asked the Minister of Pensions whether, under the new scheme for the assessment of parents'-need pensions, the amount of need is divided among the late soldier or soldiers' surviving single daughters at home over 18 years of age who are not prevented from earning a living and surviving sons in proportional shares, greater shares being apportioned to single sons; whether in many cases, because of unemployment or war disablement, these sons are in fact unable to contribute to the maintenance of their parents, especially where they are disabled and have families to maintain: whether, in view of the widespread reduction of parents' pensions now taking place, he is aware that aged fathers and mothers are being exposed to great hardship; and whether immediate steps will be taken either to defer the application of this system or to replace it by a better.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Each case is, however, considered on its merits, and contributions may be, and, in fact, are, waived where the circumstances are exceptional. In calculating the contributions to be imputed to the surviving children, no regard is had to possible periods of unemployment. On the other hand, I may remind my hon. Friend that this factor is ignored equally in assessing the share assumed and paid by the State as representing the amount which the deceased son would have contributed if he had lived.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in existing conditions this scheme cannot work without very great hardship to aged parents and others, and would it not be desirable to make some modification of the position meanwhile, when obviously large numbers of sons and daughters are quite unable to contribute?

No. As I have said, every case is considered upon its individual merits.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the pension awarded to Mrs. Annie Callaghan, of 29, Keyden Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, on account of her son, First-class Stoker James Callaghan, K. 30.260, Royal Navy, has been stopped; whether he is aware that she is in extreme need and has received a notice from the factor regarding her arrears of rent; whether he is aware that Mrs. Callaghan has made several applications for the renewal of this pension; and whether he will take steps to meet the claims of this deserving case?

The circumstances of this case are at present being investigated. I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this case has now been under investigation for the last three months, that I have been in communication several times with his Office on this case, and that it is only because of the inattention of his Office that I put it down on the Order Paper, and will he do his best to expedite the decision, as it is a very extreme case?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal of Mrs. Thompson, of York, widow of the late W. J. Thompson, private, No. 121,894, Royal Army Medical Corps, was before the tribunal on 31st January last and was adjourned for further evidence, but has not yet been decided; that in the case of the appeal of Mrs. Harrod, of York, widow of the late Walter Harrod, private, No. 330,579, Cambridgeshire Regiment, to the same tribunal, the evidence in support of the appeal was furnished on 25th January last, but that up to the present the case has not been listed for hearing; and whether he can take steps to have the hearing and decisions in these cases accelerated?

I understand from the tribunal authorities that a decision in the case of Thompson has now been reached, and has been communicated to the appellant. As regards Mrs. Harrod, I am glad to say that it has been found possible, as a result of further inquiries, to admit entitlement to pension.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many forms M.P.A. 101 B, which state that, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1919, the award notified in the communication accompanying the form is liable to readjustment in and after the year 1922, have been issued by the Ministry of Pensions; on whose authority and to whom these forms were issued; and what steps have been taken to correct the mis-statement contained therein, and to remove the anxiety created in the minds of pensioners?

I am afraid that it is not possible to say how many of the incorrectly printed notices referred to were issued. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that all possible steps have been taken to correct the error, and I feel satisfied that pensioners are well aware that there can be no readjustment of rates before the 1st April, 1923.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many hospitals are now maintained by the Ministry, where they are situated, and how many cot cases there are in each?

There are 52 hospitals wholly maintained by my De-

partment at which approximately 10,000 officers, nurses, and men are at present receiving in-patient treatment. I am circulating particulars of these institutions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether R. J. Baldwin, late private, No. 13,472, Royal Field Artillery, was awarded a disability pension of 13s. 6d., including allowances for his wife and children, on 22nd December, 1920, to take effect from the 23rd February, 1921, and to end on 25th October, 1921; whether any and, if so, how much of this pension has been paid; whether he will take steps to see that any arrears are forwarded to this man as early as possible;

(2) whether he is aware that R. J. Baldwin, late private, No. 13,472, Royal Field Artillery, was awarded a service pension of 10d. per day for life in addition to his disability pension; whether the rate of pension where no disability pension is being paid is 2s. per day for the period served by this man; whether he is aware that this pension was to date from the 23rd March, 1919; that this pension has not been paid to him; and that this man is in extreme need; and whether he can state how soon this pension will be paid him along with the arrears to which he is entitled?

I understand that payment of both awards has been suspended because of a large overpayment improperly obtained. I am inquiring into the point regarding the rate of service pension.

Is it not the case that no intimation has been made to this soldier about any overpayment, that the papers sent to him contained no reference to that fact, and that he has been kept practically out of his pension for about a year?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the facts of the case?

I do. I have them by me.

I prefer not to discuss them in public, but if the hon. Member will come to see me privately I shall be pleased.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will use the good offices of His Majesty's Government with the appropriate Department of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland to endeavour to secure the release of Mr. Harry Franks, a British subject, lately domiciled at Mountrath, Queen's County, who was recently kidnapped by armed men?

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that Mr. Franks was released yesterday.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what he proposes to do for the help of an Irish loyalist, now a refugee in England, who has obtained a county court judgment for the value of his house, burned in October last, but cannot obtain payment of the sum awarded him, or of three half-years of rent now owing to him from his tenants?

If the hon. Member will give me details of the case to which he refers, I will gladly look into it to see what can be done. The information contained in the question is not sufficient to enable me to give the hon. Member an answer.

Will it suffice if I give the right hon. Gentleman details in confidence, the person who has supplied me not wishing his name to be published?

Certainly.

asked the Chief Secretary, in view of the fact that by the Act for the ratification of the Treaty the number of soldiers that can be raised by the Provisional Government is fixed in proportion to those employed by the Imperial Government, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that this provision shall be observed; whether he will state what is the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army; and if he can say what is the form of oath taken by such recruits?

Strictly speaking, this question cannot arise under the Treaty until the Free State has been established, but so far as the forces of the Provisional Government are concerned, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the intention of the Treaty has not been departed from.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last two parts of any question, as to the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army and what form of oath is taken by these recruits?

I have said that I have no information in my possession as to the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army, and I do not know the form of oath taken by the recruits. I will endeavour to get this information, and as to the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army, I doubt very much whether it is in the public interest of the Provisional Government to make that statement of fact, even if it were in my possession.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he arrives at the conclusion that the Free State are keeping within the limits actually imposed with regard to the numbers if he does not know the numbers?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not essential that the forces which are to be raised in Ireland should take some form of oath which would make them loyal to the King?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain what are the numbers of the Free State Army and inform the House when he has ascertained the numbers, and will he also say for what reasons those numbers should not be communicated to the House?

I cannot promise to answer the question as my hon. and gallant Friend has put it, but I will see what answer I can give to the two last parts of the question put by the hon Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) on another date.

I will put the question down again for Monday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime consider if he can give the numbers of the other army in Ireland at the same time?

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to the number of men under arms in Southern Ireland to-day, excluding the Imperial troops; and what is the number of the latter force in Southern Ireland?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, in the view of the military authorities it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can as yet give any information regarding the kidnapping of three British officers and their driver at Macroom; whether His Majesty's Government consider that it is in the power of the Provisional Government to do any thing to ascertain the whereabouts of these officers; and whether any steps have been taken by the military forces in Ireland to deal with this case?

I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the statement made yesterday on the Motion for Adjournment by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount that has been allocated for the payment of damages for malicious injuries in the area of Northern Ireland; and whether a Commission similar to that which has been appointed for Southern Ireland will be appointed to deal with this matter?

I have been asked to answer this question. The Government of Northern Ireland have undertaken to deal with this matter, and the Imperial Government has agreed to contribute the sum of £1,500,000 towards the cost. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. A Commission is not necessary in Northern Ireland because the vast majority, if not all the cases were defended, and no question of reviewing decrees, therefore, arises.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of claimants for compensation for damage are greatly displeased with their awards, and as those awards are being reconsidered in Southern Ireland, is it not possible that they could be reconsidered in Northern Ireland by a Commission appointed upon the same lines as the Commission for Southern Ireland?

Is it not a fact that the Commission is entirely for Southern Ireland, and not for Northern Ireland? Is it not a fact—that I think I can attest from my own personal knowledge—that claims in the Northern area have been contested by the County Councils and other bodies responsible, while in the Southern area they have not been contested by any bodies?

Now that both North and South have got Home Rule, how much longer is the British taxpayer to be asked to find money for both North and South?

It is impossible, for me to state how long this House will be asked to assist the settlement of Ireland—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—by financial grants. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) it is quite true that most of the claimants in Ireland——

Belfast we are talking about, not Ireland.

It is quite true that most of the applicants in the Northern area may be dissatisfied with the awards granted by the County Court Judges, but in Northern Ireland every applicant has an open Court of Appeal to a judicial tribunal, and the decision is given in accordance to the law which cannot be disturbed by this House or any other tribunal.

As I believe this grant of a million and a half to Northern Government to be an entirely scandalous transaction may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing it?

I cannot give a date, but I am certain there will be some Estimate before long on which the whole matter can be raised.

Is this sum included in the main Estimate for the year?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——

Other questions had better be put down.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware of the facts which led up to the death of Mrs. W. J. Talbot, of Mount Talbot, County Roscommon, on 9th or 10th April; if so, will he state these facts and say what action the Government have taken in connection with them;

(2) If he is aware of the facts as to the forcible ejectment from their holdings of a number of Protestants in the parish of Tinahoe, Queen's County, in the course of the last few days; and, if so, will he state these facts and say what action the Government have taken in connection with them?

I regret that I have not yet received from the Provisional Government the information for which I have asked regarding this matter and the matter referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's next question, and I am therefore again under the necessity of asking him to put both questions down again for a later date. As regards the hon. and gallant Member's second question, however, I would refer to the answer which I gave earlier to-day in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kirk dale.

As it appears to be quite futile to put down a question on a subject of this sort, I do not propose to put it down again.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Irish Land Commissioners are demanding from Mr. W. S. M'Neill payment of instalments of money due from him in respect of his farm in County Leitrim purchased by him under the Land Purchase Act; is he aware that Mr. M'Neill was forcibly driven from his farm by the Sinn Fein forces in 1920 and is now a refugee in England; that the farm was afterwards divided into lots and sold by auction; whether, under these circumstances, the Land Commissioners propose to press their claim; and what measures he proposes to take to enable Mr. M'Neill to assert his legal rights or, in default of this, to relieve him of his liability and compensate him for the money already paid by him to the Land Commission?

I am informed that in 1920 Mr. W. S. McNeill informed the Land Commission that forcible possession of the farm had been taken by Sinn Feiners, and that the crops of all description had been destroyed, and that it was not possible to meet the amounts due. The case was subsequently brought under the notice of the Irish Government. There are at present due out of the holding three half-yearly instalments of annuity amounting in all to £10 12s. 2d. The Commissioners have been giving the payer every opportunity to pay, and up to this no extreme measures have been taken. The Commissioners are not aware that the farm, which is a small one, has been divided into lots and sold by auction as stated in the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of my question?

Mr. McNeill has his legal rights under the Provisional Government of Ireland. If he is personally in distress he can apply to the Irish Distress Committee which has been set up and which undoubtedly would take bis claim into consideration.

As for over a year-and-a-half this gentleman was under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and he did not give him any protection, by what right is he asking him for the payment of this instalment when he has not given him protection for his farm? Surely he must give him the £10.

The Land Commission have not taken any extreme measures to press for what is due, namely, £10 12s. 2d.

Will he tell the Land Commission not to ask for it at all? If this man cannot live on his farm owing to the neglect of the Government why should he pay?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of temporary members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, recently disbanded, are in a destitute condition, as well as many ex-members of the auxiliary division, Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, in view of the fact that owing to their not coming under the unemployment insurance scheme they are not eligible for unemployment benefit, he will endeavour to get Treasury sanction, by means of legislation or otherwise, to give a weekly grant to these men of a sum not less than they would have received if they had been insured in the unemployment scheme, more especially in view of the fact that, in addition to performing arduous and dangerous duties, they were thrown out of work unexpectedly owing to a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government?

I regret that His Majesty's Government would not feel justified in present circumstances in extending to persons not otherwise eligible therefor the benefits of unemployment insurance.

Is this the way in which the Government acknowledge their obligations of honour?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering that the British officers engaged for service in the South Persia Rifles were offered and accepted a contract to serve for two years under the Persian Government, on the condition that if the contract should be broken through no fault of the officers they would be given six months' pay as compensation; that all Persian officers, and men of the South Persia Rifles were given two months' pay as compensation on disbandment; and that the British officers on disbandment were not only refused the six months' pay due to them under their contract to compensate them for expenses incurred, but have also been refused the two months' pay given to all the Persian officers and men, he will now state what steps the Government are going to take to fulfil the pledge given to these British officers?

The contracts of the officers mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member were never actually signed owing to the breakdown of the arrangement made with the previous Cabinet at Teheran, and there is, therefore, no ground upon which a claim could be pressed against the Persian Government. Further, the Treasury, having decided that gratuities could not be granted to regular members of the Government service for any period for which official pay from Government funds would be received, it was impossible to grant gratuities to these officers, of whom only a small minority held temporary commissions. These latter would in any case receive a gratuity on leaving the British service. I regret, therefore, that I do not see what further action in the matter it is possible to take.

Do I understand from the Noble Lord that the contract under which these officers were engaged is to be broken by the Government without any compensation to the officers concerned?

That is not what I said at all. I said the contract had never been signed.

It was signed by the Persian Government, and if that Government goes out and another Government succeeds, is that contract to be annulled?

I said it was not signed. I have already stated in my answer that the contract was never actually signed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the continual reports in the Continental Press of the activities of General Wrangel and his representatives in recruiting and drilling forces among the Russian refugees in Jugo-Slavia, Rumania and Bulgaria; whether any confirmation of these reports have been received from His Majesty's representatives in the countries named; whether His Majesty's Government are still paying the cost of the upkeep of many of these Russian refugees in Jugo-Slavia; and whether he is satisfied that the money is not being misapplied in the manner described?

Reports of General Wrangel's activities have been brought to my attention, but they have not been confirmed by His Majesty's representatives. With regard to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on the 3rd instant. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Will the Noble Lord undertake that Hi?. Majesty's representatives are inquired of as to whether there is any truth in this, that these refugees, supported by our money, are being raised and drilled for some unknown purpose?

Is the Noble Lord aware that these reports are sent out continuously from Moscow with the deliberate intention of trying to pick a quarrel with these border States?

Is it not a fact that the Russians are raising huge armies of men and placing them on the Polish and Rumanian frontiers?

I do not think that arises so much out of this question as out of the next question on the Paper, but we have no confirmation of these reports which have appeared. With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I said we were not supporting them.

Is the noble Lord aware that we have no further interest in these refugees at all, owing to the negotiations recently carried out, and that the League of Nations has taken over from the British Government the entire obligation with reference to them?

That is what I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring.

Are we not paying the League of Nations moneys for the upkeep of these refugees, and is the Noble Lord aware that reports come from the Italian, Swiss and other papers and not from Moscow? There may be other reports from Moscow, but I am not aware of them.

I think the hon. and gallant Member should put that question down.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that a group of two Russian armies are now being concentrated on the Polish frontier and another group of two Russian armies are also in process of concentration on the Rumanian border, under a project of operations, it is said, from Russian headquarters at Moscow; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

No official information is available respecting the reported Russian concentration on the Polish and Rumanian frontiers. There has been in increase in the number of formations in Western Russia since the beginning of the year, and the effective strength of these formations is believed to have been increased recently by the incorporation of the 1902 class.

In view of that answer, will the Noble Lord say whether he has considered the importance of deciding to ascertain the truth of the report that Messrs. Krupps have established works in Russia?

Will the Noble Lord convey to the Prime Minister at Genoa that information in order that he may bring it to the notice of the Russian delegation as a distinct breach of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph ( a ), of the Cannes Resolutions?

In regard to the last question, I think the hon. and gallant Member had better address it to the Leader of the House. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) the suggestion of my hon. Friend has already been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Giolitti Government, through its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Sforza, caused a secret treaty to be concluded between Italy and Afganistan last year; whether he can state the date of the conclusion of that treaty and its contents; whether and, if so, when it was disclosed to the British Government, and what action was taken in consequence of this disclosure; and what was the character of Anglo-Afghan relations at the time Count Sforza acted in this way?

Two agreements between the Italian Government and Afghanistan were signed on 3rd June last, providing for the exchange of diplomatic representation and for the negotiation of a commercial treaty. The Italian Government communicated the text of these agreements to His Majesty's Government on 14th July. There is nothing in the terms of either agreement which would appear to call for any action on the part of His Majesty's Government. At the time of the signature of these agreements negotiations were still in progress at Kabul for the Anglo-Afghan treaty.

From that answer, does it not appear as though the agreements were adopted and actually arranged and signed, about a month before His Majesty's Government was informed?

I should deprecate most strongly answering questions concerning two foreign nations with both of which His Majesty's Government are on friendly terms.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British troops have been engaged in the fighting for Pekin; and, if so, on whose side they were fighting?

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

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Mahommedan population of Egypt have this year abandoned the festal ceremony of the beginning of Ramadan as a protest against Zaghloul Pasha's exile, and that the Coptic population also abandoned for the same reason the feast of Easter; and whether His Majesty's Government has taken these facts into consideration in regard to the policy of returning Zaghloul Pasha to his home?

I have no information regarding the alleged action of the Mahommedan population of Egypt, nor, as I have already informed the hon. Member on 3rd May, regarding that of the Coptic population. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British authorities in the Sudan lately have been busy in inducing the Sudanese to sign declarations to the effect that they wish the Sudan to be separated from Egypt; whether a Sudanese delegation will be sent to London for the purpose of putting these declarations before the authorities here; and whether Lord Allenby, on his recent visit, took the opportunity of ascertaining what was the Sudanese attitude on this question?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information as to the prospect of a Sudanese delegation coming to London and am unable to reply to the last part of the question, since Lord Allenby's report on his recent tour in the Sudan has not yet been received.

Are we to understand that the status of the Sudan has not been changed in the last 12 months?

That question does not arise here.

Is the Noble Lord aware that many of the Sudanese have recently declared a desire to be represented in the Egyptian Parliament, and to be elected there, and there are still protests being made by the inhabitants of the Province of Khartoum against separation on the ground that Egypt and the Sudan are indivisible?

My information is to the directly opposite effect, and I regret the hon. Gentleman should make himself the channel for an allegation which is without any foundation whatever.

Will the Noble Lord say if he has any information—if he has really any knowledge—of what I am stating as a fact? I am not a medium of communicating allegations.

Is it in order for an occupant of the Treasury Bench, or any other hon. Member or Noble Lord, to make an insinuation against another hon. Member, as to being used as a channel for information?

It is the business of hon. Members to be sure of the foundations of their questions before putting them on the Paper, but I am afraid hon. Members do not always do so.

On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Sudan comes within the suggested Treaty?

May I ask again whether there has been any change in status as between the Sudan and Egypt during the last 12 months?

I should require notice of that, but to the best of my belief there has been no such alteration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are known to be working for revolution in this country; how many of these have been arrested, convicted, or deported since November last; and what steps are to be taken with those still at large?

It is undesirable that I should indicate the figures referred to in the first part of the question, but a number of persons of revolutionary tendencies have, during the last six months, been convicted or bound over to keep the peace in connection with disturbances or incitements to violence, and I am sure that the proper authorities are alive to the necessity of watching such persons and dealing with infractions of the law.

Who are the proper authorities?

The police authorities.

asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to bring before this House the legislation necessary to ratify the treaties concluded at Washington, namely, the treaty for the limitation of armaments of 6th February, 1922, the treaty for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants in time of war, etc., of 6th February, 1922, the Quadruple Pacific treaty of 13th December, 1921, the Nine-Power treaty, and the Chinese customs tariff treaty, as provided for in Articles XXIV, VI, IV, IX, and X of these treaties, respectively; whether separate Bills will be introduced for each treaty; whether Japan and the United States of America have already ratified these treaties; and what is the reason for the delay of His Majesty's Government in ratifying these treaties?

Legislation will be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to certain of the provisions of the Treaty for the limitation of naval armament, and the Treaty for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants. A Bill will be introduced as soon as the state of business permits. The other Treaties do not involve legislation. The United States Senate has advised the ratification of the Treaties, but ratifications have not yet been deposited by any of the signatory Powers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the widespread anxiety throughout the country that harm is being done to Anglo-French relations by the publication of inaccurate reports of the recent conversation between the Prime Minister and M. Barthou, the exact text of the conversation can be published?

I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to questions on this subject yesterday and the day before.

Has the Prime Minister intimated his willingness that the Minutes of the conversation should be published, and, if so, will they be published?

That does not arise out of this question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has been able to transmit to the British delegation at Genoa the fact that the people of this country are opposed to the grant of a money subsidy, cither by way of a direct loan or under the guise of a State-subsidised trade facilities agreement, to the Communist Government of Russia; and is he able to say that the Russian Government has already been made aware of this fact by the British delegation?

His Majesty's Government have made it perfectly clear that they are not prepared to make a loan to the Soviet Government. The character of the proposals, which they are prepared to make to Parliament, will be seen by reference to the Memorandum sent to the Russian representatives at Genoa on 3rd May. This document has been laid, and copies will, I hope, be available in the Vote Office to-morrow.

With reference to the Prime Minister's recent speech at Genoa, in which he stated he was going down with the sinking ship, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that ship was the Coalition or European peace?

I do not know of any such statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that not only is no direct loan to be made to the Soviet Government, but that we shall not do it in any indirect form, such as by granting a credit.

That is a question which requires a definition.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can assure the House that any proposal which may be submitted to the free vote of the House for the admission of Canadian store cattle, and the amendment of the Diseases of Animals Act of 1896, will be strictly confined to Canadian cattle coming direct by sea from Canada, and will not be applied to Canadian cattle sent through the ports of the United States of America?

I have been asked to reply. I understand that the Motion which it is desired to move is that the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle should be removed. It would be for Mr. Speaker to decide what, if any, limitations this Motion places on the terms of the discussion, and what Amendments would be in order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or some other person concerned, the precise extent of the effect on British agriculture?

We must take the Motion as it stands on the Paper, and any Amendments or limitations will be the subject for discussion at the time.

Is it not the case that Canada can send all the Canadian cattle she wishes to send to this country through her own ports, and further, in view of the sensitive state of opinion on this matter in Canada, will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to the British House of Commons as to there being no doubt about Canada being able to deal with this traffic without having recourse to American ports?

Before answering that——

Hon. Members have had several shots at this Motion.

We have only wounded it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Income Tax payers whose children are attending elementary schools, whole time, as student teachers-are being denied the abatement, on the ground that the children are apprentices, although the parents of children who are attending secondary schools and universities for the purpose of training for after life enjoy the abatement; and whether he will give instructions to secure similarity of treatment in these cases?

The question whether the Income Tax deduction to which the hon. Member refers is admissible in a given case is primarily one for the determination of the Income Tax Commissioners concerned. I would point out, however, that the deductions granted under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1920, for a child over sixteen years of age are subject to the condition that the child is receiving "full time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment," and that this condition would not appear to be satisfied in the case of a pupil or student teacher who is teaching in a council school.

What is the reason for this distinction in the two classes enumerated in the question?

I can only state the law as it at present stands.

Is it not a fact that young persons acting as student teachers are receiving education?

That may or may not be.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the substantive grants to local education authorities for the current year for elementary schools will be paid on exactly the same basis as last year, namely, under the formula which provides that the amount shall be calculated at 36s. for each unit of average attendance, plus three-fifths of teachers' approved salaries, plus one-half of net approved expenditure on special services (special schools, medical inspection, provision of meals), plus one-fifth of all other net approved expenditure (loan charges, administration, school maintenance and management), less the produce of a rate of 7d. in the £, subject to the amount of expenditure on special services, administration, and other similar purposes being kept within the limits specified in Command Paper 1638.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 9th May, and to the recently issued draft Regulations for Substantive Grant for Elementary Education for the year 1922–23.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers does not give the information for which this question asks, and could he tell local education authorities on what basis the variation in the formula will be made in cases in which the expenditure exceeds the amount specified in the White Paper?

I referred the hon. Member not only to the answer which I gave him on the 9th May but also to the Regulations on the subject of grants. I do not know whether he has referred to the Regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those Regulations do not show how the variation will be made if this expenditure is exceeded?

I hope to be able to give information to the local authorities as soon as the particulars are in my possession.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Denbighshire Education Committee granting permission to the director of education for the county to promote his parliamentary candidature for the West Denbigh Division, and allowing him to retain his appointment for 12 months from the date on which he may take up his parliamentary duties; and whether these arrangements have the approval of the Board of Education?

My attention has been called to a statement in the Press, from which it appears that the permission is conditional upon the provision by the director of a full-time substitute to be approved by the Education Committee. In the circumstances, there does not at present appear to be any ground for action on my part; but the Board would, of course, not recognise, for the calculation of grant, expenditure on the salary of an official the duties of whose office are not performed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was an undertaking also that, in the event of his being returned, there would be no active work on his part in relation to education at all—that he would retire definitely from the active work of education in that county?

I am not aware of that.

Would this establish a precedent for all permanent officials in Government offices who take up political candidatures and appoint full-time substitutes while they are doing so?

Why should it not be? Would it not be rather a good precedent?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the executive of the Association of Education Committees and also the County Councils' Association both consider that the Education Accounts (Annual Statement) Order, 1921, should be withdrawn; and, if so, why does the Board oppose these bodies, which will have to bear the cost of the preparation of the Return as required by the Order?

I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of an answer which I gave on the 1st May, 1922, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst). I have nothing to add to that answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the form requires the receipts submitted on this form to be under 67 different headings, and the expenses under 210 different headings, and will he, bearing in mind the additional clerks that are rendered necessary and the opposition of the local authorities, do away with this unnecessary expenditure?

The object of the revised form was to secure greater economy, and I have no doubt that it will enable very much greater economy to be secured than is now possible. It is true that the local education committees will have to employ a few more clerks, but when the new form is once established I think that the expenditure will be reduced to a minimum, and that a very large economy will result.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the serious financial injustice to the Principality of Wales involved in the proposals of Circular 1259 issued by the Welsh Department, seeing that the county schools of Wales established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act are regarded as aided schools, and are in the same category as schools under private management, but receiving financial assistance from local authorities, while other secondary schools established under a later Act are classified as provided schools, and therefore do not come under the terms of the circular; and whether, seeing that education authorities have adopted their Estimate for the year previous to the issue of the circular of 2nd May, he will consider the advisability of postponing the operation of the circular pending a discussion of its provisions with educational authorities in Wales?

The decision in this matter was made by the Government after considering a recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure, and it applies to England equally with Wales. I do not think that any injustice is done to the Welsh intermediate schools, in view of the fact that the Government's decision is to assimilate the position of the aided schools as regards grant to that of the provided schools. I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will postpone the operation of their decision.

further asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any representations from local authorities in Wales relative to Circular 1,259 issued by the Welsh Department of the Board of Education; whether he is aware that this circular will have the effect of crippling the work of Welsh intermediate schools; that these schools have for years suffered greatly from lack of funds; and that the Board's inspectors have in recent reports called attention to the strain placed on the present staff in certain intermediate schools in Wales and have made recommendations, the adoption of which would necessitate increased staffing?

I have received representations from one Local Authority in Wales concerning Circular 1,259. I see no reason to think that the decision of the Government which the circular announces will have the effect of crippling the work of the intermediate schools. The Board's inspectors have occasionally drawn attention to cases of under-staffing in Welsh intermediate schools, duo to an increase in the number of pupils, and the Board have asked that the staff should be strengthened. Such cases occur in England also, and I have no reason to suppose that relatively they are more numerous in Wales.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the present duty of 74s. per proof gallon on perfumery is crippling the industry; whether he will consider the question of separating the perfumery trade from the potable spirits industry and a lower and different duty for the trade; and, if this is not possible, whether he can see his way to amend the existing law to permit of perfumery being manufactured in bond for home trade, and to enable manufacturers to mature the spirit in bond and so release capital?

I am aware that representations have been made in the sense mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I am unable to adopt either of his suggestions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet given effect to the undertaking given by him in the Budget Debate on 18th July last and considered what relief can be given in the matter of that part of the Club Tax which is a tax upon a tax?

This question has received my careful consideration. It will no doubt be the subject of discussion on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and I am unable to anticipate that Debate.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in view of the great dissatisfaction caused by his inability to reduce the Beer Duty it would be extremely satisfactory if he could seriously modify this Club Tax?

I am not likely to be allowed to forget it.

In view of the financial position of many of the clubs will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of meeting this demand?

The hon. Member can put that point in Committee on the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received in respect of the Club Tax for the year ending 31st March last?

Exact figures for the year ending 31st March, 1922, are not yet available, but approximately the amount received in respect of the Club Tax during that period was £379,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of on-and off-licences issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors for the year ending 31st March last, and the total amount received on account of such licences?

Exact figures for the year ending 31st March, 1922, are not yet available, but the figures are approximately as follows:—Total number of "on" and "off" licences issued for the sale of intoxicating liquor (including "dealers" licences), 169,150. Total amount of licence duty, £3,841,750.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to revert to the pre-War purity of silver coinage; and what profit the Treasury anticipate during the current financial year from the issue of silver coins manufactured from the alloy at present in use?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is that the estimated Mint Exchequer receipts in 1922–23 are £1,180,800. It is not possible to give a separate figure for silver coin.

Does not the saving of a million or more on this debased coinage destroy any claim we may have to be an artistic people?

That may or may not be.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received each year from the Entertainments Duty since it was first imposed, and any variations in the rate levied each year?

As the information is in tabular form, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The receipts of Entertainments Duty from the 15th May, 1916, when the duty was first imposed, are:

Year ended 31st March, £ 1917 … … 3,001,268 1918 … … 4,987,568 1919 … … 7,520,080 1920 … … 10,479,516 1921 … … 11,735,840 1922 … … 10,285,000 (approximate)

The variations made from time to time in the rates of duty are shown below.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the details of the miscellaneous ordinary receipts, amounting to £22,000,000, estimated to be received in the year to 31s March, 1923; and what are the actual comparative figures for the year to 31st March, 1922?

The main items are Currency Note Reserve Account Surplus, £16,000,000; Fee and Patent Stamps, £1,100,000; Mint Receipts, £1,180,800. The receipts for 1921–22 amounted to £26,334,000, and details will be given in the Annual Finance Accounts in due course.

also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the loans and interest comprising the amount of £14,000,000 estimated to be received as interest on sundry loans for the year to 31st March, 1923, and the actual comparative figures for the year to 31st March, 1922?

The main items are Suez Canal Receipts and Interest Pay—ments on Relief Loans and from the Dominions on War Loans. The total receipts in 1921–22 were £13,807,500, full details of which will be given in due course in the Annual Finance Accounts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum in sterling paid by Germany since the Armistice to date as reparations to the British Empire and I the Allies in cash and kind, and including moneys paid for the Armies of I Occupation?

According to the statement published by the Reparation Commission in March last the German I payments in cash, deliveries in kind and cessions of State property from the date of the Armistice to 31st December, 1921 (including moneys paid for the Armies of Occupation, the re-imbursement of ad- vances under the Spa Coal Deliveries Agreement and Reparation) are estimated to amount to the total of 6,487,856,000 gold marks. Excluding cessions of State property the total amounts to 3,983,514,000 gold marks. No later figures are available.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman talk of sterling as requested to do in the question?

It is always difficult to give these matters in sterling: in point of fact it is much more convenient to give the actual payments made in gold marks.

Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what portion of this, sum paid and to be paid by Germany to the British Empire is to be allocated as compensation to those who suffered in this country from enemy action?

That is a totally different question: this is upon Reparation Account. The question the hon. Gentleman raises—as I think he very well knows—is dealt with from our own finances, not from what is paid by Germany.

What is the value in sterling?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to do so, he can roughly estimate 20 gold marks to the pound sterling. I do not profess that in the circumstances that would be entirely accurate, but it is as nearly as I can give it.

In view of the fact that the vast majority of Members of the House of Commons are pledged to search the pockets of the Germans, may I ask, with a view to lightening taxation in these difficult times, that the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that this matter will not be regarded in the nature of a windfall, but that definite reparation will be exacted?

I do not think it very much matters whether you regard it as a windfall or not, but whether it benefits the people when you get it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in case 110391/1921, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are imposing the reparation levy on goods of German origin shipped from Amsterdam by a Dutch firm unless the consignees can submit proof of when each article was ordered by the Dutch firm from Germany, the date it was ordered by the British purchasers from the Dutch company, when and how it was delivered by the German manufacturer to the Dutch company, and how and when it was delivered by the Dutch company to the British purchasers; that a Dutch company would allow no deduction to be made from their invoice cost to meet the reparation levy; that, if they did allow this, they could not recover it from the German Government; and that the payment becomes a British tax and not a reparation levy; and whether, in view of the restraint on trade between Holland and Great Britain which such an imposition must obviously cause, he will give instructions that goods shipped by a registered Dutch firm, whose business is certified as a genuine one by a British Consul, shall not be subject to the reparation levy?

All German goods are liable to reparation levy on importation into this country, unless they are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise not to have been first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom. In the case referred to the goods were two German pianos, and evidence of the nature indicated in the question has been called for to justify the importers' claim that the goods were not in fact first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom. The proposal contained in the concluding part of the question would not meet the requirements of the Act, and I am unable to adopt it.

Is it not a fact that, if these goods come direct from Belgium or France, no reparation duty whatever is collected?

No, I imagine that that is not so, though I could not be sure in every possible case.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the result of the Budget pro- posal to tax salaried persons on their estimated incomes is to make many of them pay on their highest year's income, whilst the rest of the community, in preferring their three years' average income, get the advantage of past lean years; and whether, seeing that an employé earning £145 in 1919, £250 in 1920, and £400 in 1921, under the existing law would pay £15 11s. 3d. tax, whilst if his salary has now been increased to £500 a year he will, under the new proposal, be compelled to pay, even at the reduced rate of tax, £50 12s. 6d., he will reconsider this proposal?

There has hitherto been a serious want of uniformity in the treatment of various classes of employés—some being assessed on the three years' average and others upon the emoluments of the year. The effect of the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers is to remove this anomaly and to provide one common basis of assessment for all employés, namely, the amount of the emoluments of the year of assessment. I would remind my hon. Friend that emoluments generally are now falling, so that the class of employés as a whole will gain by the change; it is only in a minority of the cases that there will be an increased charge of tax, and even in these cases it must be remembered that in past years the persons concerned have almost always paid tax on less than their actual earnings under the three years' average method of assessment, while other employés have been assessed annually on their earnings of the year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received representations as to the position of unmarried sons who are the sole support of homes and maintain their fathers or mothers, and therefore consider that they are entitled to the same abatement of Income Tax as is given to married men in respect of their wives; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

An Income Tax allowance is already granted under existing law to an unmarried son who is the sole support of an incapacitated father or widowed mother. I see no sufficient ground, however, why that allowance should be assimilated in amount to that granted to the married man.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the promoters of the Grampian Electric Supply Bill have received a letter, dated 20th April, 1922, from the Secretary of the Trade Facilities Act Committee stating that, subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, the Committee would be prepared to recommend a guarantee of both capital and interest of the debenture issue of the company equal in amount to the ordinary share capital of the company; and is he satisfied that the commercial future of this company warrants the use of public money to guarantee capital and interest to such a proportion of debenture issue?

As I stated during the passage of the Trade Facilities Act, I propose to be guided in the guarantees given under that Act solely by the advice of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee which consists of three business men of very great experience and ability. I understand the Committee are prepared to recommend a guarantee in this case provided the scheme matures in time.