asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many agitators, political or otherwise, are imprisoned on account of their agitation in Burma; how many of these are Burmese; and how many Indian?

I am unable to supply the hon. and gallant Member with the figures asked for, and would refer to the reply given him on the 22nd February last. But I have no reason to think that the number is more than six or seven, if so many. The Government of India were consulted, as promised in that reply, but their answer has not yet been received.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, if he can now give a Return showing the difference between the cost of administration of the Central and Provincial Governments in India before and after the introduction of the reforms under the Government of India Act of 1919?

I much regret the delay which has occurred in supplying the hon. and gallant Member with these figures. I received certain figures from the Government of India in March last, but as it appeared that they had not been prepared on a uniform basis and would therefore have been misleading, I had to telegraph asking for their revision, which has involved a reference to several provinces. I can assure the hon. Baronet that the matter has not been overlooked and that I will furnish the figures as soon as possible.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why the concession of proportionate pensions is not given to officers of the Indian Medical Service in permanent civil employment; and why such officers do not receive the same privileges and concessions as have been, or may be, accorded to other civil officers as a result of the detriment to their prospects and the altered conditions of service resulting from the reform scheme?

Officers of the Indian Medical Service in permanent civil employment are permitted to retire on proportionate pensions if they are unable to be re-employed in military duties to which, under the terms of their appointment, they are always liable to recall. I am in correspondence with the Government of India in regard to the applicability of these conditions to officers who, by reason of the length and nature of their civil employment, have had a reasonable expectation of continuance therein up to the time of their normal retirement.

Can the Noble Lord say when he expects some reply or decision about this matter?

I hope shortly. It is an important matter which requires consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps he proposes to take to remove the grave fears as to the security of their pensions which have caused the European officers in Government services in India to form associations for the protection of their interests and to memorialise the Secretary of State on this and other associated matters?

I can add nothing to what was said on this subject in paragraphs 3 and 4 of a despatch from the late Secretary of State, dated the 9th February last, which was presented to Parliament, and a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why an arbitrary limit of time was fixed after which no proportionate pension could be, claimed; and whether he is aware that the effect of such a limit is to compel the retirement of a considerable number of officers before that date and before they would otherwise retire?

I would refer the hon. Member to my observations on this matter in the course of the Debate on the India Office Vote on Thursday last but I might say in amplification that an arbitrary date was first fixed, because it is clearly not an ideal condition in the public service that its members should be able at any time to claim to retire on pension at short notice. On the other hand, it has now become apparent that if the date in 1924 originally fixed is adhered to, many officers will not be sufficiently assured as to future conditions by that time, and will therefore retire while the opportunity is open. It has therefore been decided that the opportunity must be kept open for a considerable additional period, and, as I said on the 15th, a definite announcement on the subject will be made shortly.

Is there any decision being come to with regard to these civil servants which can be announced all at once, or are the points raised in these memorials being taken separately?

I am afraid I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's question. He refers in his question on the Paper to the arbitrary limit of time after which no proportionate pension can be claimed. I referred to that in ray speech last week, and I have endeavoured to amplify that reply to-day.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the views of the Government of India have now been received on the question of the adjustment of the pay and pensions of those officers of the Indian Army who were retained in the Army on account of the War beyond the date on which they became due to be placed on the retired list; and, if so, can he make a statement of the subject?

The Government of India's views have now been received and are under consideration. I cannot promise an immediate decision, as further correspondence will probably be necessary, but will do my best to expedite it.

Can my Noble Friend give me any time at which I can put down a question?

I will notify my hon. and gallant Friend privately when it is possible to give an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that the report of the disbandment of a battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, consequent on the retention of a battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, has caused great resentment not only among the people of Ulster, of which nearly every family has given members to this regiment during the past 230 years, but also among the 30,000 ex-soldiers of the regiment living in Ulster, and that they regard the substance of this report as a breach of faith in respect to Army Order No. 78, of 11th March, 1922, which, in enumerating the Irish regiments to be disbanded, clearly indicated that the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the oldest and only original Ulster Regiment, was to be retained intact; whether, in view of this, the subject can be reconsidered;

(2) whether he is aware that the recruiting area of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, an Ulster and Protestant regiment since 1689, comprises three counties, namely, Fermanagh, Tyrone, and Londonderry, with a combined population of about 360,000, and that the recruiting area of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, a regiment originally raised in the South of Ireland, mainly Roman Catholic, consists of only one county, namely, Armagh, with a population of about 120,000; whether, seeing that as a consequence of this it is easier to recruit two battalions of Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers rather than one of each regiment, the disbandment of the second battalion of the former regiment can be reconsidered;

(3) whether he is aware that the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers have recruited in their present area for the past 230 years; whether the retention of a battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers by the sacrifice of a battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers will interfere with the old privilege of an Ulster man to confine his attestation solely to service in the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, and not committing himself to service in the Royal Irish Fusiliers or any other regiment; and whether, if the two regiments are to be retained, he will arrange for separate regimental depots as at present?

I am acquainted with the circumstances of these two distinguished regiments, and with the conditions governing their recruiting and maintenance. The future of these regiments is now receiving my personal attention, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, in coming to a decision, full consideration will be given to the claims of the regiments concerned, and to such considerations as those which he adduces.

Seeing that it is quite easy to recruit six battalions in Ulster, would it not be preferable to retain the second battalions of both the Irish Fusiliers and the Inniskilling Fusiliers, and to disband the English and Scottish battalions, which, it is well known, cannot recruit territorially?

Then I should get exactly similar questions on behalf of the English battalions concerned.

I am referring to the battalions that cannot recruit territorially, which is well known in many cases.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers who are badly placed in their regiments as regards age and are never, in consequence of this, likely to be promoted, may be allowed to retire on the same terms as officers compulsorily retired under War Office letter of 22nd February, 1922?

As I have already stated in reply to my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot, the compensation terms are only for officers whose careers in the Army are compulsorily terminated solely by reason of the reductions in the establishment of the Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War if all soldiers on discharge are entitled to a month's leave on full pay?

Under the Regulations at present in force, any soldier who is transferred to the Reserve, or who is discharged on the termination of his engagement and not for misconduct or physical unfitness may be granted 28 days' leave on full pay if this leave can be taken before the date on which he is due for such transfer or discharge.

Is this leave in all cases possible where men come home from India who have been kept out there compulsorily for about a year over their time?

Every attempt is made to give leave where it can be taken before the date of transfer or discharge.

In other cases, is some advantage given to the man in lieu of the 28 days' leave?

No. This is not a right of the man, but a privilege.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to set aside a portion of Whitesand Bay, near Plymouth, for gun practice; and whether he will withdraw this proposal, having regard to the detrimental effect these operations would have upon the local fishing community, particularly the fishermen of Looe and Polperro?

I am making inquiry of the local military authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the result of the inquiries he has made in regard to the kidnapping from Pettigo of certain loyalists by Free State forces; whether these persons have been released un- injured; if not, where they now are; and who is responsible for their safety?

I am in communication with the Provisional Government with regard to these men, but am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly two weeks have elapsed since these men were kidnapped, and does he not think that in this space of time the Government ought to have obtained information as to their safety or otherwise?

I am holding for the time being 14 prisoners taken at Pettigo. They are in Ireland.

Will my right hon. Friend insist, when these men are released, that the Provisional Government pay full compensation for their injuries, because they have been captured by the Provisional Government's forces?

I do not think I can answer that question at the present time.

Will my right hon. Friend answer it if I put it down at 48 hours' notice? It is a very important point.

I am not prepared to say, until I am better informed of all the circumstances, as to what demand could be made for compensation.

If, as stated in my right hon. Friend's answer, he holds the Provisional Government responsible for the capture of these men, surely the Provisional Government ought to pay compensation.

Will my right hon. Friend say why the Provisional Government cannot give an answer as to the illegal action of their troops in less time than a fortnight?

I think this matter might much better be allowed to be adjusted in the course of a few days. I expect these men will be delivered over to us, and then we shall find out what were the circumstances in which they were taken away, and whether there are any grounds for the charges of misconduct against them. I have heard certain charges which are made, and we have to look into all these matters before you can say straight off whether a demand for compensation can be made. I am not prepared now to go any further than to say that I am provisionally holding the men taken at the capture of Pettigo, although it is by no means clear that charges can be formulated against them.

Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is satisfied these men are alive and in safety?

I have never said anything which indicated that. The names have been given to me of four men who were carried off, but I am not clear in each case whether they have been carried off from territory inside the Free State, in which they were domiciled, or whether they were carried off from just over the border. I have no further information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to ensure the impartial administration of the money voted by Parliament for the relief of distress in accordance with the Collins-Craig pact?

I see no reason, whatever, to doubt the assurances given me by Sir James Craig that the money promised by the Government for relief of distress in Belfast is being administered with impartiality. At the same time the British Government countersigned the Agreement in question and is, therefore, bound to form its own judgment for the information of the House as to how far effect has been given to its terms. For this purpose I have instructed an experienced public official to proceed to Belfast and to inquire and report to me upon the extent to which effect has been given to the Agreement. The officer selected for this purpose is Mr. S. G. Tallents, C.B., who at one time represented the British Government with marked ability at Riga. In order to make his services available, Mr. Tallents has been detached from the post he has since filled as Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

Was it not part of the Agreement that there should be an equal number of Catholics and Protestants on the Committee to distribute this money which has been voted by the Imperial Government?

No, Sir, I do not think that is so.

I think it is so.

No, Sir. There were two Committees, as far as my recollection serves me. One was to investigate cases and the other to assist in the formation of a new joint police force. This money was to be distributed on certain principles and in certain directions, but, as far as my recollection goes, there was no such arrangement as the hon. Member mentions.

How much money has been allocated for this purpose?

Under the agreement of 31st March, £500,000 was to be granted by the British Exchequer for the relief of distress in Belfast, of which two-thirds was to go to Protestants and one-third to Catholics.

How much has been allocated by the Government for the relief of Protestants driven out of the South of Ireland?

That has nothing to do with the question or with the supplementary question.

Do I understand that £350,000 is to be devoted to those who drove the Catholics out and £150,000 to the Catholics who were driven out?

I think that is an extremely one-sided manner of summing up the causes of the difficulties at present arising in Belfast.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a pensioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary who accepts a position in the Colonial police or the Indian police will have any deduction made from his pension or his pay?

I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the provisions of Clause 1 (3) of the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, which provides that if any officer or constable to whom a compensation allowance has been awarded takes service in any police force, the allowance may be suspended in whole or in part so long as he remains in such force. I am in communication with the Treasury as to the scope of this provision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the law officers as to whether the Indian and Colonial police forces are police forces within the meaning of the Section to which he refers?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the three officers and one soldier murdered at Macroom were employed on service when they were captured; and whether the Government, either individually or in concert with the Provisional Government, are going to take any further steps to catch the murderers and avenge the death of these gallant soldiers?

These officers and the soldiers with them were not on any special duty when they were kidnapped. In reply to the latter part of the question, the Provisional Government is continuing its inquiries into the matter, but I regret that they have hitherto not been able to trace the persons responsible for this outrage. With regard to the future steps which can be taken, I wish dis- tinctly to state that neither in this case nor in the case of any other servants or ex-servant of the Crown murdered in South Ireland since the signature of the Treaty will the British Government relinquish its efforts to secure the apprehension and punishment of the guilty persons. It would be quite impossible for the Irish Free State to retain the position of a civilised Government unless it were to make untiring exertions to secure the apprehension and punishment of persons guilty of having broken the solemn pact entered into between the representatives of the two countries by treacherous and brutal assassinations. There can be no question of drawing a veil over these events.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the letter from the father of one of these murdered officers in Monday's "Times" stating they were seen to enter an inn at Macroom and that they never came out again, and that., if no one has been arrested, it is not for want of clues, but because there is no machinery of law and order in the district?

I have read the letter. It is, no doubt, true there has been no machinery of law and order in the district, up to the present. I trust as the time passes law and order will regain authority. Then will be the time when inquiry can be made and evidence gone into, and when, I trust, the guilty parties will he brought to justice.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not inform the House whether the innkeeper, or some persons living in the have been interrogated as to what happened to the officers after entering the premises?

I certainly cannot at the present time. I have said the district at present is not under the effective control of the Provisional Government. I have no means or methods of making inquiries other than those which have already been conducted.

How long is this to be permitted to go on?

I have given the hon. Gentleman answers to his questions. I should have thought he would have accepted them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to, the acts of the Special Constabulary holding up the motor car in which His Eminence Cardinal Logue and His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin were travelling to Armagh after administering confirmation last Thursday; whether the car was pulled up by the Specials who demanded the chauffeur's licence, which he immediately produced, informing them that the passengers he was driving were Cardinal Logue and the Archbishop O'Donnell; whether the leader of the Specials ordered the Cardinal and the Archbishop to get, out on the roadside and be searched, which they did, after which they were-searched, their bags also searched; whether the pockets of the car were-searched, the cushions lifted and the bonnet of the engine scrutinised and the chauffeur ordered to take off the spare wheel. Whether this is the third occasion in three months that Cardinal Logue and his coadjutor Archbishop have been submitted to similar indignities; and whether in view of the repeated declarations made on behalf of the Northern Government that these insults were committed against their explicit instructions and in opposition to their orders, steps would be taken to have the Special Constabulary suspended, and what action he proposed to take to put an end to these constant and recurring outrages against distinguished ecclesiastics in the pursuit of their religious duties?

The incident referred to by the hon. Member, came to my knowledge on the 16th instant, and I immediately asked the Secretary to the Government of Northern Ireland for a report on the subject. His reply, received yesterday, was in the following terms:

"I received your wire about Cardinal Logue's car, but as the Constabulary Authorities were making inquiries, news came in of five Unionists murdered in that district this morning, and all of the former inquiries are necessarily postponed. In any case the matter does not seem of outstanding importance. Both the Prime Minister's car and the cars of the highest Protestant ecclesiastical and judicial dignitaries have been searched without protest. We ore trying to stamp out murder, and no citizen need object to a little inconvenience caused by measures to this end."

I have for the moment no further information to add to this reply.

Does the right hon. Gentleman, as paymaster of these Special constables, really think that is a serious answer to give to the House? Has he not himself stated at the Treasury Box repeatedly that he resents and regrets these indignities put upon ecclesiastics? Is it suggested by implication that these ecclesiastics were in any way responsible, directly or indirectly, for the things he quotes in his answer?

I gave an answer on this subject which is correctly described by the hon. Gentleman, in which I expressed regret at this kind of events happening, but I should have thought that the last possible occasion on which to draw attention to an inconvenience of this kind would be in connection with five or six most horrible murders in Ireland which had convulsed the whole district and which had naturally led to the police being active and vigilant.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in denouncing these horrors, but similar horrors had occurred three or four days before, and these were, I understand, reprisals. My main point is that these distinguished dignitaries were attacked on two separate occasions before there were any murders, and Cardinal Logue, a venerated ecclesiastic, 83 years of age, was stopped and a pistol held at his head—

On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member, under the guise of a question, entitled to make a most provocative speech?

He is incapable of making a provocative speech.

The hon. Member has had a full answer to his original question.

With all respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question at all. What I want to know is what he proposes to do to stop these indignities being put upon these ecclesiastics in the pursuit of their duty. He pays these Special constables, and has the right to determine what is to be done.

I do not think that it would be opportune for me to make any further representation to the Government of Northern Ireland. I have stated, on behalf of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, his regret that anything in the nature of inconvenience or discourtesy should have been experienced by the Cardinal and the Archbishop, but they are travelling about now in districts which are convulsed by excitement—

This will make them more excited.

and they cannot be sure that they may not be subjected to the same sort of interrogatories and examination of their papers as are all other persons there. I think it is inopportune to press a matter like that, in view of the fact that this very district was the scene of these murders.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement to the House with regard to the situation in Ireland this week?

The House knows that I am not at all disinclined to give it the fullest possible information about Ireland, and, indeed, I think the Government has frequently gained very considerable advantage by the fact of the discussions which have taken place in this House on the Irish question. At the same time, I do feel that the present is not a very opportune moment for a discussion. I feel that one ought to take place before very long, but there are so many uncertain factors at this moment that discussion in this House might very well be prejudicial to the public interest, and, if the House would permit rue, I would ask to be allowed to reserve any statement I might make till a somewhat later period.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more definite as to the date? The state of Ireland is deplorable. Outrages are taking place every day, and it is very desirable that the House should be fully informed as to what is taking place in Ireland and what measures are being taken.

The Colonial Office Vote is down for next Thursday, but I am sure it would he of no advantage to discuss Ireland then. Provided that it comes round, however, there is an Irish Supply Vote, I understand, still open, and application through the usual chan- nels, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House approves, would undoubtedly enable the House to discuss it then.

In view of the fact that questions on Ireland in this House are very difficult, is it not only fair that the House should have an opportunity of getting some explanation from the Colonial Secretary as to what is going on in Ireland, and what definite steps are being taken, seeing that loyalists are being butchered there every day?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that I will repeat the question at an early date next week?

indicated assent.

In view of the fact that at the beginning of last week we were told that we were going to have a statement on Ireland, first of ail next day, then, as far as my memory serves me, it was put off till the Thursday, then we were told we must wait till this week—possibly a late day in this week—and, now that we were waiting till Thursday, which is the last day, I understand that all we shall have is an opportunity for discussing it on the Colonial Office Vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then, in those circumstances, I do think the House should know what is going on and that we should have some explanation of the events that are taking place. I do not wish to insinuate for one moment that there is not a proper answer to be given by the Government, but I think the Government ought to give an answer, and ought not to say that at some later date, without any date being mentioned, something will be done.

If it be the desire of the House to have a discussion on Ireland next week, we have no wish to shirk such a discussion. What my right hon. Friend and the Government are anxious for is to avoid an incomplete discussion, which settles nothing, where the statements cannot be conclusive, and may be mischievous because of the uncertainties of the situation at the moment. If, however, it be the desire of the House to take an Irish Vote next week for the purpose of discussing the Irish situation, I will make arrangements accordingly. I am sure the House will recognise that, as my right hon. Friend has said, he has never shown the slightest desire to shirk discussion. When we are in the position, not of agreeing to or of refusing, but of choosing a day for discussion, we are not actuated by any desire to conceal information from the House or to shelter ourselves, but solely by the desire that discussion in the House should do no mischief, and should be as useful and informative as it can be.

Is it the fact that during the Whitsuntide Recess, when there was no discussion in this House and when no questions were being put, there was more peace in Ireland than there has been during the period when this campaign has been carried on in this House?

I do not think the two events had the slightest relation to one another.

When the time comes for the discussion of the lamentable state of affairs in the North of Ireland, will the Colonial Secretary, in deploring and describing the horrors that have taken place in the North of Ireland, and particularly in Belfast—horrors of which I have an equal abomination with himself —take care to describe the horrors not merely on one side, hut on both sides?

I will endeavour to do full justice.

asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to arrange for a Sunday collection of letters at Dolgelley and other towns in the County of Merioneth?

This matter will he pursued, in the event of the provision of a suitable train service. I should not feel justified in asking the railway company to open the line specially on Sundays in order to afford a despatch of letters.

asked the Postmaster-General when he will be able to announce his decision on the salary claim of the salaried sub-postmasters?

This claim was settled some months ago, and the decision duly promulgated.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the nature of the contract made between the Australian Government and the Marconi Australian Wireless Com- pany; has the British Post Office any share in the arrangement; and what means are now proposed to bring Australia into the British Government's Empire wireless chain?

The contract in question is too long to summarise in an answer to the hon. Member's question, but I shall be happy to show him a copy of it for his private information if he so desires. The British Post, Office has no share in the arrangement, except to the extent that the contract contemplates communication with a station in this country, and that for the erection of such a station the cooperation of the British Post Office, in some form or other, is necessary. The bearing of the contract upon the Empire Wireless Scheme is under the consideration of the Government.

Is it a fact that Australia is definitely out of the Empire Wireless Scheme?

No, it is not a fact.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the conference with the Canadian Government regarding the Empire wireless chain, which was announced as about to take place more than a year ago, has yet been held; and what is Canada's present relationship towards the Empire wireless project of the British Post Office?

Informal conversations only have so far taken place. The Canadian Government will shortly send two technical representatives to discuss the whole subject with representatives of His Majesty's Government, and, after these discussions have taken place, it will be possible to describe the relationship of Canada towards the Empire Wireless Scheme.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office has recently delivered a large number of circulars nominally issued from the office of the Alpine Sports, Limited, 5, Endsleigh Gardens, London, but actually posted on the Continent; and, if so, seeing that the effect of this procedure is to divert the entire proceeds of the sale of the stamps into a foreign Treasury, and to throw the whole cost of the handling and delivery in this country upon British taxpayers, whether he has any means of preventing or discouraging such methods of securing private gain at public expense?

A large number of circulars issued by Alpine Sports, Limited, and by the Free Church Touring Guild, have recently been received in the mails from Austria. The excuse for this practice has hitherto been the increase in the printed papers rate. As the postage on inland printed papers has now been reduced to the pre-War rate of ½d., I hope the firms concerned will discontinue the practice they have thought fit to adopt; should this continue, it may be necessary to ask Parliament to grant additional powers in order that this practice may cease.

May I ask whether we are to understand that the excuse the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is accepted by the Post Office as adequate and satisfactory?

No, certainly not.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the names of the town sub-offices which come within the provisions of paragraph 936 of the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, 1913, which was presided over by Mr. R. D. Holt whether he will state which of these offices have been converted, and why the remaining sub-offices have not been dealt with in accordance with the recommendation which was accepted by the then Postmaster-General; whether the withdrawal of telegraph delivery from some of the more important of these sub-offices will, by reducing the emoluments, have the effect of placing such offices outside the application of the recommendations; and whether he will state when, and in what order, he will be willing to convert these offices into Crown offices with an established staff?

I have no list of the offices referred to, nor of those in which the Select Committee's recommendation was carried out. The policy of conversion was suspended owing to the War. I am not prepared at present to resume it except in cases where special reasons for conversion exist. The withdrawal of telegraph delivery will in some cases have the effect stated.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will state, approximately, what volume of the parcel post is now carried by the railways and also what proportion of the postage is paid to the railway companies for their services; whether, in view of the urgency of a cheaper parcel post service, any revision of the charges paid to the railway companies is possible; if so, does he propose to obtain such revision at an early date;

(2) whether any of the motor-van services, which the Post Office established before the War, between London and adjacent towns of 50 to 100 miles distance have been re-established or if it is the intention to do so; whether these motor-van services helped considerably in providing a cheaper parcel post service before the War; and will he consider this or any other means of giving a cheaper parcel post service at the present time?

Rather more than 90 per cent. of the parcel post is carried over the whole or part of its journey by rail. As the result of negotiations, which have recently been concluded with the railway companies, the companies have agreed to accept 40 per cent. of the postage on railway-borne parcels, as compared with 55 per cent. which was payable to them under the Parcel Post Act of 1882, and a Bill to confirm this agreement will. shortly be introduced. In consideration of this reduction in the proportion of the postage payable to the companies, the Post Office agrees not to re-establish the parcel coaches or otherwise to transfer parcel mails to road transport.

The parcel post is at present carried on on an unremunerative basis, and I regret that it is not. possible to offer any reduction in the postage rates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the loss on the parcel post was incurred in connection with the motor service?

I shall be glad to get my hon. Friend that information, but I am afraid I cannot give it at the moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Trade Facilities Committee have undertaken to guarantee capital expenditure and interest of six and a half millions by the South Eastern Railway Company, such expenditure including an amount of about one and a half millions for the erection of a power station for the sole use of the South Eastern Railway Company; and, seeing that such outlay upon a power station by the South Eastern Railway Company would defeat the objects of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, and of the Electricity Supply Bill now before the House, that the. South Eastern Railway Company has undertaken to keep the capital cost of its power station apart from other capital expenditure under its scheme, and also keep separate accounts of costs of generation, so that the travelling public may not suffer from undue capital expenditure and abnormally high costs of generation, and that in the public interest one super-station, as contemplated in the 1919 Act, would more adequately meet the transport and power and lighting needs of the areas affected, whether he will inquire further into this matter?

The Treasury have expressed their willingness on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act, to guarantee the principal and interest of a loan of £6,500,000 to be raised for the purpose of electrifying the suburban service of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, and for the erection of a power station. As regards the erection of the power station, the recommendation of the Advisory Committee has been given subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, who are at the present time holding an inquiry into the applications which have been made by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company and other parties for permission to erect a station in the area concerned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the security the Government will hold against the advance to the South Eastern Railway Company under the Trade Facilities Act?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No advances are made by His Majesty's Government under the Trade Facilities Act which is limited to guarantees of loans raised by the parties concerned. The South Eastern and Chatham Company have undertaken to make annual payments sufficient to cover the service of the guaranteed loan.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is prepared to appoint a Select or Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of the provision of better security of the doors of carriages on passenger trains and whether he is aware that inventions have been produced which automatically keep the doors of the carriages locked until the train becomes stationary?