asked-the Prime Minister whether an arrangement could be made between the British Government and the Provisional Government in Ireland under which the references to Lord Shaw's Commission could be extended so as to enable it to deal with cases of compensation that have arisen since 11th July, 1921?

As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for York, on the 15th instant, the Provisional Government hope that it will be possible to deal with these cases in due course of law. It is obviously preferable that such cases should be so dealt with, rather than by the exceptional method which it. has been necessary to adopt in the case of damage arising prior to 11th July last; and unless and until it becomes clear that the csaes referred to cannot be adequately dealt with under the existing law, His Majesty's Government would be reluctant to make any such proposal to the Provisional Government as that suggested in the question. I may add that these arrangements would, of course, be reconsidered in the event of any decisive change in the situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman, whom we are very glad to see back, aware that there is a certain number of cases under which people are suffering great hardship, not being able to get compensation, and is he not further aware that Lord Shaw's Commission has all the machinery for dealing with them; and would it not be possible by mutual consent with the Provisional Government to have these cases dealt with, without prejudice to the obligation of the Provisional Government in future?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of cases have been dealt with most satisfactorily since July of last year, and that litigants have no wish for intervention by Lord Shaw's Commission?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that these gross cases of outrage on the lives and property of British subjects will be dealt with by someone and compensation be paid, either by His Majesty's Government or the Provisional Government?

The position we took and which the Provisional Government took in these discussions was that the local authorities would be responsible for the damage, and that is a position which I do not think we can abandon in any way. The Irish local authorities are responsible for all the damages of any kind to anyone since the Truce and the Treaty. If that condition were to he overturned, a new situation would arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that that responsibility will not be evaded?

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pass into law before the Autumn Recess the necessary Bill for the ratification of the constitution of the Irish Free State together with the measures ancillary to it, and which have been promised, namely, an Indemnity Bill, a Bill to complete Land Purchase, and a Bill for the resettlement of ex-service men in Ireland?

As regards Lead Purchase, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my light hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a question on this subject addressed to him by the hon. Member for St. Rollox on the 10th instant. All matters relating to the resettlement of ex-service men were by Article 9 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, expressly excepted from transfer to the Provisional Government, and I am not aware of any necessity for further legislation on the subject. With regard to the first part of the question I will, with the permission of the House, make a further short statement at the close of questions on the Irish situation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything in reference to the Indemnity Bill?

I hope that it will be pressed forward.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are large numbers of ex-Royal Irish Constabulary men at present in this country who have been compelled to leave Ireland on disbandment by threats of murder should they remain or return to their homes; that many of these men are unable to find accommodation for themselves and their families, and receive no allowance towards their maintenance; that in the cases of men whose families are still in Ireland the separation allowance is only 2s. a day for wife and children, or a maximum payment of 14s. a week, whatever the size of the family may be, which is quite inadequate for their maintenance; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will place at the disposal of these refugees some of the empty barrack accommodation which is available in this country, and allow adequate separation allowances to those men whose families are still in Ireland?

I am aware that it is stated that large numbers of disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are in this country, having been compelled to leave Ireland, but I have not been able to ascertain the actual numbers. As the House is aware, an Accommodation Bureau has been set up in Chester, with branches elsewhere in this country, for the purpose of assisting these men to secure accommodation. There has been no difficulty in securing accommodation at reasonable rates in any part of the country for single men or married couples; every application of this kind which has been received by the bureau has been met, and a considerable proportion of the men so accommodated have written expressing satisfaction with the accommodation provided. There is still plenty of vacant accommodation of this class, and any member of the force who desires accommodation should write at once either to the R.I.C., Accommodation Bureau, Chester, or to the Resettlement Branch, Irish Office. There has, however, been considerable difficulty in securing permanent accommodation for families with children, and special efforts to compile a register of houses in all parts of the country to be let or sold at reasonable rates are being made. Meanwhile, as an emergency measure, a boardinghouse in London has been secured by the Government, and a number of families are accommodated there at reasonable rates pending the finding of permanent accommodation, and it is hoped, if necessary, to make similar arrangements in other parts of the country. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the very great assistance which the Government and the Royal Irish Constabulary have received from the police in all parts of the country. As regards separation allowance in the case of men whose families are still in Ireland, I cannot agree that 14s. a week, in addition to the disbandment pension, which can, if the pensioner so desires, be increased, for a period of two years, up to 35/60ths of the maximum pay of his rank, can be regarded as insufficient, but it is, of course, open to any individual member of the force who considers that he suffers exceptional hardship in this or in any other respect to apply to the tribunal appointed to deal with such eases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some 800 ex-Royal Irish Constabulary men in this country who inform me they have been unable to find accommodation—even such accommodation as the right hon. Gentleman indicates, for which they will have to pay—and is that fair, considering that they are expelled from their homes through no fault of their own?

Is it a fact that these men and their wives and families have to leave the town or village where they resided in Ireland at a moment's notice to save their lives, leaving all their property and furniture behind, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving them some compensation for the loss of their property?

Yes, Sir, the tribunal which is set up for these special eases obviously will take into consideration cases of this kind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not give these people the use of empty barracks, which are not being utilised in any way at present, and for the use of which they would be grateful?

Are we to understand that all these claims have to be met out of the wretched sum of £10,000?

That has nothing whatever to do with these cases. The £10,000 is a small sum placed at the disposal of the Committee, headed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) for the relief of civilians who have come over here, temporarily as we hope, from Ireland. That has nothing whatever to do with the obligation which the Government has undertaken in regard to tile Royal Irish Constabulary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to seeing one or two of us who have interviewed these men so that we may place their case more fully before him?

I shall be very glad to put my hon. Friend in touch with the persons who have this matter in their charge. Anything that he may bring forward will be carefully considered.

asked the Prime Minister whether the articles of agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Southern Ireland, which have been embodied in the form of an Act by the Imperial Parliament, have been equally assented to by the elected assembly of Southern Ireland; whether Clause 1 of the Act provides for the immediate holding of a general election in the South of Ireland; and, having regard to the time that has already elapsed since the Act has been placed on the Statute Book, will he say when the election in question will be held?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the present conditions in Ireland and the powers conferred by Section 1 (2) of The Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, he will consult with the Provisional Government of Ireland with the object of hastening the date upon which the elections shall be held in Southern Ireland?

The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Southern Ireland have been assented to by the elected representatives of Southern Ireland, and it is stated that 16th June next has provisionally been fixed as the election day.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had any information to give the House with regard to recent happenings in Ulster, and particularly with respect to the reported assassination of a member of the Northern Parliament early this morning?

It will, I think, be convenient to the House if I make a very brief statement on the situation which has developed in Ireland. The House has, no doubt, seen the terms of the agreement which has been arrived at in Dublin between the Provisional Government and the followers of Mr. De Valera. This agreement was only signed on Saturday afternoon, and we have not yet been able to form any final conclusion in regard to it. It would appear to raise very serious issues affecting not only the character and validity of the election contemplated in the Irish Free State Agreement Act, but also affecting the Treaty itself. We have, therefore, invited the Irish co-signatories of the Treaty to come to London and discuss these issues with the British signatories.

I expect that a conference will take place towards the end of this week, and I hope to be in a position to make a full statement to the House on Monday on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Meanwhile, I trust that the House will refrain from premature and hasty judgment on the agreement, either in a favourable or an unfavourable sense.

With regard to the situation in Northern Ireland, I profoundly regret to inform the House that I have just received a telegram from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland (Sir James Craig) stating that Mr. W. J. Twaddell, Member for West Belfast, has been brutally assassinated outside his business premises in Belfast. Apart from this shocking fact, I do not desire to add anything to the full accounts which have appeared in the newspapers of the outrages organised by the Republicans in various parts of the six counties and of the continued conditions of sanguinary disorder which prevail in parts of Belfast.

I have every confidence that the Northern Government will continue to grapple with the serious task of restoring law and order and maintaining it effectually. Four additional battalions landed in Ulster opportunely or. Saturday last, raising the Imperial Force in the six counties to 19 battalions. Further reinforcements will, of course, be sent to any extent that may be considered necessary in the opinion of the military authorities. I am in consultation with Ministers of the Northern Government—one of whom, Lord Londonderry, has been sent as a consultant by the Northern Government to this country—as to the further issue of arms and equipment to the police force which the Northern Government are organising, and, while every endeavour will be made to avoid unnecessary expense or sensational action, I can assure the House that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to support the Government of Northern Ireland in every way that is possible and necessary.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not add something as to the situation in the 26 counties? Can he not say something about the sufferings of the loyalists in the South, and the depredations on property?

I have made statement about the two subjects to which I referred, and I am not prepared at the present moment to endeavour to make an appreciation to the House of the social conditions prevailing in the 26 counties, grave though those may be. I can quite see, however, that some discussion may be necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next Monday? Will he talk about the matter then?

I am afraid I cannot make any promise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how it is that he has made a one-sided statement as to the conditions that prevail in the six counties, and whether it is a fact that the village of Desertmartin was practically destroyed the other day, without any protection being given to the inhabitants, that a Catholic was murdered in the village, and four other Catholics in an adjoining district, and there was no protection for them, and no reference to them in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman?

I have never attempted to conceal from the House the obvious fact that murders and counter-murders are being done by both religious sects in the North of Ireland. I did not intend to slur over any of the painful incidents which have taken place. For the moment, however, the principal fact over the week-end has been the violent attempts to create outrages and disorder in what has hitherto been a peaceful part, of the country.

May I ask the Leader of the House what he precisely means by the statement to be made next Monday in view of the fact that he has already intimated that the Finance Bill will be confined to one day? Will this be an ordinary statement such as we have had now, or will it be put down for Debate, and if so, how?

Of course, I contemplate that at that time we shall have received the co-signatories to the Treaty, and that I will be able to tell the House exactly what has occurred in regard to the agreement which has been reached in Dublin, and which we are not in a position to do now. It would be very unfair and improper to attempt to do so now. Having made that statement at Question time, it will be entirely for the House to say whether they will have any further discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has stated it is his intention to make a statement about events in Dublin next Monday. May we therefore take it that hon. Members will be allowed to put down questions in reference to incidents in the 26 counties between now and then, and also question the Minister on the subject?

On a point of Order. I never contemplated that my statement would refer to anything except the negotiations which have been taking place between the different sections in the Irish Parliament, and the reference or hearing which these negotiations have upon the Treaty entered into in this country.

That is exactly what r apprehended. The relevancy lies in the possibility of the statement seriously affecting the position under the Treaty and the Statute passed by this House.

Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House now that His Majesty's Government will in no circumstances go away from their promised intention to demand a free election in Ireland on the Treaty? [An HON. MEMBER: "Run away!"]

The hon. Member must, I think, put that question down.

Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement his statement by saying under whose control the British military forces in Northern Ireland are Whether they are under the. control of the Northern Parliament or who?

No, they are under the control of the British War Office.

Is the British War Office, then, responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland?

No, Sir; we are responsible for the defence of Northern Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS "Order, order!"]—give us an assurance that some definite steps will be taken to protect the minority in North-East Ulster, and also those—[HON. MEMBERS "In the South!"]—everywhere! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and—

We must not debate that matter now.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that on 29th January of this year the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies announced in Trinidad that the British Government had decided to make a trade agreement with the British West Indies, guaranteeing to them the existing rate of preference in the Customs duties of the United Kingdom for 10 years, he will say what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to redeem that pledge?

asked whether any pledge has been given by the Government that the preferential duty on sugar will be continued for 10 years; and, if so, by what authority such a pledge has been given?

I have been asked to take this question and with the permission of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, I will answer it and 110 together. I was authorised to announce in the West Indies that His Majesty's Government would propose to Parliament the continuance of preference on existing lines to articles at present enjoying it for a period of 10 years. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain this undertaking in any relevant financial legislation which it may be their duty to submit to Parliament, as long as they continue to enjoy His Majesty's confidence; and, as my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea on the 23rd February, this legislation is, and must be, subject to Parliament's approval.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether this House was consulted before the Under-Secretary was authorised to give a pledge with the Colonies that preference would be continued for ten years?

I must ask for notice of the question. I was discussing with my right hon. Friend beside me the matter of the business of the House, and I do not know what is the subject-matter of the question.

Did the Secretary of State for the Colonies know anything about this?

Yes, Sir, I most gladly co-operated in bringing it to pass.

Does the Secretary of State for the Colonies think that he is qualified to give pledges for future fiscal arrangements, without consulting the House of Commons?

This is a matter which was discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be quite ready to defend his action, and I shall be quite ready to do so, too.

May I ask the Secretary for the Colonies to consider the advisability of giving an undertaking that the substantial value of the preference shall not be less than that enjoyed at present?

asked the Prime Minister whether the inter-Allied censorship continues to function; and if it is applied to Greck as well as to Turkish newspapers?

If, as I presume, my hon. Friend refers to the inter-Allied censorship at Constantinople, my latest information was to the effect that the censorship was in force and being applied without discrimination.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any reply from America as to the willingness of that. Government to co-operate with us in an inquiry into the alleged massacres in Asia Minor; whether any reply is now expected from France or Italy; whether he has decided to send a British mission; and, if so, when?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, but there is reason to hope that an answer may be received shortly. The French and Italian Governments have accepted the proposals of His Majesty's Government. In regard to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin on the 17th inst. No date can be fixed at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the answer that is anticipated from America is supposed to be favourable or otherwise?

I do not know.

Has an answer been received from the Angora Government?

I do not think so. I did not make inquiries immediately before coming to the House. At any rate, I have not seen the answer.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that when the French left Cilicia the Armenian population fled in terror, leaving about 1,000 out of 200,000; that these refugees are now most of them existing in miserable circumstances in Beirut and other places in Syria, Cyprus, and elsewhere, despite the promises made by the French and Turks that the Armenians would be safe if they remained in Cilicia; that the Turks are holding for a year the property of the Armenians who have fled, to be restored to them if they return in that time; and that within the last two years the Armenian garrison of Hajim was overpowered by the Turkish forces, after a long and heroic resistance, and nearly the whole population massacred and the town destroyed; and whether he will call for a Report and take whatever steps are possible to end this treatment of the Armenians?

On a point of Order. Is this question in order, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that it deals with occurrences in a foreign country, for which no Minister in this House is responsible?

This is a matter in regard to which we are just about to send out a Commission, I understood, and, therefore, it is in order.

Our information is that the Armenians still remaining in Cilicia number at least 5,000, and it is doubtful whether the original total was morn than 150,000. Many of the refugees appear to be fairly well cared for in Syria, but shocking accounts have been received of the condition of those at Alexandretta. According to a recent, but still unconfirmed, report, the Kemalist authorities are about to decree that the property of Armenians who have fled the country will be confiscated if not reclaimed within three months. The report regarding the siege and destruction of Hadjin and the massacre of its inhabitants in October, 1920, is correct. His Majesty's Government are already fully informed on this subject, and it is their constant endeavour to secure in any settlement which is reached all possible protection for the minorities concerned.

Are any steps similar to those which the Government contemplate in reference to the Greek population in contemplation in reference to the Armenians?

I am not quite sure that I gather the purport of my right hon. Friend's question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have said they are going to send, or ask leave to send, Allied observers over certain parts of Greek territory where the Greek population is supposed to be in great danger, and is a similar course going to be taken with regard to the Armenian population in Cilicia?

Notice should be given of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that as recently as last summer the Turks deported eastward from Konia, as a mili- tary measure, all Greek and Armenian males over 12 years of age; that not less than 12,000 Greeks, deportees, have recently lost their lives in the vicinity of Kharput, under precisely similar circumstances to those in which multitudes of Armenians were done away with several years ago; that British consular officers have been informed of the conditions in the Kharput region and have sent the information on to London; and whether he will have inquiries made and a Report issued on the subject?

In regard to the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government have no definite information. In regard to the second part, they have every reason to believe that the facts quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are correct. In regard to the third part, a report was recently received through His Majesty's Consul-General at Beyrout from a reliable source, relative to the passage of 20,000 deportees through Kharput, largely women and children, who were being driven eastwards, half naked, through deep snow. His Majesty's Government are at present considering the question of publishing some of the numerous reports on this subject which they have received.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information that Greek bands are threatening the southern boundary of Albania?

Complaints, showing that the Albanian Government are apprehensive of the action of Greek bands in these regions, have been received, and steps are being taken by the Boundary Commission to investigate these complaints.

Will the Government find it possible to make any representations in Athens on this subject, pointing out how serious it would be if the Greeks were to infringe the integrity of Albania?

I think the matter had better be left, in the first instance, to the Boundary Commission before we proceed to take any steps.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that it is specifically provided by the terms of the Nine-Power Treaty regarding China, the Chinese Customs Tariff Treaty, the Quadruple Pacific Treaty, Articles IX, X, and IV, respectively, that these treaties shall be ratified as soon as possible in accordance with the constitutional methods of the high contracting parties he can say whether these treaties will be brought before the House for ratification, and, if so, how soon; and whether an opportunity will be afforded to the House for discussing the terms of these treaties?

The treaties mentioned by the hon. Member will be ratified as soon as possible, but the constitution of this country does not require that they should be brought before the House prior to ratification. If the rules of the House permit, an opportunity of discussing the treaties will be given by the introduction of the Bill enabling His Majesty's Government to carry out their obligations under the Naval Treaty.

asked the Prime Minister whether the present session of the Council of the League of Nations is now concluded, and, if not, when it will be concluded; whether any decision has been come to by the Council regarding any of the "A" or "B" mandates; what subjects on the agenda of the present council have been adjourned till the next meeting: and when that will take place?

The recent session of the Council of the League of Nations terminated on Wednesday last. "B" mandates were not discussed. The draft Palestine Mandate was considered, but its terms were not finally approved. An extraordinary meeting of the Council is to be held not later than the 15th July next, to consider both the "A" and "B" mandates. All the remaining questions on the agenda came under discussion, but in some cases, namely, the questions of minorities in Albania and Latvia, final decisions were postponed to a later session.

asked the Prime Minister whether the American replies to the British Note of 22nd December regarding the A and B Mandates may now be published?

There has been further correspondence with the Government of the United States regarding mandates since the receipt of the American replies in question. These replies could not be published without the consent of the Government of the United States, and I do not think that such consent should be sought until the correspondence has been completed.

Are we to understand the correspondence is still going on and that further communications will be made?

So I understand.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether at the Imperial War Conference of 1917 Lord Long either gave or supported any pledge that the Canadian cattle embargo would be removed; and whether he was speaking for the then Government?

If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to Command Paper 8(173 of 1917, he will see the exact words used by my Noble Friend at the Imperial Conference of 1917. As far as I know, there had been no previous Cabinet decision, and Lord Long said that he spoke for himself, as his name had been brought into the discussion. Lord Ernie was of course the Minister of Agriculture at that time.

Did not Lord Long say the position was that the restriction was to be removed and that the Board of Agriculture would take the necessary steps to do so, and, if so, was that a pledge or was it not?

As to the first part of the question, I should not like, from memory, to affirm or dissent. If the hon. and gallant Member is quoting, I am obliged to him for the information which he has imparted. I do not put any interpretation upon it; if the hon. and gallant Member desires to put an interpretation upon it, no doubt he is competent to do so.

Is the Government any more competent to give a pledge in this matter, without the sanction of the House, than in the case of a preference?

The Government is competent to pledge itself; its powers to give effect to the promises it makes are dependent on the support which it receives.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any subsidies are granted by His Majesty's Government to British shipping; and what is the estimated advantage to United States shipping which will be derived from the system of subsidy proposed by President Harding in his message to Congress on 28th February?

No payments are made. by His Majesty's Government to British shipping lines, save as mentioned below, except in return for services rendered in the carriage of mails. The contracts under which these payments are made sometimes include Clauses relating to the speed of the vessels employed, the frequency of the service, and ports of call, etc., but these are only introduced in order to secure the regularity and security of the postal service. In addition to the above, the Admiralty make a small contribution to the Union Castle line in order to secure calls at Ascension for the benefit of the naval personnel, and pay £90,000 a year to the Cunard Company under a contract of 1903, which expires in 1927. By this contract the Cunard Company agreed to maintain a ship, namely, the "Mauretania," of approved speed, and to admit the right of the Admiralty to pre-emption of this and certain other vessels in case of emergency. The total annual payments under all the above headings is about £600,000, while the payments made by the United States Post Office for mail contracts only are calculated at about 6,000,000 dollars (say, £1,364,000 at present rate of exchange). According to the best available estimate, the aid direct and indirect which the United States shipowner would receive under President Harding's proposals would amount each year to rather more than 12½ per cent. of the capital value of the vessel.

Would the hon. Gentleman say if any representations are being made to the United States as to the facts of the case?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of any further question, I shall be obliged.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Egyptian deportees in Mahé, Seychelles Islands, are prevented from obtaining more than a limited monthly allowance from their own property; by what law men who have not been accused or tried are detained by the British authorities under penal conditions; whether he is aware that the postmaster is also the chemist, dentist, and dental expert; that these gentlemen need adequate and capable medical aid; that their sole water supply is a single tap running into a pool; and will he cause inquiries to be made into these conditions pending their restoration to their homes?

The reply to the first, third, and fifth parts of the question is in the negative, and to the fourth part, in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) on 8th May.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to a statement made by M. Tchitcherin at the Genoa Conference on the 16th instant, in which the Russian Minister warned Japan that any attack by the latter on the Far Eastern Republic would automatically bring about a state of war with Russia; and whether, in view of the fact that such a danger will threaten so long as Japan is in occupation of Siberian territory, and in view of Japan's pledges to the Powers to withdraw from Siberia, His Majesty's Government will make friendly representations to the Allied Government of Japan to evacuate Russian territory without further delay?

My attention has been called to a reported statement of this nature. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government rely on the fulfilment in due course of the undertakings of the Japanese Government.