asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any official information to the effect that the German Chancellor has authorised a statement in the semi-official "North German Gazette" to the effect that he endorses the speech delivered by Herr Scheidemann at Breslau, when the latter opposed all territorial acquisition by Germany; and whether he has any other information confirming this view of the Chancellor's attitude?

:I have no other information on the subject except what has appeared in the Press.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now publish such Reports as have a reached him upon the conditions of British prisoners and prisoner camps in Bulgaria and Turkey?

No recent Reports have been received from the United States representative at Constantinople as to the condition of our prisoners in Turkey, and we are inquiring when Reports that may be published may be expected. With regard to Bulgaria, we are informed that all f the British prisoners have been assembled at Philippopolis, with the exception of a small number who are employed in construction work in the interior. As soon as f this work is finished they will be sent to Philippopolis. The prisoners are treated on an equal footing with Bulgarian soldiers. Parcels are being distributed to them. Their health is good.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Report, so far as Bulgaria is concerned?

No, Sir; it would be too much to say whether we are satisfied with the Bulgarian Report, but we have not got anything we can publish.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the Reports made by the United States Embassy, in Paris, upon the condition of the prisoner camps in France, to which German prisoners have been sent to work from England?

We hope to publish the Reports in question, and are in communication with the United States Embassy on the subject.

Is it proposed to continue sending prisoners to France in view of the fact that British prisoners are now being sent to Poland by the German Government in retaliation?

I must ask for notice of that question. I think it ought to be addressed to the War Office, who are responsible. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will consent to publish any official or semi-official Reports that may have reached him from neutral sources on the subject of the treatment of German prisoners of war, military and civilian, in Great Britain?

The only official reports on the treatment of combatant and civilian prisoners of war in this country emanate from the American Embassy and from the International Committee of the Ked Cross, Geneva. The latter have been published and the advisability of publishing certain of those made by members of the American Embassy is under consideration. The publication of semi-official reports is not thought to be advisable.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether British prisoners of war interned in detention camps in Germany are still forbidden to receive parcels of food from home; whether a similar prohibition exists for German prisoners in England; and, if so, will he consent to relax this regulation and ask for reciprocity of treatment for British misdemeanants in Germany?

It appears by the latest reports from the American Ambassador in Berlin that some latitude is allowed in regard to what a prisoner of war in detention in Germany may receive, but it is evident that bread is not allowed. German prisoners in this country who are similarly situated are not permitted to receive parcels of food, but a suggestion will be put forward to withdraw this restriction on the promise of reciprocity by the German Government in regard to British prisoners.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say German prisoners in camp are not allowed to receive parcels of food?

I said those in detention camps were not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply, if any, has been received from the German Government regarding the starvation of British prisoners at Ruhleben; and what course His Majesty's Government intends to adopt towards German civilians interned in Great Britain?

No reply has been received from the German Government to our Note, a telegraphic summary of which was communicated to them on the 26th ultimo. I cannot say more till His Majesty's Government have been able to consider the question of German prisoners in this country.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that large quantities of barley were shipped from America to the Scandinavian Peninsula and thence forwarded to Germany last season; and if he will take steps to prevent renewal of these supplies of barley to Germany?

The information in the possession of the Foreign Office does not confirm that of my hon. and gallant Friend. The importation of barley and meal into the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole since January, 1915, has been below the normal. The matter will, however, be carefully watched and any information which my hon. and gallant Friend can give us on the subject will be welcomed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, both in the case of conscientious objectors and of Irish prisoners imprisoned without trial, so much sympathy is often evoked in the soldiers and warders guarding them in confinement that these soldiers and warders smuggle out letters to friends, and bring in letters or food to those suffering imprisonment; whether such smuggling of letters or food is against regulations; whether any soldiers have been punished in connection with such practices; if so, how many; and whether, in view of the wide sympathy shown to so many thousands of British subjects in prison who might be doing useful service, he will mitigate the Regulations now in force?

I am not aware whether conscientious objectors or Irish prisoners evoke sympathy in the soldiers and warders guarding them. My hon. Friend will find complete information on the subject of the smuggling of letters in paragraph 151 of the "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons," which are published by Messrs. Harrison and Sons, St. Martin's Lane, W.C.; and I take this opportunity of pointing out to my hon. Friend in regard to his request that I will mitigate the Regulations now in force, that the "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons" are statutory and made by the Secretary of State for War under Section 133 of the Army Act.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the case of E. F. Lawley, who was granted by' the Croydon Local Tribunal absolute exemption, but who has been nine times subsequently before the tribunals, local and Appeal; whether he is aware that this case is, after months of delays and adjournments, not yet settled and that Lawley, who is a capable clerk, has been thus thrown out of all employment; and whether, in view of Lawley being a man of slight physique and declared by medical authority to be quite unfit for any military service, he will now instruct the military authorities to close their persecution of a man who can in no case become an efficient soldier?

I have inquired into this case and I am sorry that my hon. Friend should have been misled into using the word "persecution" in connection with it. Mr. Lawley was granted exemption from cambatant service only by the Surrey Appeal Tribunal and applied to the local tribunal for a review of his certificate and declared willingness to undertake work of national importance. It is true that his case came before the tribunal on the 13th April, 16th, 22nd and 25th May, and 2nd, 8th and 16th June, and on every occasion was adjourned either at his direct request (I would ask my hon. Friend to note this) or solely with a view of giving him time to find suitable employment. At last, on the 22nd June, Mr. Lawley stated that he had an offer of educational work. The necessary inquiries were made and on the 30th June the tribunal granted Mr. Lawley a certificate of exemption conditional on his remaining in scholastic employment. I suggest that it would have been fairer if my hon. Friend had carried his researches into this case somewhat deeper. If he had done so, I venture to think he would have abstained from presenting it in a false light.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is safe to entrust the education of our youth to men of this sort?

I do not think he will have much opportunity of inculcating our youth with these principles.

asked the Under-Secretary for War how far tribunals have been supplied with Instructions R86; and is he aware that many members of the tribunals have no knowledge of any such Instructions being issued, and that, consequently, sole proprietors of businesses are not receiving any of the considerations they are entitled to under those Instructions?

Copies of the Instructions were sent on the 8th ultimo to all tribunals. Additional copies may be obtained, if requested. There is, therefore, no reason why members of tribunals should not be acquainted with the Instructions.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the reversal of the exemption granted by the Widnes Tribunal to Mr. James A. Hill, manager of Messrs. Bibby and Baron, Limited, by the Liverpool Appeal Tribunal; whether he is aware that the firm transferred their machinery from Bury to Widnes because of the difficulty of securing sufficient female labour; that this transfer took place after consultation with the superintendent of the Labour Exchange of Warrington and district, and after several appeals from the Widnes Exchange on account of the amount of unemployed female labour there; whether he is aware that Mr. Hill is the only eligible man employed by the firm who has not enlisted and the only man capable of managing the concern and adjusting the machinery, the only other man employed at Widnes being a disabled and discharged soldier; whether he, is aware that the military representative appealed from the decision of the Widnes Tribunal and gave the Appeal Tribunal to understand that the undertaking was a new one only open two months; whether he is aware that this statement led the Appeal Tribunal to refuse to listen to any explanation and to decline to allow any appeal, although the statement was entirely correct, no new machinery being employed; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Hill is indispensable if the women and girls are not to be thrown out of employment, the military representative can be instructed to assent to the rehearing of the appeal, or some other method be found of securing a hearing on appeal of the full facts of the case?

I am obtaining information about this matter, but it has not reached me yet.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has yet obtained a report as to the allegations of brutal ill-treatment and cruelty perpetrated on 17th June and other days by Lance-Corporal Barker and others upon a number of conscientious objectors at Prees Hill Camp, near Whitchurch, Salop; if he will say what was the nature and conditions of the inquiry that was held; whether the men themselves were questioned and examined; and whether any independent person from outside the Army took part in the investigation?

I will read to the House a report which has been made by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command:

asked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of a conscientious objector named Sydney Cooper, of Leeds, who, on or about Monday, 29th May, at Richmond, was roughly handled, then frog-marched until blood rushed from his mouth; whether he will use his best endeavours to put a stop to such treatment; what steps he proposes to take; and (2) whether he will inquire into the allegations that have been made with regard to the treatment with certain conscientious objectors, including Fred, Charles, and Harry Walker, are believed to have undergone at the lower barracks, Chatham, on or about 18th May, and in particular if he will ascertain whether these men were-knocked about in such a manner that one of them fainted twice; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

If the hon. Member will forward me definite statements upon which inquiry can be based, I shall be happy to have the same instituted.

Was not the first case brought before the House a month ago by the hon. Member for York, and full details then given?

I do not know. I could' not be expected to put the two things together.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the investigator whom he sent down to inquire into the alleged complaints of Private Ithel Davies as to his treatment in the Mold Detention Barracks for refusing to obey military orders on conscientious grounds saw and examined Private-Davies; whether the staff-sergeant and the corporal who are accused of having ill-treated Private Davies have now been removed from Mold Detention Barracks; whether the investigator saw and examined these two non-commissioned officers; and whether, in order that he may not be imposed upon or placed in a false position before coming to a final decision as to the facts alleged by Private Davies, he will cause the investigator to obtain from Private Davies himself an account of the treatment which he received from the staff-sergeant and the corporal during the first three days which he spent in the Mold Detention Barracks?

In the supplementary answer I gave on the 27th June, where I spoke on an independent investigator, I was referring to the detention barrack visitor mentioned in paragraph 45 of the Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons. My hon. Friend will realise from my former answer that an exhaustive inquiry has been made into this case. The main facts elicited are: That Davies, though given ample opportunity for making a complaint to the visiting officer, made none; that four non-commissioned officers state that, so far as they are aware, Davies was never struck or ill-treated in any way; that there were no marks of ill-usage to be seen upon Davies; that the sergeant-major took him aside, talked to him, endeavoured to give him good advice, but could exert no influence over him; and, finally, that Davies told the medical officer that he had no complaint to make. I trust the House will agree that this is a complete answer to this question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the questions I have put down, namely, whether the staff-sergeant and the corporal who are accused of having ill-treated Private Davies have now been removed from Mold Detention Barracks—

The answer to that is in the negative.

And whether the investigator asked a single question of Private Davies?

I gave my hon. Friend a very complete answer to his question.

No!

Whether the visitor actually cross-examined Davies or not I cannot say—

He did not.

There was no necessity for him to do so, absolutely none. Under the Rules of Detention Barracks if a visitor goes along and asks if there are any complaints, and no one makes a complaint, it is not the business of the visitor to go round to each individual and ask, "Have you any complaint?"

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made of the colour-sergeant who rescued Davies from the brutality?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give any information with regard to Llewellyn Hughes, a conscientious objector, who was tried by court-martial at Chatham on 1st June and transferred to Wandsworth on 9th June; whether he has been kept for some weeks in solitary confinement; whether he has suffered severely in health; and whether he will soon be transferred to civil custody under the Army Order of 25th May?

This man was admitted to Wandsworth on the 9th June and on 10th June was awarded punishment for refusing to obey orders. He was in hospital from the 13th June to the 26th June and was visited in hospital by his mother as a special case. On the 27th June he refused to parade and there is reason to believe he is a malingerer. I understand the man has been remanded for trial by court-martial, in which case he will doubtless come under the conditions of Army Order No. 10 of the 26th May. My hon. Friend's suggestion that he has been kept some weeks in solitary confinement, unless he regards hospital treatment as solitary confinement, appears to be without foundation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the thirty-four conscientious objectors sentenced to death in France have now been brought to England; if not, when are they expected; whether it is his intention to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative so that the commuted sentences of penal servitude shall not be carried out; or whether they will be treated under the scheme announced on 29th June?

The hon. Member may rest assured that all prisoners sentenced to penal servitude are sent to England as soon as the necessary arrangements for their movement have been made. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that sentences of penal servitude cannot be carried out in France. It is not the intention to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative, and the conscientious objectors under discussion will be treated under the scheme announced on the 29th June.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that on 10th May, when the Ripley (Derby) Co-operative Society appealed for four men to be exempted, the military adviser told the society's secretary that it was not in the national interests that co-operative societies should exist, because they do not pay Income Tax; that a special meeting of the members has expressed the opinion that this statement prejudiced these four cases, that this adviser does not deal impartially with such cases, and that another person should be appointed to deal with their cases; and will he give instructions for some other person to attend when this society's cases are to be considered?

My attention has been called to a statement made to the local tribunal in connection with an application by the Ripley Co-operative Society. Instructions have been sent to all military representatives informing them that the question of the special arrangements as to Income Tax in connection with co-operative societies are not relevant to an application for the exemption of employés of such societies. I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the latter part of the question, but I think that the instructions to which I have referred will meet the case.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the terms on which the common land used for the formation of Bramshott Camp, Hants, has been taken over by the War Office; to whom, and for how much, has any payment been made; for how many years is it arranged that this camp, if desired by the War Office, can be maintained; whether any compensation has been or will be offered to the commoners for the loss of their rights; and whether pending legislation is intended to give to the War Office or other Government Department greater powers over the land of Bramshott Camp?

The common was taken over at an early stage of the War under emergency powers. The commoners at a meeting held in December, 1915, passed a public-spirited resolution promising to assist the War Office as far as possible on the understanding that the camp was for war purposes only, and that when it was given up the buildings would be removed and the ground restored as far as possible to its former condition, compensation being paid for actual damage. The Lord of the Manor's claim to compensation in respect of his common rights and military occupation of his freehold land has been dealt with by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission who awarded him payment at the rate of £165 per annum, the bulk of this being in respect of his freehold land. The question of reinstatement on termination of the occupation was reserved. The Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill is not intended to give the War Office or other Government Departments any increased powers over Bramshott Common beyond specifying the maximum period during which this camp can be used after the War.

In view of that reply, will the Government agree to the insertion of some provision which will absolutely safeguard the common and the commoners?

I think my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising this question in Debate to-morrow, and I hope a satisfactory explanation will be forth-coming.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the terms on which the common lands on which the Witley Camps, in Surrey, have been established have been taken over; what sums, if any, have been paid to holders of manorial rights, or what sums are so due or payable, and to whom are such sums paid; for how many years have the lands been acquired; and whether any recompense has been made, or will be made, to those who have common rights in the commons on which Witley Camps have been established?

These commons were taken over at an early stage of the War under emergency powers. No compensation has been paid to the Lords of the Manor who generously agreed that the Department should have the use of the commons during the present national emergency without payment. The War Department, on the other hand, agreed that, on the cessation of military user, the grounds should be reinstated as nearly as possible to its former condition, and that compensation should be paid to commoners who suffered substantial monetary loss.

Will the same remarks apply in this case as in connection with the preceding question.

I think so.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that whilst there are a number of men who refuse to undertake military service on conscientious grounds but who are subject to the Military Service Act, there are at the same time a number of men excepted as clergy who have no such objection; and will he consider the advisability of inviting or compelling these clergymen to take the places of the conscientious objectors in the ranks?

No, Sir, I do not propose to adopt the suggestion.

(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for War a question of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Snowden) has given notice, whether he can say what are the probabilities of attested youths being called to the Colours before they reach the age of nineteen?

I am glad to take this opportunity of correcting what I said on 26th June. I should have said it is not improbable that these youths will be called to the Colours, whereas I fear I did say it is not probable. An error had crept into the typewritten reply from which I was reading.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War 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 to that effect?

I am informed that there is no truth in this insinuation.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War 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?

No information has been received in the Irish Command of the alleged shooting of Mrs. Naylor, but I am taking steps to ascertain the facts.

asked the Under-Secretary for War at what date martial law was relaxed in Dublin to the extent of allowing priests to visit the sick and dying; whether from the Proclamation of martial law until that date priests could discharge their functions only at the risk of their lives; whether it was within that period that the Rev. Father Watters, while on his way to administer the last sacraments to the dying, was shot dead by the military in the sight of several witnesses; and why no inquest or inquiry of any sort has been held?

While the fighting was in progress and an area was enclosed by a cordon permits were sent to the Most Rev. Dr. Donnelly, P.P., to hand to priests who wished to attend to the dead, dying, or wounded inside the cordon. Priests inside the cordon could move freely there. The moment the cordon was withdrawn all priests could move freely. No complaint as to this arrangement was received. No priest was known to have been injured except Father Watters, who was reported to have been wounded by a stray bullet while entering his house. He died of his wounds on 8th May and was buried on 10th May. No suggestion has ever been made as to his wound having been inflicted in any but an accidental manner, nor was any request for an inquest sent in.

asked the UnderSecretary for War, seeing that the only formal surrender of the Irish republican army allowed to reach the public is that purporting to have been signed by Patrick H.Pearse when in custody, whether he is now in a position to describe the surrender fully; whether all who knew the terms of surrender first offered by Mr. Pearse before surrender have since been executed; whether it was to prevent his making those terms known that, differing from the other men sentenced to execution, no one was allowed to see Mr. Pearse; whether his mother was prevented from seeing him; whether his brother William, subsequently executed, was prevented from seeing him lest he should learn and convey the terms of surrender; if there was any other motive for the exceptional seclusion, what was it; and whether, now that the exigencies of the time are past, he will, in justice to a brave man, state the terms first offered by Mr. Pearse before surrender?

I am unable to give the hon. Member any information at present as regards the publication of official Reports describing the events connected with the recent rebellion in Ireland. There is no truth in the allegations contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when that Report will appear? Is he aware that in denying the statement in the latter part of my question he is grossly misinformed?

No, Sir, I cannot fix the date. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to the Prime Minister on that subject?

Is it true Pearse's mother was not allowed to see him before his execution?

Yes.

I have no reason to believe it.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged it in this House?

asked the Prime Minister how many prisoners are now in penal servitude in connection with the recent insurrection in Ireland; whether any but those are undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courtsmartial; and whether, having regard to the character of the Courts and to the circumstances, the Government have considered the advisability of treating them all as prisoners of war, subject to effective security of detention?

According to the latest returns 125 are in penal servitude. The answer to the rest of the question is in the negative.

Were all these cases tried in camera?

I dare say that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Messrs. O'Flaherty, Troy, and Sweeney are still detained untried prisoners in this country though known to the medical officers to be in a state of health unfit for imprisonment, the first from age and heart disease, the second from acute rheumatism, and the third from a mental disease; whether Mr. Troy, while unfit to be out of bed, has been forced to walk in great pain several miles to the camp at Frongoch; whether he has yet recovered from the effects of that treatment; and, if these three men are not to be released immediately, whether an independent doctor will be allowed to examine them?

There are four prisoners at Frongoch bearing the surname of O'Flaherty, and two bearing that of Troy. If the hon. Member will furnish the full names of the two prisoners in whom he is interested I will make inquiry with regard to them. Peter Sweeney is receiving all necessary medical attention. The medical staff of the places of detention is adequate to deal with cases of illness.

Will Mr. Sweeney be released, as the prison officials wish him to be off their hands?

I cannot give any assurance that he will be released.

Is he still in solitary confinement?

I do not think he has been in solitary confinement.

He has been, and you denied it in this House.

asked the Home Secretary what steps he took to satisfy himself in each case before he signed internment orders for hundreds of Irish prisoners who have been interned under the Defence of the Realm Act?

I had in each case before me a recommendation from the competent military authority showing definite grounds for internment under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The order is not final; it is subject to revocation if the prisoner makes representations and if the Advisory Committee, after full consideration of the case, recommends that the internment should mot be maintained.

Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself in each case, before he signed the internment order, that there was competent evidence on which such order might be signed?

I accept the recommendations of the competent military authority. It is not possible for me on the evidence at my disposal to examine the cases individually of all the 1,800 prisoners. They have all been referred to the Advisory Committee for further examination.

Did the right hon. Gentleman take any steps specially as regards any prisoners to prescribe that certain of them should be kept in solitary confinement?

No, Sir.

To whom is the reference made? Is it to the police, or a recommendation which is not final, as the right hon. Gentleman has now said, or to the military authority of Ireland; and from whom does the right hon. Gentleman expect the report upon which he can act before releasing the person recommended?

I do not quite follow the question. I do not know what recommendation the hon. Member means. The report which I am awaiting in this case is the report of the Advisory Committee, the constitution of which I have repeatedly mentioned in the House.

Is it the position of the right hon. Gentleman that he has made orders for internment without himself investigating the cases?

The orders have been made by me on the recommendation of the competent military authority which has investigated each case, and I have referred all the cases for further inquiry to the Advisory Committee which advises me.

At whose instance were special prisoners marked out for solitary confinement?

No prisoner has been sentenced to solitary confinement.

It is so.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the competent military authority exercises any care or discrimination whatever in the examination on which he acts?

Yes, I know that he has made very careful inquiries and received legal advice with regard to the various cases.

Have these persons been furnished with any charge but the vague one of hostile association, and what is the hostile association referred to?

The hon. Member is getting rather far from the question on the Paper.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will publish immediately a full statement of the procedure of the Advisory Committee now inquiring into the cases of the interned Irish political prisoners; and whether he can state what steps have been taken to convey to the prisoners full and detailed knowledge of their rights in regard to an appeal to this Committee?

The procedure is simple and informal. All written representations made by the prisoners are referred to the Committee, and the Committee give full individual consideration to each case. They are now engaged in seeing the prisoners personally and hearing any statements they may wish to make, and, after they have seen the prisoners, they will, if they consider it necessary, call witnesses. They propose to go to Dublin in order to hear witnesses there. In each case the prisoner has been served with a written notice informing him of the grounds on which the order was made, that he is entitled to make representations against the order which will be submitted to the Committee, and that, if I am Ratified by the Report of the Committee that he can be released without injury to the public safety, the order will be revoked.

In each individual case is the prisoner, before he is called upon to appear before this Committee, supplied with a definite statement of the charge against him?

He is supplied with a statement which is in general terms, though not so indefinite as suggested by the hon. Member.

Is it the case that no particulars are given to a prisoner before he appears before Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee except the facts to which he has to answer?

There is nothing in the nature of a legal indictment. The proceedings are more or less informal, and the man makes his own statement as to his share or lack of share of complicity in the rebellion.

Is the statement in the Press correct that the hon. Member for Newry is a member of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee?

Yes.

Why do you not put on the hon. Member for Waterford?

Will the Government even now consider, in regard to the public advantage, the advisability of giving a general amnesty to close up the whole business?

That does not arise out of this.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will arrange with the Home Office to allow visiting at Frongoch camp on Sundays; and if he will extend the time allowed to visitors to one hour?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I regret that, owing to exigencies of staff, it is impossible to give such facilities for visits as the hon. Member suggests.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the train journey to Frongoch from London is about six hours, and Irish Members visiting the prisoners are only allowed a quarter of an hour to interview the prisoners at the prisons?

I am aware of that.

asked the Home Secretary whether permission, will be given to Dr. Kathleen Lynn to visit her sister, who is medically certified to be lying dangerously ill of fever at Cong, Ireland, and to nurse her until she is convalescent, Dr. Lynn being willing to sign any reasonable undertaking required by the Home Office or the military authorities; and whether the permission will be wired to her to-day?

I have only just received notice of my hon. Friend's question. Dr. Lynn is not interned, but is required to reside in this country, at Bath. After verifying the facts, and on receiving the assurance of which the hon. Member speaks, I hope to be able to arrange for Dr. Lynn to go to nurse her sister.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that two trade union organisers were arrested and detained on the instructions of the manager of the Barnbow Munition Works, Crossgates, near Leeds, on 21st June; whether he can state the reason for this action; and will he give instructions to the manager that such conduct is improper?

I am informed that these two men were found within the boundaries of a national munitions factory without the passes which are required for admission to such factories. In the circumstances they were very properly detained by the management and transferred to the custody of the police for inquiries to be made. They were liberated within a very short time.

Was there any notice up on the road on which these people were walking?

I cannot answer that without further inquiry. But it is well known people cannot enter munition works without passes.

asked the Minister of Munitions if the sanction of Parliament will be asked for the purchase of the breweries and licensed trade in the Carlisle area; and if the price to be paid will be submitted to the approval of Parliament?

The purchase referred to and the question of the price to be paid are fully covered by the Defence of the Realm (Amendment—No. 3) Act, the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, and the terms of reference to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Royal Commission. Parliament can, of course, express its opinion when the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions is under its consideration.

asked the Minister of Munitions when he will take steps to redeem his promise, in July last, that women in controlled firms should have a fair wage; and whether he will exercise the powers conferred on him by the Munitions (Amendment) Act to secure that all women workers in munition factories shall have a minimum wage of 5d. an hour, seeing that the cost of living has risen 40 per cent, since the outbreak of the War?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Attercliffe.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has concluded the inquiry which he has been making into the payments made to miners employed in the Railway Supply Department; and, if so, will he state the result of his inquiry?

The inquiry is not yet completed.

Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the Report will be ready?

I am not losing any time unnecessarily, but I cannot give the exact date.

asked the Under-Secretary for War why the temporary women clerks in the War Office are paid 25s. for a week of 48 hours whereas in all other Government offices they receive 25s. for a week of 42 hours; whether the temporary male clerk in the War Office receives a minimum of 31s. 6d. for a week of 42 hours;: and whether the temporary male clerk receives overtime pay after working 42 hours a week and the temporary women clerks do not receive overtime pay till they have worked 48 hours?

I am not aware of the pay issued in other Government offices to women clerks, but I would point out to the Noble Lord that women clerks in the War Office, after passing a satisfactory probation, receive 30s. a week. The answer to the last two parts of the question, is in the affirmative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give an estimate of the number of Germans killed since the outbreak of war; and how many male Germans reach the age of eighteen each year?

I am afraid I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman's bloodthirsty cravings only with estimates, and not with scientifically ascertained facts. According to the German official casualty lists published up to the 31st May, 690,268 of all ranks had been killed or died of wounds. I must not be taken as doing more than giving the official German figure. Hon. Gentlemen must form their own estimate of the credibility or accuracy of these figures. Any estimate, however, in the numbers of killed and died of wounds, whose names have been omitted from these casualty lists, must be purely conjectural In answer to the second part of the question, I may inform him that it has been calculated that the number of males between seventeen and eighteen years of age on the 1st December, 1914, was 674,580, and on the 1st December, 1915, 691,274.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to this question as being a bloodthirsty craving on my part, when the object of it was to show how many Germans of military age are killed each year and therefore the futility of the War?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 1908 Infantry equipment was adopted on ideas submitted by Colonel (then Major) Burrowes, of the Royal Irish Fusiliers; whether this officer placed his ideas entirely at the disposal of the War Office in 1903; whether Burrowes' design was eventually patented in 1906 by the Mills Equipment Company, at present contractors for supplying this article; whether the Mills Equipment Company are now in a position to exact royalties from the War Office and from other firms manufacturing the article on their patent; and will he state the reason for the War Office agreeing to a private company patenting an invention handed ever by an officer on active service to the Department?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. Colonel Burrowes' design was adopted as the most suitable, but it could only be satisfactorily carried out in web material by employing a special weaving process belonging to the Mills Equipment Company. Colonel Burrowes was, therefore, allowed to enter into arrangements with the Mills Equipment Company, under which he was remunerated by them in return for the right to use his design. The royalties payable to this firm are partly in respect of Colonel Burrowes' design and partly in respect of the use of their special weaving process.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if at least one-third of the 1916 clip of grease wool was sold at 15d. per lb. before the issue of the order; and if he will fix that as the price to be paid by the Government in taking the wool they require?

No figures are available to show the amount of the 1916 clip, which had changed hands before the date of the order, but I am advised that the quantity is probably small. The price at which such wool changed hands would vary greatly according to quality. The prices which it is proposed to pay for English wool will be higher than the price quoted in some instances and lower in others. I think that it would be convenient if I were to say now that I am prepared to receive a representative deputation on the question of the price to be paid. We have no wish to be harsh or unreasonable, and I think the matter could best be dealt with in this way.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many farmers have already paid for the wool on their sheeps backs considerably more than he is now offering them for it?

That, among other aspects of the question, can be best dealt with when we deal with the matter by deputation. I hope the deputation will be representative of all classes who are interested in the question so that we may have a thoroughly satisfactory discussion.

When will it be held?

I do not know. As soon as the deputation can be organised.

Was the Board of Agriculture consulted?

Yes.

Is the hon. Gentleman sending out invitations to persons suitable to form part of such a deputation?

I do not think it rests with me to send out the invitations, otherwise I might unconsciously invite those whom I wished to meet. Perhaps the arrangements had better be in the hands of the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union.

Is it a fact that the price the War Office are now offering for wool is 60 per cent, higher than it was during the ten years preceding 1914?

It is 60 per cent, higher than the average of eight years preceding 1914.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the pay in cash to second-lieutenants of Infantry of the Line serving at Home varies from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a day and the pay of first-lieutenants is 1s. a day more, he can see his way to extend to subalterns of the Line serving at Home the same privileges as to grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities as have been granted to those serving in the ranks?

I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he is prepared to agree to the extension of the scheme to lieutenants and second lieutenants who joined the Forces on or after the 4th August, 1914, whether they joined as officers or in the ranks.

Does that apply to the Navy as well?

Yes, I think it will apply to the Navy as well, but I will consult my right hon. Friend before giving the hon. Member a final answer.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board what is the number of disabled soldiers at present receiving industrial training under schemes initiated by the Statutory Committee?

The Statutory Committee think it desirable to utilise existing schemes for training disabled soldiers pending a full consideration of the whole of this difficult and complicated subject. They are giving earnest attention to it. I may add that there are in operation a number of schemes for the purpose referred to.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Statutory Committee to appoint a permanent secretary to the Committee; and, if so, when?

The Statutory Committee have not at present decided upon the appointment of a permanent secretary. Meanwhile the duties of secretary have been performed by Lieutenant-Golonel Alfred Welby, the secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.

Does not the Statutory Committee think that it is essential that there should be now a permanent secretary appointed so long after the constitution of the Committee?

It is still more essential, that they should get the right man. They have every hope of getting the right man if they wait a little longer.

Is Colonel Welby giving his services voluntarily, or is to be paid?

He has been secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Whether he will receive any honorarium at the end of his term of office it is impossible for me to say.

asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the administrative military position in Wales which has been offered to Brigadier-General Owen Thomas; and whether the position has been accepted?

The appointment offered to Brigadier-General Owen Thomas was a recruiting appointment. I understand that General Thomas has stated he is unable to accept the offer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the circular headed Supply of Coal to France, dated 25th May, 1916, has been issued with the authority of his Department; whether Clause 8 of that circular provides that coal exporters and coalowners in each district of the United Kingdom shall appoint committees; whether the coal exporters of the Port of London have appointed a committee; whether that committee has been refused by the Central Executive Committee the right of representation upon its membership, and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to ensure such representation, in view of the large tonnage of coal exports controlled by London firms trading with France?

The circular referred to was printed and issued by the Board of Trade, and Clause 8 provides for the appointment of local committees. I understand that a London Committee has been appointed, but that it is not represented on the Central Committee. Neither the local committees nor the Central Committee are in any way appointed by the Board of Trade, and I fear, therefore, that the Department cannot well intervene in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use the influence of his Department to enable this appointment to be made?

I will see what can be done.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many tons of American bacon there are in the London docks; if he is aware that the American Meat Trust will not allow tons of bacon to leave the docks, and in consequence tons of it are going rotten; and if he has received a Report on the matter in accordance with his promise; and (2) if he is aware that fifty barges of bacon seized as unfit for human food on the Thames belonged to the American Meat Trust firms; and if he will take steps to prevent the American Meat Trust allowing good food to perish?

The quantity of bacon now on the docks and quays in London is considerably larger than usual, but I have been unable to learn from reliable sources of the condemnation of any important amounts other than such as had suffered sea damage; the last occasion when considerable amounts were condemned on this ground was over five months ago. After careful inquiry I cannot find that there is any foundation for the statements in my hon. Friend's questions.

Has the Board of Trade any power to make the American Beef Trust unload this bacon instead of keeping it stored, not only in London but in the Port of Liverpool, for the purpose of keeping up an inflated price?

I cannot answer as to powers without notice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discover whether the American Beef Trust is in fact holding up supplies, and if so, make short work of them?

Yes.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the clergy of the Church of England have secured exemption from the Military Service Act, he will promote legislation for Disendowment, so that the lands held by the Church may be put to national use, such as the provision of small holdings for discharged soldiers?

No, Sir. I do not propose to adopt the suggestion.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that when men are moved from southern Royal dockyards to similar yards in the north, a distinction is made between the allowances made to skilled as against less skilled men of 2s. 6d. for the night; and whether he can see his way clear to raise all to the 7s. 6d. rate?

The allowances mentioned are those payable under Admiralty Regulations. They are based on the workmen's rates of pay. The rates of allowance have been fully considered, and no alteration therein is proposed. My hon. Friend seems to think that a new rule as to these allowances has been introduced in connection with the transfer of men from the south to the north. That is not so.

asked the hon. Member for Rugby, as representing the Air Department, whether a flying machine of the latest type was recently sent from Farnborough to France in charge of a pilot -who had never been abroad before; whether the officer informed the authorities beforehand that he did not know his way; whether he lost his way and eventually landed by mistake in the German lines; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to avoid our newest machines being handed over to the Germans within a few hours of completion?

The facts are as stated, except that from the inquiry held it does not appear that any protest was made by the officer in question. The circumstances under which the incident occurred are as follows:—A batch of machines of a well-known type had been fitted with a new type of engine. These machines were urgently required at the Front, and a number of officers were detailed to take them over to France. Some of these officers had done the journey before, others had not: all were qualified cross-country pilots trained to fly the type of machine in question. The particular officer referred to graduated as a pilot for this type of machine after thirty-two hours' flying, which is considered an ample amount. His report showed him as efficient and a good cross-country flier. The need for machines in France is so great that it is impossible to keep them back until officers are available to fly them over who have previously done the journey, which, moreover, is not considered a difficult one for a trained cross-country pilot. To take a machine across is an ordinary incident in a pilot's duties, and as many as twenty-four machines have gone over in one day lately. Such regrettable incidents have occurred to the Germans also, who recently presented us with a brand new Fokker. There is no means of avoiding them altogether in war times, but every care has been taken and will continue to be taken to reduce the risk of their occurrence to a minimum. The pilot in this case evidently lost his way, and it appears from a letter received by his parents from him that his machine was hit and rendered unmanageable by fire from the ground as he was descending. Otherwise, on discovering his mistake, he might have got away.

Was the pilot supplied with the usual map, or was it an out-of-date map?

I anticipated some curiosity on that point, and consequently I have taken the precaution of providing myself with a copy of the map, which I shall be prepared to show to my hon. and gallant Friend. It is the Ordnance Survey map as used by the general staff and supplied to pilots.

Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether there was an observer on board, and, if so, had he any experience of the route?

Yes, Sir, there was an observer on board, but he had no more experience of the route than the pilot. It is not a question of knowing the route any more than you can expect the man who takes a ship to New York to know the road to New York. It is a question of knowing the navigation. This pilot was qualified as an aerial navigator, and he should have had no difficulty in finding his road.

Was the passenger an observer, or simply a passenger?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a petition presented by the watchmen of the Port of London to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise has been brought to his notice; and whether further consideration will be given to the possibility of making some concession to meet the increased cost of living to these men, whose standard rate is only 24s. a week?

A petition from the London watchers was received by the Board of Customs and Excise on the 27th June. It has been transmitted by them to the Treasury, and is now under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for India under what Regulation officers on the supernumerary list of the Indian Army have their Indian pay cut when temporarily employed under the War Office?

The officers of the Indian Army, to whom I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to refer, ordinarily receive "unemployed" pay, which has been fixed on the assumption that they would not be receiving other pay from Government sources. On their employment by the War Office the question of the total emoluments that these officers should be permitted to draw was discussed with that Department, and it was decided that in certain cases a reduction of Indian unemployed pay should be made with the object of fixing the aggregate emoluments at reasonable rates, having regard to British and Indian scales of pay generally. Under this decision officers whose War Office pay does not exceed £200 a year continue to receive their full Indian unemployed pay; in other eases a reduction is made which varies according to the rate of pay received from the War Office.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question: Under what Regulation has this been done?

I gather that it is not a Regulation, but a decision between the War Office and the India Office.

Then I am to understand that this is done ultra viresand contrary to the Regulations?

I do not think that inference can be drawn.

I do.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether our naval activities in the North Sea have demonstrated the advantages that would have resulted from a mid-Scotland canal connecting the Forth and Clyde; and whether he will secure from those best able to judge a report on the strategic value of such a canal?

I am afraid that this question cannot be discussed with advantage at the present time.