asked the Secretary of State for War why over-looker Captain F. J. Clarke was recalled from Hereford to Woolwich on the 20th May, 1926, and informed that his employment at Woolwich depended upon a. suitable vacancy presenting itself?

The employé referred to was recalled from Hereford for the reasons already explained to my hon. Friend in letters from my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Captain King).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated that this employé was recalled because he wrote an improper and insubordinate letter, and that the employé absolutely denies having written such a letter Will the right hon. Gentleman send to Captain Clarke a copy of the alleged letter?

I have seen the letter, or I have seen a copy of the letter, and I am satisfied with the description which has been given of it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send to the accused person a copy of the letter, which he denies having written?

My hon. Friend is mistaken if he thinks the gentleman in question denies having written the letter. He does not deny having written the letter; what he denies is that it is insubordinate, and that is a matter for those who are employing him.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the first convenient opportunity, on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether Regulation 80 of the Rules and Regulations of the Ordnance Factories precludes a workman from making an application as to wages through a trade union or a Member of Parliament?

Rule 80 of the Rules and Regulations of the Ordnance Factories, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend, makes no specific mention of trade unions or Members of Parliament, but prescribes the normal recognised procedure for the representation of grievances, through the employé's immediate superiors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grievances have been dealt with by them on application through trade unions and by Members of Parliament in certain cases, and that a certain Captain F. J. Clarke was called up before Major Hunter and reprimanded for having made an application through a Member of Parliament?

The latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, I am informed, inaccurate. As regards the former part, certainly the rule is not observed, and nobody is endeavouring to enforce it. Complaints do come from Members of Parliament and also from trade union representatives.

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment upon the first convenient opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to abolish the Ordnance Factory Rule under which at Parliamentary Elections workmen are given a half-day's leave with pay to enable them to record their votes; if so, will he state the reason why; and whether, in view of the fact that the Rule has been in force for many years and taken into account in the establishment of present conditions, he will have the matter reconsidered?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no longer any justification for the continuance of the Rule in view of the improvement in voting facilities since it was made. The matter has already be-en fully considered, and I regret that I am not prepared to reverse the decision arrived at.

May I ask whether this is a condition of employment that, is made known to those centering the services of the War Office when they enter the ordnance factories?

It is a privilege which has been allowed to the men employed for a good many years. OrigiNally it was intended so that they might exercise their right to vote, but, now that the voting hours are from 12 to 14 hours, it does not seem to be reasonable any longer to allow a half day for the purpose of voting. I may point out that a. half day for this purpose costs the taxpayers £6,000.

Is it not a fact that this half day is used by the officials of the War Department when answering questions regarding the pay of the unemploy6s of ordnance factories?

I should not think so, bat I do not know.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to inform the House of the estimated cost of adapting Brancepeth Castle, Durham for use as a barracks?

It is estimated that the cost, including the erection of necessary additional buildings, would be approximately £70,000.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there was an attempt to dispose of the site previously purchased?

No, it is not proposed to take any action with regard to this offer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether and, if so, when it is proposed to proceed with the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill?

I hope that as the result of correspondence now proceeding all the associations concerned will agree to this Bill going through as an unopposed Measure so far as they are concerned. In that case I would propose to proceed with the Bill early next Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that several months ago the Peebles Town Council adopted a by-law (Clause 9b) making humane slaughter compulsory in Peebles; that such adoption was duly confirmed by the Sheriff; that the Peebles Town Clerk made application to the Under-Secretary for confirmation as required by Section 318 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, on 10th August last; that since that elate the town clerk has sent two reminders of his first application, but so far has received no reply to his communication will he state the reason for delay; and will he now confirm the by-law unani- mously approved by the town council and confirmed by the Sheriff for the county?

The reply to the first four parts of the question is in the affirmative. I am in favour of the object of the by-law, and I received a deputation on the general subject to which it relates about 10 days ago. Confirmation in this particular case has, I regret, been unavoidably deferred pending the Consideration of certain general questions as to the best method of achieving the object in view. I appreciate the desire of the Town Council of Peebles for an early decision, and I shall do my best to meet it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the scheme submitted by the education authority of East Lothian for an increase of the School accommodation at Ormiston will receive his approval?

The Department have asked the education authority to consider an alternative proposal, and they now await their reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the scheme, which was unanimously approved by the authority, in view of the fact that the proposal put forward by the Department was more costly, and entailed a dispersion of School buildings?

My information is that it will be less costly, and will have some advantages which I shall be glad to discuss with my hon. and gallant Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, before the estate of Eriboll was sold, offers were made to the existing holders on the estate to purchase their holdings; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to safeguard them in the possession of their holdings and glazing rights?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The holders settled by the Board of Agriculture have the protection afforded by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886–1919, and I do not consider that there is any necessity for further action on my part.

Is it not in accordance with the policy of the Government to offer these holdings to the sitting tenants in the first place when an estate is for sale?

Every case is considered on its merits.

Would it not be entirely contrary to the policy of the Liberal party that the sitting tenant should have the option of buying the holding?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what respects the conditions under which Eriboll and the sheep stock have been sold differ from those under which they were offered at public auction; and whether any attempt was made to obtain competitive offers on the revised basis accepted by the present purchaser?

The terms of sale to the present purchaser differ from those offered when the estate was exposed for sale by auction in respect that special agreement was made, after negotiation, with regard to various matters, namely. the price of transfer of the five-year-old ewes, the sale of the "Shotts" by the Board, the number of tups to be taken over and the charge on the estate in connection with the transfer of the Church property. As regards the last part of the question, negotiations were entered into with the present purchaser after the auction had proved abortive, and the terms agreed in these negotiations were not made the subject of competitive offers.

If the whole basis of the transactions was to be revised, surely competitive bids could have been sought from other quarters?

The estate was put up for public auction on two separate occasions.

It was not put up on the basis of a Martinmas valuation, with permission to reduce largely the sheep stock.

Is the House to understand that after this estate had been offered for sale and failed to get a bidder the right hon. Gentleman then revised the conditions of sale, and sold it to a private individual without advertising the new conditions?

The facts are that this estate was offered for public auction on two separate occasions, and no bidder came forward. Subsequently a private offer was made, and after being considered on its merits this offer was accepted.

Surely, if a private offer was made at all, should it not have been made to the smallholders in the first place, for the benefit of whom this estate was acquired?

We cannot argue this point now.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of insured women referred by approved societies to the district medical officers between 1st July and 31st October, 1925, and between 1st July and 31st October, 1926; the number of such women who were certified by the district medical officers as not incapable of work for each of the said periods; and the number of insured women over the age of 60 years who, being in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit at the time of examination by the district medical officer, were certified by that officer to be not incapable of work?

The figures for the two periods are as follow: As regards the first part of the question, 4,371 and 6,236, respectively. As regards the second part of the question, 1,076 and 1,653, respectively. As regards the third part of the question, 85 and 90, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, seeing that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland own parks and lands in the neighbourhood of Conon Lodge, which are now occupied by local tenants, he will say whether, since the sale of Conon Lodge, these tenants have been informed that their tenancies may not be renewed?

Notices of termination of their tenancies have been given in terms of the respective missives of let to the joint tenants of a park of seven acres, namely, the Board of Agriculture's factor and the local doctor, and also to the tenant of a plantation extending to 16 acres and let at a rent of 10s. per annum.

Is this answer not a contradiction of the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave last week, and does he intend to offer this particular part of the estate to the new purchaser of Conon Lodge when the individuals to whom notice has been given vacate the land?

No, Sir; my reply must not be taken as contradictory of anything I have previously said on this subject. So far as regards the conditions, the letting was for a short term and notice was given to terminate it.

Are we to understand that this estate, which was bought for the special object of providing small holdings, is now being split up in such a way that the ground is to be used for shooting instead of smallholders getting the benefit of the ground for their own specific purposes?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman must not assume anything of the sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any agreement or arrangement or understanding, apart from what is contained in the articles of roup of the lodge, was arrived at between the Board and the purchaser of the lodge that the latter would have an opportunity of acquiring the shootings owned by the Board of Agriculture in the neighbourhood of Conon Lodge on the expiry of the present lease thereof; and, if so, whether such options were disclosed to other intending purchasers of the lodge?

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

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any arrangement, agreement, or understanding has been arrived at between the purchaser of Conon Lodge and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, by which the former will acquire the parks and fields adjacent to the lodge so far as these are now in the occupation of local tenants; and, if so, whether these options were disclosed to other intending purchasers of the lodge?

The purchaser of Conon Lodge was informed on 23rd October, in response to an inquiry by him, that in the event of his being the successful offerer for Conon Lodge at the public auction, the Board would be prepared to accept an offer from him of £300 for Rha Park and Rha Plantation. In the case of property offered for sale at public auction, it is not known who are intending purchasers; and the inquiry and reply to which I have referred were not published. The Board had no other inquiries from prospective bidders.

Are we to take it that this individual is going to get further land from those who have been notified that they have to quit? I think we should have some answer as to this, which is one of the worst pieces of sharp practice that has gone on in Scotland.

asked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the case which was tried in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 3rd November where two sons of miners were charged with theft of coal, found guilty, and filled 2s. each; and whether, in view of the youth of these children, he will cause the fine to be remitted?

I have made inquiry, and have ascertained that no children were fined in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on the 3rd November for theft of coal. But on that date three miners (the eldest of whom was over 50 and the youngest 16) pleaded guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to a charge of theft of 2 cwt. of coal. They were each sentenced to a fine of 2s. or five days imprisonment, 14 days being allowed for payment of the fine. I see no ground to justify me in advising any interference with the sentences.

Is it not the fact that it was the parents who were charged for an act done by the children; and, further, is it not the case that, in the same court, on the same day, two young persons who had stolen stamps were admonished, while two miners' children were fined through their parents?

That is an argument on the question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, before the next. Budget, the advisability of extending the relief of motor-licence duties to cars manufactured at a more recent date than 1912?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the question asked on 16th February by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury, and to my reply thereto, of which I am sending him a copy.

Is it not a fact that some of these cars are 13 years old, and that the, value is not so much as the annual licence paid?

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. It has nothing to do with the age of the car.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer were the currency note issue and the Bank of England note issue combined, what the total note issue would be; what would be the gold and silver holdings held as a reserve; and what would be the total fiduciary issue and the percentage rates of the same to the total note issue?

As the reply contains many figures, I will with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any rebate or allowance is made by the Treasury to the Government of the Irish Free State for collecting the payments due to the Exchequer under the various Irish Land Purchase Acts; and, if so, will he state the total annual amount?

The payments referred to are due to the Irish Land Purchase Fund. The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.

Do I understand that the full amount collected is paid into the Treasury?

Yes, to the National Debt Commissioners.

Is the cost of collection debited to the Irish Land Fund?

I am not sure about that. I will inquire.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the circuit allowances and expenses of the Judges of the King's Bench Division, Commissioners of Assize, and their clerks amount to approximately £22,000 per annum; and whether lie will consider whether economies and greater expedition can be secured by a change of method?

I have been asked to reply. The question whether economy and greater expedition can be secured by a modification of the circuit system has been considered on more than one occasion during recent years. By Section I of the Administration of Justice Act, 1925, machinery is provided whereby it becomes unnecessary to hold an Assize at any place on a circuit if it appears that there is no business, or no substantial amount of business, to be transacted at the Assizes about to be held at that place, and it is hoped that some economy may result.

In the interest of economy, does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has come when the marshal of the judges, which serves no purpose, might usefully he abolished?

I do not see that that has any reference to the question I was asked, and I do not agree with the suggestion that the marshal of the judges is of no use.

On a point of Order. An objection has been taken by the Attorney-General that this does not arise out of the answer. The question was as regards certain allowances. I submit that I am perfectly in order in putting the question whether at present the judges marshal is not an unnecessary expense and ought to be abolished.

The hon. Member put his question, and received the answer.

Cannot some further steps be taken to reorganise, on lines such as those suggested by the Swift Committee, the existing circuit system?

I am always glad to pass on suggestions to those whose duty it is to consider them. I have not heard of any practical suggestion for the re-organisation of the circuit system, but we did devise certain alterations last year which I hope will result in economies.

Will consideration be given to the recommendations that were made with regard to the Welsh circuit system?

This is becoming a debate. The question had better be put down on the Paper.