Royal Agricultural Society, on 26th September, in which he said that one of the things that should be abandoned is the criticism of Governments; whether he is aware of the strong resentment this speech has caused in Australia, not only on account of the matter of the speech but also on account of the breach of constitutional custom now established which prevents a Governor offering political advice; and whether he proposes to take any steps in this affair?

Sir A. Stanley has been the subject of attacks in certain newspapers which misreported a speech made by him. I see no grounds for taking any action in the matter.

May I ask he right hon. Gentleman by whom has he been informed that the Governor was misquoted, seeing that the principal paper of Australia quoted the speech textually, and on the basis of that printed a leading article expressing the resentment of the Australian people on the conduct of the Governor? I ask for an answer.

I have arrived at the information that I have given the hon. Member by a comparison of the reports. If the information to which the hon. Member refers exists, and there is a desire to carry it on to me, there are, as I have already told him, people who are qualified to represent Australia and to express their views. Any representation I receive I shall carefully listen to.

I would refer to the people of Australia to judge the Governor and himself.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the grant of separation allowance in cases where a British soldier prisoner of war interned in a neutral country has married during such internment?

I regret that this question, which affects the Navy as well as the Army, and is not free from difficulty, has not yet been decided.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have frequently raised questions of this kind with a view to securing separation allowances in these cases; if that is so in individual cases, why is it not made general?

I hope a decision will be reached very shortly.

asked whether any decision has yet been reached concerning the payment of pensions to the dependants of men shot for cowardice?

This matter has not yet been definitely decided. In the meantime, grants to the widows and children of men shot for military crimes will be made by the Special Grants Committee on a basis approximating to that of the pensions and allowances awarded to the wives and children of men killed in action.

What is the use of the Government generously withdrawing the letter in which they announce the shooting of these men and then paying a pension out of a special Department, which makes it perfectly obvious for what reason the pension is paid.

I have already pointed out that this is merely a temporary arrangement. The matter will be definitely settled as soon as possible.

Will the hon. and gallant Member see that in future no executions will be allowed to take place until the mental and medical history of the men concerned have been inquired into?

That does not arise out of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the new increases of pay only such allotments as carry allowances are taken over by the Government; that this penalises the young lads who joined up in the early days of the War, and their apprenticeship, and were therefore unable to establish pre-war dependence for their mothers; that they must, continue to make voluntary allotment from their pay; that their mothers get nothing unless they can establish poverty; that the Government have now promised for over a year to consider their case and provide allowances for their dependants similar to those paid to the dependants of lads who waited to be compelled to enlist and who, therefore, on account of the high wages obtaining, easily established prewar dependence; and whether the House can expect any decision in the immediate future?

Arrangements have been made enabling local committees to grant assistance in cases where it is shown that the son would have been in a position to contribute to the support of his parents, and where the general circumstances of the family are such that a contribution can be regarded as necessary for the due upkeep of the home. The assistance may be of such an amount as the local committee deem to be equivalent to the support which the sailor or soldier might reasonably be expected to give if he were in civil life, but not exceeding the equivalent of the allotment and State separation allowance applicable to the dependants of a private soldier.

May we take it that the award on the basis of hardship is now definitely scrapped?

Yes; that really is what the question amounts to. A condition of hardship was imposed before, and now it is a question of what the man might reasonably be expected to earn.

Will the same be applicable to dependants in the Navy?

Yes; it applies equally to the Navy as well as to the Army.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War on whose advice the directorate of labour and group headquarters of labour for labour units were established; and what is the annual cost of the same?

These organisations were established by the Army Council. The cost of the directorate and some seventy-five group headquarters is about £375,000 a year.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are separate directorates for roads, light railways, forestry, inland water transport, docks, and railways; whether labour units are not employed now under one or other of such directorates; and whether, in view of this, he can state the need or justification for the establishment of a separate labour directorate?

There are separate directorates in France for roads, light railways, inland water transport, docks and broad gauge railway services. Unskilled labour is handed over from time to time for employment under one or other of these directorates, but that does not affect the necessity for a separate directorate of labour.

Can my hon. Friend say why, in view of the fact that the directors of these Departments that he has men- tioned use this labour, there is any necessity for a further directorate to deal with labour—simply for labour?

My hon. Friend will realise that the Labour units must be under one director, because the Labour units supply men for the special directorates.

Then do I take it that the labour directorate is over all these other directorates and directs them?

Not necessarily; they co-operate with them; they are not necessarily over them.

asked the number of fresh appointments created since 1st November, 1916, owing to the establishment of the new directorate of labour and roads, and the annual cost of such?

I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. There is no such directorate either in the War Office or in France.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he has just told me, in answer to Question 30, that there is such a directorate?

No; I have not. The hon. Member asked in his question, if there was a new directorate of labour and roads to be established—

No, no; nothing of the sort. Arising out of that answer, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that there is a mistake in the question on the Paper? I am not responsible for that. What I asked was, "If the hon. Gentleman can state the number of fresh appointments created since 1st November, 1916, owing to the establishment of the new directorate of labour and roads, and the annual cost of such?"

I have less responsibility than my hon. Friend for the mistake on the Paper. I have answered the question on the Paper. If he requires a further answer perhaps he will put it down.

Do I take it then that the War Office never make any intelligent inferences from questions put on the Paper?

They are too busy winning the War !

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the labour directorate has been allowed to disregard the ordinary practice of the service by establishing a purely relative system of promotion; and whether he can give the number of unmarried fit men under thirty-five years of age employed on the staff with the length of their commissioned service?

Here again I am not responsible for the word "relative" in this question. The word that I wrote was "selective." I hope my right hon. Friend has inferred that.

Promotion in labour corps is by selection. With the exception of certain specially qualified men, commissions are not given to any candidates of military age fit for general service.

Can my hon. Friend say how many men are in these directorates who are under this age, and who are fit?

Will my hon. Friend place on the Table a list of the officers referred to in the question so that we can test the accuracy of his reply?

No, I cannot, and I refuse to ask any Department with which I have any connection to give themselves all this trouble when I have answered with accuracy the question put to me.

Arising out of that will my hon. Friend say on what principle the War Office gave these directorates power to make promotion under a selective system which does not obtain in any other Department of the Army?

I think it is highly desirable that this particular directorate should have power to give promotion—

Why?

Obviously if the directorate comes across a man in civil life who may possess all the necessary qualifications and who might not probably have had military experience, they should be able to appoint him, because he might be admirably fitted to control a large labour establishment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these appointments have been given altogether apart from a man's civil experi- ence, and simply on account of his powers of obtaining a pull with the Selective Department?

No, and I strongly resent that suggestion, and I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman that he himself has applied to me, and has used his influence to make the selection of a candidate certain.

Reflections have been made upon me, and I wish to state—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I deny that 1 have asked the hon. Gentleman at any time—

That is a personal explanation, and it should come after Questions.

Very well, I will mention it then.

asked whether men of French nationality resident in Allied countries on 1st August, 1914, who arrived in England after the outbreak of war and enlisted in the British Army prior to the Anglo-French Convention of 4th October, 1917, will be permitted to continue to serve in the British Army; and whether the Government can give an assurance that any such persons as may be political refugees will not be dismissed from the British Army for the purpose of enabling deportation orders to be made against them?

No case of the nature referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend in his question has yet arisen, but in the event of any such cases arising in the future each case will be considered on its own merits and facts, due regard being had to the obligations which are due to the French Government under the Anglo-French Military Service Agreement, which was laid before Parliament thirty days, in accordance with the provisions of the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, 1917.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War why Mr. H. B. Jones, a conscientious objector who was, five months ago, court-martialled and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, has been released from Walton Gaol and taken under escort to Prees Heath Camp, where he has again refused military orders and is about to be court-martialled; and why, in view of the recent declaration of the Secretary of State for War that sentences of imprisonment on conscientious objectors would not be commuted, this man has been released before the expiration of his sentence?

If my hon. Friend will furnish me with this man's regiment and number, I will have inquiry made at once.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this man has a number and a regiment, and that the facts given in this question are quite sufficient to identify him, seeing that the date on which he was court-martialled is stated?

I think if the hon. Gentleman will look at that question he will realise that this man has been court-martialled, and if that is so he must be a private in His Majesty's Army, and, if a private, he must have a unit and number.

asked the Prime Minister if, in order to show how the military authorities respect the Clauses of exemption in the Military Service Act, he will issue instructions to the Censor to allow the particulars of the John Swift case to be sent to His Holiness the Pope and Archbishop Mannix and the advocates of conscription in Australia; if he is aware that on the 4th instant the hon. Member for Dublin (Harbour Division) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War with reference to the case of this man; and whether the hon. Member for Dublin (Harbour Division) will be allowed to interview this man in prison in order to obtain evidence that will secure his release?

If the hon. Member will submit his proposed statement it will be considered on its merits. I must refer him to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in regard to the last part of the question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will see that all soldiers who have not received leave for two years will be allowed home for Christmas; and whether any arrangements are made to grant leave to soldiers sent from France to Egypt, Salonika, and Mesopotamia?

In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22nd November to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich; and in regard to the second part, to what I said in Debate on 31st October.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any and, if so, what facilities will be allowed to soldiers in home camps or depots in all parts of the country to avail themselves of the Christmas holidays; and if special railway fares will be allowed these men in order to allow them to visit their homes during these holidays?

Instructions on the subject of Christmas leave are about to be issued. Facilities exist by which a soldier granted leave can purchase a third-class return ticket on payment of the single 1916 fare for the journey between his military station and his home. Free journeys for soldiers on leave are also granted in the case of men liable for service abroad once in six months, and of home service men once in nine months.

Will the hon. Gentleman see whether the soldiers who received leave last Christmas are not given priority over those men who did not receive leave last Christmas?

All those questions will be considered.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to state what steps the War Office are taking to see that the large area of agricultural land which has been taken over by them at Seaford, Sussex, and which is not required for military purposes, will be properly cultivated; and, if the War Office are not able to arrange for this, whether they will hand the land over to the East Sussex War Agricultural Committee to deal with?

The necessary report has not yet reached me; I regret therefore, that I am not yet in a position to answer my hon. Friend, but I will communicate with him as soon as possible.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the number of officers unfit for general service at present in this country, many of whom are over military age, facilities may be given to such officers to be placed on the National Reserve, without pay, so that they can be employed in a civilian capacity on work of national importance, and commanding officers of Reserve units will be given instructions to call for and forward applications from such officers, with any comments they may have to make thereon?

Applications for release for work of national importance are always dealt with on their merits. Many such applications are received and are approved whenever the officer can be spared from military duty.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of our troops in Salonika?

I would call the attention of my hon. Friend to the detailed statistics issued on 9th August, 1917, to which I have nothing to add, beyond stating that the improvement in health in comparison with former years is maintained.

Having regard to the date to which the hon. Gentleman refers me, may I ask whether the Government can give me no further information about these troops whatsoever, or whether he has any intention of giving any information before the House rises?

I am perfectly willing to give any information available if the hon. Gentleman puts a question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will inquire into the case of Private No. 43665, West Yorkshire Regiment, who enlisted in October, 1914, went to the Dardanelles, was invalided home, wounded and frostbitten, went to France in February, 1916, and went through severe fighting until July, 1916, when he was admitted to the 6th Stationary Hospital, Havre, suffering from shell-shock, was shortly after transferred to a new regiment, and on 4th November was shot for desertion; and whether, in view of the man's record and the shattered state of his health at the time of the alleged desertion, the case will be reviewed for the purpose of considering whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place?

In view of the fact that all sentences of courts-martial are reviewed, in regard to the legality of the finding and sentence, by the Judge-Advocate-General in France, I am not prepared to consider the question of their being further reviewed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether assistant directors of railways and deputy directors of railways in Mesopotamia are given the same grading and rank as in France, Egypt, and Salonika?

The grading in Mesopotamia is not the same as in France and elsewhere. If it were the same, the Mesopotamian officers would lose by it, as they get higher pay by remaining on regimental rates, owing to the higher rate of pay of Royal Engineer officers on the Indian Establishment.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that captains of the Royal Engineers of fifteen years' service have only been given promotion to major with effect from 2nd November, 1916, whereas in other branches of the Service this promotion was given with effect from 1st September, 1915, payment will be sanctioned to widows of captains in the Royal Engineers of over fifteen years' service, who were killed or died on service between 1st September, 1915, and 2nd November, 1916, of the pension of the widow of a major instead of that of a captain so as to place such widows on the same footing as those of officers of fifteen years' service and over in other branches of the Army?

I am asked by my hon. Friend to reply to this question. I understand from his Department that the promotions dated the 1st September, 1915, related to Infantry officers only and to no other arms, that the decision as to promotion of captains of Royal Engineers was arrived at later, and that it was definitely decided by the Army Council that these promotions should not be antedated. A widow can only be granted a pension according to the rank, in fact, held by her husband at the time of his death, and it follows that the widows of the captains of Royal Engineers, to whom the question refers, cannot, in the circumstances, be granted pensions at the rates pertaining to majors' widows.

Is it not very unfair that a widow of an officer in the Royal Engineers should be given a smaller pension than the widow of an officer in the Infantry?

It is not for me to say whether it is unfair or not, but the point is that under the Warrant we can only give a pension appropriate to the rank of the officer at the time he was killed or died. The question of rank is decided by the War Office.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the War Office to give Royal Engineer officers honorary rank from 1st September, 1915?

I would suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should make representations to the War Office.

I have made them over and over again, and can get nothing done.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the case of Norah Halligan and Ethel Davies, two members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, who overstayed their leave in London, and on their return were arrested, handed over to the police and kept two nights in the cells, and afterwards fined; whether such punishments were contemplated when this corps was formed; whether women members are made aware of these penalties; and whether he proposes taking any action?

I have called for a report on this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War why French medical officers captured by the Germans are released within about a week, whilst British medical officers are kept as prisoners for months; and can he see his way to getting our medical officers released as quickly as those of the French?

If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the information on which he suggests that French medical officers who become prisoners receive preferential treatment, I shall be obliged. As far as I am aware, there is no reason to believe that the French are better treated in this respect than the British.

If the officer giving the information will not get into trouble.

I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken if he thinks he might get into trouble.

asked the Prime Minister whether all merchant vessels, steam and sail, belonging to our various Allies and ourselves have been pooled on the same terms and conditions; and whether all these Allied vessels are being used equally with our own for the prosecution of the War?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative. Subject to proper provision for the co-ordination of policy and effort among the Allies, each Ally must remain primarily responsible for seeing that the tonnage under its own control is employed on work which is essential for the prosecution of the War.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Allies are receiving for the hire of their vessels practically from two to six times the hire obtained for British vessels, and, as British vessels are very largely used, is this fair to the finances of this country?

I must ask for notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether, on the Vote of Credit, he will give a general survey of the War situation by sea and land instead of making it the occasion merely for a financial statement?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will, during the Debate on the Vote of Credit, make a full statement of the military situation on all the fronts and on the intenion of the Allies as to a fresh definition of war aims?

I have discussed this with the Prime Minister. As he intends to make a statement on the Adjournment of the House before Christmas, we do not think there is any advantage in adopting the course suggested.

Is it not more consistent with, at all events, ancient or pre-war constitutional custom that a statement should be made before we are asked to vote £550,000,000, rather than that it should be put off to the Adjournment of the House, when hardly any Members of the House will be present to hear it?

The hon. Member is mistaken as to the practice. I have looked back, and I have found that in the case of previous Governments, as in the case of this Government—at any rate, in the majority of cases, or, at all events, about the majority—no reference was made to the military situation. It seems to me that the House should have a review of the military situation just before we adjourn for the holidays.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the settled practice of the House, for the first year of the War—at all events, for the first Government that carried on the War—was to make a complete survey of the military situation on all fronts before a Vote of Credit was asked for? That has only been departed from since the Coalition.

I do not know as to the statement about the first Government, but I have looked up the facts since.

Since the Coalition?

Since both Coalitions. It is a question really for the convenience of the House, and I do not see any advantage in the Government initiating a discussion at the present time.

Would it not be more for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister made a statement in this House rather than at Gray's Inn on Friday night, where his statement cannot be discussed?

The Prime Minister intends to make a statement in this House before the Adjournment next week.

But are we to vote the money before we know the facts?