asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state what steps have been taken for the improvement of the British Consular Service, and what increase of pay has so far been granted to Consular officers in the various countries concerned?

As compared with 1914, an additional sum of £74,000 a year is being spent on office and fee allowances alone. This has provided for increases of staff, better accommodation and equipment at a number of posts. About 120 additional salaried offices have been appointed mostly on a temporary basis, but some for permanent service. War bonuses have also been granted in view of the additional cost of living. A Committee is sitting, and is expected to report very shortly on the more permanent financial provision which will be required, and on the rates of pay to be given. Recommendations of this nature must still, however, be of a somewhat provisional nature.

Is the number of whole-time Consuls increased, and is that a feature of the changes also?

I hope that will be so. The need will certainly be pressing. It will need the consent of the Treasury if they get it.

Is the Committee sitting prepared to receive further recommendations for the Consular Service?

Certainly. If the hon. Member will send me any recommendations I will see they are considered.

Is there any difficulty in getting money from the Treasury for these men?

That is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a treaty for the establishment of a Peace Commission has been signed with Peru; what is the nature of the treaty; and whether the terms will be made available by publication to the House prior to ratification?

A treaty between the United Kingdom and Peru for the establishment of a permanent Commission to which disputes should be referred was signed at Lima on 16th July last, on the model of that concluded with the United States on 15th September, 1914. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members who may desire to refer to the text.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Lockhart and his party have now arrived on these shores; whether he is prepared to make a statement about Mr. Lockhart's treatment; and how long was Mr. Lockhart kept in prison in Moscow?

Mr. Lockhart has arrived in England, but I cannot make any statement until I receive his report, which is being prepared.

Will it be available, say, in a week's time?

I do not know at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the total amount of the sums which have been levied upon the various cities and towns in Belgium, France, and other countries which have been invaded and pillaged by the Germans; and whether the repayment of these sums with accrued interest will be included in the peace terms to be imposed on Germany and her allies?

I am not able to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. Full reparation is, as my hon. Friend knows, part of the war aims of the Allies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information that, in consequence of recent developments in Finland under German dictation, the French Government has broken off diplomatic relations with that country; and if the question of adopting a similar course is under consideration by His Majesty's Government?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government never formally recognised the present Finnish Government, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state on what date the new Trading with the Enemy Regulations in China which are now being prepared will be issued, and what period will have to elapse after that date before the Germans in the British concession of Shameen can be turned out; and whether, if these Regula-are not issued before the conclusion of hostilities, the leases of the buildings now occupied by the German consulate, bank, pest office, and trading firms in the British concession on the Shameen will not be terminated and the Germans will remain in possession?

The new Regulation is being prepared in China, and I have telegraphed to ascertain when the draft will be ready.

When the Noble Lord receives that will it be brought into force at once, or what is the delay in bringing it into effect?

The delay, such as there is, is in preparing the draft.

In China. Cannot the orders be issued here?

No; the draft must be prepared in China.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any youths under nineteen have been sent overseas by the military authorities since the 8th August; and whether arrangements have been made to withdraw from the front-line trenches lads under nineteen who were already overseas by that date?

As I stated in Debate on the 7th August last, it was decided that from the end of August no soldier under nineteen years of age should be sent overseas, and this rule is still in force. The question of the withdrawal of those already in the firing line is for the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. Representations have already been made to him, but, in view of the military situation, he was unable to agree to their withdrawal. The matter is, however, still under his consideration, and I am sure that as soon as such a step is practicable the Field-Marshal will give instructions for these young soldiers to be withdrawn from the firing line.

Is it not a fact that the French military authorities keep lads under nineteen in training depots, and do not send them to the front? And will the Under-Secretary make strong representations as to the strong feeling in this House against keeping lads under nineteen in the firing line? Many of them in the meantime are being killed.

I have said we have made representations to the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, who is the best judge of the needs of the forces. I can assure the House again that it is with the greatest possible regret that these-young lads have been sent to the front.

Why is it necessary to have lads of eighteen and a half in the firing line when, as the Prime Minister Assured us, 300,000 reserves were in this country when these lads were put in?

Do not the lads under nineteen show great gallantry in the line as well as in the air, and would it not be an unpardonable injury to them if they were withdrawn?

All I can say is that their conduct at the front has been simply magnificent.

Is it not the opinion of the medical authorities that lads under nineteen are not fit to stand the physical strain of modern trench warfare?

No, Sir; that is not their opinion.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Thomas Atkinson, No. L/16706, Lincolnshire Yeomanry; whether this lad will not be eighteen until June next year; whether he joined the Army voluntarily in December, 1917, when he was only sixteen; whether he is an orphan and was brought up by his elder brother, who is now an invalid and in want; and whether, in spite of the fact that the lad has now had ten months' training and cannot be sent abroad on account of his age, the Army authorities refuse to allow him to return to civil life to help to support the brother who brought him up?

This case has been carefully considered, but I regret that Private Atkinson cannot be released from the Army.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state what decision has been arrived at by the Army Council regarding the promotion of officers of the General Reserve above the rank of major who have hitherto been refused promotion in spite of the provisions of the Royal Warrant and of the Army Council instructions under which they are eligible for it?

It has been decided to grant promotion to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in certain cases to majors of the Reserve of Officers, and instructions on the subject are about to be issued.

What provision is being made for the rank of colonel?

I have not considered that, but I will.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

Certainly.

I will put down another question.

asked the Home Secretary whether Thomas Phillips, now in Northallerton Prison as a conscientious objector, has offered to do work of national importance; and whether, in view of his having nearly completed his second sentence, he will now be given work under the Home Office scheme?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 4th July.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information about E. G. Maguire, a conscientious objector, now being forcibly fed in Hull Prison; whether food is being administered by the same persons and in the same way as in the case of E. W. Burns, who died from forcible feeding in Hull Prison; and whether the release on temporary discharge of E. G. Maguire is being considered?

This prisoner is now taking food again voluntarily, and his state of health is satisfactory. In view of the reference in this question to the death of Mr. W. E. Burns, I feel bound to remind the hon. Member that the jury who inquired into the circumstances attending his death came unanimously to the conclusion that no blame whatever attached to the medical officer or any other prison official, and a subsequent investigation made by medical men of high standing confirmed this conclusion.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any part of the Fazakerley Hospital, Liverpool, which could be used for tuberculosis patients has recently been used for the accommodation of typists or for storage purposes; if so, whether it is being still so used; and, if so, what steps will be taken to enable the space to be used for the accommodation of some of the tuberculosis cases which are awaiting treatment?

I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will define the word "separation" as used in Article 55 of the Separation Allowance Regulations; whether, if a man was living away from home looking for work, with the full knowledge of and in perfect agreement with his wife, he is deemed to be separated from her; and whether she is, in consequence, ineligible for separation allowance?

A husband and wife are not deemed to be separated in the circumstances mentioned in the second part of the question. The term "separation" in the paragraph referred to has its technical significance, and means matrimonial separation of a permanent character, though not necessarily by legal order.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that 15d. weekly is added to the pension of widows above the age of forty-five, he will consider the addition of a like sum to the separation allowances of soldiers' wives above forty-five?

The question of the allowance for the soldier's wife was carefully considered by the War Cabinet, and the result was announced last week. I am afraid I cannot add anything to that announcement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this point was considered? Is he aware that the difference in the two instances put by my hon. and gallant Friend is 2s. 6d. a week?

The question of the elder wife was considered.

Are their requirements more or less than the others?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why one should have it and not the other?

I am not aware that we make any distinction in this matter between the elder and the younger wife.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a widow of forty-five gets 15s. a week, whereas a wife of forty-five gets 12s. 6d.?

Yes; but my hon. Friend must not forget that the wife has a husband who is able to contribute to her support.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Civil Liabilities Committee is reducing its grants in aid of pre-war or pre-enlistment obligations upon the ground of the increased income of the soldier in respect of whom his grant was made, although the increased income is solely due to the increased pay recently conceded and his Government payment of required allotments; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I have been asked to answer this question. It is not the practice of the Civil Liabilities Committee to reduce any grants they have made either on account of the general increase of soldiers' pay or on account of the Government having decided to pay the soldiers' allotment. If the hon. Member can send my right hon. Friend particulars of any case in which it is alleged that this has been done, he will be very glad to look into it.

Is there not considerable difficulty in getting any compensation or any allowances from the Civil Liabilities Committee, and will the hon. Gentleman undertake that his Department will facilitate rather than impede the matters that are brought before its notice of a pressing nature?

Of course the particular type of claim that is submitted has nothing to do with the question here. This asks whether the Committee has reduced the grant in aid of pre-war or pre-enlistment obligations upon the ground of the increased income of the soldier. We say no such case has come to our notice, and if any such case is brought to our notice it shall have prompt attention. I have not the slightest doubt, if my hon. Friend will submit cases such as he speaks of, they will receive attention.

I have already done so.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is still the practice to stop the allowance in respect of a soldier's child when it reaches the age of fourteen years, even although the child may be continuing to attend school; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of amending this Regulation which, in its operation, tends to discourage continued education?

No, Sir; separation allowance is issued for children up to the age of sixteen years. A lower flat rate is issued when they have reached the age of fourteen, but local war pensions committees are empowered to issue supplementary allowances for those children over fourteen who are whole-time pupils or students at an elementary or other school.

Why does my right hon. Friend refuse to give from the pay office this amount which he transfers to the local war pensions committee? Why cannot the pay office go on paying this?

In all cases?

Yes.

Because so many children of fourteen and fifteen—very properly, I think—engage in work.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has come to a decision with regard to the claim of J. R. Fawcett, late private No. 1426, Northumberland Fusiliers, to compensation for having been improperly placed in Class W Reserve when he was unable to work regularly owing to disease caused by Army service; and whether this matter was brought to his notice on 4th June, 1918, and has been waiting his decision ever since?

I regret the delay in this case, which has entailed correspondence with the Ministry of Pensions. I have given instructions for the necessary inquiries to be expedited, and I hope to be in a position to communicate again with my hon. Friend shortly.

asked the Pensions Minister whether the new King's Voluntary Fund will be made available for necessitous cases of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine; and, if not, will he state the reasons why the Mercantile Marine Service should be debarred from any benefits accruing under this particular scheme?

As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Devizes on 17th October, the question of making the King's Voluntary Fund available for necessitous cases of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine has been referred to the trustees for their decision.

asked the Pensions Minister how, in the case of a dependant other than a wife, dependency is assessed for the purpose of pension; and whether the estimate of dependency represented by the allotment and allowance paid while the soldier is serving is accepted as the extent of dependency if the soldier in respect of whom it is issued is killed?

"Pre-war dependence" is assessed for the purpose of pension in the manner laid down in Article 24 (7) of the Royal Warrant of the 17th April, 1918. Under this Article the estimate of dependency for the purpose of separation allowance is not necessarily accepted for pension, inasmuch as increase of benefits due to circumstances arising out of the War are excluded from the assessment for pension purposes. It has, however, been agreed with the Select Committee on Public Expenditure that where the original assessment does not exceed 7s. 6d. a week that assessment may be accepted for pension as a general rule. In other cases some inquiry may be necessary as to possible increase of benefits due to the War, but it is found in practice that in the majority of cases the original assessment can be accepted.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the assessments of his Department are based upon the pre-war value of money?

No; I have just said in answer to the question that they are not.

But they are!

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the pensions granted for long and faithful service in the Army and Navy prior to the War have not been revised to meet the increased cost of living, although other pensions, grants, and allowances have been increased on this account, he will consider the addition of a war bonus to such pensions in cases where the pensioners are in need?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southport.

Does not the cost of living in the case of men who served prior to this War bear equally hard on them?

Yes, it certainly does, and I am sure that we should all like to increase the amount payable to those men if we possibly could; but I think my hon. Friend must see that if you are to begin in this way it is difficult to say where it will end.

The old pensioners of the Crimea and the Indian Mutiny are comparatively few, and cannot some further consideration be shown to them?

We desire to do all that can be done fairly, and this has been shown already in the fact that we have assimilated the pensions before the War and other matters of that kind to those in this War.

asked the Pensions Minister what the war bonus on existing pensions scales is to be?

The matter is still under consideration, but I hope soon to be able to make a further announcement.

I will repeat the question on Tuesday next.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been decided by the Treasury to extend to the Royal Naval Reserve forces the provision of Reserve pay on resuming civilian life now applicable to temporarily commissioned officers in the military forces of the Crown?

This question is under consideration.

When considering it, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that it is likely to be quite as difficult for officers in the Royal Naval Reserve to resume their civilian occupations as it will be for temporarily commissioned officers in the military forces of the Crown?

Yes, that point will be borne in mind. My answer was that the subject was being carefully considered by the Government.

asked the Pensions Minister whether he has received any resolutions protesting against the Regulation under which the earning capacity of a man who enlisted before January, 1916, should be based upon what he would have received then; and whether, in view of the fact that by the periodical increases in wages since then the dependants of men who have enlisted since that date are placed in a, much better position, he will consider an amendment of the Regulation in question?

The Regulation to which my hon. Friend refers has now been amended by substituting January, 1918, for January, 1916.

Will this substitution of 1918 for 1916 also be extended to Grants made by the Civil Liabilities Commission?

I am afraid that I do not answer for the Civil Liabilities Commission. The question should be addressed to the Local Government Board.

May I ask if this amendment applies to all Grants?

No; this applies to the Regulation about which the question was asked.

asked the Pensions Minister what pension, if any, has been awarded to the mother of the late Second-Lieutenant William Blair, 8th Seaforth Highlanders?

A pension of £35 a year has been granted in this case.

asked the Pensions Minister if the pension of £35 a year granted to the mother of the late Second-Lieutenant Charles Campbell, 13th Battalion King's Royal Rifles, is her sole income, and whether, seeing that she is a widow and is unable to follow any employment, he will consider the possibility of granting her a larger pension?

I have looked into the case to which the hon. Member calls my attention, and agree that the circumstances justify a larger pension. The pension will be increased to £50 a year with effect from the original date of award.

asked the Pensions Minister whether there is payable to Mrs. Burke, of 16, Deakins Road, Wharton, Winsford, Cheshire, wife of Lance-Corporal E. W. Burke, No. 4061, date 17th Lancers, now 7th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, a pension of £6 17s. per annum; whether the Pensions Issue Office refuse to pay this pension unless proof is forthcoming that her husband is alive; whether Lance-Corporal Burke is a prisoner in Germany; and whether the Pensions Issue Office propose to deprive Mrs. Burke of the money until the end of the War?

E. W. Burke, late of the 16th Lancers, was admitted to a service pension of 1s. 6d. a day (£6 17s. uniform quarterly payment) on 7th August, 1902. This was paid by the regimental paymaster, Canterbury. The pension was paid to Mrs. Burke from 1st October, 1916, apparently up to the quarter in which Burke was taken prisoner. No further payment can be made in the absence of evidence of the pensioner's life, as required by the Appropriation Act. A life certificate, either on the form prescribed by the Treasurer or in manuscript, attested by any British commissioned officer, or by a British clergyman, would be accepted, and it is stated by the War Office that there should be no difficulty now in obtaining attestation by a British commissioned officer in Germany. Mrs. Burke has been informed of the procedure necessary.

Is it Mrs. Burke's duty or is it the duty of the War Office to obtain that certificate?

It is difficult for me to answer that question, because this is a War Office pension administered according to certain rules laid down by the Treasury, and we are only concerned because the pension is issued by the Pensions Issue Office. I am quite prepared to mike any representations to the authorities concerned.

Meanwhile, is this woman to get nothing?

Is this poor woman in the meantime to be regarded neither as a wife nor a widow, and receive neither pension non separation allowance? Can that state or things be allowed to stand?

I said that it was a hard case, and I am making representations in the proper quarter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all the vacancies that have occurred prior to 1st September, 1918, in the ranks of officers holding permanent commissions as lieutenant-colonel or major in the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Field Artillery of the Territorial Force have been filled by substantive promotions; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay in filling them?

All the vacancies that occurred prior to the 1st September last have not been filled owing to several of the senior officers being at present temporarily medically unfit, and it is considered that it would be inequitable definitely to supersede them.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers holding acting rank only, whatever their length of service in that rank, if sick or wounded have their pay at once reduced to that attaching to their permanent rank, and that, if they are killed in action, their widows are only entitled to pension on the same basis; and whether there is any limit of time on the completion of which service in acting rank at the front is allowed to count as permanent rank for purposes of pay and pension?

Acting rank applies only so long as the officer carries on the duties of the officer whose place he takes. Consequently in all cases where the officer ceases, from any cause, to carry out those duties he ceases also to draw the pay attaching to those duties. If he is killed in action while holding the acting rank, his widow is entitled to pension on the acting rank basis.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that British prisoners of war have been employed at extremely arduous labour, not only in salt mines, but also in coal mines, in Germany, steps have now been taken for the employment of German prisoners of war in salt and coal mines in this country; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take?

German prisoners have not hitherto been employed in coal or salt mines, as, apart from the difficulties of language which would prevent them from understanding the regulations, British miners are unwilling to work with them. If a way can be found of overcoming the difficulties it will certainly be taken.

But the Germans have got over the difficulty by putting British prisoners into their mines. Surely there can be no obstacle to employing Germans in English mines?

Perhaps they are willing to take greater risks in this matter, and also, apparently, the German miners are not unwilling or unable to enforce their unwillingness to work by the side of British prisoners.

Is there a system of reprisals against German brutalities to prisoners?

That does not arise out of this question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a number of men who were acting non-commissioned officers when they were taken prisoners at Mons, and who are now interned in Holland after enduring over three years in German prison camps, have recently been informed that they revert to private rank with the consequent loss of the extra pay covering a period of nearly four years; and whether this decision can be reconsidered?

Up to the 24th May last a prisoner of war holding acting rank at the date of capture relinquished both his acting rank and the pay thereof. Under the existing instructions a prisoner of war retains his acting rank, but ceases to draw the pay from the date of capture. I am not aware of the recent cases of reversion to private's rank referred to by my hon. Friend but, if he will furnish particulars of any of the men affected, I shall be happy to make inquiries. Many applications have been received regarding non-commissioned officers who were given acting rank early in the War and in a number of cases their acting rank has been substantiated.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private G. H. Parsons, No. 372,502, Post Office Rifles, who, after being severely wounded in the left arm at Bullecourt in May, 1917, was a patient in the Dublin and Brighton hospitals till the 12th March, 1918; whether he is aware that, on discharge from hospital, he was classified B 2, afterwards transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps and then to a labour unit, and found in each case unfit for service; that he was sent by the regimental medical officer to the discharge centre, Aldershot, with a recommendation that he be discharged; that, notwithstanding this record, he was declared fit for service overseas and sent home on draft leave; that, although attention had been drawn to the case by the hon. Member for Merioneth, the soldier was sent overseas; that, on landing in France, he was examined by a medical officer who referred the case to a medical board; and that such board found Parsons to be unfit, ordered him to hospital at Boulogne, and, after two days, sent him back to England; whether he is aware that he is now at the 2nd Western General Hospital, Manchester; and what action it is proposed to take to inquire into the conduct of the officers who were responsible for sending this soldier abroad and their fitness for the duties of their office?

My inquiries into this case are not yet complete, but I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the amount already expended on the works at Cippenham, and the total amount of the prospective expenditure intended; whether the recommendations of the House of Commons Committee on Public Expenditure are being carried out; whether the works are being designed with a view only to the repair of motor transport vehicles during the war; and whether, with regard to the work involved on demobilisation, the utilisation of other munition factories and sites has been considered with a view to providing room for such repair and reconstruction of motor vehicles as it is necessary for the Government to undertake direct without, the assistance of the motor manufacturing trade?

The payments to date for labour and material for the works at Cippenham amount to £343,717, and the total estimated expenditure is £1,750,000. The recommendations of the Select Committee are being attended to. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, it is intended to use the works during the War, during demobilisation, and after the War. The possibility of utilising munitions works as suggested by my hon. Friend has been fully considered.

Am I to understand, when he says that the utilisation of this munition works has been fully considered, that it has been decided that there are no munition works that could possibly be rendered available for doing these repairs to transport vehicles after the War when they are no longer required for the manufacture of munitions?

Yes, I intended to say that. The particular question has been most carefully considered. What we really want is a large central depot, which has been recommended, as a matter of Fact, by the National Expenditure Committee.

Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us it is inevitable that we should spend 1¾ millions of money on this depot mainly for work that will be required after the War?

Not at all. It will be required during the War, during demobilisation, and after the War.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the construction of the Slough mechanical transport depôt is being kept within the limits recommended by the Sub-committee of the Select Committee of the House on Financial Expenditure, having regard to the Sub-committee's expressed opinion that the scheme was not justified on grounds of post-war conditions only, and also having regard to the fact that the position in France earlier in the year, which endangered repair depots there, has now materially altered; whether an offer has been received from motor manufacturers to repair large numbers of vehicles at a cost involving a capital expenditure of one-quarter of the sum of £1,000,000 proposed to be spent at Slough, and that the interests of the motor manufacturing industry, as a large employer of labour, are likely to be seriously jeopardised if the scheme is proceeded with on the lines originally projected; and whether in view of the fact that the expenditure cannot become effective for twelve months, he will consider the advisability of referring the whole project for a fresh review to an independent and expert body?

The caution recommended by the Select Committee is being observed. As regards the remainder of my hon. Friend's question, an offer has been received by the Ministry of Reconstruction from motor firms to undertake repairs, provided the firms are indemnified for new buildings and plant. This scheme was carefully considered but was rejected by the War Office as not being satisfactory. It is not considered that the interests of the motor industry will be seriously jeopardised by the works at Cippenham. In reply to the last part of the question, I would point out that the whole matter has already received the fullest consideration by experts, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by resubmitting it to a fresh body.

Are the experts referred to War Office experts, or was it submitted to any civilian experts?

Yes, both civilian and War Office.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the National Reserve bounty was originally refused to men who volunteered to rejoin the Army if they were above the age of fifty; and whether, in view of the fact that the Army age limit has recently been raised to fifty-one, he will extend the issue of the National Reserve bounty so as to include all men who rejoined within the limits of the latter age?

The National Reserve bounty is issued only to men who undertook an obligation before 11th August, 1914, and subsequently fulfilled it by enlisting. All those who fulfilled the obligation by enlisting as required have received the bounty, irrespective of age, on enlistment. It is obviously impossible to modify now the conditions under which an obligation could be undertaken in 1914.

Then I understand that any man who has fulfilled this obligation to join up to fifty-one gets the money?

Yes; as far as I know, everyone who has undertaken the obligation, irrespective of age, gets the bounty.

asked what is the bread ration now supplied to members of His Majesty's Forces in camp in the United Kingdom and Ireland; and whether it has recently been reduced?

The bread ration for the troops in the United Kingdom is 14 ozs. daily, and has not recently been reduced. At present an issue of 10½ ozs. of biscuits is substituted for the bread once a week.

Am I to understand the bread ration in England is different from that overseas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the intensive training of soldiers in camps in this country is as great as that overseas?

So far as I am aware, there have been no complaints with regard to the insufficiency of bread. The men were very carefully examined quite a long time ago, and, while I think it is true that the bread ration abroad is higher than the bread ration at home, there is nothing to show that the bread ration at home is insufficient.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will have inquiry made into the supply of bread at Hazeley Down Camp, Winchester; and whether complaints have been received as to the substitution of a biscuit ration for the bread ration on various occasions?

I have made inquiry, and am informed that the supply of bread at Hazeley Down Camp is good, and that no complaints have been received as to the substitution on occasions of a biscuit ration.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the total acreage of what is known as tillage land in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, giving each country separately; and if he will give the number of acres of the total acreage under tillage in each of these countries this year?

If the first part of the question refers to acreage capable of being tilled, the Department have no complete particulars. In reply to the second part of the question, the area of arable land this year in England is 11,463,679 acres, in Wales 934,961 acres, and in Scotland 3,452,156 acres. I am informed by the authorities for Ireland that the area of ploughed land this year in that country is 3,240,710.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the intentions of the Board with regard to the acreage of tillage to be required of agriculturists during the coming corn seeding season?

The Board desire that, as far as labour is available, the acreage of tillage should be increased, in order to obtain an additional output of corn, including beans and peas, at the harvest of 1919. They look for every effort on the part of the farmers with this essential object in view.

Can farmers look to every effort on the part of the Government to supply them with labour?

Labour, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, is the guiding factor in the increase of tillage. Every effort will be made to retain the labour that we now have and, if possible, to increase it.

Is any effort being made by the Board of Agriculture to obtain the release of key men who are now in the Army for the purpose named in the question?

Most certainly. We have tried to get back key men, but the present is a most unlikely time for the release of men serving at the front.

Are we to understand that men now employed in agriculture will be retained?

I cannot give a definite answer to that. Every promise that we have made is subject to military exigencies.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present price paid for wheat and oats in good condition and suitable for human consumption; and what are the prices farmers are allowed to charge for damaged grain for feeding cattle and poultry?

I have been asked to reply. The maximum price, for sales in October, of home-grown wheat is 75s. 6d. per quarter of 504 lbs.; and of home-grown oats is 48s. per quarter of 336 lbs. The maximum price of home-grown wheat, rye, and barley so damaged as to be unfit for use in the manufacture of human food is 7s. a quarter less than that of the sound article. Similarly, the maximum price of oats which are improperly cleaned or contain an undue admixture of soil is 5s. a quarter less than that of sound oats.

Does that cover damage by weather?

Yes.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now prepared to make any statement concerning compensation to be paid to allotment holders at Cregagh, near Belfast, for damage done to their holdings on the 30th September, 1917, by cattle in the possession of the military authorities; and whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Recorder of Belfast that it was a proper claim for compensation, and one which would undoubtedly have been paid if civilians had been the defendants?

The allotment holders have asserted a legal right which the Department cannot admit, but if the legal claim is withdrawn the Department is willing to consider the case on its merits for compensation as an act of grace. Instructions have been sent to the local military authorities accordingly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

I cannot answer that yet, because obviously it is still under consideration.

asked the Pensions Minister whether an officer under Article 6, Clause ( b ), of the Royal Warrant is entitled to actual necessary medical and other expenses incidental to treatment in respect of the disability for which he was retired; whether such other expenses include maintenance expenses during the period of treatment; and, if not, whether he will take steps to include such expenses?

An officer under Article 6, Clause ( b ) of the Royal Warrant of 1st August, 1917, receives on application such reimbursement or payment as my medical advisers consider reasonable and justified in respect of actual necessary medical and other expenses incidental to treatment. When it is considered that the normal cost of maintenance is increased through causes arising out of the treatment ( e.g. , necessity for special diet, or residence in special climates, or at a spa), a grant is made towards the maintenance expenses in addition to the award of retired pay.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please tell me why this Department has refused to bear any of the cost of maintenance expenses in severe shell shock cases where a period of prolonged rest and feeding is, as a matter of fact, treatment necessitated by the disability from which the man is suffering?

It depends upon what the extra cost is due to; but if my hon. Friend will bring the case under my notice I will have the matter investigated.

I have brought the case under the notice of the Department of the hon and gallant Gentleman. Is he aware that the Pensions Minister wrote a letter the other day in which he said, "This man appears to expect the Ministry of Pensions to pay for, or contribute to, the expenses of his maintenance during illness; that we cannot do"?

Yes; but, as I have already explained, we do not pay ordinary maintenance charges; what we do is to pay for treatment and any extra cost of maintenance due to treatment. Whilst an officer or man is undergoing treatment his retired pay or pension is put up to the highest rate—that is to say, the rate of total disability. Out of that he is expected to pay ordinary maintenance charges.

Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how the Pensions Ministry can consider the treatment not to include the ordinary maintenance of the men in getting well? Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how an officer is to get well on the treatment expenses if the Pensions Ministry do not maintain him, bearing in mind the fact that he is unable to earn anything during that period?

I have already explained to my hon. Friend that the retired pay is put up to the total disability rate.

What is that?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has sufficient powers to enable him, after the conclusion of peace, to prevent the landing in this country of Germans and other enemy aliens who propose to return to this country and renew their business occupations for their own benefit, or if further legislation will be necessary to prevent this contemplated invasion; (2) what steps he proposes to take after the conclusion of peace with regard to the Germans interned in this country; and if they are to be repatriated as soon as ships are available or are they to be released and allowed to resume their former avocations in this country?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division yesterday.

As I understand the reply of yesterday it does not answer the question I have put. Therefore, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to obtain further powers this Session to enable him to carry out these things?

I am not sure about this Session, but I certainly propose to ask for further powers.

asked the Home Secretary whether Russians in this country are allowed to change their names; if so, whether such changes must be registered at the Home Office and with the police; whether he is aware that a Russian politician and financier, previously named Zavoiko, has recently been naturalised as British, and is known as Colonel Kour-batoff; and what action he proposes to take?

Russians fall within No. 14H of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, under which no person, not being a natural-born British subject, may change his name in this country unless exempted by the Secretary of State from the provisions of the Regulation. No such person as is mentioned in the question has been naturalised in the United Kingdom.

If he is going about with two names, I suppose he is breaking the Defence of the Realm Regulations, is he not?

Yes, Sir. A person, not a natural-born British subject, who does that would be breaking the Regulations.

asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the causes and settlement of the strike by the Metropolitan Police; and will he state on what basis the proposed Committee has been established, and if the Committee has yet been constituted and held any meetings?

asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the delay in granting the increased remuneration to the Metropolitan Police, which delay resulted in the late strike and the resignation of the Chief Commissioner?

asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a statement about the recent Metropolitan Police strike; whether any Home Office officials tendered their resignations in consequence of the strike; if so, who are those officials; and what resignations have resulted?

I hope to have an opportunity of making a statement on this subject on the Supplementary Estimate of Police Expenditure on Thursday.

asked the Prime Minister, whether he can now give an assurance that the claim of ex-officers and men who are holding temporary positions as Civil servants in the various Government Departments will be considered before those of other temporary Civil servants upon demobilisation?

It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to give the preference asked for in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

How many of the Departments have agreed to that?

It is the policy of the Government, and applies to all Departments as far as this Government is concerned.

How many of these men have got posts?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to ensure that when demobilisation of the forces commences it is carried out on a co-ordinated plan, subscribed to by all Departments concerned; and whether employers and labour organisations are to be taken into consultation in drawing up this plan and putting it into operation?

Plans have been drawn up by the Army Demobilisation Committee, in conjunction with all the Departments concerned, and are kept up to date by the Inter-Departmental Coordination Committee, The general plans for demobilisation have also been revised by the Labour Resettlement Committee, which meets under the presidency of the Minister of Labour, and is representative of employers and employés as well as of the Government Departments concerned.

The reply of the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest any definite plan of co-ordination for demobilisation. If that be so, will he arrange for some definite scheme?

I wonder what my hon. Friend thinks the Committee is there for? Does he expect me, in answer to a question, to give all the details that are being arranged?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the House any further information in reference to the announcement issued on 18th August that each Dominion is to have the right to nominate a visiting or resident Minister in London to be a member of the Imperial War Cabinet; whether any nominations have yet been received; and when the meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet as thus reconstituted will be held?

No resident Ministers have yet been formally nominated by the Dominion Governments to act as regular members of the Imperial War Cabinet. Sir R. Borden has, however, provisionally arranged for the attendance of a Canadian representative at any meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet that may take place, and General Smuts is available as a representative of South Africa. In the case of Australia, the Prime Minister is still in this country, and able to attend meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet in person. Several meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet have been held since the conclusion of the last plenary session.

Has any date been fixed for the departure of Mr. Hughes?

asked the Prime Minister when the Report with regard to the British Cellulose Company will be presented to Parliament; and whether directors and officials of the company are serving the Government in any capacity?

The Committee anticipate a complicated and prolonged enquiry, and I am not in a position to state when their Report will be completed. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Will counsel be allowed to appear on behalf of the interested parties?

I have not asked about counsel; that must be a matter to be regulated by the preceding circumstances.

Will witnesses be allowed to appear and to give evidence?

As I have already said the form of procedure will largely depend upon the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, and the other members.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to direct the Minister of Reconstruction to inquire into the possibility of constructing a tunnel to Ireland; and whether, in the event of a favourable decision being arrived at, German prisoners could be availed of to dig the approaches, in view of the constant German attacks against shipping in the Irish Sea?

A Select Committee, of the House of Commons has been appointed to consider the internal facilities for transport within the United Kingdom, and the inquiry suggested is covered by the terms of reference of this Committee.

Will the proceedings of that Committee be made public?

It is a Select Committee of the House of Commons.