asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any official information with regard to the atrocities committed by the Bulgarians in Macedonia; in particular, whether the Bulgars have massacred in the village of Doglavatz nine entire families, aggregating forty-seven persons, and 110 other individual men, women, and children, besides flogging or mutilating others; whether in fifteen other Macedonian villages the Bulgars massacred seventy-one persons -whose names are known, besides many others unidentified, these victims being knifed, shot, beaten to death, burnt alive, and tortured in various ways, while kidnapping and robbery of the worst type are of common occurrence; and, if so, whether any steps are being taken to compile an official record of these atrocities and to bring them to the knowledge of neutral Governments?

I have no official information as to such occurrences. Note is kept of reports of atrocities that reach His Majesty's Government with the view of subsequent verification and the eventual exaction of reparation, but it is of little use to communicate to neutral Governments unsubstantiated statements, the truth of which those Governments are at present better able than His Majesty's Government to ascertain.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Bulgaria has announced that her troops entered Macedonia as liberators of a Bulgar population from Serbian rule, and has put forward claims to the districts so occupied on grounds of nationality; whether these same districts contain the villages of Doglavatz, Marjar, Strevja, Rapesh, Vitalishto, Kostinatz, and others, in which the Bulgars have committed wholesale massacre, torture, mutilation, rape, robbery, and incendiarism; and whether an official record of these transactions will be preserved and considered in relation to the settlement of Balkan problems after the War?

As regards the first part of the question, I understand that the Bulgarian Government have advanced extensive claims on the ground of nationality. As regards the second part, I have no official information; the suggestion contained in the last part will be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information of the reign of terror said to prevail in the part of Nish under Bulgarian military rule; whether all works of art, manuscripts, and books of any value have been either destroyed or carried away; whether he inhabitants are being robbed and butchered by a force of gendarmerie sent from Sofia, assisted by a rabble of spies, detectives, and criminals enjoying Bulgarian patronage and pay; if he is aware tha the Bulgarian National Bank is buying up Serbian notes at a price fixed by Bulgarian official decree much below their market value, and that severe penalties are inflicted on any person offering to pay more than the official rate for such notes; and whether he will take steps in conjunction with the Allied Governments, to make it known that the King of Bulgaria will be held personally account able to the Allied Powers for the state of affairs prevailing in Serbia and particularly in the town of Nish?

It is very difficult to know what is the real truth about the condition of affairs in territory occupied by our enemies, and I should be glad to receive any evidence possessed by my hon. Friend on the subject. If atrocities such as he describes are being committed His Majesty's Government have repeatedly said that they will hold responsible those whoever they may be who have authorised or permitted such crimes.

Is the Noble Lord able to say that in the absence of specific proof against individuals the head of the State will be held liable?

I should not like to give a pledge of that kind without consultation with my colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that British officer prisoners of war captured at Kut have received excellent treatment at the hands of the Turks, he will arrange that all Turkish prisoners of war in our hands shall receive specially favourable treatment and cause such action to be brought to the notice of the Turkish authorities?

The Turkish prisoners of war in our hands have been properly treated throughout, and the Ottoman Government are well aware of this from the reports on internment camps for Turkish prisoners of war which have been drawn up by United States officials and communicated to that Government from time to time by the United States Embassy at Constantinople.

asked what is the name and nationality of His Majesty's present representative at Bucharest; and whether any person of German or Austrian extraction has occupied that position during the last ten years?

His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest is Sir George Barclay, a British-born subject. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. Sir Walter Townley was there from 1911–12 and Sir Conyngham Greene from 1905–11. None of these names, either Christian or surname, suggest German or Austrian extraction, and I would suggest that before the hon. Member puts questions of this sort on the Paper he should either by recourse to a book of reference or by private inquiry obtain the information that would show him that a public question was unnecessary, if not ridiculous.

We do not want your opinion; we want an answer to the question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say whether on 30th May a special steamer was provided for the purpose of conveying an Under-Secretary to France; and whether a destroyer was also provided to escort this gentleman?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs went over to France on urgent and important Government business on the 30th May, and a special steamer was provided for him to enable him to reach Paris that day. This was escorted not by a destroyer but a patrol boat. My right hon. Friend returned by the ordinary steamer.

Is it not the fact that the Noble Lord reached the other side of the water and had a very hearty meal with a passenger who travelled in the ordinary way?

I cannot say.

I know.

Is it not the case that the Noble Lord objected to the late First Lord of the Admiralty doing the same thing?

Not so far as I know.

He put a question down on the matter.

Perhaps the Noble Lord will inform us whether he did arrive as stated, and got the same train?

asked where the Naval Prize Money funds are deposited; are they in the possession of the Admiralty, or have they been paid into the Exchequer?

All moneys arising from the proceeds of prizes taken during the present War are in the hands of the several Prize Courts. They have not been paid into the Exchequer.

Arising out of that reply, is the representative of the Admiralty aware that by law all Prize Money must be paid into the Exchequer, and will he take steps to see the law is carried into effect?

Well, I will look into that.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the distribution of Prize Money to all officers and men in the Fleet under the new system will require to be sanctioned by Parliament; whether it will be necessary to bring in a Bill for that purpose; if so, when do the Government propose to introduce it; whether the Prize Money which would have been due to officers who have been killed in action or whilst serving on full pay is to be paid to their widows or next of kin or dependants; and how is the amount due to them to be calculated?

The Admiralty are advised that legislation will be required to authorise the intended system of distribution of Prize Money to the Fleet generally instead of the previous practice, whereby it was granted to the captors only. No date can be given at present for the introduction of a Bill, the terms of which are still under consideration, but I may assure my hon. and gallant Friend that any shares due to officers and men who may lose their lives meanwhile will be payable to their legal representatives. My hon. and gallant Friend will be interested to know that prize bounty has been distributed in one case, and that a decree of the Court has been given in three other cases. As soon as the sums awarded have been placed in the hands of the Admiralty, distribution will proceed forthwith.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us no indication when the Bill will be introduced for the distribution of the Prize Money?

As I have said, I cannot.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the parents of midshipmen have been required during the War to find £50 a year as a private allowance for each midshipman; and, if BO, as midshipmen are doing the work of officers in the turrets, the fire-control stations, and on the bridge, and giving their lives for their country, he will take steps to have this regulation rescinded during the War?

The pay of a midshipman is 1s. 9d. a day, and this, together with the sum deposited by parents or guardians as private allowance, gives him a weekly income of 31s. 6d. The compulsory charge for messing is 7s. a week. During the War the tuition charge of 3d. a day has been waived and there is no other compulsory payment. The payment of private allowance still holds good, but as I have stated on several occasions, where, necessity exists, the Board of Admiralty is prepared to give favourable consideration to applications for whole or partial release. I am afraid I cannot give the general undertaking asked for in the second part of the question.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that these boys are not only expected by the Government to give their lives for their country, but to pay for the privilege of doing so?

Well, I should not put it quite in that way, but, as I have stated, in any case we are most ready to give any consideration to the question of waiving the parent's charge. We have not refused one of the many applications we have had.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it is right that these parents should have to pay for these boys doing—

The hon. Member is now raising a controversial subject which has been frequently debated.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the date on which Admiral Jellicoe's message to the Grand Fleet, published in the Press on 13th June, was first communicated to the officers and men; and can he explain the delay, if any, in its publication?

The Commander-in-Chief's message was dated the 4th June, and no doubt reached a considerable part of the Fleet on that or the following day. It was received at the Admiralty on the 10th June, and two days later an inaccurate copy was submitted by a provincial newspaper to the Press Bureau for permission to publish. The Commander-in-Chief's consent to its publication was sought on the same day, and it was published the following day. It was not written with a view to publication, and such delay as there was does not appear to require any explanation.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in future, when the Admiralty are issuing the messages of the Commander-in-Chief, it would be more courteous to him to affix the date on which the message is written; does he also observe the significance of the message nearly a fortnight after it was written, having regard to the reference to the number of enemy vessels destroyed; would it therefore not be advisable to have published the date?

In regard to the first point, I think that could be very well done.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say what circumstances determined him not to hold a public inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire"?

As the matter was fully investigated by the Court of Inquiry, no sufficient reason existed for holding a second inquiry.

Is it not the case that when a naval Court of Inquiry is held that the witnesses are never put on oath?

That is, I believe, the case.

Would only naval witnesses attend this inquiry; was there any evidence taken from civilians?

The inquiry took place under circumstances which I have already described.

Was any evidence taken from anyone on two destroyers that were ordered to go back?

I could not say offhand.

asked if a properly constituted inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire" was held; and, if so, was evidence taken on oath?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

asked whether the official announcement on the part of the Admiralty, that it had now been established that the "Hampshire" struck a mine, was intended to convey the information that the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet endorsed this belief, seeing that the announcement referred to a further Report from the Commander-in-Chief?

Yes, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commander-in-Chief, at the time he expressed his opinion, was aware of the condition of the bodies that had been recovered?

I cannot say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and let us know?

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that men from the Home dockyards who volunteered for Gibraltar for a period of two years are not allowed to return at the expiration of the contracted time; and if he will see that this is remedied or that the men so detained beyond the contract time will be given an increased wage?

I am calling for a report.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the men who recently volunteered for service at Rosyth were promised travelling time; if he is aware that this has not so far been granted, though the travelling time from Edinburgh, where the men live, to Rosyth and back averages about two hours per day; if he will see to it that the travelling time is allowed and paid for; and if he can say if any provision for free warrants or concession tickets is to be made for men who go on leave?

The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the affirmative. With regard to the undertaking respecting travelling time, it was decided last month in respect of men then transferred to Rosyth to grant one hour's pay per day to the workmen who travel between Inverkeithing and Edinburgh or Leith until such time as the housing accommodation at Rosyth is so complete as to make it unnecessary for men to live otherwise than in the locality. Since that decision, representations have been made on behalf of men who live in the other direction, namely, in the direction of Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy, and it has been decided to grant an allowance of 6d. a day all round to men permanently transferred from the South and who have to travel by rail to their work. I gather from the question that the men who recently came up from the South and are living in Edinburgh or Leith consider that this decision is a departure from the undertaking given to them. The matter will be looked into. As regards the last part of the question, since the men under reference volunteered for permanent service at Rosyth, it is not proposed to adopt the proposal of my hon. Friend.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the result of his conferences in Paris?

The chief purpose of the conferences which I attended in Paris was to consider whether it was desirable for the Allies to continue their partial adoption and enforcement of the Declaration of London.

After careful consideration, the British, and French Governments have decided in the negative, and I hope that the other Allied Governments will concur in this decision. His Majesty will be advised in due course to issue an Order in Council withdrawing the successive Orders in. Council which have been issued adopting with modifications the Declaration of London. A joint statement will also be issued explaining the reasons for this step.

The opportunity was also taken to discuss with the French Government various minor matters connected with the blockade, in order that the naval operations of the Allies should be co-ordinated to the utmost possible extent.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) why the military authorities under martial law in Dublin refused to take the evidence of wounded civilians in the Dublin hospitals, seeing that all those wounded persons declared it was the soldiers who had fired on them, and were willing to give evidence o that effect; and (2) whether he has yet received a report in the case of Mrs. Naylor, shot on the bridge at Great Brunswick Street, Dublin, by soldiers firing from the belfry of Haddington Road Church; under whose orders those soldiers continued for five hours firing on that bridge, where there were no Irish combatants, thus preventing the removal of the dying woman, who eventually died while being carried to hospital; and why the military did not allow an inquest in this case?

I have no information on these matters to-day and cannot answer the questions without making inquiry.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War under whose order seventy young Cumann-na-mban nurses wearing a red cross and doing Red Cross work for wounded on both sides during the insurrection in Dublin were arrested, imprisoned, three for a week in each cell constructed for one, given no beds, only one blanket too dirty to be used, no proper sanitary accommodation or facilities, attendance so dirty as to produce sickness, hardened criminals of the lowest class forced in amongst them; seeing that they were all daughters of respectable citizens ready to give security if required, why they were imprisoned; whether most of them were subsequently released without charge, trial, apology, or reparation; why five have been kept in Mountjoy Prison and allowed only one visit of fifteen minutes each day; whether he is aware that of these Miss Foley did only one day's voluntary Red Cross work, while Miss. Perolz was in Cork and Miss Ryan in Wexford at the time of the rising in Dublin, and therefore had no connection with it; whether he is aware that this continued imprisonment affects the public position of the latter, in which she is maintaining a substitute; whether these five ladies will be released forthwith and compensated; and, if not, whether they will be allowed to live at large in some area chosen by them, as others in the same cause are now being allowed to do?

I cannot, of course, accept as correct all the statements which the hon. Gentleman has reproduced in this question. The cases of all the women who were arrested in connection with the recent rebellion were investigated with the utmost rapidity possible in the circumstances, and sixty-two prisoners were released on the 8th of May. As regards the five ladies who have not been released, they, as I have several times informed the hon. Member, have been interned under an Order issued by the Home Secretary, and they have the right to lay their cases before the Advisory Committee. As regards the conditions at the time of their arrest, I may say that all possible consideration was extended to these prisoners.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the precedent for requiring a statement in the nature of a defence in cases in which no charge has been made? Has a charge been made against any one of these five, or will it be made before they make their statement?

I would ask the hon. Member what is the precedent for the rebellion in Ireland? I would also ask him to address his question with regard to the treatment of these women to the Home Secretary.

asked why Messrs. Terence M'Swiney, Peadeer O'Hourihan, Joseph M'Bride, and two other Irish political prisoners detained in Wakefield prison, have been, contrary to his promise, cut off from all communication with their brother Irish prisoners and from association with one another; and whether this special harshness has any connection with attempts by Members of Parliament to induce Irish political prisoners to assent to the partition of Ireland by promises of liberation from prison?

I understand that these men are able to communicate with one another, but that they are accommodated separately from the rank and file of the prisoners. No "special harshness" is involved and the words seem to me inappropriate in this connection. I am not aware of any attempts or promises such as are referred to in the last part of the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a private gentleman visited all these prisons and canvassed all the prisoners in support of the project for the partition of Ireland and the unanimous answer he got was that they would rather stay all their lives in gaol?

No.

asked the Prime Minister when the promised public inquiry into the murder of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington and two other men will be held; what is its character; the composition of the Court; whether all the requirements of law and justice set out in the letter of 13th June from Mr. Lemass to the Prime Minister have been or will be complied with; if not, which of them; where Captain Bowen Colthurst now is; and subject to what restraint?

I am now in communication with Mrs. Skeffington's solicitor on this subject, and that is all I can say at present. The last part of the question should be addressed to the Home Secretary.

asked the Prime Minister whether during his visit to Ireland he saw and conversed with those confined in Richmond Barracks on suspicion of complicity in the rebellion that had just taken place; and whether as a result of his interview, he was able on parting to shake hands with those with whom he had had conversation?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I must confess that my memory does not serve me for the second part.

Will the Prime Minister search his memory and find out?

Certainly not.

asked the Prime Minister whether there is any intention to widen the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry dealing with the claims of property owners arising out of the recent trouble in Ireland to embrace claims that may be submitted by trade unions by reason of unemployment, death, and loss of workmen's industrial tools; and, if so, whether accredited representatives of workmen will be placed upon the Committee of Inquiry?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will see that the scope of the inquiry about to be held in Dublin to deal with the property owners' claims shall be so widened as to embrace the claims for losses sustained by the trade union organisations and workers generally of Ireland?

Claims preferred by trade union organisations and workers may in like manner to other claims be entertained by Sir William Goulding's Committee provided they fall within the terms of reference, but it is not in contemplation to make any extension of these terms or to alter the constitution of the Committee.

May I ask whether the points in the question are included in the terms of reference or not?

So far as premises and the contents of premises are concerned, they are included in the terms of reference. That, I think, includes most things, such as tools, but the answer must depend upon the circumstances of the case.

Will the trade unions and the friendly societies be reimbursed for the large amount of death claims which they have had to pay out with respect to people killed, and also for the claims they have had to pay with regard to unemployed benefit?

It has not been found possible to give consequential damages in any case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman index the terms of reference so as to include compensation to be paid for loss of life?

That is the question which I answered originally.

had given notice of the following questions:—

67. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the delay in delivery of letters and parcels of food to Irish prisoners of war at Frongoch camp, and that in many cases parcels of food have been rendered unfit for use owing to delay in delivery; if he will make arrangements to have letters censored and parcels delivered more rapidly?

114. To ask the Home Secretary whether he has received a report as to the sanitation of Frongoch camp; if he is aware that Irish interned prisoners are deprived of Irish newspapers; that they are not allowed to write letters unless on a half sheet of notepaper; that, after censoring, their letters are sent out open in un-gummed envelopes; and if he will remedy these complaints?

asked the Home Secretary if he will state the rules under which Irish prisoners are detained in Frongoch camp; by whom drawn up; whether the Prime Minister has approved of the substantial departure from the scale of dietary set up at Richmond Barracks, Dublin, on the occasion of his visit there; why some parcels of supplementary food sent by friends are never delivered and other parcels are delivered after damage from delay; for what purpose, loss and inconvenience are imposed upon relatives from Ireland by refusing to allow them to visit prisoners except on compliance with conditions not publicly announced; and why letters are allowed to lie at the entrance to the camp undelivered?

Letters and parcels for Irish prisoners at Frongoch are censored with all reasonable speed, and no cases of food having become unfit for consumption owing to delay in delivery have been brought to notice. Steps are being taken which will, it is hoped, make the censorship even more rapid. The latest report on the sanitary condition of Frongoch is satisfactory. The greater part of this camp has been in occupation by German prisoners of war for over a year. Constant care, as in all such camps, is necessary to ensure proper sanitation. Special permission has recently been given by the Home Secretary for the introduction of Irish newspapers. The regulations as to correspondence are in accordance with the directions of the Home Secretary, and are the same as those which obtain in places of internment for prisoners of war. In accordance with the directions of the Home Secretary the rules which are in force for prisoners of war are applicable to interned Irish prisoners. The scale of rations and the rules for visits at Frongoch are in accordance with these directions.

Where is Frongoch?

It is in Wales.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of Question 114: If, after censoring, their letters are sent out open in ungummed envelopes for anybody to read them?

I have no information of that kind. I can hardly think that it can be true, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will make inquiries.

I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with an envelope. Will he see into the matter?

It is not the only thing that has come ungummed in this War.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, as this place is a little remote, if the authorities cannot see their way to prolong the duration of the visits of persons visiting these prisoners more than a quarter of an hour? I have heard of cases of gentlemen who, although coming long distances, have only been allowed a quarter of an hour.

It is really a question of the number of the staff available. I will see what can be done.

May I ask my right hon. enemy if he will be good enough to answer Question No. 116—Whether the scale of diet arranged at Richmond Barracks on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister will be set up at Frongoch, and also whether he will arrange for visitors from distant parts of Ireland, as mentioned in the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]. It is on the Paper.

If it is on the Paper it has been answered, as far as the right lion. Gentleman is able to answer it.

It has not been answered.

The hon. Member is either repeating the question on the Paper or else he is putting a fresh one.

No, Sir. I beg to ask those parts of Question No. 116 which have not been answered—one with reference to the scale of diet on a certain occasion at the Richmond Barracks and the other with reference to relatives from distant parts of Ireland.

Really the hon. Member must allow somebody else to ask questions as well as himself.

Will you allow these questions to be answered?

I will not allow any further questions from the hon. Member.

asked the Home Secretary whether the case of Patrick J. O'Madden, an Irish prisoner at present detained in Wakefield prison, will be investigated at once with a view to his immediate release; whether Mr. O'Madden, since his incarceration, has been in the prison hospital suffering from illness; and whether, having regard to Mr. O'Madden's state of health, he will order his immediate release?

The case of Patrick J. O'Madden will be considered by the Advisory Committee at an early date. I am informed by the medical officer of the internment camp that the prisoner, who has recently been suffering from bronchitis, has improved satisfactorily in health since his reception at Frongoch.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the new regulations dealing with the cases of soldiers whose discharge or transfer to a Home-service unit is applied for by their parents on the ground that the lad is too young to serve under his present circumstances and conditions?

I would ask my hon. Friend to refer to the very full answer which I gave on this matter on Monday last. In order to correct misapprehensions, I would add to what I then stated that applications should not be sent to the War Office, but to the Officer-in-Charge of Records concerned. Sending applications to the War Office only leads to delay. Underage soldiers serving with the Expeditionary Force will, if under eighteen years of age, be sent home if willing and posted to a Reserve unit. They will not be passed to the Reserve, as has been erroneously stated.

Would it not be quite as well for parents to write direct to commanding officers?

Yes, I think it would be quicker.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commanding officers are refusing to send boys back, notwithstanding his statement?

I think if my hon. Friend would have full inquiry made, he would ascertain that, where a refusal has been made, it has been prior to the issue of the Order I have quoted.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if a conscientious objector named Arthur Slater is detained in the military prison at St. Alban's; if so, what is the sentence he is serving; by what Court he has been sentenced; what is his present state of health; when will he be allowed a visit; and why is he not given the benefit of the Army Order of 25th May last?

I fear that I have nothing to add to what I said on the 26th June, except that if he is a soldier in detention the Army Order in question is inapplicable to his case.

asked whether four conscientious objectors, named Hayward, Bishop, Reccord, and Fromow, have been for more than six weeks at Shoreham Camp, and have during that time refused to obey orders; why have they not been court-martialled; why were they removed on 23rd June to Seaford Camp; whether it is intended to send them to France; and, if so, whether they will be allowed the usual five-days' leave before going abroad?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to give me the regiment and regimental number of the men mentioned in the question, so that I may be able to trace them.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many conscientious objectors who have been refused exemption by the tribunals have had testimony borne to their genuine convictions and courage by commandants, governors, commissioned and non-commissioned officers, and men; and whether, in the case of men who are more than once court-martialled or tried as conscientious objectors, he will order that such testimony shall be taken and considered by the Court?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to wait until the Prime Minister makes the statement he is proposing to make. I trust that this will cover the points put forward in this question.

The following question appeared on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. SNOWDEN:

54. To ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the number of cases of alleged brutal treatment by Army non-commissioned and commissioned officers of conscientious objectors, supported by the evidence of the victims and witnesses, and the repeated refusal of the War Office to have an independent inquiry made into the allegations, he will grant such an inquiry into a few selected cases which can be supplied to him?

I have been asked to postpone this question until to-morrow on condition that the Prime Minister will then make his promised statement about conscientious objectors. That, I understand, is the condition?

I hope so, at any rate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his statement will be in such a form as will allow discussion?

Not discussion at the moment, but eventually discussion.

asked whether soldiers who would have become time-expired men, but who will be retained with the Colours, are to be given a month's furlough at the expiry of their present terms of engagement?

Soldiers who would have become time-expired men and who are retained with the Colours for the duration of the War under the Military Service Act, 1916 (Section 2), are to be given a month's furlough as far as the exigencies of the Service will allow.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what instructions have been sent, or are proposed to be sent, to recruiting officers with regard to the re-examination of men who now hold a certificate of exemption on medical grounds; and whether he will provide that men whose rejection on medical grounds is recorded in the military register are not required to submit to a further examination?

I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the instructions on this matter, which will give him full information.

asked whether, as the Government are offering bounties up to £25 to non-commissioned officers and men who re-enlist for over twenty-one years' service, pensioner non-commissioned officers who re-enlisted in 1914 and 1915 will also receive bounties?

The bounty is only given to non-commissioned officers and men who, under the terms of their engagement, were due for discharge during the War but have voluntarily or under the terms of the Act remained in or rejoined the Service.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware of the feeling of dissatisfaction existing among men of the Territorial Force who voluntarily re-engaged before the passing of the Military Service Act in the withholding from them the bounty which is being paid to men who are now compulsorily retained; and whether, under the special circumstances of the case, he will bring the question before the Army Council for reconsideration?

The matter has already been reconsidered by the Government, and the bounty will be given to all soldiers who, having become time-expired since the outbreak of war, have voluntarily re-enlisted or re-engaged.

asked if a man who served four years ending 1911 in the Territorial Army, and who is of military age, will be entitled to the bounty for time-expired soldiers who are enlisted under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916?

No, Sir. The bounty will be given to men who have become time-expired since the outbreak of war.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are a number of pensioner warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who volunteered for re-enlistment at the outbreak of the War to train the New Armies and who are with their units overseas; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of replacing these warrant officers by serving warrant officers and non-commissioned officers from Reserve battalions at Home?

This proposal has already been under the consideration of the Army Council, who are in consultation with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief on the matter. I cannot make any statement on the matter to-day.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Medical Board at Chester only sits from 9.30 a.m. to 4 p.m., with a break of two hours for lunch or four and a half hours per day; whether he is aware that since 29th May, the date on which Groups thirty-three to forty-one had to report, large numbers of men have been held over night at Chester and not examined till the following day; whether he is aware that hundreds of men have been called up by notice on Army Form A.W.F. 3195 to the sub-area recruiting offices in the Chester area and have had to be sent home on pay and leave till a later date when they could be sent to Chester to be dealt with; and whether he is prepared to relieve this congestion by increasing the efficiency of the Medical Board at Chester?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will cause further investigation to be made into the case of No. 24,417, Private W. H. J. Smith, E Company, 3rd battalion Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry; whether he is aware that this young man went to Somerset House on the 12th January and was declared by the examining doctor to be medically unfit, but was refused rejection papers on the ground that he might be able to undertake some light duty such as clerical work; that on the 14th January, according to instructions, he went to the King's Hall, Hackney Baths, was again examined by two doctors, who corroborated the statement of the first that the man was fit only for light duty; that on the 3rd February he was sent to Stratford, and from there to Bodmin, being passed definitely into the Army for general service; that after a week of training he broke down and was removed to hospital, and that he has repeatedly broken down since, and that in all he has only been able to do eleven days' training since he joined five months ago, the greater part of his time being spent in the hospital; whether inquiries will be made with a view to his discharge; and (2) whether he will investigate the methods in connection with the enlistment of James Ford, 447, New Cross Road, New Cross, S.E.; whether he is aware that this man attested on 10th February and was passed fit for Home service only, that he lodged on the 28th February an application for exemption with the local tribunal, that on 15th March he received notice to join up, and two days later went before the medical board at Camberwell Baths, and was passed fit for general service at home or abroad; that on being informed by the Deptford recruiting officer that he would be called up within seven days of 30th April this man resigned his employment, but heard nothing further from the military authorities until he was asked to report at Chester on 1st June; that on reporting there on that date he was placed for sedentary work at Home and informed that his services were not required at present, and that he would be told when to report again; whether he is aware, that such action puts men to personal inconvenience and financial hardship; and whether in such cases the War Office accept any financial liability to men treated in this way?

I have called for reports on these cases.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Stephen Booth, o£ Hawthorn Street, Wilmslow, Group 41, called up for 8th June, was sent back from Stockport until 15th June; that he went to Chester on 15th June but could not be examined till 16th June; that he was examined on 16th June and passed for Class C (III.) and sent back home to await call; that he is entitled to 2s. 7d. per day (pay and ration money) from 8th to 15th June, inclusive, but he only received 3s. 2d. in cash when he was sent home on the 16th; that there are hundreds of similar cases in this area, where married men with family responsibilities have given up their work and have no means of livelihood during the time they are forced to be at home awaiting a summons to appear before the Chester medical board, and that they receive no pay and the wives receive no separation allowance because the authorities at Chester alter the date of the transfer from Army Reserve from the date actually called to the date they arrive at Chester; and whether he will take steps to correct this injustice?

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

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information regarding a raid made in the week ending 10th June by a small body of the Notts and Derby Regiment (Sherwood Foresters); whether they penetrated the enemy trenches and killed large numbers of the occupants; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Before this question is put, may I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper or in good taste that questions about the actions of particular regiments should be asked by, hon. Members?

May I say that I have a reference to that matter in my answer. I admire the hon. Gentleman's assiduity in inquiring for information in the interests of the Notts and Derby Regiment, but I tremble to think what my position would be if any large number of Members showed equal assiduity. Raids are a frequent occurrence, and the name of the regiment is mentioned only when, in the opinion of the military authorities in France, this can be done without unfairness to other units and without prejudice to the interests of the operations. I may add that the War Office has no information regarding any particular raid carried out by the Sherwood Foresters on the date in question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member who put this question has no interest whatever in the counties of Nottingham and Derby other than that of being a Parliamentary candidate?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if in fixing the price to be paid for wool, based on June and July prices in the year 1914, plus a percentage to cover the increased expenses of the farmer, in calculating the latter he will have regard to the fact that farmers are now assessed to Income Tax on the basis of the whole rent instead of on a third, as in 1914?

I am afraid that in fixing prices for wool and other commodities required for military purposes increased taxation cannot be regarded as an expense for which producers are entitled to be recouped by the Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has ascertained from the Government of South Africa the precise position held in connection with the Pretoria Fire Brigades by an officer who is described in command orders as late Chief of Civil and Military Fire Brigades, Pretoria; whether he has verified the length and dates of that service; if he has ascertained the conditions under which his employment terminated; if he will not state in detail, after due varification, any fire brigade or similar professional experience this officer has had in Great Britain or elsewhere since the military occupation of Pretoria; and whether he is still engaged in the Quartermaster-General's Department at the War Office?

The War Office has documents which show that Mr. (now Captain) Moutray Read was appointed Superintendent of the Military (and Civil) Fire Brigades at Pretoria at the time of the occupation in June, 1900, and that he resigned office on the 18th May, 1902. He then came to England for three months' training with the Glasgow Fire Brigade as a volunteer, and in December, 1902, raised and commanded as chief the Volunteer Fire Brigade in Pretoria, until April, 1902. It is officially recorded that Captain Read carried out his work in Pretoria in a most satisfactory manner. He is now doing valuable work in the office he holds.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that one of the pioneer battalions working in the front line in France was quite recently provided with only 200 steel helmets; and whether he can now state how far the provision of those helmets has been completed?

Up to last week the full number of steel helmets asked for had been supplied, but a further demand has just been received and it is hoped that this will be met before long.

asked whether the Army Order issued on the 22nd, which forbids officers and men without special authority to publish any article dealing witn the War or with military subjects, applies to sketches and drawings such as those which have been published from time to time by Captain Bruce Bairnsfather?

Sketches and drawings will be submitted, when they deal with military subjects, in the same way that photographs and sketches of similar subjects are now submitted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee any sense of humour in the Press Bureau?

I should be very sorry to go so far as that.

asked whether, in view of the fact that friendly aliens are now allowed to enlist in the Army, it is proposed to grant permission to the same class of men to enrol in Volunteer Corps?

The Army Council consider that it would be premature to give any decision until there has been some experience of the experiment of enlisting aliens into the Regular Army, and until the Voluntary Force has taken a more concrete form.

asked on what ground the Army Council have issued instructions that bands, including pipe bands, are to be abolished in third-line units of the Territorial Force?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will modify the recent Army Order of 18th June so as to allow third-line units of the Territorial Force to retain their bands, including pipe bands, on condition that no bandsman of military age and fit for general service is employed, seeing that bands teach the men steady route marching and lighten the monotony of camp life, and are helpful at Sunday services, Y.M.C.A. tent concerts, etc?

This matter is being further considered. I cannot make any statement upon it to-day.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is quite possible to have these bands without including any men fit for general service in them?

Yes, Sir, I will bear that in mind.

What objection have the War Office to Scottish pipers?

It is not objection, but enthusiasm.

asked whether two doctors in the employ of the Army, since found to be Germans, have been proved to have administered drugs of a poisonous nature to soldiers they were attending at a camp in Wales with fatal results in several cases?

I have no information of the kind suggested, and my medical advisers consider the story to have no basis other than imagination.

asked whether the family of a pensioner warrant officer will be allowed to draw any of the pension if the pensioner should lose his life while in action or on active service?

No, Sir; but they would be entitled to pension under the usual conditions.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private Bernard Bannon, No. 9,838, 2nd Connaught Rangers, who has had seven years' service; if he is aware that this man, as a result of wounds, has had his leg amputated; if he is aware that he has been pensioned at 10s. 6d. per week, Ring Paper No. B 3,824; and if he will say whether there has been a mistake made in the amount of pension allowed?

I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether ex-Rifleman William Raws, of the 6th Battalion -King's Liverpool Regiment, has been discharged from the Army on 11th March, 1916, after having lost his right leg at Hill 60; whether the only military payment made to him since his discharge has been a sum of 10s.; and, if so, whether he can see his way to give this case more favourable and benevolent consideration?

I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange to have a complete new outfit sent to each of the British soldiers recently removed from Germany into Switzerland?

Arrangements have been made for the despatch of all articles needed by British prisoners of war in Switzerland on the requisition of the officer who has been specially attached to the British Legation at Berne to look after their interests. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing publicly on behalf of His Majesty's Government their thanks to the Swiss Government and people for the cordial welcome which was given to the prisoners on their arrival. The accounts of the reception have been received in all quarters with the warmest satisfaction.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that English prisoners in Germany are proved to depend upon presents of food from England for the necessaries of life, he will now consider the advisability of such necessities being supplied by the State instead of being left to private effort; and whether he will advise the immediate creation of a Government or War Office Department charged exclusively with the duty of pro viding and forwarding a regular supply of proper food to English prisoners?

The hon. and learned Member has been asked to withdraw this question.

I have not received any such application.

asked whether, in view of the number of medals now being granted to officers and men of the Navy and Army for war services and the interest taken by the public in the award of these medals, he can arrange that there shall be some public presentations of medals to officers and men who have won them at which the general public can be admitted?

His Majesty personally invests officers who have been granted decorations. Non-commissioned officers and men who have been awarded medals are at the time usually at the front, and public presentation to them in the presence of the British general public would not, of course, be practicable. In such cases presentation would, as a rule, be made at a parade in the presence of the comrades of the recipients. In the case of soldiers coming home, either on leave or duty, the War Office arranges with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command in which the soldier is staying for a public presentation on parade, and Members of Parliament and mayors of corporations sometimes arrange with the War Office to present medal or medals at a public meeting or gathering. I think that what the hon. Member desires is already being done to a large extent.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received a communication from the Radstock Co-operative Industrial Society, complaining that, owing to the action of the military authorities in commandeering all hay and to other causes, the society has no hay for the forty horses which are working daily in supplying the population of a large area with the necessities of life; and whether he has taken immediate steps to release enough hay and other fodder for the interests of the Radstock mining district?

Yes, Sir. A communication was received from this society, and arrangements were at once made by which they have secured a supply of hay.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that men of the Army Service Corps who had been twenty months at the Western front of war, and who subsequently were attached to the Indian Expeditionary Force, were refused a short leave to visit their homes in this country on the ground that they were only lent to the Indian Expeditionary Force and in those circumstances no leave could be given; and whether, having regard to the fact that such men cannot in the nature of things get home until the end of the War, instructions will be given in such cases that men shall be allowed leave?

No, Sir, these matters have not been brought to my attention. The granting of leave, whether to men of the Army Service Corps or of any other arm, is entirely within the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and the War Office does not interfere with the exercise of his discretion. It is quite possible for those concerned to represent any particular circumstances in their case and I am sure that due weight would be given to any such representations.

asked the Prime-Minister whether he is aware that the late Lord Kitchener, on 31st October, 1914, had an interview at his request with Brigadier-General Owen Thomas, the Minister of Munitions also being present, when a pledge was given to the brigadier that in consideration of his agreeing to raise a North Wales Brigade the appointment of all officers should be in his hands, it being understood that Welsh-speaking officers should, where possible, be appointed; that Lord Kitchener further authorised the brigadier to give this pledge to the Welsh, people; whether the brigadier, despite this pledge, has now been superseded by a. Scotsman, a Territorial colonel, who was formerly a lieutenant in the Regular Army; and will he, in view of this pledge, give the matter his consideration?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the representations made from all quarters in Wales with reference to the value of the services rendered by Brigadier-General Owen Thomas in connection with the raising and training of the Welsh Army; and whether, in view of the change which has taken place in the command at Kinmel Camp, he is able to give an assurance that General Owen Thomas' services will be continued in a position of equal responsibility within the Principality?

My right hon Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer these questions. I cannot find that there is any record in the War Office of any such undertaking as that mentioned. On the representation of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief the Home Forces, and in the interests of efficiency, Brigadier-General Owen Thomas was relieved of his command and replaced by another officer. The services of this officer will, I understand, be utilised in an administrative military capacity in Wales.

Has my right hon. Friend not made inquiries from the Minister of Munitions who was present when the interview took place, and is not that the only record which he could officially refer to?

I only became aware of this question this morning, and I have not had time to consult my right hon. Friend.

Is it not a fact that twenty of these officers who speak Welsh have been relieved of their command?

Will not all this be put right at the end of the week when the Minister of Munitions becomes Secretary for War?

asked the Prime Minister if he can now say when he will make his promised statement as to what steps the Government Intend to take for the purpose of immediately acting on the resolutions of the Paris Conference?

I hope to make this statement early next week.

asked the Prime Minister if he can state why about 400 German firms are still allowed to do business in this country?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The work of eliminating enemy interests in businesses carried on in this country, whether by Orders under Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, or by vesting Orders under Section 4 of that Act, is proceeding with all possible rapidity. It is proposed shortly to issue a statement showing the nature and extent of the work of the Board of Trade's Advisory Committee in this matter. It will be realised that each case must necessarily receive close investigation in order that injury to British interests may be minimised. In the meantime all the more important businesses not dealt with in the above manner have been placed under supervision, and steps are being taken to extend supervision to the remainder.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these 400 German firms have any permits or licences from the Government?

I do not know whether 400 is an accurate figure, but I will obtain the information if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 200 firms have been rubbed out in nearly two years by the Government, and is he aware that the tenderness shown continually by the Government to Germans and German firms is making people think that there is an unseen hand somewhere behind the Government?

asked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that trade is prohibited with persons and firms of enemy nationality or association, whose names are given, in Morocco, Portuguese East Africa, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chili, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, Japan, the Dutch East Indies, Persia, Denmark, Greece, Holland, Norway, Spain, and Sweden, the same principle is not applied in America and this country?

The statutory list for the United States of America is in course of preparation and will be published shortly. Enemy firms in this country are dealt with by supervising or winding up the businesses under the powers contained in the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916.

asked what arrangements have been made for the publication of an Official History of the War?

In view of the demand which is likely to arise, and the desirability of providing the public with an authentic account, it has been decided to prepare for publication as soon as possible after the close of the War an Interim Official History dealing with its various aspects. This History will be based on the material which is being collected and arranged by the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence for an eventual Staff History.

The work will be in three sections, which will deal, respectively, with the Naval and Military Operations and the General Effects of the War on Sea-borne Trade.

The Naval Section has been entrusted to Mr. Julian Corbett, and the Military Section to Mr. John Fortescue, while for the Trade Section the Trustees of the Garton Foundation have kindly placed their staff at the disposal of the Historical Section.

The sections will be published separately, but prepared in concert. The work is already well advanced.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if photographs have been taken at the various fronts to incorporate in the history, just as the French Government are doing with their national history?

Photographs have been taken, but I cannot say whether they will be incorporated.

Will there be a separate section recounting the doings of the Indian Army?

I will consider that.

Will the Report be published in volume.

Yes.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of Russia and Italy were represented at the Economic Conference of the Allies at Paris; and whether their representatives assented to the resolutions passed at that Conference?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Are we to understand that the Italian representatives committed themselves to these proposals as between their own country and Germany?

Germany was not a party to the Conference at all.

Did the Italian representatives commit themselves to these proposals as between their own country and Germany with which they are not now at war?

All I can say is that the Italians agreed to the resolutions.

Is it not the case that all the representatives went, as our representatives went, without any authority really to bind the countries that they represented?

I can only speak for our own representatives.