asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the plebiscite in the Burgenland is being taken with the consent of the Austrian Government; and whether the date of the plebiscite has been advanced so as to assist a Hungarian solution with the approval of His Majesty's Government?

The Austrian Government have protested against the holding of the plebiscite on 14th December, though, under the strict terms of the agreement signed at Venice by Austria and Hungary, it was due to be held by that date. I need hardly say that any suggestion that the date has been fixed in order to assist a Hungarian solution is altogether unjustified. His Majesty's Government are of course only concerned to see that the plebiscite should take place in circumstances which ensure to the utmost the maintenance of order and the freedom of the vote.

Is it not a fact that Hejjas and the White Terror troops were still in occupation of the Burgenland when the plebiscite was taken?

I should like a notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the amount of reparation received by Britain to date from Germany exceeds the cost of our Army of Occupation on the Rhine; and, if so, by what amount?

The amount received up to the present by the British Empire from Germany under the Reparation and Financial Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles is not yet sufficient to cover the cost of the British Army of Occupation on the Rhine.

Does the amount to which the hon. Gentleman refers include the shipping which comes to this country from Germany, and which has had the direct effect of causing unemployment in the shipyards of this country?

It includes the amount under the Reparation and Financial Clauses. I am afraid that if I were required to give a further analysis of that amount I should have to ask for notice.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether a Note has been sent by the German Government to the Reparations Commission declaring its inability to pay the next two instalments of the indemnity; what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter; and whether the position will be explained to Parliament before further sanctions are agreed to?

I understand that a Note has been received from the German Government by the Reparation Commission asking for a partial postponement of its January and February instalments. The position created by the Note will be discussed with the Allies, but in view of the urgency of the question, I cannot undertake to postpone a decision until the House meets again.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether further sanctions, such as occupying the Ruhr, are not equivalent to a fresh declaration of war, and should not this House be informed and consulted before such a grave step is taken, or is it only to be discussed with the Prime Minister in his private room, and this House ignored in the matter?

Do we understand from the hon. Gentleman that the Government might consent to further military sanctions without consulting this House?

I cannot add anything at all to the answer I have given, or warrant any implication from it.

On the constitutional point, may I ask the Leader of the House whether what are virtually new declarations of war should be embarked upon before an explanation is given to the House.

I think it is unnecessary and inexpedient to answer hypothetical questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the white settlers in Kenya are refusing to pay Income Tax because they were not consenting parties to the tax; whether the Income Tax law was passed in 1919 and never yet enforced; how much direct taxation is levied upon settlers, Indians, and natives, respectively, in Kenya; and whether he will consider the advisability of widening the franchise to Indians and natives in order that all parties may be consenting parties to the taxation they bear?

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government endorse the recommendation of the recent Conference of Premiers respecting equality of status for British citizens, whether Indian or European; and whether any steps have yet been taken to carry out this new doctrine in British Crown Colonies and especially in the matter of the Kenya franchise and segregation?

I understand that a motion for the removal of the Income Tax in Kenya has been moved in the Legislative Council and defeated, and that further opposition to the tax on constitutional grounds has been raised and will probably be tested in the Courts. I have no other information on this part of the hon. Member's question. The Income Tax Ordinance was passed on 7th December, 1920. It was not found possible to complete the necessary arrangements within the financial year 1920–21, and, as there would have been hardship in collecting two years' tax in one year, it was decided not to proceed with the levy of the tax for the financial year 1920–21. I have no information as to the direct taxation of Europeans and Indians separately, but taken together, the estimate for 1922 is £169,442, representing about five pounds per head. The direct taxation on natives is expected to bring in £656,070, representing about 5s. per head. The question of the Indian franchise is engaging my careful consideration. I am not satisfied that any form of elective representation of natives is necessary or would serve any useful purpose.

Does not the constitutional objection to paying taxes for which they have not voted also extend to the native Indians in the Kenya collieries?

I think that is a question which, if answered at all, would require to be answered with very considerable modification.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay Papers or inform the House as to the present position of the franchise and segregation question in Kenya Colony, including his instructions to the Governor and the correspondence with the India Office?

I will consider the question of publication in connection with the presentation to Parliament of next year's Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the annual rent or tax paid by the settlers in Kenya for the land they occupy is reckoned at so many cents per acre; that the change in the Kenya currency has not halved the value of the cent in relation to the florin, and that the result of the change has been to halve rents paid by the settler when cents were 100 to the florin; and how do the Government expect to make good the revenue so lost?

Article 5 (3) of the Kenya and Uganda (Currency) Order in Council, 1921, provided that

"Where any contract entered into or instrument made before the commencement of this Order provides for the making of any payment in terms of cents, the contract or instrument shall have effect as if for references to any number of cents there were substituted references to twice that number of cents of a shilling."

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what will be the total charge in connection with the four new battleships whose construction has now been abandoned?

I regret I cannot give figures of the total charge which will be incurred in the event of the contracts for the four new battle cruisers being cancelled.

Does the hon. Gentleman not wish that he had taken our advice to postpone the construction of these ships until after the Washington Conference?

Considering that this House has voted these sums to be spent on shipbuilding, cannot the hon. Gentleman see his way to adopt some alternative scheme of spending the money in order to alleviate unemployment in the shipbuilding districts?

Is it not a fact that two of these ships have to be built, and that this news is in the paper to-day?

I have no information on that subject. As regards the other supplementary question, the only shipbuilding I can deal with is Admiralty shipbuilding.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the four ships are to be proceeded with or not?

The construction of the four battle cruisers for the present is in suspense. What will ultimately be done will depend on the outcome of the Washington Conference.

Has anything been done by way of compensation to the shipbuilders who are going to lose money on these contracts; and if so, will anything be done correspondingly with regard to the workmen who will lose wages?

My right hon. Friend's question raises a point of detail with reference to the contracts. Questions of that sort may arise, but I do not think it would be in the public interest to go into them now.

Will the House be informed how much money has been thrown away owing to this mistake?

Certainly the House will be informed.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has signed a contract for the breaking up of a number of British warships in Germany; and, if so, whether he can give to the House the reasons for this action when there are so many men unemployed in Britain who could do this work?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This step was taken after every effort had been made to dispose of these ships for breaking up in this country. I should explain that the facilities in this country for breaking up old ships—especially large vessels—are fully occupied for some time to come, in consequence of the special measures taken by the Admiralty during the last few months to distribute vessels for breaking up to various ports in Great Britain in order to relieve unemployment. There can, therefore, be no question of the action of the Admiralty having prejudicially affected the employment situation, as is suggested in the second part of the hon. Member's question.

Surely the unemployed men in the shipbuilding places who have constructed those vessels are equally able to destroy them, and facilities are there in the yards for the destruction of any vessels? Why is it, therefore, necessary that the Government, which is supposed to be giving money to the unemployed, should not give work to these men instead of doles, and permit those vessels to be broken up in those yards, although it may cost a little more money than in Germany?

We have approached a number of firms to see whether they could not possibly take part in ship-breaking, but they all found it impossible to do so because, for one reason, they are overstocked with scrap, and there is already over 1,000,000 tons of surplus vessels being broken up in this country at this moment.

Is it not a fact that you have transferred the breaking up of these ships to Germany because they are paying lower wages than we are?

That certainly is not the case, because we have offered and disposed of a very large volume of ships for breaking up in this country at far lower prices than the particular block which has gone abroad, and we did this in order to relieve unemployment to the fullest extent.

Is the Government prepared to make an offer to the trade unions affected, giving them the option of finding men to break up the ships in this country?

I am ready to consider any practical suggestion which the hon. Member can make.

Do you expect Germany to pay for these ships?

We are now having a debate.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the Czecho-Slovak currency had no pre-War standard, did not in fact exist before February, 1919, and that therefore it has not depreciated to an extent of 33⅓ per cent. therefrom, and that the Government of the Dominion of Canada has officially recognised this to be a fact, and is in consequence admitting Czecho-Slovak goods free, of duty, he will state why under Clause 2 (b) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act an application has been referred to a committee of inquiry for the imposition of an import duty of 33⅓ per cent. on certain types of Czecho-Slovak glassware?

There appears to be no doubt that the Czecho-Slovak Government adopted the currency unit of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire as its official unit, since the paper currency issued by the Austro-Hungarian Bank was given official currency in Czecho-Slovakia subject to being stamped by the authorities of that country. The parity of exchange, with reference to which depreciation is to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (1) (b) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, is clearly the parity of the krone, the currency unit of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. I am unable to agree that, in charging duties on goods from Czecho-Slovakia, based on the conversion of their values in kronen at the current rates of exchange, the Government of Canada has expressed any opinion as to the existence of depreciation or its measure.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the decision of the referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Safeguarding of Industries Act that incandescent gas mantles, in so far as certain materials used in the manufacture of the same are concerned, are liable for duty; and whether he intends to apply to the referee for his assistance, as he did in the case of santonin, to test this decision in a court of law?

I am carefully considering the position created by the decision in question, but I am unable to make any statement at present.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in fact these articles have "lost their identity" when they become part of those gas mantles, and will he define the meaning of "loss of identity" for the purposes of this Act?

Is it not a fact that last month Germany doubled the import duty on incandescent gas mantles in order to prevent mantles manufactured in this country from going into Germany?

Is it not a fact that this House deliberately decided against the inclusion of gas mantles in the first part of the Schedule?

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to give some information on this subject considering the confusion which undoubtedly exists in the trade?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gas mantles imported into this country from Germany in 1920 exceeded by 15 times the number imported in 1919, and that according to the "Times" Trade Supplement the imports this year equalled the total consumption of gas mantles in this country?

Perhaps it would answer all the questions if I say that I only had the official decision yesterday. I am carefully considering that decision, and I hope it may be possible to arrive at a conclusion at a very early date. I quite recognise it is essential to this industry that this should be done at once.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decision of the referee that gas mantles which contain certain dutiable materials are liable to an import duty of 33⅓ per cent. on parts of the mantles, he proposes to give instructions that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. is to be levied on imported celluloid containing, as it does, dutiable synthetic camphor; and, if so, will these instructions also apply to all other imported manufactured articles of which dutiable commodities form a part?

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the procedure of his Department in placing substances, such as menthol, amongst the commodities which are liable as fine chemicals to a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and afterwards attaching the letter R to the names of these substances, thereby exempting them from duty, is not calculated to create considerable confusion; and is he prepared to give an undertaking that no such action will be repeated without public inquiry, of which notice has been previously circulated in the public Press instead of in a weekly journal published by the Board of Trade, of whose existence few traders are aware?

Certain Amendments have been made to the lists as originally issued under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, but all the Amendments so far made restrict the scope of the original lists. It is obvious that in lists such as those in question it must be necessary to make some corrections, and I see no reason to modify the procedure adopted. I should add that I do not accept the statement at the end of the question as being correct.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will inquire into the great dissatisfaction that exists with regard to the procedure being adopted before the Committee appointed by him to consider applications under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether he is aware that evidence is not given under oath, and that therefore no penalty can be imposed for wilful false evidence; that cross-examination of witnesses is not permitted to objectors to the granting of applications; and that, in view of the fact that particulars of the evidence in support of an application are not furnished to objectors before the hear- ing by the Committee, no sufficient opportunity is provided for producing rebutting evidence?

The Safeguarding of Industries Act confers no powers on Committees to take evidence on oath. The Statutory Rules of Procedure, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, provide that no witness shall be examined or cross-examined except by the members of the Committee. This limitation, which was decided on by the Board of Trade after full consideration, applies of course to all witnesses, whether they appear in support of or in opposition to an application. With regard to the last part of the question, this is a matter within the discretion of the Committees themselves. I have no doubt that they will afford all proper facilities to witnesses to enable them to present their cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in practice the truth is disregarded and there is no remedy?

I should be sorry to assent to the proposition of the hon. Member. I have no reason to believe that people tell lies when they come as witnesses before these Committees, and, having regard to the class of men chosen to serve on these Committees, I imagine that they are quite capable of distinguishing between the truth and fiction.

How can evidence be tested if the right of cross-examination is not given?

Of course, the word "tested" needs definition, but I think the procedure is quite sufficient for the purpose.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the congestion and confusion prevailing and the consequent difficulty in obtaining delivery of parcels from Germany owing to the collection by His Majesty's Customs of the duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the German Reparations Act; that certain parcels which arrived in this country for Christmas trade on the 21st and 24th October, could not be delivered by the Post Office until various forms had been filled up and duties paid; and that, though those formalities were duly completed and a receipt obtained on the 16th November, 1921, a part of the consignment is still undelivered; and whether, in view of the continual complaints made by traders as to the delays, he is prepared to modify the procedure or appoint a larger staff so as to prevent this hindrance to trade?

The centralisation at one depot of the examination of the parcels, the scrutiny of invoices, and the assessment and receipt of levy and duty in respect of all parcels arriving in London from Germany, has now been effected in conjunction with the postal authorities, and if the addressees will carry out the instructions given on the form of advice sent on arrival of the parcels, they should not experience any delay in delivery beyond such as is inevitable in collection of the levy or duty. As regards the third part of the question, if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case referred to, I will have inquiry made.

Seeing that the complaints are increasing in number every day, would not the hon. Gentleman appoint a small committee of City men to investigate and do something to clear up this tremendous delay?

No, Sir. I think the facts of the case are not as suggested by the hon. Member. The complaints are not increasing, and I very much trust and believe that the measures to which I have referred in the answer will lead to their diminution and disappearance.

Then why object to having a committee to investigate?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that many hundreds of packages of perfume which are mixtures of natural essences and synthetics that have lost their identity are lying at the docks and at the Post Office Customs Department, and cannot be obtained except on payment of a duty improperly demanded; and will he direct the Customs officials to release such parcels?

No, Sir, I am not in possession of information to this effect. If, however, the hon. Member will give me particulars of any actual cases which he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made into the facts. I may, however, remind him that, in a case such as he suggests, delivery can be obtained on deposit of the duty demanded, pending settlement of the question of liability.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many regional transport officers are still employed in the Food Control Department; what are their duties; what pay do these officers receive; and when he proposes to dispense with their services?

Notice has been given to terminate the engagement of the regional transport officers of the Food Department at the end of the present month. It will be necessary, however, to retain some of these officers during the month of January for the disposal of papers, the winding-up of accounts and other work connected with the termination of their branch. By the abolition of the regional transport staff a saving of about £31,000 a year in respect of salaries will be effected.

How many of these officers will be retained permanently?

Oh, permanently? None, or very few. Speaking from memory, I think the expenditure for January will be about £1,500.

asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Economy Committee has been directed towards the swollen staff of His Majesty's Office of Works and the increase in the cost of that Department?

The provisional Estimate for the Office of Works for 1922–23 has been referred to the Committee on National Expenditure in the same way as other Departmental Estimates.

When may the Report of this Committee be expected to be published?

I cannot say.

Why should it not he published at once?

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it will be Published?

There is another question on that point.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received communications urging that the pledge given by the Government that a Bill to complete land purchase in Ireland would be introduced and proceeded with pari passu with the Measure consti- tuting a part of Ireland a Free State should be observed; and what answer has he been able to make?

I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time on the question of the completion of land purchase.

May I ask whether it is the policy of the Government that the British taxpayer should be further taxed to provide the benefits which they cheerfully provided for united Ireland for those who advocate separation?

I can add nothing to the answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Imperial Government does not deal with the residue of the Irish land question in so far as the Irish Free State is concerned, it will deal with it in so far as Ulster, which will remain in this Imperial Parliament, is concerned?

Does it mean that the pledge given by the Government in regard to the 1920 Act is now dead?

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to accept the answer that I have given as the best that I can give.

Will my right hon. Friend, in considering this matter, bear in mind that under the proposed settlement the position of Irish landlords will be one of intense danger and that they are entitled to the protection of this Parliament?

asked the Chief Secretary what provision is being made for the payment to owners of destroyed police barracks of the compensation awarded to them by the courts; whether he is aware that in some cases these owners have been left without rent or compensation for nearly two years; and whether he will take steps to remedy this hardship as soon as possible?

I would refer the hon. and learned Baronet to the reply that I gave yesterday to a private notice question on this subject asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman).

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether orders have been issued to Navy and Army and Air Force institutes in Ireland that in future only Irish goods are to be sold; and, if so, on what grounds this has been ordered?

The reply to the first part of the Noble Lord's question is in the negative; the latter part does not therefore arise.

Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a circular has been received by the depots of the institutes in Ireland instructing them to boycott British goods and to deal only in Irish goods, and is he not aware that a copy of this circular has been sent to the War Office?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to release all Irish political prisoners?

The question of an amnesty will be considered if the Agreement is approved on both sides.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to exclude murderers from that?

No, Sir. I will not go beyond the statement which I have made.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to communicate with the Sinn Fein negotiators as to whether the flag of the Irish Free State will not be the present Sinn Fein flag, but the Union Jack with such minor alterations as local patriotism requires, as in the case of all other self-governing Dominions within the British Empire, before the proposals of the Treaty are embodied in a Bill to be placed before this House?

As far as I know, no condition as to the flag was imposed in any other Dominion, and the Government have followed the precedent of the earlier cases.

Will not the Government communicate with the Sinn Fein negotiators on this question of the Flag, which no doubt will excite considerable interest in the country and in this House?

That is the same question again.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has any further information with reference to the summary discharge from Gormanstown Camp of 19 constable-mechanics of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on the 14th and 15th of December, without notice, and without their fares being paid to their homes?

I understand that a number of constable-mechanics, on completion of their engagement, were through inadvertence discharged from Gormanstown Camp on the dates stated in the question without being given return railway warrants. As soon as this mistake was brought to notice, steps were at once taken to prevent its recurrence and to rectify it as far as regards the men who had not been given warrants on discharge.

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information other than that which has appeared in the Press, with reference to the murder of Sergeant Enright, R.I.C., and the wounding of Constable Timmoney, and whether he has seen the report that a man named Joseph Cahill has just been released from Waterford Gaol, and that prior to his release he was taken to the office of the Governor of the prison, where a military officer was waiting with two telegrams in his hand, one of which said that Cahill had been sentenced to penal servitude for life, and the other ordered his immediate release; and what is the explanation of this extraordinary procedure?

I regret to state that Sergeant Enright was murdered and Constable Timmoney wounded on the 14th instant, as stated in the question. Steps have been taken to secure the co-operation of the responsible leaders of Sinn Fein with a view to the arrest of the miscreants involved in this crime. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information as to what took place at Waterford Gaol. The facts in regard to the case of Joseph Cahill are, I understand, that the confirming officer in the exercise of his discretion, while confirming the finding of the Court, decided to remit the sentence imposed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the responsible leaders of Sinn Fein have yet helped the Government to find a single murderer?

Yes, they have co-operated. They have helped the Government in several cases.

Have you got the murderers?

They have helped the Government in inquiries endeavouring to secure the arrest of murderers.

In how many cases have you got the men under lock and key?

Have you got the murderers?

Is the right Gentleman aware that the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary is a matter of very great concern at the moment throughout Ireland, and that, unless something is done immediately, I do not know what will happen in the North and the South?