asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether provision will be made to secure for all service-trained engine-room artificers, i.e., ex-engine-room artificer apprentices who are discharged on reduction, a certificate which shall be equal to an indenture of apprenticeship, so as to give them a fair chance to obtain employment on shore?

A trade certificate, giving the nature of the training, qualifications at mined, and the length of service, is issued to engine-room artificers on discharge, and this should meet all requirements.

Will the Admiralty negotiate with the trade unions so as to make sure that such a certificate will be accepted by them as full qualification for membership of a trade union?

I will consider that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the difficulties which have existed as regards ex-soldiers and sailors in relation to trade unions, and will he, in view of that;, negotiate the arrangement I have suggested?

Certainly, I will bear that in mind.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability, in view of their discharge under the reduction scheme, to include the certificate allowances in the substantive pay of chief and engine-room artificers as a basis for assessing gratuities?

The gratuities are calculated on substantive pay in all cases, without regard to non-substantive pay or allowances, and no reason is seen for making an exception in favour of one branch of the Service.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will reconsider the terms under which engineer lieutenants promoted from warrant rank by seniority are to retire under Admiralty Fleet. Orders; and whether these officers can be given the same retiring privileges as those given to engineer lieutenants from warrant rank who were promoted, without regard to seniority, to fill vacancies created during the stress of war?

The engineer lieutenants from warrant rank promoted under special schemes during the War were specially selected for promotion from among officers recommended by the Fleet, and being, in general, promoted at an earlier age than those promoted for long and zealous service, will have sacrificed considerably greater prospects financially by being retired compulsorily now instead of serving until the age of 55. The Admiralty considered, therefore, that a case existed for giving these officers special treatment in fixing the terms to be given to lieutenants promoted from warrant rank, and they see no reason for extending to other officers the special rates of retired pay given in their case.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a Japanese squadron is to visit Rio de Janeiro in honour of the forthcoming exhibition; whether, in view of the withdrawal of the South-east Coast of America squadron and to the importance of the occasion, the Admiralty will reconsider their decision not to send a representative squadron to those waters from Bermuda; and whether he can state what the actual cost would be?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Admiralty consider that adequate representation could not be secured by the despatch of a squadron composed of less than two battle cruisers. The cost of this, however, would amount to £50,800, as previously stated on 31st May in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for West Derby. The decision that, under the circumstances, a representative squadron could not be sent was made with much regret.

Do we understand that the Admiralty no longer take the view that trade follows the flag?

Does the £50,000 imply that no money can be spent on fuel on those ships?

No; I understand that the £50,000 represents the additional cost of taking the two battle cruisers away over and above what would have been spent otherwise.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether all the lieut.-commanders promoted to the rank of commander on the 31st March last, and antedated to 31st December last, have been paid at commander's rate of pay as from the date of their promotion; if not, whether the reason can be stated; and, in view of the altogether exceptional circumstances, if the payment of the difference of pay to these officers can be authorised forthwith?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The position of those officers who received lieut.-commanders' pay only between the 31st December, 1921, and the 31st March, 1922, owing to their being in posts specifically laid down for officers of that rank, is under consideration.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "under consideration," and have any of these officers been paid commanders' pay?

In the case of those who have been in lieut.-commanders' posts and have received lieut.-commanders' pay during that period and have not so far received the difference between that and commanders' pay the question whether it is possible to pay them that difference and treat them as having been commanders is under consideration at this moment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that when paymasters and surgeons were reduced in numbers some time back the age limit was applied gradually; and if he can see his way to apply this rule to those ranker officers over 50 years of age who otherwise must be thrown out forthwith, seeing that the effect of the present proposals will embitter these gentlemen and injure the senior Service?

In the case of the medical and accountant officers referred to, the reduction in the age of compulsory retirement was made, not as a means of reducing the numbers borne, but as part of an arrangement for bringing the Regulations in those branches into line with the Regulations in the other' branches of the Service. The circumstances, therefore, differed entirely from those existing at present, since it is now necessary, in the interests of economy, to make an immediate reduction of the num- bers borne to those required, and it is impossible, therefore, to spread the reduction of age over a number of years as previously.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, seeing that promotion from commissioned gunner to lieutenant is really automatic for commissioned gunner with a clean sheet, and that it is unfair to retire these gentlemen at 50 instead of 55 when a known number would have reached maximum pay and rank at. 55, he will reconsider the matter?

Promotion from commissioned gunner to lieutenant is made in vacancies and is not automatic. The Admiralty, therefore, were unable to take into account, in fixing the rate of retired pay to be given under the retirement scheme, the possibility that such promotion would have occurred at a later date before the officer reached the age of 55.

Is not promotion really automatic, and can it not be foretold with fair precision?

With a Navy which is being generally reduced, the number of vacancies will not be increased in the normal scale.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the rates of pay and pension of commissioned gunners and those promoted lieutenants are so drawn that the maximum is reached at or near 55 years of age, and that now the entire basis on which the pay and pension were computed has been altered by taking off five years, and that it is not under the new scheme possible to reach the maximum or anything near it; and if he can so arrange that the maximum be reached at 50 years of age?

Under existing Regulations, it is only in rare cases that the maximum rates of pay and retired pay are reached by lieutenants from warrant rank on retirement at the age of 55. In the small minority of cases in which officers do not reach the rank of lieutenant before retirement, the possibility of reaching the maximum rate of pay and retired pay of a commissioned officer from warrant rank will still exist, except where the officer is promoted at a late age in branches where the 10-year rule applies. The Admiralty do not consider it necessary to make special provision for such cases, the number of which will be very small. I would also refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of the 29th May on the same subject.

Since the number is so very small, will the right hon. Gentleman see if he can evolve some scheme which will be fairer to these ranker officers?

We endeavour in our scheme to be fair to everyone; but the difficulties are not altogether so easy to surmount.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the composition of the ad hoc Committee which he promised to set up to inquire into the possibility of framing amending legislation whereby the innocent victims of a trade dispute should not be debarred from receiving the unemployed pay to which they had been compelled to contribute when at work?

The composition of the Committee is as follows:

Can the right hon. Gentleman encourage the Committee to meet promptly, so that if legislation be recommended, it can take place without delay?

I said when I promised the Committee that it was very doubtful indeed whether it could deal with such a complicated question in such a way as to make it possible for us to legislate this Session.

asked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of unemployed fishermen of all classes in the British Isles and the average amount paid weekly in unemployed benefit; and can he state the number of share fishermen who are not eligible for unemployed benefit?

asked the Minister of Labour (1) the approximate number of share fishermen in the British Isles who are exempt from the Unemployment Insurance Act; whether he proposes to take any steps to bring such men within the scope of the Act;

(2) the approximate number of unemployed fishermen of all classes in the British Isles; and what is the weekly amount of unemployment benefit paid to them during the past three months?

On 22nd May about 3,000 fishermen in Great Britain insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts were unemployed. The amount paid in benefit for the week commencing on that date was about £1,550 and for the previous three months averaged about £1,920 weekly. I cannot state the total number of fishermen unemployed or the number of share fishermen not eligible for benefit. But the number of fishermen insured represents about 35 per cent. of the number in the industry. Share fishermen could not be brought within the Act without fresh legislation. I am not prepared to introduce such legislation at the present time.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of women who before the War were in domestic employment; and, if he cannot, will he state the total number of women receiving unemployment pay?

According to the Census of 1911 the number of women aged 18 and upwards employed in domestic indoor service in Great Britain at the date of the Census was about 1,200,000. On 6th June, 1922, the total number of women wholly unemployed and in receipt of unemployment benefit was under 57,500, all of whom had paid a considerable number of unemployment insurance contributions, or had otherwise shown that they are normally employed in some insured trade among which domestic service is not included.

asked the Minister of Agriculture why he ordered that land drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment should be discontinued on the 31st May last; whether he is aware that the Gloucester Agricultural Committee and other county committees have unanimously passed resolutions urging that this useful work should be proceeded with as the summer is the time when the work can be best done, and that the National Farmers' Union have intimated that such a course would not interfere with the supply of labour on the land; and whether, since, taking into account the contributions made by owners and occupiers and the large employment of unskilled labour, expenditure on drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment is more economical and of greater national benefit than the payment of doles, he will reconsider his decision?

The closing of all drainage work unemployed on 31st May was decided upon by His Majesty's Government after full consideration of all the conditions, and was accepted by drainage authorities and County Agricultural Committees as an essential condition when applying for grants from public funds to enable them to carry out schemes. The matter has received constant attention and my right hon. Friend has been able to arrange with His Majesty's Treasury for schemes carried out by County Agricultural Committees to continue to be financed by Government up to 30th June, by which date it is expected that all the schemes which are now in hand will be completed. My right hon. Friend regrets that, as he explained in reply to the hon. Members for the. Forest of Dean and Stroud on the 29th May, the Government is not able to extend the scheme beyond the date mentioned.

asked the Minister of Health the number of houses now completed under the Housing Acts of 1919; the number in the course of construction; and the total number which will be erected when the Government's housing programme under the 1919 Acts is completed?

The number of houses completed by local authorities, public utility societies and private builders under the State-aided housing schemes on the 1st June was 149,207; and in addition 3,079 dwellings had been provided by the conversion of huts and hostels. The number of houses in course of construction by local authorities and public utility societies is 40,970, and preliminary certificates have been issued to private builders for 8,846 houses which, to qualify for subsidy, must be completed by 23rd instant. The total number of houses to be erected by local authorities and public utility societies under the scheme is 176,000, to which must be added some 40,000 houses to be built by private builders.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what further steps the Government propose to take to provide the balance of the half million houses promised at the last Election?

I made a speech on the subject yesterday, and my hon. Friend made a long speech, to which, later, I may have some opportunity of replying.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the action of the marketing company of the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers in excluding from British markets cement produced in Norway under a threat to flood the Norwegian markets with British cement; and, in view of the effect this will have on maintaining the existing high cost of building, whether he will take steps to ensure that British contractors will, as heretofore, be in a position to secure the equally serviceable and less costly cements produced on the Continent?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but if the hon. Member will send me any information he may have on the subject, I will consider it.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Dulwich estates governors erected a number of houses under the Government housing scheme and that the estates governors have communicated frequently with his Department asking for payment of the subsidy due from the Government; what is the amount of such subsidy; whether it has been paid; if not, what is the reason for the same being withheld; and, seeing that the estates governors require the subsidy to enable them to carry on their educational work, will he give instructions for the liability to be discharged without further delay?

Payments on account of the annual subsidy payable for the year ended 31st March last were made in June and October of last year. The balance of subsidy due up to the end of that year could not be determined until the accounts had been made up and audited. This has now been done, and the balance due is being paid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the small amounts he referred to as having been paid up to June and October last year account for a very small number of houses, and seeing that the whole of the houses have been disposed of, and the necessity of the Governors having the money for education purposes, will he take immediate steps to see that they receive the amount due from the Government?

If the hon. Member will read the answer he will see that I said the accounts have now been made up and audited, and the balance due is being paid.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a scheme from the London County Council for the clearance of the slum area known as Ware Street, Hoxton; what was the date when such scheme was received; will he state if his Department has approved or disapproved of the scheme; what is the reason for the delay in the decision; and when his Department will inform the London County Council whether they may proceed with this clearance scheme?

A scheme for the clearance of the area referred to was made by the London County Council on the 4th May, 1920, and submitted to the Ministry in July, 1920. Consideration of the scheme was deferred until further progress had been made by the council in the provision of new housing accommodation. Details of the scheme have been discussed with representatives of the Council, and a formal Order confirming the scheme will be issued in a day or two.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Lord Chief Justice of England attended a committee of Ministers dealing with the Irish question; and, if so, why this departure from constitutional practice was made?

The Lord Chief Justice, who was a member of the Irish Conference and at that time His Majesty's Attorney-General, took a leading part in the constitutional discussions between British and Irish representatives at that Conference. When difficulties and differences of opinion arose upon the question whether the Draft Constitution was in harmony with the Treaty, it was thought convenient in the public interest, and not in the circumstances improper, that the Lord Chief Justice should resume his discussion upon this particular question. He took no part in any other and more general discussion, and no part in any decision of Ministers. The task undertaken by Lord Hewart can hardly be described as a departure from constitutional practice, inasmuch as no precedent is believed to exist for the occasion on which his assistance was requested. It is reasonable to suppose that his duty in this matter is now finally discharged.

I should not like to give that answer without saying, as one of His Majesty's Ministers, that we are under a great obligation to Lord Hewart for having consented to give us his assistance in this matter, as he was somewhat reluctant to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I did not desire to make any attack on the Lord Chief Justice in asking my question.

I did not mean that.

Even with the qualifications and restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, does he not think that there are grave objections to a judge, who may have to decide judicially questions arising out of these very considerations, even appearing to be in consultation with Ministers on the matter?

Undoubtedly the position was one of some delicacy. I think Lord Hewart reluctantly resumed any part in the Conferences, and he was strictly limited within the sphere I have described. All I can say is that I believe Lord Hewart's intervention, his consent to give us that assistance, was as welcome to the other parties to the negotiations as to ourselves, and contributed signally to such success as was attained by the Conferences.

asked the Secretary of State for War if any reservists have been struck off the Army Reserve by the recent disbandment of Irish regiments; and, if so, how many?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the House any information as to the fate of the three British officers and one private who were kidnapped at Macroom at the end of April and are supposed to have been murdered?

I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea South on the 30th May last, namely, that I have no further information regarding these officers and the soldier, but that the military authorities no longer feel able to hold out any hope that they are still alive.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the rumour which was very current that these officers and the soldier were taken to Macroom Castle, tried by a detachment of the Irish Republican Army, and shot there?

No, I know nothing of that. I shall be very glad of any evidence given to me on the question.

Is it the case that Macroom Castle was surrounded and held by His Majesty's forces? If so, why were the men inside the Castle not taken prisoners?

I know nothing of that. I must have notice of the question.

Is there any truth in the story told that the Commanding Officer of the Hampshire Regiment, in which two of these officers served, had communicated with the next-of-kin as to the death and murder of these officers?

I have said that the military authorities no longer feel any hope that these officers and the soldier are alive. I also said on another occasion, believe, that the relatives have been informed. At any rate, I understood that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether his attention has been called to the action of the Ulster special constabulary in holding up, searching, and subjecting to insult and indignity His Eminence Cardinal Logue arid Most Reverend Dr. O'Donnell at Lisnadell, County Armagh, on Tuesday 6th June, when proceeding on their religious duties; whether he is aware that, on His Eminence protesting against such treatment and objecting to the searching of a parcel of diocesan letters and documents, an order was given to cover that man with a rifle, and a rifle and revolver were immediately thrust under his nose; that a full search was then made of all papers and documents; that even a box in which were holy oils for confirmation was opened, though Archbishop O'Donnell explained what was in it; that this was the second occasion on which His Eminence the Cardinal and Dr. O'Donnell had been subjected to this indignity, as they had been similarly held up on the 24th May by the specials at Lisnadell and subjected to search and insult; and whether, in view of the fact that this repeated interference with ministers in the discharge of their religious duties is a direct breach of the letter and sprit and whole intention of Section 5 of The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, he will have that Act suspended as its constitution is no longer being observed;

(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the official statement from the headquarters of the special constabulary in Belfast that the specials, in holding up His Eminence Cardinal Logue and the Most Reverend Dr. O'Donnell, had exceeded their instructions; whether he can state what are the instructions given to special constables in such matters; and whether he will issue in the form of a White Paper a statement setting out the nature of the instructions, written and oral, issued to the specials for carrying out their duties in the Northern area?

My attention has been called to this incident, and I took the opportunity of reading His Eminence's letter in the Irish newspapers. I may say at once that His Majesty's Government consider that the incident was very regrettable. His Eminence had just delivered a speech, the whole object of which was to bring about a more peaceful, rational and Christian temper in Ireland, and it is indeed lamentable that he should have been subjected to so much want of consideration. I was very glad to learn that an official rebuke was spontaneously administered by those in charge of the Special Constabulary to their agents for their conduct in this matter. The phrase "exceeded their instructions" is clearly intended in that sense. I do not think it is necessary, nor indeed do I think it is practicable, to lay in the form of a White Paper instructions, general or special, which may be issued by the police authorities to constables coping with the kind of situation which has arisen in Northern Ireland.

I may add that I have had the advantage of a conversation with Sir James Craig on this subject, and he has desired me to say that it is far indeed from the wishes or intentions of the Government of Northern Ireland that any want of courtesy or consideration should be shown to Cardinal Logue or any other high dignitary of the Catholic Church.

In view of the fact that the first insult and indignity was put upon Cardinal Logue in pursuit of his ecclesiastical duties on 24th May, and that subsequently he was insulted in a much more offensive form on 6th June, why were no steps taken to protect him and other distinguished ecclesiastics in the discharge of their functions?

I have no information other than that which I have given to the House. The matter, of course, is one primarily to he raised in the Ulster Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the action of the Special Constabulary in Belfast in arresting and detaining, without charge or trial, two Catholic members of the Conciliation or Peace Committee set up under the Craig-Collins pact; whether he has information that warrants have been issued for three other Catholic members of the committee; and whether, seeing that the peace pact cannot be carried out while the Government of Northern Ireland pursue this policy, he will inform it that the £500,000 grant recently voted will be withdrawn from the Ulster Parliament and handed over to a committee who will use it for the relief of the expelled workers and Catholic refugees in Belfast who have been left without homes or livelihood?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn from various quarters to this matter, and I have personally seen the representatives of the Northern Government upon the subject. They inform me that charges of substance are to be preferred against these two men, but I have not yet received information as to what these charges are. It certainly is a great pity that the committee which was to have been set up under the agreement of the 31st March should have met with so little success, and I do not think anyone can be satisfied that the position should be left where it now stands. The Imperial Government was a party to the agreement of the 31st March, and on this ground as well as on others has the responsibility for endeavouring to secure its execution as opportunity may serve. We have been passing through an extremely critical and violent period in Northern Ireland in the last few weeks, and at the first opportunity afforded by a calmer situation, I shall endeavour to press upon all parties concerned the importance of persevering in an endeavour to carry out that agreement. At the present moment such intervention would not be useful, both sides being animated by the greatest possible distrust and indignation against one another.

With regard to the last part of the question, I cannot see that it would be any advantage at the present time to withdraw this grant, which is divided proportionately between Protestants and Catholics, and which is a mitigating and merciful factor in the general harshness of the scene.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what process of impartial administration this pact can be carried out if the representatives of one side to the pact are arrested and imprisoned without charge and there are no representatives of the Catholics on this body?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies will he also tell the House whether, in fact, the Craig-Collins pact did not break down completely as a result of the action of the Provisional Government in setting up a railway commission of their own? Secondly, what useful purpose could be secured to the unemployed in Belfast by the withdrawing of the grant of £500,000 from His Majesty's Government, which would involve the withdrawal for the same reason of £500,000 voted by the Corporation and the Harbour Board of Belfast to be distributed in the proportion provided as between the two sections of unemployed in that community?

I think, on reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) will see that my answer covers the whole point raised in his question. I do not for a moment suggest that the agreement is being carried out at the present time, but I hope an opportunity will occur soon when we can resume our efforts.

In view of the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House, that this £500,000 of Imperial money, advanced for a definite specific purpose should be distributed upon the terms laid down, namely, impartial administration as between the different interests concerned, what steps does he propose to take to deal with the fact that the representatives of the Catholic body have been arrested by the orders of the Ulster Government?

May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks a worse service could be rendered to the cause of peace than the putting down of offensive and unfounded accusations of this kind?

This is the man who works the pogroms in Belfast.

We cannot deal with the details of the matter in this House.

I may answer the supplementary question of the hon. Member for the Falls Division. His Majesty's Government naturally are responsible for seeing that this money is distributed in the proportion agreed upon, and in the quarters for which it was intended. I shall be quite glad to answer questions in the House upon that subject. I am assured that Catholic unemployed will get the full share of the money prescribed for them. I am quite willing to take responsibility for doing my best to see that this is carried out.

In view of the fact that they have no representation upon the administrative body, what guarantee have they that the money allocated by the Imperial Government will be adjusted according to the spirit of the allocation?

That is very far from the question originally on the Paper. If my hon. Friend puts down another question, I am quite ready to show him the machinery which will be adopted for making sure that there is a distribution of the grant in proportion to the population.

Is the hon. Member for Falls not a member of the Ulster Parliament?

Be is not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the evidence on which he based his suggestion that Protestants and Sinn Feiners were equally responsible for the recent outrages in Ulster?

The hon. and gallant Member does not quote the words of my statement, which were reported as follows:

"There is no comparison between the position of the Protestants, Loyalists, or Unionists, in Southern Ireland and that of the Catholics in Northern Ireland, because a most vehement and combative campaign is going on there. I am not saying who began it, or against whom the greater amount of blame rests, but, undoubtedly, a very active combat is going on there, with many killed and wounded on both sides…

To this statement I adhere.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise there were several statements in that speech, all of them suggesting to some of us that he considered that the Protestants were equally responsible with the Sinn Feiners? May I suggest—

Order, order!

Does the hon. and gallant Member ask the next Question on the Paper?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to proceedings instituted at the Sinn Fein supreme court, Dublin, on 31st May, when an order was secured restraining Martin J. Hughes from proceeding with a action in enemy courts, namely, His Majesty's Courts of Justice, etc.; whether these courts function under the authority of the Dail Eireann; and whether such procedure is in accordance with the Treaty?

I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings referred to. It is a matter of common knowledge and I have never sought to disguise the fact that so called Republican Courts have continued their irregular activities since the Treaty. Their continuance side by side with the legally established courts is one of the many anomalies of the present transitional period which must presumably disappear when the Irish Free State has been duly set up and its Constitution has become operative. As the Provisional Government have no responsibility for and do not recognise these courts no direct breach of the Treaty arises, but certainly it is a very wrongful situation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Provisional Government is taking to bring into action again the Courts of Justice in Dublin?

I cannot do that in answer to a supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that strong armed parties have crossed the border of Northern Ireland from the Free State, near Londonderry, and broken up the house of Mr. Maxwell-Moore, which is on the Londonderry border, and that protection has been refused by the military authorities if he will state the reason for this refusal; and if compensation will be given in this and similar cases and by whom?

I understand that an attack was made on the house of Mr. Maxwell-Moore on 3rd May last, with the result that windows were broken and some other damage was done. A request from Mr. Maxwell-Moore for protection was received by military authorities and was passed on to the civil police, as it is quite impossible for the Army, in addition to their other responsibilities, to undertake the protection of private individuals and their property. This involves no change in the procedure which for the past three years has been carried out in Ireland. In reply to the third part, provision is made under the existing law for compensation in this and similar cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is intended to accede to the demand of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland for an inquiry into the action of His Majesty's military forces at Pettigo and Beleek; and. if so, will he state the reasons?

No, Sir. It is not intended to institute any such inquiry. His Majesty's Government believe themselves to be fully informed as to the facts, and accept full responsibility for the action which the military authorities took by their express direction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any Report upon the assault committed upon Mr. C. F. Andrews at Nakuru; and, if so, will he state the nature of the Report and the action that is being taken thereon by the Government?

I will circulate the Governor's despatch on this subject, with the reply which has been sent to him, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if 15,000 standards of spruce lying in Canada and belonging to this country have been sold to a firm of London timber importers; if so, what was the price per standard paid for the wood and how did it compare with the prevailing market value; and was any attempt made by the Govern- ment to obtain any better price after the offer had been received from the purchaser?

Approximately 10,000 standards of spruce lying in Canada have been sold to a firm of London timber importers, who have intimated their intention to exercise an option given to them to purchase a further 5,000 standards. In accordance with the invariable rule in such cases, I am not prepared to disclose the price of sale. There is no timber of comparable quality on the market. The offer was closed with upon expert advice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government intend to intro duce legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Performing Anmals?

The recommendations of the Select Committee are being carefully considered, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the proposed reductions in the salaries of the temporary clerical staff from 1st June; whether wages from 55s. to 75s. weekly are all subject to reduction by 7s. 6d., with lower reductions as applied to lower wages; whether anything can be done to secure a fairer grading of the reduction between 55s. and 75s., as the present proposal unduly penalises the staff on the lower limit; and whether, in view of the fact that a reduction was made as from 1st February last and that the cost of living has dropped only seven points in the interval, the present reduction can be reconsidered, especially as the temporary staff never enjoyed the cost-of-living sliding scale as applied to the permanent staff?

As stated in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) on the 31st ultimo, the rates of remuneration payable to the temporary clerical staff are at present under consideration by a Committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, and no decision has yet been reached.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were, for the financial years ending 31st March, 1914, and 31st March, 1922, the total number of barrels of beer on which duty was paid and the sum received in respect of duty for each year?

The total number of standard barrels of home-made beer on which duty was paid, and the sums received in respect of duty in the financial years ended 31st March, 1914, and 1922, respectively, were as follow:

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a British subject is able to escape United Kingdom Income Tax by investing his capital in foreign securities and by living for more than six months in each year of assessment in the Isle of Man, the Channel Isles, or elsewhere outside the United Kingdom; and, if so, if he will say what steps the Government propose to prevent this method of tax evasion?