asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that when Mr. Findlay Shirras undertook, on behalf of the Government of Bombay, to inquire into the cost of living with a view to establishing an index figure for a standard of life for the mill workers of Bombay and, as a result of his investigations, it was shown that the average earnings of a family works out at 52 rupees per family, it was found that on this standard the wages of postmen in the employ of the Government are considerably lower; and can steps be taken to ensure that, at least, the income of a postman is not less than that of the standard laid down by Mr. Findlay Shirras for mill workers?

Mr.Findlay Shirras examined the budgets of about 2,500 families of workers of various classes, and found that their average monthly earnings were rather more than Rs.52. He did not lay down this figure or any other as a standard. His report does not enable a comparison to be made between the income of a postman and a mill worker.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Findlay Shirras stated definitely that this was practically a minimum standard of life?

No, Sir, I do not think so. I examined what he said, and, in view of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have looked into it. He did not say so; he merely mentioned the fact that there was this difference between the wages of the two classes of workmen.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether, in view of the profits now being made by coal companies in India, he will say if anything is being done to improve the standard of life of Indian mine-workers and to prohibit the employment of women and young children underground;

(2) whether the hours of labour of underground mine workers in India are regulated by Statute; and, if so, will he state what they are for men, women, and children, respectively?

The conditions of work in Indian mines will be greatly improved by the recent Indian Mines Act and the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act. The Mines Act prohibits the employment in mines of children under 13, limits the hours of underground work for all adults to 54 hours in any one week, and empowers the Government of India to prohibit, restrict or regulate the employment of women either underground or on labour of a dangerous kind.

Is the Noble Lord aware that some of these coal companies are declaring dividends as high as 165 per cent., and that the Government of India have circularised the local Governments in regard to the abolition of women labour from underground works at the end of five years, from 1st June, next; and does he not think that, in view of the exceptional profits which are being made, it is a scandal to employ women underground in coal mines to-day?

I do not See what bearing the dividends of the companies have on the question. I think the situation is this—and I am very glad to have the opportunty of telling the hon. Gentle- man and his colleagues—that admittedly industrial conditions in India are inferior to those in this country, but they are probably far superior to those in any other Asiatic country. There has been a great improvement in recent years. India has more than carried out all her obligations under the International Labour Convention, and the legislation which is about to come into effect will mean a much greater further improvement.

How does the Noble Lord reconcile his statement that India has carried out her obligations under the Washington Convention with the statement that the new Regulations will permit mine workers to work 54 hours per week, when it is recognised that 48 hours' work per week is general?

I will answer that in a moment. The Convention in question laid down for India a maximum of 60 hours per week, and our legislation is making it only 54 hours.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any progress is being made with a view to determine the permanent boundary between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland?

I would refer the hon. Member to the despatches on this subject which have just been laid on the table of the House.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that payment of outstanding local rates is being insisted on by the Free State Government before they will honour awards made against them by the Wood-Renton Commission; whether, having regard to the fact that the security of the rates formerly enjoyed by holders of decrees for malicious injury under the Act of 1920 has been abolished by the Free State Government, he will say what is the connection between the payment of rates by the injured person and the payment to the injured person of compensation due to him by the Free State Government; and has the British Government agreed to this withholding of compensation in order to force payment of rates on property which has been rendered wholly or partly valueless by the Free State Government prior to July, 1921?

I am informed that where, as a result of the inquiries which the Free State Government are bound to make as to whether there are any charges upon an award made by the Wood-Renton Commission, or upon a decree for which such an award has been substituted, it is found that local rates are unpaid, the attention of the solicitors for the applicant is called to the fact, and payment is invited; but that no deduction in respect of unpaid rates has ever been made from compensation awards. I am further informed that where property which would otherwise have been rateable has been destroyed, it is not the practice of the local authorities to enforce their demands for rates. In view of the fact that the Free State Government did not come into existence until 6th December last, I am unable to attribute any meaning to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter from the Irish Minister of Finance, in which he says that this Act has nothing to do with the Minister of Finance or with the Irish Government, but is merely carrying out the instructions of the Wood-Renton Commission? Surely the Commission have laid down no instructions of this kind?

No. The Wood-Renton Commission have not laid down anything of this kind.

Is it not the fact that the Minister of Finance has been misinformed?

I have seen the letter of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman very kindly sent me a copy, but it seems to me that the answer I have just given should clear the matter up.

May I give the hon. Gentleman this letter?

Certainly.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are a large number of claimants who obtained decrees for compensation for malicious injuries to property in cases defended by the local county council, and who subsequently converted such decrees into judgments of the High Court in Dublin, who, notwithstanding that over two years have elapsed, have failed to obtain payment from the Free State Government; whether these claimants are now being asked to accept sums substantially less than the amounts of the High Court judgments which they obtained by reason of the provisions of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, recently passed by the Government of the Free State; whether, seeing that such provisions in the case of pre-Truce defended claims are a breach of the agreement entered into between the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government, he will say what action is being taken in the matter?

No such cases as those referred to in the second part of the question have been brought to my notice. If the hon. Member will be good enough to supply me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

Do I understand that, as far as my hon. Friend knows, all pre-Truce defended decrees are being paid in full?

So I am given to understand.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Free Stats authorities are deducting Irish Income Tax from the interest payable on pre-Truce defended decree:; in the cases of claimants who have had to leave Ireland and seek refuge in this country; and whether, seeing that this is a breach of the agreement entered into by the Free State authorities with the British Government, he will make representations to the Free State Government that all such claims should be paid forthwith and without deduction of Irish Income Tax?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am not aware of any agreement between the two Governments preventing the deduction of Income Tax in such cases; but if the persons concerned are advised that Income Tax is not payable in respect of such compensation, it is, of course, open to them to take the usual steps for recovery of the tax so deducted.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in the enacting words of Statutes which have recently been passed by the British Dominion known as the Irish Free State, all reference to His Majesty the King has been omitted; that in the case of the Dominion of Canada, and similarly with other British Dominions, all Statutes are stated to be enacted by His Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada; and whether, seeing that it was expressly provided in the Treaty constituting the Irish Free State that, unless otherwise expressly provided, the law, practice, and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, he will say what representations have been made to the Irish Free State Government with regard to this breach of constitutional usage and of the provisions of the said Treaty?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The enacting words of Irish Free State Statutes are: Be it enacted by the Oireachtas of Saorstàt Eireann, and the Oireachtas is defined by Article 12 of the Free State Constitution as the Legislature, consisting of the King and two Houses. A similar phraseology is used in Statutes of the Dominion of New Zealand, where the enacting words are: Be it enacted by the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament assembled while words quoted by the hon. Member are found in the Acts of no Dominion other than that of Canada. The last part of the hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

Is it not a fact, as indicated in the question, that in matters of constitutional usage of this kind, the Free State Government definitely agreed to adopt the usage of Canada; and will the hon. Gentleman explain why all reference to His Majesty, which any ordinary person can understand, is omitted?

As I have said, that arises because an Article in the Constitution made other provisions. The Canadian precedent is to be followed where there is no specific instruction to the contrary in the Constitution, as passed in the Bill which received the approval of this House last December.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the passage through the Dail and Sénad of an Irish Army Bill, communications have passed between the Governments of Great Britain and the Free State as to the standing strength of the army of the Free State as laid down by the terms of the Treaty between the Free State and Great Britain?

The answer is in the negative.

What need is there at all for this Irish Free State standing army? Is not the Free State amply protected against enemies by the whole British Navy?

The Irish Free State have required an army to put down a formidable Republican rebellion.

May I ask whether, before the Army Bill becomes an Act, His Majesty's Government will see that effect is given to the Clause in the Treaty that governs the strength of the Free State army?

This matter has not yet been discussed between the two Governments. I do not say that it will not be discussed in the future, as discussion of the point is provided for in the Treaty.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give as to the assault committed by the Jaffa police upon a peaceful strike picket at Tel Aviv when four men were seriously wounded; and will he arrange for a public inquiry with a View to preventing such events in future?

My information is that a dispute arose between two Jewish labour organisations at Tel Aviv on the 16th July. One party to the dispute attempted to stop the work of the other by force. As the parties refused to disperse, the police quite rightly intervened. It appears that only one man, who was injured with a baton, was detained in hospital. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

From whom did that information come?

From Sir Gilbert Clayton, the Acting High Commissioner.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his Department has now become cognisant of the Jamaica Regrading Commission Report, issued about 12 months ago; and whether steps are being taken by his Department to secure the application to the Kingston General Penitentiary staff of the new scales of pay recommended in the Report.

Effect has now been given in the Jamaica Estimates for 1923–24 to the recommendations made by the Regrading Commission with regard to the scales of pay of the Kingston General Penitentiary staff.

In giving effect to the Commission's Report, will it have a retrospective effect, and, if so, for what period?

I am rather doubtful whether it will have a retrospective effect, but I will look into that point.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the-Native Affairs Department of the Colony of Kenya will be instructed to furnish a Report upon the economic products which might, with technical assistance, be successfully cultivated by the natives of the country in their reserves; if he will give instructions that all possible encouragement shall be furnished to the native population for the cultivation of such products; and if he will consider the advisability of the services of European instructors from West Africa or India being placed at the disposal of the Colony?

A scheme of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is already in force for the instruction of natives, under European supervisors and native instructors, in improved methods of cultivation of crops suitable for the locality in which they live, the crops selected for special encouragement being cotton, rice, sim-sim, groundnuts, maize and beans. I should prefer to await information as to the progress of the scheme before considering the suggestion that instructors should be obtained from West Africa and India.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government that the administration of the Colony of Kenya shall be based upon the principle of trusteeship for the native population, he will consider the repeal of the Registration of Labourers Act, which requires of the adult male inhabitants of the Colony the possession of identification papers, failure to carry which by day or by night is treated as a crime involving arrest and imprisonment and which, the chief Native Commissioner of the Colony has reported, is detested by the native population; will he take steps to rescind the Clause in the Masters and Servants Ordinance, which makes desertion from the European planter or farmer a criminal offence cognisable by the police; will he take steps to review the incidence of direct taxation upon the native population, which in effect involves the able-bodied male population in work upon European farms and plantations for three months out of the year; and will he also take steps to secure that the principle be adopted that at least one-fifth of the direct taxes paid by the natives shall be returned to them in technical education, medical service, and agricultural instruction?

The Governor will be consulted on the first two points. As regards the third part of the question, I cannot accept the suggestion that a native cannot pay his tax by working on his own account, nor do I think that the direct taxation of the natives is necessarily excessive. I should, however, be glad if, consistently with the general financial position of the Colony, a larger proportion of revenue could be devoted to services for the direct benefit of the native. The matter will not be lost sigh, of, but I do not think that any fixed percentage can be laid down.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent declarations of His Majesty's Government that the interests of the African population of Kenya must be regarded as paramount, he will take early steps to ensure that the inalienability of the existing native reserves shall be secured by law, and that the Native Affairs Department shall have a careful survey of the existing reserves made and reported upon in regard to their adequacy both for food growing and for the cultivation of economic products for export; and will he prohibit, meantime, any alienation of any further land whatever?

The importance of defining and proclaiming as soon as possible those native reserves which have not yet been proclaimed is fully realised by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State and the Governor, with whom also the important question of limiting the alienation of reserve land, even for services (such as grain mills) directly benefiting the natives, has also been discussed repeatedly. I will inquire later whether any legislation is necessary to strengthen the powers already possessed by the Governor in regard to native reserves. I have no reason to doubt that the reserves are large enough for the present requirements and probable future expansion of the tribes, but I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion of a survey to the notice of the Governor. I cannot, however, agree that no land whatever in the colony outside the reserves should be alienated until the survey is complete.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Rumanian Government levies a special tax on foreign holders of Rumanian securities and that this tax applies to money invested in Rumania before the law imposing the tax was passed; and will he consider making representations to the Rumanian Government in the interest of British holders of Rumanian investments and also consulting with other Governments whose nationals are affected concerning this matter?

The hon. and gallant Member is presumably referring to the Rumanian law for the unification of direct taxation, Article 22 of which gives preferential treatment as regards taxation to the shares of joint stock companies whose capital is in the majority Rumanian. Strong representations have already been made to the Rumanian Government on more than one occasion upon this vexatious discrimination, but hitherto without effect.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the external loans of the Chinese Government are not paying their interest?

Of the loans publicly issued in this country the Chinese Government have defaulted on the 8 per cent. sterling Treasury Notes 1925–9 and the 8 per cent. 10-year Treasury Bills, commonly known as the 'Vickers" and "Marconi" loans respectively; both of these were unsecured loans. I am not in a position to give information regarding loans issued in other countries, or loans not involving a public issue.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a settlement has been made between the United States of America and Germany in regard to the payment of the costs of the American Army of Occupation; and, if so, whether the payments to be made under this settlement will take precedence of those due to this country from Germany in respect of the cost of the British Army of Occupation?

An agreement has been signed between the Government of the United States of America and the Governments of Great Britain, France, Italy and Belgium with regard to the reimbursement of the costs of the American Army of Occupation. The amount due to the United States Government will be payable in twelve equal yearly instalments out of payments in cash in respect of reparation made by Germany, or for the account of Germany, up to 25 per cent. of such payments in cash during the period 1923–6; afterwards up to the full amount of such payments in cash. Receipts by the British Government under the Reparation Recovery Act are not regarded as cash payments for the above purpose. The first annual instalment is payable by 31st December, 1923.

These yearly instalments will not take precedence of sums due to this country in respect of the British Army of Occupation up to the 31st December, 1926, but will do so after that date.

May I ask why?

Why, what?

Why is this charge to take precedence?

Because this agreement has been arrived at.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why America should be the only country to be paid?

May we have an answer to that question. Why is America always to be paid, seeing that she came into the War later than any of the other Allies?

I am afraid that raises a very difficult question of high policy, which I should prefer to see addressed to some other Minister.

Is it not the case that the other Allied Armies of Occupation have already been paid, whereas America has received no payment until this agreement?

That is so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements, if any, have been made for the payment by Turkey of reparations?

Under Article 58 of the Peace Treaty signed at Lausanne on 24th July, 1923, Turkey and the other signatory Powers (except Greece) agreed reciprocally to renounce all claims for reparations. By the same Article Turkey renounced all claim to £5,000,000 Turkish in gold transferred to the Allies under the Treaties with Germany and Austria. It is intended to apply this gold to the payment of claims against Turkey by Allied nationals.

Am I to understand that Turkey is paying nothing after all the damage done and all the lives lost; that she is to be the only one of our late enemies to pay nothing towards the cost of the War?

If the hon. Member studies the Peace Treaty, which will shortly be in his hands, he will be able to answer that question himself.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of cases coming before the mixed arbitral tribunal and the consequent delay in dealing with many claims, he will consider the advisability of setting up other tribunals, so that the cases may be more speedily disposed of?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Southwark (Colonel M. Alexander) on 16th July, a copy of which I am sending him.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to publish the French and Belgian replies to the communication regarding the German Note, so that the House of Commons may consider them before it rises?

No replies have yet been received.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any reason to expect them to-day or tomorrow, in accordance with the statement which has appeared in the newspapers; and whether he has made up his mind in the event of their being received to have a debate on Thursday, so that we may have the benefit of those replies?

I think it is quite possible something will be received, but I am very doubtful at present whether there will be anything that we can publish. I am afraid it will only be a continuation of the negotiations. I shall know better when I receive the replies.

Will the Prime Minister be willing to make representations to the Governments concerned to the effect that it is the wish of this Parliament to discuss this matter?

May I put a further supplementary question? On Thursday, I understand, we are to debate the subject. Do the Government intend to give us any indication of the nature of their communication to France and Belgium, in order that we may discuss it on Thursday?

I can hardly come to a conclusion until nearer the time as to how much it will be possible to say. I can assure the House I am anxious to give it as much information as I can.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention had been called to an appeal issued by an association claiming to represent British subjects with monetary claims against Russia, urging Members of this House to use their influence to secure from the Russian Government payment of such claims; and whether His Majesty's Government, in order that these claims may be promptly dealt with, will at once accept the offer of the Russian Soviet Government to enter into a conference for the settlement of all outstanding questions between the two countries and the conclusion of a definite treaty of peace in accordance with the provision of the annexe to the trade agreement?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to one of the hon. Members for Dundee, on the 19th June last.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if all the Powers have ratified the Washington Naval Treaty; and, if not, which Powers have not done so?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It only remains now for the ratifications to be deposited at Washington.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many representatives of the political Labour movements of each of the countries concerned are entitled to attend the council meetings of the League of Nations?

States members of the Council are entitled to one representative each, to take part in the deliberations. The meetings of the Council are mostly held in public, and any persons interested can be present as spectators at such meetings if they so desire.

What I intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and I thought the question was clear—was, how many actual labour delegates from each country (take part in the Council meetings?

I have answered that question. Each State which is a member of the Council is entitled to one.

asked the Prime Minister the names of the British representatives for the Assembly of the League of Nations; whether it is intended to confine representation of Great Britain to members of the one political party supporting the present Government; whether a woman delegate will be included in the British representation; and who will represent the Dominion of South Africa this year?

asked the Prime Minister whether the delegates of Great Britain have been appointed for the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September; and whether he has considered the possibility of permitting two of the British delegates to be appointed by the House of Commons, so that the widest representation may be given to the main currents of political opinion?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to say who will be the British representatives, but the suggestion contained in the last part of the question of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), is not one that the Government can accept.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a woman delegate is to be appointed?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question on Wednesday, I think I shall be able to give him a complete reply.

I do not want the name of the delegate, but are the Government going to follow the example of their predecessors?

I think I would rather answer the whole question on Wednesday.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information about the political situation in Greece; whether he has information of any attempt to set up a republican regime in place of the monarchy; what information he has about the part being played by M. Venizelos, General Pangalos and Admiral Hadjikiriakis in the republican movement; and whether His Majesty's Government is exercising any pressure for or against this republican movement?

Reports of the nature indicated have from time to time reached His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position to give any authoritative information, or to express any opinion, as to the attitude of individual Greek statesmen in matters of Greek internal politics.

May I have an answer to the last part of the question?

Yes. His Majesty's Government is exercising no pressure, one way or the other.

How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the Foreign Office has had no information as to what is going on in Greece? We have repeatedly asked for information, and have never been able to get it.

We have had the fullest possible information on all matters of this kind.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government is now able to recognise the Mexican Government; and what are the reasons for the continued delay in doing so?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to several questions on this subject on the 14th March last. No developments have occurred since then such as to warrant a change in the attitude of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what charge is now made to the public for entrance to Kew Gardens; whether any charge was made in pre-War years; when a charge was first imposed; if there has been any reduction on the first charge made; if so, when; and whether he will consider as to abolishing the charge for admission to these educational gardens?

The charge now made to the public for entrance to Kew Gardens is as follows: On Mondays, Tuesdays following Bank Holidays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Good Friday, Saturdays and Sundays 1d. On Tuesdays and Fridays (students' days) except as above 6d. School parties, including a teacher or teachers, are admitted at a charge of 6d. for 12, with 3d. for each additional six, while season tickets available for the calendar year can be obtained for £1 and 5s. in the case of students.

Special charges are made for bath chairs, perambulators, etc.

No charge was made in pre-War years. The charge for admission was first imposed in January, 1916, since when no reduction has been made. I regret that I do not see my way to abolish the charge for admission to these gardens. I have no evidence that it interferes with their use from an educational point of view, and it now brings in an annual revenue of approximately £7,000.

It is a mean charge!

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many ex-service men applied for small holdings in England and Wales; how many have been settled on the land; how many have been passed as suitable but have not yet been settled; how many have been rejected as unsuitable; and how many applicants have not yet been classified as suitable or unsuitable?

As the answer necessarily contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

As the hon. Member is probably aware, any ex-service men who desired to avail themselves of the preference given to such men over civilians under the Gov-

I may explain that the above figures refer to the position as at the 16th January last. The usual six-monthly returns, which will show the position as at the 16th July, are now being collected, and I will send up-to-date figures to the hon. Member as soon as the returns have been completed.

In addition to the above, 472 ex-service men have been settled on the Ministry's Farm Settlements exclusive of settlements transferred to Councils, and 1,623 applicant withdrawn, rejected or removed from the lists. No applicants who applied prior to 1st December, 1920, now remain on the Ministry's list, and none have, since that date, been added to the list.

asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that land at Georgetown, Renfrewshire, belonging to the nation and extending to about 600 acres, has been or is about to be sold for use as a game preserve; and that there have been many applications by ex-service men for small holdings on this estate; and, in view of the suitability of this land, with its Government-owned houses, for small holdings, whether he can see his way to having it utilised in this manner rather than for the preservation of game?

I would

ernment scheme were required to send in their applications before the 1st December, 1920. Separate figures are, therefore, given below as regards applications received before and after that date.

refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) on the 5th June. I understand that as part of the settlement of claims for reinstatement the Disposal and Liquidation Commission have transferred an area acquired by the Commission to the owner of another part of the land. I have no knowledge of the use to which it will be put. The demand by ex-service men for holdings on this land is not large, and, as I stated in my previous reply, the area does not offer good prospects for a small holdings scheme, as the land is largely occupied by buildings and foundations. Any existing application to the Board of Agriculture by ex-service men can be more suitably considered in connection with other schemes in the same district.

Have not hundreds of acres being cut off for foundations and buildings equally suitable for small holdings, and is there not an urgent demand on the part of ex-service men for that portion of the ground?

I have replied to that question in the answer I have just given. There are, of course, portions that are not so cut up as other portions, but you must read the area as a whole.

Could not portions be so utilised?

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many county agricultural committees have at any time since their creation paid the travelling expenses of their members; how many now pay them; and what contribution towards these expenses is made by the Ministry?

In 56 of the 62 counties in England and Wales the county scheme originally provided for the payment of travelling expenses to members of the agricultural committee, and in 34 cases this provision still remains. I doubt, however, if expenses are now actually being paid in more than a few counties, but exact information on the point could only be obtained by circularising county councils on the subject. The Ministry has not contributed in respect of expenses of the kind referred to since the 31st March, 1922.

Seeing that great advantages are undoubtedly obtained by the presence of men who could not pay their own expenses, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question as to whether the Department cannot contribute towards the expenses?

This was one of the expenses which it was definitely decided last year should be cut down.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many scholarships have been awarded by his Department this year to the children of agricultural workers; how many of the recipients are children of workers earning not more than 25s. per week; how many are children of workers earning over 25s., but not over 30s. per week; and how many are children of workers earning over 30s. per week?

As the awards have not yet been made, I regret that I cannot give the particulars desired.

When will the awards of these particular scholarships be made?

They are actually to be made on Wednesday next, 1st August, and will then be submitted to me for approval.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the desirability of setting aside a room in the House of Commons where Members' wives can wait for them?

I am sorry that adequate additional accommodation is not available, and I am therefore unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. There are two rooms downstairs, which hon. Members cannot have discovered, that are available for ladies visiting the House, and I think that probably ought to meet the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a room—two rooms put into one—already available for that purpose, and is he also aware of this fact, that that is not generally known, and will he take means to publish the fact?

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is accommodation available for the husbands of Lady Members?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are rooms allocated to Lady Members of the House, but that hon. Members cannot take their ladies there?

There appears to be some misunderstanding. There is a room which is entirely for the use of Lady Members, and there are two rooms next door, which are for the use of ladies visiting the House, whether they are the wives of Members or other ladies.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, now that water has been reintroduced into the bed of the lake in St. James's Park, he will consider the reintroduction of a certain number of fish into the lake if this can be done without any expense to his Department?

I am happy to be able to assure my hon. Friend that small fish in large quantities have already taken up their quarters in the St. James's Park Lake at no expense to my Department.

In stocking the lake above the surface, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to introduce a very attractive supply of water fowl?

In course of time and in the process of Nature, I hope such a supply will be obtained.

Will the course of Nature produce sufficient variety?

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the issue of Circular No. 424, dated 23rd July, to boards of guardians, a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination in the form set out in the Schedule to the Vaccination Act, 1907, will be accepted by vaccination officers in place of the new form to be issued by the Ministry?

The form of statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination which will be issued by my Department to vaccination officers will be the form set out in the Schedule to the Vaccination Act, 1907. The Act provides that these statutory declarations must be made in that form or in a form to the like effect.

Do I understand that the existing form in the Schedule of the Vaccination Act, 1907, will not be accepted in future? Will it be illegal for conscientious objectors to put in the form shown in the Schedule of the Act of 1907?

No.

What is the authority for that? Does the Act give the right hon. Gentleman power to say that a person must go to a certain place to get a form? Does not the Act say merely that the statutory declaration must be made in proper form?

Yes, but I have not said that a person must go to the vaccination officer to get it.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the answer he gave about a week ago.

63. The hon. Member asked the Minister whether he will explain why he has issued an Order requiring a person making a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination to make such declaration only on a form supplied by the vaccination officer, in view of the provision in the Vaccination Act, 1907, Section 3, permitting the use of the form set out in the Schedule to the Act or a form to the like effect?

The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Vaccination Order recently issued states that these declarations must be made in a form which may be obtained from the vaccination officer or in a form to the like effect. The form issued to vaccination officers will be the form set out in the Schedule to the Vaccination Act, 1907.

Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Order does not mean that a person who wishes to make a conscientious objection must apply to the vaccination officer for the form?

Certainly.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department has taken, or is taking, any action in the direction of making representations to the shipping companies in respect of the heavy freight and passenger rates to various parts of the British Empire?

Any specific complaints that are received are inquired into, and such action as is possible is taken with regard to them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the Dominions, Crown Colonies, or Protectorates send bales of cotton to Great Britain; and the number of bales of cotton sent in each case?

As the answer contains a number of figures, my hon. Friend will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the quantities of raw cotton imported into the United Kingdom, during the year 1922, consigned from various British countries (including Protectorates) overseas. I am unable to state the quantities in bales as, in order to secure uniformity in the records, quantities of raw cotton are required to be stated on importation in centals of 100 lbs.

Imports consigned from: Centals of 100 lbs. British India and Ceylon 441,737 Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 80,525 Nigeria 62,067 Kenya and Uganda Protectorate 93,587 Nyasaland Protectorate 11,901 British West Indies 16,509 South Africa 14,903 Australia 12,309 Other British Countries 9,144

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to publish the terms of the United States' proposals relative to the right of search beyond the three-mile limit?

I regret to say that the United States Government have objected to the publication of their proposals at present.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make a statement, relative to the inquiry into the Regulations made under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act?

Yes, Sir; I have now appointed Mr. George Talbot, K.C., Mr. Walter Runciman, and Lord Chelmsford to be a Committee to review the provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and of the Regulations made under that Act, and to report what, if any, powers thereby conferred should in the public interest be retained, whether temporarily or permanently. Mr. Talbot will be the Chairman of the Committee.

Will the Report be published?

I would like to consider that question.

How many members of that Committee belong to the Conservative party?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the adoption by the Government of the principle of State railway construction in our African Colonies, the Government proposes to consider the similar adoption of State railway construction in this country in case of need; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons for this difference of policy?

The relationship between the State and the railways and the extent to which the State should participate in railway construction in this country or the Colonies must necessarily depend largely upon local considerations. So far as this country is concerned, I do not propose at present to take steps to alter the existing relationship, which, as the hon. Member is aware, was carefully considered by Parliament so recently as 1921.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate an inquiry into the circumstances of the association of His Majesty's Government with the Hoffman Manufacturing Company, Limited; the purchase and sale of interests therein; the loss sustained by the country in connection therewith; and the circumstances of, reasons for, and amount of such loss?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who was responsible for the terms of sale of the Government holding in the Hoffman Manufacturing Company?

The Government purchased the whole of the issued capital of this company during the War, when the extension of supply of ball bearings was of vital importance. The sale of the Government assets was made by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, with the concurrence of the Treasury. As already stated, the sale was widely advertised, and the best offer, which was in excess of the reserve price, was accepted. I see no reason for the inquiry proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. F. Gray).

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, in taking over a good going business such as the Hoffman Manufacturing Company was, it was necessary to lose it? Why could we not sell it again as a going concern?

We sold it at the best price we could get.

Why did you not sell it as a going concern, as you got it?

May I inquire the amount of the loss sustained by this country through this transaction?

It is really exceedingly difficult, impossible, in fact, as I think I have answered before, to state the loss, because the loss cannot be determined; there was very great profit to the country from having been able to control this manufacture.

Is this House not entitled to know the loss, so that we may form an opinion as to whether the gain is equal to the loss?

I think the House is entitled to all information.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the difference between the price paid and the price received?

I will try to get that for the hon. Member.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Count Uchida, the Foreign Minister for Japan, has expressed the opinion in a public interview that the establishment of a new naval base at Singapore conflicted in many ways with the spirit of the Washington Agreement, and for which there was nothing in Anglo-Japanese relations to require such an extensive undertaking; and whether he will enter into a frank discussion with the Japanese Government before finally committing the country to this large expenditure?

Count Uchida was incorrectly reported. It is now officially denied that he stated that the Singapore base conflicted with the spirit of the Washington Treaties. His Majesty's Government do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by raising a discussion with the Japanese Government on this subject. During the Washington Conference they made it 'clear that they reserved their liberty of action at Singapore, and this was fully understood by the other Governments concerned.

Considering that trade is so bad, and this base will cost so much money, is it not possible to postpone it for a time?

Is it a fact that the Japanese Minister stated that, owing to the proximity of the proposed dock to Formosa, it will be necessary for Japan to take special defensive measures?

I have not seen that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what he meant when he said, "they made it clear that they reserved their liberty of action at Singapore"? Was there any document or statement made which could be published?

No; not that I know.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was stated in the recent Debate that the matter was not discussed at Washington, and that they were not informed?

asked the Prime Minister whether a decision will be arrived at in reference to a naval air arm before the House rises; and, if not, whether he can give a pledge that no new organisation will be set up before Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

I hope to be in a position to make a statement before the House rises.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what day I may put down a question?

Will it do if I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman notice, so that he may put a question down by private notice?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has formed any estimate as regards trade prospects for next winter; and whether, in the event of further' depression, the Cabinet propose to put into operation schemes to meet the situation, particularly in relation to the question of unemployment?

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in Committee of Supply on the 18th July, and, as regards the last part of the question, to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to questions on this subject.

Having regard to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade relating to trade prospects in the coming winter, is it not desirable for the Government to put before the House, before the Adjournment, some scheme which it is proposed to put into operation?

The hon. Member may have forgotten that a discussion on this subject was promised, and will, I believe, as a matter of fact, take place to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can give any reason why he sent out instructions both to the Hull and Grimsby Employment Exchanges that all transport workers who were in receipt of unemployment benefit up to the time of the dispute are now disqualified, and have been for the past few weeks, from obtaining further benefit; and if he will take action in the matter?

Benefit was disallowed at Hull and Grimsby by the chief insurance officer, who held that dock workers at those ports were disqualified for benefit on and after 2nd July, during the continuance of the stoppage due to the dispute. The dock workers and their association had the usual right of appeal to the Court of Referees and the Umpire, and at Hull there were appeals to the Court of Referees, which upheld the insurance officer's decision.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other than dock workers have had their unemployment pay stopped; and can he tell the House what is the definition of a "transport worker"?

The hon. Member knows that the action of the chief insurance officer is in pursuance of a statutory duty under the Act; it is open to appeal, and with that statutory right the Ministry of Labour has no right to interfere.

You are driving the men to rebellion.

asked the Prime Minister whether there are any publicity Departments in any Government offices or Government officials engaged, wholly or partly, in publicity work at the present time: if so, in which Departments; and what is the total annual cost of this publicity work?

asked the Prime Minister which Departments now have publicity branches which did not exist prior to 1914; and whether there is any necessity to continue the existence of these publicity branches?

Publicity officers are at present employed under the Air Ministry, Colonial Office, General Post Office, India Office, National Savings Committee, Ministry of Pensions and War Office. Their total annual salaries amount to £5,520. None of these posts existed prior to 1914. The question of the continued existence of the posts is being considered on the merits of each case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that is the only expenditure on publicity? I asked what was the cost of publicity work. Apart from the salaries of officers, is there no expenditure?

I think the answer I have given is correct, but this matter, I understand, is going to be raised on Wednesday in debate.

What are the duties of these publicity Departments?

That can be explained in the debate on Wednesday.

Who was responsible for the last effort in the General Post Office?

That matter will be raised on Wednesday.