asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what steps are being taken in respect of the abolition or modification of the capitulations in Egypt?

The Commission appointed at Cairo by the Egyptian Government in March, 1917, for the purpose of elaborating the legislative, judicial and administrative reforms which would be rendered necessary by the disappearance of the capitulations has made progress as rapidly as circumstances admit. It is the intention of the British and Egyptian Governments to come to an agreement with the Allied and neutral Powers, who are parties to the capitulations for the abolition of the latter, as soon as sufficient progress has been made in the preparation of a new judicial system to replace that at present in existence.

Does not the fact that we are at war with Turkey ipso facto abolish these capitulations and leave us free to appoint British Courts in their place?

I should not like to assent to that without consideration.

Will the Noble Lord give it his consideration?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the temporarily successful attempt to upset Mr. Tchaikovsky's Socialist Government at Archangel; and whether steps are being taken to see that Russian officers with our Forces do not use their position in any other manner than would be seemly in a British officer?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the overthrow of the Tschiavosky Government in Archangel; whether British officers were concerned in the military plot; and, if so, whether they have been punished?

On 5th September M. Tschaichowski's Government was overthrown by the commander of the Russian forces at Archangel, who captured the principal members of the Government and deported them to a neighbouring island. The Allied representatives immediately expressed strong disapprobation of these proceedings, and the Ministers were brought back on a British vessel and reinstated. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that Russian officers serving in the Allied forces at Archangel are under exactly the same discipline as British officers. No British officers were engaged in this affair.

Was the Russian officer commanding at Archangel or were his subordinates in our pay?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Trans-Siberian Railway is yet being operated under American management; whether he is aware that the American Government have capable men on the spot to do the work; and whether, if the Americans have not yet taken over the management, he will see that all the influence of His Majesty's Government is directed towards that end, without any restrictions on our part, at the earliest possible moment?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, the American and Japanese Governments are now considering the best method of managing the railway in question, and His Majesty's Government have announced their readiness to concur in any decision which those two Governments may take.

Is His Majesty's Government supporting the use of those admirable engineer officials of the American Government?

We are very desirous of seeing the use of any American officials that can be used. The attitude of the Government is expressed in the first part of my answer. They have announced their readiness to concur in any decision which those two Governments may take.

Is the attitude of the Japanese Government hostile to their use?

Not that I know.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House as to the circumstances under which Mr. Lockhart was arrested by the Bolshevik Government, and as to the length of time he was kept in prison?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Lockhart and his party have arrived from Moscow; whether he can make a statement on the work and treatment of Mr. Lockhart; and for how many days was Mr. Lockhart imprisoned in Russia?

Mr. Lockhart and his party are now on their way through Scandinavia. No statement regarding the work, imprisonment, and treatment of Mr. Lockhart can be made with advantage until his arrival in this country.

When does the Noble Lord expect that they will arrive in this country?

I cannot tell to a day, but very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during September, he wrote to the representative in London of the Esthonian Provisional Government protesting against any attempt to enforce compulsory enrolment on Esthonians without their consent as usurpation and tyranny; whether he has information that the German Government has proposed, or attempted to impose, military conscription on Esthonians; and whether the principle of obtaining a nation's consent before exacting compulsory service of its people is one to which the British Government gives its general adherence?

The statements to which the hon. Member no doubt refers were that "His Majesty's Government repudiates emphatically the claim of the German Government to exercise any kind of sovereignty in or right to dispose of Esthonia. No peace will be satisfactory to this country which does not embody that principle. In the meanwhile any attempt by Germany to enforce compulsory enrolment or other oppressive laws on the Esthonians without their consent can only be regarded as usurpation and tyranny," and, in spite of the hon. Member, the Government adheres to that declaration.

Is the Noble Lord aware that he has not given any answer to the second part of this question: whether the German Government has proposed or has attempted Conscription?

I am sorry if that part of the question was overlooked. We were informed by the Esthonian representatives that some such attempt had been made by the Germans.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government or the Allies have discussed or assented to the sixth of President Wilson's fourteen points, which contemplates the evacuation of all Russian territory and an unhampered opportunity for Russian independent determination; if not, in what respects does British policy diverge from the declaration of President Wilson; and whether, in the event of an armistice with Germans, the withdrawal of British or Allied forces and of Czechoslovak troops from Russian territory will be undertaken?

This is not a matter which can be discussed apart from the larger questions involved, about which no statement can be made at present.

asked the Home Secretary whether it was on his orders that Mr. Chrysin, representative in England of the All-Russia co-operative consumers' societies, was on 9th September arrested and kept in prison till 20th Septem- ber; whether he is aware that Mr. Chrysin refused to support the Russian Government after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty; and whether, in view of Mr. Chrysin's record and the high position held by him in the co-operative movement, he will now offer an apology and suitable compensation to Mr. Chrysin?

This man was one of the associates of M. Litvinoff, and with him was placed under detention for a time in order to enable pressure to be put upon the Bolshevist Government to release Mr. Lockhart and other British subjects imprisoned in Russia. He was released on the 20th September, and left this country for Russia with M. Litvinoff on the 26th September. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since the Soviet Government came into power eleven months ago Mr. Chrysin was not associated at all with Mr. Litvinoff?

Why did he go away with him?

Because he was sent. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the association of these two gentlemen ceased a long time ago, and has he made inquiries as to whether it is not through personal and business animosity that this man was deported?

My information is directly contrary to that of the hon. Member.

Who gave it to you?

Police spies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received the reply from Pekin stating the date when the leases of the buildings belonging to the German Consulate, bank, post-office, and trading firms in the British Concession of Shameen, in China, were terminated and all the Germans turned out of Shameen?

It has been found necessary to issue new Trading With the Enemy Regulations in China to deal with the question of the leases of these German buildings in the British Concession on the Shameen, and these are now being prepared.

When will they come into effect, and when will the Germans be turned out of Shameen?

I cannot tell when they come into effect until they are ready.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the stipulations of our agreement with China in regard to the cessation of the opium trade are being carried out by the Chinese Government; and whether there has been any increase in the local production of opium in China since the Indian import has ceased?

The last six Provinces remaining open to the introduction of Indian opium under the 1911 agreement were examined in August, 1917, and reported free from opium cultivation. The 1911 agreement terminated on 31st December, 1917. His Majesty's Government have received no official information of any increase in the local production of opium in China since the termination of that agreement and the cessation of the Indian import.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has been able to make any concessions to Irish prisoners imprisoned without trial; whether any visits from friends are now permitted; how many such prisoners have been arrested under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, or under the Defence of the Realm Regulations since 17th May, 1918; how many are now in custody or internment; how many of these are in England; how many in Ireland; whether any of these or any other persons have been charged, brought to trial, or are to be brought to trial in connection with the alleged German plot; and whether the policy and practice of the Government remains as it did on 8th August last?

Certain concessions have been made to persons ordered to be interned in prisons under the Defence of the Realm Act. Visits from friends under certain conditions are now permitted. The number of such prisoners arrested since 17th May, 1918, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, is none, and under the Defence of the Realm Regulations is ninety-five; of these ninety-two are now interned in England and three have been released. It is not intended to put any person on trial as suggested in the question. I have nothing to add to what I stated in the House on the 8th August last.

With regard to the permission as to visits, is there only to be one visit every three months, as stated in the Press, or will they be more frequent?

The visits will be in accordance with the regulations laid down.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has granted an increase of pay to the national teachers; and whether the conditions of their service and pay will be soon reported on by the Special Committee?

The question of the remuneration and conditions of service of national school teachers is at present being inquired into by the committees recently appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. It is not known when the committees will have completed their inquiries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to announce the decision of the Treasury in reference to the recommendation of the Commissioners of National Education that a war bonus on Civil Service terms should be granted to Irish teachers?

This question has been referred, by agreement, to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, and I understand that it will be the subject of a hearing early next week.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will state where the arms of the Ulster Volunteers now are and in whose custody they are; whether any conditions were attached to their surrender; and, if so, what these conditions were?

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 15th inst to the question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in Ireland the impression is widespread that this surrender of the Ulster arms is a fraud and that there has been no genuine surrender at all?

There are a great many widespread opinions in Ireland which are without foundation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious mischief which has been done in Ireland by the impression, and do I understand him distinctly to decline to answer my question as to whether any conditions have been attached to the surrender?

I stated the conditions on the 15th instant.

Oh, no, no!

How many arms have been surrendered by the National Volunteers?

I understand substantially all.

They have been all taken by force without conditions.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government have prepared a scheme for the provision of suitable houses for the workers in the towns and cities of Ireland; whether the Treasury have been requested to support such a scheme; and if he can say when the Government will begin to carry out in Ireland a scheme to settle the housing problem?

I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Has this matter of housing engaged the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at all?

Yes, to a very considerable extent.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government have recently considered the advisability of withdrawing the Conscription proposals for Ireland?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked on Tuesday by the hon. Member for North Somerset.

Taking into consideration recent events, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Conscription is now a war necessity or whether it will be enforced for political reasons to injure Ireland in the eyes of the world?

I have nothing to add.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Act under which certain documents relating to the proceedings of the Irish Convention may not be published has yet been repealed; if not, what is the reason for refusing to repeal it, especially in view of the fact that a general desire has been expressed by the members of the Convention for the publication of the documents; and if he will now consider the advisability of facilitating the immediate publication of the documents referred to?

I have taken the opinion of members of the Convention, and they are not unanimous. On consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the regulation should not be repealed until it is certain that there is no chance of the Convention sitting again.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the members of the Convention objected to the repeal of the Regulation?

I cannot speak accurately from recollection, but I think a large majority was in favour of the repeal.

Did the right hon. Gentleman receive a unanimous request from the Ulster Unionist members of the Convention in favour of the repeal of the Regulation?

I have received the request, but whether unanimous or not I cannot say.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why the Ulster Unionist members of the Convention have taken this action is because they contributed nothing to the Convention?

I do not know.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the salaries of the joint secretaries to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland have been lately reduced by £100, respectively, from the figure fixed by the Treasury in 1885, after full investigation into the then work of the Department; whether the Commissioners were consulted previously, or at all, as to the propriety of this reduction; whether he is aware that they and their chairman, the Master of the Rolls, immediately on notification of it unanimously protested and pointed out that the greatly increased and steadily increasing work of the Department since 1885 would justify an addition rather than a reduction in their secretaries' salary, and that they on at least four subsequent occasions during the last two years unanimously renewed this protest; and if he will say whether any of them have sent in their resignations as a result of the neglect either to comply with their recommendations or to furnish any reasons for not giving effect to them?

The facts are generally as stated. Some members sent in their resignations, some of whom, at my request, have kindly consented to withdraw.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1885, when the salaries were fixed, the amount of money under the control of the Commissioners was £450,000 and that to-day the amount under their control is something like £1,250,000 with a number of accounts varying from £1,000 to £1,200, and does he consider it is a reasonable thing to have reduced the salaries?

I believe the figures are something like those stated by the hon. Member, but the whole matter was gone into very carefully and the decision arrived at.

If the facts are placed more fully again before the right hon. Gentleman, will he be good enough to communicate with the Treasury and submit the view that he is satisfied the reduction is ill-founded?

I will consider anything the hon. Member puts before me.

asked the Home Secretary how many women have been arrested under the Defence of the Realm Regulation 40D, and in how many cases convictions have been obtained?

Up to the 8th October there had been 201 prosecutions under the Regulation. Convictions had been obtained in 102 cases, in fifty-one of which the defendants pleaded guilty. Three other defendants were bound over or placed on probation, and six cases were under remand when the Return was made.

In view of the answer that in nearly one out of every two eases no conviction was obtained, may I ask if any arrangement has been made to give compensation to the women who have been subjected to this examination?

I think the Return shows that the magistrates are very careful and do not convict except in very clear cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give the House an early opportunity of discussing this abominable Regulation?

In view of the futility of this Order, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw it altogether?

As a matter of fact the Regulation is being considered by a Committee, which will report in due course.

In view of the very widespread interest in this matter, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to expedite the Report of the Committee?

The Committee has been asked to report as soon as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House an opportunity of discussing this matter before the Committee report, which may not be until after Christmas?

That is not a question for me, but in any case it would be very undesirable to have a discussion while the Committee is considering the question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Committee will report before Prorogation?

I cannot of course do that. They have been asked to report as early as possible.

I beg to give notice that at the very earliest opportunity I will raise this question.

asked whether the terms of reference of the Committee set up to inquire into Defence of the Realm Regulation 40D are confined to the modification of the Regulation or include also the question of its withdrawal?

The Committee were appointed to consider the Regulation and what modifications (if any) should be made in its terms or in the procedure for enforcing it, and I do not think they would be precluded from considering the question of its withdrawal.

As the Committee is considering the question of the withdrawal of this Regulation, and in view of the general hostility to it, will the right hon. Gentleman have it suspended until the Committee has reported? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

No. The Cabinet has already given a decision on that point.

If the Committee reported against the Regulation could the right hon. Gentleman in his own person withdraw it?

I could not. It would have to be rescinded by Order in Council.

asked the Home Secretary how many undesirable aliens have been repatriated since the beginning of August, 1918; and whether transport facilities have now been made available for the wives and families of Russian subjects who have returned to Russia rather than face enlistment in this country, especially those who have been receiving allowances here since the men's departure?

About 1,650 aliens (including alien enemies) with their dependants have been expelled or repatriated since the date named. Difficulties of transport still prevent deportation on a larger scale, and it is not yet possible to provide transport for the wives and families of Russians who have returned to their country.

What steps have been taken to prevent the return to this country of the men who are now repatriated and deported?

How many of those 1,600 were perfectly innocent British-born wives?

I cannot give an answer to that, but I do not think any British-born wives have been deported.

Have they left the country voluntarily because life here was made impossible for them?

What steps, if any, have been taken to see that those people are not people who could convey useful information to the enemy?

Care is exercised in this respect, and no one is sent abroad who, in the opinion of the military authorities, could give useful information.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position of the ex-aliens who are producing the film of the Prime Minister's life?

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the representative character of the request that he should receive a deputation on the subject of the disorder which occurred at a meeting in Woolwich on the 6th July, and of the feeling that proper precautions were not taken to secure public order and freedom of speech, he will reconsider his decision not to grant an interview to the deputation?

I carefully considered the request that I should receive a deputation in this matter, but for reasons which I gave to the London Labour party I came to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by such a deputation. I have again considered the matter, but must adhere to my view. I shall be glad to send my right hon. Friend a copy of my reply.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will favourably consider making the wives of existing Metropolitan Police pensioners eligible for the new widow's pension in the event of their becoming widows?

The widows of pensioners who rejoined for service during the War, and who were actually serving on 1st September, 1918, will be eligible for pensions, but it would not be practicable to include the wives of other members of the force who have retired on pension.

Is he aware that there are many hundreds of these widows who are absolutely destitute and who are receiving charity on all hands, that their only method of obtaining any money whatever is to work in the various police courts, and that there is a large number of these who have no work whatever and are starving?

I do not think that really arises out of the answer.

But I want to know whether these pensions will be made retrospective?

I could not deal with that. It is part of a very large question affecting pensions of all kinds.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement about the recent strike of members of the Metropolitan police?

I hope to have an early opportunity of referring to this matter.

Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman admitted his error so greatly that he submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister in this connection?

asked the Home Secretary if he can state whether a Dutch representative has visited any prisoner camps in Turkey during the adjournment; if so, whether his reports can be forthwith published; and if he can state, approximately, how many parcels are awaiting at Alexandria addressed to British prisoners and what it is proposed to do with them?

Representatives of the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople have visited camps and hospitals in the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and their reports have been received.

A Dutch inspector proceeded on the 19th August to visit the camps in the interior of Asia Minor, and it is known that he has been to Kedos, but no reports from him have yet been received. As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, His Majesty's Government are unable to publish the reports received from neutral representatives on internment camps, but I am glad to be able to state that the accounts given in the reports above-mentioned and in recent letters from prisoners show a substantial improvement in their conditions, due largely to the Turkish Red Crescent Commission which visited the camps in anticipation of the Dutch inspection.

The number of parcels received at Alexandria for British prisoners of war in Turkey was 1,200 on the 15th August, the date of the last report received, and it is estimated that their number is now about 1,500. It is proposed to ship them by the repatriation vessel which is to embark British invalid prisoners of war at Scala Nova.

Is it not important that the repatriation should be started?

A date has been arranged.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take immediate steps to make known to the public the whole of the sworn evidence concerning the treatment of British prisoners in Germany, and also the whole of the evidence with regard to the forcing of British prisoners to work behind the lines under shell-fire from British guns?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The evidence referred to in the question is considered and tested by the Government Committee on the treatment by the enemy of British prisoners of war, over which Mr. Justice Younger presides, and the effect of the evidence is stated and extracts given in the reports of that Committee. It is the intention of the Government that the reports of the Committee shall be made public as soon as received. The evidence itself is too voluminous to be published in full.

Is it the intention of the Government to give the earliest possible date for the consideration of this question of the treatment of prisoners of war, which is of such intense interest to the country?

That is a question for the Leader of the House.

Then can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House give us any information upon the subject?

I am quite sure we shall be glad to arrange for a discussion immediately there are the full facts to go upon, and I can scarcely say that at the present time we have all those facts.

Owing to the fact that delay in this question must bring increased suffering to those concerned, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider giving a day, or half a day, early next week?

My hon. and gallant Friend knows that we have just sent to the German Government a message on the subject, and the wiser course, I think, would be to await their reply.

I will put this question down again next Monday.

Is there any reason for not immediately informing the German Government—

Hon. Members should not forget the number of questions there are on the Order Paper.

asked the Home Secretary if he has received a complaint from George McMillan, employed in the Home Office scheme at Witton White-houses, Ewesley, near Morpeth, complaining of an unprovoked assault upon him by the agent at this camp; and will he say what steps are being taken to protect the men against such treatment?

The Committee has received a complaint from this man, but the agent contradicts his statements, and in view of McMillan's record, both at Ewesley and at Princetown, the Committee cannot accept his version of the occurrence. He has been sent back to Princetown.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state why Thomas Farnworth, a conscientious objector who has been offered the exceptional employment scheme, has had the condition imposed that he cannot take employment in the cotton trade, in which he is a qualified operative, and that he must seek employment at least 25 miles away from his home; will he say why these conditions have been imposed in this case seeing that they are no part of the regulations governing the employment of conscientious objectors under this scheme; and will he withdraw the conditions in this case?

The conditions named have been imposed because Farnworth is physically fit for more active work than cotton-spinning, and because difficulties have been created where men have been allowed to take up exceptional employment in the neighbourhood of their old homes. Farnworth himself proposed some months ago that when he was qualified for exceptional employment he should take up work as a farm labourer. Under the Rules the Committee have full discretion to grant or withhold authority to take up exceptional employment, and I cannot withdraw the conditions imposed in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when the Report of the proceedings of the recent Imperial Conference will be placed upon the Table and printed for the information of Parliament and the public?

:I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me on 15th October. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, col. 3.]

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that every possible economy is now being effected in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force in regard to the use of petrol; and, if not, what further steps he proposes to take for that purpose?

Suggestions have been made to the Departments mentioned as to various directions in which economies may be effected, and good results have been obtained. Proposals for more effective control, by which it is hoped to secure further economies, are under consideration. The hon. Member may rest assured that everything possible will be done consistent with the maintenance of Naval, Military, and Aerial efficiency.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether India and Egypt were parties to the arrangement in regard to Colonial Preference; and what articles were to be subject to preference; (2) if he can give any information as to the agreement arrived at with the self-governing Dominions and Colonies as to Colonial Preference?

I cannot add anything to the statement made on 1st August in reply to a question addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. India was represented at the Conference.

May I ask my hon. Friend if we are to consider that this arrangement is something secret and something which is not to be disclosed to the public or the Governments concerned?

No; I do not think my hon. Friend quite understands the constitution of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Explain it!"] There is no question of an arrangement. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Imperial Conference, at successive meetings extending over a great many years, passed a resolution in favour of Preference within the British Empire. What has now been done is to bring the action of the United Kingdom into conformity with what has been agreed upon unanimously, with the exception of the United Kingdom, at these former Imperial Conferences. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer described fully and accurately exactly what had taken place, and I have nothing whatever to add to his statement.

Are we to understand then that nothing has taken place?

On the contrary, my hon. Friend has to understand that something very important has taken place.

May I ask if the hon. Member cannot tell us what it is which is so importaant which has taken place?

What it is that is important that has taken place is that the British Government is in conformity with the resolutions formerly passed by various Imperial Conferences, that on any duties now imposed, and on any duties hereafter to be imposed, preference will be given to the parts of the British Empire.

Are we to understand that he implies that India is a party to the agreement?

My right hon. Friend is to understand exactly what I have said—the whole of the British Empire. India was represented at the Imperial Conference.

May I ask whether it is within the competence of the British Government to decide what duties shall be imposed without reference to Parliament?

It is perfectly competent for the British Government to decide anything it likes. It has absolute power in the matter.

May I ask if he can state the amount of the preference which he says is to be given?

I have already stated that I have nothing whatever to add to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken towards the commandeering of the Adelphi estate for the purposes of the Air Board; whether he is aware of the dis- satisfaction felt at the threatened loss of this property, which is full of priceless relics of the work of the Adam Brothers; and whether, in view of this, the Committee can make a fuller inquiry into the matter?

There is no intention, and never has been, to commandeer the Adelphi estate for the purposes of the Air Board or any other purpose. Certain premises forming part of the Adelphi estate, and situated in Adam Street, have been requisitioned for the purposes of additional office accommodation urgently required for the Air Ministry. Dissatisfaction is always felt at any proposal to requisition, but the needs of the fighting Departments of the nation must be the first consideration of the Committee. The property in question contains very little work by the Adam Brothers, and any such work will be adequately protected, as in the case of all decorations in requisitioned buildings. The Committee caused the fullest inquiries to be made before arriving at a decision on this matter, and it is not proposed to reopen the question.

Does the part commandeered include the premises of the Society of Arts?

No; it does not.

asked whether there are now any applications for increased office accommodation awaiting the sanction of the Cabinet Committee on office accommodation; and, if so, how many there are, and which Government offices are making these applications?

Yes, Sir, six; three from the War Office, and one each from the Ministry of Food, Ministry of Shipping, and Allied Maritime Transport Council.

Is it true that the Department which deals with the bestowal of honours upon civilians has applied for enlarged office accommodation?

asked the Pensions Minister what is the amount of the Voluntary Fund; how many applications have been received for grants; and how many have been made?

The contributions received up to the 16th October, 1918, amount to £470,195. Promised subscriptions raise this total to over £500,000. In the same period 12,435 applications for grants have been received by my Department. Grants have been made in 4,047 cases and refused in 1,412. The remainder of the cases are at present under inquiry.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether it is the intention of the Ministry of Pensions to make themselves responsible for any other voluntary fund?

I am not aware that my right hon. Friend proposes anything of the kind.

asked the Pensions Minister whether it is a fact that officers and men of the Mercantile Marine are to be excluded from participation in the fund which he is now raising; and, if so, whether he can sate the reason for this decision?

The question as to whether officers and men of the Mercantile Marine were eligible for assistance from the King's Fund was raised as soon as the King's Fund was inaugurated, and in view of the fact that the appeal for the King's Fund was made for disabled officers and men of His Majesty's Navy, Army, and Air Service, it was ruled that the Mercantile Marine did not come within the category, and, moreover, they were included in and eligible for assistance from King George's Fund for Sailors.

Since this decision was given the Mercantile Marine ratings under naval discipline have become pensionable under the Government scheme. In view of this, my right hon. Friend proposes to refer the question of the eligibility of the Mercantile Marine for the benefits of the King's Fund to the trustees of that fund for decision.

asked the Pensions Minister whether he proposes to bring pensions to the children of widows into line with the separation allowances of children of serving men?

The question is at present under consideration.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what he means by that? Is the Ministry suggesting a change to the Treasury, and is it the view of the Ministry that the pensions payable to the children of widows should be the same as the allowances to the children of wives?

I mean exactly what I said.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by what he says? He says the question is under consideration. Will he tell us whether the view of the Ministry is that the pensions payable to the children of widows is to be the same as the allowance payable to the children of wives?

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

asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the conditions set out in Circular 102, whilst presumably giving 7s. 6d. per week extra to the married man receiving treatment or training and living at home, limit the grant very seriously; and whether it is intended to make any alteration in Condition ( c ) of the circular?

A revised Circular 102 is about to be issued, considerably modifying Condition ( c ) of the original circular. I may, however, remark that it will still be necessary to examine each case on its merits, with reference to the pre-war standard of living, as the extra grant is not a flat-rate addition to the ordinary allowance.

Is it a fact that this grant of 7s. 6d. is so hedged round with restrictions that nobody can get it?

There have been restrictions, but the principal one is Condition ( c ), and that is now being removed.

asked the Pensions Minister whether he has had brought to his notice the contrast between the means of subsistence afforded by the allowances to the wives and families of the fighting forces and the comforts available for the members of families engaged in civilian employment; whether he is aware that the disproportion is increasing; whether he recognises the effect of the contrast upon men returning after years of strenuous exertion and self-sacrifice; and whether he is prepared to recommend revised allowances which will fully compensate for the rise in the cost of living during the War?

asked the Pensions Minister if he can yet state what increases are to be made in the separation allowances for the dependants of sailors and soldiers, and the date from which they will become effective?

I have been asked to reply to these questions. I can add nothing to the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dissatisfaction is most acute with the provision made in reference to cases where wives are entirely dependent upon this small allowance and are unable to work?

My right hon. Friend said yesterday the Cabinet had considered the question, and it was hoped their decision would be announced to-day or to-morrow.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those wives are included?

I think if the hon. Gentleman will wait and see—

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that soldiers' wives are now organising themselves and protesting against the small pay they are receiving?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state that all pensions for any disability in previous wars have been brought into line with the new Warrant?

I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the Royal Warrants dated respectively the 17th April, 1918, and the 12th September, 1918, which disclose the extent to which pensions of former wars have been brought into line with pensions of the present War.

Can my hon. Friend say what steps the Government are taking to make known to the men who have previously been awarded pensions that this new increase is available for them?

It has been published abroad generally by circular and by speeches, and also it has been announced in this House.

How can that be when the decision was only come to a few days ago?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that discontent is caused by the recent Treasury interpretation of Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, by which a deduction of 10 per cent. is made from the pay of discharged officers employed in Government offices provided their disability pension, called retired pay, and salary together amount to £400 per annum; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?

The Treasury are advised that the deduction in question is necessary under the Statute.

asked the Pensions Minister when it is proposed to increase the scale of pensions to discharged soldiers and sailors and the dependants of those killed during the War?

As I informed the hon. Member for East Edinburgh yesterday, this matter is now under consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to state if it has been decided to pay gratuities to officers of the Royal Naval Division on the same lines as those payable to Army officers under Article 497 of the Army Pay Warrant?

asked whether on the conclusion of the War and their active service being finished, commissioned officers of the military forces will be entitled to 124 days' pay for the first year of service or part of the year and 62 days' pay for each subsequent year of service or any part of a year; whether similar provision is made for commissioned officers of the Royal Naval Reserve Forces; and, if hot, whether, in consideration of their services during the War, he will favourably consider similar provision being made in their case?

The question of extending to temporary naval officers the payment of a gratuity similar to that payable to temporary Army officers is one concerning which we have been in communication with the Treasury for some considerable time past. I am not in a position to announce a decision.

May I ask if the Admiralty are in favour of claims being put forward for no distinction in treatment between the Royal Naval Reserve and the officers temporarily engaged in other parts of the Service?

I should hesitate to prejudice in advance the view which the Treasury might take.