asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will amalgamate the naval engineer department and abolish the distinction now existing between the new and old style naval engineer, seeing that these gentlemen are now working side by side but have different titles and different uniforms; and if he will consider whether the present state of war forms an admirable opportunity for an amalgamation?

Present arrangements as regards the officers referred to are found to work quite satisfactorily. It is therefore not proposed to make any change therein.

asked what are the corresponding commissioned ranks in the Navy, as compared with the Army, who will benefit by the concessions recently given to subalterns enabling them to put in a claim for a grant to meet rent and other liabilities?

The commissioned ranks in the Royal Navy corresponding to subalterns in the Army are sub-lieutenants, engineer sub-lieutenants, and assistant paymasters under four years' seniority. Officers of the Royal Marines hold ranks similar to officers of the Army. The ranks named will be eligible for the same concessions as subalterns in the Army.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to let that be known in the Navy? I think that it is not known in the Navy, though it is known in the Army.

If this answer does not give sufficient publicity I will do so.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that owing to the action of the Admiralty the contractors of the Post Office have abandoned their contract for the conveyance of the Orkney mail and now demand a 50 per cent. increase for a greatly reduced and unsatisfactory service; and whether he will consent to carrying mails by the Admiralty on the days when the mail boat does not run?

Naval requirements have necessitated a change in the route specified in the Post Office contract, and it is understood that the service has been reduced by the General Post Office to three days a week instead of six. I am afraid the Admiralty cannot undertake the carrying of mails as suggested in the latter part of the question.

In consideration of the circumstances of the case will the Admiralty discuss with the Postmaster-General the commandeering of a ship for this purpose of public use?

I cannot undertake to carry mails.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American Government has sent an inspector, or has been asked to send one, to inquire into the condition of untried prisoners and internees, British and Belgian, in prisons and penitentiary internment camps in this country; if so, whether such an inspector will be invited to visit the penitentiary camp in which Belgians are detained at Reading; and, if not, will he say why this is not to be done?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There is no ground for adopting the course suggested.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? Why will this not be done?

I have answered that. There is no ground.

asked whether any and, if so, what precautions are taken to secure that all prisoners returned from Germany in exchange for German prisoners in England are bonâ-fide British citizens, without hostile origin or association.

All persons proceeding to this country from the Continent must be supplied with passports which require the visa of the British Consular Officer at the port of embarkation. The passports and other documents carried by persons arriving in this country from the Continent are closely scrutinised at the port of arrival by officials of the Home Office and War Office, who take all possible steps to prevent persons of enemy nationality entering the country.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic position is now filled at The Hague by Sir Francis Oppenheimer; whether this gentleman is a person of hostile origin or association; if he is aware that members of Sir Francis Oppenheimer's family have remained at Frankfurt-am-Main since the outbreak of war; and if he will say why British interests in neutral countries are not entrusted exclusively to men of British birth and association?

Sir Francis Oppenheimer is at The Hague in virtue of his appointment as Commercial Attaché to His Majesty's Legation, which he has held since January, 1912, with the personal rank of Acting Counsellor in the Diplomatic Service. He is a natural-born British subject, his father having come to this country in 1855, and having been naturalised in 1864. I am not aware that members of Sir F. Oppenheimer's family have remained at Frankfort-am-Main, though I understand that his mother was required to leave that city by the German authorities. His Majesty's Government consider him exceptionally qualified for his appointment, and have the highest opinion of his services to this country, the value of which it would be difficult to overestimate.

The Noble Lord has not answered the last part of the question—why British interests in neutral countries are not entrusted exclusively to men of British birth and association?

He is of British birth and association. He is entrusted with these duties because His Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that no one could discharge them better.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has obtained and will make available to those interested in the promotion of peat industries in Ireland after the War any of the information frequently asked regarding the working of such industries in other countries, especially in Sweden, the nature of the bogs, conditions of labour, number employed, processes, cost of Anrep and other machinery, output, facilities of transit, value, and financial results for the latest period for which these are available; if not, whether any deputation is being sent to Sweden to study those things there; and, if not, whether facilities will be afforded to private inquirers to go to Sweden for this purpose?

As I informed the Hon. Member on 23rd March, this matter cannot be inquired into at this moment by officials who are already most heavily burdened by the extra work entailed by the War; but inquiries will certainly be made after the termination of hostilities. So far as I am aware no deputation is being sent to Sweden to study the question, but if any competent and properly accredited private individuals wish to go there for this purpose His Majesty's Minister at Stockholm will, of course, afford them all proper assistance.

asked whether the Foreign Office rule still obtains that Germans of military age, being subject to military service, are to be regarded as members of the enemy's forces and liable to capture if found on board neutral ships; and, if that rule has been modified or abrogated, what are the reasons of the change, regard being had to the fact that any modification will release thousands of German reservists now resident in the United States and the South American Republics?

No change is contemplated in connection with the rule or practice referred to in the question. His Majesty's Government believe that that practice is in full accordance with the Law of Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the auction sales of arrack rents for Ceylon have produced over £70,000 more for the year 1916–17 than for the previous year, and that every district shows an increase except Negombo, Western Province; whether this is the only district where the temperance movement has continued in active existence; whether, throughout nearly the whole of Ceylon, temperance meetings have ceased to be held owing to the fear of the people of incurring the displeasure of the Government; and whether he can cause an announcement to be made that the Ceylonese may resume their temperance work with the approval of the Government?

I have not yet received the figures for the year 1916–17, but the Estimates for the current year show a decrease of Rs.550,000 in the revenue from arrack, rum, and toddy licences as compared with the previous year. The attitude of the Ceylon Government towards legitimate temperance work has been fully explained in the Legislative Council and in published correspondence, and I have no reason to believe that misapprehension now exists.

asked whether Mr. V. L. Samarasinghe, of Baddegama, Ceylon, a petition drawer by profession, and certified by Mr. Robert Bailey Hellings to have an excellent knowledge of English, is one of the persons whom he alleges to be illiterate and not responsible for his affidavit made before a magistrate on the 7th July, 1915, setting forth certain illegalities practised upon him by the military and police; whether the new trial ordered by Chief Justice Wood Renton in this man's case, on account of the conviction without evidence in the first trial, has yet been held; whether any form of redress has been given to Mr. Samarasinghe; and what explanation Sir Robert Chalmers has given of this case?

I have read the affidavit in question. I have received no separate report in this case; but, since it appears that it received the careful consideration of the Chief Justice of Ceylon, I see no sufficient reason for intervening in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that farmers in Scotland found much greater difficulty in getting soldier help at their harvests than did farmers in England; that practically all the applications in England were satisfactorily dealt with, whereas few of the demands of the Scottish farmers succeeded in getting the desired assistance; will he say why this was so; and whether any arrangements are being made this year by his Department whereby soldiers will be available in greater numbers in Scotland?

I have not seen any figures which bear out what is stated in the first part of the question, nor is there any record of complaints having been received to that effect. I do not think it is the case that all applications in England were met. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that the arrangements this year are the same for England and for Scotland, and a report has been received from the Scottish command which has been in communication with the Scottish Board of Agriculture, that the arrangements are considered satisfactory.

May we rely on getting this soldier help for the harvest in Scotland?

I should hope so.

asked whether men of military age who were examined by the medical board for their district before 1st June last and passed for garrison service only are exempt from immediate service, and have received notice that they will not be called up till 30th August next, while men who were so examined and passed since 1st June last are liable to be called up immediately; and, if so, what is the reason for this difference of treatment based merely on the date of the medical board's examination, which may result in the immediate calling up of men, passed for garrison service only, attested as long ago as 1915, but who did not go before the medical board until after 1st June last, while a man who attested on, say 30th May, who went before the medical board on 31st May, and was passed for similar service, is not called up till 30th August or after?

The requirements of the Army change from time to time, and in the beginning of June it was found to be necessary to take the men fit for garrison duty, and it may be that owing to the changing exigencies of the Service there have been some inequalities of treatment, such as the hon. Member has in mind. But amongst those who have not yet been called up the younger unattested men will be taken first.

asked whether the temporary exemption of men, passed for garrison service, applies to unattested men as well as attested ones, if they were examined by the medical board before 1st June last; and does it make any difference if such men go before the medical board first and attest afterwards?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, subject to the proviso that the men must have received a certificate of exemption. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but I would point out that there are comparatively few men who can still attest and join a group. There are only those who were previously rejected as unfit and lads who were born in 1898, and who have not yet attained their eighteenth birthday.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Thomas Merrick, a conscientious objector at Bristol, who had declined to join the Army and was living at home liable to arrest, was induced by a Mr. Brownrigg, acting for the recruiting authorities, to go to the recruiting office to see a Major Carr, on a pledge that he would not be detained there; that Merrick did this and was then arrested, and was thereby deprived of the civil trial he would otherwise have been entitled to; and will he take such steps as will reinstate Merrick in his right to have the question of his arrest decided by the Bristol magistrates?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been a widespread outbreak of scabies among the soldiers in Dublin during the last few weeks; and, if so, whether this has been traced to the uncleanliness of the bedclothes used; and whether any precautions are now being taken in Dublin and elsewhere to have the blankets, etc., thoroughly cleansed at much more frequent intervals?

asked (1) whether Willoughby Perrin, No. 4992, a conscientious objector conscripted into A Company, 2/7th Cheshire Regiment, now at Old Warden, Bedford, was forcibly vaccinated in June, his arms being held by soldiers whilst the operation was per performed; seeing that this was a violation of the undertaking given to this House, whether the officer who performed this operation will be punished, and what disciplinary measures will be taken with officers guilty of such conduct in future; (2) whether he is aware that Private William Good, No. 24495, 3rd Battalion K.S.L.I., G Company, who joined the Colours on Friday, 2nd June, and was sent to Pembroke Dock, whilst suffering from inflamed arm and sore throat following vaccination, was compelled to attend drill on 20th June, when he complained of giddiness, became unconscious, and died in Pembroke Hospital without re covering consciousness at five o'clock the next morning, 21st June, and that in the last letter received from him by his wife four days before his death he complained of his suffering from vaccination; whether he was buried without an inquest, though his wife, had been informed that an in quest would be held; whether, after his burial on 24th June, she was informed that the cause of death was meningitis, though the illness resulting in death commenced with vaccination; and whether any and, if so, what compensation the widow will receive for the loss of her husband in the Army service; and (3) whether he is aware that smallpox recently broke out among the ⅙th Battalion Essex Regiment, C Company, encamped in Egypt, that out of seven men in one tent two vaccinated men, Corporal Jackson and Private Edrey, contracted the disease, that the only unvaccinated and uninoculated man in the tent, Private Crofts, escaped infection, and that Private Crofts was selected, by his own desire, to nurse the small-pox patients for three days pending their removal to the base hospital; whether he is aware that two other men subsequently fell victims to fever and were nursed a further three days by Private Crofts in an isolation tent; whether, in view of these facts, it is still maintained by the War Office that un vaccinated and uninoculated men are a danger to their comrades; and whether he will honour the last promise given by Lord Kitchener that no pressure should be put upon conscientious objectors to vaccination and inoculation by punishing officers guilty of using such pressure?

Inquiry will be made about the matter dealt with in these questions, and with the permission of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State will send them the results of the inquiries by letter.

asked the Home-Secretary whether he is able to state the progress that has been made with regard to the arrangements for the conscientious objectors to military service who have been transferred to civil prisons from the Army?

The Committee appointed by me have now, practically completed the necessary arrangements for the transfer from prison to work of national importance of those men whose objection to military service may be held to be genuine by the Central Appeal Tribunal. The arrangements can be put into operation as soon as the cases are dealt with by the tribunal.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a report on the case of Mr. Sidney J. C. Warr, of Southend, who made his claim for exemption before the Appeal Tribunal on Saturday, 17th June, and on the 24th received a telegram from the tribunal granting him leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal, but not withstanding that he had returned his calling-up paper to the recruiting officer with the information that he was appealing to the Central Tribunal was arrested on 27th June as an absentee; and what steps he is taking to remedy the injustice that has been done?

I have received a report from the Southend Recruiting Office about a man of the name of Warr whose Christian names are Reginald Moss Newport. This man does not seem to be identical with the man named in the question, who does not appear to be known. If Reginald Moss Newport Warr is the man in whom the hon. Member is interested, the particulars contained in the report will be sent to him by letter, with his permission.

It is not the same person at all. The facts given refer to a different person.

I said I did not take it that it was the same person, but further inquiries will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for War why men who are corporals when in France are reverted to privates when they return to this country?

If men who have been made substantive corporals have been reverted to the rank of private on return to this country this would be wrong. If my hon. Friend will send particulars of any cases he has in mind to the War Office by letter, inquiry will be made with a view to rectification of errors if there have been any. It occurs to me, however, that my hon. Friend may be referring to men who have been given the acting rank of corporal. The essence of acting rank is that it is only held while the duties of the acting rank are actually performed. Acting rank is given up if the soldier comes home and ceases to perform the duties of the rank in which he had been appointed to act.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction, not only amongst the soldiers but among their relatives at their being reduced?

I am afraid that is one of the drawbacks attaching to acting-rank.

asked the Prime Minister whether, considering that since the Military Service Act is now in force and the scheme for making grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities has been applied to all lieutenants and second lieutenants joining the Army,' and to the fact that conditions are now entirely different from those existing at the commencement of the War, he will reconsider the decision of the Government in the case of those Civil servants whose desire to join the Forces of the Crown for the War has not been acceded to on account of the cost to the State involved in making up their military pay to the amount of their Civil Service salaries at the time of joining?

All Civil servants are released for military service if, and as soon as, they can be spared from their ordinary duties, and in no case has permission to join the Forces been refused on account of the cost to the State involved in making up military pay to the amount of civil pay. As my hon. and gallant Friend was informed on the 6th instant, the Government do not think that the change in the conditions since the outbreak of war would justify an alteration of the present arrangements as regards the pay of Civil servants when serving with the Colours.

Is this not constituting a privileged class among young Government clerks who arc being treated differently from all others?

I do not think so. The terms offered by some great municipal authorities are more generous

asked the Home Secretary whether the decision of the Government, recently announced, that men of Allied nationality must either join the British Army or be deported to their own country is irrevocable, or will it need the sanction of Parliament; can he give any estimate of the existing number of Russian Jews who have sought asylum in this country because they are denied religious and political rights in their own; and is he aware that there are hundreds of such men in Manchester and Salford, most of whom have settled there to enjoy freedom of conscience?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave yesterday on this subject. I have no information that would enable me to give an estimate of numbers such as is asked for in the second part of the question.

Is legislative sanction required for the deportation of these people?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary for War (1) whether a pension will be granted to Private John Powders, No. 5032, Leinster Regiment, who was discharged from the Army on the 5th May, 1916, as physically unfit for war service; whether he is aware that Powders served sixteen years in the Army before reenlisting on the 27th July, 1915, and took part in the South African Campaign; whether, in arriving at the amount of his pension, his full service in the Army will be taken into consideration; (2) whether he is aware that Sapper James Gunne, No. 40375, Royal Engineers, who was discharged from the Army on the 20th December, 1915, as physically unfit for war service, having contracted rheumatism as a result of wettings received while in the Army, has been in receipt of a weekly payment of 10s. 9d. up to the 20th June, 1916; if he will state why the weekly payment to Gunne, who has a wife and six children to support, has now been reduced to 4s. 6d. per week; and (3) whether he is aware that Private Christopher Dunbar, No. 2466, Leinster Regiment, who was discharged from the Army last year, having lost his right leg, has been in receipt of a pension of 25s. per week until May last; and if he will state why the pension of Dunbar, who has an aged father dependent on him, has now been reduced to 12s. 6d. per week?

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

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private Michael M'Loughlin, No. 22691, Dublin Fusiliers, 3rd battalion, will not attain the age of sixteen years until the 1st December next; if he is aware that the boy's birth certificate was forwarded to his commanding officer last January; whether M'Loughlin is now in France or on his way thereto; and whether this boy will be forthwith discharged from the Army?

I am not aware whether the facts as stated are correct; but inquiries will be made, and if the statement of Private M'Loughlin's age is found to be correct he will be forthwith discharged from the Army.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether he has any complaints from Scotland, and in particular from Argyleshire, as to the members of tribunals moving for and influencing exemption for their own tenants so that such members of tribunals may be ensured their rents during the currency of the War; and, if so, will he circularise tribunals that men with pecuniary interests in the cases ought not to sit on them while these cases are being tried?

The answer to the first portion of the question is in the negative. As regards the second portion, the regulations and instructions under which the tribunals work provide that a member shall not take part in the consideration of or vote upon any question relating to an application in the decision of which he is personally interested. This being so, further instructions would only be redundant.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in one case a tradesman who was a tenant of one of the members of the tribunal was exempted, whilst a competitor in business, who had been much longer in business, was sent into the Army?

I am not aware of that, but if my hon. and learned Friend will give me particulars I will inquire.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that lawyers and factors on tribunals speak for their servants and their clinets?

No, I am not aware of that, but if my hon. and learned Friend will follow the example of my other hon. and learned Friend I will inquire.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a soldier who can prove to the satisfaction of the authorities that he supported his mother prior to enlistment, but who, whether through negligence or through some relative supporting his mother, omitted to apply for a dependant's allowance for her till after December, 1915, is now prohibited from applying for an allowance?

The rule referred to by the hon. Member is not interpreted harshly, and many cases are favourably considered in which, owing to a genuine misunderstanding or some exceptional circumstances, the soldier omitted to claim separation allowance within the time prescribed in Regulations.

If the soldier can show to the satisfaction of the military authorities that his parent was, as a matter of fact, dependent upon him, although he has delayed making application for the allowance, will he receive the allowance in that case?

Yes, I think in that case we should certainly allow the claim.

The question which I asked was, if the soldier can show to the satisfaction of the military authorities that his parent was dependent on him as a matter of fact before he enlisted, will they then grant the allowance, even although he delayed making an application?

Yes, I think so—certainly.

In that case, will the allowance be retrospective, or is the hon. Gentleman only referring to the future?

I think it will have to date from the time when the application was made.

asked whether a time-expired man who, before the passing of the second Military Service Act, voluntarily reenlisted for another term of service is penalised as compared with a new recruit by being prohibited from applying for a separation allowance for his dependants, if he had not already done so, even if he can prove prewar dependence?

If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of time-expired men who voluntarily reenlisted and who are desirous of claiming separation allowance for their dependants, the cases will be specially considered on their merits. It is not the intention that they should be penalised.

( by Private Notice ) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the President of the Board of Trade on the 25th May invited the Labour party and also the National Union of Railwaymen to co-operate in the setting up of a committee for the purpose of dealing with cases arising out of the Military Service Act; that the offer was accepted by the National Union of Railwaymen, who have made every effort to bring the suggested committee into existence, but that the railway companies definitely refuse to give effect to the suggestion, with the result that preferential treatment in the release of railwaymen for military service is taking place in all parts of the country; and, having regard to the importance of this question and the determination of the men to resist any unfair treatment, whether he will take immediate steps to give effect to the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade?

I am aware that the President of the Board of Trade wrote to both the Labour party and the National Union of Railwaymen, asking them whether they would approve of and cooperate in the setting up of committees to deal with the enlistment of railwaymen on similar lines to colliery tribunals. These latter were represented as composed of miners and coalowners or managers in equal numbers, but I find that the tribunal consists of the District Inspector of Mines with two assessors representing the men and the management, and nothing exactly equivalent would be possible in the case of the railways.

The President's illness, unfortunately, occurred before he had had an opportunity of inviting the assistance of the railway companies in the matter, but communications passed between the Board of Trade and the Railway Executive Committee. The Committee drew up recommendations to the individual companies, and I understand that copies of these recommendations were given to representatives of the National Union of Railwaymen at a meeting on the 29th June.

Subsequently the National Union of Railwaymen were informed by the Board of Trade that if there were any alterations in the circular which they would wish to suggest, the Railway Committee would be quite willing to meet them for the purpose of discussing such amendments, and would further consider with them what course should be taken in the event of instances occurring in which the recommendations were not observed.

I understand that a meeting took place this morning and I was told that, whilst the recommendations were discussed and an amendment accepted, no decision was come to as to the method of dealing with complaints of disregard of the recommendations.

I will consider what action I can usefully take, without loss of time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the meeting this morning the railway companies said definitely they would refuse to accept the Government's decision, and having regard to that will he act at once?

Yes, Sir, I propose to act immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can now state the result of his inquiry with reference to Messrs. Lemass and Manning, left lying wounded in a courtyard in the Custom House, Dublin, for three days of the insurrection, thereby complicating their neglected wounds with other sickness; whether they have died or are recovering; and what the intention of the Government is with regard to them?

The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief states in reply to the inquiry made that no information bearing out the statements contained in this question has been received. It seems probable, therefore, that these allegations are without foundation, but inquiry is still being prosecuted.

Is not one of these men dead and the other dying?

I can only say that the General Officer Commanding says that no information bearing out the statement contained in the question has been received.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of funerals from Dublin to Glasnevin, after the suppression of the insurrection, which even the nearest relatives were not allowed to accompany, with the official reason for this prevention; the number of coffins burst open on the way by the military and police, with the official reason for this desecration; whether anything was found in any of the coffins to justify this interference; and, in view of the Irish feeling that the dead should be inviolable, will he say who was responsible for what was regarded as a violation of the dead and an outrage on the living?

This question was answered by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary for Scotland on the 6th July. It is not proposed to make inquiry on the points mentioned additional to that already made, the results of which were communicated to the hon. Member in, the answer given to him on the 10th May.

What is the number of cases?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will repeat the answer, at some future date, which has already been given.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities administering martial law in Ireland have yet allowed any civil investigation of the picking of pockets of prisoners and of the persons shot and buried surreptitiously, and of the looting done in houses under pretext of searching them; whether property so acquired, including table linen and ladies' dresses used to carry smaller articles, is deemed to belong to the individual soldier taking it; whether the property so taken from the houses of Madame O'Rahilly and Countess Plunkett has yet been restored; and whether the soldiers who took the property are being detained in Dublin for a public civil inquiry into such matters?

Every case of alleged loss of property from houses entered by the troops has been carefully inquired into. I am informed that there is no ground for the allegations made in the question.

Is it not the fact that the soldiers who went to these houses tied up small articles of value in ladies' dresses and tablecloths, and carried the bundles away on their shoulders?

No, Sir; I am told that is not so.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet ascertained whether Mr. Gerard Crofts, of Dublin, has been convicted of anything but the singing of patriotic songs; if so, what it is, on what evidence, and whether in an open Court; whether Mr. Crofts is the only prisoner now undergoing penal servitude for the singing of patriotic songs; and, having regard to his delicate health and the character of the offence, if he is to be kept longer in custody whether it will be as a political prisoner?

The evidence in this case shows that Gerard Crofts was concerned in the rebellion. He was taken from the cellar of a house with a number of armed men who had been firing at the troops. He was tried by a field general court-martial under exactly similar circumstances to those under which the other prisoners were tried. There are no grounds for discriminating between Crofts and other convicted prisoners.

Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there has been a particle of evidence produced of Mr. Crofts' connection with the insurrection other than that of his singing patriotic songs?

asked the Secretary of State for War the result of the inquiry into Major Price's authority for telling Mrs. Pearse that she shall not be given the papers and poems written for her by her son, Patrick H. Pearse, before his execution; and whether all those papers and poems, Mr. Pearse's sword, watch, and all the papers found on his person at the time of surrender have been or will be given to Mrs. Pearse, also all the property taken from St. Enda's School by the military when searching, including Mrs. Pearse's two rings, the lease of St. Enda's, account books, photographs of her sons, 10s. 6d. in silver, and a 10s. Treasury note?

Any action taken by Major Price—I am not referring to action attributed to him by the hon. Member—was taken by direction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. Certain poems and other documents were withheld, but copies of all papers relating to finance were sent to Mrs. Pearse. The watch and leather chain and a whistle and chain have also been sent to Mrs. Pearse. A sum of £8 8s. 0½d. found on P. H. Pearse was also paid over to Mrs. Pearse. Certain documents taken when St. Enda's School was searched are still in .possession of the military authorities. I cannot give any undertaking that they will be returned. Nothing is known of the alleged taking of the ring. Two postal orders, one for 1s. 6d. and one for 1s. were found, but there were circumstances which rendered investigation desirable in connection with these postal orders, and this has not yet been completed.

Does the hon. Gentleman refuse to return the documents written by Mr. Pearse for his mother between sentence and execution?

What I said was that certain documents have not been settled yet.

The hon. Gentleman has sent a copy of these documents. We want the originals, because of certain information they contain.

The copies related to certain financial matters.

Are we to get the original papers written by Pearse at that time?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, after shooting Mr. Pearse, the Government withheld his last poem from his mother, such conduct is not absolutely despicable?

That is the same question in other words.

asked the Prime Minister whether a man named Frowley, who was arrested at Wolfhill, Queen's County, during the recent disturbance in Ireland and deported to Perth Prison, has yet been released; and, if not, will he state when the investigations into his case will be completed?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say on what grounds Messrs. Hubert Wilson, of Longford; Paul Cusack, of Granard; and John Cawley, of Granard, are still detained in Frongoch Internment Camp; whether he is aware that neither of these three gentlemen had any part in the late rebellion; whether, in the case of Mr. Cawley, who was manager of Granard Creamery, he is aware that the business of the creamery has suffered; and will he now direct the release of all three?

The cases referred to are under consideration by the Advisory Committee, who are dealing with all cases as rapidly as possible.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists respecting the continued detention of persons arrested on suspicion; and whether he will press the examination of those who are detained, so that innocent persons may be released at once?

The Advisory Committee have now examined more than a third of the cases of the interned Irish prisoners, and I received yesterday a list of those whose release they recommend. I understand that the Committee have unanimously arrived at the opinion that a large number of the men who took part in the rising in Dublin had been successfully kept in ignorance by their leaders as to the enterprise in which they were to be engaged, and that it is the case that they thought they were being called out on Easter Monday for a route march such as they had often previously undertaken. Once embarked in the rising they were unable or unwilling to draw back. Taking into account these circumstances and the fact that the men have now been in detention for a period of nearly three months, the Committee, after an examination of each case individually, recommend the release, out of those whose cases have so far been considered, of 460 prisoners, and this recommendation will be carried into effect.

When?

As speedily as the necessary transport arrangements can be made.

How many cases?

Nearly one-third of the whole number. A certain number are still under consideration; they have been partially considered, but not finally.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received statements respecting the case of Mr. George Ewing, who was killed, and Mr. Joseph Hayes, who was wounded, in North King Street on 29th April last; whether he is aware that there is an expressed desire on the part of their relatives and others that a public inquiry be held; and whether he will arrange to have such an inquiry held in connection with those two specific cases?

I have no information about the cases referred to. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Westmeath.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advis- ability of allowing to go free on leaving hospital Irish prisoners who were wounded during the rising in Ireland?

I understand that the persons to whom the hon. Member refers are some of those in respect of whom internment orders have been made. In that event their cases will be dealt with by the Advisory Committee like the rest, and I fear I cannot give directions for them to be set at liberty pending the decision.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these men have been discharged from hospitals to English prisons, where they are now confined to bed and are not getting proper hospital treatment?

I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member will draw my attention to any particular case I will certainly have it carefully inquired into.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the indignation and ill-feeling that is being caused in Ireland owing to the treatment of the Irish lady prisoners; if he is aware that they have been detained in English prisons three months; if he is aware that they were tried by the Advisory Committee thirteen days ago; if he can state when they are likely to be released; and if, to satisfy the public that it is not the wish of the Government to make war on women, he will order their immediate discharge?

The answer to the first and second questions is in the negative. I received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee yesterday. Miss Perolz and Miss Foley will be released. The internment of the other three will be maintained.

asked the Home Secretary whether last week National Volunteers were parading armed in the Dublin streets; whether, these Volunteers wear the same uniform as the Sinn Fein Volunteers; and by what means the authorities can distinguish between the two forces?

The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. The characteristics other than uniform distinguishing these forces were explained in reply to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield on the 27th January last.

Was not such a parade of National Volunteers held in Lad Lane, Lower Bagot Street, Dublin, last Monday week?

I will inquire of the Irish Government, but I am informed that the allegations in the first part of the question is unfounded.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether Dr. Spiers was for some time attached in the capacity of a doctor to Kinmel camp, Wales; whether he is aware that his name does not appear in the register of British practitioners; that he is said to have been German speaking with a German accent and with German sympathies; whether he subsequently went to the front and if he is now dead; and what was the cause of death?

Lieutenant H. Spiers was employed at Kinmel Park from 17th January, 1916, until 3rd April, 1916. On the second point I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. He will find the name of Dr. Spiers in the Medical Register as M.B., Ch.B. Edinburgh. He is also M.D., F.R.C.S. Edinburgh. He was recommended for a temporary commission in the R.A.M.C. by the Scottish Medical Service Emergency Committee. There is no reason to think that he has German sympathies. He is now serving in France.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the senior medical officer at Kinmel camp has lately resigned his post; and, if so, whether he has stated that he has done so because he is tired of being worried with questions about the alleged German doctor at Kinmel camp?

Captain G. L. Travis was appointed sanitary officer to Kinmel Park on 7th May, 1916, and he still holds that appointment.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the afternoon of 6th July some 650 German non-commissioned officers and men, unwounded prisoners of war, were sent from Southampton to the North in a train consisting almost entirely of first-class corridor carriages and saloons; whether similar accommodation is provided by the German military authorities for our men when captured; and will he state whether English privates in the United Kingdom when moved by train or when travelling under a railway warrant travel first class?

I am informed that two trains were run to the North on the day named carrying German prisoners of war. In the whole of the two trains there were ten first-class compartments. The military authorities specially asked for corridor carriages in order to provide for escort duties, and the rolling stock mentioned was all that was available. As regards the second part of the question, I imagine the German authorities would in similar circumstances use any rolling stock available. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the War Office could not have perfectly well communicated with the railway authorities in order that third-class carriages might be provided? Also, is the hon. Gentleman aware that one train consisted entirely of first-class carriages, except two carriages?

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that British prisoners of war in Germany are conveyed in cattle trucks?

I imagine that the Germans, just as ourselves, convey prisoners in any rolling stock available.

They would not.

They are laughing at you!

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of German prisoners interned in this country on 30th June last, and what number of them are employed on any work of a remunerative or national character; if he will state the class of work on which they are employed; and whether, in view of the shortage of labour in many industries at present, he will state why all able-bodied German prisoners are not being employed on some kind of work?

Eleven thousand three hundred and eighty-four combatant prisoners of war, excluding officers, were interned in this country on the 30th June. Arrangements have already been made or are in progress for the employment of some 4,400 of these men. In addition to this a considerable number are employed in their camps in making mail bags, in baking, shoemaking, tailoring, etc.; all of which work would otherwise have to be done by others. Every opportunity is seized to employ prisoners of war on work in such conditions and in such numbers as would prove remunerative.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to decide on the uniform for Volunteers; what is the objection to adopting khaki cloth and silver buttons; and whether he is aware that many of the regiments already enrolled are provided with the necessary funds to meet the expenditure as soon as the necessary authority is given?

I am afraid that I can only say that no decision has yet been come to on the question of the dress of the Volunteers. I believe the facts are as stated in the last part of the question, but the fact that funds are available does not settle the question as to the nature of the uniform which should be worn.

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the matter as early as possible?

It will be done as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of the death of a soldier's wife who has been in receipt of allotment and separation allowance, there are any means by which these allowances can be paid to a female relative of the soldier who undertakes the care of his children and who has no other means of support; and whether, if no such machinery exists, he will amend the Regulations on the subject so as to cover such cages?

If a soldier's wife dies, separation allowance for the children is paid at the special rate applicable to motherless children, namely, 5s. per week for each child. The children's allowances are paid to the relative or the guardian who undertakes the care of the children. This allowance is irrespective of any allotment which the soldier may make.

Is it not the fact that where the wife of a soldier on active service dies, and a sister of the man, or some other person, takes charge of the soldier's child, the allowance of 17s. 6d. that had been made to the deceased wife is reduced to 5s. a week, and in the circumstances how can the house possibly be kept together?

My hon. Friend's statement is not quite correct. The 17s. 6d. to which he refers of course includes the compulsory or necessary allotment made by the soldier. The 5s. is irrespective of any allotment the soldier may make. There is a difference after the death of the wife, as the flat rate ceases and the motherless rate takes its place.

Is there any reason why the soldier whose wife dies while he is on active service should be in a worse position than a man who is a widower when he enlists?

That is the direct recommendation made by the Select Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the delay that still exists in making arrangements for granting pensions in many cases to wounded and disabled soldiers; and whether he can make provision for securing that the assessing of pensions can be accelerated?

Arrangements have been made to accelerate the assessment of pension to these men, and, in the meantime, an allowance of 10s. or 20s. a week is being paid from date of discharge as an advance of pension. If my hon. Friend knows of actual cases in which not even this allowance is being received, I should be glad to have particulars of them.

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at an early date.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if the War Office will pay the 10s. or 20s.?

The War Office.

asked when the warrant dealing with pensions for the widows and dependants of men who have died from disease contracted in or aggravated by service will be issued?

This was published with July Army Orders. My hon. Friend has, I hope, received the copy which I sent to him yesterday.

Can the hon. Gentleman say where the application for these pensions is to be made, and whether there is a time limit?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice.

Will the hon. Gentleman issue this Warrant amongst the Parliamentary Papers, so that every Member of the House may see it?

I think so. I will see to it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Private F. Wallis, No. 32341, D Company, 84th provisional battalion Hants Regiment, now at Herne Bay, has been called up over four weeks, and that a ring paper sent to Mrs. Wallis omits any payment for her five children, though forms and their birth certificates have been sent in; if he will have this matter seen to; and if he is aware that this is not an isolated case in this battalion?

Inquiry will be made, and the hon. Member informed of the result.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is still the policy of the Government under the Naval and Military Pensions Act, 1915, to make a certain Grant to the Statutory Committee and to leave any deficiency to be made up by private charity; and if the Government have received any protests from public bodies asking that all pensions and all expenses of administering the Act should be paid for out of moneys provided by Parliament?

It has not been the policy of the Government to prohibit private benevolence to disabled soldiers and sailors, which would be the effect of requiring all payments to the Statutory Committee to be made from the Exchequer. Such protests as have been received have apparently been made under a misapprehension which I hope to take an early opportunity of removing.

Will the non-county boroughs be entitled to form their own committees?

That question should be put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board.

May I ask if it is not the intention of the Treasury to find all the money for Supplementary Grants for pensions? If that was made clear it would settle it.

The Treasury is finding sufficient money for that purpose, but the Treasury does not make itself responsible for the actual method of the spending of the money.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the question of permitting invalided and wounded soldiers discharged from the Service to continue to wear their uniform till the end of the War?

This proposal has been considered and rejected as inexpedient and impracticable. It would open the door to fraud and to serious misuse of uniform, of which one result would be to bring His Majesty's uniform into disrepute. There are already a considerable number of cases of frauds perpetrated and made possible by the bogus use of uniform. There would also be difficulties about the maintenance of uniform in proper condition. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that a special badge for soldiers, discharged owing to physical disability due to service in the field, has been approved. Instructions as to the supply of this badge will very shortly be issued.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why, in view of the fact that Lord Hastings was only a temporary major and has had no war service, and refused to sign on for foreign service, he has been put in command of the 2nd Norfolk Yeomanry Regiment over the heads of four senior permanent majors who have all been on active service and one of whom was mentioned in dispatches in the Boer War, was second in command of the 1st Norfolk Yeomanry in Gallipoli, and was recommended by the Norfolk County Association for the command of the 2nd Norfolk Yeomanry, and if he will say whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

It is not usual nor desirable to canvass the qualifications or disqualifications of particular officers for particular appointments by means of question and answer. I may say, however, that the appointment made in this case was approved after the Field-Marshal Commanding the Home Forces had consulted the Divisional Commander as to what was best in the public interest.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very strong feeling against it in the regiment, both among officers and men, and it looks like a very bad job indeed?

Will the hon. Gentleman say why the four senior majors were passed over?

Was it because of the social status of this gentleman?

asked the Secretary of State for War how many interned alien enemies in this country are now being employed on any national or remunerative work; and if he will state why all able-bodied interned alien enemies should not be empolyed on some work of a public character instead of remaining idle in their various camps?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly put this question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tomorrow.

asked the Home Secretary if it is still the policy of the Government to leave at large aliens who may reasonably be suspected of being of enemy birth and who cannot conclusively prove that they are subjects of friendly or neutral countries?

No, Sir. The Government have never had any such policy. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on the 20th January, 29th February, and 8th March of this year.

asked if all men of military age in the Colonial service who have had previous service in the Regulars or Reserve have been called up to their regiments and replaced by older men qualified satisfactorily to perform the duties of the Colonial service but, over military age?

I am not quite sure to what men the hon. Member is referring, but I may point out the liability for service under the Military Service Acts applies only to men ordinarily resident in Great Britain, except so far as the Acts extend the service of men already serving.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question, as there are a number of young officers ready to take their places?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would talk to me about it privately?

asked the Secretary of State for War if any report has been received from Egypt of sending troops at five in the morning in open iron cattle-trucks, arriving at Luxor at four in the afternoon, and were all carted off in stretchers to hospital, of the death of forty men and sending 150 men to hospital in consequence of the non-arrival of the water-carts in the desert near Suez, and of the punishment of Australian troops in Egypt by making them undertake a forced march in the extreme heat, where by five died and 100 went to hospital?

No, Sir. No report has been received of any such incidents as those mentioned in the question, but inquiries shall be made.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has been made aware by reports from various districts that to pay 30 per cent. advance on wool over the 1914 price would leave farmers in many districts heavy losers on the clip of this year; and whether he will adopt such an alternative method of fixing the price as will afford to the owners of flocks the encouragement of having made a moderate profit in supplying national needs?

I have had the advantage of meeting a very large and representative deputation this morning, and after going very fully into all aspects of the matter the percentage above the prewar prices has been increased from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent.

May I ask why the War Office deals with this matter, and not the Board of Agriculture?

It is obviously a matter for the War Office to make sure of its own supplies.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that scrubbers and cleaners employed at the Tooting Military Hospital have to sign an agreement stating that their wages shall be 18s. 6d. a week to cover all time worked; whether he is aware that while in the employment of the board of guardians and until shortly after transfer to the military authorities these women received 19s. 6d. per week of forty-eight hours and dinner every day, and besides suffering a reduction in wages with no limit to the working hours they now receive no meals; and whether he will have these conditions considered with a view to improvements

The women referred to are entitled to 18s. outside London, or 20s. if within the London area, without food and lodging. I know nothing regarding 18s. 6d. rate, nor as to their wages when in the employment of the board of guardians, but I will have further inquiries made if my hon. Friend desires it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Salisbury Hotel, Salisbury Square, has been requisitioned by the War Savings Committee; and, if so, for what purpose was it taken over?

Arrangements have been made by the Office of Works to rent the hotel in question for the period of the War, for the use of the National War Savings Committee. The hotel has not been requisitioned. The reasons for this action are that the existing premises of the Committee are altogether inadequate to accommodate the staff required to deal with the volume of work, which, I am glad to say, is still expanding very rapidly.

Does it mean much saving to take extra premises with more clerks?

In the one case we are dealing with a rent for the whole year of, I think, £2,000, and in the other case we are dealing with, I hope, £100,000,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is including Skeechen in the category of table waters and subjecting it to a tax and the purveyors to a Licence Duty?

I must confess that neither I nor my advisers are familiar with the beverage referred to. But inquiry is being made in the light of the information kindly supplied to me by my hon. Friend as to its liability to the tax.