asked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to find out whether the Imperial German Chancellor, in opposing all territorial acquisitions by Germany, is representing the views of the German Government?

We have no means of finding out the views of the German Government except by their public utterances. I must point out that it is their business to make their own views known without our help, and they are perfectly capable of doing so when they think it desirable.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it possible through a neutral Power to get this information?

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether His Majesty's Government are desirous of eliciting this information?

That does not arise out of this question.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement recently made by M. Sazonoff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the Russian "Slovo," in which he stated that he was ready to admit that Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg did not wish the War and was not the direct promoter of it, and in which he further stated that at the beginning of the War resolutions taken by the three Allied Powers with regard to the various parts of the Ottoman Empire, and particularly those interesting to Russia, fully assured to Russia the realisation of her national and ancient aspirations; and whether, in view of the importance of the statement, he will cause a translation to be placed in the Library?

I have seen, in the British Press, a summary of the interview to which the hon. Member refers. I will inquire whether it was an authorised statement by M. Sazonoff, and if so a translation of the article will be placed in the Library as soon as it has been received from Petrograd.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, to correct current accounts in Egypt of buildings burned and persons outraged by Australian soldiers there, he will have an authentic list of the buildings burned and persons outraged prepared and circulated throughout Egypt?

No, Sir.

Why?

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French Government has announced its readiness to permit Russians in France, who are mostly Jewish or political refugees, to emigrate to America; and whether, in order to harmonise our policy with the policy of our French Allies, he will give a similar permission to Russian subjects in this country?

Except for what my hon. Friend has told me the answer to the first part is in the negative; the answer to the second part does not therefore arise.

As I seem to have better information than certain official quarters, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on this point, upon which I am quite confident that I am correct?

I am quite ready to make any inquiry which my hon. Friend thinks desirable.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has information concerning the Commission appointed by the French Government, under the chairmanship of Professor Durkheim, to consider the position of allied aliens in France; whether this Com-mission recommended that no action should be taken to compel them to serve; whether the French Government have since then acted upon the recommendation; and, if so, whether, in order to co-ordinate the policy of the Allied Governments, the British Government intend to follow the same policy?

I have no information on the subject.

Here again may I ask the Noble Lord if, on this matter of very urgent and pressing interest at the present moment, he will make inquiry from our representative in Paris?

I will consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce details of his policy affecting the Russian Jews resident in Great Britain?

Russians of military age settled in this country will, unless they prefer to return for military service in Russia, be required to enlist in the British Army. Tribunals will be set up which will grant exemptions on principles similar to those which apply to British subjects. Care will be taken that these tribunals should include persons specially qualified to deal with the cases of the Jews, who form so large a proportion of the Russian immigrants. The details of the scheme are now being worked out and will be announced in due course.

What will be the position of political refugees?

I see no reason why they should not serve in our Army.

But if they think that they are unable to serve in our Army will they be deported to Russia, as political refugees who know that they will be imprisoned or sent to Siberia through being deported?

If there are such cases it will be considered whether they had good grounds for refusing to serve in the British Army.

In constituting these tribunals will the right hon. Gentleman appoint persons who are conversant with these matters affecting political refugees?

Yes, that will be borne in mind.

Will the members of this tribunal all be British subjects, or will some of them be foreign subjects?

As at present advised the intention is that they are all to be British subjects.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the Russian Government any request that Russians of military age now in Britain should be returned to Russia; and whether he has intimated to the Russian Government that such Russian subjects will be shortly sent back from this country to Russia?

No, Sir. The position of Russian subjects of military age in this country was clearly explained in the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 29th June.

Is it not the case that a Russian who has become a naturalised British subject, on his return to Russia immediately resumes his Russian nationality?

I should not like to express an opinion about that. I must ask for notice of that question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are requiring British subjects in Russia of military age to return to this country?

The hon. Member must give notice of these numerous questions.

asked the UnderSecretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an approximate estimate of the number of Belgians now resident in. Belgium?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War if men who have been passed by a medical board for Home service can be passed, after entering the Army, by one doctor for active service; and, if not, why all the men in H Company of the Cheshire Regiment, at Prees Heath Camp, have been re-examined by one doctor and some Class II men have been posted to Class I?

The Under-Secretary of State is having inquiry made and, with the hon. Member's permission, he will send him the result of his inquiries by letter.

asked the Secretary for War if he can give any information as to the case of H. F. Runacres, formerly a theological student of Pusey House, Oxford, who on or about 1st June was tried by court-martial at Reigate for his conscientious refusal to obey military orders; whether he is aware that the sentence passed by the Court was one of six months' imprisonment with hard labour, which was commuted to six months' detention; and whether steps will now be taken to bring this man, and others in a similar position, within the scope of the new scheme?

asked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Walker Heddle, of Thomas Street, Woolwich, who attended at the County Hall, Spring Gardens, on 29th June, for the purpose of having his case reheard by the Appeal Tribunal under Section 4 (5) of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2); whether he is aware that Captain Anstey, the military representative, interrupted the proceedings and ordered Mr. Heddle to be arrested as a defaulter; whether Captain Anstey had any right to act in this manner or order the arrest of Mr. Heddle; whether he is aware that Mr. Heddle was thereupon taken into custody by a police officer, taken to Great Scotland Yard, and transferred without any legal proceedings to the custody of a corporal of the Scots Guards, who took Mr. Heddle to Woolwich in charge to await a military escort; whether he is aware that late in the evening a military escort arrived and took Mr. Heddle to Stoughton Barracks, near Guildford, where he was detained till Tuesday, 4th July; will he say by what authority Mr. Heddle was so detained and by whose authority on 4th July Mr. Heddle was released, and who was responsible for the arrest and detention of Mr. Heddle; and what steps are proposed to be taken to compensate Mr. Heddle for his imprisonment and to punish the persons responsible for it?

The Under-Secretary of State is having inquiry made and, with the hon. Member's permission, he will send the result of his inquiries by letter.

asked the Secretary for War whether he has received information as to the appeal by the military representative from the decision of the Widnes Tribunal in the case of an employé of Messrs. Bibby and Baron, Limited; whether he is aware that the firm are the largest exporters in the country of the goods manufactured at the Widnes works; and whether he can now indicate a method by which their case may be fully heard?

Careful inquiry has been made into the facts of this case. The result shows that several of the statements contained in my hon. Friend's question of the 4th July are inaccurate. The clerk to the Appeal Tribunal definitely states that it is not a fact that the Appeal Tri- bunal were mislead by a statement made by the military representative, and that they refused to listen to the appellant's-explanation. As a matter of fact, the appellant gave evidence, and was examined by the chairman, and it was on his own statement that the tribunal dismissed the appeal. On the 3rd July an application was made by the firm's solicitor for a rehearing. I am informed that this was heard by the tribunal in private, and that the military representative was not present, and that the application was refused. The case does not appear to be one which should be reopened.

asked the Secretary for War whether he will consider the advisability of all medical certificates issued by medical boards under the Military Service Act being signed by the examining doctor, so that some responsibility may be taken for the decisions given and a more careful examination ensured?

The responsibility of decision rests with the Board and not with any individual member of it. No member of the Board, which usually consists of five doctors, can be rightly described as the examining doctor. Any man may be examined when necessary by more than one of the members. The certificates given to the men are prepared by the recruiting officer from the medical history sheet pre-pared by the Board. I can assure the hon. Member that in any case of a mistake it is quite easy to assign the responsibility correctly to the Board which examined the man.

Can the hon. Gentle-man give us the instructions upon which these medical boards are now acting?

I do not think that arises out of this question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that each person is actually examined by the medical board before they give their decision?

I think I can give that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why the Crowndale Road medical board passed A. G. Hopkins, of Charlotte Street, Islington, for general service, having regard to the fact that he is suffering from consumption and is a patient at Mount Vernon Hospital, Hampstead; why his examination was not postponed when he produced a certificate, but was only informed that the doctor who attended to consumptive cases had left; and (2) if he will ask for a report to be made by the military medical board sitting at Crowndale Road, N.W., on the examination of W. H. Spong, of Highbury Hill, whom they passed for general service, having regard to the fact that this man has had a severe fracture of his skull, which has been stitched up, that he has a fractured left arm, and is totally deaf in one ear; and will he say why, when the Islington Tribunal asked for a special examination to be made and the medical board made an appointment for Spong on 30th June at 9 a.m., when he attended no further examination was made?

The Under-Secretary of State is having inquiry made, and, with the hon. Member's permission, he will send him the results of his inquiries by letter.

Is it not the policy of the military authorities to get those men into the Army and see if they will crack up afterwards?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the sentences of death passed on conscientious objectors in France were widely known by private persons in this country before they were known to the War Office, and that this information was regarded as untrue, because legally impossible, by the representative of the War Office in this House; and whether he can make some statement to reassure the House that the Intelligence Department of the War Office is promptly and correctly informed of events relating to the Army in France?

The first part of the question seems to suggest, what is not the case, that these men were sentenced to death and then. after an interval, reprieved, whereas, in point of fact, the sentence was commuted to penal servitude and both sentence and commutation were promulgated together. It is quite possible that the news of this promulgation reached private persons in this country before the War Office, as the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full power to confirm sentences of courts- martial, and is under no obligation to refer cases to the War Office unless he is in doubt on any point. After promulgation of sentence the proceedings of all courts-martial are sent to the Judge Advocate-General for review. I see no reason to interfere with the existing arrangements.

Does the Prime Minister quite realise the point of my question which has been rather overlooked? May I point out that we had a statement about steel helmets in the House on one day when they were said to be sufficient, and a few days later it was said that they were not—

Order, order!

Has it not been stated again and again by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in this House that it was impossible that the death sentence could be imposed? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how his colleague came to mislead the House as he did?

What I believe the right hon. Gentleman said was that it would not necessarily be carried out.

If the Prime Minister will refer to the speech made by the President of the Local Government Board, on the 22nd March, in this House, he will see what the right hon. Gentleman said. When asked whether the death penalty would be imposed upon a conscientious objector, he replied, "Most certainly not."

asked the Secretary for War whether a sentry on guard was shot at and severely wounded by a sniper from an adjoining building in one of the main streets of Dublin on the 4th instant; and can he say to what extent the practice of sniping at the military is still prevalent in Dublin?

A sentry was wounded on 4th July in Fleet Street, Dublin, and the shot is supposed to have been fired from an adjoining house. This is the only such case known since the outbreak was quelled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the address of Judge Brown to the grand jury at the recent Quarter Sessions, at Manorhamilton, in which he said there was no necessity for the military coming into that district, and congratulated the jury on the peaceful state of the district; and, in view of that, whether the evidence, if any, on which the military dragged young men from their houses there and had them deported will be scrutinised as an example of the evidence on which numerous deportations have been carried out and the victims released and compensated?

I understand that the address referred to contained no allusion to the military coming into the district although it did state that the county remained peaceful. The evidence referred to in the second part of the question is a matter for the Advisory Committee.

asked the Home Secretary the reason of the delay in inquiring into cases of Civil servants who are suspended on suspicion of complicity in the recent rebellion in Ireland; and whether, in view of the hardships inflicted on the persons concerned, some of whom have been suspended for over two months though having had no connection with the rebellion, he will take steps to secure that their cases will be disposed of as soon as possible?

The collection of evidence in these cases is now approaching completion, and it is hoped that they will be disposed of at an early date.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that letters containing any complaints of bad treatment will not be allowed to pass the censor at Frongoch Camp; and if he will say what means will be at the disposal of Irish prisoners to make their grievances known?

Letters containing complaints of treatment are referred by the censor to the Commandant, who investigates the matter. Moreover, any man can address a complaint direct to the Commandant, who will give it his careful consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman afford opportunity to the people in- terned to make known the conditions of the camp and their grievances to friends outside?

I am informed that the conditions of the camp are excellent, and that the prisoners, who have been frequently interviewed on the subject, have no complaints whatever to make.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House under what law he denies interned prisoners the right of making complaints to outsiders, who are in a position to have them redressed?

They are interned under the ordinary conditions of internment.

Do those in power pre-vent them communicating with their friends outside, who have power to get their grievances redressed?

Yes.

asked the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the delay in opening the promised public inquiry into the murder of Thomas Hickey, Christopher Hickey, Peter Connolly, and others in North King Street, Dublin; when it is intended to open the inquiry; whether the soldiers concerned are in custody; and, in view of the necessary expenditure by the next-of-kin, poor people, in connection with the cases, whether their letters on the subject to friends in America, which have been stopped in the post, will be forwarded?

With regard to the first part of the question, I must repeat that no such promise has been given. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that, as has been frequently stated in the House of Commons, no letters to the United States of America or to any other neutral or allied country are stopped unless they contravene the Defence of the Realm Regulations or will be required as evidence in proceedings against the writer, the addressee, or a third person referred to in the letter.

Apart from the question of a promise will the right hon. Gentleman have the case of these non-combatant civilians inquired into when similar cases are being inquired into by a civil tribunal?

I have nothing to add to the answers I have given on several occasions.

Does that mean that they will not be inquired into?

asked the Prime Minister if he will say on what ground of distinction a public civil inquiry, promised into the shooting of some non-combatant civilians in Dublin, is refused in other cases exactly similar; whether the promised inquiry will be extended to all cases found to be similar; and, seeing that the non-combatant civilians Ernest Cavanagh, John Hewson, William Maguire, Harris, Casey, and Fowler, at their peaceful pursuits, were, without warning, shot dead in the Eden Quay area; does the fact that that area comprises Liberty Hall deprive the relatives of these non-combatants of the right of inquiry which they would otherwise have?

The first part of the question is based on a misunderstanding which I explained in answering the hon. Member's previous question. With regard to the last part of the question, I may say that such information as I have received does not lead me to think that any inquiry is called for in this matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on the last occasion these were mentioned he justified the shooting of these non-combatant civilians on the ground that they were in the neighbourhood of Liberty Hall, and why should the fact of a non-combatant being in the neighbourhood of Liberty Hall on peaceful business justify anyone in shooting him?

Certainly one, if not two, of these men was shot by the rebels.

Why does the Government assume two totally different policies, one with regard to men remotely connected with the rising, and in the other case taking no notice whatever of cases where innocent men have been deliberately shot, and who had no participation what-ever in the affair?

That does not arise out of the question

asked the Prime Minister if he will cause particulars of the private inquiry held by the military into the North King Street shootings to be made public, including the evidence, in order that Dublin citizens may be satisfied in reference to the matter?

This matter is under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that public appeals are being made in the United States for funds to alleviate the distress in Ireland of families whose supporters have been deported or killed; and whether he will obviate the necessity for such action by taking steps to give adequate compensation to those men who were arrested and subsequently released as innocent?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 22nd June to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin.

asked the Prime Minister whether any of the officers engaged in the rising in Ireland or holding any position in Ireland since the rising took any part in the Jameson raid?

So far as can be ascertained without instituting very elaborate inquiries the answer to the question is in the negative.

asked (1) the reason why the name of the young aviator who shot down Immelmann, the Fokker champion, has been suppressed by the Press Bureau; and (2) why the names of airmen who have distinguished themselves are not allowed to appear in the Press?

asked the Secretary for War, who were the British aviators who succeeded in bringing down the German, Captain Immelmann; and if he will say why their names have not been already published?

As I stated yesterday, it has not been customary to mention in communiqués the names of officers or soldiers who perform acts of gallantry, but I may inform hon. Members that the matter is being further considered in consultation with the military authorities in France. With reference to Question 14, I would add that the name of the aviator who brought down Captain Immelmann was not communicated to the Press Bureau for publication, and that consequently there is no question of the bureau having suppressed the name.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the name was actually sent by the "Daily Chronicle" representative to that paper and suppressed by the Press Censor, and that the name was Second Lieutenant McCubbin, aged eighteen and a half years?

I am not aware of that. I was dealing with the allegation that the name had been suppressed by the Press Bureau.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us some indication as to what is the objection to giving the names?

If my right hon. and learned Friend will cast his mind back to the earlier days of the War, he will remember—I think I am right—that it was the expressed desire of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps that no mention of individual names should be made.

Would it not be desirable, on the same grounds, to withhold the names of those upon whom the Victoria Cross is conferred?

The names of those upon whom the Victoria Cross is conferred are communicated by the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief, of course, will name any person whom he thinks specially deserving.

Why should an exception be made in regard to these flying officers?

For one thing, I do not think the flying officers want it, and, in the second place, it is a matter which, I think, ought to be left largely in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received complaints that adequate attention is not being paid to the dental requirements of our troops at the front; whether the services of qualified professional dentists who are enlisted are refused by the Army medical authorities, and these educated men, whose services are much needed both in the Army and in the civilian population at Home, are passed into the ranks as ordinary soldiers; and whether the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops are far better served in regard to dentistry than our own British troops?

All applications for dental surgeons with our troops at home or abroad have been fully and promptly met. There is a large waiting list of candidates for dental commissions, and each application is considered in the order in which it was received. Preference is given to candidates who have voluntarily enlisted in the Army. There is no reason to think the British are less well served in the matter of dentistry than other troops, and I am not aware of any complaints that dental requirements are receiving inadequate attention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the purchasing power of the sovereign was on 1st March, 1915 and 1916, as compared with its purchasing power on 1st March, 1914?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. The average percentage increase in cost of food, clothing, etc. (including rent), is estimated to have been 16 per cent. between March, 1914, and March, 1915, and 33 per cent. between March, 1914, and March, 1916—in other words, it would have required a sovereign in March, 1916, to purchase an amount of the above commodities which would have cost 17s. 3d. in March, 1915, or 15s. in March, 1914.

Does that mean that the old age pension is now worth only 3s. 9d. a week?

The hon. Member can make the calculation for himself.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any provision has been made in Scotland for the training of discharged soldiers in agricultural work; and whether any men are now being so trained

A scheme for a training hostel in Easter Ross is under consideration, and two agricultural colleges have stated that they are prepared to offer facilities for the training of discharged soldiers; but the difficulty of residence has to be overcome. At present the West of Scotland College is giving instruction to a few discharged soldiers. The whole matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any and, if so, what arrangements have been made for the release of labour necessary for the completion of the sanatorium at Hallmyres at which it is proposed that disabled soldiers should be trained for agricultural work?

My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the local authority regarding this matter and has taken steps which give him reason to hope that additional labour may be obtained for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an institution which has offered to take a number of discharged soldiers for training in agricultural work?

Perhaps my hon. Friend is quite correct. I was not aware of that.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, if he will say what provision has been made for the training of disabled soldiers in agricultural work at the agricultural colleges or otherwise; and whether any men are now being so trained.

In October last the Board obtained the approval of the Treasury to a scheme for giving a free course of training at an agricultural college to fifty disabled sailors or soldiers. Applications were invited in the Press and through the various naval and military societies, but there have been very few applicants. Fifteen men have been or are now being trained at Holmes Chapel. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of a notice of the scheme which has been widely circulated amongst those likely to be concerned.

Why is not this in charge of a Sub-Committee of the Statutory Committee? Why, if the Committee can deal with discharged soldiers, should it refuse to deal with blind soldiers?

Before the Committee came into existence it was carried on by the same organisation.

asked when the Reports of the Scottish Local Government Board and of the Land Court will be published?

The Local Government Board's Report will be published tomorrow. The printing of the Land Court's Report has been delayed this year owing to a fire at the printer's, which destroyed much of the type and manuscript, but it is hoped that the Report will be published next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the provisions in the constitutions of the respective West African Colonies which make it legal for the governors to secure powers from the legislative councils to increase, by Order in Council, taxes to any amount they think desirable without further recourse to the legislative councils?

There is nothing in the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions constituting the Legislative Councils of the several Colonies which limits their powers in this matter.

asked what were the selling prices of palm kernels in each of the five years preceding the War in our several West African Colonies, and the prices for the same in each of the years of the War up to the latest date; and what were the selling prices in this country at the corresponding dates?

I have no official information which would enable me to aniswer this question, but I am having inquiries made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consult local opinion in the West African Colonies before he presses upon the several Legislative Councils of those Colonies the immediate imposition of a duty of £2 per ton and upwards on the principal export of those Colonies?

The proposal to impose the duty has been given full publicity, and there will be ample time for local opinion to express itself through the usual channels before the proposal becomes law.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Colonies, as far as West Africa is concerned, are strongly in favour of this tax?

I have no reason to doubt it.

asked how many Sinhalese were in prison untried on the 11th August, 1915, when Mr. Harry Creasy, European member of the Legislative Council, urged the immediate enactment of the measure to bring to trial or release imprisoned citizens; how many of those have been tried in the special tribunal then created; why all have not been brought before that tribunal; and whether any of those untried prisoners are still in prison untried?

I have not got this information in my possession, but I will ask for it.

I have not heard of the memorial, but will make inquiries on the subject.

Will effect be given to the request of the chiefs?

We must see the memorial before any indication of intention can be given.

Will the wishes of the populace as well as those of the two chiefs be considered?

The whole circumstances of the case will, of course, be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the advantage afforded to aliens interned in this country of receiving visits from representatives of the American Government, followed by ameliorative consequences, whether the Government have considered the reasonableness of granting a similar privilege to untried English women and men interned in this country; and whether the American Government will be invited to send an official visitor to investigate and report on the condition of those English persons?

I see no reason to adopt the course suggested. The American Government is not charged with the interests of prisoners other than Germans or Austrians.

Is not the American Government as much interested in prisons in this country as in Germany?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the memorial of the Omanhene and Chiefs of Eastern Akim, Gold Coast, presented to the Governor in April last, praying for the exclusion of the sale of rum from their area; whether the Governor declined to accede to their request; whether there is any reason why this petition should not be granted; and, if not, whether he will give instructions accordingly?

asked whether Baron Emile d'Erlanger is a naturalised British subject; if so, what was his nationality before he became a British subject; and has he obtained a Royal licence to bear the title of baron?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On application for naturalisation in 1891 this gentleman stated that he was the subject of no foreign State, having been released from German nationality. He was born in France of German parents. I understand that he has not obtained a Royal licence to use the title of baron, and that it is not therefore officially recognised.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a domiciliary visit was paid on 1st July to a house in Lexham Gardens, and that among other papers taken away was an account of a speech on education delivered before the War by Sir Victor Horsley, F.R.S.; whether especial suspicion attaches to the pre-war utterances or subsequent conduct of this gentleman; and whether this document will now be returned to the owner?

I am informed that a visit was paid on 1st July to a house in Lexham Gardens and papers were taken for examination, but I understand that no such document as that referred to was seen or was among the papers taken away.

As this was a valuable document which was taken, will steps be taken to return it?

It cannot be returned if it was not taken.

asked the Home Secretary of State whether he is aware that on 1st July a domiciliary visit was paid by the police to a house in Lexham Gardens; whether it was acting upon his instructions that the police took away a number of papers, including lectures on education and other matters totally unconnected with the War, the military position, or existing conditions, and mostly written or printed before 1914; why large packets of note-paper and printed forms were thrown into utter confusion on the floor and trodden underfoot; why the lady's bedroom was similarly treated and cigarette ends and tobacco ash left freely on furniture; and whether, no charge having been made against the occupier of these premises, he will say whether peaceable subjects must expect similar treatment?

The visit in question was, I understand, made by the police in the execution of their duties under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. As soon as the printed matter seized had been examined the bulk of it was returned to the owner. I am assured that the police were not responsible for any occurrence such as is described in the last part but one of the question.

As I myself visited those-premises a short time ago, may I be-allowed to give my personal experience?.

No, no!

Perhaps the hon. Member will narrate his personal experiences in the Lobby.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on 3rd April, 1916, a petition signed by 223 Members of the House of Commons, and supported by the High Commissioners, respectively, of the Commonwealth of Australia and of the Dominion of New Zealand, was presented to the President of the Board of Trade praying that the plum-age of wild birds should be placed under the shipping prohibition of luxuries; that in 1915 648,888 lbs. of these feathers were imported, the vast majority of which were charged freight by measurement, and being in the raw state were very bulky; whether, although the warehouses are already choked with supplies, these feathers continue to be imported; and whether, in view of the fact that the import of so many necessaries of life has been prohibited owing to the scarcity of tonnage, anything has been done to prohibit the import of the feathers of wild birds as unnecessary luxury?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The figures are, of course, exclusive of the much larger imports of ostrich feathers. As to the state of the warehouses, I have no information. On general grounds I am, personally, in sympathy with the proposal to prohibit the importation of these feathers; but, in view of the very special object with which the present restrictions on import have been imposed, namely, the saving of tonnage space, I feel that there would be considerable objection to a proposal to utilise them for a quite different purpose, which is likely to involve controversy.

Would not this prohibition liberate a great quantity of tonnage—as these goods are sent by measurement and not by weight—for other articles required in the United Kingdom?

To a very small amount.

What grounds has the hon. Gentleman for supposing that a controversy would arise on this point

From the former history of the question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that E. Gerbel Strover, the late manager of the British Abrasive Wheel Company, Sheffield, has recently been interned, he will now notify the Admiralty and the War Office that this company is now entirely under British control?

I am afraid I cannot undertake to notify other Departments of the internment of an alien enemy manager of a business. Probably any company so situated would be willing and able to make such a notification on its own behalf and in its own interest.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that I have asked numerous questions for the purpose of getting this company struck off and you have now got rid of the manager?

This company had only a minority of Germans interested in it, and always the majority were British. We have now got rid of the German manager.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the freights now levied by ship-owners is a principal factor in the price of coal and other commodities in Dublin; and whether the Government will take measures to enable a more moderate profit to shipowners in the interest of consumers?

I am, of course, aware that freights are an important factor in the price of seaborne commodi- ties. As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 22nd June all practicable steps are being taken, and will continue to be taken, to alleviate the tonnage difficulty.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what are the practical steps which are being taken, because the people in Dublin are complaining of these freights and their commerce is practically stopped?

Our practice is to direct the tonnage, as far as possible, to those particular trades and those particular places where they are most required.

Have not the Board of Trade power to prevent the shipowners from charging the extraordinary freights for coal which they demand?

Not except under the terms I indicated just now, or by taking the ships and putting them under Government control.

Could not some of the captured vessels be used for the Dublin coal trade?

I will look into that.

asked the Prime Minister why American newspapers are prevented from entering Ireland; if he is aware of the meetings held daily in all parts of America to demand better treatment and the release of the Irish prisoners; and what steps, if any, he will take to satisfy their wishes?

I am informed that no distinction is made, so far as the censorship of newspapers is concerned, between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The great majority of American newspapers enter the United Kingdom freely, but if any are stopped they are stopped for military reasons.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, inquiring what steps they are taking to meet the wishes of the American people with regard to the release of Irish prisoners? Has not the Advisory Committee made any recommendations yet?

I am afraid not. The present practice has been thoroughly considered, and I do not think there is any intention to make any departure from it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case of the five young ladies was tried over fourteen days ago, and do the Advisory Committee intend to make any recommendation with regard to those ladies?

I do not think that that has anything to do with the War Office, and it does not arise out of this question.

asked the Prime Minister if he will say why the official account of the first terms offered by Patrick H. Pearse prior to surrender is still withheld, and none published but an unconditional surrender alleged to have been signed by him when in custody; whether he has seen the last republican bulletin, dated 29th April, 1916, stating that, believing that the stand that had been made by the soldiers of Irish freedom during the previous five days had been sufficient to gain recognition of Ireland's national claim at an international peace conference, and being desirous of preventing fruitless slaughter of the civil population and to save the lives of as many as possible of their followers, the members of the provisional government present had agreed by a majority to open negotiations with the British commander, which was signed by P. H. Pearse, commanding-in-chief; whether he will give the House the text of Mr. Pearse's first communication to the military in pursuance of that bulletin, and of the reply from the military; whether all who knew the terms first offered and accepted before surrender have since been executed; whether it was to prevent his making those terms known that, differing from the other leaders, no one now living was allowed to see Mr. Pearse before his execution; whether his desire to see his mother was effectually denied; whether his desire to see his brother William, subsequently executed, was effectually denied; if there was any motive for this exceptional seclusion other than to prevent the terms of surrender becoming known, what was it; and whether, now that the exigencies of the time are past, he will, in justice to Mr. Pearse, state the terms first offered by him before surrender and the military reply to that first offer?

Order! I beg to ask Question No. 53 of the Prime Minister?

Order!

If the hon. Gentleman does not wish the question to be answered—

Yes; this question is too important. Does the Prime Minister shirk it?

The Prime Minister has asked the representative of the War Office to reply.

I have not. I beg to ask the Prime Minister Question No. 53?

( subsequently ): I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether, when a Member thinks a question which he has on the Paper is of sufficient importance to get an answer from the Minister to whom it is addressed, that Member is not entitled to have an answer. If he is, under what Standing Order do you deny me that right?

If a question is ad-dressed to a Minister and the Minister has not the information in his office, he naturally asks that Minister who has the information in his office to give the reply. If the hon. Member who asks for the in-formation will not accept it from the Minister who has it in his office, there is no object in repeating the question or putting it down again.

May I ask you further, when the object of the Prime Minister is known to you and to all in the House to be a deliberate shirking of the question, is it not straining the rules of the House to facilitate him in that? Further, if he is not in a position to answer the question to-day, may I ask under what Order you deny me the right of postponing the question until to-morrow for the Prime Minister's convenience?

The hon. Member declined to accept the answer from the Minister who had the information and was prepared to give the answer. That being so, I have asked the Clerks at the Table not to accept the question again from the hon Member.

Is there any means open to a Member of the House to get an answer to a question of that character and in such circumstances? If there is, I desire to know it, and I will pursue it.

The hon. Member had his chance. I gave him two opportunities, and he declined to avail himself of them.

It is not yet a quarter to four o'clock. I will take the answer now.

As the hon. Member was informed on 23rd May, P. H. Pearse neither proposed nor asked for any terms before surrender. This being so, the remainder of the question does not arise.

Does the Prime Minister deny this House and the man he has got shot in cold blood the right of vindication?

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his Department has prohibited the importation of bulbs and flower roots into this country on the ground of ship tonnage requirements, while at the same time permitting the importation of cut flowers in large quantity; and will he say why this preference is given to the manufactured article over the raw material, in view of the fact that the Government calls for the greater utilisation of the land of this country?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for East Grinstead on the 1st June, of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether he sanctioned the action of the Central Liquor Control Board in getting exemption from military ser-vice for eight barmen of military age in Annan, on the ground that the Board is a Government Department entitled to demand exemption for them; whether his attention has been drawn to the protests of the members of the Appeal Court upon this claim of the Liquor Control Board; whether, in view of the need for men and the sacrifices made by every section of the community in parting with men, he will allow the claims of the sale of liquor to rank above those of every other section of the community, including the State itself; and what action he proposes to take?

With regard to exemptions from military service the Board are acting in accordance with the Treasury and War Office Circulars addressed to Government Departments. The policy is to release all employés of military age as soon as possible, but in view of the importance of improving the conditions as regards drink in certain areas of importance in connection with the War, they have treated some men as temporarily indispensable until substitutes for them can be provided. Among these are three, not eight, barmen (of whom one will be forty-one this month). I understand that a question was raised before the Appeal Tribunal by a member of the local tribunal, and that the position of the Board was explained to the Appeal Tribunal.

Is the Central Control Board in fact a Government Department, and, if so, what is the object of the Clause in the Acquisition of Land Bill?

That should be addressed to the Treasury or the War Office.

If it is, why is legislation required to make it a Government. Department?

I do not think that arises out of this question.