asked the Secretary of State for Air the amount of money expended in recruiting advertisement during the current financial year, and the number of recruits obtained?

It is estimated that expenditure on recruiting advertisements for the Air Force, including posters, film's, etc., will be £15,000 on Air Votes in the financial year now ending, and £3,000 on' the Stationery Office Vote. During the first 11 months of the year, some 6,320 recruits have been obtained.

Would it not save money to combine with the Navy and Army in this matter of recruiting posters and so on?

That is one of the matters which are receiving the close attention of the Government.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say why it costs so much more to get recruits for the Air Force than for the Army?

The type of recruits whom we require is of a very high standard.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will inquire into the case of Second Air Mechanic Israel Golland, No. 90,772, Royal Flying Corps, who was born in Russia and is believed to have been in a state of absence or desertion since 1917; and whether, in view of the fact that this man was not of British birth, is now over 41 years of age, and his failure to return from leave was due to the serious illness of his mother, these circumstances can be taken into consideration by way of mitigation?

The case of Golland is already under consideration, and I am prepared to have his case dealt with under Section 73 of the Air Force Act, dispensing with his trial for desertion and granting a discharge certificate.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to proceed with the large expenditure upon buildings at Halton?

The answer is in the affirmative. The buildings are four-fifths completed, and to stop now would be a very false form of economy, since provision would have to be made, elsewhere for the training of these boys.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many air attachés there are; what are their duties; and what is their remuneration in the aggregate and individually?

There are two air attachés, at Paris and at Washington, and their duties are to keep His Majesty's Government in touch with the developments of aviation in all its aspects in the countries to which they are accredited. Their remuneration consists of their ordinary Air Force pay, together with a foreign allowance (also admissible for naval and military attachés) of £5 a day at Washingon and £4 at Paris, inclusive of entertainment and all other allowances, except travelling allowance for journeys outside the capital city.

Is it not the fact that France, which is so far ahead of us as regards progress in aviation, has already decided to dispense with air attachés, as being unnecessary?

I am not aware of the point raised by my hon. Friend, nor am I prepared to admit that France is so far ahead of us in aviation.

What is the rank of these two officers?

To the best of my recollection, one is an air commodore and the other a group captain.

If, as I suggest, France has withdrawn her air attachés as unnecessary, will the right hon. Gentleman consider doing the same?

We will certainly consider it.

If it be the fact that France is withdrawing her air attaches, could the right hon. Gentleman ascertain who is doing the work?

I feel convinced that the work is being done by somebody.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the proposed flight round the world to be undertaken by Sir Ross Smith will be financed or subsidised in any way by His Majesty's Government?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why the application of a Mr. Sewards, under Clauses 36–39 of the Lytton Report, was rejected by the second investigating committee; whether it is a fact that owing to his absence in Washington his immediate chief was not interviewed as in the other cases; whether his chief had previously recommended Mr. Sewards; whether he subsequently wrote from America protesting against his rejection, and stating that he considered him specially competent; whether Mr. Sewards had been given a special increment for efficiency and been recommended for promotion; and whether, in view of the two cases of misrecording of evidence which have already been admitted, he will cause this case to be reconsidered?

The statements in the question are substantially correct, but, to complete them, it should be added that, in the opinion of two other experienced officials under whom Mr. Sewards served, he is below the standard of his grade for efficiency, and in these circumstances I am satisfied that the decision of the Investigating Committee was correct, and I cannot agree to reconsider the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many temporary officials there are in his Department above Grade 1 clerks' who were previously employed in other Departments from which their services were dispensed with on account of age, ill-health, or other causes; whether any of them are in receipt of pensions; and why these officials are retained whilst ex-service men are being discharged?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies I gave to identical questions put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham East yesterday, and by the hon. and gallant Member for North Cumberland on the 21st February.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether applications have recently been invited for certain civil positions under the Air Ministry in Iraq; and whether such appointments will be restricted entirely to ex-service men?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the re-ply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham East.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether efficient ex-service men are being discharged from the Air Ministry to make room for clerical officers who qualified at the recent examination; whether cases have occurred in which it has been found impossible to obtain a sufficiently qualified clerical officer to fill the vacant post; whether the procedure in the case of substituting non-service personnel has always been to obtain a suitable substitute before dismissing the non-service man; why this preferential treatment has been extended to non-service men; and why ex-service men liable for substitution are not similarly retained until a suitable substitute is actually obtained?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham East.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the completely changed conditions of Government employment of ex-service men and of the fact that he is finding it necessary to discharge scores of ex-service men, including disabled and those with overseas service, and that these discharges include highly qualified technical ex-service men while other non-service personnel are retained as indispensable, he will set up another committee, including ex-service men representatives, to review all these cases?

My hon. Friend, if he will place himself in my position, will, I think, realise that the changed conditions to which he refers make it increasingly important that, to make up the reduced complements of staff, only those who are most efficient and best qualified shall be retained. Who are best qualified for performing the work required in the different Departments of the Air Ministry, I, with the advice of the heads of Departments, am responsible for deciding. Notice will be given to those persons whom, after all relevant points have been reviewed, it is considered least advantageous to retain. I am prepared, after the notices have been given, to have a list of the persons affected supplied to the authorised ex-service men's representatives, and I shall also be prepared to receive from them any representations they may wish to make from the ex-service point of view and will give careful consideration to such representations, but I must retain the responsibility for deciding, after balancing all the points involved, who is to be retained and who is to be discharged. In accordance with the decision of the Government, the expenditure of the Department must be reduced without avoidable delay, and it is not possible to withhold notices pending discussion or consideration by a Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the procedure adopted in his Department for interviewing candidates sent by the joint substitution board to substitute non-service men; whether in many cases such candidates have been interviewed by officials well known to be hostile to substitution; whether, in view of the numbers of technical ex-service men who have been submitted by the joint substitution board as suitable, but rejected by officials in his Department as unsuitable, he will cause a Committee to be set up to interview all such applicants, such Committee to contain an ex-service representative; and whether, in view of the numerous non-service technical men still employed at Farnborough and at the Air Ministry headquarters, he will apply to the joint substitution board for candidates to be re-submitted for all such posts?

The answer to the first question is that candidates sent by the joint substitution board are, in all cases interviewed by responsible officers competent to judge their qualifications. The answer to the second is in the negative. With regard to the third, I am satisfied that the examination of candidates has been properly and fairly carried out and that, as the joint substitution board can only say whether a candidate has primâ facie qualifications which entitle him to be considered, no useful purpose would be served by adopting the proposed procedure. The answer to the fourth is, that the joint substitution board has been asked to submit candidates for all temporary technical posts held by non-service men. In certain of these cases, however, the officers are specialists, and in view of repeated and unsuccessful attempts to find qualified candidates, the joint substitution board has agreed that further action need not be taken.

asked the Secretary for State for Air whether the central editing section of the Air Ministry was in abeyance during the recent absence of Air Vice-Marshal J. F. A. Higgins, C.B., D.S.O., A.F.C., at the Washington Conference; and whether it is now, on his return, resuming its functions?

The central editing section was necessarily in abeyance during the absence of Air Vice-Marshal Higgins at Washington, since no other senior officer possessing the requisite qualifications was available to take charge of it. On Air Vice-Marshal Higgins's return from America in the last week of January, it was decided that the section should resume its functions for a specified period of six weeks, in order that certain outstanding items might be completed, and, in pursuance of this decision, it ceased its functions on the 6th instant.

Is it starting its functions again after the six weeks, or will it be possible, in consideration of the fact that during the absence of this officer in America the section was not considered necessary, to dispense with it under the economies that will be effected in the Ministry?

Most of the hon. Member's supplementary question has been dealt with in my answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether it has been decided not to grant pensions or allowances in the cases of men disabled in the late War who married after discharge from the forces, and who have since died leaving widows and children who were ordinarily dependent on them?

The answer is in the affirmative. The terms of the Royal Warrant expressly forbid such grants.

asked the Minister of Pensions who is responsible for the appointment of the War Pensions Entitlement Committees; if he will give the names of those persons at present serving thereon; and the number of cases dealt with by such Committees during the 12 months ending 31st January, 1922, together with the number of cases dealt with in which the Committee decided that entitlement was not proven?

My hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. There are no such bodies as War Pensions Entitlement Committees. Questions of entitlement are dealt with by experienced officers of the Ministry, against whose decision there is, as my hon. Friend knows, a full right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

Am I to understand that there are no Committees dealing with this matter, except the permanent or paid officials of the Ministry?

The hon. Member is to understand that there are no such bodies as the Committees to which he refers in his question.

May I have a definite assurance that, whatever the name may be, there are no Committees dealing with this work?

Those Committees do not exist. The officials of the Ministry deal with these cases, and if the pensioner is not satisfied, he has a full right of appeal to the Pensions Tribunal.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a great and growing amount of dissatisfaction in reference to the decisions that have been given by the Appeal Tribunals?

That does not arise out of the question.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the time for vacating the Orthopædic Hospital at Shepherd's Bush is drawing near; can he report whether fresh negotiations have been entered into with the guardians on the question of rent; if not, is he prepared to facilitate these negotiations by withdrawing the expression "blackmail," which he used in a reply to a question on this subject some days ago?

My right hon. Friend is willing to withdraw any expression of his provided he is assured that the State will have the opportunity of continuing to maintain its disabled men in this hospital at a fair and reasonable rent. He is still prepared to stand by the offer of an increased rent which he has already made, and in order to avoid any possible doubt, he is so informing the guardians.

If this hospital be closed, will not disabled men suffer?

I am informed that the alternative hospital is a very good hospital and in better surroundings. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am so informed by the highest medical authorities we have, but we are prepared to allow them to remain on reasonable terms. I think I ought to inform the House that we have been paying £8,000 a year since we took it over up to the end of last year. We are now willing to give £12,000, but these guardians are asking us for £14,000.

Has my hon. and gallant Friend considered the proposal, and if not will he consider it, of letting the Minister of Health arbitrate in the matter and so save this hospital for the ex-service men?

I think the perfectly simple solution is for the guardians to accept the reasonable and largely increased rent which we have offered them.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, although the alternative hospital is suitable for inpatients, it is extremely unsuitable for those who have to attend for treatment?

My hon. and gallant Friend has made a perfectly good point. It is obvious that we should make provision—and if we move we intend to make provision—for the out-patients, but I have found, on inspecting both this hospital and the hospital at Roehampton, that the Roehampton authorities would regard our move as one bringing out-patients nearer to the work which they are doing.

Is it not true that the equipment of this hospital is far better than in any other?

The equipment can be moved.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Minister of Pensions by what authority a time limit has been fixed by him for parents' dependant and flat-rate pensions, in view of the fact that no mention of a time limit is made in the Royal Warrant—Article 21; whether he is Aware of the hardship involved to parents of men, who, though still living to-day, may die as a result of their War injuries after the 1st April; and whether he will reconsider his decision, or at least postpone the date, as no sufficient publicity has been given to those concerned?

After full consideration, the Government decided that the time had now come to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House on Pensions in 1919. No hardship will be involved by this decision, inasmuch as any parent of a man who dies in consequence of his War injuries in the future will be entitled to claim and to receive pension, if in need of the assistance which would otherwise have been afforded by the deceased son. Ample publicity has been given to the decision of the Government, and my right hon. Friend is unable, therefore, to accept the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the British Legion in London said only yesterday that none of the ex-service men's papers has had any notification of this at all?

Will this change require a new Royal Warrant?

No, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what terms the civilian artificers engaged under contract for service in Ireland have been disbanded?

I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to mechanics temporarily engaged in the Royal Irish Constabulary for service in the Mechanical Transport Division. Civilian artificers whose yearly contracts had not expired at the date of dispersal are receiving pay to the end of the period for which they contracted to serve together with the bounty of £25 for each year of completed service. Those who at the expiration of their contracts accepted a monthly engagement receive a month's pay in lieu of notice, and a bounty calculated at the rate of £25 per annum, or the sum of £20, whichever is the greater. Those on a weekly engagement receive a week's pay in lieu of notice, and a bounty at the rate of £25 or the sum of £10 if greater.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that pensions payable to many disbanded constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary are not being paid; and, if so, whether he can say when the payment of these pensions will commence, in view of the fact that many of the men are out of work?

The preliminary arrangements are now well advanced, and I hope it will be possible to commence payment of pensions for February very shortly. I should like to add that these men at the time of dispersal were granted an advance of £10, representing, in most cases, over two months' pension.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to all the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been disbanded on refusing to serve under the Irish Free State, and is any option given to the men who have been disbanded to accept, in lieu of pension, a compassionate grant?

The pensions to which I refer are pensions given to the British recruits of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been disbanded. The question of the commutation of these pensions, or some portion of them, is now under consideration.

My question had reference to the original Royal Irish Constabulary who have been disbanded. Are they entitled—

The hon. Baronet is now raising another point, and should put that question down.

Seeing that the question says nothing about men who were recruited in England, is not my question in order? Would not reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary usually be assumed to mean the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland?

The Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland have not yet been disbanded. The question refers, as I understood it, and my answer certainly refers, to the disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are the British recruits of that force.

I want to ask another question—

That is the reason why I suggested that the hon. Baronet was raising a second point, and had better put the question down.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is able to give an assurance that the explicit pledges given to Irish landowners with regard to the completion of purchase will be fulfilled; and, as no pronouncement has been made regarding the Government's pledges in connection with the terms of the recent Treaty with the Irish Free State, and serious loss will be incurred by Irish landowners if any delay occurs, can he state when a settlement may be anticipated?

I cannot at the moment add anything to the replies which. I gave to questions on this subject addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) on the 9th and 16th February, respectively, namely, that the question of land purchase is at present under consideration and will be a matter for consultation with the Provisional Government; but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the statements previously made by Members of His Majesty's Government, and the considerations to which he refers in the latter part of his question, are not being lost sight of.

asked the Chief Secretary when the Paper giving a full statement with reference to the re-engagement for a further period of 12 months' service of several hundred Auxiliary Cadets in June, 1921, which re-engagements were subsequently repudiated, though the majority of them had been published in Part II Orders, will be laid?

I hope to be in a position to lay this Paper next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that republican Courts, presided over, in one case, by King's Counsel, are now openly sitting in the South and West of Ireland, and are purporting to exercise both criminal and civil jurisdiction, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Courts; whether the holding of such Courts is in accordance, with the provisions of the Treaty; and whether it is intended to allow such Courts to continue to function?

I am aware that Courts other than those established by Statute are sitting simultaneously with statutory Courts in parts of Ireland, and that in some cases, particularly in areas where the authority of the Provisional Government is not definitely established, these Courts are still called Republican Courts as they were prior to the signature and ratification of the Treaty. It must be left to the Provisional Government to decide as to the action which can best be taken in the matter during the difficult transitional period pending the establishment of the Free State.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Republican Court was sitting last month in Dublin, presided over by Mr. Meredith, K.C., and will he take steps to prevent K.C.'s from presiding over republican Courts?

I must ask for notice of that question.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the great impropriety of allowing an illegal Court to fine and, it may be, imprison or otherwise punish one of His Majesty's subjects?

Yes, I see the impropriety of it, but I think the remedy for it is the speedy passage through another place of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill, which will put these matters on a proper foundation.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Estimates for 1922–23 have been framed in accordance with the Cabinet instruction of 1919, on the assumption that no great war is to be anticipated within the next 10 years?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister what, if any, steps are to be proposed by the Government to the other European Powers for providing the necessary financial assistance to the relief of the famine districts of Russia?

asked the Prime Minister if he has received the resolutions, among others, unanimously adopted by the Glasgow City Council and the Glasgow Trade Council, urging the Government to grant relief to the non-Bolshevist Russian people stricken by famine; has his attention been called to the statements made by Sir Benjamin Robertson and Dr. Nansen to the effect that money is required for seed for next harvest which cannot be procured in time by voluntary agency; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the matter, he can now reconsider the whole question with a view to making a grant and thereby possibly stimulate other Governments to do likewise, so as to help in averting even a greater calamity next year?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has reconsidered its decision to refuse relief to the sufferers from famine in Russia?

asked the Prime Minister if he intends to give immediate relief to the starving millions in Russia, as suggested by Dr. Nansen?

We have given serious and renewed consideration to this question, but in view of the large sums which this House has already voted for the relief of Europe, of the very heavy burdens resting upon our own people, and the great distress and suffering existing among them, we are unable to propose a grant from public funds, but every effort will be made to add to the supply of medical stores already placed at the disposal of the Red Cross Society. The re- sources in the possession of the Government are being reviewed for this purpose.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Government have given 12,000,000 dollars and are at present voting about 7,000,000 dollars, I think, to women and children in Russia as against our £700,000 or less, and also is he aware that there are 5,000,000 poods of seed short for this spring sowing, and if the seed is not forthcoming the Russian people will be faced with a catastrophe next year even worse than this?

I am aware that the American Government has devoted a large sum, even larger than my right hon. Friend has mentioned, to the purpose of famine relief. I believe the horror of the situation in Russia can hardly be exaggerated, but we must have regard to what we have already done, to the burdens we have put upon our own people, to the possibility and even probability that we shall shortly be asked by the League of Nations to vote a further sum to combat the spread of typhus out of Russia into Europe which menaces all the western nations, and I cannot altogether overlook that the Russian Government has resources of its own which are being applied to matters much less urgent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It may be a matter of shame, but not for this country—much less urgent and vital than the relief of famine among its own citizens.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so competent an authority as Sir Benjamin Robertson, who has just returned from this very area, is of opinion that, even on material grounds, as an investment for this country, it would be a wise thing for us to advance a sum of between £400,000 and £5,000,000?

The sums I have been asked to advance vary between £400,000 and £3,000,000 or £4,000,000.

It is not so.

It is so. I do not wish to underrate the gravity of the position, but the Government, after reviewing the position most carefully, have, upon the grounds mentioned, come to the conclusion I have stated.

If we do not support Russia now, will that mean a shortage of grain for this country next year?

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give an assurance that he will not consent to give any funds whatsoever, without first referring the matter to this House?

I have stated the policy of His Majesty's Government. Until the House disavows it, that is the policy of the Government As regards the question of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Cairns), of course the world is poorer by the desolation which has overtaken Russia. The desolation of the great grain-growing regions of Russia must affect the corn supply of the world. That is inevitable. But it is not due solely to the drought of last season.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is not only the trustee for this nation's finances, but also for its honour in this matter?

This nation has never been backward in coming to the relief of distress in other countries. That has been done almost universally through the means of subscriptions given by the charitable in this country, generally on an appeal from the Lord Mayor. I know of no demand that there should be a Vote from public funds in the whole of the last century comparable to that which is asked to-day, under circumstances where the distress of our own people and the burden of our responsibility is incomparably greater than at any other period.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has ever been any instance of distress comparable with this that now exists in Russia, and whether it is not the opinion of Indian experts that in India we do not know what famine means compared to what it is in Russia; and is he aware that the opposition to our advancing money comes solely from the richer classes?

I am certainly not aware that the opposition to spending our resources at this time, when there is so much distress, and more distress than we can meet, among our own people, comes solely from the well-to-do. I am sorry that my Noble Friend has made a suggestion of that kind. As regards the state of affairs, I do not think that it can be exaggerated. I believe that the utter disorganisation of the transport and of the ordinary means of commerce and trade in Russia has immensely aggravated, and does immensely aggravate the situation, and takes it out of the category of anything we have had to deal with, even in the worst times, in India; but I think there have been calamities in the world's history on as large a scale where it has not been thought right, or even proposed, that we should Vote public money for that purpose.

Is it not a fact that there are cargoes of grain lying in the Black Sea which cannot be transported to the famine area? What is the use of our sending more until that grain has been sent?

How is distress among our own people going to be helped if our potential customers are to be allowed to die to the number of 20,000,000, and how are we to reduce unemployment?

I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory answers which have been given, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the amount of money owed by Russia to this country upon the outbreak of war in August, 1914?

If my hon. Friend refers to indebtedness of the Russian Government to the British Government, the reply is that no money was owed by the Russian Government to the British Government upon the outbreak of war.

asked the Prime Minister whether, following the example of other European countries, he can see his way to introduce legislation for the purpose of making voting at elections compulsory on the part of those who are entitled to that privilege?

No, Sir. I do not think that the adoption of my hon. Friend's proposal is desirable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this system works perfectly well in certain countries of Europe, and is the only way to get at the real wishes of the electors?

No. I was not aware of that.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the persistent reports that Germany possesses a secret army of over 1,000,000 men, well officered and drilled, and to the repeated discoveries of stores of hidden arms and war stores; what part the British military forces have taken to unearth such hidden munitions, &c. and what steps the Supreme Council propose to take to put a stop to such a dangerous state of things?

I have been asked to answer this question. I am aware of the reports referred to, but while there are naturally in Germany at present many more than 1,000,000 men trained as soldiers, it is safe to say that she does not possess artillery armament and equipment for a modern army of a million, and could not put any such army in the field. The quantities of hidden arms and stores which have been discovered are evidence of the activities of the Inter-Allied Commission of Control. No British troops other than the officers of the British Section of the Commission have been engaged on this work, which is a matter of investigation and not of the employment of military force. In regard to the last part of the question, the Supreme Council will continue to avail themselves of the services of the Commission of Control for as long as may be necessary, and this is the most effective step they can take.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the note sent on 24th March, 1920, by the Allies to the Dutch Government on the question of the extradition of the ex-Kaiser has so far remained unanswered, it is proposed to take any further action, and, if not, why not; if he can state the present residence of the ex-Kaiser; and if adequate, and, if so, what measures are being taken to prevent his escape?

I have been asked to answer this question. I can add nothing to the reply given on the 13th February last to the hon. Member referring him to the letter of the Prime Minister, dated 3rd November, 1920, addressed to the hon. Member for East Islington, in which the reason for not taking further diplomatic action is explained. As to the latter part of the question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 19th April, 1920, by the late Lord Privy Seal.

Is it a fact that the Government are not going to take any action in regard to the answer of the Dutch Government of the 24th March, 1920? Is the matter to remain as it is at the present time?

It is obvious that my hon. Friend has not done me the honour to read the letter of the Prime Minister, dated 3rd November, 1920, in which he pointed out that the resources of diplomatic action had ceased, and stated that it was never contemplated that all the Allies would go to war with Holland for the purpose of securing the extradition of the ex-Kaiser.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in regard to the ordinary courtesies of nations one with another the absence of a reply from the Dutch Government does not abrogate all the conditions in regard to international matters as they are understood?

Get the Irish Republican Army to kidnap him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that under the Reparation Clause of the Allied Conference the German Government is required to levy a special duty of 26 per cent. on all exports from that country, he will state whether the amount of such levy has been paid by the German Government to the Allied authorities; whether the German Govern- ment has raised the amount required to meet such payment by actually levying the specified duty on exports, or whether the sum required is derived from general revenue; and, if so, seeing that this method of raising the tax is an evasion of the agreement between Germany and the Allies, and calculated to defeat the object which the Allies had in view in imposing a tax on exports from Germany, will he make the necessary representations on the subject?

As the answer is a lengthy one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

By the Schedule of Payments Germany is obliged to pay to the Committee of Guarantees as security for the Reparation Annuities inter alia a levy of 25 per cent, on the value of German exports, unless the German Government offers and the Committee accepts other funds in substitution. The hon. Member, however, is in error in supposing that the object of this arrangement was to impose a tax on exports. It was proposed solely as a means by which the German Government could secure foreign currencies, and it was specifically provided that the equivalent of the levy shall be paid in German currency by the German Government to the exporter. I understand that in June last the Committee of Guarantees accepted a proposal of the German Government not to enforce the levy pending the preparation of an alternative scheme by the German Government, on condition that equivalent amounts were paid to the Committee each month as from 15th November last. The German Government has put into operation a scheme under which exporters, as a condition of the grant of an export licence, must make out their invoices in foreign currencies and hand over to the German Government the whole or part of the proceeds in foreign currencies. This scheme has been operating since August last, but the German Government failed to pay over the proceeds before 31st December last, alleging the necessity of meeting other outstanding liabilities. I understand that since 1st January the equivalent of the levy has been duly paid under the provisional arrangements now in force.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the threatening situation in the engineering and shipbuilding industries and also in view of the necessity for the disputes in question to be considered from a national rather than a sectional point of view, the Government will once more issue invitations to the representatives of the trade and industry of the country to meet in an industrial Council; and whether they will give a pledge that they will submit in good faith the recommendations of the Council to the sanction of Parliament should they require such sanction?

In the case of the shipbuilding industry, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been able to arrange for negotiations to be resumed between the parties. In the case of the engineering industry, the negotiations between the parties which were resumed at the suggestion of the Minister of Labour have not led to agreement, but my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the parties.

Is it the fact that the Government intervention in this case has been by request of the employés or the employers. Would it not be better to leave, it to the masters and the men to settle these disputes by themselves?

What is the use of leaving it to the masters and the men when one side are all powerful and the other helpless? [HON MEMBERS: "Which"?]

I think I can give an answer which is not controversial. It is obviously always better in the interests of all parties that these disputes should be settled, if possible, between employers and employed, without the intervention of anybody else, but when so grave a calamity threatens the nation as a disturbance of trade of the magnitude that might be caused by this dispute, it does become the duty of the Government—when the parties concerned have failed—to try, if they can, in any way to avert the calamity.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if these disputes were settled from the national point of view?

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this proposition in regard to this matter, that in the Dartford division there are 2,000 engineers out of work, and the community are called upon to pay them unemployment dole, while other men may be working two weeks in one; and does not the engineering employer get money at the public expense?

I do not think it will help a solution of this question by airing grievances of our constituencies.

asked the Prime Minister whether the date of the postponed Economic Conference at Genoa has yet been decided on; and whether he is in a position to give the names of the British delegates?

The present arrangement is that the Genoa Conference should meet on 10th April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Has the question of Easter in Italy been considered in reference to the date of the Conference, and will it not probably be postponed for a few days until about the 15th or the 20th?

The British Government suggested apparently the 10th to the Italian Government. I think that the Italian Government have no desire to postpone the Conference to a later date than is necessary. If the particular date appears to be inconvenient to them, they will no doubt say so.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will see that those recurrent liabilities in connection with which we are liable to France shall not be paid over to France until the French debt to Great Britain is paid, and that meanwhile one debt shall be set off against the other?

I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in order that there shall not be a single house the less built under the Government's revised rules for carrying out their housing schemes for 1919, they will now authorise the Minister of Health to sanction the erection of more than the 176,000 houses already promised, in order that all the available labour and materials may be fully employed on house building?

I have been asked to reply. In view of the large programme of housing still to be completed, and the continued reduction in prices, I hope that further State intervention in any form will not be required, and that the building industry will return to its pre-War economic basis.

Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not going to fulfil the original promise of the Prime Minister to build 500,000 houses?

I am not aware that either the Prime Minister or any other Minister ever gave such a promise.

asked the Prime Minister when the late Lord Chief Justice sent in his resignation; whether it was then accepted; and, if not, whether he was consulted as to the date on which his resignation should become effective?

The late Lord Chief Justice's letter of resignation was dated 1st November last. He was then asked by the Prime Minister to postpone his resignation, and consented to do so. The matter was again referred to towards the end of January, and his resignation was further postponed with his consent. On Thursday last the Prime Minister wrote to the Lord Chief Justice saying that he was accepting his resignation, and thanking him for his eminent public services. I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend When I say that I should be extremely sorry if the official announcement of the resignation, so soon after the delivery of this letter, led to any misconception as to the respect and regard felt for the Lord Chief Justice. The directions for publication were given in the midst of a great press of business. An endeavour was, in fact, made a few hours later to postpone the announcement, but it had already been circulated to the news agencies and the Press.

Is it a fact that the Lord Chief Justice was unaware that he had resigned, and that he announced on Friday that he would sit on Monday, and then learned on Saturday that he had resigned?

That assumption is quite as inaccurate as most of the assumptions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Is it not a fact that the Lord Chief Justice was in the middle of the trial of a case when the announcement was made?

Yes; he was trying a case which he was able to finish next morning.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether His Majesty's Government has considered the recommendation of the Statutory Committee that a duty should be imposed on fabric gloves under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether a decision has been made; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Chippenham on Monday last. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject at an early date.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? What is the cause of the delay, inasmuch as the recommendations of the Committee have been in the hands of the Government for two months?

The simple cause of the delay is that I am seeing certain people who wish to put their case before me who were unable to put their case before the Committee.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound by the Statute to refer complaints to the Committee, and is he able to reverse the provisions of the Statute?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the combination of slump and dump German manufacturers can send their gloves into this country at half the price at which British manufacturers can make them, and that if a British manufacturer makes 40,000 of these gloves he can employ 250 hands, and will he frustrate the efforts of these free trade fraternisers?

asked the Lord President of the Council whether the question of the continued occupation of the northern part of the island of Saghalien, the port of Vladivostok, and the maritime province of Siberia by the Japanese was discussed at Washington; if not, can he give the reasons; and whether his attention has been called to the support being given by Japanese naval and military forces to the counter-revolutionary generals and their bands of soldiers in Vladivostok and the maritime province?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part does not, therefore, arise. It is well known that Vladivostok and the surrounding zone are in the occupation of Japanese forces. My information is that M. Merkuloff, the head of the Vladivostok Government, has complained that he does not receive support from the Japanese.

Are His Majesty's Government satisfied with the assurance of the Japanese that they are going to withdraw these forces?

Yes.

With regard to the northern part of Saghalien, has it not come to practical annexation without any justification?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to adopt the suggestion contained in the Geddes Committee Report that the cost of auditing the accounts of approved societies should be borne out of the administrative expenses of those societies?

In view of the very heavy burden which will have to be transferred from the Exchequer to the funds of approved societies in order to secure the saving recommended in the First Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, I am afraid it will not be practicable to recover the cost of audit from insurance funds as suggested in the Third Report of the Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that beer of inferior quality is commonly sold at 5d. per pint or in glasses at 5d. per glass containing less than half a pint; recognising that beer and spirits yield so large a revenue, will he consider the desirability of taking steps to ensure that beer and spirits sold shall be of a reasonable standard of quality and only recognised standard measures permitted;

(2) asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a statement of the judge at the Newcastle-on-Tyne Assizes, when a man was being tried for supplying inferior beer and spirits at maximum prices, that such frauds were not unknown outside Newcastle; and if he will consider the desirability of strengthening the law to protect the public against such practices and ensure the due enforcement of a standard quality of beer and spirits being supplied in standard measures?

My attention has not been drawn to the facts stated in the first part of either question. For the rest, I would refer to the answers which I have given recently in the House, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Does my right hon. Friend drink beer? Has he tasted it?

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause the Cabinet to consider in the forthcoming Budget a reduction in the duties, because wages have fallen so much that the workman can hardly buy a pint of beer?

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the profits made by the brewers out of beer before reducing the price of beer to the working man? The brewers can do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] It is not a speech.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of champagne for the aristocracy was reduced in the last Budget?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of salary and fees paid to the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General from 1915 to 1921?

The salary of the Attorney-General is £7,000 and of the Solicitor-General £6,000. But these amounts were at their own wish reduced in each case during the period of actual hostilities by £1,000 per annum, apart from the further reduction due to the Ministerial pool. Fees are paid to the Law Officers of the Crown in litigious cases only, and the period referred to was one of heavy and increasing litigation, which, however, has recently diminished. For example, in the Department of the Treasury Solicitor alone the number of new cases rose from 3,730 in 1914 to 7,747 in 1920–21, exclusive of prize cases. During the six financial years covered by the question the aggregate amount of fees paid to the Attorney-General was £77,887 10s. 9d., and to the Solicitor-General £51,863 8s. 4d. These amounts were of course greatly diminished by Income Tax and Super-tax. I should like to add that a considerable part of the Law Officers' fees does not fall on public funds. In cases where the Crown succeeds with costs, the costs are recovered from the unsuccessful party, and during the period in question a large number of the cases were cases in the Prize Courts, where the claimants were almost invariably foreigners.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of a Treasury Minute of 1920 restricting the appointments of public auditors under the Industrial and Friendly Societies Acts, 1893 and 1896, to members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and of the Society of Incorporated Accountants, he will consider the desirability of withdrawing such restrictions, having regard to the existence of other associations of accountants of efficiency and repute?

In making the rule in question the Treasury followed the precedent set by Parliament in recent legislation, and it would not be in the public interest to alter the present practice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Association of Accountants are a very responsible body, and, in view of that fact, will he not reconsider the matter?

I am well aware of the status of the body referred to, but, in view of the precedents in legislation and the recommendations of the Committee of this House, I think that the conclusion to which my right hon. Friend has come should stand.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government has consolidated the Belgian debt; and, if so, what are the terms?

The Government have agreed in principle with the Belgian Government that the Belgian debt to this country (other than the War debt, which is being taken over by Germany under the Treaty of Versailles) shall be consolidated, but the terms have not yet been settled.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any protests against the proposal to impose a fee of 10s. on each annual and valuation return sent to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies; whether it is his intention to carry out the proposal; and, if so, whether he will take into consideration the fact that this fee would be in the nature of a penalty for carrying out a duty already imposed on those societies by the State?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that friendly societies are compelled by law to present annual returns to the chief registrar, and that the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure that a fee of 10s. should be charged for each return would impose a burden upon those societies for the promotion of thrift, he can give an assurance that the recommendation will not be put into operation?

I understand that one protest has been received by the chief registrar. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the imposition of a fee is at present under consideration. It is, however, not the case that such a fee would be in the nature of a penalty. It would merely be a contribution by the society or branch towards the expense of registering and otherwise dealing with the return as part of the administration of certain Acts of Parliament, under which very substantial advantages are conferred upon the body making the return.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, as a very important fact in this connection, that a large centralised society with a large membership would only be called upon to pay 10s., whereas a smaller society with

Period. Gross receipt. Repayments. Net receipt. £ £ £ 1st April, 1921, to 7th March, 1922 … 111,576,000 83,151,000 28,425,000

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an Act to reduce the rate of interest from 4 per cent. to 3½ per cent.

4,000 branches would be called on to pay £2,000 at the 10s. rate?

Yes, Sir, undoubtedly. In dealing with this matter such considerations will be very carefully taken into account.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revenue from the duty on China tea for the various years since 1914?

As the answer is somewhat lengthy, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The revenue derived from China tea during each of the years 1914 to 1921 (inclusive) has been as follows: Year. £. 1914 281,000 1915 461,000 1916 436,000 1917 801,000 1918 41,000 1919 221,000 1920 179,000 1921 238,000

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been received by the Treasury during the present financial year in Excess Profits Duty; and what is the total paid or payable by way of refund?

The approximate figures are as follow:—

was passed without opposition on 20th December, 1749; that this Act was not one of conversion of national debts but a notice of reduction of rates of interest to those persons, bodies politic or corporate, including the Bank of England, entitled to any part of the National Debt; that this Measure was responsible for an annual saving of £288,000 on the amount of debt affected of £57,703,475; that the rate of interest was later reduced to 3 per cent.; that this Measure received the commendation of William Pitt, who described it as a piece of consummate wisdom; and whether, in view of this precedent on the part of British statesmen, he can now see his way to reconsider his decision not to introduce a similar Bill in the present Session?

The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the Act to which he refers was not one for conversion. The Act enjoined "strict regard to public faith and private property," and holders were given the option of having the principal repaid at par, a sum of £3,290,041 being in fact so repaid. The rest of the question does not arise.

Is it not the case that where creditors are repaid at par, that is not conversible, and is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this Act dealt specifically with the reduction in the rate of interest, and that with the exception of the few millions mentioned, all the large holders, including the Bank of England and the East India Company, accepted the terms of Mr. Pitt? In these circumstances and in view of the fact that tomorrow the French Ministry do the same with their War Bonds and reduce the interest by one-half per cent., will this Government also take steps?

Is it not the case that at the time of the conversion referred to in the first part of the question, the funds stood at over par, and was it not that fact alone which enabled the conversion to be made?

I think that was the case, but I defer to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge of the subject. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Govan, the interesting circumstance about this Act was that it was voluntary and not compulsory. As regards what is, or what is not, conversion, that appears to be a matter for discussion. The provisions of this Act to which I desire to draw special attention express the view that strict regard shall be had to public faith and private property.

—

The hon. Member cannot argue the matter.

I wish to ask a further question.

If the hon. Member has a further question, he should put it down.

It bears upon this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the nature of the action the Government of the United States is taking with reference to the scheme for deepening the St. Lawrence waterway to enable oceangoing steamers to pass into the great lakes dividing Canada and the United States; and whether he is able to issue as a White Paper definite details of the proposed plans?

A proposal of this nature was brought before Congress at the end of last year, but various alternative schemes were advocated by the representatives of different States. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington is being instructed to report on the present position.

Has the Imperial Government refused to make any contribution towards the preliminary expenses of the scheme?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that many important British firms have in the past offered loans to China at terms more favourable to China than those offered by the Consortium, and that these offers did not receive the support of His Majesty's Government, and did not, therefore, mature; whether, seeing that the Consortium Agreement gives seven British banks a monopoly for the exploitation of China, to the detri- ment of both China and the rest of the financial world in England, he will consult the other nations concerned in the Consortium with a view to bringing its policy more into line with the spirit of the Washington open-door resolutions?