asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that men who escaped arrest for desertion during the War have since received a certificate of protection, he will consider the justice of advising a general amnesty for all men now serving imprisonment for desertion during the War?

It is not a fact that "men who escaped arrest for desertion during the War have since received a certificate of protection." In certain cases under the provisions of paragraphs 518 and 519 of the King's Regulations protecting certificates have been issued. In the case raised in the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, on the 29th June, the protecting certificate was issued. because the soldier concerned (a conscientious objector) was tried by court-martial in June, 1918, and sentenced to a year's imprisonment with hard labour. He appeared before the Central Tribunal, and was recommended for work under the Brace Committee, and in consequence was transferred to Section W of the Army Reserve. Shortly after the Armistice, he left the Home Office Centre without permission, and in consequence was formally recalled to the Colours in accordance with the scheme of the maintenance of discipline at the Home Office Centres, with which I think this House is familiar. He disregarded the recall and was subsequently declared a deserter, which of course technically he was.

In this particular case I think it will be agreed that no useful purpose would have been served by trying this man by court-martial and punishing him for the technical desertion which he committed, whereas as a matter of fact the real offence, if that be the proper expression, was leaving the Home Office Centre without permission at a time when he was not subject to military law, having previously been transferred to Section W of the Army Reserve. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, a very liberal amnesty has already been extended to all prisoners, whatever may have been the nature of their offences, and for the latest information on this subject, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norwich, on 8th July.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question as to a general amnesty?

That is the question.

I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer. Will he grant a general amnesty to all men who are now serving reduced sentences for desertion?

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very decent citizens who, for one thing and another, did desert after having served two or three years overseas during the War, and did not return to their units? They have come home and in some cases, in two cases within my own knowledge, have been marched through the streets under an escort. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this matter should be settled definitely one way or the other?

They deserved it, too!

asked the Secretary of State for War what is being done in the case of men who deserted from the Army about three years ago; and whether the War Office is still taking legal steps against those who so deserted?

If the hon. Member will refer to Section 161 of the Army Act, he will find that mutiny, desertion and fraudulent enlistment are offences which are excluded from the general limitation of three years which applies to other offences. Deserters, therefore, when they surrender or are apprehended must be disposed of in accordance with the Army Act and King's Regulations.

In view of the fact that a small number of men deserted just at the time of the Armistice, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would allay a great deal of unrest in the country if he gave instructions for the withdrawal of charges or of any action against such men?

I do not think the course we are taking is a harsh one. Whenever there are exceptional circumstances, such as in the case I referred to the other day, we shall give a protecting certificate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to take some action to reduce the very vindictive sentences now passed upon these men, in view of the fact that their wives and children are left absolutely destitute while the men are undergoing long terms of imprisonment?

If the hon. Member will give me any instance, I shall be glad to look into it. I have not heard of vindictive sentences being passed.

In view of the fact that we need to get men for the new Army, would not a little leniency in this matter create a favourable public opinion?

I do not agree at all that we could afford to relax our punishment for the very grave offence of desertion. There is a great deal of desertion going on now, infinitely more than before the War. I cannot take any action which would seem to indicate that desertion from the Army on active service is not serious.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be doing justice to those who died for their, country in being "easy" to those people who deserted for their own convenience? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to do all he can to penalise these people, remembering the sacrifices of those who volunteered all they they had? Pandering to the Bolshies! [ Laughter. ] Silly old Bolshies!

If the hon. Member has any observations to make to his friends, would he kindly make them in the Lobby?

I beg your pardon, Sir, but if a man happens to reply, would you apply the same ruling to one who gives a silly laugh like the hon. Member opposite?

I cannot stop hon. Members from laughing.

Very well; you will not stop me from speaking.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of assistant provost marshals, their clerks, and other personnel employed in the United Kingdom prior to the War and at the present time, respectively; whether the greater part of their work used formerly to be done by regimental police; and what is the additional cost involved by the present method?

The present numbers of provost officers and police personnel at Home, including clerks, are 1,205, all ranks, as against 412 before the War. These numbers have to find drafts for the overseas forces and are temporarily swollen owing to conditions in Ireland; they are in process of steady reduction as the Army gets back to normal conditions. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the line of demarcation between the work of the regimental and the military police has not yet been definitely settled.

Is it possible to state what is the additional cost, as between the 1,200 and the 400?

I dare say it would be possible, and if the hon. Member desires it I shall get the information.

Is it proposed to revert to the pre-War system and save this additional cost?

No; I think it it intended to reduce the number, as I have already stated in the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at the Gretna munitions factory an allowance of 5s. per week to workmen, known as temporary allowance or lodging allowance, was discontinued on 4th October, 1919; that the Gretna munitions tribunal decided that such stoppage of wages was contrary to the provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulations) Act of 1918; that the appeal of the Ministry of Munitions to the High Court against this decision was dismissed by Mr. Justice Sands, at Edinburgh, on 11th May, 1920; that the workmen have since been endeavouring to get the back money due to them without success; and if he will state the reason the money is being withheld?

This factory did not come under the control of the War Office until 1st June. As regards the first three parts of the question, I understand the position to have been substantially as stated in so far as the main body of workers (excluding agricultural workers) was concerned. As regards the fourth and fifth parts, arrangements for the payment of the arrears up to the end of March are in progress; but the question as to what part (if any) of the allowance the Department is called upon to continue to pay beyond that date, in view of general increases of wages granted in April and June, is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the conditions of half pay for officers in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps;

(2)what steps are being taken to reduce the surplus strength of major-generals in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps and whether he is aware that there are two such officers surplus to establishment whose retention is retarding the promotion of junior officers;

(3)if the two major-generals surplus to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps establishment are paid as and reckoned on the lists of colonels on the establishment of that corps; and, if so, why do they not receive similar treatment as regards the conditions of half-pay as other colonels on the establishment?

The two Major-Generals referred to by the hon. and gallant Member were promoted substantive Major-Generals for distinguished service. They are not surplus to to the establishment of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, but are holding appointments as Colonels, which they would have filled if they had not been promoted. Their retention is not, therefore, retarding the promotion of junior officers. I do not understand what conditions of half-pay for officers of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps the hon. and gallant Member refers to, but if he will let me have fuller details I shall be happy to look into the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will say who is now responsible for the Connaught Cemetery, Thiepval, and its present neglected condition; and if he is aware of the muddle in the burial records in this cemetery which apparently renders it impossible to identify individual graves?

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that this cemetery is now in perfect order. It is still under the Directorate of Graves Registration, but is ready for handing over to the Imperial War Graves' Commission. This cemetery has been one of the most difficult, the original portion having been badly shelled. It was also used for concentration. The most painstaking verification has therefore been necessary to ensure the records being in order.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the officers in charge of the graves' information at Albert are in complete ignorance of the meaning of the letters and figures used to mark the head crosses; and will he see that they are furnished with a key to the cypher?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on this subject on the 7th July, in which he was informed that the source of all detailed information is Winchester House, St. James's Square. In this instance he is presumably referring to what are known as White Serial Crosses, appertaining to an emergency system adopted for the heavy casualties of the Somme battlefields. The key to these crosses is kept at Winchester House. Already the majority of those not originally allotted to "Unknowns" have been replaced by standard crosses and name-plates, and the work is still in progress. The hon. Member has, I think, been misinformed regarding the complete ignorance of the officers-in-charge. They may not possess the key, but they can certainly explain the meaning of the system, or direct enquiries to any particular cross of which they have been given the number by Winchester House. Applicants are now informed from Winchester House of the serial number, in addition to the plot, row and number of the grave enquired for when a cross of this description is involved, in case the replacement has not yet been carried out.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did inquire from the War Office and got an answer from Winchester House giving me the signs by which I might find the graves, but that they proved to be wrong, and that the local information officers were totally unable to explain the meaning of the signs given me by Winchester House and said they had no information which would enable them to identify them?

I very much regret it if that should have occurred. Everything will be done to avoid such unfortunate accidents, and if my hon. Friend will communicate with me privately, I will put him in touch with the Imperial War Graves Commission, and it will be a real service if he will tell his story to them and let me know whether or not he receives any satisfactory reply.

Will the Imperial War Graves Commission be good enough to let us know where our sons are transferred after they have been buried in the front line, and then brought back to one of the cemeteries? Could we know when this change has been brought about? We do not know now.

Yes. The whole principles of administration of the Imperial War Graves Commission have often been discussed in this House. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in securing satisfactory treatment of any case like that, either for himself or for anyone for whom he inquires.

I do not know where my son is.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has given is incorrect, because in a great many cases—

Will the hon. Member put his question down?

asked the Secretary of State for War what were the total casualties of officers and men, respectively, in North Russia between the date of the Armistice with Germany and the final evacuation; how many of the missing have since been reported

Of the missing,13 officers and 66 other ranks have since been reported as prisoners. Of these 1 other ranks has died. The remainder have been released.

Total casualties in all parts of the former Russian Empire from date of Armistice with Germany until now—

Could not some of these brave men have been saved if the policy now in operation in regard to Russia had been followed then?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether official relations have been or will be established between the War Office and a Monsieur Strouve, styling himself Foreign Minister to General Baron Wrangel; and, if so, what is the object of these relations?

prisoners and how many of these have now been released; and what are the total British casualties in all parts of the former Russian Empire from the date of the Armistice with Germany until now?

The total casualties in North Russia from date of Armistice with Germany (11th November, 1918) to the final evacuation, are:

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

Is the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. Hoare) assisting in this matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether, at the recent International Conference in Paris held to consider the position of private creditors of the Russian Government, it was stated that in the case of every country except Great Britain all private claims had been not merely registered but examined and certified; and when, if this is so, the British Government intends to take similar action?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 1st July to a question by the hon. Member for Dartford, to which I have nothing to add, excepting that the whole question is at present under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay Papers in connection with the intervention and operations in Siberia from the date when our fleet entered Vladivostok in January, 1918, till the evacuation of the British military mission in this year?

As I stated yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member, the Government are considering whether Papers should be laid.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether kit-bags and a second suit of service dress will be issued to Territorial units attending training camp this year; and whether an allowance in aid of messing will be issued to officers commanding?

The answer to both parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. The cash messing allowance will be 1s. per day per man.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous increase in all contract prices for messing in camp, in some cases more than double the pre-War rate, and would he reconsider the question, in view of the change in the situation?

I cannot give an answer to that. The matter has been receiving very careful consideration, and no doubt a decision will be reached after consideration of all the points. If the hon. and gallant Member will come to the War Office about it, I shall be glad to see him.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will expedite circulation to county associations of the exact terms and conditions relating to the provision of horses for training other than annual camp?

County Associations have been informed that they may assume that the grants in respect of the provisions of horses other than those for annual training will be at double the pre-War rate calculated on the new Peace Establishments of the Force. This will enable the Associations to proceed with their arrangements pending the re-assessment of the grants in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state which Territorial Division shows the most satisfactory recruiting returns; how many Territorial units have recruited 90 per cent. of their establishment; and whether units with 75 per cent. strength will be fully equipped in time for this year's training?

The East Lancashire Territorial Division shows the best recruiting results. The returns at present received in the War Office are not rendered in sufficient detail to enable me to answer the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, but I understand there is one unit, at least, which has recruited 90 per cent. of its establishment. As regards the last part of the question, instructions have been issued to Commands to supply Territorial units with such equipment as may be considered necessary for their training.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the large number of women employed by the Navy and Army Canteen Board on work which would be very suitable for ex-soldiers; and whether, in view of the large number ex-service men who are out of employment, especially in the Aldershot district, and the demand for domestic ser- vants, he will cause instructions to be issued that women are replaced by ex-service men wherever possible without ,causing undue hardship?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 19th November last to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. J. E. Davison), in which the matter is very fully dealt with.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer is extremely unsatisfactory, and that nothing practically has been done to replace these women by ex-service men, and what does he propose to do in the matter?

I cannot agree that the answer was extremely unsatisfactory. I think the answer was a most satisfactory answer, and if the hon. and gallant Member will look at it again I think he will find that the whole case is fully dealt with.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many ex-service men who before the War were employed by Army canteen contractors, and who now find they are unable to get employment with the Navy and Army Canteen Board?

That may be so. Preference is given to ex-service men, I believe, in the engagements, but there are certain works connected with the Navy and Army Canteen Board for which women are more suitable, and it is not intended to discharge all the women.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that the Navy and Army Canteen Board, who now hold a Government monopoly, have an obligation to take on those men who were formerly employed by the canteen contractors, and who went to the War, and have now returned to find their livelihood gone?

I am not aware of any obligation. The Navy and Army Canteen Board is a different organisation from that which existed before the War. If there is such an obligation I shall be glad to consider it.

May I ask if the Navy and Army Canteen Board is not run by the War Office, and is not the War Office a Government Department, and have not all Government Departments said they will give preference to ex-service men?

The first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is not correct; it is run by the three Services, and not by one. In regard to the second part, the hon. and gallant Member is correct. Preference is being given to ex-service men so far as is possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many women and girls and how many discharged soldiers are employed by the Navy and Army Canteens Board?

The number of women and girls and the number of discharged soldiers employed by the Navy and Army Canteen Board in the United Kingdom are approximately:—

Are we to understand that the Government's idea of giving a preference to discharged soldiers and sailors is to employ twice as many women as discharged soldiers and sailors?

To begin with, the Noble Lord's figure is incorrect. There are not twice as many or nearly twice as many women as discharged soldiers and sailors; and in the second place, there must of necessity, and will be, a number of women employed.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many women and girls and how many discharged soldiers are employed by his Department?

I must refer my Noble Friend to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Frome in reply to a similar question on the 6th July.

Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman simply give the figures across the Floor of the House? Would not that be simpler?

The figures have been given in detail lately. It is customary to refer to a previous answer instead of repeating the information.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman not figures in front of him, and are they of such a complicated nature that they cannot be given across the Floor of the House?

I have the extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT here, but they occupy two sides of a big sheet.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the strong feeling which exists with regard to the position of ex-service men who, whilst undergoing treatment in public mental institutions, are officially regarded and treated as pauper patients; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the full answer which I gave on this matter to the hon. Member for Frome in reply to a similar question on the 28th June, and of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what are the other Departments in the White Papers 685 and 690 which only employ 1,603 disabled ex-ser-vice men on their temporary staffs as against 5,748 women temporarily employed?

The Departments referred to comprise all Government Departments other than those shown separately on the Returns. I will send the hon. Member a list of the Departments.

How many Departments are there?

I cannot say, but they cover a very large sheet of paper.

Are they giving a preference to ex-service men?

I think so.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the men in receipt of unemployment donation at the rate of 20s. per week at the Plymouth Labour Exchange were penalised by the stoppage of one day's pay at the Whitsuntide holiday, while the men in receipt of 29s. per week unemployment donation were paid in full; and, if so, will he state the reason for this differentiation?

Owing to a misinterpretation of instructions, one day's pay was incorrectly deducted at the Plymouth Employment Exchange in the case of certain applicants in receipt of out-of-work donation over the Whitsuntide holidays. Steps have already been taken to correct the error, and I understand that payment of the arrears due was made yesterday.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the event of any disabled ex-service men in training at commercial colleges having a summer vacation, he will ensure these men receiving the full allowance that the training period provides for; and if he will state whether such period of training will be extended in these cases to cover the loss of time which the vacation involves?

Arrangements have been made for the payment of full allowances, less the living-away-from-home allowance or lodging allowance, to all trainees during their holiday period, which does not exceed four weeks per annum. The holiday period is not included in the period of training.

asked the Minister of Labour how many women and girls and how many discharged soldiers are employed by his Department?

There are at present employed in the Ministry of Labour (at Headquarters and in the Provinces) 5,518 women and girls (excluding cleaners) and 7,690 ex-service men.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a large number of men being discharged from hospital with a 30 to 40 per cent. disability pension and certified as fit for light work who are unable to find employment; and, if so, will he state what steps, if any, are being taken, or are proposed to be taken, in such cases?

I am aware that in a number of cases the physical disabilities of disabled men make it extremely difficult to place them in suitable employment. The National Scheme, however, depends on employers being prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of disabled men by employing men whom they might not under ordinary circumstances think physically suitable, and I hope that with the extension of the King's Roll many of these disabled men may be absorbed into industry. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend of our schemes for training disabled men under which, up to the present, we have trained 23,640; we have in training 24,048; and on our waiting list 22,445. I would add that in the training of these men we always keep in view their prospects of employment when training is completed.

Are all Government Departments on the King's Roll?

Yes; the Treasury on behalf of all Government Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain P. H. Ellis, late of the 10th Middlesex Regiment, was invalided out of the service on account of illness caused by wounds, on 13th June, 1919, with the rank of captain; whether he is aware that this officer has applied for his gratuity under the terms of Army Order 117, of 1919, (3), to be repaid to him, but that hitherto the Army authorities have refused to pay him gratuity due to a captain, but merely gratuity due to a lieutenant; and, as in the Army Order it is distinctly stated that where the officer has been gazetted out with permission to retain higher rank from the temporary or substantive rank held by him at the date of the termination of his service, the gratuity may at once be assessed on the basis of such higher rank, whether he will explain the reason for this differential treatment?

Army Order 117 of 1919 referred to acting rank only. As Captain Ellis did not hold acting rank he does not, therefore, come under the provisions of that Army Order.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Fulton, 580, Govan Road, Govan, mother of the late Private A. Fulton, No. 7,015, Gordon Highlanders, has been refused a pension on the ground that she is not in pecuniary need; and whether he will reconsider this decision?

As Mrs. Fulton was not dependent upon her late son prior to his enlistment, and as a recent inquiry into her circumstances showed that the income of her household was such that she could not be regarded as being in pecuniary need, the award of a parent's pension is not at present admissible under the terms of the Royal Warrant.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this woman's husband is at present lying awaiting an operation, that there is no money coming into the house, that she is in necessitous circumstances; and is he aware further that when visitors do go to the houses of the applicants for pensions, and see those applicants in a comfortable position, they advise them to sell the furniture in order to get money before making further application?

If there be any recent change in the facts, I will gladly inquire about it, and have the case re-opened if there is any claim in favour of Mrs. Fulton. The information given to me was that we were not entitled to grant a pension, but if there is a change in the circumstances, that is a different matter, and I will inquire at once.

Have the Ministry of Pensions abandoned the payment of 5s. flat rate pension per week to parents, altogether apart from the question of dependence? Have they abandoned that?

If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will in- quire into that aspect of this case, but that appears to be covered by the latter part of my answer that this woman is not eligible at present for a parent's pension.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that on 14th May, 1920, a new form of register, specially printed and bound, was supplied by the Ministry of Pensions to local war pensions committees for the purpose of recording applications by the wives and dependants of serving men for allowances and grants in supplementation of separation allowances; that a circular, dated 7th May, 1920, had been issued by the Ministry of Pensions to local war pensions committees informing them that no fresh applications for supplementary allowances and grants were to be entertained; and that all such allowances and grants then in issue were to cease on 30th June; and whether he will state the amount of the expenditure involved in the printing, binding, and issuing of these registers?

The register to which my hon. Friend refers was compiled last year in response to requests from a number of war pensions committees, and copies have been issued from time to time since January of this year to those committees who requested them. The decision to terminate the issue of supplementary allowances had not at that time been taken by the Government. I need hardly add that the further issue of the register has been stopped. I am informed by H.M. Stationery Office that the cost of printing, binding, and issuing the registers was approximately £415.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make any statement with regard to the recent dsturbances at Fermoy and Lismore in which soldiers are stated to have damaged houses and shops; and whether there were any casualties to troops or to civilians during the disturbances?

I can add nothing at present to my replies to questions on Tuesday last on this subject.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to have the information necessary, and is he aware that many painful statements have been made in the Press about these occurrences?

Did the right hon. Gentleman not say he was making inquiries, and are the inquiries completed?

The inquiries are still proceeding.

Is the right hon. Gentle-aware that the hon. Members who put these questions on the state of Ireland are friends neither of Ireland nor of this country?

Friends of the Empire.

Not you.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on the night of 30th June, 3,000 gallons of petrol conveyed in five wagons, consigned to the Royal Air Force, Oran-more, county Galway, were maliciously destroyed at Mullingar railway station; whether any escort of soldiers or police was in charge of the convoy; and what is the finding of the court of inquiry held to investigate this loss of public property?

From reports received, it appears that 3,000 gallons of petrol were looted at Mullingar while en route from Dublin by rail: 1,250 gallons were subsequently recovered. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the report of the Court of Inquiry has not yet been received.

Might I have an answer as to whether any escort of police or soldiers was sent with this enormous consignment?

My hon. and gallant Friend draws attention to a very serious omission in my answer, which I did not notice myself in examining the question, and if he will put it down again I will give a special answer to that next time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an isolated instance of looting of petrol on the Midland and Great Western Railway of Ireland, and that large consignments on other occasions recently have been taken by the Sinn Feiners without the British Government doing anything to look after these?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether in view of the poverty of many of the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the difficulty of their getting employment, notwithstanding that they are trained and capable and deserving men, he will replace the civilian clerks in the Administrative Department of the Royal Dish Constabulary in Dublin by pensioners of that service?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for Wrekin on the 7th instant. The work could not be done by Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners.

As a matter of fact, in the old days, were not Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners alone employed in this office?

I cannot speak for that period, but the work of the office is largely dealing with pensions and requires a good deal of skilled knowledge?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what are the rents of the houses at Crombie occupied by the War Office employés there: and how the rents at Crombie compare with a similar class of house at Rosyth?

I am informed that no houses are owned or occupied by the War Department at Crombie or Rosyth.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police controls were in operation in the Metropolitan Police area for detecting infringements of the Motor Car Act between a.m. 10th July and p.m. 12th July; how many police-officers were employed; and with what success?

There were 93 controls during the three days; 70 officers were employed; and 164 cases were reported for prosecution.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the case that a grant of £13,000 was made to be distributed as retrospective pay for the year 1918–19 to school teachers; whether a share of this money has been sent to the Mossbank industrial school, Glasgow; whether the staff at this school, on recent application for this money to be distributed in accordance with the recommendation of the Departmental Committee's Report, have been told that the money has been placed to the school funds, as the advances already granted were adequate; whether he can state if a grant of money for a specific purpose can be used for other school funds; and whether, in view of the fact that the advances granted to the staff at Mossbank are only 30 per cent. above the 1914 standard, he will make representations to the governors of the school to apply the money to the purpose for which it was granted?

The sum provided by the Treasury for the increase of the salaries of officers of reformatory and industrial schools in Scotland for the year ended 31st March, 1919, was £2,750. It was paid as a special grant of 10s. for 1918, child in the schools on 31st March,1918, after approval of a statement showing that the grant would be distributed as a war bonus to those members of the staff who did not in the year mentioned receive an adequate salary. Where suitable increases had already been given by the managers for the whole period 1st April, 1918, to 31st March, 1919, in anticipation of this assistance, it was open to the managers to use the special grant for recouping the funds of the school to the extent of the expenditure already incurred in respect of increased salaries for the financial year. The application of the grant of £180 made to Mossbank industrial school in this manner was approved in view of the fact that increases to a total of £800 had already been granted to the officers by the managers.

Does the Secretary for Scotland agree that 30 per cent. increase on the pre-War standard is a suitable advance to warrant the allocation of this money to other purposes than that for which it was granted?

As I explained to my hon. Friend, the money was allocated in the way stated because the governors had anticipated the grant to the extent of £800. As regards the total sum distributed, that was fixed by the Treasury.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now had an opportunity of reading the copies of letters implicating Lieutenant-General Sir Hubert Gough, head of the late Inter Allied Military Mission in Finland, Commander Harold Grenfell, late naval attaché, and Professor Cotter, late Press attaché, at the British Legation, Helsingfors, as being associated with a notorious Bolshevik agent in Helsingfors; and what action the Government purposes taking in this matter?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any documents have been sent to London by the British Minister in Finland and received by the Foreign Office implicating General Sir Hubert Gough, late head of the Inter-Allied Military Mission in Finland, Commander Grenfell, formerly head of a Naval Mission to Finland, and Professor Cotter, late Press Attaché to the British Legation in Helsingfors, in plotting to introduce a Bolshevist regime in this country?

I have read the copies of the letters referred to, but I do not consider that they call for any action on the part of His Majesty's Government.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that the officers referred to in my question are described as being absolutely Red, and in the correspondence they also express an earnest wish that the agent referred to may come over here?

I found it difficult to have patience to read the letters, which, to a prosaic mind like mine, seemed nonsense: but I do not think they call for any action.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Raper) dined with this notorious Bolshevik agent in Helsingfors, and is he satisfied that the letters in question are genuine?

No, Sir, I have no information beyond what I have given. I have read the letters, and I do not think they call for any action.

Do not these letters clearly show that these British officers were philandering with this woman, who is an agent of the Reds?

There is nothing in the letters, except what other people say, to affect General Gough. As regards the other gentleman, he retired from the position of Naval Attaché, and is on the Retired List. I do not think we really need take further notice of it.

In view of the fact that attacks have been made on officers who have no opportunity of replying, I shall raise this on the Motion for the Adjournment on Thursday.

asked the Prime Minister whether any price was agreed by him and the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand for the purchase of the shares of the Pacific Phosphate Company when he signed the agreement for such purchase in Paris; what price is now proposed to be paid for these shares; and how much money will be advanced by the British Treasury for the purchase of the shares during the current year?

It has never been proposed that the shares should be purchased. With regard to the payments made in respect of rights and property of the Pacific Phosphate Company, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper 749.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that some of the retired officers Government employment have not yet been paid the sums which were illegally deducted from their pay in the interval between the passing of the Retired Officers (Civil Employment) Act, 1919, and the framing of the new rules; and will he take steps to expedite payment of these sums owing for nearly a year?

The deductions are not illegal, for the Act does not come into operation until an Order has been issued thereunder. regret that this Order has been so long delayed, but it will be laid, I hope, in a few days, arid instructions are being issued to Departments to make the refunds for which the Order will give formal authority.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of forming Economy Committees, similar to those set up for other Departments, for the War Office and the Ministry of Transport?

I have reserved for later consideration the question of extending these inquiries to other Departments, and I do not at present propose to suggest committees for either the War Office or the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry of Transport being a new Ministry, the whole of its staff has been quite recently under review by the Treasury. In the case of the War Office, the staff has been reduced from 18,324 at the Armistice to 6,764 on 1st June last, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War expects to make further reductions before long. But as with the Navy, so with the Army, extra work continues long after hostilities have ceased. To give only one instance, I am informed that the correspondence with the public is six times as heavy as before the War.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a new Ministry is precisely the Ministry into which inquiry is most desirable?

No, Sir; every post in the new Ministry has recently had to be sanctioned. The old Ministries are, of course, old Ministries, and have not been under such minute and special review.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether these economy Committees are entitled to inquire into questions of policy as well as of expenditure?

No, Sir, as I said yesterday—

I did not hear.

They are not appointed to inquire into policy.

If they are not entitled to deal with questions of policy, in what respect do their functions differ from those of the Committee on National Expenditure?

These are specific Committees. The Committee on National Expenditure does not, I think, examine into the details of the staffing arrangements of the Departments. These others are small Special Committees, with special qualifications to examine into the staffing arrangements and the organisation of particular Departments, to see whether their organisation is good or bad, and whether any improvements in organisation or any reduction in staff can be effected.

rose —

Further questions had better be put down.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to publish the results of the investigations to be made by economy Committees in the various Departments?

I think that it will probably be desirable to publish the Reports, but I should not like to come to a final decision till they have been received, and I have had an opportunity, if necessary, of consulting the Chairmen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability that the investigations of these Committees should be in public, so that we may know from day to day the evidence that is being submitted?

I do not think that would be a businesslike procedure. I see the work of the Committees: it should not be done in public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committees of Inquiry into Government extravagance will have as part of their reference the policy of the Ministry which causes extravagance, particularly the continuance of control by the Ministry of Food in several directions which causes losses to the Government, waste of valuable foodstuffs, and needless jobs for unnecessary officials?

No, Sir. The Committees are not Committees to enquire into Government policy, but into the staff and organisation of certain Departments. The terms of reference will be as follows: To examine either by way of test examination or otherwise, as they may see fit, the staffing and methods of work of the Department, and to report what, if any, economies may be effected therein, having regard to the work which the Department is called upon to perform in the execution of the policy decided by the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this decision will limit the scope of the inquiry to a very small and minute one?

No, Sir; I am not aware of that. If the allegations habitually made be true that will not be the case. The allegation is that Government Departments are overstaffed for the work they have to do, and that is the question which these Committees are invited to investigate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) is included in this inquiry?

I think not. I do not carry in my mind all the particular Departments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state how the Members of this House will be appointed? Will the names be put down on the Paper, and moved in the ordinary way, or will the right hon. Gentleman invite hon. Members to serve?

No, Sir. They will be appointed in the ordinary way. It is only in the case of Committees of this House that a Motion is made for the appointment of certain Members. When a Departmental Committee is formed on the invitation of a Minister, it is done by an invitation to particular Members.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the policy of the Department which causes the extravagance of which complaint is made?

That is not the only allegation made. There is the other allegation which I have already described. If the policy is challenged, it should be done in this House on the Votes of the Ministries.

Will it be competent for the Committee to report what is the actual cost?

The business of the Committee is to see whether, for the work which is set the Government Department to do, they are overstaffed or ill-organised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net financial result of the Land Tax for the entire period the same was in force?

I assume my hon. Friend refers to the Land Values Duties imposed by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910: I would refer him to the answers, copies of which I am sending him, given to my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth on the 26th April, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth on the 20th May.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the North Eastern Railway Company first put forward the claim to include in the State guaranteed expenditure the £50,000 paid to the Minister of Transport; when was that claim disallowed by the Ministry of Transport; at what date was it then put forward to the Treasury; and when did the Treasury arrive at its decision disallowing the claim?

The item referred to, which was included in the railway company's claim in respect of the year 1918, came before the Railway Accountants' Committee at their meeting of 13th April, 1920; it was immediately reported on by the representative of the Ministry of Transport who attended that meeting. It was referred to the Treasury on 16th April; I instructed Sir Hardman Lever, the Treasury representative at the Ministry, on the 20th April. When the item was next before the Railway Accountants' Committee, namely, on 18th May, its inclusion as a working expense was formally dissented from by the Ministry's representative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the North Eastern Railway Company, whose claim to be reimbursed under the State guarantee the £50,000 granted to the ex-deputy general manager of the company, have the right of appeal from the Treasury decision disallowing the payment to the Railway and Canal Traffic Commissioners; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the original agreement made between the company and the ex-deputy general manager, together with the terms of settlement under which the £50,000 was paid over?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not in possession of either of the documents referred to in the latter part of the question. If, as I understand is likely to be the case, the company contests the Treasury ruling, the claim will be referred to the Law Officers, by whose advice our further action must be guided.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether the original agreement will be laid upon the Table of the House, and whether it is not a fact that this question has to go before the Railway and Canal Traffic Commissioners, and therefore will not be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown?

That is exactly the question which I have answered.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the demand of the middle classes, who compose the largest section of the community, that the agreements, deficiencies, and subsidies, representing a gross charge in the present year of over £111,000,000 on the taxpayer, shall cease: and is he prepared to abandon the policy of subsidising one section of the community at the expense of another?

I do not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's figures, but it is the general policy of His Majesty's Government to bring all war subsidies to a close at the earliest possible moment, and steps have already been taken to end them all, with the exception of the bread subsidy.

asked the Prime Minister whether, under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the only mandatory territories which are to be open to the free and equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of all members of the League are Togoland, Cameroons, and Tanganyika territory; and whether, in all other mandatory territories, the mandatory Power has power to restrict the trade and export of produce of the territory to the use of its own nationals?

It is only in the fifth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that "equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League" are expressly provided for. The territories to which this provision applies are those which formerly constituted German East Africa, the Cameroons and Togoland. In the case of the former German Colonies, which, under the sixth paragraph of Article 22 are to be administered "under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory," the provision of equal opportunities for trade and commerce will be a matter for the discretion of the mandatory.

What about the ex-Ottoman territories, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine?

I should like my hon. Friend to put down a question for next week.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say what is the policy of the Government; is it to have the open door or not for the mandated territories?

Has my hon. and gallant Friend by any chance read the Treaty? If so, he will have seen that As regards German South Africa, the reason for this distinction in the mandate was that it is impossible to treat it except as part of South Africa as a whole.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the fact that the Debate on the Indian Estimates was confined entirely to one topic, he will arrange that the House have another early opportunity of discussing other questions of Indian administration which are of special importance at this juncture?

I am afraid that it is quite impossible to find time for another discussion before the adjournment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while Ministers, Labour leaders, Ruperts of debate, cold-weather tourists, and officers of the British Army—

I should like to see that catalogue on the Order Paper.

With great respect, Sir, may I ask whether I am in Order in asking my right hon. Friend whether he noticed that the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Army, which were vitally interested, were not called to take any part in this Debate?

I have always noticed that in any important Debate a great many Members of the House think that the right people have not spoken.

Does my right hon. Friend really think that personal knowledge and experience are to be conclusive disqualifications for taking part in any particular Debate?