asked the Secretary of State for India whether the legislative council of Bengal has reconsidered or will reconsider its decision not to grant the funds required for a publicity department; and whether this subject can again be brought before the council in view of the crying need, to which the Governor has publicly testified, of the propagation of truth as regards matters of current controversy in India?

According to my information, the Council has not reconsidered its decision. And I read the Governor's speech, to which my hon. Friend refers, as indicating that he does not intend to have the matter brought before the council again until it is likely that the council has changed its opinion. He relies meanwhile on private efforts.

Is it not a fact that the Legislative Council for Bengal itself is the best publicity organieation going?

I do not know. I attach the greatest possible importance to the publication as widely as possible in India of the true facts.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether at the bonfire of imported cloth recently organised by a Mr. Gandhi, a meeting took place at which this Mr. Gandhi and the two Ali brothers both spoke; whether this was in accord with the undertaking given to the Viceroy; and what was the nature of the speeches?

In the accounts which I have received of the occurrence, there is po mention of any speeches having been made.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that there were in India and Aden, in 1914, 39 Indian cavalry regiments and 132 battalions of Indian infantry, he will now state what was the number of units of the Indian Army in India on the 23rd March, when he assured the House that no further reductions would be made in the Indian Army pending the result of the inquiry by the Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence; and what is the number of units, cavalry and infantry, respectively, of the Indian Army in India at the present time which are not under orders for disbandment?

I regret that, owing to the constant fluctuation in the number of Indian units in India, due to the return of units from overseas and to disbandments in progress of units raised for the War, I cannot give the information asked for without a reference to India.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the total expenditure of Japan on national defence is £108,000,000 and of India only £41,000,000, while the rate of expenditure on this account per head of the population works out at 21 rupees in Japan as compared with only 2½ rupees in India, he will now state what is the ratio of defence expenditure in India to the total gross revenues of India, including the receipts both of the Government of India and of all the different presidencies and provinces?

The figures have, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 28th June last, been asked for from India. They have not yet been received.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed in the papers that it is stated that the percentage of expenditure in India is 31 per cent., and, considering that Japan is spending 51 per cent, on national defence, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Government of India how very small their insurance for national defence is?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, will he see that India does not copy Japan in the matter of armaments?

May I have an answer to my question?

It is an argumentative question, giving the hon. and gallant Member's opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for India what has been the result of the discussion at the Imperial Conference of the question of Empire naval policy and co-operation so far as India is concerned; and what steps will now be taken to give effect to Admiral Jellicoe's recommendations regarding the formation of an India Navy out of the present Royal Indian Marine?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the summary of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference which has been published in the Press, and to which I can add nothing. As regards the second part of the question, the position remains as I described it in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question of llth April

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the charge of fraud on a large scale, in connection with the Munitions Department, brought against two native merchants at the chief presidency magistrate's court, Calcutta, was withdrawn last week by the advocate-general, Bengal, though a large sum of public money had been spent in preparing the case; whether the advocate-general stated that in the opinion of the Indian Government the accused were guilty, but that if the prosecution proceeded widespread commercial and industrial interests would be seriously affected by reason of the association of the two accused with various business concerns, many of a Swadeshi boycott character; and will he state why the Indian Government have allowed political considerations to defeat the administration of justice?

The facts appear to be as stated in the first three parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I am circulating a paraphrase of the telegraphic reports I have now received from the Government of India, from which it will be seen that Sir Thomas Holland, the member of the Viceroy's Executive Council in charge of munitions, authorised the withdrawal of the case on his own responsibility after consultation with some of his colleagues, but not with the Viceroy. As has been stated in the Press, the decision was not known to the Viceroy until the withdrawal had actually taken place. The matter as reported is so serious that I am at once asking the Viceroy to communicate to Sir Thomas Holland certain questions in order to supplement the information I have received. As soon as I am in possession of the replies, they will be brought before His Majesty's Government, who will consider what action, if any, may be necessary. I trust the House will not desire to press the matter further until full information has been obtained.

May we assume that the action has not the approval, as at present advised, of His Majesty's Government?

The Viceroy has already expressed his disapproval of the action taken.

In the case of a European, who is also implicated in these speculations, will the charge against him be also withdrawn?

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that two wrongs do not make a right. But I would urge that no further questions be asked at this juncture. Sir Thomas Holland is a member of the Government of India, and has earned the widest respect and confidence by his services up to the present time, and I want to be able to furnish the House of Commons with his own answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that, in the withdrawal of this case, there was no wish to rehabilitate the value of the shares in the Swadeshi undertakings involved?

Four persons were accused in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistracy, Calcutta, of conspiring to cheat the Government over the supply during wartime of wire rope of the value approximately of one lakh of rupees. Their names were: Karnani, a prominent banker; J. C. Banerji, a contractor; Waite, formerly Deputy-Controller of Munitions, Bengal Circle; and Stringer, a subordinate official.

As a result of the prosecution there were serious withdrawals of deposits in the Karnani Bank, which endangered its stability. Sir Thomas Holland received information at Calcutta that if the prosecution was continued the bank would fail and it would involve the ruin of more than 120 industrial concerns which Karnani financed. Before that there had already been some public agitation of which the implication was that the Government in prosecuting these persons designed to destroy the credit of a new industrial bank actively engaged in financing Indian industries. There was danger of a great intensification of this agitation so as to cause racial ill-feeling, if in consequence of the continuance of the case several industrial concerns had collapsed, as seemed to be certain to result. Besides this, although the Government's legal advisers considered the case for prosecution sound and the evidence trustworthy, they also pointed out that the accused would be committed for trial to the High Court, that the trial would not be finished for many months, and that it was doubtful whether a jury in a complicated case of this character would convict. It is certain that the defence would have made a point with the jury of the public benefactions made by Karnani during the War. Thus on the one hand a conviction would seriously affect one section of the public, on the other a long trial followed by failure to secure a conviction from the jury would have similar disastrous results, and would appear to justify the feeling of bitterness and intensify it, and give rise to attacks on the Government on the ground that public funds had been unnecessarily wasted in the prosecution. Sir Thomas Holland for these reasons thought it wisest to withdraw the prosecution. Before reaching the decision he had consulted the members of the Government already familiar with the facts. But not the Viceroy, who states that he would not have consented to the case being withdrawn upon the ground stated by the Advocate-General. In the Court the Advocate-General made a statement of the charges in order to establish the fact that the Government were justified in launching the prosecution. The only ground for withdrawal which he stated in Court was that a net-work of industrial and commercial interests would be endangered. The terms of the statement made by the Advocate-General were not known to the other members of the Government who had been consulted about the withdrawal until they appeared in the Press. ^* It should be explained that certain civil claims had been made for about three lakhs of rupees on account of the supply of

^* The telegrams do not give the precise terms of the instructions given to the Advocate-General by Sir Thomas Holland.

munitions by Karnani against the Government. Sir Thomas Holland had frequently been approached by many people influential in business and public life to withdraw the criminal case; but he had informed them that the Government would not consider such a withdrawal so long as these civil cases were threatened. Karnani subsequently withdrew these claims unconditionally. Sir Thomas Holland then took up the question of withdrawing the prosecution and decided as above stated. Of the accused, Waite is on bail in England, and is said to be dangerously ill. The charges against him stand good, but the subordinate, Stringer, has been discharged. The prosecution withdrawn has no connection with the charge against Blackburn and Michael of Spalding and Company, whose extradition from England was obtained last March, and who are now under trial in Calcutta, though Waite is accused in that case also.

Sir Thomas Holland accepts entire responsibility for the action taken. The Viceroy states in explanation of the failure to consult him that Sir Thomas Holland has been very gravely overworked having been in charge of Sir George Barnes' Portfolio in addition to his own since the latter left India, and that means were being sought to relieve the pressure on him before this occurred.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the export of coal from India without licence is still prohibited; and whether, in the interest of the Indian export trade and rupee valuation, this interference with trade will now be put an end to?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have received a telegram from the Government of India saying that there is as yet no improvement in the situation as regards the supply of coal available. They regret, therefore, that they are at present unable to modify the restrictions on the export of coal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the difficulty in regard to the coal is largely due to the absence of trucks for the haulage of the coal; and what steps are the Government taking to increase the supply of trucks so that the mines can compete with the demand?

One of the difficulties against which the Government of India has to contend is the imperfection of the transport system in India which they are doing their best to remedy; but it seems to me to be useless to suggest that coal can be exported when there is not a sufficient supply for the needs of India.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has decided as to the action to be taken upon the Report of the Committee appointed to examine the Press Act and other enactments of the like character?

I understand that the Government of India has come to a decision upon most of the recommendations, but I am not at present in a position to make any definite announcement in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for India what decision has been arrived at by the Government of India on the memorial sent to him by the Indian Civil Service Central Association; and whether he will publish a copy of the comprehensive Resolution on the subject promised by the Government of India?

I regret that the Government of India have not found it possible to issue the Resolution so soon as was hoped, but this will be done at the earliest possible moment, and its contents will be made available to the public here. My hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate the complexity of the issues involved.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has ben called to the statement of the Government of India, in their telegram of 19th November, 1920, that the immediate application of the 1919 Act to Burma was an experiment fraught with great risks, for the consequences of which they could not accept any responsibility: but, in the event of the Secretary of State having finally decided that the Act should be applied to Burma, they urged that this should not be done by way of notification, but that their views should be laid before Parliament, who should express its approval by special enactment; whether this document was submitted to the Cabinet before it was decided to proceed to apply the Act by notification, and without consulting Parliament, against this expressed opinion of the Government of India; and, if not, what was the reason?

The Government are, of course, aware of the statements quoted in the first part of the question, in consequence of "which it was decided to proceed by Bill. But I invite the hon. Member's attention to the telegram dated 19th March last (No. 14 in Command Paper 1194), in which both the Government of India and the Burma Government urged that the principles contained in the Bill should be accepted with the least possible further delay. The recommendation of the standing Joint Committee was to the same effect, and the notification will produce exactly the same results as would have been produced by a Bill. I would also refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on the 9th August.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government of India withdrew their former request to have their views brought before Parliament?

The question was brought before the Houses of Parliament by the introduction of the Bill. The situation has been substantially altered by the more recent expression of opinion of the Government of India, and by the discussions of the Joint Committee.

Why is the Bill on the Paper still? It is on the Paper to-day.

Did not the Government of India say that in any case they would like the views of the Houses of Parliament, and does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, because a Bill was introduced, an expression of their views was thereby obtained?

Is it not a fact that these matters of granting entirely different constitutions and Governments to the great Dominions of the British Empire ought of necessity to be brought before this House and properly discussed here, and not put through in this hole-and-corner way?

I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this House and the other House decided by Statute that the new Province might be made by notification, and that is in accordance with the Statute. This Measure was introduced to the notice of Parliament because of a difference of opinion between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India in Council. That difference of opinion has now been arranged, and it was thought by His Majesty's Government to be unnecessary to proceed with the Statute referred to which would duplicate the Statute on the Statute Book.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the mere notification of a Bill in this House really takes the opinion of the Houses of Parliament? Does he not realise that it is through the various stages of Measures that we get the opinion of the Houses of Parliament?

My hon. Friend seems to forget that the very introduction of the Bill and its reference to a Joint Committee led from various reasons to the disappearance of all controversy, and that an agreement has been reached by the parties concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for War what was the total cost of the ordnance store depot at Didcot, including the cost of the land compensation to farmers, expenditure on buildings, railways sidings, and roads; what are the numbers of the present establishment and the total annual cost; how many labourers are employed; what is the weekly wage bill; what accommodation for labourers has been built since 1919; whether other houses are projected; and how much of the material is stored in the open air?

The total cost of the Ordnance depot at Didcot, including the cost of the land, compensation, expenditure on buildings, railway sidings and roads, was £717,524. The present establishment numbers, 1,016, but it is being reduced; and the estimated total annual cost is £191,400. The number of labourers employed is 448. The wages bill for the week ending 5th August was £3,598. These figures include the whole of the personnel at the depot, namely, civilian and military. No accommodation for labourers has been built, but 8 huts were converted into quarters for civilian employés last year. It is proposed to build quarters for 8. officers, 22 other ranks of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, 8 civilians and 20 police. As regards the last part of the question, there are stored in the open some 15,000 tons of stores (including vehicles), which have been reported for disposal. There are also in the open a number of vehicles which are being retained for use in the service, as well as bridging material, telegraph poles, tent bottoms and poles, for which there is at present no covered accommodation. All of these stores which require protecting are covered with tarpaulins and receive constant attention to minimise the effects of exposure.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any more particulars in regard to the 568 officials employed other than labourers?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell the House why are thousands of barrows exposed—people travelling in the train see them—and they are deteriorating because they are not protected?

I cannot answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) with out notice as to the exact number of officials—

I should like to have it. Could it be sent to me?

Certainly, I will do that. With regard to the barrows, they are exposed because we have not sufficient covered storage for them.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that they have been there for nearly five years?

Well, some of them, as I have said in my answer, are retained for Army use, and, for the others, cover will be found as soon as it can be obtained. These others are war surplus for disposal, and I suppose they will be disposed of as soon as possible.

Does the weekly wage bill referred to in the main answer include the fares paid to the daily labourers who travel on a labour certificate?

I do not know. I shall have to make inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the agreement between the military authorities in charge of the water supply at Chiseldon Camp and the Highworth Rural District Council is still unsettled, with the result that delay and expense is being caused in respect to the Chiseldon housing scheme; and if he will give instructions that will expedite matters?

It is anticipated that the agreement between the military authorities in charge of the water supply at Chiseldon camp and the Highworth Rural District Council will be in the hands of the district council for signature during the course of the next few days.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in November last his predecessor informed me that an agreement had been reached in this matter?

:I was not aware of that, but it will be in the hands of the council within a few days.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many majors and captains surplus to establishment are now serving in. the infantry of the line; and whether any of these officers have expressed a wish to retire?

In only nine regiments of the line is there a surplus of majors and captains at regimental duty. The surplus in these regiments amounts to 23 officers, but, taking the infantry as a whole, there is a net deficiency of 126 majors and captains at duty with their regiments owing to a large number holding temporary extra-regimental appointments in Ireland and elsewhere. It is not possible to say whether any of the individual officers actually surplus to establishment have expressed a wish to retire.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many field officers, who were sent home owing to adverse reports on active service, are still serving; and what steps are being taken to retire them?

The war records of all Regular field officers have been carefully reviewed by a Special Committee at the War Office. In cases where the Army Council considered that the record was unsatisfactory the officer has been called upon to retire.

Is the House to understand that a number of these officers are being allowed to remain in the service; if so, is that fair to the others recommended for accelerated promotion?

It is not true to say that any officer remains in the service where the Army Council, having considered his record, accounts it unsatisfactory.

In view of the fact that such officers were unfit for ordinary service in the War, is it now considered that they are fit for service at home?

That would be a wrong deduction from my answer. My answer was that the Army Council bad considered these officers' records, and where they were considered unsatisfactory, the officer was asked to retire.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in reporting on an officer at the Senior Officers' School, Woking, his War record is taken into consideration; and whether a field officer badly reported upon at Woking is allowed to remain on in his regiment until attaining 50 years of age?

The Commandant of the Senior Officers' School, in reporting on an officer, is not in a position to take into consideration the war record of the officer. In making his reports the Commandant takes into consideration The reports are considered by the Selection Board together with the annual confidential reports and war records in deciding upon an officers' fitness for promotion to command a unit or retention in the service.

As regards the second part of the question, the action taken depends upon the nature of the report.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers or ex-soldiers are still in hospital suffering from disabilities due to the War?

I regret that information is not readily available as to the number of soldiers at present in hospital who are suffering from disabilities due to the War and to obtain the information, with any degree of accuracy, would necessitate the examination of each individual case in every military hospital at home and abroad. The number of such cases, however, must be very small, as under existing instructions soldiers are not retained in the Army after they have been absent from duty, on account of medical unfitness, for more than 12 months. As regards ex-soldiers, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for War what were the views of the local military authorities at Gibraltar as to the need for incurring the extra £1,594 a year for the new colonel commanding Royal Artillery there; and whether the appointment was made against their advice?

I have nothing to add to the answers on this subject which I gave the hon. and gallant Member on Tuesday last, and which the hon. and gallant Member has apparently misunderstood; there is no additional cost, on the contrary, there is a saving of nearly £2,000 by the arrangement made.

Is it not a fact that there is an additional cost of £1,500 over and above what was being incurred immediately before this officer came to be appointed?

I have told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the arrangements made have ensured a saving of something like £2,000.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not answer the second part of my question, whether the appointment was made against the advice of the local military authorities? I asked the same question last week, and I did not get an answer.

I answered that question last week.

Is it not a fact that these officers must be retained in peace time in order to be available for war?

Was this appointment made against the advice of the local military authorities?

All local advice was taken into consideration when the decision was given.

Was that advice against the appointment?

My hon. Friend must realise that it is quite impossible for me to quote the opinions of individual officers.

You ought to answer "Yes" or "No."

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his refusal to allow the plaque and scroll given to those who fell in the great War to be given to the relatives of those who fell subsequently, the Army Council will now take into consideration the question of granting, if not the same plaque and scroll, a new one, which can be given to the relatives of all ranks who give their lives for their country all over the world, whether in the United Kingdom or in India, Afghanistan, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, Africa, or elsewhere, actually fighting against the enemies of the country, whether internal or otherwise; and whether he is aware of the great consolation and solace the provision of these tangible marks of national appreciation are to the relatives of those who have fallen?

I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on this subject, on the llth instant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that reply he was only alluding to the question of the Great War plaque and scroll. The question is whether he will issue a new one for the relatives of those officers and men who fell in the service of their country after the Great War; and, in view of the tremendous sentimental interest and its great value from a patriotic and national point of view, will he really seriously consider this question?

I have not failed to realise that. I informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the last occasion what the practice was as regards commanding officers writing to relatives.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his answer he said that the relatives of all the officers and men who fell after the Great War would receive a letter from the commanding officer; and cannot the nation provide some national tangible certificate of the great services rendered by the officers and men who fell in the service of their country?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are being issued to officers' widows and the relatives of men who served in India during the War, and yet they are refusing them military pensions?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from Trinidad a memorial from a body, styled the West Indian Confederation Committee, urging that the Governors of the various West Indian powers be empowered to nominate representative delegates from among the legislatures and city councils for a conference in London to discuss the question of representative government; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

I have received a memorial from this committee, but as the regular procedure of forwarding it through the Acting Governor was not followed by them, I am unable to say what weight of public opinion in Trinidad may be behind the suggestion. In any case I could not usefully consider a far-reaching proposal of this nature unless it were adequately supported in the other communities affected. I am not satisfied at present that this is the case: but I am referring the memorial to the Governors concerned for their observations.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that there are seven questions on the Paper to-day relating to this one colony of Trinidad, and will he represent to the Colonial Secretary the extreme desirability of some enlightened person being sent by the British Government to the West Indies to look into all these matters, so that we may really be well informed?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on a former occasion, when this association represented that things were so very bad in Trinidad, inquiry showed that there was really very little behind it?

My hon. Friend who put the first supplementary question will recall that a similar suggestion was made to the Colonial Secretary some time ago. He said at that time that he would consider it, and I have no doubt that he will do so. As to the question put by my hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees) I think that was the case.

Would the Under-Secretary suggest that he himself should go to the West Indies during the Recess and then the Colonial Secretary might undertake to answer questions in the House next Session until he returns?

I am not sure that it would be within my province to make that suggestion officially and I might have my own views about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representative workmen's associations in Trinidad have made demands to the Governor for an eight-hour working day; and what steps are being taken to comply with this demand?

I have no information on this subject, but will ask the Acting Governor for a report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Commission was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the constabulary during the industrial unrest of 1919 in Trinidad; "whether this Commission has reported to the Governor of that Colony; whether this Report has been published; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have it published without delay?

Such a Commission was appointed and has reported. It is not possible to publish the report in extenso, because many of the witnesses gave their evidence on the understanding that their identity should not be disclosed; but the Officer Administering the Government is being authorised to publish the conclusions at which the Commissioners arrived, if he thinks it advisable to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Trinidad Shop Hours Ordinance Act, No. 45, 1920, provides for the regulation of the opening hours of shops and also of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors; whether the Governor in Executive Council has power to make closing orders under this Ordinance; in respect of which classes of shops have closing orders been issued under this Order, and what hours were fixed; and whether, in view of the fact that the clerks of provision and rum shops of the town of Port of Spain are employed from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on Saturdays from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., a closing order has been made, or is to be made, applying to these shops?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. No orders issued under the Ordinance have yet reached me, but I will enquire of the Acting Governor whether it is intended to make orders relating to the hours of opening of provision and rum shops in Port of Spain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British subjects have been deported from Trinidad during the years 1919 and 1920, respectively; whether these deportees have been declared undesirable by a court of law; and what is the legal procedure under which a British subject can be deported from Trinidad?

As far as I am aware the number of British subjects who have been deported from Trinidad during the period mentioned is three. The deportations were effected under the Order-in-Council of the 26th October, 1896, which empowers the Governor, acting in the interests of public order and security, to order any person to quit the Colony.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the terms of the Clauses on the recruitment of labour in the contract given to A. H. Cipriani, member of the Legislative Council of Trinidad, for the work of reclaiming the Caroni swamp; and whether the Habitual Idlers Ordinance is to be enforced so as to obtain labour for work on this scheme?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question, will he say whether it would not be a good thing to use the Habitual Idlers Ordinance to assist to reclaim this swamp, which, like the habitual idlers themselves, is a great danger to the whole community?

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that his point is met by my reply. No copy of the contract with Mr. Cipriani for the reclamation of the Caroni swamp has reached me, but I may say at once that there could be no question of enforcing the Habitual ldlers Ordinance for the purpose of obtaining labour for this, or any other work, and I am surprised that such a suggestion should have been made. It is improbable that any persons determined by the magistrates to be habitual idlers would be employed upon a contract work, but it is undoubtedly within the discretion of the Governor to employ these persons upon such work as he may consider appropriate to the circumstances of their cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will explain the method of making appointments to the Civil Services of Trinidad?

The higher offices of the Government service in Trinidad are usually filled by the promotion of officers already in the Colonial service, either in Trinidad or elsewhere. The lower offices, not requiring professional qualifications, are usually filled locally. Officers appointed from without the colony are either selected by the Secretary of State or engaged by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, according to the class of appointment.

Is it within the hon. Gentleman's knowledge that the members of the West Indian Federation Committee are as numerous as the number of questions which they have inspired to-day?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to state the result of his consultation with the British North Borneo Company on the subject of the number of contracted labourers in the territory of British North Borneo who, since the Ordinance No. 9 of 1916, have been sentenced to the penalty of whipping?

No, Sir; the matter was brought to the notice of the British North Borneo Company in an official letter of the 6th August, to which no reply has yet been received.

Will the reply be hastened, because this is a very serious allegation?

I do not think that there has been any delay. It is only a week ago that he wrote about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many emigrants approximately have left the United Kingdom for the Commonwealth of Australia during the present year; what special steps are now being taken by either His Majesty's Government or the Government of Australia to induce and enable emigration from Great Britain to the Commonwealth; what is the present state of the labour market as regards unemployment in Australia; and whether any considerable number of intending settlers in Australia have returned to this country during the present year?

I have been asked to reply. The emigration returns of the Board of Trade are only available for the first quarter of the current year and the figures for Australia and New Zealand are given together. During that period the total number of migrants of British nationality who proceeded from the United Kingdom to those Dominions was 11,111. At present, His Majesty's Government are granting free passages to ex-service settlers who are approved by the Commonwealth Government. The number of settlers who proceeded under that scheme, from the beginning of this year to the end of July, was 6,062. The Commonwealth Government are also granting assisted passages to certain classes of settlers from this country. As regards the present state of the labour market in Australia, whilst in one or two States there is unemployment in certain industries, there is an unlimited demand for men upon the land and for women in domestic service. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Which class of labourers are being assisted by the Commonwealth Government at the present time?

I cannot give a precise answer, but they are largely those nominated by relatives or friends who are already in Australia, and mainly of the class for whom employment is available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether immigration of Zionists into Palestine is at present stopped; how many Zionists have been imported into that country; and whether he has any information as to meetings of Zionists expressing discontent with their conditions in Palestine?

Immigration of Zionists and other Jews into Palestine, which was temporarily suspended as a result of the recent disturbances at Jaffa, has now been resumed and is proceeding under close supervision. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 8th of August. I have no information as to the last part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, subsequent to the publication of the compulsory labour ordinance of Kenya colony, the convention of associations decided to reduce, and have succeeded in reducing, the wages of the natives; and whether, if this is, as stated by him, due to an excess in the supply of labour over demand, the recently increased taxes upon the natives will now be reduced and the Ainsworth and other circulars, designed to stimulate the supply of labour, repealed.

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on the llth August. As regards the second part, I understand that owing to trade depression there is a temporary surplus of native labour in Kenya, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that trade depression increases the difficulty of reducing taxation; and I am not aware that any reduction in native taxation is proposed I am, in conjunction with the Governor of Kenya, giving careful consideration to the question of compulsory labour generally, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that at least half the inmates of county lunatic asylums are women, he will take steps to get the Lunacy Laws so amended as will enable county councils to co-opt women as members of the visiting committees of those institutions, as can be done in the case of committees under the Mental Deficiency Act, but which they are prevented doing in many instances now owing to there being no women members of the county council and, as the law stands at present, there being no power to co-opt non-members?

The point shall be borne in mind when the amendment of the laws in regard to lunacy is proposed.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the success which has attended the introduction of the side-cars plying for hire in cities such as Paris and in towns in this country, he can state why they are prevented from being introduced into London?

I have no fresh information since that given in my reply on the 22nd February last to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea. In view of the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, dated the 6th January last, that it was not desirable that licences should be granted to side-car taxicabs to ply for hire in the London area at present, it is too early, I fear, to reopen this question.

asked the Secretary for Scotland who is entitled to the £4 per acre for oats, under the Corn Production Act, in the case of a change of tenancy, the incoming tenant taking over the 1921 crop by valuation on the fiars prices of March, 1920?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies to questions on this subject given by me to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries on the 25th July and 9th August, and to the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, which governs the matter.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, on the 1st November, 1919, he received a deputation from representative national bodies in Glasgow and Edinburgh, bearing a petition for presentation to His Majesty the King, praying His Majesty to accord to Scottish colour-bearing regiments the right to carry the banner of St. Andrew, the national flag of Scotland, with His Majesty's crest for Scotland on the colour pike as a second or regimental colour, in the same manner as the banner of St. George, the national flag of England, with His Majesty's crest for England on the colour pike, is borne by certain English regiments of the British Army; whether the petition has been presented to His Majesty; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, I am in consultation with the War Office, and hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate this to the authors of the deputation?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that several ex-service men who were convicted of agrarian offences some months ago were arrested last week and conveyed to Inverness, there to undergo a sentence of 60 days' imprisonment; whether at Inverness station they were cheered by a large crowd; and whether, seeing that they quietly submitted to arrest and in view of the generally high character of these men, their services in the War, and the length of time elapsed since their conviction, he will now regard the law as sufficiently vindicated and order their immediate release?

I am aware that the sentence of imprisonment is being enforced in the case of eight men who were found guilty of breach of an interdict granted in the Sheriff Court at Lochmaddy. These men were sentenced each to pay a fine of £5, with the alternative of 30 days' imprisonment, and to find caution to the amount of £10 that they would obey the interdict for 12 months. Although several months have elapsed since the sentence was pronounced, the fines have not been paid. The position therefore was either that the Order of the Court should be disregarded with impunity, or that the sentence should be enforced. I regret that I cannot accept the view that the law is sufficiently vindicated unless there is reason to anticipate that it will be obeyed. A definite undertaking by the men concerned that they would in future observe the terms of the interdict might, however, influence the attitude of the Court on this aspect of the matter. I should be glad were I placed in a position to bring such an undertaking to the notice of the sheriff for his consideration.

In view of the fact that crofters have been planted on the land and that a reclamation of them would be a breach of the interdict, will that be taken into consideration in any undertaking of that sort?

I am quite willing to take into consideration any relevant arguments in regard to these men.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dispute in regard to this land is in process of settlement and that the whole dispute is now closed?

I hope my hon. Friend will use his influence with these men to give the undertaking to which I have referred. If that be done, I think peace may be restored.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been directed to the cases of Angus Macaulay and Donald Macdonald, two of the eight ex-service men who have been arrested and imprisoned in default of payment of fine for unlawfully settling upon the Balranald Estate, North Uist, in the absence of any provision being made for them by land settlement authorities; if he is aware that these two men were arrested while serving their territorial training with the 4th Camerons; that they in common with the other six men were refused an adjournment in order that they might secure legal defence and were dealt with summarily, have been at liberty for several months and have only recently been arrested and imprisoned, and whether he proposes to take measures to institute a rigid inquiry into the cases and liberate the men pending such inquiry?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have given to-day to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Islands (Dr. Murray). As the men referred to were arrested and imprisoned in respect of a sentence already pronounced I do not think that any question of adjournment or of the provision of legal advice arises. The facts of the cases are well ascertained, and I do not therefore see that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the salient facts of this case is that men were refused, at their original trial, an adjournment in order that they might procure legal defence, and therefore there is the strongest possible presumption that the whole proceedings against them are illegal, because they have not been in proper form. There was a misapplication of the law in refusing these men an adjournment, and under the circumstances does not the right hon. Gentleman think the whole case ought to be more closely inquired into?

The whole case has been very closely inquired into, and according to my information, which is full and precise, the procedure throughout was entirely regular. I am well aware of all the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and I beg of him, as I did of the hon. Member (Dr. Murray), to induce these men to give the undertaking I have referred to, in which case I am quite certain the court will take a merciful view of their position.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations from agricultural authorities asking that in every village the railway station or the post office shall be provided with a public call office; and whether he is taking this or any other means of providing the rural population with telephone facilities comparable with those of their competitors in other lands?

I have received representations on the subject and am ascertaining what additional rural call offices can be provided at small expense. An active canvass is also being made for rural party line subscribers.

Is it not the fact that every public call office with a 3d. call is a loss to the Post Office?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the diminution in the number of postcards requisitioned for sale at post offices, he will consider the desirability of restoring the former practice of selling postcards at the face value of the stamps embossed upon them?

The practice of selling postcards at the face value of the stamps was discontinued about four years ago on account of the increased cost of manufacture. My right hon. Friend does not see his way to restore the former practice so long as manufacturing costs remain at their present level.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is almost the only country in Europe in which you cannot buy a postcard at the face value of the stamp printed on it?

Yes, and I realise also that the cheapness of the stationery sold by the Post Office has always been a very great grievance of the stationery trade.

asked the Postmaster-General whether any account or estimate is kept by his department of the postal matter posted in this country to France, Austria, and Germany, and also of the postal matter received from the same countries for delivery in this country; and can he state, approximately, whether, under the international postal argreement, this country gains or loses in its postal revenues in connection with these three countries?

Statistics of weights of mails exchanged between countries of the Postal Union were taken during the first 28 days of May last, and these show that the Mails despatched from this country to France, Austria and Germany in each case exceed in weight those received from the countries in question.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to circulars issued by an established advertising firm in the City of London and posted in Ostend, Belgium, to other firms in the City of London; whether these circulars have to be de livered free by the British post offices here; whether on such circulars posted in Belgium the British Post Office do not receive a farthing of revenue; whether the cost of delivering such circulars to thousands of different addresses in this country is a great charge on post office expenses; and whether he can state if there is any postal revenue received in this country for postal deliveries in Belgium that in any way balance the cost of circulars and other matter now being posted in that country to Great Britain?

Under Postal Union Regulations the country of destination receives no payment for the delivery of correspondence received from abroad; but as the weight of printed papers, etc., sent to both France and Belgium is normally much greater than that received from those countries, there is no adverse balance against the British Post Office.

Will not that very shortly be altered if these Regulations continue to exist?

I do not think so.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Oatine Company, in consequence of the new postal rates, circularise their 8,000 customers in this country by sending the letters in bulk to their agent in France who posts them back to England; whether he is aware that in a circular letter to their customers they say by doing this they effect a saving of £16 each time they circularise the said customers; and whether he can take such steps as are necessary to prevent the loss to his department of this large amount of money?

The sending of letters in bulk to an agent abroad to be posted by him is an offence under the Post Office Act, 1908; and if evidence be obtained of such infringement of the Act a prosecution will be undertaken.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me a letter from this firm in which they make a boast of doing this. Is this not an incentive to others to follow their example?

I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will hand me the letter.

The right hon. Gentleman has the evidence in his own hands.

Would it not be better to revise the postal rates so as to enable people to post their letters in England?

asked the Postmaster-General whether there are now employed at the Post Office Savings Bank, Blythe Road, West Kensington, 1,195 temporary women clerks and only 282 ex-service men temporary clerks; and what is the reason for the small percentage of ex-service men employed?

I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply given on the 10th instant to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Willesden West.

Can the right, hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Lytton Committee's recommendations are being put into force by his Department, and that women and temporary clerks who did not serve in the War are being got rid of in favour of ex-service men?

Yes. It was stated in the answer referred to that

"1,538 temporary clerks are employed in the Savings Bank Department, of whom 281 are ex-service men. The remainder, with the exception of seven non-service men, are women, and include 250 part-time clerks. Most of the women are employed on women's work. There is a Substitution Committee at the Savings Bank Department, and since the date of the first Lytton Report over 100 temporary female clerks have been substituted by ex-service men. The Committee is continuing its functions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1921; col. 461, Vol. 146.]

asked the Prime Minister if he can give an assurance to this House before it rises that instructions have been given to all Departments of the State to give preference in employment, wherever possible, to ex-service men; and that, when reductions of staffs are necessary, the dismissal of ex-service men should as far a possible be postponed until after the dismissal of others who have not served?

Instructions to this effect have already been given to all Departments.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if the Government is in possession of a copy of the agreement made in 1912 between the North Eastern Railway Company and their deputy manager, the present Minister of Transport, under which a sum of £50,000 was paid to him in 1918 out of the taxpayers' money; if so, will he lay it before the House of Commons;

(2) if the money liability under the 1912 agreement between the North Eastern Railway Company and their then deputy manager, the present Minister of Transport, only became payable in the event of the nationalisation of our railways?

I have nothing to add to the reply given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.

As I have not had an answer to either of these specific questions, may I ask whether nationalisation of our railways was one of the conditions of the payment of this £5,000? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to believe that he does not know, may I ask him whether the Attorney-General had this agreement before him when he advised the Government that it was a Government payment, and, if so, does he consider so little of these questions, which have been going on since 1920, that he does not even take the trouble to answer specific questions dealing with the terms under which this payment was made to one of his own colleagues?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply?

The right hon. Gentleman has given the answer that he has nothing to add.

Am I not entitled to an answer to the supplementary question I have put to the right hon. Gentleman?

The right hon. Gentleman has already stated that he has nothing to add.

I had not put this question to him before, and therefore it cannot be that he has nothing to add in answer to a question which was not previously put. May I have an answer to that question?

I was rising to reply when the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull rose.

:Why did you hesitate so long?

I gave way to the hon. and gallant Member in courtesy, and he should not reproach me now. I did not rise later, Mr. Speaker, only because you yourself had intervened. I have not seen this agreement, but all relevant considerations were before the Law Officers when they advised the Government, and the Government acted upon the advice which they received from the Law Officers.

As that is not an answer, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

How is it that the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, and therefore responsible to the House for the Cabinet decision, can say now that he personally has never seen that agreement, when a few days ago he said to me that it was within the knowledge of the House?

The hon. Gentleman imputes to me again to-day a statement which, as you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out from the Chair the other day, I have not made. I did not say that the House had seen this agreement. I did not say that the agreement between the North Eastern Railway Company and their former deputy general manager was within the knowledge of the House. I said that the agreement between the Government and the railway companies was within the knowledge of the House, and that it was in pursuance of advice received from the Law Officers as to the. bearing of that agreement on this payment that it was accepted as a proper charge for working expenses.

Is it not the case that when we took over these agreements this agreement must have been within them, and therefore within the knowledge of the House? What is the use of quibbling?

I apologise for my mistake just now.

asked the Prime Minister whether there is any restriction on the types of munition's which British private armament firms may supply to the Greek and Turkish armies during the present war; and whether the export of poison-gas shells is being permitted?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the, negative, but His Majesty's Government intend to prohibit the export of poison gas shells to either belligerent.

asked the Prime Minister whether any blockade of the Turkish coasts has been declared by either Greece or the Allies; what is the extent of the coast blockaded; and whether the British Navy is being used to protect British merchants engaged in the arms traffic, to either the Greek or Turkish forces, from molestation?

The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless a blockade has been proclaimed and is enforced, no British ship nor any other ship can be stopped by Greek warships? Is he aware that a munition ship was stopped this week by Greek warships, and will the law be enforced?

I would prefer not to answer without notice questions bearing upon international law.

My question is, if no blockade is enforced, will the British Government see that the law is maintained and that British ships are not interfered with?

The hon. and gallant Member makes his statement as to what international law is in the form of a question. If he will put it on the Paper, I shall be better able to judge of the completeness and correctness of his information.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in answer to a question on 10th August, 1916, it was officially stated by the then Prime Minister that he had no evidence that any of the Dominions desired a change in the title of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; whether the evidence of such a desire is now at the disposal of the Government; and whether any decision has been arrived at?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last two parts in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the names of the Members of the Business Committee which is to advise the Treasury respecting the national finances?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the terms of reference and composition of the Committee to be presided over by the Minister of Transport; whether a special staff will be required, and, if so, at what cost; whether this Committee will take evidence; and whether the evidence taken by the Committee, as well as the Report, will be available for the Estimates Committee of this House?

The Committee will be composed as follows:

The terms of reference are as follow:

"To make recommendations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for effecting forthwith all possible reductions in the national expenditure on supply services, having regard especially to the present and prospective position of the revenue. In so far as questions of policy are involved in the expenditure under discussion, these will remain for the exclusive consideration of the Cabinet; but it will be open to the Committee to review the expenditure and to indicate the economies which might be effected if particular policies were either adopted, abandoned, or modified."

The Treasury organisation will be employed in the ordinary course for the purposes of the Committee's work, and some other members of the Civil Service will be seconded for service in the Treasury under the Committee.

The Committee will be provided with all information requisite to enable it to perform its task, but I do not anticipate that they will find it necessary to take formal evidence. The question of publishing its Report will remain for consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the size of the staff that will be attached to this Committee, and also what salaries are going to be paid to them?

The size of the staff attached to the Committee for purposes of investigation will not, I anticipate, be any larger than would have been the size of the staff supposing that I personally had been undertaking the whole inquiry myself. They will be officials of the Civil Service whose experience and knowledge are regarded as fitting them to the best advantage for the work. So far as expense is concerned, there will be no extra expense.

If the Committee does not take evidence, will the same information as is supplied to them be supplied to the Estimates Committee of the House?

The question which my hon. Friend asks me is quite obviously founded upon a misapprehension. The Estimates Committee of the House are appointed to investigate such Departmental Estimates as they see fit to examine, and to report to the House upon the particular Estimates which they do examine. The purpose of this Committee is a far wider and greater one. We want the whole expenditure of the country to be examined with regard to all the Departments, and not merely a fitful examination of any particular Department. We wish the matter to be taken into account as a whole, having regard to the revenue that the country may expect to have. As my hon. Friend will see, the purposes of the two Committees are entirely different. So far as the Estimates Committee is concerned, it will still have its function to perform with regard to any Departmental Estimates that it sees fit to examine, because, after this Committee has advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will still be necessary for the Departmental Estimates to be prepared, and such Departmental Estimates as the Estimates Committee desires to examine will become the subject of its particular investigation.

With regard to the composition of the Committee, how is it that there are two Members of the other House of Parliament—which is not specifically charged with the care of taxes—and only one Member of this House of Commons, and he a recent Minister, there being no Private Member of the House of Commons at all?

I take full responsibility for the selection of the Committee, and I hope the House will remember that it is upon my shoulders that that responsibility lies. It may be that I am wrong in my selection, but I have selected the names of these gentlemen because of the particular experience that they have had in business. After all, it is not enough to refer to Lord Inchcape and Lord Faringdon as being Members of the other House. They are men of very eminent capacity, as is well known, and this House has so often complained that the Exchequer has not taken sufficiently into account the business methods of people outside that I think it can scarcely complain of the selection I have made.

Are there not very many eminent business men in this House?

When will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Report will be published or not, it being a most important matter, and also, are not two of the gentlemen whose names he has mentioned as being members of the Business Committee over 70 years of age?

Of course it is only extreme youth that has the right! As was said long ago, youth is not always infallible, and age sometimes has experience. So far as the date is concerned when I shall afford information, I hope the House will realise that this is a Committee upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will rely for advice and guidance. Accordingly, it will be for consideration afterwards, at the end of the time when they have completed their investigations, whether the material is of such a character as should be published or not. At least we must take time to consider that.