asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether it is now intended to make public the reasons and causes of the initial failure of Force B in 1914; whether, with His Majesty's Ship "Fox," the expedition forfeited the advantages of surprise by having been forced to stand off the coast of Tanga for 24 hours on account of the existence of some treaty with the German authorities; and whether the subsequent failure of the attack was due to the German commander taking every advantage of this 24 hours' respite;

(2) whether any steps have been taken to compile an official history of the operations in East Africa from 1914; and, if so, what information has been placed at the disposal of the individual selected for that work;

(3) whether all the despatches concerning the military operations conducted in East Africa in 1914 and 1915 by Indian Expeditionary Forces B and C have been published; what inquiries, and for what causes, were instituted into the conduct of the operations, and on what dates; whether the Colonial Office, the War Office, and the India Office, were all concerned in their operations; and, if so, which inquiries were instituted by which Department?

I have been asked to answer these questions. Certain reports and despatches dealing with the operations in East Africa during 1914 and the early part of 1915 were received and it was decided at the time that they were not suitable for publication. In view of the subsequent scope of the campaign, which has been described fully in the despatches of General Smuts and his successors, there appears to be no reason to revise this decision. No arrangements have yet been made for compiling an official history of the campaign. All the reports by commanders and any other official information will be made available for such a work. No formal inquiry was instituted by any Department into the conduct of the earlier operations referred to.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact of a private and secret treaty having been made by the British and German authorities on the spot enabled the campaign to be continued all that time; and does he not think it advisable that some information should be given to the public as to why that should have prejudiced the whole planning of the campaign?

I cannot accept the statement of fact as presented by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Is it not a fact that the expedition attempted to land and had to lie off the coast and during the 24 hours the Germans made every preparation, the result being that when the troops did land they suffered extremely heavy casualties?

There were very heavy casualties, of course, but it does not follow that cause and effect are properly stated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

May the House be informed what was the cause?

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise the great feeling there is amongst the officers and men concerned in that operation and would it not be advisable to take some steps in the matter?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any action is contemplated in India to legalise trade unions and to give them the rights possessed by trade unions in this country?

The Government of India have accepted a resolution, passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 1st March, recommending the introduction as soon as practicable of legislation regarding the registration and protection of trade unions. They propose to introduce a Bill after consulting Local Governments.

Can we be assured that the Bill will prevent trade union executives being sued for damages caused by strikes?

I cannot give any further information than that which I have received by telegraph. As soon as I know what the contents of the Bill are I will let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.

Would it not be possible to communicate with the Government of India urging that it should be quite clear that trade union leaders should not any longer be liable for actions such as that brought against Mr. Wadia?

Would the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to communicate with the Government of India in an exactly contrary sense?

Why not do the same here and face the music?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the college strike in Burma still continues; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to bring about more favourable conditions for co-operation in that country?

The latest information that I have is that this strike or boycott is continuing on a somewhat extensive scale. The local Government has publicly announced its readiness to convene a conference, on which there shall be substantial unofficial representation, to examine the system of education in Anglo-Vernacular schools and to submit recommendations for improving it. I trust that reasonable counsels will prevail at no distant date.

Will this Commission have any power to suggest modifications in the University of Rangoon Act?

That I do not now.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the feeling in Burma relative to the occupation by the military of part of the grounds of the Shwe Dagon pagoda and the consequent blocking of one of the entrances to the pagoda; and whether, in view of this feeling, he will consider the retrocession of this land to its original religious use?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth on 3rd November, of which I will send him a copy. A committee is assembling at Rangoon to work out details for the evacuation of the arsenal from the precincts of the pagoda, and its location elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the comparatively small difference in pay between senior captains and majors, and the great expenses entailed on married officers in India, he will communicate with the Government of India with a view to a reconsideration of the question of the extension of Form E to officers above the rank of captain when travelling by railway in India?

I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 3rd March.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take any steps in this matter considering the great hardship this is considered in India?

No, I am afraid I cannot reconsider this question. It has been carefully considered by my Council and myself, and I think the decision we have come to is the right one.

When was it considered?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made many representations to me and has asked very many questions, and each time he has asked a question I have given very careful consideration to it.

I have no recollection of any questions myself. How many years ago was it considered?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the native movement to refuse payment of legal debts to British firms except at the rate of 10 rupees to the £ sterling possesses a purely commercial character, or whether also it is due in part to political reasons?

The loss occasioned by the fall in exchange (amounting in some cases to 40 per cent.) coupled with persistently low rupee prices for cotton piece goods affords strong inducement to find excuses for evasion of contract. An unfunded contention has been set up that Government had given an undertaking to stabilise the rupee at 2s. and some defaulters are sheltering behind this plea. During the general discussion on the Budget, which took place recently in the Indian Legislative Assembly, it was contended by representatives of Indian commercial interests that non-fulfilment of contracts was not due to any lack of morality, but purely to actual inability to pay, some speakers indeed alleging that unless some settlement were arrived at wholesale bankruptcy would follow. I understand, however, that the banks are doing their best to enable liquidation of the position to be carried through without undue embarrassment, and I trust that a course of repudiation which must be injurious to India's commercial credit throughout the world will not be persisted in.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian railways will show a deficit which it is proposed to meet by raising the surcharge upon inland steamer traffic as well as upon railway traffic; and whether he is aware that the effect of this will be further to subsidise the railways, while leaving steamer companies, which have no subsidy, unable to readjust their freight rates? so as to make receipts balance expenses?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the effect of meeting the prospective deficit on railways out of public revenue acts with unfairness towards the inland steamer companies by enabling the railways, who already are subsidised by Government, to maintain artificially low rates which prevent the steamer companies, who receive no assistance from public funds, from adjusting their rates to an economic level; and whether this attitude towards private enterprise in competition with State subsidised concerns has the approval of his department?

The surcharge which has been imposed upon Indian railways was not for the purpose of meeting a railway deficit but as a tax for the purpose of raising additional revenue. The whole of the surcharge goes to the State and it is imposed also on steamer traffic. But railway rates are about to be reconsidered forthwith and on this reconsideration the position of steamship companies will then be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, since the Armistice, the attention of the Government of India has been drawn to the need of appointing a Commission to arrange a fiscal policy for India which should have regard to the mutual interests of India and the other portions of the British Empire; and, if so, if he will say when the representations were made and the reason the Commission was not formed before any change was made in import duties which raise controversial issues?

The proposal to appoint a Commission to examine the question of the future fiscal policy of India was made in April, 1920, by a Committee of the Legislative Council which had been appointed under a Resolution of the Council to report, among other things, "as to the best method of considering the future fiscal policy of India." The Government of India considered that such a commission would most appropriately be appointed after the inauguration of the constitutional changes and with the approval of the new Legislature, but while the question of appointing this Commission was still under consideration, the Government of India found themselves faced with a large deficit in their accounts, and decided that an all-round increase in import duties was necessary to produce the required addition to their revenues.

asked the Secretary of State for India what revenue was obtained in the latest year for which returns are available from the 3½ per cent. Excise Duty on Indian cotton manufactures, also the revenue from the 7½ Import Duty on cotton manufactures, showing the amount of revenue, respectively, received from British cottons, Japanese cottons, and American cottons; and whether he can state the amount of revenue expected from the increase to 11 per cent. of the Import Duties on cotton goods?

The latest year for which returns are available is 1919–20. In that year the Excise Duty produced 155 lakhs and the Import Duty 409 lakhs, of which about 353 lakhs was obtained from goods imported from the United Kingdom, 39 lakhs from Japanese and 3¾ lakhs from American goods. The increase of revenue expected by the Government of India from the higher duty next year is 120 lakhs.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the position at Nankana; and whether the dispute is one regarding the management of the Nankana shrine or has any political significance?

I can add little to the communiqués published on the 25th February and the 8th March. The dispute arose over the management of the shrine, and is a religious dispute inside the Sikh community, but, as is natural, the Sikhs are dangerously excited by the killing of so many of their faith. The Punjab Government is using every endeavour to bring the offenders to justice.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament will have any duties other than considering legislation proposed in either House affecting the Indian Empire, and, if so, what?

It is for the Committee itself to interpret its terms of reference, which are very wide. I certainly hope that it will not confine itself to considering legislation.

Are we to understand that any questions like these fiscal questions are to be referred to this Committee?

I understand that the Committee has received from both Houses of Parliament the terms of reference to advise the Houses of Parliament on Indian affairs. I would rather leave it to the Committee as to how it should discharge its responsibilities.

Will it not be necessary for the business of the Committee that questions should be referred to it by the India Office if they are to give such advice as is desired? Would it not be very difficult for the Committee to select points?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will discuss that with his colleagues on his Committee.

Will the. House be given information as to the questions which are to be referred to this Committee?

I think so.

asked the Secretary of State for India what has been the result of his communication with the Government of India with regard to the cheapening of the cost of passages for Government officials to and from India; and, if nothing has been done, will he consider the question of the grant of free passages at stated intervals to all civil and military officers serving under the Government of India as part of their conditions of service?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer on the same subject given on the 2nd instant. I am still awaiting a final reply from the Government of India.

When is the reply expected?

As far as my recollection serves me, I received a telegram on the 26th February to say that their recommendations would reach me at a very early date. I have no further information.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships are at present maintained in full commission by Great Britain, France, the United States of North America, and Japan; and how many battle cruisers by Great Britain, the United States of North America, and Japan?

The figures are as follow:

b. Includes 3 temporarily in reduced commission owing to shortage of personnel.

c. One battleship attached to Gunnery School not included.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the number of officers and men voted for the Royal Navy, the United States Navy, and the Imperial Japanese Navy for 1914 and 1921–22?

The figures are as follow:

1921/1922.

Great Britain. —Numbers voted, 123,700. This is a maximum figure, to be reduced to 121,700 as soon as practicable. The figure 121,700 includes 3,250 coastguard, 5,100 boys, and 624 cadets, none of whom are available for manning.

United States. —The numbers to be voted have not yet been finally approved, but will probably be the same as last year, namely, 150,800, made up of 120,000 enlisted men, 9,800 officers, 1,000 marine officers, and 20,000 marines (rank and file), all available for manning.

Japan. —The number borne on 19th January, 1921, was 76,600, made up of approximately 7,000 officers and 69,600 men, all available for manning.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what actions or operations took place during the late War in which the Royal Navy took part about which no official information has been available to the public either in the form of despatches or in the form of a narrative; and in what way is it proposed to deal with such actions?

A list of the actions and operations during the late War in which the Royal Navy took part could be compiled from the records in the Admiralty, but as the Navy was continually operating the labour of constructing such a list would be prohibitive. All the documents will in due course be dealt with by Sir Julian Corbett, who will use them in constructing his "History of Naval Operations."

Were there any actions in which capital ships were engaged where the despatches have not been published?

All the documents in our possession will be handed to Sir Julian Corbett.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at as yet with regard to whether clasps or medals are to be awarded for naval actions during the late War; and, if so, for what actions clasps or medals are to be awarded?

A Fleet Order, notifying the conditions under which Naval clasps to the British War Medal are to be awarded, was issued to the Fleet in July last and an announcement appeared in the Press at the same time. I am sending my Noble and gallant Friend a copy of the Fleet Order.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when those commissioned warrant officers who began a series of examinations for promotion to lieutenant in October, 1919, will be so promoted; if he is aware that a number of these gentlemen have passed all the requisite examinations, and, as he has promised that the delay shall not in any way prejudice any of these officers, if he can now promote them?

A few commissioned officers from warrant rank have passed the examinations for special promotion to the rank of lieutenant. The passing of these examinations renders an officer eligible to be considered for promotion by selection, and it is intended to make the first promotions as soon as all who were eligible to become candidates when the scheme was announced have had a reasonable opportunity of passing. The question when it will be equitable to make the first promotions, having regard to the interests of all concerned, is now under consideration.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when it will be settled?

It is at present under consideration. I should think that a very short time will settle the matter.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any assistance towards the payment of the holiday half-fares of those Greenwich Hospital schoolboys who are the sons of widows can be granted; and if, in the event of these boys being unable to go home for their holidays, they must remain at the public expense in London?

I regret there are no Naval or Greenwich Hospital funds available for the payment of the railway fares of boys of the Royal Hospital School going home for the holidays. If desired, boys are allowed to remain in the school, or are otherwise provided for.

Is it at their own expense or of their parents, or at the expense of the State?

I understand they are sent to summer camps at the expense of the hospital authorities.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider meeting the expenses of the sons of widows, especially those who have only small pensions?

I will consider the matter, but I am afraid that my answer now is the most favourable that I can give.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the resentment among dockyard workers caused by the Government order to work short time without consultation with the Admiralty Industrial Council; that this council was established for the purpose of dealing with questions affecting alteration in workshop conditions, upon the lines of the Whitley councils; and that the action of the Government, in ignoring the council, has resulted in its abolition by the workmen; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The scheme of short time in the dockyards was applied to Admiralty industrial establishments in consequence of the decision of the Government, with a view to alleviating unemployment, in which direction it has had successful results. The Admiralty Industrial Council was specially consulted before any directions were issued to the local officers for the introduction of short time, and the decision of the Government was discussed also on other Government Industrial Councils. It is true that the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council objected that the Government had decided upon the policy of working short time prior to the meeting, and that, not-withstanding endeavours to accommodate them in regard to the arrangement for carrying that policy into effect, the trade union members withdrew and decided to recommend to the executives of their unions which had appointed them that the trade union representatives should be withdrawn from the Government Industrial Councils. Similar action was taken by the trade union representatives on other Government Industrial Councils, but the activities of the councils are being resumed as a result of discussions between the unions and the official sides of the councils on behalf of the Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the failure of the Government to recognise the Industrial Council and consult them before taking action has destroyed the faith of the workmen in the efficacy of those councils, and can he give an assurance that if the workmen decide to re-establish the council they will be consulted on all matters affecting working conditions in the future?

So far as we at the Admiralty are concerned we did everything possible in order to maintain the best relations between the two, and I hope that in future the same cordial relations will be established.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Lord Jellicoe in his Report asked for a Far-Eastern fleet of the latest type, consisting of 8 battleships, 8 battle cruisers, 10 light cruisers, 40 destroyers, and 36 submarines, to be provided by 1924, together with all necessary auxiliaries; whether any representations from India and the Dominions have been officially sent in concerning this Report; and whether the subject will be fully discussed at the June conference?

With regard to the first part of the question the reply is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, a few interim representations have been received, but the Dominions are deferring their considered views until the whole question of Empire Naval policy and co-operation is discussed, as is intended at the June Conference.

asked the Minister of Labour whether there are unemployed boot and shoe machinists in Leicester drawing unemployment pay; if so, if he will explain why, when a firm of wholesale boot and shoe manufacturers telephoned to the Leicester Employment Exchange on the 23rd February for machinists, they did not receive a single application to fill the vacancies up to 7th March, with the result that the manufacturer had to send to Northampton to have his work machined; and whether he will take steps to ensure that unemployment pay shall not be made when employment is available?

At the present time there are about 100 boot machinists registered as totally unemployed at the Leicester Employment Exchange, while over 800 are registered as partially employed. No order for machinists can be traced at that Exchange on the 23rd February, nor on any day between the 17th February and the 28th February. Vacancies for machinists were notified by various firms on the 16th, 17th, and 28th February, and in all these cases suitable applicants were submitted by the Exchange and engaged by the employers without delay. If my hon. and gallant Friend will supply me with the name of the firm to whom he refers, I will cause further inquiry to be made.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has initiated, or will initiate, schemes to provide work for unemployed women to run concurrently with the various schemes already initiated by him for giving work to unemployed men?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my Noble and gallant Friend the Member for South Battersea on 2nd March, of which I am sending him a copy. To that reply I may perhaps add that I am in communication with the Central Committee for Women's Employment and Training upon the whole question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen or consulted the women of the Central Unemployment Committee?

No.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see them?

I will see them with the greatest pleasure.

Have any schemes yet been initiated for unemployed women?

Only in the way of training so far. We have trained a certain number of War widows and others who were engaged in munition work—roughly about 9,000. Beyond that much has not been done except the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act if they are unemployed and eligible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the schemes of work for women are so much behind hand, compared with the schemes of work for men?

I do not understand the question. I do not know to what schemes the hon. Member is referring.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the schemes for women are not yet in operation?

The Committee is only commissioned to find work for men and preferentially ex-service men. It is not easy to find work for women, not so easy as the new work which has been made on the arterial roads and so on, which men can do.

Was there any scheme for domestic economy training?

There has been, but that has been stopped. I am in communication with the Central Committee for Women's Employment on the whole question. As my Noble Friend is interested in the matter perhaps he will put down a question for this day week, and I may be able to give an answer.

In consequence of so much talk about finding employment for women as servants, why were the grants stopped which were made for teaching women domestic service?

Do they not seem to think that they can only take positions as chefs and not engage in ordinary domestic work?

Clean your own boots.

had given notice of the following question: To ask the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the unemployed donation paid to ex-service men in Manchester has been reduced from 15s. weekly to 7s.; whether it is alleged that no reason has been given for this reduction; whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction prevails among the ex-service men in consequence; and if he can state the reasons for the reduction?

This question as printed states that unemployed donation has been reduced from 15s. weekly to 7s. It should be that unemployment donation has been reduced from 15 weeks to seven weeks. If that alteration makes any material difference in the answer to the question I will put down the question again.

It does. I do not understand how it could have happened that the 15 weeks was reduced to seven weeks. It may be that some local distress fund or some local trade union unemployment fund has not given as much as before. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down again.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the widespread belief that large numbers of persons, male and female, in this country throw up work in the belief that it pays them as well to accept unemployment allowance, some of them making this an excuse for idleness, he will appoint a Committee of this House to inquire into the matter and to advise upon the best means of putting a stop to practices demoralising to the people and burdensome to the taxpayer?

Any person who voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause is disqualified for receiving either unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation. Every applicant for benefit or donation is required to give the name of his or her last employer, and the reason why employment was lost is verified by the employment exchange by inquiry of that employer. There is power under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to make it compulsory on the employer to answer such inquiries, but, so far, I have not thought it necessary to exercise this power, as I am glad to say that employers reply voluntarily in the great majority of cases. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the directions recently issued to local employment committees, together with covering letter to the chairman, calling attention to the need for strictly enforcing the conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit, including that referred to above.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Charles Mann, 57, Little Brown Street, Bridgeton, Glasgow, who worked as a riveter in the shipyard owned by John Brown and Company, Limited, Clydebank, and was dismissed two months ago, has been refused his out-of-work benefit on the ground that his dismissal was due to the joiners' strike; whether this refusal is a violation of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether he is prepared to issue instructions that this and other cases of metal workers refused on similar grounds shall have paid to them the out-of-work benefit for which they have paid?

The general position in the case of claims to Out-of-Work Donation is similar to that in the case of Unemployment Benefit, and I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the 23rd February. I am informed that the case of Charles Mann was heard by the Glasgow Court of Referees, who recommended that donation should be disallowed on the ground that he lost his employment owing to a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute. I have no power to review this recommendation, but I may point out that any association to which the workman belongs, has the right, if dissatisfied with the recommendation, to appeal against it to the umpire.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that considerable hardship ataches in the case of men who have been paying for benefits which they expected to receive, who are themselves engaged in an industry which is an entirely different trade from that which is involved in the dispute, and that their particular work from which they have been dismissed is not in any way directly affecting the joinery trade which is in dispute, and consequently is not this really an evasion of the Act which, as I have shown in a previous question, distinctly states that places which are considered to be separate establishments for separate trades shall be, when within a shipyard, considered to be separate trades on separate premises?

The Board of Referees have given their decision. They are not likely to be parties to an evasion of the Act, and I do not think I am. What may hon. Friend is really raising is a very old question of the hardship involved on men in consequence of a dispute for which they are not directly responsible. What I have offered again and again is this. If representative bodies of workmen and employers can find some formula which I find is workable I will see that it is put into operation.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that large numbers of men who are not directly connected with the joiners are being dismissed and are refused their unemployment benefit on the ground that their unemployment is due to a trade dispute; whether he can state what the position of those men will be if they find employment in another trade and are later dismissed because of slack trade; whether they will then be eligible for unemployment benefit; and how many days will they have to be employed before they become eligible?

As stated in the reply to the hon. Member's question on the 23rd February, these cases have been decided in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, which provides that an applicant is disqualified for benefit if his unemployment is caused by a stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed. Under the terms of the Section the disqualification lasts as long as the stoppage of work continues, unless the workman has, during the stoppage of work, become bonâ fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows or has become regularly engaged in some other occupation. Generally speaking, a claimant who has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work, due to a trade dispute, and has obtained other work in his own occupation, or has become regularly engaged in some other occupation, would be entitled to claim unemployment benefit if he were discharged from that subsequent employment owing to slack trade.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the reason why the labour exchanges have refused the employés out of work at Messrs. Kryn and Lahy, Metal Workers, Limited, Letchworth, their unemployment benefit; if he is aware that on 2nd March a letter was sent to the Secretary of the Iron, Steel; and Metal Dressers Trade Society, Darlington, from the Secretary of the Engineering and National Employers' Federation, stating that the present position of the workers of the company in question is not looked upon as a dispute; and if he will take action in the matter?

The claims of the employés in question were referred to the Insurance Officer for determination in accordance with Section 11 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. On the information available the Insurance Officer decided that these claimants to benefit had lost their employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. Appeals to the Court of Referees were lodged in a number of test cases, and in each case heard, the Court agreed with the Insurance Officer. I understand that in certain cases an appeal has been made to the Umpire with whom the final decision rests, and that these cases are to be heard this week.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of investigators employed in the Trade Board Department of the Ministry of Labour on 31st January, 1921, and the number to whom notice of dismissal has been given; and the reasons for their dismissal?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he stated in a letter, dated 8th October, 1919, addressed to the National Federation of Women Workers, that he had under consideration the application of the Trade Boards Acts to the catering trade; whether, on 23rd January, 1920, in a letter to the same organisation, he stated that he had caused inquiries to be made in the trade and that it was hoped that a decision as to its correct demarcation and definition for the purposes of the Acts would be reached at an early date; whether, on the 10th March, 1920, the President of the Board of Trade stated that he proposed to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the catering trade; whether, in June and August, 1920, a draft Order was circulated applying the Acts to this industry; and what action he now proposes to take with regard to the establishment of a trade board?