It may save time if I tell the hon. Gentleman who will reply to the points on which we want enlightenment As regards Somaliland, is this expenditure to meet the cost of the expedition against the Mullah; if so, how was this expenditure incurred in starting what is practically a new war without in any way informing the House? Members of this House have a distinct grievance in this matter. Apparently the expedition turned out remarkably successful. It marked, as we knew, the first time on which the Air Force has really been allowed to come into its own and has fully justified the great hopes which we have of it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this might have been the beginning of a very long, costly, and disastrous operation. There were very uncomfortable, rumours at the time that there was a larger policy being embarked upon than simply to teach a severe lesson to the Mullah to the end of time, and that was to press on into Abyssinia in conjunction with the Italians. This is a matter on which we, as a House of Commons, ought at once to take a stand. There should be a full explanation of why this expedition was commenced without any notification to the House of Commons. If you are going to be launched into new wars, without so much as by your leave, then we are faced with a very serious state of affairs, and one which I do not think the people of this country will stand for five minutes, whatever hon. Members of this House may think

With regard to the East African Protectorates, the extra sum here is to meet the excess pay of the second Rhodesian Regiment. The pay of the Army was raised some eight months ago and I should have thought that the Rhodesian Force would have received almost automatically a like rise in pay or a bonus. Why has this sum now to be asked for from this House? The Rhodesian expenditure I also think requires a certain amount of explanation. We are asked to vote £115,000 for the war charges in Rhodesia. I do not know if I should be in order—and I do not propose to try—in raising the whole matter of policy with regard to Rhodesia and the British South Africa Company. I hope that we shall be able to raise that matter when the full Colonial Office Vote comes before the Committee, but I think that the explanation of this amount should be much fuller than that which is given under the heading N. 3 on page 59. The finances of the Company and their financial relationship with the Imperial Government also require a great deal of explanation.

Lastly, about this sum of £13,000 due for Supplementary News Service under Item AA. on page 59, this is to meet the cost of continuing in a modified form arrangements made during the War by the Minister of Information for the despatch of Press messages through Reuter's Agency to our overseas dominions and colonies. Does that mean that we are still asked to find a sum of £13,000 for Government propaganda over the cables? If so, I am afraid that I shall have to move a reduction in this Vote, and I hope that I shall be supported. This is not the time to be spending money on Government spoon-fed information to our overseas dominions. Our overseas dominions have a very good news service. They have very prosperous papers which can well afford to pay for their news and, from what I know of these dominions and their papers, they are very well served, and it is quite unnecessary for us to be asked now to find money for what practically amounts to Government propaganda. There has been much too much propaganda in the last five years. Some of it has been harmless, but some of it extremely objectionable. A distinguished General said recently, that propaganda, when you came down to plain English, in too many cases meant organised lying. I hope that that is not the case. I do not think it can be in connection with the Colonial Office, over which my hon. and gallant Friend presides with so much ability. We want to get rid of any Government subsidy or Government propaganda. It is a most serious matter, and I hope we shall have a satisfactory explanation.