asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now publish and circulate the agreement under which German and British prisoners of war will be sent to Switzerland; and also the list of diseases which will qualify for internment in that country?

The answer to both parts of the question asked by my hon. Friend is in the affirmative.

Can the Noble Lord say when?

I suppose almost immediately. I am not aware of any reason for delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Justice Younger's Committee on the British Red Cross Society have asked the International Red Cross Society at Geneva to pay visits of inspection to British prisoner camps in Bulgaria and Turkey, similar to those which they have paid to the German prisoners in Morocco and in this country; and, if so, what reply has been received from Geneva?

It is no part of the duty of the Committee over which Mr. Justice Younger presides to suggest visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross. I am not aware whether the British Red Cross Society, which is, as my hon. Friend knows, independent of the Government, have taken any action such as he suggests. The society will, however, notice the proposal which he has now made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian statesmen now visiting this country will be allowed to visit Ireland, to ascertain real public opinion as distinguished from that represented by the Press and to study the operation and effects of British rule there?

I understand arrangements have been made already for the Russian visit, to satisfy, as far as time allows, the wishes of the Russian guests. I am not aware that they have expressed the wish or opinion which the hon. Member's question presupposes.

Will the Noble Lord arrange to give these gentlemen an opportunity of studying the "one bright spot"?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official or other communication in the nature of remonstrance has yet been received from the American Government on the summary shooting of military prisoners in Ireland and apprehended retaliation on British representatives in America; and whether, on receipt of any such remonstrance, he will give prompt information to this House?

No communication has been received, and no promise can be made about a contingency which is purely hypothetical.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state how many military prisoners have been executed for participation in the rebellion in Dublin; what was the alleged offence of those of them who were neither leaders nor signatories of the republican proclamation; what was the length of interval between capture, sentence, and execution; what facilities were afforded them for religious preparation for death; whether all were allowed the ministrations; of priests of their own choice; and whether any more are to be executed before this House is afforded an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Official statements which answer the first part of this question have already been made public. I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the body of the question; and, as regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the 8th May. My right hon. Friend is answering other questions on this subject to-day.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not taken any action on the latter part of the question?

Does the number of executions published include the case of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffiington and two others who were murdered, without any form of trial, by a subordinate officer?

I do not know whether it did or did not include the case of Mr. Skeffington or the others. My right hon. Friend is going to give an answer on that subject to-day.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the fight on Easter Monday in Dublin, six men belonging to the Irish Volunteer Training Corps were killed and eleven wounded; whether a number of the corps were in the local barracks, and assisted in the defence of the same for nine days; and whether the Government will see that these men get Army pay for the period they were on duty, and the men wounded and injured get full Army allowances for their dependants?

I have not yet been able to obtain information asked for in the first part of the question, and I can, in the absence of information as to the facts, make no statement on the point raised in the last part of the question.

asked how many male and how many female persons have been arrested in Ireland in connection with the recent rebellion and are now imprisoned in England; when will they be tried; and in what courts?

These figures are not at present available, but I will see if it is possible to obtain them. I cannot yet make a statement with regard to the last two parts of the question.

Will they be tried in a civil court?

I have said that I could not say.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now take steps to suppress the Union of Democratic Control, the No-Conscription Fellowship, and any other association the effect of whose operations is to assist the enemy by weakening the national effort and determination to win the War, having regard to the disaster that has occurred in Ireland?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have no power to suppress either of the organisations referred to in the question, but any illegal action on their part could and would be made the subject of prosecution.

asked the Prime Minister if he can yet say how soon a body of men of business experience will be set up to ascertain the extent of damage done to property in Dublin in quelling the recent insurrection and direct the work of restoration and repair; whether a portion of the £340,000,000 excessive taxes extracted from Ireland, according to the findings of the Financial Relations Commission, is to be applied to these purposes; and whether the Irish people will be allowed any voice in the selection of members of the body to be charged with these duties

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a feeling in Dublin that the Government should compensate the owners of property for the loss and damage sustained in the recent disturbances; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take into immediate consideration the question of providing out of public funds compensation for the recent destruction of property in Dublin, in view of the fact that the ratepayers of the city, if liable at all, would be wholly unable to make good the loss, and that the owners of the property destroyed were in no Way to blame for the disaster which has befallen them?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Council of the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin, have passed a resolution asking for compensation in respect of property destroyed in the city during the recent disturbances; and whether he is prepared to state what steps will be taken by the Government?

This question is engaging the careful attention of the new Under-Secretary (Sir Robert Chalmers), and in due course I will communicate the Government's decision to the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enought to receive a deputation of Dublin Members on this subject, as it is very urgent?

Yes, I will.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the suggestion in Question 54 that the sum by which Ireland has been overtaxed, as found by the Financial Relations Commission, will be drawn upon for compensation?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received any report of the gallant conduct of the Notts and Derby Regiment during the recent fighting in Dublin?

No; but, as I stated yesterday, the gallant conduct of all the troops engaged in the recent fighting will, no doubt be placed on record in Sir J. Maxwell's Report on the operations.

Are not the circumstances of firing from houses calculated to try the most experienced troops, and was not the conduct of the troops particularly gallant?

I have just said so.

asked the Prime Minister if he will define the plenary powers with which General Maxwell is invested in Ireland; and whether before debate on this subject the House will be furnished with copies of all the orders issued by General Maxwell in Ireland, and with a full list of the unarmed civilians killed after the rebels had surrendered?

With regard to the first part of the question, General Maxwell's powers were contained in a letter from the Army Council dated 28th April and in a proclamation suspending in Ireland the operations of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1915, which was published in the "London Gazette" of the 26th April. I will circulate a copy of the former document with the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[ See Written Answers. ]

I will have the information asked for in the second part of the question collected and communicated to the House as soon as possible, I am not certain what information the hon. Member refers to in the last part of his question, but it is hoped to issue a complete list of casualties, military and civil, to-morrow.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say who exercises General Maxwell's powers in his absence in London?

He has not been absent in London—only a few hours.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an undertaking that no more military executions by secret military tribunals will take place in Ireland, and whether he can let the House know whether any executions have taken place since those which were carried out on Monday morning last?

As I stated yesterday, I cannot give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Gentleman. The trials by court-martial of those who took an active part in the rising in Dublin are practically finished, and, beyond two sentences which have already been confirmed, we have the best reasons for hoping and believing that there may be no further necessity to proceed with the extreme penalty.

I desire to put some further questions of which also I have given private notice. It may be for the convenience of the Prime Minister that I should put them all together.

I am afraid I cannot answer them all.

I will read them all together. They are as follows:— (1) Whether any prisoners have been shot without trial or have been shot after trial without any public announcement of their names, and, if so, how many; (2) Whether there is any, and, if any, what authority with power to check or control the military officers now ruling Ireland; whether the Lord Lieutenant or any officials of the Irish Government have any authority over them; and how long it is proposed to maintain this military dictatorship; (3) On what ground the whole of Ireland has been placed under martial law, and why searches of houses and wholesale arrests are being carried out in districts where there was no disturbance and in which the population remained peaceful and loyal; (4) Whether he can state the circumstances under which Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington was shot at Portobello Barracks; (5) Whether he can explain why Sir Roger Casement has been brought to London, and is apparently to have a public trial before a civil tribunal, whilst comparatively obscure men whom he has been largely responsible for seducing into rebellion have been sentenced and executed in Ireland by secret military tribunal; and (6) Whether the censorship is preventing the publication of expressions of opinion from the United States of America and other neutral countries on the policy of the military executions in Dublin?

I desire to raise a point of Order. I understand that private notice questions are not allowed to be put except upon matters of urgency. I submit that, at any rate, three out of four of these questions are not on matters of urgency, and might quite well be put on the Notice Paper. I desire to ask you, Sir, why the rules which apply to us should not also apply to the hon. Member for East Mayo?

The hon. Member for East Mayo did not give me a copy of any of these questions, as, following the ordinary procedure, he ought to have done; but I rather think that the majority of these questions are urgent. It is very difficult to say, having only just heard them in this way, and not having had sufficient time to consider them, but I think that I should probably have held that certainly the greater part of them were urgent.

I desire to apologise to you, Sir, and to assure you that if I failed to send you notice of the questions it was not from any want of courtesy, but simply because I have taken little part in the proceedings of the House for some time, and have fallen somewhat out of touch with the procedure.

I think that, perhaps, I also might have had rather longer notice of these questions. They reached me only at half-past twelve today.

I could not get away from Dublin.

I am not complaining in the least. I will answer those that I can. With regard to the first question, as far as I know the answer is in the negative.

Has the Prime Minister inquired whether two other innocent men, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Dixon, have received trial or have been shot?

I am going to deal with that. This question refers to prisoners, and my answer is confined to them.

As to Question 3, I must have an opportunity of inquiring, and I must ask the hon. Member to supply me with particulars.

In reply to Question 2, the General Officer Commanding in Ireland is under the authority of His Majesty's Government. With regard to the second part of the question, the General Officer Commanding acts in constant consultation and concert with the civilian officials of the Irish Government.

In regard to the last part of the question, it is the earnest hope of the Government that normal conditions may be resumed at the earliest possible moment.

In regard to the case of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington—which was also raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Burnley—of which I had heard nothing before, I tele- graphed at once or caused a telegram to be sent to the General Officer Commanding, and I have received this answer this morning: Skeffington was shot on morning 26th April, without the knowledge of the military authorities. The matter is now under investigation. The officer concerned has been under arrest since the 6th May as soon as the report of the occurrence was received. Directions have been given to bring his case before a court-martial.

He should be handed over to the civil authorities as an ordinary murderer.

This is apparently an isolated act, and the responsible officer, so far as we know—I am not prejudging the matter—as soon as the report was received, was at once put under arrest and will be brought before a court-martial. The House may be certain that justice, or whatever justice requires, will be done. With regard to the cases referred to by the hon and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), which are alleged to have taken place at the same time and under the same conditions, the same procedure will be pursued. I have not yet got, although I telegraphed for them, particulars with regard to these cases, but I believe it is alleged that the same officer was responsible. The military authorities—General Maxwell and the officers in command—not only have no responsibility for, but no knowledge of, this occurrence. As soon as it was brought to their knowledge they at once put the officer concerned under arrest.

The answer to Question 6 is in the negative.

In regard to Sir Roger Casement (Question No. 5), this is a very serious matter, as it affects a man who is under suspicion and about to undergo his trial. I therefore think in fairness to all parties I should have a little more notice of this question.

The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to one important question, and that was whether there have been any executions in Dublin since Monday morning? There is no news at all from Dublin in this morning's papers, and for some of us that is rather a serious sign. I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say whether there have been any further executions?

No, Sir; so far as I know, not.

I rise to ask the Prime Minister now whether he can state the result of his inquiries in reference to the message which I read to the House yesterday as to the military excesses?

Yes, Sir. In reply to a message I have received this: The Editor of 'Cork Examiner' has not been arrested nor has his paper been suppressed. Arrested men in Cork Prison are allowed daily exercise as recommended by the medical authorities. Prisoners are allowed to see their clergymen. No protests have been made by civil authorities or brother officers against Captain Harvest's treatment of prisoners. The prisoners will be arraigned and tried in accordance with procedure approved by His Majesty's Government. No insurrection has taken place in Cork. Captain Harvest is carrying out his duties to the satisfaction of the General Officer commanding Queenstown and Cork.

What is the meaning of all that, Sir? I never for a moment suggested that the editor of the "Cork Examiner" had been arrested, or his newspaper suppressed. What I did suggest, and what I did ask for, was whether a raid by the military had not been made upon the office of the "Cork Free Press," which, from the beginning of the War to this moment, has faced unpopularity and heavy loss in order to preach friendship with England, and for which—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—

The hon. Member must not take this opportunity of making a speech, but must ask a question.

Yes, Sir. Then I ask whether the Prime Minister has any information as to the question which I did ask, namely, as to the outrage on the "Cork Free Press"?

There is a suggestion or imputation of hypocrisy against us as a party in this matter of the raid on the office of the "Cork Free Press." The suggestion that we have been in some way involved in this business we regard as an imputation of hypocrisy.

The hon. Member is not asking a question; he is giving information, and that is out of order.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the matter, but I understood the reference was to the "Cork Examiner." However, I will inquire about the "Cork Free Press."

Will the Government convey a hint to the right quarters in Cork that they do not there want irresponsible panic-mongers to goad the people of one of the friendliest districts in Ireland into violence by this stupid policy of frightfulness?

I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice; whether, seeing that large numbers of Irish Catholic prisoners—

That does not appear to me to be an urgent question.

It has relevance to the—

The hon. Member will perhaps put it on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any official information to the effect that the King of Bavaria and the King of Saxony have taken the initiative for an intervention by the Pope in favour of peace; and whether any communications with the same end in view are reaching the Foreign Office from other diplomatic sources?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can furnish the House of Commons with particulars of the statement made by the German Government in its recent Note to the United States Government that twice within the past few months she has announced before the world her readiness to make peace on a basis of self-guarding Germany's vital interests?

The paragraph in the German Note to the United States Government appears to refer to the statements made by the German Chancellor in his speeches of 9th December and 5th April. I have dealt with these statements in my speech on 10th April and have nothing to add to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Committee on Edible and Oil-producing Nuts and Seeds will be presented to Parliament and circulated to Members?

The Report has now been signed and I am considering it. I hope to lay it before Parliament at a very early date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the petition of Sinhalese gentlemen for an English inquiry into disturbances in connection with a Buddhist temperance procession in Ceylon last year has not yet been granted; how many persons were killed during the few days of the riots; how many were, without trial, shot, flogged, and imprisoned, respectively, under martial law after the riots had ceased; of those executed how many were not charged with having caused the death of any person; under what law was this done; what aggregate amount of money was exacted under the names of fines, security, deposit, etc.; whether the report of the Governor, Sir Robert Chalmers, is available for independent examination; and whether any inquiry in which the Sinhalese would have confidence will be held?

As regards the petition received from certain Sinhalese, I have nothing to add to the reply to the hon. Member for Attercliffe on the 5th April. I am not aware that any persons were shot, flogged or imprisoned without trial after the riots had ceased; a certain number were arrested on suspicion and afterwards released, but I have not precise figures. Information as to the number of persons killed, the number executed and on what counts, and the amount of the compensation exacted for damage to property will be found in the correspondence presented to Parliament, which also contains the report of the Governor.

Does the right hon. Gentleman question the facts set forth in the petition which he mentions, and, if he questions them, supported as they are by oath, why not prosecute the gentlemen whose names are on that petition?

I do not accept the facts, and I do not think that the mere fact that statements are made is a sufficient reason for having an inquiry such as suggested.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Governor of Ceylon at that time is the same gentleman who has gone to Dublin Castle?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give the decision of their lordships as regards the remuneration of men entered locally at the Royal Dockyard, Gibraltar; is he aware that the war bonus for labourers at Gibraltar is 6d. and for mechanics is. a week; and, seeing that the price of food, is the same for labourers and mechanics, can he see his way to place both classes of men on the 1s. rate?

All the locally entered employés at Gibraltar whose wages do not exceed 20s. 6d. a week have now been given a war bonus of 10 per cent. on their pay in lieu of the bonuses of 6d. and 1s. a week previously approved. This raises the war bonus of all the labourers to at least 1s. a week.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, in view of the need for tonnage, large ships are being used as warehouses at Alexandria?

No vessels under the control of the Admiralty are used as warehouses at Alexandria, with the occasional exception of vessels with refrigerated space required, in view of the small accommodation for frozen meat in Egypt.

Why was an expert sent out by the Government last month in order to see what ships could be released which were being used for this purpose?

I cannot say. The answer I have given states the case that, because of the lack of accommodation, it has been occasionally necessary to use refrigerating space.

Does that only apply to meat ships?

That I cannot say.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the German reports as to the shooting down by the Turks of old British aeroplanes endeavouring to get food into Kut; whether these aeroplanes are some which did reconnaissance work in the Sinai district but were so bad that they were transferred from there to Mesopotamia more than a month ago, being replaced by new machines in the Egyptian Army?

I very much regret that I have not been able to get my answers down in time to give the answers to the House of Commons. I should like to inform the House that I have been engaged in drafting the answers to my questions since I left the Local Government Board, where we had a conference on the Military Service Bill, until this moment, and it has been impossible for the War Office to get the answers typewritten in time. The consequence is that they have not yet come down. I have told them to send the answers down, as I drafted them in my own hand, at once, so that I hope they will be here immediately. It was impossible to get the work done in the time.

I am sure that the House sympathises with the right hon. Gentleman.

Arising out of this rather unusual position, is there no means by which at a later stage in the sitting we might have the answers in their proper form as usual?

I think the best plan will be to go through the questions, and by the time we have got through them once, perhaps the answers may have come down.

After Question 81 had been answered,

Perhaps we may make an exception upon this occasion and go back to Question 10, as I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War has now got his answers.

repeated the question (No. 10).

A recent Turkish Communiqué stated that the dropping of flour into Kut by aeroplane was stopped by Turkish battleplanes shooting down the British machines. The General Officer Commanding in Mesopotamia reports that between the 11th and 29th of April the British aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Naval Air Service dropped into Kut-el-Amara 16,800 lbs. of food, in addition to quantities of medical and other stores and mails. No aeroplanes already in use in Egypt or the Sinai district were sent to Mesopotamia, though some of the personnel were. During these operations there were numerous aerial combats, in one of which a British seaplane was driven down in the enemy's lines, the observer being killed and the pilot wounded. On another occasion the pilot of a British machine was wounded and his machine damaged, but he succeeded in landing safely behind the British lines. These were the only casualties suffered during the operation. The House will thus see that this is a characteristic German report.

Seeing that we have so many of these characteristic German reports, could the right hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of the entire nation, make occasionally some such satisfactory statement as he has just made? It would not have been made if the question had not been put down.

I will give it my consideration.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the ration allowance to men of the antiaircraft detachments in the London district has been reduced from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d.; whether with this sum the men are unable to supply themselves with rations equal in amount to the rations issued by the authorities, and are having to supplement them out of their pay; and whether he will consider the possibility of making more adequate allowance?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the allowance for soldiers messed regimentally or by local authorities has been reduced from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d.?

I am in the same case as my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War in that my answers have not arrived, but I think I can answer the question without waiting for the draft. It is quite correct that the ration allowance has been reduced from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d. That follows from the reduction in the ration itself. As the ration has been reduced by ¼lb. of meat it appeared to me that there was no occasion to continue to pay the full amount of the ration allowance.

Is this deduction made outside the London area as well?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what family allowances were made to soldiers before the War in 1914; on what date were the amounts first increased and to what scale; and what are the present allowances to soldiers' wives and children?

The information asked for by my hon. Friend is contained in Appendix D of the Separation Allowance Regulations. I am sending him a copy of this Appendix.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Robert Owen Davies, of 21, Garnon Street, Carnarvon, No. 2139, 6th Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who was wounded at Suvla Bay, discharged from the Army on 23rd February last as medically unfit, has received no allowance since 18th February; and whether, in view of the man's health, he will give immediate instructions that the proper allowance be paid him?

I am making inquiries into this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the scarcity of jute and of sacks resulting from restrictions imposed upon exports from Calcutta is causing inconvenience in Spain; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of arranging to mitigate such inconvenience to a friendly nation?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Arrangements have recently been made to increase substantially the exports of jute to Spain, and the inconvenience referred to by my hon. Friend will now, I trust, be removed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that non-commissioned officers in the Army Service Corps who served on the Gallipoli Peninsula and are now back in Egypt have been reduced to their original rank and original pay, which also adversely affects the separation allowance to their families; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and see whether these men can be permitted to retain the rank to which they were promoted?

I assume my right hon. Friend must be referring to acting rank; if so, I would take the liberty of referring him to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Altrincham Division on the 8th of May, and also to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division on the 2nd September. No cases of the reduction of rank have come to the knowledge of the War Office, and I imagine that where rank has been given up it has been nothing but acting rank.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 2nd May a non-commissioned officer at the non-combatant camp, Weymouth, informed the men of that corps that on 28th April 107 men of that corps had been sent to France, and of these seventy had already been shot when sent out in front of the advance trenches to mend barbed wire; whether he has any official information on this matter; and whether, in view of previous statements made on the work of the Non-Combatant Corps, he will say whether it is intended to expose this corps to such work that its numbers may be regularly reduced at the rate of 70 per cent. per week?

I am really surprised that my hon. Friend should introduce into a serious question a piece of sheer camp gossip such as that which he has reproduced in the first part of this question. Three companies of the Non-Combatant Corps, about 300 strong, were sent to France at the end of April, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the British Armies in France had previously received instructions from the Army Council that these men were not to be employed in the firing line, and there is no reason to suppose that these instructions have not been scrupulously carried out.

Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the point of my question is not whether this is a fact, but whether a non-commissioned officer stated it to his men as a fact without fear of contradiction?

I think he must have been indulging in a sally into the realms of humour.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of men of the type suitable for officers attested at recruiting offices at the end of last year under the group system on the instructions of the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps, being given a Government certificate of acceptance, with instructions to report to the Officers' Training Corps when their group was called up; whether, now the group has been called, recruiting for the Officers' Training Corps has been suspended and these men have been told off to go into the ranks; and, if so, what steps he proposes to remedy such a repudiation of a direct contract?

No Government certificate was ever given that any man would on being called up be accepted for the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps, or, indeed, for any other unit. What wag said to the men referred to was, I understand, said on the authority of the officer commanding the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps only, and was to the effect that, under the conditions then existing, the men in question would be accepted for enlistment in this corps. Before this undertaking, if undertaking it can be called, could be fulfilled the corps was closed for enlistment by orders issued by the War Office. I will send the hon. Gen- tleman a paper giving the conditions under which commissions are granted, and he will see from this that they can be obtained from the ranks as well as from the Officers' Training Corps.

Where are we now to send men who seek for commissions? I understand the Officers' Training Corps are refusing men.

All men who are candidates for commissions must either go through the ranks of an Officers' Training Corps or through the ranks of the Army, and as the Inns of Court are closed there is very little opportunity of getting commissions.

Are there any other corps?

The Artists sometimes has vacancies, and so has the Inns of Court, but not at present.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if a time-expired non-commissioned officer of a Territorial regiment on being recalled to the Colours will retain the rank with which he was discharged, or, if not, would it be the case if he were called up from Section D of the Reserve?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether noncommissioned officers who are now recalled to the Colours will be re-entertained in the rank they previously enjoyed, and in the same branch of the Service?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if time-expired men recalled to the Colours under the Military Service Bill will be permitted to rejoin their old regiments?

The intention is to treat ex-non-commissioned officers who are recalled to the Colours from civilian life in exactly the same way as they would have been treated if they had been recalled from the Reserve, i.e., they will rejoin with the rank they held on discharge. Time-expired men will as far as possible be sent to their former regiment or corps, but no guarantee of this can be given.

Will the same just treatment be meted out to men who attained officers' rank in the South African War, and were recalled to the Colours?

That is a different question, which ought to be put down.

asked the Under - Secretary of State for War whether, in the cases of time-expired men under the new Military Service Bill, they will be allowed an extra leave before commencing their new period of service?

I believe that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will make a statement on this matter in Committee to-day.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, under the new Military Service Bill, time-expired men of military age who served a number of years in the Volunteer Force who enlisted in the Regular Army for the duration of the South African War and saw active service, and ultimately received an Army discharge certificate, will be liable to be called up for service?

The answer is yes, provided the men are under forty-one years of age.

asked whether attested married men under the Derby scheme who attain the age of forty-one years before the date on which they are to join the Colours are exempt from military service?

If a man attains his forty-first birthday before he receives the individual notice calling him up for service, he would not be taken for service under existing conditions, but would remain in the Reserve. He would, however, be liable to be called up if it should happen that the standard of age for military service were raised in the future.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that a man named J. Rickett, a native of Quendon, Essex, has been accepted and enrolled for military service in spite of the fact that the authorities have been warned by the rector of the parish and others that Rickett is mentally deficient, that there are several cases of lunacy in his family, and that he may become dangerous; and will he say what steps have been or will be taken to investigate the local representations with regard to the man referred to?

If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the responsible local military and medical authorities were warned that Rickett was mentally deficient, I feel sure that steps must have been taken to investigate these reports. The hon. Member's question contains no statement that the representations were not investigated, and I do not think there is any primâ facie case for any action on my part.

asked how many young men are now in military prisons and suffering privations and punishments for conscience sake?

This information is not in possession of the War Office.

asked whether Mr. Rendel Wyatt, a young schoolmaster in a Quaker school, a conscientious objector under the Military Service Act, has been arrested and imprisoned, and made to scrub floors and carry coal for fourteen or fifteen hours a day; whether he has since been given a month on bread and water and put in irons for refusing to drill; whether he is now in a dark cell with twelve others; and whether such treatment is in accordance with Regulations?

The hon. Member for York is putting a question on this question to the Prime Minister to-morrow. Perhaps my hon. Friend will await that reply, as I am unable to supply the information.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Oscar Gristwood Ricketts, a conscientious objector to military service, was arrested, charged at Brentford Police Court, fined two guineas, and handed over to the military authorities, and that in conveying him to Felixstowe they exposed him to the shame of being handcuffed in the public streets and railways; whether he is now in the Harwich circular redoubt, confined to a cell, and his only food dry biscuits and water; whether this young man has resigned a good post in a city bank and offered himself for any work of national importance that is consistent with his religious and moral convictions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

asked the Under-Secretary for War (1) if he will make an immediate inquiry into the treatment of a number of conscientious objectors who belong to Darwen, Lancashire, who were taken to the military barracks at Preston and there subjected to the grossest ill-treatment, being forcibly stripped and marched round the barrack square practically undressed, and after being put in uniform one of them was taken into a room and, on the testimony of a person there, brutally kicked around the room until his groans could be heard outside; in view of the fact that statements of similar and worse treatment of conscientious objectors are coming from many other districts, will he take immediate steps to have this brutal conduct on the part of the military stopped and proper punishment meted out to those responsible for it; and (2) what action he has taken upon the allegations of D. S. Parkes, a conscientious objector to military service, who has been convicted by a district court-martial at Winchester on charges of refusal to obey military orders; that on his arrest under the Military Service Act, 1916, he was placed in the guardroom at Whitehall and informed that he would be shot at dawn for refusing to give information demanded; that he was insulted by the non-commissioned officer in charge of the guard-room, who also placed a bayonet to his heart; that he was then taken into another room, where a rifle was pointed at him, and then he was told that he was graciously pardoned; that this action was repeated later, a rifle being loaded in his presence and an order given to a soldier to fire; and, if no action has been taken upon these serious allegations, will he order a thorough inquiry at once into the alleged conduct of the non-commissioned officers and soldiers who tortured this man?

asked the Under-Secretary for War (1) concerning an absentee under the Military Service Act, 1916, named Alan J. M'Dougall, who was handed over to the military authorities on 25th April last, and who afterwards, at Scotland Yard, refused to sign attestation papers and was, notwithstanding this refusal, passed for general service and sent to the depot of the 4/3rd London Regiment, where he was mishandled by some soldiers and who afterwards forcibly put khaki clothes on him, if he will say where Alan M'Dougall is now; whether he is awaiting or has undergone court-martial; if not, what has been done with him; (2) if he is aware that Norman Gaudie, a conscientious objector, of Sunderland, who was fined £2 at Jarrow Police Court and handed over to the military authorities on 19th April and was subsequently taken to Newcastle Barracks and from there to. Richmond Castle, has been subjected to severe treatment, his own clothes torn off and khaki clothes forced on him, and afterwards put in irons on account of his resistance and handcuffed; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the conduct of the military authorities concerned with the object of preventing the continuance of this method of treating conscientious objectors; and (3) what has become of W. Hammond, a conscientious objector, who was arrested on 17th April last, tried on 18th April, fined £2, and handed over to the military authorities, was afterwards taken to Mill Hill Barracks and from there to Northampton, where he was put in the guard-room for seven days, was on hunger strike and without food for five days, as the result of which he had to be removed to a military hospital, and was due to be tried by court-martial on 2nd May?

I am going to make an appeal to my hon. Friends, and to Members in all quarters of the House, not to press me for answers to these and similar questions involving inquiries into the cases of individuals. The labour involved in procuring answers to such inquiries is enormous. No such staff is available at present, and, if the House considers that answers to inquiries of this kind should be secured, a special staff will become necessary. I am reluctant any further to ask officials, not only in the War Office, but in the various commands, to undertake work of this kind in addition to that with which they are already overburdened. I should be the last person to wish, in ordinary circumstances, to see the curtailment of the rights of private Members to ask legitimate questions, but I must frankly say that, in many instances, among the questions to which I am now specially referring, in place of a legitimate desire for information, the tendency has been rather towards the conveyance of information to me. This seems to me to defeat the legitimate functions of questions in the House.

Are these men then to continue to be tortured because inquiry may involve a little trouble at the War Office? What is to be done if we are not to be allowed to bring these questions; before the House?

Of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I only make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen to do anything they can to facilitate the overwhelming burden of the work we have to perform. If they will do that, I shall be glad, but if they press me to get the answers for them I have no other course but to carry out the desires of hon. Gentlemen.

Are we not to put questions to protect the rights of individuals?

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the best way to avoid all trouble is to put a stop to the practice at once by making an example of the men who are guilty of this torture?

Are we to understand that the cases are so very numerous that they require a special staff?

Yes, Sir. The questions are perfectly enormous. You have only to go through the Order Paper to-day to see. I have been kept at the War Office the whole morning trying to get answers to the questions, and I was not able to get through by a quarter to three.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what means these many individuals can have of obtaining redress of grievances if they cannot be brought to the notice of this House?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps a Member can take when he has brought before his notice what he believes to be cases of illegal and very brutal treatment? Are they to be disregarded because of waste of time?

What do they deserve?

Hon. Gentlemen should make themselves really acquainted with the facts before they put them down as questions on the Order Paper. If they took this trouble my notice list would be very much curtailed.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the questions should be sent to him at the War Office, and not put upon the Order Paper?

The same trouble would be involved in getting answers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant facilities to Members to make personal inquiry into the conditions to which these men are being subjected, so that they can find out the facts for themselves?

I am asking the House not to believe all this tittle-tattle.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in granting exemptions to members of authorised fire brigades, the voluntary fire brigades of the local authorities are included; and, if not, is he aware that large and important munition areas are entirely served by these voluntary brigades, and that the undue depletion of these brigades of trained men will be a menace to the localities?

No special privileges are given to part time firemen engaged in a voluntary fire brigade. Such men can, if they so desire, apply to the local tribunal for certificates of exemption. Such exemption can be granted on the ground of the man's work as a fireman being his principal and usual occupation. A full-time fireman solely employed as a permanent fireman engaged in a voluntary fire brigade can claim the privileges given by the list of certified occupations, except in the case of a single man under the age of twenty-five, who has no special privileges after 1st July, 1916. The importance of safeguarding munition areas has been fully recognised, but in view of the fact that the British Fire Prevention Committee consider that the reasonable time for training a substitute for a fireman, of military age in a voluntary fire brigade is only two months, it is hoped that other men not eligible for enlistment will be trained to perform fire brigade duties.

asked the Prime Minister whether there are still large numbers of young men of military age in Government Departments; and, if so, whether they can be released for service and their places taken by married men or by wounded soldiers?

I am doing my utmost to expedite the return promised on this subject. I regret to say that some Departments have not yet sent in the material required. I hope to present, at any rate, a provisional return at an early date. In the meantime, I am informed that in all Departments every effort consistent with the efficiency of the Service is being made to release men for military purposes.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide an opportunity to the House to discuss the provisions of special allowances for men called up under the Military Service Bill before that Bill leaves this House?

No, Sir; I am afraid it will not be possible to adopt this suggestion.

Are not those of us who represent those married men among our constituents entitled to discuss what they should get before the Government come to a decision?

I do not think that it can be discussed before the Military Service Bill leaves the House.

Will my right hon. Friend give us an opportunity of discussing it before the tribunals are finally elected?

I will consider that.

Thanks, very much.

asked whether the men rejected for military service subsequent to 15th August, 1915, who are made liable to military service by the Military Service Bill, will be given the opportunity of claiming exemption before the tribunals before they are called up for military service?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will take steps to insert in the Military Service Bill provisions to carry out his pledge to single unmarried sons who are the support and stay of mothers, sisters, and other relatives and so prevent tribunals bringing his authority into disrespect by disregard- ing the same in a similar fashion to those refusing exemption under the present Act; and (2) whether he will insert provisions in the Military Service Bill to exempt only sons of widows and to exempt the last remaining sons in families?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 13th April to which I cannot add anything.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether time-expired men recalled to the Colours under the Military Service Bill will not be given more than thirty days' notice?

Time-expired men recalled under the conditions stated would be liable to be called up at any time after the appointed day.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a little longer than thirty days should be given to these men who have already left the Service before the Act comes into operation, and are probably now in business or other occupations?

That is really a matter for debate. It was debated yesterday. I do not think that I can go back on the decision that was arrived at.

asked what arrangements have been made for men of all ranks who have been discharged from the Army on account of medical unfitness to receive a distinctive badge so as to indicate that during the War they have been engaged on military duty?

I am unable at present to add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire on the 28th March.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men attested under the group system who, in anticipation and before they have been actually called up, have been medically examined by the medical board at the headquarters of the recruiting area and rejected by such board as unfit for any service will, under Clause 3 (2) of the Military Service Bill, 1916, be notified that they need not again present themselves for medical examination?

Men rejected and unfit for any form of military service are given a card showing that they have been found unfit. They will not be again called up.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state how many hospitals there are in this country where jaw injuries which have been suffered by our soldiers can be treated by general surgeons and dental surgeons acting in concurrent collaboration, and how many of such hospitals have been established by the French surgical and dental authorities; and whether he is aware that serious jaw injuries can be better treated by general surgeons and dental surgeons acting in concurrent collaboration than by ordinary surgical treatment?

In all hospital centres arrangements have been made for jaw injuries to be treated by general surgeons and dental surgeons, acting in concurrent collaboration. I am unable to say how many special hospitals have been established in France. As regards the last part of the question, my medical advisers are fully aware that cases of the kind in question are best treated by surgeons and dental surgeons acting in collaboration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in order to save time, he will instruct the medical officers in all prisoner camps in Great Britain to prepare a list of those invalid prisoners of war who, in their opinion, should be sent to Switzerland, subject to the confirmation of that opinion by the commission of neutral doctors when they arrive?

What my hon. Friend suggests has already been done.

Where is it to be found?

I will give the hon. Member the figures.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War what light duties consist of in the case of soldiers passed by a Medical Board for such; and whether they include guards?

The only men marked for light duty are those who, on discharge from hospital, are not fit for field duty. Such men are sent to command or regimental depots, where they are given graduated exercises to enable them to regain their fitness. They are not employed on guard.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the ten weeks which have elapsed since he instituted inquiry concerning the case of No. 14756, Gunner F. Ellender, Royal Field Artillery, have enabled him to ascertain the facts of the case; and if he can now say what steps have been, or will be, taken to transfer this boy to a unit at home until he reaches military age?

Orders have been given by the 3rd Echelon of General Headquarters for this man to be transferred to England. He does not, however, appear to have arrived in this country, and a telegram has been sent to the 3rd Echelon asking how he is situated.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an official communiqué was issued by the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces, on the 3rd of May, in which it was announced that on that day a hostile aeroplane dropped six bombs on the railway station at Deal, whereas in fact no bomb was dropped on the railway station or did any damage there; if he will say how this inaccurate report came to be included in an official communiqué; and why in this instance the practice hitherto observed of not mentioning by name the exact locality where bombs are dropped, was departed from?

If the railway station at Deal did not have bombs dropped on to it, that was so much the better for the railway station. The first telegraphic reports received led to the belief that the bombs had fallen on, instead of near, the station. As regards the last part of the question, I am not clear whether the hon. Member desires that names of localities should, or should not, be mentioned as a general rule. In any case, it rests with the military authorities to decide whether the names may, or may not, be given.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of the question which asks how it came about that an inaccurate report was given, and whether we may trust that in the future official communiqués will be accurate?

It occurred through a telegram being received at general headquarters, I suppose, from a reporter who was a rather inaccurate observer.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now fix a day for the discussion on the Air Service raised on the Address by the hon. Member for Brentford?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Hon. Member for East Herts yesterday.

asked whether, owing to the cancelling of the rule which required officers elected as Members of Parliament to be placed on the half-pay list and removed from their regimental list, a Member of this House has remained on the list of the 1st Royal Dragoons for eight years without doing any regimental duty, thus blocking promotion for all the officers of the regiment and lowering their prospects of pension?