asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the final reply of the Soviet Government to the Nansen proposals for feeding the population of Russia?

The reply sent to Doctor Nansen by the Soviet Government was intercepted by wireless on 10th May. It was to the effect that, while they consented to the scheme on humanitarian grounds, they could not agree to the cessation of hostilities, which was a political question except after direct discussion with either the Associated Governments or with persons empowered by them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if two senators of the ex-Russian Empire, Belgrad and Baronowski, are now in Berlin, seeking German help for a restoration of the monarchy at Petrograd; and, if so, are all steps being taken to counteract any such movement?

His Majesty's Government have no information as to the present activities of Monsieur Belgrad and Monsieur Baronowski. The second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

Has the hon. Gentleman had any intimation of these two persons being in Berlin?

No, Sir, I have had no information about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that, after the Greek massacres at Smyrna, Smyrna is to be handed over to the Greeks; and if this is to form a political precedent?

The question of Smyrnawill form part of the general Peace settlement with Turkey, which is at present under discussion in Paris. I regret that I cannot, therefore, make any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state when Mr. Graham, now or recently Consul of Lyons, adopted the name of Graham; whether this gentleman is of British origin; and why he was removed from the Consulate at Amsterdam, and appointed to a subordinate post at Lyons?

:Mr. Graham is a British-born subject. His father's name was Michaelides, who was naturalised nearly fifty years ago, and who has always been resident in British dominions. Mr. Graham took his mother's maiden name on entering the Consular Service. Mr. Graham's proper posts have been in Guatemala and Colon respectively. He has, however, acted temporarily elsewhere during the War, owing to the stress of work in Europe. In Amsterdam he was Acting Consul, and he is now Acting Consul-General at Lyons. Mr. Graham still holds the appointment of Consul at Colon, and will proceed to that post as soon as a successor to the Consul-General at Lyons is appointed.

Was he born in this country?

I have every reason to think so.

asked whether a letter from a British Chamber of Commerce in Paris with regard to Mr. Hearn, the present Consul-General in Paris, which was received by the Foreign Office, has now been communicated to him; and whether consideration has been given to that communication?

Due consideration was given to a letter from the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris in regard to Mr. Hearn, and the Chamber were informed in reply that the decision in regard to Mr. Hearn's retirement from the service could not be reversed. The Chamber's letter was not communicated to Mr. Hearn.

If there is nothing known against these gentlemen does it not weaken their position, and is it not undesirable to have suggestions made?

I am not aware that there is anything suggested against them.

I refer to the intention of the questions.

May we assume that the appointment of Mr. Maxse in Paris still holds good?

That question is under reconsideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state whether the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes has safeguarded the right of the Montenegrin people to determine for themselves whether or not they shall be included in. such kingdom and under what conditions as to the retention or otherwise of their own monarchy in the event of their desiring to be so included; and, if not, will he explain why the independence of one of the small nations in alliance with His Majesty has been compromised by the-action of the British Government?

The recognition of the new Yugo-Slav State was accorded to the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The question whether the Mon- tenegrin people desire to enter the new union, and, if so, under what conditions, remains unaffected by the above recognition. The last sentence of the hon. and learned Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Montenegrin Government addressed any protest to the delegates of the Powers at the Peace Conference as to the Mission which was recently sent to Montenegro to obtain information in regard to the conditions prevailing there; whether, in view of the fact that Montenegro is a sovereign State in alliance with this country, it was in accordance with international usage to send a political mission there without consultation with the Government of the country; whether the Mission has made any Report; and, if so, will he communicate the Report to this House?

It is evident from the hon. and learned Member's questions that he is labouring under a misapprehension in regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Montenegro. Since the time of King Nicolas' departure from Montenegro, a movement has spread among important and numerous sections of the population which favours the union of their country with the new State in a form which would be incompatible with the maintenance of the present Montenegrin dynasty. In the eyes of this party King Nicolas and those Ministers whom he has himself nominated from among his personal adherents do not represent the wishes and feelings of the Montenegrin people. His Majesty's Government have for some time past had grounds for thinking that this is the case, and It was in order to arrive at a clear understanding of the situation that they dispatched a Special Commissioner to Montenegro in the hope that he would be able to ascertain the real desire of the Montenegrin people as to their own future. His Majesty's Government have the most sincere sympathy for and confidence in the Montenegrin people, and their action in sending Count de Salis to Cettinje was dictated solely by the desire to obtain a popular rather than a merely dynastic appreciation of the Montenegrin desiderata.

Up to the present only telegraphic summaries of his conclusions have been re- ceived from Count de Salis, but I shall be prepared to consider the hon. and learned Member's suggestion that the final Report, when received, should be laid before the House.

Is it possible to arrive at knowledge of the wishes of the people except by a popular vote of some sort; and, if so, what is the value of the inquiry by a Commission?

I cannot add anything to what I have said in the reply.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, on the conclusion of Peace, he would be prepared to consider applications for restoration of rank without pay or allowances from war rant and non-commissioned officers who. having rendered excellent service during the War, find themselves for various causes discharged in a lower rank than that held on mobilisation or attained, during service, provided that such reduction was not in any way due to misconduct?

I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Army Order 82 of 1919, a copy of which I will send him, as it is too long to read out in the House. I regret it is not possible to alter these Regulations.

Is not the War Office aware that many excellent non-commissioned officers for purely technical offences have lost their rank, and though that was quite right in war-time, surely those excellent men should now be restored to the rank they previously held?

The whole subject is-being most carefully reviewed at the moment and it is not possible to say at present if any alteration will be made.

I will put a question next week.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether £450,000 of the canteen profits have already been distributed; whether he can say how it has been distributed; in what amounts and by whose authority; and what balance still remains?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what sum of money is at present credited to the Central Canteen Fund under the control of the Army Trustees; what sums have been paid out of this fund since 1916, and to what organisations; and whether the War Office is prepared to reconsider the present proposals for the uses to which this money may be put by establishing an advisory committee that will contain members elected by the various recognised ex-Service men's organisations and that in the meantime no further payments from this fund will be made?

:The total amount of the profits from Canteen Trading Account cannot be ascertained until the various organisations are wound up, but at present the Central Fund amounts to £717,431. Up to the 31st May last, over £850,000 had been distributed from canteen funds under the authority of the Army Council. The details of the latter are published from time to time in Army Orders or Instructions. The future management of the fund is under consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of decreasing the profits and increasing the quality of the beer sold?

A great many other commodities are sold besides beer; but the question is under consideration.

:Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the sum of £850,000 discloses £700,000 in hand? I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the weekly average of enlistments for the post-war Army during the months of May and June. 1919, distinguishing between men who are fit from age and medical classification to-provide the autumn reliefs for the Indian, garrison and those who are not?

Between the 28th April and 21st June, 1019, 15,434 recruits joined on normal engagements and 6,512 for two, three, or four years and there were 6,156 re-enlistments, the weekly averages being therefore 1,929, 814, and 770 respectively. I regret that I have no information to enable me to discriminate between those who are eligible for Indian drafts and those who are not.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a system of educational training for the after-the-War Army has been approved; and, if so, whether steps are being taken to train an adequate number of permanent teachers for this particular duty?

A system of educational training in the after-war Army is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

When are we likely to have this scheme?

Very soon indeed.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend issue a statement as soon as he is prepared to indicate how these teachers are to be prepared?

I will call the attention of the Secretary of State to that.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the consideration of the future status of the Territorial Force, consideration will also be given to the cadet farce, and whether officers who have given their services so freely in the formation and encouragement of cadet corps will be given the same privileges as regards rank and right to wear uniform on retirement, etc., as are granted to officers of the Territorial Force?

The future of the cadet force is now being considered and reviewed along with other problems connected with the future of the Territorial Force. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am afraid that it is not possible to give cadet officers the privileges accorded to Territorial Force officers on retirement as regards rank and the right to wear uniform, unless they pass the same tests as are required of Territorial Force officers. The question of providing for this will be considered among other matters connected with the future of the cadet force.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is necessary to maintain the censorship of cables and mails to and from South America; and if, in view of the delay occasioned by the censorship, he will give instructions for it to be removed?

It is to be hoped that circumstances may soon render this relaxation possible.

Willnot the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability now in peace time of reviewing the whole question of the censorship throughout the world as far as this country is concerned?

The War Office is at present considering this amongst other questions in the light of the signature of peace by Germany.

Why now that peace has been signed should the censorship be necessary on letters and cables to South America?

The Secretary of State himself has spent considerable time in the study of this question and asked me to give this answer.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will favourably consider the cases of officers and non-com- missioned officers who, through no fault of their own, were made prisoners by our enemies, and who have in consequence suffered as regards promotion?

Officers who, through no fault of their own, were made prisoners by the enemy have been considered for promotion, and where eligible have been promoted. As regards non-commissioned officers, the question is under consideration.

Why should there be different treatment for commissioned and non-commissioned officers?

I am not in a position to answer the question.

asked the Secretary for War if he recognises the urgent necessity of expediting the work of the concentration of the. graves of British soldiers in France and Belgium, as also the desirability of additional efforts being made to locate and identify the remains of those who were buried without any marks of identification; and if for this most necessary work he will arrange for a substantial addition to the number of men at present employed in France and Belgium for this object?

The importance and urgency of the work of concentration and location of the scattered and isolated graves of our soldiers in France and Belgium is fully recognised. Fifteen thousand additional men for this particular work have recently been enlisted, of whom about 5,000 have already proceeded, to France and the remainder will follow as soon as possible. It is considered that this number will enable the work to be completed in a satisfactory manner, without undue delay. Should it, however, be found desirable still further to increase the staff, the matter shall have my careful consideration.

:Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that an enormous number of the graves in France and Belgium are in the most deplorable condition, and will he give his attention to it?

The Graves Commissioners are fully aware of the condition of affairs in France and Flanders, and are doing their very utmost.

Is any record being kept by the War Office of these graves?

Yes, a most careful record.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will recommend the Government to refuse to allow ordinary tourists to visit the battlefields and graveyards of France and Belgium until it is possible to permit the relatives of all those who have fallen and been buried overseas to visit their graves?

I regret that my hon. Friend's proposal is not considered feasible. I may say that the War Office is no longer placing any restrictions on the visits of relatives, except that they are requested not to go to the areas in which the work of concentration is actually taking place, but to defer their visit to such places till the work is completed.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of a number of men, formerly Post Office telegraphists serving in the Royal Engineers, now stationed in the Bedford Signal Depots, who have served from two to three years in the unhealthy climate of East Africa, and are under orders again for the East; and if he will consider the possibility of effecting their demobilisation or sending them instead to France or Germany?

An endeavour will be made to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, and to send such of these men as are eligible for drafting to the Rhine instead of to the East.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether postal employé s who joined the postal section, Royal Engineers, at the beginning of the War are to receive no gratuity for their service; whether men in other walks of life who received full wages from their employers during the War have received the gratuity; and, if so, if he will take steps to grant the gratuity to postal employé s?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 10th April to the hon. Member for Burnley, to which I can add nothing.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in consequence of a strike in some metal works near Dusseldorf on 28th May, which took place against the orders of the British military authorities, ten strikers were arrested and eighty were deported; whether a state of siege was imposed, and workers were driven into their houses at the point of the bayonet; and whether, in view of the bad effect of this sort of news, he will take steps to prevent our soldiers interfering in foreign strikes in future, or issue immediate denials if the reports are untrue?

In the interests of order and of the security of the British troops, and to avoid the possibility of the latter being involved in repressing civil disturbances in the area under British occupation, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine has instituted a British Arbitration Court as a final chamber for settling disputes between employers and employed. This Court is resorted to only when no settlement has been reached by the German Courts, and it is held on the distinct understanding that both parties will accept and abide by its finding. It would obviously be impossible to allow strikes and industrial disturbances to take place at the will of the artisans, and to the peril of good order in the areas under military control. Such disturbances, if they developed to any extent, might have grave consequences. On the 28th May, a strike took place, and as the strikers broke their agreement and refused to abide by the ruling of the Court some of them were deported into unoccupied Germany. No state of siege was imposed. It is not proposed to interfere with the measures taken by the Commander-in-Chief to deal with these matters.

asked the Secretary for War whether the Army authorities are now selling surplus Army horses and mules to Egyptians and Greeks and others in the East; whether he can state what classes of persons are purchas- ing these animals and for what purposes, and the number of the animals sold or about to be sold and the prices obtained; whether care is taken to ensure that none of the animals so sold are worn out or unfitted for work; whether any guarantees are obtained to ensure that these animals will be treated humanely; and whether any inspection of the animals in the hands of the purchasers is possible?

Sales of Army horses and mules as they become surplus to requirements are still being made in Eastern theatres of war, though sales in these theatres are practically finished for the present, and the numbers to be sold in future will depend upon the rate of reduction of establishments. I understand that sales are principally to agriculturists, who in their own interests must keep the animals in fit condition. The numbers of animals sold and average prices obtained are:

Horses, 11,101; average price varying from £42 18s to £17 5s 9d

Mules, 29,708; average price varying from £46 3s 2d to £33 8s 6d

Donkeys, 11,046; average price varying from £9 6s to £8 10s

Camels, 22,196; average price £22 Is. 8d Every possible care is taken to ensure that only animals fit for work are sold, and general officers commanding have exercised their discretion freely as regards destroying animals which they have thought it undesirable to sell. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye on the 25th February, a copy of which I am sending him. The abstracts from Reports by the local military authorities circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date show the arrangements which have been made in Egypt and Mesopotamia to' secure the humane treatment of animals sold, and to provide for their inspection.

In case it is found that these animals are not humanely treated, is there any means of killing the animals or getting them back?

If in the case of cruelty we were able to bring it home to the owner, steps would be taken.

asked the Secretary for War whether he has now made personal inquiry into the necessity for the continued existence of the military organisation at present housed at 29, Cromwell Road, as promised on 2nd April, 1919; and whether he will state the results of such an inquiry?

Yes, Sir, and I have already communicated the result to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military staff at 29, Cromwell Road are appointed by and responsible to the Joint Road Committee or the War Office; what are the functions of these officers; and whether the work of the Joint Roads. Committee could be done equally well without the assistance of this staff?

:The staff which form the administrative branch of the Joint Roads Committee have been appointed by the War Office and are responsible to the War Office, through the Committee. The rest of the question is answered by the communication which I have sent to my hon. Friend.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman circulate the communication in order that we may know what it is?

:Would it not be possible to make it part of the answer in the ordinary way?

I have sent a, very long letter to my hon. Friend which deals argumentatively with a rather technical and involved matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants it to appear in the records of the House he must put me a question in that sense.

Has the right hon. Gentleman invited the opinion of the Road Board as to this military organisation which is at present exercising control over the public highways of this country?

If the hon. Member wants an answer on the subject he had better put a question down. I have answered the question which he originally raised.

asked the Secretary for War whether Private F. M. Jones, No. 042960', Royal Army Ordnance Corps, A.P.O., L 4, Italian. Expeditionary Force, on refusing to be vaccinated, has been confined to his billet; whether he has been informed that refusal to submit to vaccination will stop his demobilisation, he being the next man on the list for demobilisation; and whether the officer responsible will be informed that differential treatment is not to be meted out to any soldier who refuses vaccination?

:Inquiries are already being made in this case, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

:In the event of the officer being found to have contravened an Army Order, will the Secretary of State make it his duty to see that the officer is taken to task just as an ordinary non-commissioned officer or private would be?

:If there has been any breach of the Regulations, I will treat it in the usual way.

asked whether the War Office is responsible for any regulations issued as to what questions a would be employer can put to a discharged soldier before employing him; and whether an employer is entitled to ask a discharged soldier whether he is in receipt of a pension and, if so, how much?

The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, so far as I am aware, there is no statutory authority under which a discharged soldier must inform his would-be employer whether he is in receipt of a pension or the amount. I would add that the discharge certificate of a soldier does not disclose the amount of his pension.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Department is responsible for the Regulations? Is it the Pensions Department?

I do not know which Regulations the hon. Member refers to.

The questions put to soldiers.

asked the Secretary for War whether all soldiers authorised for retention on the land are being brought under the terms of Army Order 299 of 1918, under which their families "will not be entitled to separation allowances, and, if so, under what authority; whether he is aware that these soldiers cannot have their families with them owing to the great shortage of cottages, and consequently the separation allowance is a vital necessity; and whether, in these circumstances, either the separation allowance will be granted or the soldiers will be allowed to return to their former civil employment?

The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. The terms offered to soldiers authorised for retention on agriculture are issued under the authority of the Government. All such soldiers who are not demobilisable have an option to return to the Colours if they prefer to do so.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the conditions and difficulties of these soldiers because they have not enough to live on with their families?

I am not aware that there is any injustice contemplated or done. The soldiers referred to get the full civilian rates of pay.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to modify or abrogate the system of censorship, set up in the early months of the War, now that Peace is about to be concluded; what control has been exercised over letters forwarded to British subjects, resident or interned in Germany, when sent under cover through intermediaries in neutral countries or through the agency of Thomas Cook and Son;why have those mediums of communication been permitted, when letters, left open for the express purpose of examination by the Censor, addressed direct to British subjects in Germany, have been returned to the senders, though unexceptional in character and relating purely to official matters wholly unconnected with the War; and if he will say what parts of Germany were regarded by the Censor as being occupied early in the War?

The censorship in the United Kingdom of civil mails to and from places abroad, other than theatres of military operations, has ceased. Regarding control during the War, letters addressed to British subjects resident in Germany, but not interned, were permitted to be sent under cover through intermediaries in neutral countries, or by the agency of Messrs. Cook and Sons or other authorised agencies in the United Kingdom, provided they were licensed by the proper authority if they were business communications. Letters to British subjects interned in Germany have, during the War, been permitted to go direct by prisoners of war mail. All the correspondence referred to was subject to censorship. The reason why correspondence was only permitted through these channels was because, on the outbreak of war, direct postal communication between the United Kingdom and Germany ceased, and thereafter the Post Office was unable to send ordinary postal communications direct. With regard to the last part of the question, a small portion of Alsace-Lorraine was in the occupation of the Allied Armies.

When did the censorship of letters directed to places other than theatres of military operations cease?

I forget, but I think a few weeks ago.

Has a direct service between this country and Germany been resumed?

The military censorship has been completely abrogated, and the work of the enormous staff which was engaged upon that work has ceased.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that all censorship of letters from this country has now ceased? If so, how does he reconcile that with the answer given to-day that the censorship on mails and cables to South America is still under consideration?

There are two censorships, the postal censorship and the cable censorship. The postal censorship, as I understand, has been abrogated, but the question of the cable censorship is engaging the attention of the Government, and it is obvious that relaxation in that direction is approaching.

In the event of the Government opening any letters in the future as they have done in the past, when there is no formal censorship, will they be guilty of a criminal act?

No. Any communication which is in course of transmission through His Majesty's mails is liable to examination when necessary under the warrant of the Home Secretary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the censorship of cables entails very great delay in the transmission of cables to and from New York and other places, which occasions serious loss?

:It is a very important question, and the Government have devoted anxious attention to it with a view to relieving the commercial world of this burden at the earliest moment that the safety of the country permits.

asked whether Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien has asked for per mission to reply to the attack made upon- him by Lord French?

Yes, Sir; but the Army Council felt that it was undesirable-that permission should be given.

Why have the Army Council arrived at that decision?

Because Sir Horace-Smith-Dorrien is a serving soldier.

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

asked the Prime Minister whether, in selecting the staff of the new Ministry of Supply, preference is being given to ex-Service men, especially to those who have served overseas; and, if so, is this to be the considered policy of the Department?

As stated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on the 6th May last, in selecting the staff for any new permanent organisation that Parliament may decide to set up, preference will be given to ex-Service men to the fullest possible extent. Of the pre sent male staff of 6,710 at the headquarters of the Ministry of Munitions over 2,000 are ex-Service men.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Supplementary Estimate for £26,400,000 to make good at the public expense, an estimated deficiency in the working of the coal mines was presented to the House three months ago; if he will say when an opportunity will be afforded of debating this Estimate; if any of the money asked for has been already spent; and, if so, from whom will the same be recovered should the House refuse to pass the Estimate?

The Estimate presented on 1st April stands referred to Standing Committee "C." In view of the urgent nature of the service advances have been made from the Civil Contingencies Fund in anticipation of the Vote.

When will the Committee consider this Vote? Will it be in the near future?

I could not say. Obviously it must be considered before very long.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the telephone service in the United Kingdom is inferior to that which was provided by the commercial company from which it was expropriated and very much inferior to that provided by commercial concerns in America or in Sweden and Norway; and whether he will favourably consider retrocessing the telephones to an efficient private company, with limitation of tariff, that the service may be reconstructed under the advice of American or other organisers of efficient systems, so that the present service, which involves a loss to the State, may be replaced by a cheap and efficient system?

:I have been aske5 to answer this question. I think the hon. Member will recognise that any comparison between the present telephone service and that afforded before the War, whether by a private company or otherwise, must be misleading. The present difficulties of the service are due to causes directly arising out of the War, such as the enforced suspension of the construction of new exchanges and lines and the withdrawal of skilled operators to other employments. A private company would have suffered from the same difficulties. In the United States there is at present an admitted deterioration of the telephone service owing to war conditions, and at the same time telephone rates have had to be increased to meet the general rise in the cost of labour and materials.

Why, when a Government Department takes up a commercial enterprise which, if it were a private concern, would go into bankruptcy, should it not be liquidated in the ordinary way and handed over to others?

I think that the telephone is not the only business, if I may call it so, which has gone through very severe difficulties owing to the strain of war conditions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the telephone service in Norway and Sweden has been carried on by the Governments of these countries for a long time, with the exception of Stockholm, where there was a private service which was bought up by the Government about eighteen months ago?

I am afraid that I have no information.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to get some advice from Norway and Sweden, or get the Minister of Transport to take over the telephone and make it a success?

I will make a statement on the subject of the telephone on the Post Office Estimates when they come up, which I hope will be very soon.

asked the Prime Minister if he will endeavour to amend the Old Age Pensions Act so as to enable boards of guardians to be empowered to grant outdoor relief to the old age pensioners who have no other source of in come apart from the pension, such relief not to disqualify the recipient from continuing to receive the old age pension?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 26th instant.

How are the old people to live on their pensions without some assistance, in view of the high cost of living?

asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Report of Lord Simmer's Committee regarding the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company will be forthcoming?

It is hoped that the Report will be ready before the end of the month.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of persons are withholding subscriptions from the new War Loan as a protest against the shortage of good beer and the continuance of the 50 per cent. increase in railway fares; and whether he will consider the question of removing these two grievances before the closing of the lists?

:I have made careful inquiries into this point and I find there is no evidence that subscriptions to the new Loan are being withheld on account of these alleged grievances. The second part of the question does not therefore, arise.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say from whom he made these inquiries?

From those who have been engaged in conducting the loan campaign.

Would the right hon. Gentleman enter into a compact with me that if he will rescind these obsolete war restrictions I will obtain him a satisfactory guarantee of a hundred million bonds?

:I think the hon. Member could do that at least without any help.

May I say that the right hon. Gentleman locks with favour on the scheme I am now propounding for this purpose?

I am afraid I have no knowledge of the hon. Gentler man's scheme.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the proposition, of the Allied Government of Czecho-Slovakia for a levy on capital, beginning at fortunes of 20,000 crowns, and graduated up to 30 per cent, on larger fortunes, with a view to deflating the currency; and if he will call for a report on the working of the levy from our representatives with that government for the information of the House of Commons?

:My information on the subject is at present imperfect, but I shall endeavour to get a report on the working of the levy if and when it comes into force.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that permission is being refused to manufacturing companies in this country to export capital to foreign countries for the purpose of establishing branches in these foreign countries to develop the trade of these British manufacturers in these countries abroad; and will he say that special attention shall be given to such applications for the export of capital and that sanction shall not be unreasonably withheld?

Special consideration is given to applications for licences under Defence of the Realm Regulation 4lD for capital remittances for purposes such as are referred to in the question. Each application must be dealt with on its merits, and no general licences can be given. The necessary consent has been granted in a number of cases, and there is no ground for the suggestion that it is unreasonably withheld.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago an identical answer was, I think, provided by the Leader of the House, his predecessor as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a deputation I had the honour of leading to him, when evidence was forthcoming that unreasonable withholding was a fact? Is it not possible that at the present time and in these circumstances the consent may be unreasonably withheld?