asked the Secretary of State for War why, if an ex-temporary lieut.-colonel who, commanded a battalion in the field in France wishes to re-enter the Army, he can only do so as a second lieutenant; and will he take steps to modify the regulations in favour of the ex-temporary officer?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Ex-temporary lieut.-colonels who commanded units in the field for a continuous period of not less than six months or for an aggregate of not less than nine months are being granted permanent regular commissions in the rank of captain. The details of the scheme for granting regular commissions to temporary and other-officers have already been published and I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether all the certificates for mentions in dispatches during the late War have now been issued?

There are approximately 17,000 certificates, for mentions in despatches still to be issued, and it is anticipated that the work will be completed by the end of April next.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether last summer half a million Victory medals were scrapped owing to defective workman ship; whether some millions of the war medals are being held up to be issued with the Victory medals; and whether, if this is so, he will give instructions for the war medals to be issued forthwith so that it will be possible for at least one medal to be issued in the lifetime of a recipient?

Approximately 550,000 Victory medals were melted up owing to a change of design which it was found necessary to carry out. No British war medals have been held up for issue with the Victory medals, and nearly two millions have already been despatched.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the metal of which the Victory medal is made tarnishes and becomes iridescent during the first few weeks of its existence; and whether, as it seems impossible to issue a satisfactory Victory medal, it would be better to abandon the idea of having such a medal altogether?

It has recently been found that some of the-Victory medals have become iridescent, and the cause is at present under investigation. Instructions have been given to suspend the issue of any iridescent medals.

asked the-Secretary of State for War (1) how many officers were employed in the War Office on 1st July, 1914, and 31st January, 1921, respectively, and in which Departments the officers are now employed; and whether each Department or sub-Department was in existence on 1st August, 1914;

(2) whether he has taken the opportunity of comparing, by a perusal of the official Army Lists of August, 1914, and of January, 1921, the number of officers employed at the War Office on the two dates in question; and has he considered the possibility of replacing a large number of the officers now employed by clerks?

The number of officers employed in the War Office in August, 1914, was 147, and on 1st February, 1921, was 333. I will circulate a statement showing the Departments and sub-Departments in which the officers are now employed. With the ex-

Does that mean that we cannot afford any greater reduction in the near future?

No, that is not at all what I said. What I said was that reductions had been and were being made.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many temporary officers are still employed in the War Office or in the commands; and when is it proposed to discontinue their employment?

The number of non-Regular officers now serving with the Army, both at home and abroad, and paid for under War Office Votes is approximately 4,000. Of this number, 42 are serving in the War Office. Reductions are being carried out as rapidly as circumstances permit.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Sir Alexander Prince, late Controller of the Expeditionary Force canteens, that £7,000,000, and not £2,000,000, as stated by the War Office, was paid back to troops in the shape of rebates from the Expeditionary Force canteen profits, and to the further statement by the auditors that the War Office were in error in alleging that the final balance-sheet rendered by the Expeditionary Force canteen contained no provision for losses anticipated on the realisation of the unsold stock; which of the conflicting statements is correct; and whether he will be able to make a full statement with regard to the disposal of the Expeditionary Force canteen profits?

My attention has been drawn to the statements to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The sum of £7,000,000, I am informed, included discounts and rebates granted by the Expeditionary Force Canteens and Navy and Army Canteen Board, amounting to about £2,000,000 and £5,000,000 respectively. Perhaps I may be permitted to state that the Finance Department of the War Office has nothing to do with the finance of the two canteen organisations. When the closing of the business of the Expeditionary Force canteens was undertaken by the Navy and Army Canteen Board, the terms of the arrangement, approved by the Army Council, provided that a reserve should be made by Expeditionary Force canteens to reimburse the Navy and Army Canteen Board should the winding up of the former's undertaking involve a loss. The Expeditionary Force canteens, in presenting their interim report, stated that no such provision had been made in the accounts. As I am informed that these losses will be considerable, publication of accounts until final results are ascertained would be misleading. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that the excellent work done by the two canteen organisations during the War will result in a very substantial credit balance. The amount to be finally handed over can only be ascertained when the liquidation of the Expeditionary Force canteens is completed, and the surplus stocks still held by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes have been realised. The amount already handed over to the United Services Fund on account is about £3,049,000 in cash and £1,000,000 of Funding Loan. In view of the interest of the United Services Fund, the Dominions, India, Navy, Army and Air Force in the final apportionment of these moneys, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to appoint a small and entirely independent Committee, under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir Samuel Roberts), to consider and advise him upon the subject generally.

Was not the balance sheet presented by the auditor certified as a final balance sheet, and why is it described now as an interim balance sheet?

There was no proper certificate for the accounts. There was no ordinary and usual certificate such as is the custom with accounts. The accountants themselves made the accounts. There was no independent audit.

The auditors to whom I have directed attention in my question say they presented a final balance sheet and made full provision for the depreciation in the stock.

I am informed that they made full provision for depreciation of stock which they retained to realise, but not for the stock which they handed over to the Navy and Army Canteen Board to realise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the balance sheet that has been presented?

The Committee will have the whole of these matters put before them, and when we have received their Report we will consider that.

Meanwhile will no money be disbursed?

I cannot promise that, because the United Services Fund is constantly making application for money for the various schemes which it has in hand, and it would be unwise and unreasonable to retain money belonging to the United Services Fund if it is not necessary to do so.

In view of the very large amount of publicity which has been given to this matter in the Press, will my right hon. Friend undertake that this Committee shall be set up immediately; and am I right in assuming that it will have full power to send for persons and documents in the usual way, and that at the earliest possible moment complete publicity will be given to the whole of this matter so that the public may know and the large amount of misunderstanding and misrepresentation may be finally dispelled?

The whole object in appointing this entirely independent body, which does not represent either the War Office or the United Services Fund, was that they might give an unbiassed account of the position, and guide the War Office in the distribution of these moneys.

asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of recruits enrolled to date in the Territorial Army; and how many more are required to complete the establishment?

The total number of recruits enlisted for the Territorial Force, up to 12th February, was 83,263, and in addition 3,664 men have been registered but not yet attested. The establishment of the force is approximately 224,000.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is a scheme in his Department for the subsidy of motor lorries in the event of their being required for purposes of war in the future?

A scheme for the subsidy of mechanical transport vehicles registered for use in the event of mobilisation is at present under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it has already been decided that the subsidy shall be £40 per lorry per annum, and what the total cost will be?

I am not able to answer that without notice.

Is it not possible to register these lorries and use them in case of emergency without any subsidy?

I would refer to the answer I have just given, and that is that the subsidy is under consideration.

> Before the Committee which is looking into the matter come to any decision, will this House be given any opportunity to consider it?

If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will ascertain.

Would it not be advisable to dispense with war and remove the subsidy?

asked the Secretary of State for War if the list of clasps to the war medal has been completed; if so, whether he will state what clasps have been settled upon; and, if not completed, if he will state the reasons for the long delay in arriving at a conclusion?

The question of the issue of battle clasps for the British war medal has been most carefully examined, both Departmentally and by a Committee specially appointed for the purpose, but a definite decision has not yet been reached. The delay in arriving at a conclusion is due to the difficulty of settling the principles on which separate clasps should be awarded; to the consideration of the administrative difficulties entailed in securing an equitable award; and to the financial considerations involved in any proposed scheme of this character.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that financial considerations would affect the issue of clasps? Surely the nation will be willing to give a clasp.

My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that financial considerations can never be entirely absent from a matter of this sort. On the other hand, he may rely that we are not likely to be mean in a matter of this sort. Nevertheless, the various ways, which all incur considerable expense, must be carefully considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department intend to differentiate between the clasps awarded to staff officers and those awarded to regimental officers?

If my hon. Friend presses that question, he must give notice. The general answer is no.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that tailors are still charging officers more than 10 guineas for a khaki twillette tunic for Eastern service and £4 10s. for a pair of trousers; and what steps he proposes to take to cheapen the cost of officers' uniform in these respects?

I am informed that uniform of authorised patterns for Eastern stations can be purchased from tailors for very considerably less than the prices quoted. There are also a few khaki drill uniforms of officers' pattern still in stock at the Royal Army Clothing Department, which officers may purchase if they wish; the price at present is £2 1s. 6d. for a jacket and £1 0s. 3d. for trousers.

Can any steps be taken against these tailors who are charging exorbitant prices?

I am afraid I cannot answer that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the present position with regard to the relief of distress in Austria; what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to aid the civil population in Austria and to assist the Austrian Government in restoring trade; and whether any settled policy has yet been adopted with a view to dealing with the present situation?

In 1919 His Majesty's Government made a loan of $16,000,000 to Austria, the French and Italian Governments making equal contributions. In addition to this, His Majesty's Government made a further allocation in that year to Austria of £1,400,000. Further, under the International Relief Credits Scheme of 1920, in which the United States of America and Great Britain alone of the belligerent Governments participated, His Majesty's Government voted a credit of £10,000,000. Of this sum £5,545,000 has been allocated to Austria, to which country His Majesty's Government have thus advanced credits totalling in all more than £10,000,000. Relief of this nature can, however, only be temporary in its effect, and a permanent improvement in the situation can only be achieved by the gradual economic rehabilitation of Austria. As the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, certain recommendations were made recently by a committee of representatives of the principal Allied Powers in Paris specially appointed to study this question. These recommendations are being examined by the Governments concerned, who have not yet reached a final decision.

Have not these payments and credits been very much in the nature of doles or charity, and when does the Government expect to reach, with its Allies, some conclusion as to a settled policy of rehabilitating the country?

I have said that question is now being considered by the several Governments.

Is there any hope of some policy being arrived at soon in view of the length of time since the Armistice?

I certainly hope so.

Has any security been taken from that country for the advances which have been made?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that numerous complaints have been made against the Peruvian Government by intending emigrants for non compliance with agreements entered into by their agent; whether he will endeavour to obtain compensation for the following very hard cases, who, on the faith of an agreement, sold their homes and, after several postponements, were finally informed that they could not be taken, Messrs. Blythe, Gardner, and Tingey, all residing at Tottenham?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Minister at Lima has already been instructed to bring this matter to the notice of the Peruvian Government and to ascertain whether they are prepared to accept responsibility for the losses incurred in such cases as those mentioned.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his latest information from any of the parts of the British Empire shows that, as a result of high prices, British goods have been suffering from foreign competition on a cheaper scale owing to rates of exchange and other causes; and, if so, in what direction of manufactured exports this tendency is most pronounced?

During 1920 the total volume of British exports to Empire markets was adversely affected by the scarcity of British export coal. During the same period, American and Japanese competition have proved formidable and trade was lost on account of lower prices, particularly as regards American railway material, motor vehicles, and tinplate, and cheap Japanese textiles and hardware. In these cases the encroachment was not assisted by the general level of the exchanges; but any disadvantage in this respect was counter-balanced by-ability to quote firm prices and definite dates of delivery. There is no evidence that British goods have been displaced during the past year to any serious extent by competitive goods of European origin, but present indications suggest that more severe European competition must be anticipated in the near future. I should add that the proportion of total British exports sold within the Empire has displayed a continuous and gratifying increase during the past year. In the last quarter of 1920, 40·1 per cent. of our exports went to Empire markets, as compared with 37·1 per cent. for the year 1913.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that one of the British prisoners recently released from Baku has since died, chiefly owing to ill-treatment received whilst in captivity; whether he can report on the condition of these prisoners when released; and whether any steps have been or are to be taken to impress on the Government responsible that British subjects may not with impunity be submitted to barbarous and degrading treatment by any foreign Power?

I regret to state that one of the naval prisoners from Baku died in England not long after his repatriation, but I am not in a position to state the cause of his death, as the report which has been called for from his doctor has not yet come to hand. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's representative at Tiflis reported that the prisoners were all in good health on arrival there from Azerbaijan. I sympathise with the view expressed in the last part of the question, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by making the suggested pronouncement.

asked the Secretary of State for War why, in the official reports of ambushes of soldiers in Ireland, no mention is made of armoured protection for cars and lorries; and what percentage of military cars and lorries have, in fact, been provided with armoured protection?

It is not considered to be in the public interest to publish in the official reports whether cars attacked are, or are not, furnished with armour protection, apart from the armoured cars proper. A large number of the lorries, vans and cars in Ireland are already so protected, and this number is steadily increasing. The poor success to the rebels which has attended recent ambushes, and the few casualties inflicted on the troops, proves that this armouring is efficient. It must be remembered that the object of troops when attacked is not to remain in the cars, but to get out and take the offensive against their assailants.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a court-martial in Ireland has been censured by a King's Bench judge; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter?

My attention has been called to a statement in the Press to this effect. It is not correct. In the case of Joseph Murphy the Court of King s Bench in Dublin upon the evidence before it held that a court-martial were wrong in point of law in refusing an application made by counsel for the defence, at the trial, for the production of the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry. But so far from censuring the court-martial, the King's Bench expressly stated that they could not blame the court for following the advice given to them by the Judge Advocate at the trial on a question of law. The Judge Advocate at the trial was a civilian barrister of 18 years' standing with great experience of criminal cases both before civil courts and courts-martial.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the administration of martial law at that date in Ireland has been very gravely criticized by persons who are presumably friendly to his own Government? Is that receiving the careful attention of the Judge Advocate?

I am not aware, speaking generally, that any just criticism has been brought against the administration of justice by these courts.

Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the court-martial on the editor and proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal," and the criticisms passed upon it there, and the action of the Government in overriding the findings?

The hon. Member is raising other points.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the difference in time taken in the carriage of mails between London and Waterford, viâ Fishguard and Rosslare, at present compared to pro-War time; and when pre-War conditions will be resumed?

In pre-War conditions the mails from London by this route arrived at Waterford 50 minutes earlier than at present, and those from Waterford arrived in London 1 hour and 38 minutes earlier. Neither the trains nor the boats are controlled by the Post Office, nor were they controlled before the War, and I am, therefore, not in a position to say whether the pre-War timing will be resumed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction exists in all parts of Ireland, North and South, with regard to facilities for mails, and does he lead us to understand that, as Postmaster-General, he can do nothing whatsoever to bring these facilities to the position they were in before the War? Is the Postmaster-General helpless in the matter? Do I understand that the Postmaster-General can do nothing to make these railway companies carry the mails as efficiently, and in as short space of time, as they did before the War?

I will make representations to the railway companies, and do what I can.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a grave report circulated in this morning's Press, namely, that 30 cadets were recently caught red-handed in organised looting; that the case was investigated by the Commandant of the Division who remanded live for trial by court-martial and dismissed the remainder from the Division; that these latter, on their return to England, had an interview with a police adviser to the Viceroy; that their theft was condoned, their dismissal cancelled, and they were sent back to Ireland to their original company; that their Commanding Officer's decision was arbitrarily overruled, and that, as a consequence, the Commanding Officer and Adjutant have resigned; and whether he will state the name and authority of the arbitrary adviser, and what steps the Government intend taking in the matter?

I will answer this question, and, at the same time, answer a similar question of the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I wired to-day to the Chief of Police for his observations on this matter, and I will read to the House his reply in full, which is as follows:

"On receipt of a complaint that a party of the Auxiliary Division had been guilty of looting, the Chief of Police directed the Commandant of the Auxiliary Division to make immediate inquiry. The Commandant thereupon arrested five platoon commanders and section leaders and one cadet, with a view to their being brought to trial, as he considered there was clear evidence against them. The services of the remainder of the party were dispensed with. Dismissal can only be carried out by the direction of the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police sent instructions to suspend action against the 26 cadets until he returned to Dublin. This letter took 24 hours to reach the Commandant of the Auxiliary Division., with the result that the men were sent to England. On arrival in England they protested to the Chief of Police at the Irish Office that they had been dismissed without trial. On his return to Dublin, he directed that the dismissed cadets should be recalled without prejudice to any future disciplinary action if found guilty. He at once instituted a Court of Inquiry into the whole of the circumstances which is now proceeding. The cadets have not been allowed to return to their own unit, and there is no question under any circumstances of allowing them to do so. They are now awaiting the finding of the Court. The Commanding Officer and the Adjutant have resigned. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Why!'] There is no condonation of looting of any sort. In all cases of this nature the accused are, if the evidence-warrants it, sent for trial. The County Inspector of Police could not support the summary dismissal of these cadets without full investigation."

May I, in answer to an interruption, in the nature of a supplementary question, say that the commanding officer and adjutant of the Auxiliary Division have resigned, and their resignations have been accepted by the Chief of Police? I am bound to be advised by the Chief of Police in this matter. I can assure the House he has my instructions, and I am confident he will carry them out, to inflict the severest possible penalty on these or any other persons guilty of breaches of discipline.

Am I to understand that the Government are so bent upon carrying out a policy of utter indiscipline in the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland that they will not even treat with regard the decisions of their own officers, but must have them arbitrarily overruled by a higher power here in London?

No, no; I must correct that. Personally, I have nothing to do with this matter of the discipline of the police.

I am not referring to you individually, but to the Government.

Do I understand—

General Tudor, the Chief of Police, is taking the severest steps possible; but I must say—and I think the House will agree with me—that I do not think anyone should be condemned before trial.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, first, the police are superior to these military officers who are in charge of the Black and Tans; and, secondly, what is the reason the Inspector of Police has accepted the resignation of Brigadier-General Crozier, otherwise known as Colonel-Commandant Crozier, and the Adjutant.

May I ask whether, in view of the fact that there was this delay of 24 hours in a letter from the police officer, and that it was owing to that delay that this mistake occurred, the right hon. Gentleman will himself go into the matter, and reconsider the question of the resignation of this commandant; it was entirely owing to this delay in the letter that the whole situation has arisen, and that this officer's resignation was handed in?

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why these officers resigned?

May I ask why the Commandant dispensed with the services of these men?

I have read to the House the whole reply I got from the Chief of Police this morning in answer to a telegram I sent to him. I do not think I can add anything to what I have stated.

Are we to understand that these military officers, the superior officers of these men, investigated the charges of looting made against them, and that, having investigated these charges, they, acting as investigators, dismissed them, and that these men, although they are not now allowed back into their units, were subsequently retained as officers in Ireland; that the investigating tribunal resigned, and that the resignations have been accepted; and that the only people now in charge of these matters are the criminals who are guilty of these acts for which they were dismissed, and for which officers left the army?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, and in view of the fact that fictitious charges are almost daily made against officers of the Crown, will the Government take steps to discover who is responsible for these charges, because a great deal of capital is being made out of them?

May I ask if it is not a fact that General Crozier received a telegram from these 30 men that they were returning on orders, and that he thereupon resigned; if this is not the case, why did he resign?

May I ask the Prime Minister whether now, having heard this discussion in the House, he will be prepared, in view of the conflict that exists between officers and men, and the serious- ness of this matter to these officers, to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate this matter?

Were these military, officers dismissed because the decision they gave in carrying out what they considered to be their duty was distasteful to the policy of the Government?

May I ask the right hon Gentleman if he will inform the officers of the Army of the sympathy of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) and his colleagues?

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the refusal of His Majesty's Ministers to give satisfaction to all sections of this House in regard to the serious condition of affairs that has arisen in the British Army in Ireland."

I am afraid that is too vague a matter.

May I move—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] It is all right; I am standing up, too. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether other criminals, where a conflict of evidence arises, can be given the benefit of the doubt in the same way as these gentlemen? [HON. MEMBERS: "They always do!"]

On a point of Order—

Captain Loseby.

asked the Secretary of State for War the strength of the British and Indian Forces at present employed in Mesopotamia; and what is the ration strength?

The total strength of the military forces at present in Mesopotamia, including North West Persia, is approximately: British Army (all ranks) 17,000; Indian Army (all ranks) 87,000. The total ration strength, which includes local labour, civilians, refugees, etc., is approximately 220,000

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps have been taken to put a stop to the deduction of English Income Tax from the pay of officers serving in Mesopotamia who are paid in rupees?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to questions by the hon. and learned Member for York on the 4th and 18th November last. British officers serving in Mesopotamia are now paid in sterling, not in rupees. Indian Army officers are paid in rupees. Liability to British Income Tax is determined, not by the basis on which the pay is fixed, but by the service from which the pay is defrayed. Emoluments defrayed from Imperial Funds are subject to deduction of British Income Tax.

Cannot the War Office do anything to put a stop to this very inequitable differentiation in the treatment of officers on service in Mesopotamia?

I do not think we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that articles detrimental to the best interests of the State are appearing regularly in a certain newspaper; will he explain why action has not been taken in the matter; is he aware of the fact that the police authorities would take action but for certain instructions from his office; and will he explain why restraint is placed upon the Commissioner of Police in carrying out what he considers to be his duty in this matter?

Articles which seem to me detrimental to the best interests of the State appear from time to time in more, than one news- paper; but no action can be taken unless the law is violated, and even then it may be a question whether a prosecution would not do more harm by advertising the paper than any good that would come of it. I have not issued any general instructions in this matter, and no restraint is put on the Commissioner by the Home Office; and I may point out that it would be not for him, but for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take any action.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to suppress the "Daily Herald?"

Have any of the articles in question been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions to see whether a prosecution should take place?

Yes. We are constantly doing so.

Is there any truth in the suggestion conveyed in this question that there is a conflict of opinion between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary? If so, can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman responsible to this House will maintain his own policy?

There is not the faintest ground for suggesting that.

asked the Home Secretary how many licences were suppressed with compensation under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, during the year 1920; and how many county licensing authorities have decided to impose a compensation levy under that Act for the present year?

As regards the first part of the question, the preparation of the statistics is not complete, but it appears, subject to verification, that 519 licences in England and Wales were extinguished on payment of compensation in the year 1920. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not yet available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Act has practically become a dead letter in many counties at the present time?

No. I should not go so far as that.

asked the Home Secretary what were the figures of entry of male and female juvenile offenders into the Borstal institutions in England and Wales in 1918, 1919, and 1920; and whether, seeing that in the opinion of the Committees of those institutions, from evidence of the police courts, there is every reason to believe that criminal ideas are inculcated into the minds of children by the character of some films that now pass the Censorship Committee, the Home Office will obtain reports from prison authorities and police court magistrates in London and the provinces as to what their opinion is of the present censorship of cinema films?

The numbers were, in 1918, 525 males and 87 females; in 1919, 587 males and 98 females; in 1920, 704 males and 76 females. There is no evidence that the increase in the number of males which has followed demobilisation is due to the influence of cinematograph films. It is obvious that the production of sensational films cannot exercise a wholesome influence on young people, but inquiries that have been made from time to time have found very little definite evidence to show that crime can be directly attributed to such films. The Chief Magistrate also informs me that no evidence of this kind has come under his notice.

asked the Home Secretary on what principle the prison regulations were altered so as to abolish strict separate confinement during the first month for women sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, while such separate confinement was retained for male prisoners having similar sentences?

It has always been the practice in English prisons to enforce sentences of hard labour less severely in the case of women than in the case of men. Separate confinement of women during the first month of their sentence has not been abolished, because it has never been imposed by the prison rules.

asked the Home Secretary how many of the governors, superior officers, and subordinate officers of His Majesty's prisons, respectively, have been members of the Regular Forces, military or naval, before taking up their prison appointments?

Twenty-six prison governors have served with the Regular Forces, not including five who joined temporarily during the War. I have not got the figures for the lower ranks, but a large proportion of the prison officers had previous military or naval service, and all those appointed since the War are men who served in the forces during the War.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the Continental traffic in worn-out horses; and what steps he has taken to see that these horses are in a fit state to travel and are properly cared for during the crossing and on landing?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, as amended by the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, prohibits the shipment of any horse from any port in Great Britain to any port on the Continent unless it has been examined immediately before shipment by a veterinary inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture, and certified by him to be fit to travel and also fit to work without suffering. It is therefore illegal to ship any horses incapable of passing this test. Veterinary inspectors have been appointed by the Ministry at all the ports of shipment to examine horses presented for that purpose, and explicit instructions have been given to them by the Ministry not to pass any animal which does not comply fully with the standard of fitness laid down by the Acts. The Ministry has no reason to believe that these instructions are not strictly complied with. Regulations have been made by the Ministry with regard to the construction of vessels carrying horses, and as to their feeding and attendance whilst on board. These Regulations are contained in the Horses (Importation and Transit) Order of 1913. The Ministry has no jurisdiction as regards the manner in which the animals are dealt with on landing on the Continent.

To what Ministry does the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer?

To the Ministry of Agriculture.

Are any reports made by these inspectors to the Home Office? If so, will they be laid on the Table?

I am only answering for the Minister of Agriculture, but everything in a legislative and administrative way is done, so far as Ministers can do it.

asked the Home Secretary whether the police have any instructions with reference to vehicles waiting in the streets of the Metropolitan area, having regard to the convenience of the public, the necesity of avoiding obstruction to traffic, and the convenience of those using the vehicles?

The standing instructions to police are to prevent obstruction by waiting vehicles that are not in the act of loading or unloading. When possible, waiting ranks are provided at places of public resort and elsewhere, but the free circulation of traffic is the prime consideration.

asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been come to with reference to the general use of the 24-hour clock?

His Majesty's Government has decided not to take any steps at present for the adoption of the 24-hour system in this country.

asked the Home Secretary whether applications for the licensing of side-car taxicabs will now be considered for the Metropolitan Police area?

The answer is in the negative. I am informed by the Ministry of Transport that the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, to which this question was referred, has come to the conclusion that it is not desirable that licences to ply for hire with these vehicles in the London area should be issued at the present time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these vehicles are plying in provincial towns and are very popular and extremely comfortable?

I know that there are three in Birmingham, three in Nottingham, and, I think, two in Brighton and another South Coast place, and I am told that they are not very popular.

asked the Secretary for Scotland what is the cause of the delay in publishing the reports of the Game and Heather-Burning (Scotland) Committee; and when they may be expected?

I am informed that the report of this Committee is now in proof, and I expect to receive it very shortly.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received letters from chemists in Scotland protesting against certain parts of the new Regulations under the Dangerous Drugs Act; and, if so, will he say whether he is taking any action in the matter?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made last Thursday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, in answer to a number of questions on this subject.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to state the round number of telephone calls which were sent through the exchanges of the United Kingdom during 1920; what proportion of these were on the flat-rate basis; will he state how many flat-rate users there are who originate less than 2,000 calls per annum; and whether, in regard to trunk calls, he can state how many users there are where the new rate will be less than the present one?

The approximate number of telephone calls effected in the year ended 31st March, 1920, was about 850,000,000. Of these, about 40 per cent. were made by existing flat-rate subscribers. About 50,000 of the present flat-rate users (including the £8 residence flat-rate) do not originate 2,000 calls per annum. I have no figures as to the distribution of trunk calls between different users, but it is estimated that as regards 25 per cent. of the existing trunk calls the new charge will be lower than the old.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the approximate number of telephone calls with which he expects the telephone service to deal every year under his proposed universal measured rate; how many extra officials will be necessary for the registering and collection of charges; and what will be the annual cost of their salaries?

The number of telephone calls is materially affected by the existing trade depression. Making due allowance for this and for a probable reduction in the calling rate, especially of flat-rate subscribers on the introduction of the new tariff, the number of calls in 1921–22 is roughly estimated at between 800 and 850 millions. The additional staff required for registering calls and collecting charges under the new tariff is estimated to be 150 at an annual cost in salaries of £23,000.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that with a staff of 100 to 150 he will be able to ensure an accurate presenting of accounts and an avoidance of the present very prevalent complaints that such accounts are inaccurate?

Yes, I think so. I would remind the hon. Member that there are already 90 per cent. of the subscribers charged in this way.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with the figure of 800,000,000 calls, what is the present number of cases dealt with and for what reduction allowance is made?

I think I said 850,000,000 in answer to the previous question.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) if his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Finance Committee of the Liverpool Corporation in regard to the proposed increase of telephone rates; is he aware that it is estimated that if these increases came into effect it would add some £7,000 to the rates; what steps does he propose to take in the matter;

(2) if he is aware that the proposed new telephone charges, if applied to the Liverpool Co-operative Society, would mean an increase of £506 per annum over the present charge of £536, or nearly double, and that this society, which had intended to increase the number of telephones in use in its business, is, in view of the proposed increase, considering a reduction in the existing number; and will he inquire into this?

As the cost of the service will in future be based mainly upon the number of calls made, it is not possible to check the estimates of individual subscribers. Where the additional cost is heavy, it is due partly to the user being large, and partly to the advantage which the subscriber has previously enjoyed of a rate considerably below the cost of providing the service.

asked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the assertions that the late National Telephone Company made a considerable profit on its operations, how much it cost the Post Office to raise the low rates of wage and pensions paid by the company to the State level?

The cost of levelling up the wages of the transferred staff was £158,000 per annum in 1912, and the charge against the telephone accounts to meet the pension liability of the same staff was £243,000, as compared with the company's contribution to the pension fund of £13,000.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a parcel, No. 4, posted at Middlesbrough General Post Office on 12th January, 1920, addressed to the Bureau of Standards, Washington, had still not been delivered, nor had any compensation been paid, neither had any satisfactory reply been received by the senders from the secretary of the General Post Office, notwithstanding that an extra sum had been charged by the Post Office above that for the official service, which was presumably for protection beyond that which the latter afforded, and that apparently nothing had been done for this?

As I explained to the hon. Member last July, the parcel to which he refers was duly forwarded to New York; and there has been no delay on the part of the British Post Office in dealing with the claim. Repeated applications have been made to the American Express Company in the matter; and last month the Vice-Director General of the company in Paris stated that he was pressing the New York Office to give immediate attention to it. I hope, therefore, that the disposal of the parcel may soon be definitely ascertained.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, although there has been a delay of over a year, no undue delay has taken place, and, seeing that an extra sum was charged for insuring this parcel, why is not some return made for this extra sum?

No delay was caused by the Post Office. It was caused by the American Express Company.

Is it not the case that valuable parcels are frequently lost by the American Post Office?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Drapers' Chamber of Trade approved and adopted a schedule of minimum rates of wages for shop assistants on 20th April, 1920; whether according to this schedule the appropriate rates for Tylors-town are female learners 12s. per week at 15 years, rising with six monthly increases of 2s. per week to 22s. at 17 years; juniors (female) 30s. at 18 years, rising by annual increments of 4s. to 38s. at 20 years, then by annual increments of 2s. to 54s. at 28 years; whether he is aware that rates in accordance with this schedule are being paid by good employers in the district, and are exceeded by the Co-operative Society; and whether he will re-examine the figures paid by his sub-postmasters?

I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he promised an inquiry into this last November and that no reply has been given?

I will inquire into that.

asked the Postmaster-General how much Press telegrams now cost the country over and above the rate paid for them by the newspapers; and whether in the interests of economy he intends to alter the present subsidy system?

No recent investigation has been made as to the cost of Press, as distinct from ordinary, telegrams, but the loss is no doubt considerable. The rates for Press telegrams were increased on 1st January, 1920, and I do not contemplate a further increase at the present moment. The rates for private wires leased to the Press and to news agencies are, however, about to be raised.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Board of Education have any, and, if so, what power of compelling local education authorities to pay the teachers in their locality according to any particular scale laid down by the Burnham Committee; and what discretion, if any, the local education authorities have in the matter?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Board's Regulations prescribe the payment of minimum rates of salary to certificated and uncertificated teachers in public elementary schools, but do not otherwise require the adoption of any particular scale or scales of salary by local education authorities. The Burnham Commitee is essentially a representative Committee, of which half the members were appointed by the associations of local education authorities, to which all local education authorities belong, and it was constituted in order to secure the orderly and progressive solution of the salary problem by agreement.

In cases where the scale laid down by the Board differs from that of the Burnham Committee, is the local authority at liberty to select which it chooses?

The Burnham Committee hopes to distribute the scale according to areas. That distribution has not yet been effected. The local authority will then have to consider whether it will adopt the suggestion of the Burnham Committee.

If it does not accept that suggestion can it go to the Board of Education and get the scales fixed, or how are they fixed?

Salaries are matters of agreement between the local education authorities and the teachers employed by those authorities. The Burnham Committee was instituted in order to find some orderly method of settling salary problems throughout the country and in order to prevent one authority bidding against another for teachers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, where a local authority and its teachers have agreed upon a scale under the original Burnham Report, the Board will confirm the agreement reached?

If the hon. Member will refer to my correspondence with Lord Burnham, he will see exactly how the matter stands. It is rather a complicated question to explain to the House, because it depends very much as to when and under what circumstances the local education authority came to the agreement.

With regard to that correspondence, does the right hon. Gentleman, seek to vary the original finding of the Burnham Report in the correspondence?

No, not the original Burnham Report.

asked the Prime Minister whether any policy has yet been decided on by the Cabinet with reference to the building of capital ships, in view of the fact that the United States are now building or are about to build 700,000 tons of capital ships, and that Japan is building or is about to build nearly 300,000 tons of capital ships; whether any decision has been come to to postpone the question of laying down capital ships until after the Imperial Conference; whether there are very few slips upon which first-class capital ships can be built in this country, and that, if the order for large ships is delayed, it will mean that it will be difficult to obtain the necessary armour, guns, etc., owing to the disbandment of their expert staffs and dismantling of their factories by the armament firms; and whether he can say whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the general policy as regards naval strength at an early date?

The question of the building of capital ships is still under consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence, who have before their minds all the considerations referred to in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend. No decision has yet been reached. The House will have the opportunity of discussing the subject in connection with the Naval Estimates.

Will any provision be made for the construction of capital ships in the Navy Estimates about to be submitted?

I said that no decision had yet been taken. When the Estimates are submitted the House will see what is the decision of the Government.

When is it expected that the Committee will form their conclusion?

I think we should have had the matter settled now but for the Conference. We must come to a decision before the Estimates are introduced and the end of the financial year.

Is the Government considering approaching the Powers mentioned on the question, with regard to a conference on the whole question of shipbuilding?

I think it would be undesirable to give any expression of opinion about that. At all events, it would be premature until a new American Government has taken office.

Are we doing nothing?

Are the figures which are quoted, 700,000 and 300,000, respectively, accepted as correct by the Admiralty or by whomsoever is supposed to check them?

As my answer did not go into details I did not check the figures. I cannot say off-hand.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are figures given by a first-class American naval expert and that they were published in one of the leading newspapers?

I was not aware of that. In any case I cannot accept responsibility for them without examination.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether naval officers and men stationed in India and China, who have received some compensation in exchange owing to the price of silver being exceptionally high last year, are now called upon to pay Income Tax on the compensations so received in addition to Income Tax charged in the usual way upon their ordinary pay; whether such extra Income Tax has been made retrospective as from 1st April, 1920; and whether, as this affects only a small number of people of strictly limited means who have in many cases, owing to the high cost of living on their respective stations, spent all their income, and have no means of meeting the retrospective surcharge now levied upon them, he can see his way to remit it, in view of the fact that it is very burdensome to the officers and men affected, that it has taken them entirely by surprise, and that it produces very little to the Exchequer?

Amounts received on account of exchange compensation are liable to Income Tax equally with any other form of war bonus, and the tax thereon is being collected in the usual course for the current year of assessment ending on the 5th April next. The tax chargeable under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, on payments of this character, is paid by all officers of the Crown, including the naval officers and men to whom my hon. Friend refers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the cultivation sub-committee of the Wilts Argicultural Committee view with alarm the Order which has recently been served on certain War Department tenants to sow back to grass several thousand acres of valuable corn-growing land which were broken up during the War in the districts around Amesbury: whether he is aware that, if this Order is proceeded with, it will cause grave unemployment in the district; and whether, in the interest of national food production, he will at once take steps to have this Order reconsidered?

I have been asked to reply. Representations of the nature referred to in the question have been received from the Wilts Agricultural Committee, and the Ministry is in communication with the War Office on the subject. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given by the Secretary of State for War on the 17th instant to a question on the subject by the hon. and gallant Member for the Westbury Division.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the widespread concern at the Government failure to carry out the conventions of the Washington Labour Conference; and if he can give a day for the consideration of the question in all its bearings?

I am not aware of any failure on the part of the Government to carry out the obligations assumed by them with respect to the Washington draft conventions under the Labour Clauses of the Peace Treaty, but I understand that my right hon. Friend differs from the Government as to the exact meaning of these obligations. It is not possible before the end of the financial year to find time for such a discussion as my right hon. Friend suggests, but if he will put a question to me after Easter I shall be glad to consider it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is proposed to reappoint the Select Committee on National Expenditure; and, if so, whether it will be appointed at an early date in order that it may consider and report upon some of the Estimates for the coming year?

It is proposed to ask the House to reappoint the Select Committee; on National Expenditure.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the attention of the Government has been called to the terms of the note addressed by M Thitcherin, on behalf of the Soviet authorities, to the Angora Government with respect to its participation in the London Conference; if, in this note, it was stated that, as regards anti-British activity, it was arranged tht this should only be prohibited in essentilly British territory; if this was the basis of the negotiations with M. Krassin; and whether, under this arrangement, the Moscow Government would be free to carry on its propaganda work in Anatolia, Caucasia, Persia, Afghanistan, and any other country of which Great Britain is not in actual possession?

His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the note in question beyond the information concerning it printed in the public Press.

May we assume that there is no truth in the statement referred to in the last part of this question?