asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, granted during hostilities to civilians with no previous naval experience, and the number of long-service writer ranks and ratings to whom commissioned officer rank has been granted during the same period; the number and description of ratings of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who have received commissions as assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve; and the reason for the transfer of these men from duties in which they have been trained to commissioned rank in the accountant branch of the Navy, where further training is essential, and in which capacity they become of higher rank than all the long-service commissioned warrant writers, warrant writers, and writers, Royal Navy?

Seven hundred and eighty-two temporary commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, and 238 as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, have been granted during hostilities to civilians with no previous naval experience. The former number does not include commissions granted to the pursers in vessels taken up as fleet auxiliaries, etc., in the early stages of the War. My hon. Friend must not infer that these direct entries have no qualifications for the work they have to do in our Service. They were selected from bank clerks, chartered accountants, actuaries, and so on.

The number of long service writer ranks and ratings promoted to commissioned rank up to the present is six, but my hon. Friend will no doubt remember that the possibility of commissioned rank for the writer class dates only from the 14th April last. I ought to add that the rank of paymaster has been instituted for the writer branch, ten being allowed; and, further, the number of warrant writers has been increased from fifteen to fifty-one.

As regards the second part of the question, about ninety temporary commissions as assistant paymasters have been granted to ratings of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunter Reserve class, including deckhands, Royal Naval Reserve; chief petty officers, petty officers, leading seamen, able seamen, ordinary seamen, signalmen, and writers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. These temporary commissions are granted to ratings in the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve only when it is considered likely, from their previous experience in civil life, that they would be able to carry out the duties satisfactorily.

Does my right hon. Friend not see that there is a very potential ground of discontent when thousands of civilians from the outside get commis- sions and only six of the men who have served and had experience inside get promoted?

It is six in a short time.

It is one thousand in a shorn, time.

No; rather longer.

Is it not the case that a great many people now holding commissions will be reverted back after the War 7 Many men during the War would be willing to accept those conditions, and why should not the men who have had experience in service not get a preference over those who have had no service

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention. has been called to the fact that a temporary lieutenant, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, upon being promoted to temporary lieutenant-commander gets no increase in his pay until he has served eight years; is he aware that these officers,. upon promotion, are likely to be put into, more difficult positions, with more men under them, and are put to expense as regards uniform, etc., and that many of them have given up lucrative positions to join the Service; and will he take the necessary steps to obtain an immediate increase of pay to these officers upon promotion?

A lieutenant in the Royal Navy has to serve eight years as lieutenant before he can be given the rank of lieutenant-commander. A temporary lieutenant R.N.V.R., however, has already this advantage that he is eligible for promotion to temporary lieutenant-commander, R.N.V.R., at an earlier date. Further, he receives an increase of pay after four years. It is probably true that many of them have given up lucrative positions to join the Service, but it is not considered necessary to increase the pay of these officers immediately upon promotion. I would remind my hon. Friend' that, as from the 1st October last, the pay of the lieutenant, R.N.V.R., on entry has, been raised from 1ls. to 12s. a day; after four years' combined service as lieutenant, R.N.V.R., and lieutenant-commander, R.N.V.R., from 12s. to 13s. 6d. a day; and: after eight years' combined service from, 13s. to 16s. a day.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain the discrepancies between the official Return published on 17th January of British vessels sunk during the week ending midnight 12th January, namely, six vessels of 1,600 tons gross register or over, including one vessel sunk during the week ending 22nd December and one during the weak ending 5th January, and the much larger number of vessels sunk reported to underwriters during the week ending midnight 12th January?

The official Weekly Return is made up on Wednesday morning, and includes reports received up to that time of ships actually sunk during the week ending midnight on the previous Saturday. It is understood that reports are entered in Lloyd's Loss Book under the date of their receipt and not under the actual date of loss.

During the week ending midnight 12th January twelve ships over 1,600 gross tons were reported to Lloyd's by the Admiralty as sunk by submarine or mine, and these would appear on the Loss Book at Lloyd's during that week. Six of these ships were actually sunk during the week ending midnight 5th January, and were included in that week's official Return. The remaining six were included in the Return for the week ending midnight 12th January.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that sixteen and not twelve ships were reported; and, in this connection, may I ask whether it is the Admiralty who has inspired or is responsible for the attempt by certain authorities to suppress the sources of my information?

Would my right hon. Friend make arrangements so that the reports issued on Thursday morning and those issued by Lloyd's may be in agreement?

I will have the last-mentioned point looked into. If my hon. Friend will give me the facts concerning his last statement, I will investigate the matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's former statement, he says the number is not twelve but sixteen. That may very well be the case, and this may be the explanation. Lloyd's is closed, I understand, from midday on Saturday to 10 a.m. on Monday, so that additional ships reported to Lloyd's on the afternoon of Saturday, 5th January, would not appear in the list until Monday, 7th January, but those ships would be in the current return of the Admiralty. My hon. Friend, seeing them in the Monday list of Lloyd's, would expect to find them in the list, but they had already appeared.

My right hon. Friend is quite aware that I cannot at this time discuss the modus operandi in connection with his invitation, but as regards the other part of my question I propose to deal directly with the Prime Minister.

Certainly.

Will my right hon. Friend not deal with the public directly instead of with people who have special information? If it is true that sixteen vessels were sunk in that week why were we told officially that there were only six?

No, no. With great respect I submit that my hon. Friend is quite wrong. I explained that sixteen may have appeared in Lloyd's List, but if we sent them down on Saturday they would not get them till the following Monday, and my hon. Friend would not be aware that they had been in our Return for the previous week.

Will the ten be in this next week's Return?

If they have not already been in they will be, but a number of those of which my hon. Friend speaks have been in the week before, and my hon. Friend is dealing with those which have been in the week before, and he is not aware of it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a refrigerated steamer was torpedoed in the early morning of the 20th instant at about the same place and about the same hour as a steamer belonging to the same owner was torpedoed on Christmas Day; whether the first of these steamers was under escort or Admiralty protection at the time she was torpedoed; and, if so, what was the nature or description of the protection?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The vessel was not under escort.

Seeing that during the last month a large number of ships have been sunk at this spot will the Admiralty consider the alteration of their policy of instructing shipmasters from various ports to converge on this spot and thus fall right into the submarine, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain why that submarine has not been dealt with during the last few weeks?

I cannot explain why a submarine has not been dealt with. As regards the former point, I have already invited my hon. Friend, if he has information about the convoys or any views on that question, to be so good as to place it before the Admiralty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have complied with that invitation in a communication in which I filled about ten pages of letter paper?

I am very glad to hear it and to know that my hon. Friend did accept my invitation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the loss of a steamer which sailed from Liverpool on or about 15th December for Waterford and the loss of a steamer which sailed from Waterford on or about 17th December for Liverpool, together with the loss of all lives on board both ships; whether these vessels were escorted or in any way protected by the Admiralty; if so, what was the nature and description of the protection; and will he state the total number of lives lost on both vessels?

We have no information respecting the loss of these ships, except this, that one of the boats and part of another of the boats of one of the ships in question have been washed ashore. My hon. Friend is probably aware that the weather about that time off that coast was very bad. The vessels were not under escort. We have no information as to the numbers forming the crews of these vessels.

Do not you know the number of lives lost? Cannot you communicate with the owners and make inquiries?

No; I can make inquiries, as my hon. Friend can.

I know them.

May I ask whether it is a fact that a large number of children were lost by the sinking of these vessels?

No; I cannot say. I should require notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the official lists giving the sinkings by the enemy of British vessels of 1,600 tons gross register and over, regularly published by the Press Bureau weekly, after readjustment or correction, show a total number of sinkings for the twenty weeks ending 12th January substantially less than those reported sunk in the underwriters' room during the same period; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?

If in this question my hon. Friend refers to submarine sinkings, he will see that I have already answered it in anticipation in the reply I gave to his question No. 5.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman account for the discrepancy?

I have tried to explain that, looking at Lloyd's List for a particular week and comparing it with our Return, proves nothing at all, because some of the ships in the list have already been in our Return.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman grasp the question? Does he recognise that it refers to the total for twenty weeks?

What is true of one week would probably be true of twenty weeks.. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make any statement regarding the sinking by enemy operation of a steamship in the mouth of the Mersey on the morning of 28th December, with the loss of forty-two lives out of the forty-three on hoard, including some nineteen pilots and a number of apprentices?

This vessel, I regret to say, struck a mine which, no doubt, was laid on the same night a few hours prior to the loss. Our record shows that two were saved out of forty-three, which included sixteen pilots.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the evidence of men who were in a vessel close alongside is that it was torpedoed and not mined; and, in this connection, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that one of these pilots, Mr. Alfred Davies, was rescued and died in hospital and had a military funeral accorded to him so as to suppress—

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the three large steamers, the names of which have been given to him, have been included in the official list of sinkings; and, if so, on what date?

Yes, Sir. The vessels were included in the Return for the week in which these ships were sunk, the week ending 5th January, 1918.

Has not the hon. Gentleman already informed us in this House that this class of vessel is not included in the sinkings?

These vessels were sunk.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of lives lost on the two steamers sunk by enemy operation in the Mediterranean on or about 31st December last?

I greatly regret to say that in one case the losses are approximately 484; in the other case, approximately 224. I should explain to my hon. Friend that the public notification of the losses of these vessels is being delayed until all the relatives have been notified. This course has been adopted because we found that notification in the Press immediately upon the loss gave rise to the greatest anxiety amongst members of the community who, from the area in which their relatives were serving, were left in doubt as to whether members of their family circle might not be amongst those lost.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and class of German war vessels which bombarded Yarmouth on or about the night of 15th January?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the species of hostile craft that attacked Yarmouth on the 15th January last?

A report. received from one of our patrol vessels off Yarmouth indicates that the vessels which attacked that town were torpedo-boat destroyers. The number of vessels is unknown.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is reported that the enemy destroyers numbered four; and, seeing the repeated attacks on the East Coast and North-East Coast by enemy raiders, who invariably escape, will he say, who is in command of the East and North-East Coast, and who is responsible?

I am not aware of the statement that. the enemy destroyers numbered four. I have not seen that statement. I have given the statement from the responsible officer, of whom I inquired. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, if the suggestion that I should give the name of the responsible officer implies a. dereliction of duty on his part, I think that is particularly ungracious and ungrateful of the hon. Member.

I protest against these remarks. I was asking who is responsible for this, and we are entitled to know.

The hon. Member must give himself the trouble of putting down some of these extra questions. If he has these questions in his mind and wants to ask them, he can always put them on the Paper.

On a point of Order. You ruled on Monday that. the object of questions is to enable facts to be elicited. I had not anything in mind until I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about it.

The hon. Gentleman asked who was in command, and that is a question which he can put on the Paper, if he wishes to know it.

May I ask why private Members are to be debarred during questions from any displays of emotion, while they may be indulged in so freely on the: Front Bench?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether many skilled men, boilermakers, riveters, caulkers, drillers, and fitters, have been now for about three months at Portbury, and, having only done navvy labour and being without prospect of the real work for which they went there, many as volunteers, they are discontented; that there are no bathing facilities and yet men are punished for being dirty; that there are complaints as to food and harsh discipline; and what action will be taken to remedy these conditions?

This work is being carried out by personnel of the Inland Waterways and Docks, Royal Engineers. The majority of the men of the trades mentioned are employed at their trades or have been transferred. Owing to shortage of labour, it is possible that a few of the less skilled may have been employed temporarily at other work. I am not aware of complaints as to baths, food, or discipline. Most of the men are in billets. Baths are arranged in their billets; and the bath-house was the first building to be erected at the camp and is now nearing completion. Special attention is given to food, which is under the supervision of an experienced messing officer.

Are further inquiries being made?

Not so far as I know, but, in view of my answer, I do not think that it is necessary

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of extra, men employed by the private shipyards in Great Britain each week for the three weeks ending 19th January last?

I cannot now provide my right hon. Friend with the figures for each of the three weeks ended 19th January. I can tell him, however, that there was a net increase during the two months ended 30th November of about 4,000. I can tell him further that during the two weeks ended the 4th and 11th January the additional entries were 1,378 and 848 respectively. I ought to say, however, that these last figures do not represent net additions, but include transfers from one yard to another.

Shipbuilders have been asked to render weekly demands of the classes of labour they require, with a statement showing how the demands of the previous week have been met, and if my right hon. Friend will at any time put a question down sufficiently in advance of the day of answering, I will gladly give him the figures he requires for the weeks covered by his question.

Did the right hon. Gentleman include in his answer the month of December, or was it only for November?

I believe that the figure I gave of about 4,000 was for the two months ending 30th November. Then I gave two weeks ending 4th and 11th January.

Why not give December?

I am afraid I have not got those figures. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the net figures?

As regards the weeks ending 4th and 11th January? No, I have not got those figures.

Did not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller say that building during December was less than during November?

I cannot say.

asked the First. Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that under the new Regulations for children's allowances of naval officers a lieutenant will receive £2 per month per child, subject to a maximum of £8 a month, but upon promotion to lieutenant-commander, although he would get no increase of pay except after eight years' service, the children's allowance would drop to £1 per month per child, with a maximum of £4 a month; and will he take steps to remove this grievance?

The officers referred to are temporary lieutenant-commanders of the R.N.R. and R..N.V.R., and, as they receive pay on the scale for lieutenants, they will be eligible for full children's allowances.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seize the occasion caused by totally new conditions in foreign affairs to reorganise his Department completely, destroying the tradition that it is the appanage of a favoured section of the community, and open the way to young men of ability, energy, and character, inclined to sympathy with forward movements of civilisation?

There seems to be much general misconception on this subject. The examination for entry into the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Services is, and has for many years been, competitive, and (with certain exceptions due to the necessity of a special knowledge of foreign languages) similar to that for the rest of the Civil Service. Candidates are nominated by the Secretary of State, on the recommendation of a Board of Selection, whose duty it is to advise whether the candidates possess the necessary qualities for these services. The whole matter was very carefully examined in 1913 and 1914 by a Royal Commission.

I hope that an improvement in the present very inadequate scale of pay of the Diplomatic Service will shortly remove the necessity for requiring of candidates for that service a small private income, and will thus enlarge the field of selection. I know no method of securing the services of young men "inclined" (in the hon. Gentleman's words) "to sympathy with the forward movement of civilisation" by the machinery of competitive examination.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remove at once, not in the future which may not exist, this bar of requiring a small private income?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the payment of a pension of £20,000 a year to ex-King Constantine through the Greek Government is still authorised; whether he will associate this payment with the facts that ex-King Constantine is the centre of a group of pro-German propagandists in Switzerland, and that to this propaganda in part has been attributed by British and French authorities the weakening of the Italian lines on the Isonzo and the military defection in Russia; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will now consider the advisability of bringing this matter before the Greek Government?

This question is a domestic concern of the Hellenic Government, and I do not consider that it would be desirable for His Majesty's Government to advise them in the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of France have intervened to prevent any part of their funds being devoted to subsidising this enemy of the Allies, and that, in spite of that, this Government persists in subsidising him? Is not that Boloism in its worst form?

I do not know to what transaction of the French Government the hon. Member's remarks refer. I do not believe that any of the money with which we endeavour to assist our Allies in the prosecution of the War goes to the ex-King of the Hellenes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if not entirely by himself, by other representatives of the Foreign Office, it has been admitted that this Government has control over that money which the Government of Greece supplies to this arch-enemy and agent of the Kaiser?

No, I am not.

It is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the contract whereby the Dowager Duchess of Coburg is paid a large annual pension; whether he will state the exact amount; whether he will make it clear whether this contract was made with the Russian Government or with the lady herself; whether, if made with the Russian Government, it is still valid in spite of the disappearance of that Government; whether, if made with the lady personally, he will indicate the consideration, as, for instance, the services rendered by her to this country; whether since that date he has been made aware that she is herself an active agent of the enemies of this country, and that her son is lending troops against this country; and whether, in view of the effect on the public mind of such subsidies granted to alien enemies, he will take steps to stop the payments?

The hon. Member will find a copy of the treaty on which the question turns in the Library, No. C. 901 of 1874. I think this will supply him with all the relevant facts of the case. As regards policy, I must refer him to the reply returned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the lion. Member for Roxburgh on 18th November, 1914.

Is it also a fact that this lady is a conspicuous enemy of the Allies, and that she also is being subsidised by the British Government?

I am not going to argue the question. We have a treaty obligation, and we keep it. The reasons for keeping it were stated by the Prime Minister. I have no more to say in answer to the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the acreage of colonial possessions of France and Germany, respectively, at the outbreak of hostilities; (2) the acreage of the territory in Europe which belonged to Germany at the outbreak of war and which is now claimed by France, and the acreage of what Austrian territory is claimed by Italy?

With regard to these questions, I have no other means of information than those at the disposal of the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give to the House the figures showing how Australian soldiers in the field voted en the question of Conscription?

I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Will you obtain that information?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in transferring men from the Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, to Infantry units, any regard is had to the distinction between men who volunteered for' this service in the early days of the War and conscripts?

The considerations governing transfers arc the necessity of placing the younger and fitter men in the Infantry, and the question of volunteer or conscript does not arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any distinctive mark, apart from the silver badge, is to be devised to protect men who are no longer fit for service from invidious treatment in public?

I do not know why my hon. Friend considers that anything is necessary beyond the silver badge. I would remind him that there are also wound stripes and chevrons for service overseas.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make any announcement regarding any distinction to many officers and men who were called up at the beginning of the War and have served since but who were prevented from going abroad owing to other duties being allocated to them in connection with the Expeditionary Force?

The question of the award of medals for the present War is receiving careful consideration. The claims of those officers and soldiers who have served since the commencement of the War, but who have been prevented from going abroad, have not been lost sight of.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what justification there is for employing so many majors in command of Labour Companies in view of the Army Council Instruction which gives authority for the acting rank of captain to be given to officers who hold lower ranks but are appointed to such commands; (2) whether more suitable employment than commanding Labour Companies could be given to field officers?

The reason for the employment of field officers is that there are a large number of suitable majors available whose services can be made use of in this way.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers are now employed on the Labour Directorate; and what number, if any, had any special experience of controlling labour before their appointment?

The total of the Staff appointments to the Directorate of Labour in France is approximately forty-nine. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mont-gomeryshire.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether colonels commanding columns in the late operations in East Africa have been or are to be given the rank of brigadier-general while they were so employed?

I do not know precisely what columns my hon. and gallant Friend refers to in his question, but I understand that the main portions into which the force is divided are commanded by brigadiers-general.

If a colonel was commanding an independent column equivalent to a brigade, is it not fair that he should be given the temporary rank of brigadier-general while doing so?

That is a question entirely within the discretion of the local General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the question has been adequately considered of providing the soldiers in the trenches with suitable body protection against rifle bullets; and, if so, whether anything will be done in the matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Suitable provision has been made.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether constructional engineers engaged before the War in erecting iron work, and who are not in Class A 1, but doing only clerical work in the Army, are being allowed to return to their employment, in view of the necessity for such class of man for the erecting of aerodromes, huts, and other such buildings at the present time?

The policy is to place such men at their trades in the Army, and I should be glad of any details which my hon. Friend can give me where this is not being done.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a non-commissioned officer or man who has been re-examined under Army Council Instruction No. 643, of 1917, issued in connection with the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, and who is given a discharge paper endorsed with the statement that he is discharged in consequence of being reexamined and found permanently and totally unfit for service, is, under any Regulations, liable to be recalled for further examination; and, if so, under what conditions can a man consider himself totally and finally exempted from further service?

My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. An officer, noncommissioned officer, or man given a discharge certificate after medical examination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, showing that he is permanently and totally unfit for military service, is not liable under any Statute or Regulations to be recalled for medical examination or for military service.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has received a copy of the Report which a non-party Parliamentary Committee on the relation of military dental service to man-power propose to publish; and, if so, what steps the War Office propose to take in regard to the recommendations contained therein?

My hon. Friend will realise that in an answer to a question I cannot do more than indicate in general terms the views of the War Office on the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided:

(1) The importance of conservative treatment of soldiers' teeth in this country is fully recognised, and frequent instructions have been issued.

(2) Qualified dental surgeons and lorries are supplied as they are demanded by the Commanders in the field, and I have no reason to suppose that they have asked for less than they thought necessary.

(3) Specially qualified dental surgeons are already associated with surgeons in the treatment of jaw cases. There are several centres specially staffed for this work, and if the local medical authorities wanted more the War Office would supply them.

(4) Dentists and dental mechanics are already being withdrawn from combatant units as this becomes necessary.

(5) There is already an inspecting dental surgeon in each command, who supervises the dental work and advises the Deputy Director of Medical Services.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there is an inspecting dental surgeon in each command in this country or abroad?

I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Member will put a. question down I will inquire, but my impression is that it refers to this country.

Have all the demands for dental surgeons been able to be complied with?

I am informed that is so.

Is there now a dental surgeon to each division?

I cannot at the moment say. I think that in the answer I have given I have fully stated all the steps which have been taken. if the hon. Member would like further information. I will gladly give it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to dispense with the services of the half-time men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve of the Anti-Aircraft Corps who for the past three and a half years have manned the searchlights in London, and to replace them with whole-time men; if he is aware that most of these are business men above military age whose experience and efficiency have repeatedly received official commendation, who are desirous of continuing their service to the end of the War, and whose supersession will make an unnecessary additional demand on our man-power; and if he will have the matter reconsidered before taking action?

These men do not give half-time, but a third of their time. Recent developments in searchlight training have necessitated a higher degree of training and efficiency, which can only be achieved by whole-time men. A sufficient number of half-time men will be re-engaged from the present personnel for duties which can be efficiently performed by men who can only give that amount of time.

Are they all being invited to volunteer for half-time?

I am not aware of that, but I will inquire.

What is to become of these men who have been giving their services all these years, and are quite willing to go on, but are business men who must give sonic of their time to their business?

I will inquire into all that, but the hon. Member must realise that the Army is concerned in the main with whole-time service.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an officer or man who is entitled to or in receipt of a pension or gratuity as a result of injury or disease which the Army doctor has failed to cure, arid who, after obtaining permission in accordance with Army Council Instruction No. 1,802 of 1917, at his own cost consults an unregistered practitioner, will suffer reduction or loss of such pension or gratuity in case the unqualified practitioner succeeds no better than the Army doctor?

No, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that many officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been detained on garrison duty in India beyond the regulation term of five years, he can now state by what date arrangements will be made to relieve those officers and give them a chance of service in France or elsewhere?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 3rd December last to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York. Steps are being taken to relieve as ninny as possible of the medical officers who have been a lung time in India, but in view of the transport and otter difficulties, such as the loss of time and services involved in carrying out reliefs. I regret it is quite impossible to give a date in connection with this, or even to promise that all such officers will be relieved.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the members of the Expeditionary Force, including a battalion of the South Wales Borderers and other units, who took part in the capture of Tsingtau, are entitled to receive the ribbon and medal that is being awarded to those men who were in service in France between August. and November, 1914; and, if not, will he state the reasons why those who were instrumental in the victory in the East should not receive similar recognition to those engaged in the campaign in France?

The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. With regard to the latter part of the question, the 1914 Star is granted for certain service which is specified in Army Order 350, of 1917. Unless the conditions for the award of this decoration are fulfilled, it cannot be awarded. However, the claims of all who have taken part in any military operations against the enemy will in due course receive suitable recognition.

Does that refer to the period of the operations between August and November, 1914, or to the present period?

Certainly. The 1914 Star was given for special service in France. The other point the hon. Member raised will be looked into.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Office have yet decided to reinstate Brigadier-General Elliot, as they promised to do?

T am afraid that there has so far been no opportunity.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is over three months since he made the statement in this House that the War Office was considering the reinstatement of this officer?

That is quite true, and, as far as I know, of the three officers, I think two have been re-employed, but it is correspondingly difficult to get an appointment for a brigadier-general

Seeing that Major Grimshaw has been reinstated, what reason is there, beyond what the hon. Gentleman said, for not reinstating General Elliot'? Was it because of the evidence he gave before the Dardanelles Commission?

No; there was no, ulterior motive, so far as the Army Council is concerned, for keeping him back from getting a brigade. The Army Council recognises that he is a very gallant officer, but it is very difficult to appoint a brigadier straight to a brigade.

In the meantime is he receiving brigadier-general's pay?

I cannot say he is. I have no doubt after the decision of the Army Council he would be placed immediately upon half-pay.

asked the Prime Minister if he can, consistently with the public interest, say who constituted the Court of Inquiry which inquired into the recent operations at Cambrai?

The inquiry into the Cambrai operations assumed the form of taking the evidence of all concerned. This evidence was submitted to Sir Douglas Haig and by him forwarded to the War Office, by whom it was submitted in its entirety to the War Cabinet.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can, consistently with the public interest, state what. changes have been made in the Headquarters Staff in France?

The following changes have been made:

Lieutenant-General Sir H. Lawrence to be Chief of the General Staff.

Colonel E. W. Cox to be Brigadier-General, General Staff (Intelligence).

Lieutenant-General Travers-Clark to be Quartermaster-General.

Are these changes made in consequence of the inquiry into the operations at Cambrai?

I am answering a question later.

asked whether the changes in the Headquarters Staff in France, which have been announced in the Press, were made in consequence of the Report to the War Cabinet on the recent operations at Cambrai?

No, Sir.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there have been any alterations in the rations of the forces in the United Kingdom as compared with the end of June last; and, if so, will he give the modifications that may have been made?

There have been no alterations since the date mentioned.

Is it proposed to make any alteration?

That is under consideration.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the protein value of the present rations to. the forces in the United Kingdom as compared with that of the Expeditionary Force?

The protein value of the present rations as issued to the troops in the United Kingdom is 126.6 grammes daily; that of the normal field ration as issued to the Expeditionary Force, France, is 140 grammes of protein daily; and that. of the lines of communication ration as. issued is 126.6 grammes of protein daily.

Does the right lion. Gentleman consider that the forces in this country and on lines of communication require the same as those in France?

Many of them are doing,. practically, precisely the same work.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to respond to the demand for equality of sacrifice, he will take immediate steps to prepare a scheme for the conscription of wealth and of all capitalistic plant in the country?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact of the deposition of the Emperor of the Russias and the setting up of a Republic in that country, he will take steps to have the name of the ex-Tsar removed from the list of honorary officers of the British Army?

The reply is the same.

Has the Government sufficiently weighed the gravity of that. reply? They are giving 1,000,000 bayonets for a dynasty.

asked the Prime Minis whether a Defence of the Realm Regulation which forbids any person in any newspaper to purport to describe or to refer to any proceeding of the Convention assembled on the invitation of His Majesty's Government for the purpose of preparing a Constitution for the future government of Ireland has been withdrawn; and, if not, will he say if the owners of newspapers published in England who have been able to accurately describe, and also to comment on, the proceedings of the Convention will be held liable to the penalties prescribed for a breach of the Regulation?

The Regulation is still in force, and it is of the utmost importance at the present time, when the Convention has reached a critical stage, that the Regulation should be carefully observed. The Irish papers have loyally adhered to it, and the Press Bureau has issued a special warning on the subject to the English Press. If there should he any serious contravention of the Regulation, steps will be taken to enforce it.

Has my right hon. Friend read last week's "Nation" and the remarks by "Wayfarer," which are a perfectly accurate description of the deadlock?

Perhaps I am not so well informed as to what has taken place. I have not read the paper in question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements made by Mr. Hoover, the Food Controller of the United States, that grain exported from America is being used for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor in this country; and whether, having regard to the patriotic efforts which are being made by the people of the United States to provide the Allies with supplies of food and the feeling which exists against the manufacture of liquor in time of war, he will give an assurance to the Government of the:United States that all grain fit for human and animal consumption will be utilised in this country for the purposes of food?

:I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first, part of the question is in the nega- tive. As I have already stated, in view of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest, the Government cannot regard the restricted quantity of beer now allowed to he brewed as involving an avoidable waste of foodstuffs.

Then why did the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor speak of the large waste of foodstuffs?

I cannot answer for my predecessor.

asked (1) the Prime Minister if he is aware of the resentment at the effect of the Food Controller's Regulation, which allows brewers to pay 5s. 3d. per quarter more than millers for barley, in diverting the best quality from use, in bread, -thus deteriorating its quality and accentuating shortage; and whether, now that brewers have bought nearly half the entire crop, he will cancel that Regulation, and put bread consumers on an equality with beer drinkers, and bakers with brewers, by allowing the same maximum prices to all buyers; and (2) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will stop discouraging the use of the best foodstuffs for food by discontinuing the preference of 5s. 3d. per quarter hitherto allowed to brewers and putting all purchasers of barley on an equality in regard to maximum prices?

I have been asked to reply. The point raised by the hon. Member is at the moment under consideration, and it is hoped to make an announcement shortly.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is being considered to reduce the rations of the Forces in the United Kingdom?

The matter is at the moment under consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that during the next three months farmers and graziers will be buying in store cattle for feeding; if he can give some definite assurance that he will not alter his present fixed prices, at any rate before next Christmas, so that buyers of stores may know what to be at; and if he intends to regulate in any way the price or sale of store cattle?

The question of the regulation of the sale of store cattle is at present receiving the consideration of the Food Controller. It is hoped that it may shortly be possible to make a definite announcement with regard to the future maximum prices for fat cattle.

When will that announcement be made

I am sorry that I cannot give the exact date, but it Neill be shortly.

asked what is the position of a householder in London whose butcher refuses to serve him as a customer owing to his name not being on his books for the month of October last, the customer being out of town for that month?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, by the recent Order to butchers to reduce their present supplies of meat to 50 per cent. of their October sales, it is his intention that those householders who were living strictly within their meat rations last October should now he reduced to a ration of 2 2–7 oz. of meat per person, whilst those who were not living within their rations will automatically obtain a much higher allowance than those who have acted patriotically?

The present Regulations merely limit the amount of the butcher's purchases of cattle and meat, and leave room for adjustment in sales to individual customers pending the introduction of definite schemes for controlling distribution. It is hoped that such temporary adjustment will be effected on the basis not of a customer's past purchases in any given month, but of his reasonable and proper requirements at the present time. I may add that Lord Rhondda has under consideration a definite scheme for rationing meat.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the local food committees are interpreting the Order in the manner suggested in question No. 78?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is so in Marylebone?

I will convey what has been said to the Food Controller. His scheme with regard to the rationing of meat is well advanced and will probably be produced before long.

is the hon. Gentleman aware that some butchers are approaching customers and telling them that; this is all the meat they will get?