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

As the House, was informed last Thursday, if and when, as a result of the elections shortly to be held, the Free State is established in Ireland, the provisions of Article 8 of the Treaty will come into force, and their strict observance will be an object of legitimate inquiry by His Majesty's Government. Meanwhile, as the House is fully aware, the position is one of great difficulty. His Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that the forces at the disposal of the Provisional Government are within the proportion contemplated by the Treaty, but it would not be fair to the Provisional Govern-men for me to give a more definite reply to this question in the present circumstances. I am informed that no oath is taken by recruits.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries as to whether the oath is the same as that which was taken by the Irish Republican Army?

I have done that. Since this question was put on the Paper I have been making inquiries and I am informed that no oath is taken by recruits.

When will the elections take place, and will they be pushed on, in view of the conditions in Ireland at the present moment?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question. It does not arise here.

On a point of Order. It arises out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply.

Is an oath necessary in the case of the soldiers of the Free State?

That is really not a question that should be asked of me.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman boasted several times in this House that he was responsible for all law and order in Ireland?

No, Sir. I must disclaim, and the Government disclaims, any responsibility for law and order since the transfer of powers on 1st April last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a speech of Mr. Moylan, delivered at the Dail Eireann in Dublin on 28th April, in the presence of all the members of the Provisional Government, in which he stated that he was the leader of a body of armed Republicans, that he always seized every opportunity to rob British subjects of their goods to support this band, and that he himself had robbed 19 post offices around Kanturk, and had collected the taxes in the district and used them for his own purposes; whether, in view of the fact that no prosecution has been instituted against this member of the Dail, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Provisional Government that this man should be prosecuted before a legal tribunal?

My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. As the hon. Member implies in his question, the Provisional Government is responsible for the enforcement of law and order within their area, and I must again ask the House to recognise what is the fact, that that Government is at present faced with armed rebellion against its authority, and is not, therefore, in a position to take the action which it would naturally take if its authority were unchallenged.

The right hon. Gentleman has frequently stated that if we bring cases to his notice, he will bring them to the notice of the Provisional Government. Here I have brought a case in which a member of the Dail boasts of having robbed British subjects. Does he say he will put no pressure on the Provisional Government immediately to take action against this man who boasts publicly in a public assembly of what he has done?

That question should have been put down.

Seeing that the right hon. Baronet still poses as Chief Secretary for Ireland—

The hon. Baronet begins his question in a way that puts him out of court.

May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that this is a question of robbing British subjects? Is that not a case for this House?

It is a question of order in Ireland.

My question, I hope, is in order. I was merely going to ask the right hon. Baronet—

If the hon. Baronet cannot begin a question with ordinary courtesy, I must stop him. He used the word "pose," which obviously is not a word used in ordinary courtesy between Members of the House.

Will you allow me to apologise? I did not use it in any offensive way. I merely meant to say I do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman does stand for, because he does not represent the South of Ireland. I was going to ask if he could not find time to go there himself and satisfy himself of the real ghastly state of affairs there.

Is there really no way by which open and avowed robbery of British subjects can be stopped in Ireland?

In view of the unsatisfactory answer given to Question No. 22 on the Paper to-day, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, and that is, the open and avowed robbery of British subjects in Southern Ireland, and the refusal or omission of the Provisional Government to prosecute the avowed perpetrators of these outrages and the refusal of the British Government to make representations on the subject to the Provisional Government?

This is not a Motion that I can accept. It clearly deals with a matter which Parliament, by Statute, has transferred to the Provisional Government, namely, internal order in the Southern part of Ireland.

On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to complain, and, if necessary, to complain on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, of the refusal of the British Government, given to-day, to call the attention of the Provisional Government to these serious outrages in Ireland?

I made no such statement in the answer which I gave. Representations are made, personally and by letter, daily to the Provisional Government on all matters of this kind that arise. I made no statement that I refused to make representations.

Did I not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in a particular case, he would call the attention of the Provisional Government to the circumstances and urge them to prosecute, especially having regard to the fact that the individual concerned is a member of the Dail, and did not the right hon. Gentleman say he would not do so?

I did not even rise. Mr. Speaker rose, and I was compelled to remain seated. The House, I am sure, will bear me out when I say that to practically every question that has been put, asking if representations will be made, the answer has been in the affirmative. I repeat that, both personally and by letter, representations are daily made to the Ministers of the Provisional Government in regard to these and similar cases.

Has this particular case been represented to the Provisional Government, and have they given an answer that they cannot function in the matter in their own capital city?

I cannot answer that question.

On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman cannot state that he has made any representations to the Provisional Government, might I respectfully suggest that if this had happened in a foreign country we should have had the right to ask our Government to make representations to that foreign Power that steps should be taken to protect British subjects. Surely, it cannot be ruled that we should have less power in our own Dominions than we have in a foreign country.

On a, point of Order. Is it not a fact that on previous occasions, and as one instance in 1906, in the case of Natal, our Government interfered in the interests of the preservation of law and order, and that representations were made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Government of Natal to protect the interests of the subjects of the Crown?

I cannot say that I have in mind the case of 1906. Therefore I will not say anything about that for the moment, but really this question of representations does not arise, because the Chief Secretary has stated that he has made representations. If it were permitted to bring that on at the end of questions, it would make possible the raising in this manner of a continual series of subjects which Parliament has deliberately transferred to another authority.

I beg pardon for insisting on having a ruling on this point, but it is of great importance. Do I understand, Sir, that you rule that we could ask the Government to interfere in the case of a foreign country, but that we cannot in the case of one of our own Dominions?

I have given no such ruling, and, what is more, I should not be drawn further than dealing with the particular case in question.

On a point of Order. Is it not always a matter for the cognisance of this House if there is a robbery of British citizens, wherever they are, whether in the Colonies or abroad? Where British citizens are robbed, is it not the duty of this House to demand information and, if necessary, investigation?

This House has, in various cases, transferred responsibility for law and order to other authorities. Where it has done so, hon. Members do not retain the right to raise these matters on the Floor of the House—certainly not by way of an Adjournment Motion.

On a point of Order. I would like a ruling whether the point of Order is not very considerably altered by the fact that when we were asked to agree to the bargain between the representatives of Ireland and the Government, the representatives of the Government in this House gave us distinctly to understand that the assistance of the Government would be given to the Provisional Government in maintaining order and in preserving the amenity of life in Ireland?

Any question of assistance, if asked for, does not change the place where the responsibility rests.

On a point of Order. Is it not within the power of this Parliament to withdraw, if it should think fit, the authority which it has conferred upon the Provisional Government in Ireland, and, if that is so, is it not open to this House to consider and discuss whether circumstances have arisen which would render that course necessary?

Of course, what Parliament by Statute has conferred, Parliament by Statute may equally withdraw, but it would be on a proposal to withdraw that the matter could be discussed.

On a point of Order. Might I ask one further question? Where the British Government deliberately refuses to make representations to the Provisional Government in a matter affecting the lives or property of British subjects, are we not entitled to challenge the action of the British Government in this House for their failure and, if necessary, to do so upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the House?

On a point of Order. May I put this point of view to you, Sir? It is conceded, as I understand it, that it is part of the duty of the Government to make representations to the Provisional Government in this matter; that is to say, that the Government themselves recognise that it is part of their duty to do something to protect British subjects in the South of Ireland from these outrages which they are alleged to have undergone. If it be their duty to make representations, might it not be contended, with some force, that it is their duty to make those representations effective, and, if those representations are not effective, is it not within the power of hon. Members to raise the question whether something further ought not to be done in order that the Government's duty in this matter should be effectively discharged?

As I conceive it, if the Noble Lord's doctrine were accepted, the whole fabric of the British Commonwealth would be gone.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what recognition is being made to the temporary unestablished civilians attached to the Royal Engineers in Ireland whose connection with his Department and whose employment are now being terminated as a result of the Southern Irish settlement; whether he is aware that some have been employed for many years and made their homes in Ireland and are yet now cast adrift; whether he will investigate especially the case of Henry S. Noakes, surveyor, thus discharged after nearly 20 years' service; and whether, in view of the recent establishment of several other temporary unestablished staffs, such as health, valuation, and dockyards, a similar procedure can be followed in the case of these men attached for so long to the Royal Engineers?

The position of War Department employés in Southern Ireland whose services are no longer required in con sequence of the change of Government, including those in the Royal Engineer services, is still under consideration, and I hope that a decision will not be long delayed. Steps have already been taken in the case of certain classes of employés of the Royal Engineers who have served continuously since before the War to effect transfer to other commands where vacancies can be found. As regards the case of Mr. Noakes, whilst the Department would naturally wish to assist him if possible, I understand he desires employment under the Free State Government and I am not aware whether that Government is in a position to offer him employment. His last period of service under the War Department, which was on a purely temporary basis, dated from April, 1919, only. As regards the last part of the question, proposals for the establishment of certain classes of Royal Engineer employés in the War Department service generally are being investigated through the War Office Whitley Council machinery.

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House the Terms of Reference to the Irish Distress Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea?

Yes, Sir. The Terms of Reference are as follow:

What sum of money has been placed at the disposal of this Committee?

The Leader of the House has already said about £10,000.

Is not £10,000 a miserably inadequate sum to allocate in this matter, in which there are hundreds of cases to be dealt with?

Will this Committee have power to make any recommendations for permanent compensation or only to alleviate temporary difficulties?

To alleviate temporary difficulties. It has power to make further recommendations of any kind.

Where will the Committee hold its meetings?

All correspondence is to be addressed to the Office of the Committee at 9, Queen Anne's Gate, which is a few doors away from the Irish Office.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Reparation Commission have received a reply to their last Note from Germany recognising the need to cover all outgoings without resorting to further inflation, stating that the German Government will before the 31st May submit to the Commission a complete financial scheme, and offering to afford to the Reparation Commission all facilities to investigate the state of German finances, whether he will state what steps the Commission are now taking to carry out this investigation; whether a Report thereon will be published; and whether any replies have yet been received to the communication addressed to Allied Governments owing war debts to this country concerning the transfer of inter-Allied debt responsibility to Germany?

I understand that the Reparation Commission have received an answer from the German Government which is now under their consideration. I cannot say what the result of that consideration will be. No official communication has been made to the Allied Governments of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has the assurance of the Government of the French Republic that they will take part in a conference on the question of German reparation before taking further military action against German territory?

No fresh assurances have been given or asked because none are required. Should the Reparation Commission report that Germany is in default, it will be necessary for the Allied Governments to confer together as to the action to he taken.

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of fresh assurances, does he mean that we had already assurances to this effect, and is he aware that the present policy is to march on the 31st unless an agreement is reached?

No: I am certainly not aware that the allegation in the second part of the question is correct. I cannot conceive that it is. In regard to the first part we have a definite and explicit assurance from the French Government. After the occupation of Frankfort, I think it was in April, 1920, we received from the French Government the following declaration, "that as regards the future the Government of the Republic repeat that in all inter-Allied questions raised by the execution of the Treaty of Versailles there is no intention of acting save in accordance with its Allies."

asked the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the Government of the United States of America regarding the action to be taken by that Government, with or without the cooperation of the other Allied and Associated Powers, regarding the failure of Germany to satisfy the demands of the Reparation Commission on 31st May; and whether America has yet stated whether she will participate in the occupation of the Ruhr Valley should that measure be decided upon by the Allies as well as by France?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although inspectors of weights and measures can take legal action against the seller of goods where it is proved that the weights themselves are false, they cannot take such legal action, except as common informers, where short weight in goods is given by the seller; and whether he will take steps to amend the law to give inspectors of weights and measures the necessary authority to take legal action in this connection, thereby protecting the public against short weight in the purchase of commodities?

The hon. Member will find the legal position as to short weight fully set out in the Report of the Select Committee on Short Weight, 1914 (H.C. 359). As already stated, the Government propose to introduce shortly legislation with regard to the sale of tea and bread.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that members of the State Management Council recently visited Maryport, near Carlisle, with the view to purchasing 29 licensed houses in West Cumberland not at present under State control; that the owners refused to sell; and that, during the period when the supply of alcoholic liquors was restricted, State control houses at Maryport were supplied with liquor far in excess of their ration, while private houses were strictly confined to their ration; and when it is proposed to stop this State competition with private enterprise?

Certain members of the Council visited Maryport and discussed the question of purchase with certain owners. The latter were unwilling to sell. As I told the House, there is no present intention of making any further purchases. I know of no foundation for the allegations contained in the third part of the question. It is not proposed to end the State Management Scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries? Is he aware that I have been on the spot?

Is it not a fact that a distinct pledge was given to the House that there should be no extension of this State control, and, in view of that pledge, how is it that negotiations have been taking place since?

Because the negotiations were before the pledge.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority these gentlemen have been negotiating for the purchase of these 29 houses?

Yes, Sir. The functions of the Central Control (Liquor) Board have been transferred to the Home Office.

Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had stated, when he gave the pledge, that the negotiations were going on'?

The question was not asked of me. It was common knowledge.

Does not the right hors. Gentleman realise that when he makes a pledge the House takes it as a pledge, and not that something is being done behind it?

There has been nothing done behind the pledge. The negotiations were in existence, then the Schedule came out, the pledge was given, and nothing further was done.

Would not all these difficulties be solved if the right hon. Gentleman went. out of the beer business?

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received details of the armed risings of the Greeks in the Samsun and Baffra areas of the Black Sea coast of Turkey in Asia against the Turkish authorities in the latter part of 1921; whether these risings were aided by Greek warships, which landed arms at various points on the coast; and whether His Majesty's Government has received details of a plan for the formation of a Greek Pontus Republic comprising a great portion of the Black Sea coast?

His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Turkish statements regarding armed risings of Greeks in Pontus are unfounded. Three Greek warships bombarded Ineboli last June after the Turkish authorities had refused a demand for the surrender of arms and the destruction of munition dumps. Also at the same period one shell was fired by a Greek destroyer at Eregli, and minor bombardments are alleged to have taken place at Trebizond, Rizeh Barracks and Samsun. There is no evidence that any arms were landed. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a movement existed among the Greeks of Pontus, fostered and encouraged by Greek communities and associations of Pontic Greeks abroad, for the liberation of Pontus from Turkish misrule; and several appeals from such associations have been received by His Majesty's Government since the Armistice, asking that the claims of the Pontic Greeks to independence might be favourably considered in the peace settlement. Such political aspirations, however, can furnish no justification for the wholesale and barbarous deportations of women and children which have recently been carried out by the Turks from the district in question.

Why is it that Greek statements are always accepted but no Turkish statement is accepted? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople has the information about the villages burnt and the people killed by these Greek bands? I do not say one excuses the other.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in the habit of putting as facts his own suppositions. It is not a fact that the statements of the Greeks are always accepted by the Government without confirmation. The information I give the House is drawn from our own or from competent neutral observers.

(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether a prominent and independent Mahommedan such as Sir Abbas Ali Baig, K.C.I.E., C.S.L, late Member of the Council of the Secretary of State for India, now resident in this country, or other person of like character and position, will be included in the Committee of Investigation into charges made against the Anatolian Turkish Government and Turks of cruelties and atrocities perpetrated against the Pontine Greeks, and whether the Committee will also be charged with the duty of investigating the conduct of the Greeks towards the Turks from the date of the Greek landing in Smyrna?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether, if it be considered necessary to have a Kemalist representative on this Commission, he will also see the desirability of having a prominent Greek like M. Venizelos, the former Greek Premier, on the Commission?

The hon. Member could not have heard the question. There is no suggestion in it of a Kemalist representative. It is a question of appointing a distinguished Mahommedan who is a British subject. The suggestion made in the question will be carefully considered as soon as the replies of the Allied and American Governments and of the Angora authorities to the proposals of His Majesty's Government have been received. In regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil).

I apologise for having unintentionally done any injustice to the distinguished Mahommedan gentle man mentioned. I merely again ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability, in case of a distinguished Mahommedan representative being put on the Committee, of putting a distinguished Greek on the Committee also.

I will repeat the hon. Member's suggestion to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I do not myself see any necessity for this proposal.

Do I understand that no replies have been received from any of the Governments?

So far as I know, no replies have yet been received. They had not been received yesterday, and a message pressing for a quick reply was then sent.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to continued unemployment, the present cost of school feeding is imposing an extra charge upon the ratepayers in England and Wales of over £30,000 per month in excess of last year on account of the Government's reduction of the grant in aid; and whether, in view of the seriousness of this burden, the Government propose to take any steps to prevent this additional cost being thrown on industrial and other districts already heavily over rated?

I can add nothing to the answer given by the Leader of the House on the 8th May to questions put by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for the Dartford Division.

Why should expenses which were a national charge last year be a charge on local authorities this year, when the rates are so much higher than they were last year?

That is a matter for argument.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose this Session to pass a Bill amending the present Criminal Law Acts?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies upon his official visit to the West Indies will be published?

I explained to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion that the Report would be laid on the Table of the House as soon as there had been time for it to reach the Colonies concerned. The Report was despatched by last week's mail, with a request that its receipt should be acknowledged by telegraph. As soon as these replies have been received from the Governors concerned, immediate arrangements will be made for it to be laid.

Was the hon. Gentleman authorised to give any pledge of his recent tour in reference to the future fiscal system of this country?

I do not think that arises out of this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the answer to it as well as I do. If he puts down a formal question, I will answer it.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Dutch Government will pay for all the expenses of the proposed conferences regarding Russia to be held at The Hague in the same manner as the Italian Government have paid for Genoa; and whether, in addition to the amounts to be paid in connection with these conferences by the Dutch and Italian Governments, Supplementary Estimates for the expenses of British participants in them will be presented to the House?

The question of any such expenses being borne by the Dutch Government has not in any way arisen. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is unlikely that it will be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate for the expenses of the British Delegation, as provision is made for such expenditure under Sub-head K1 (Special Missions and Services) of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote in which an item of £20,000 for "Unforeseen Missions and Services" is included.

Are we to understand that the Mission to The Hague will be purely a Foreign Office Mission, on which other Departments will not be represented?

If there be a Mission to The Hague—I do not speak with final authority at present—I do not think it would be purely a Foreign Office Mission in the sense of being drawn from the ordinary diplomatic or Foreign Office staff. Matters to be discussed at The Hague would require experts of a different character.

Will the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs be represented at The Hague?

Will the question he brought before the House, and shall we be allowed to discuss the personnel of the delegation which is likely to go to The Hague?

It would be for the Chairman of Committees to say whether it is possible under that head to discuss something which the hon. Member thinks is likely to happen. As regards all these questions, I think they had better be deferred until myself or until some Minister can tell the House definitely that there is to be such a Conference at The Hague, and of what nature it will be.

asked the Prime Minister whether a subsequent Conference to the Genoa Conference has been arranged to consider the results of that Conference; where will it be held and on what date; what Powers have agreed to send representatives; who the British representatives will be; and whether a further Vote of Confidence will be invited from this House?

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many international conferences have been held since the signing of the Peace Treaty; and whether he can make any statement as to the proposed conference at. The Hague?

I have not yet received official information of the decisions on these questions. As regards the first part of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, I am doubtful as to its intention and scope, but if I am right in thinking that he refers to Conferences of the Supreme Council I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 27th March.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything definite about the Prime Minister's return, and the possibility of his being able to give this information?

I have reason to expect that the Prime Minister will return to this country next Saturday evening, but I cannot make any definite statement as to a discussion in this House until I have seen him.

Will the discussion, when it takes place, be in such a form as to permit the House to pronounce its opinion definitely on the issue involved?

I have not come to any conclusion on the subject. If one of the Opposition desires to Table a Motion, of course, I will consider the character of the Motion and see whether we can afford facilities for it.

It is not the intention of the Government to put down another Vote of Confidence in themselves?

I reserve the right to do that at any time I think fit.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state, apart from reductions consequent upon the Washington Agreement, what is the net annual saving effected in the Naval Estimates?

It is not possible to give the net annual saving on Navy Estimates if by net annual saving is meant the saving which will be continued year by year. For it is evident that certain classes of savings,e.g., those resulting from reduced purchases of oil fuel in 1922–23, as compared with those in 1921–22, or in the Sketch Estimates as submitted to the Geddes Committee, will not necessarily be repeated in subsequent years. The Navy Estimates for 1922–23 show a reduction, as compared with those submitted to the Geddes Committee, of £16,300,100. To this sum must be added a sum of £3,054,800 included in the current Navy Estimates on the non-effective Votes and involved by the reduction of naval personnel, These figures taken together amount to £19,354,900, and if from that sum be taken the £11,095,300 due to the stoppage of the four battle-cruisers, as the result of the Washington Conference, the net reduction may be taken as £8,259,600. I deprecate, however, the attempt to distinguish too sharply between the savings due to the Washington Conference and those resulting from the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The Cabinet, in considering the Navy Estimates for 1922–23. had in mind the successful issue of the former as well as the latter, and were, of course, influenced by both in coming to their conclusions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 1,800 naval officers and many thousands of men are being economised in the Navy this year?

The hon. Member is making a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give the House any official information about the progress of the movement for the reform of the House of Lords?

No, Sir. There are no official statistics on the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the powers of which it is proposed to deprive them by these Resolutions?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the progress of this movement is backward or forward?

When the Foreign Secretary has recovered his health will these Resolutions be introduced into the House of Lords, or, in view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary is apparently still seriously ill, will the Government take any other steps to table the Resolutions, so that we can know exactly what the form will be?

That is a very natural question to ask, and the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is equally natural that the Government should have desired that this question should have been introduced into the House of Lords by the, Leader of that House. I hope that my Noble Friend will be sufficiently restored to health to take up his duties again in that House before long; but I agree that even his absence cannot be allowed to defer indefinitely the progress of this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman renew his pledge that these proposals will be carried into law before this Parliament is dissolved?

I am always anxious to gratify my hon. and gallant Friend, but perhaps I had better not on this occasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange in the weekly Revenue and Expenditure Returns to show separately the expenditure on the fighting services, the Civil Services, and the Revenue Departments?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question on 11th May to the hon. and gallant Member for the Henley Division, in which my right hon. Friend the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer promised to consider an amplification of the quarterly return in the direction desired. The weekly return shows the total issues for Supply Services. Owing to the pooling of balances with the Paymaster-General, the issues for each Department do not over short periods give any indication of the actual expenditure of that Department, and figures of the kind asked for in the question would be merely misleading.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the Treasury Bills shown in the Floating Debt Return for March, 1922, consisted of bills deposited as collateral security for external debt; and whether this sum is also included in the total of external debt for the same date?

The Treasury Bill total given in the Exchequer Return for 31st March, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, is the total of all Treasury Bills. Of this total about £8,500,000 either carry an option of repayment abroad or are issued as collateral for foreign debt. These bills are counted as external debt for the purposes of the External Debt Return.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange to show separately in the Weekly Revenue Return the Excise revenue from beer and whisky?

I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Weekly figures tend to be misleading owing to special circumstances affecting clearances, etc., from time to time. Figures relating to such a period would, therefore, afford no reliable index to the state of the revenue, and would inevitably lead to mistaken inferences.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government has abandoned, or contem- plates abandoning, the scheme of international credits unanimously adopted at Brussels; how many applications have been before the international credits organisation for the right to issue gold bonds under the auspices of the League of Nations?

The Termeulen scheme is a matter for the consideration of the League of Nations and the countries which desire to borrow, and His Majesty's Government are not directly concerned in it. I understand, however, that four definite applications are before the League and that numerous other applications are pending.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any appeal by the Inland Revenue Department has been lodged in the Union Pacific Railroad Rights case; and, if not, whether those persons who paid Income Tax under misapprehension many years ago will receive a refund with interest?

The decision of the Court in the case to which the hon. Member refers was in favour of the Crown, and has not been appealed against. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health has in recent years, as a condition precedent to granting sanction to loans or to agreeing to certain Clauses in private Bills, stipulated that the particular corporation should accept the Government audit, he can give an undertaking that if the Audit (Local Authorities, etc.) Bill is passed, the Ministry will not adopt this attitude in respect to the audit proposed under the Measure?

The Clause in the Bill enabling a borough council to adopt Government audit was withdrawn in Standing Committee. The point suggested by my hon. Friend does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received resolutions from the Horwich Urban Council asking for the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, and requesting the continuance of financial assistance to local authorities' housing schemes; and whether, in view of the failure of the ordinary economic laws to meet the present housing shortage, he can make a statement on the subject?

As regards the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division on the 15th March. On the question of an extension of the State-aided housing scheme, I cannot add anything to the statements I have already made.

Does that mean that we cannot hope that the Minister of Health will do anything to help to reduce the shortage of houses in this country?

No.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, under the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, £100,000 cash has been guaranteed to Messrs. Hugh Stevenson and Sons, Limited, and Messrs. Cropper and Company, Limited, for the purpose of completing the erection and equipment of a board mill: whether the sums under the Act to be guaranteed were for reducing unemployment and affording finance reasonably unobtainable without State assistance; whether every board-mill factory is still working short time; and, if so, what is the reason for the advances made to Messrs. Stevenson and Cropper?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have no special information as regards the third part; and as regards the last part, the recommendations were made by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Trade Facilities Act, and they satisfied themselves that these were oases in which the Government guarantee could properly be given.

Why should my hon. Friend approve of this grant of money for those two firms if it is a fact that the board-mill trade is working only halftime, and that the Trade Facilities Act is to provide money to relieve unemployment?

We rely in this matter on the judgment of the Advisory Committee, who take into account this among other matters.

asked the Postmaster-General on what principle, and subject to what conditions, licences for wireless broad-casting stations are given to industrial concerns?

The conditions under which licences for wireless broad-casting will be granted have been the subject of a conference with the interests concerned. My right hon Friend will take an opportunity of making a statement as soon as the conditions are settled.

I will put down a question next week.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that paragraph 6 of Circular U.I.A. 505 C compels local employment committees to refuse benefit to a single man or woman who lives with an adult relative who is employed half-time or more, he will say whether these persons are entitled to benefit towards which they have contributed; and under what section of what Act is he acting in directing committees to refuse benefit?

As I have repeatedly stated, persons entitled to benefit under the permanent provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in respect of contributions paid are in no way affected by the condition referred to, or the other special conditions relating to un-covenanted or "free" benefit. These conditions have been laid clown in the exercise of the discretionary power conferred by Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.

Is it not possible now for insured people to be deprived of benefit though they may have contributed to the scheme?

I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Circular which I sent to the local authorities on the point which will more fully explain the position.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the exact Clause under the Unemployment Insurance Act under which this is done?

Yes. Clause 4, sub-section (1):

"If it appears to the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is expedient in the public interest, etc.—"

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases men who form part of a family, all of whom are unemployed, have had their extension of benefit discontinued, for the sole realm that one member of the family is in receipt of unemployed benefit?

My hon. Friend has not correctly given the rule. The rule states that. "ordinarily persons will not be entitled," and the last paragraph says that these conditions are not designed to rule out of benefit cases where the provision would inflict real hardship. They are intended, however, to prevent the depletion of a fund which is limited, which is built up mainly by heavy contributions, and which is urgently needed in the case of those for whom it is properly designed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general interpretation is that all single men are prevented from getting unemployed benefit, that there has been no end of hardship to the family—where there is a big family—and that the only person getting benefit is the head, while the rest must come under the Poor Law or starve?

Perhaps I might send my hon. Friend a copy of the Circular—

Send it all round.

I have no objection. If the hon. Member knows of any case which has not been administered in the spirit of the rule, I shall be glad to look into it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send the same advice to all committees where it is being done?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that this rule of his makes the scheme a charitable scheme instead of an insurance scheme?

Since November, 1920, I have managed to make the Insurance Act find 57 weeks' benefit for persons who in some cases may not have paid anything at all. I do not think that these Regulations are unjust. They do not affect covenanted benefit.

asked the Home Secretary when the Wild Birds Protection Bill will be introduced?

I hope it may be possible to introduce the Bill soon after Whitsuntide, but I cannot at present make any promise.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that between 1,500 and 1,600 deaths of children occur every year in Great Britain as a result of being left alone in rooms with unprotected fires, he will introduce legislation to strengthen Section 15 of The Children Act, 1908, with a view to compelling householders having children under seven years of age to provide a fireguard in the case of fires in rooms frequented by such children?

I cannot accept the figures named in the question, but there is undoubtedly a considerable death rate among children from this cause. The risk is not one which can easily be dealt with by legislation and I cannot promise to introduce legislation specially for the purpose, but the question whether any Amendment of Section 15 of the Children Act, 1908, can be proposed will be carefully considered when an opportunity for reviewing that Act arises.

asked the Prime Minister if the Government have knowledge of any other pledges than those already disclosed given by the Government since 3rd August, 1914, on which they propose to base the introduction of further protective legislation; and, if so, what they are?

No, Sir. I am not aware of any other similar pledges.

—by Private Notice—asked the Minister of Health whether it is a fact that a recommendation or instruction has been given by his Department to any boards of guardians that relief should not be granted in cases where the head of the family is not at present employed in consequence of the dispute in the engineering industry, and, if so, will he state the reasons for this action?

No, Sir. But where boards of guardians have consulted me, I have felt bound to remind them that, by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Attorney-Generalv. Merthyr Tydvil Guardians, 1900, relief cannot lawfully be granted to any man for whom work is, in fact, available.

Is it a fact that these instructions have been issued, and that such instructions constitute taking sides on the part of the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that although the works have been thrown open —which is the excuse given by the right hon. Gentleman—the lock-out notices still appear posted on the gates of the works locking out these men? Will he therefore take into consideration the withdrawal of such a recommendation?

I have already stated that I have made no recommendation and sent out no instructions, nor is it my duty to do so. Where I have been asked by boards of guardians to advise, I have had to advise them on the law as the Court of Appeal has decided it. If a workman applies for work at a works and the employer cannot employ him, the case would he different from that to which I have referred.

Does the decision of the Court of Appeal not refer to cases where there is no dispute in operation?

Not at all.

Does it not apply to a general case of work being there for individuals who are of that particular trade? Is it not the case that in this particular instance there is a dispute in the industry, which has thrown a large number of men idle, that the lock-out notices are still posted, and that any decision come to by the Court of Appeal in a previous case is not on parallel lines, and consequently cannot apply to this particular instance?

The question dealt with previously by the Court was the question of the coal strike in South Wales. The Court of Appeal then laid down the law on the subject, and to it I refer the hon. Member. It is not my duty to interpret the decision of the law, but to draw the, attention of boards of guardians to the law laid clown by the Court, and to leave them to take what action they think fit.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advice of which he speaks has had the effect on certain boards of guardians making them discontinue the relief which they were giving to then who were thrown into a state of idleness through the lock-out? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that work is now available for all the men in the engineering trade who may be disposed to return to work on the employers' terms?

The facts may be as the right hon. Gentleman states. It is not my duty to investigate whether it is a strike or a lock-out. It is my duty, if I am asked by a board of guardians what the law is, to refer them to the case which the Court of Appeal has decided. I am not a judicial authority. It is for the boards of guardians to interpret the decision of the Court of Appeal as best they can, and to keep within the law. I am not seized of the fact whether or not there is work in these factories. Neither is it my duty to inquire.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state precisely and fully in terms what advice he has given to the boards of guardians?

I have stated that already. I have referred them to the ease of the Attorney-Generalv. the Merthyr Tydvil Guardians, 1900, as reported in the Law Reports. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to read that case, of which they do not seem to be aware. I have said that if the boards go outside that decision they are acting outside the law. I have informed the boards of guardians of that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Clerk to the Manchester Board of Guardians only yesterday told some members of that body that he had received an intimation from the Minister of Health that a lockout no longer existed in the engineering industry and that in consequence no relief could be given unless employés could show that no work was available, and that, acting on that assumed authority of the Minister, some guardians have already refused to give relief, and that those who give relief are told that they were liable to a surcharge?

The hon. Member has given me no notice of the particular case he mentions. If the Clerk of the Board of Guardians asked the Ministry for advice I have no doubt the Ministry gave him the proper advice by referring him to the law of the land as it exists. We neither make the law nor alter it. The law exists.

Has the right hon. Gentleman sent out any intimation, either verbally or otherwise, to the boards of guardians, without a request coming from them?

No, Sir. I have pointed out that already in the answer I have given.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if any circular has been sent out by the Poor Law branch of his Department, and will he lay upon the Table of the House copies of the advice he has sent out, either by request or otherwise?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware as to whether or not it is the habit of the Ministry of Health to send out circulars to Poor Law guardians. Where Poor Law guardians ask the Ministry for advice, we conceive it to be our duty to advise them on the law as it stands, to enable them to keep within the law and not run the risk of being surcharged.

In view of the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman during the putting of the question by the leader of the Labour party, will he state to the House whether he is of opinion that the lock-out is ended? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

That is not part of the right hon. Gentleman's duty.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply to the question I have previously submitted, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the Minister of Health in influencing boards of guardians in the withholding of relief from families, where the breadwinner is unemployed in consequence of the dispute in the engineering trade, which action is causing immediate distress and suffering in many quarters."

That is not a Motion which I can accept. The Minister has distinctly stated that he has not tendered any advice or recommendation. The limit of what he has done, in reply to a question, has been to refer inquirers to a case decided in the Courts. Therefore, clearly the Minister has not exercised any administrative power in this matter, and it is only on an exercise of administrative power that he can be brought to account under Standing Order 10.

is informing boards of guardians that, if they take a certain course they will be surcharged, not influencing them in their decisions?

To inform an administrative body what is the latest case decided by the Courts of Law cannot be said to influence them. It is merely giving information, and that, of course, is an obvious duty in the ordinary course of events.

In view of the effects following from the action of the right hon. Gentleman, as stated in the Motion now submitted, are we not entitled to ask for an opportunity to call attention to that action, in view of the grave distress that has followed upon it?

If an opportunity be given, that, of course, is not a matter for me. What I have to do is to interpret the Rules of the House and this particular rule. If this opportunity be given by the Government I will accept it.

In view of the, statement made by the Minister of Health in submitting to certain boards of guardians a decision of a Court on a coal strike, as he said, and seeing that the particular dispute that is presently going on is not a strike but a lock-out, does not the fact that he has transmitted to those boards of guardians a decision upon another question entirely influence those boards of guardians in a dispute which is not a strike; and, consequently, does not this particular Motion come within the category of a definite matter of urgent public importance?

Clearly, the responsibility for the action taken under the law lies with the guardians, and not with the Minister of Health. If hon. Members could point to a circular or something of that kind which had been issued by the Minister, I might be able to accept the Motion for adjournment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay all the Papers on the Table of the House?

I shall be very pleased to do so.

Is it relevant to this particular situation that a decision given as far back as 1900 should be quoted, seeing that since then there has been an entire reform of the whole system of Poor Law and that a Royal Commission has reported?

Neither the hon. Member nor I can alter the law.

Is not this quite a new departure on the part of the Minister? We have not heard of anything similar taking place in this dispute until the last day or two. It seems to me quite obvious—and it will be to the man in the street—that it is being done for a definite purpose.

The Minister has promised to lay the Papers on the Table. We shall then have the facts before us.

Was not the Minister's reply based upon the assumption that these men have work to go to, whereas, we submit, they have no work to go to? They are locked out.

That may be so, but it is not a question into which we can now enter.