asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the treatment of the non-commissioned officers and men who fell into Turkish hands at Kut-el-Amara?

I regret to say that we are so far without any information as to the treatment of the non-commissioned officers and men who were taken prisoners at Kut, although the United States Embassy at Constantinople are sparing no efforts to obtain this information.

In view of the importance of this matter I beg to give notice that I shall repeat my question on Thursday.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the cash and property belonging to or debts due to enemies which have been vested in the Public Trustee, firstly, under an Order of the Court under Section 4 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, and secondly, under an Order of the Board of Trade under Section 4 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916?

The value of the property vested in the Public Trustee by the Court is estimated at £4,500,000 and of that vested by the Board of Trade at £2,000,000.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that creditors of enemies whose property has been vested in the Public Trustee are unable to obtain payment of their debts in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, by reason of the legal or departmental difficulties raised by the Public Trustee, or the insufficiency of the official staff to deal with these cases, or by reason of the decision of the Court to regard the rights of creditors under this Section as entirely subsidiary to the provisions of the Act for preserving the property and money of enemies until the conclusion of peace, thus leaving the British creditors without any remedy, notwithstanding that sufficient enemy property and money may be held by the Public Trustee for payment of British debts; and will he say what action he proposes to take?

The Public Trustee informs me that the realisation of the property vested in him, the settlement of questions relating to liens on the property and the investigation of the claims of creditors in the absence of the debtor necessarily involve considerable time, but that there is no avoidable delay on his part in the payment of the claims of the creditors of enemies.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can facilitate or provide for further Departmental and legal assistance to be given to the Public Trustee to enable him to distribute with promptitude the enemy property and money in his hands amongst British creditors of that enemy who have proved their debts to the satisfaction of the Public Trustee, and without the delay of the vacations of the Courts?

The Public Trustee informs me that the Departmental and legal assistance which he now has is sufficient to enable him to deal with the distribution of property vested in him amongst the creditors who have proved their debts, and that the vacations of the Courts will not interefere with such distribution.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attenton has been called to the report of the W. and C. T. Jones Steampship Company, Limited, of Cardiff, for the year ended 30th June, which shows that the profit on a fleet of thirteen steamers was £524,855, representing 187 per cent. on the company's capital; whether he is aware that the previous year's earnings were only £87,105, which allowed a dividend of 15 per cent.; and if he intends taking action to prevent such exploitation, which to a great extent is the cause of food prices advancing, on the admission of the Board of Trade, to 62 per cent.?

My attention has been called to the Report referred to in the question. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a very large proportion of these high profits pass to the Exchequer in the shape of Excess Profits Tax, Income Tax, and probably Super-tax. So far as can be gathered from the Report, the total amount proposed to be distributed as dividend for the year in question is £70,000, part of which will probably go in Super-Tax. Excess Profits Duty and Super-tax absorb £320,000, and the bulk of the remainder is allocated to depreciation, reserve, etc. The freight problem is a very difficult and delicate one, largely because of its world-wide character, but the present situation is not satisfactory,; and the Government are taking measures which they hope may cause an improvement. At the same time, the effect of freights on food prices may easily be exaggerated. I have no reason to suppose that the increase of freight rates is, as suggested in the question, to a great extent the cause of the rise which has taken place. However, as my hon. Friend is aware, the whole question of the causes of the rise of prices is being explored by a very competent Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a list of the enemy shareholders in British companies which, up to the present, have been vested in the Public Trustee for sale; and whether arrangements can be made so that the outside public can have the opportunity of coming in and participating in the purchase of such shares?

I do not think that a list of enemy shareholders whose shares have been vested in the Public Trustee would afford any useful information to anyone. The Public Trustee, I understand, takes such steps to bring to the notice of the public the shares which he is selling as are consistent with the interests of the company's business and of the British shareholders of the company.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what opportunities the public have of learning that those shares are upon the market or to be sold?

The Public Trustee takes what steps he thinks are desirable and necessary to advertise the fact that the shares are for sale. I do not know exactly at the moment what those steps are.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Petrol Control Board have restricted taxicab-owners and drivers to the use of 1½ gallons of petrol per day whereas for a normal day's work 3 gallons are necessary; and whether, in the interest of the men as also of the public, he will consider the desirability of advising the Board to permit an increased quantity of petrol to be supplied to these men?

I do not think that the effect of the restriction, which was based on the requirements as given by the persons interested, is always as great as stated by my right hon. Friend, but I am seeing what can be done in the matter. I am afraid though that, under present conditions, considerable restriction is necessary.

asked how many patents applied for in the names of alien, enemies have been granted under the powers conferred by the Trading With the Enemy Amendment (No. 2) Act passed last Session; if the patent in each case has been granted to the custodian of enemy property and if licences to use these patents have been and are being issued to British manufacturers; and if he will also state how many new applications for patents have been received from alien enemies during the present year?

The benefit of three applications for patents by enemies or enemy subjects has already been vested in the Public Trustee under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, and the patents have been granted to the Public Trustee. In addition, steps are being taken to deal in the same manner with 2,200 applications for patents by enemies or enemy subjects. In one of the first-mentioned cases licences are in course of preparation, in another the application for a licence will shortly be heard, and in the third case an application for a licence was made but not proceeded with. It is open to any manufacturer to apply for a licence under any patent granted to an enemy or enemy subject or any application for a patent by such enemy or enemy subjects. One hundred and forty-six applications for patents have been received from enemies or enemy subjects during the present year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements, if any, have been made by the Government to reduce the freights now levied by shipowners; and whether he can state if any improvements have been effected regarding the delay and difficulty of obtaining commodities from London to Dublin?

Measures have been taken by the Government to secure the economical use of existing tonnage and to increase the supply of tonnage, and these measures have their effect on the freight market. As my hon. Friend was informed on 5th July, I am not aware that the traffic between London and Dublin has been subject to any avoidable restriction as com- pared with traffic between other British ports and Dublin. I am, however, making inquiries into the whole question of communications with Ireland.

Arising out of the unsatisfactory reply I beg to give notice that I shall bring forward this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night.

I should be glad if the hon. Member would allow me to complete my inquiries to enable me to give him some further information.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the cases where the profits of British companies are or have been derived from the sale of products of Germany during the War, he can say. what action the Government proposes to take against British companies who have made profits in this way since the outbreak of war; and what action the Government proposes to take to prevent British companies trading with the enemy in the future till the end of the War?

If the hon. and gallant Member can furnish me with any facts tending to show that any British company is trading with the enemy or has so traded during the War, I will have the matter investigated at once.

asked (1) whether, under the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, all profits of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Home Light Oil Company, Limited, earned and paid to the Public Trustee during the War are to be preserved for the benefit of the German shareholders in those companies, or Germany, until the conclusion of peace; (2). whether the reasons for permitting the businesses of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, to continue and to earn profits of upwards of £300,000 a year during the War are to enable the Government to protect the Russian, French, and Belgian claims, or in what way these claims will be given preference over the Germans; (3) if he will explain whether the Board of Trade permits the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, to continue their businesses for the benefit of the British public or the Allies of this country, or whether the businesses are allowed to continue whereby profits may be earned to be paid to the Public Trustee to preserve until peace is declared for the benefit of German shareholders or for Germany; and (4) whether the present directors of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, with the exception of Messrs. Kean and Colt, are the representatives of the Russian, French, and Belgian undertakings, who claim that almost half the beneficial interest in the shares of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, belongs to them; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Section 5 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, provides that, except so far as the Board of Trade or the High Court may otherwise direct, the Public Trustee shall, after the termination of the present War, deal with money paid to him under the Trading With the Enemy Acts in such manner as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct. It must not be assumed that the German shareholders will necessarily derive any benefit. The reason for allowing the businesses of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, to continue is the desirability that the organisation established for the supply and distribution of petroleum products should be available for the benefit of this country. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th July, the Advisory Committee have considered these cases and reported that for special reasons it is inexpedient to wind up the businesses. With regard to the directorate of the company, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to the question asked by him on the 18th July.

asked whether any arrangement has been reached between him and the South Wales coalowners whereby these owners are to be allowed to advance prices beyond the limit fixed by the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act; if so, by how much; whether this proposal, before being ratified, was submitted to Parliament, or to anyone except the coal-owners themselves; and whether it is his intention to allow increased prices to coal-owners in other parts of the country?

The Board of Trade have made an Order under Section 1 (2) of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, increasing the standard amount in respect of the mines in the Monmouthshire and South Wales district from 4s. to 6s. 6d. The Order, which does not require the assent of Parliament, was made after a careful examination of statistics relating to the increase of working costs since the passing of the Act. The only other application for an increase of the standard amount at present before the Board is one recently made by the Forest of Dean Conciliation Board.

I should like to ask from whom the right hon. Gentleman received the demand for the increase; and whether any protest has been received from the Miners Federation of Great Britain; and whether he is aware that the South Wales coalowners have been making more profit than any other group in the country?

I have received a protest by deputation. As to the comparative profits of coalowners I would not like to commit myself.

Were the consumers consulted at all in regard to the question of the rise in price?

No, Sir; the consumers were not consulted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some estimate as to the amount of the increased revenue derived from the sale of coal for export and home consumption in South Wales?

I am afraid that I am not in a position to give that information.

I give notice that I shall raise this matter upon a very early opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his Attention has been called to the statement that, during the journey of a troop train from Karachi to Peshawar, many soldiers were taken ill and some died; whether this tragic occurrence was due to over-crowding in the train; whether there was any shortage of rolling stock; what was the temperature at the time of starting the train and what would be the average temperature passing through Sind Desert; and what steps, if any, have been taken to bring the matter to the notice of the Indian Government?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth on Thursday last. I have directed the Government of India that having fixed the responsibility for this deplorable incident they are to hold the person or persons responsible to strict account.

asked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Dispatch No. 3, dated 31st May, 1905, to the Governor-General of India in Council, paragraph 19, whether the Department of Military Supply, created under the superintendence of a military member of the Governor-General's Council in pursuance of that dispatch, to undertake responsibility to the Government of India for the control of Army contracts, the purchase of stores, ordnance, and remounts, the management of military works, the clothing and manufacturing departments, Indian Medical Service and Indian Marine, exists any longer; if not, when that arrangement was abolished or altered; and whether, during the present War, the control of these branches of administration has been vested in the Governor-General in Council, or in the Commander-in-Chief as a member of Council, or as head of the Army in India, and in what relation to the position and responsibility of the Governor-General in Council of supreme control of the Army under Act of Parliament?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Department of Military Supply was abolished on the 1st April, 1909. The business hitherto dealt with by it was transferred to the Army Department and continued to be controlled by the Governor-General in Council, the member in charge being henceforth the Commander-in-Chief instead of the Military Supply member. The Commander-in-Chief is the executive head of the various branches of supply, as he is of the Army generally, but is subject to the supreme control of the Government of India, of which he is a member.

May I ask if it is a fact that since 1909 there has only been one military member, the Commander-in-Chief, instead of two, of the Council of the Governor-General of India?

Yes, Sir.

Is there any general administration in India corresponding to a similar office held in the Army at home?

I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "general administration." I am not very familiar with military terms, but I am not aware of anybody who serves under that title at home.

asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps have been taken by the Petrol Committee to secure fair treatment in the supply of petrol as between owners who made honest returns as to the amount of spirit they used and would require and those owners who for reasons of their own made returns of an exaggerated nature?

It is not easy to distinguish between honest returns and exaggerated ones, but any obvious cases of over-estimation of requirements have been subject to special reduction. A maximum monthly allowance has been fixed for all private cars, and the allocation of supplies below the maximum has been so arranged that moderate demands are restricted to a less extent proportionately than large ones.

When will these notices be sent out?

They are being sent out already. I do not know whether the hon. Member refers to owners of private cars. Obviously they will come last. Commercial cars and taxis must come first.

When is the issue to be made to owners of private cars?

I hope in time for August, but it is possible some of them may be late.

Under what head will commercial cars come?

We are getting a long way from the question on the Paper.

asked the Home Secretary when and in what order the cases of the Irish prisoners at Reading are to be dealt with by the Advisory Committee; having regard to the breakdown of the attempted court-martial on Mr. Peadar O'Hourihane, owing to the conflict of Crown evidence and failure to connect him with any existing body of Irish Volunteers, whether his case will be dealt with at an early date; and whether the wish of this untried man to be visited by the hon. Member for North Westmeath will be allowed?

The Advisory Committee regulate their own procedure, and I am unable to say in what order the Irish prisoners now at Reading will come before them, but all the Irish cases will be dealt with as speedily as possible. I am unable to give permission for the hon. Member to pay more visits to the Irish prisoners, for reasons of which he is well aware.

May I ask whether the authors and journalists who, I believe, constitute all the interned prisoners at Reading are, like those at Frongoch, confined to half a sheet of note paper for writing upon?

I must ask for notice of that question.

Does the same order apply to all the other Irish Members? Why are they refused permission to visit the prisoners at Reading?

The hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) was refused permission to visit the camps because his visit caused disturbances in the camps.

Why have other Members been refused permission?

There are necessary limits put upon the number of visits received by prisoners.

asked the Home Secretary the number of Irish prisoners released on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee; if he will consider daily their recommendations; the time that elapses from the time of receipt of recommendations and the orders for release; and when the women prisoners will be allowed to take their trial before judge and jury?

Seven hundred and twelve men have been released from Frongoch up to the present time, besides two women who have been released from Lewes. I consider the Advisory Committee's recommendations as soon as they are received and issue orders for release. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 17th July.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state why he refused to allow those women to go before a judge and jury—they are quite prepared to take their trial?

I have already answered that question on many occasions. The position in respect to these women is the same as in respect to all the men interned.

The answer is most unsatisfactory.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in regard to the death by bullet wounds of Ernest Cavanagh, at Liberty Hall, on 25th April, the police consulted the military authorities; and whether their information was based on that of the military authorities?

The reply to both parts of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

Considering that the police were not there at the time, did not they receive their information from the military authorities?

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman instigate an inquiry into these cases if I can show him that the police have again and again contradicted their own statements and that they are, in fact, covering up assassination by the invention of lies?

That does not arise out of the question. The hon. Member bad better let me see it on the Paper.

asked the Home Secretary the number of dismissals from Government service since the rising in Ireland; if he is aware of the indignation expressed in Ireland at the treatment of Government employés, who were arrested on suspicion and afterwards released by orders of the military and Advisory Committee; and if he will say on whose information the dismissals took place?

Government employés suspected of complicity in the recent rebellion have been suspended by the responsible heads of their Departments pending an investigation which is about to be held into these cases. So far no instance has come to my notice in which Departments have dismissed officials on the ground of such complicity.

Will these cases be inquired into at once? There are men who have been released by the Advisory Committee and who have not been allowed to get back to their positions.

I very much regret the delay that has taken place. I was hoping that the Advisory Committee would be able to examine these cases, but I find that it is not practicable, owing to pressure of work and other circumstances, and accordingly I have appointed two Commissioners to inquire into them at once, so that there shall be no further delay.

Incases where after inquiry the Advisory Committee have released the men, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that they get back into their employment?

I am not sure that there have been such cases.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Commissioners?

The Commission will consist of two distinguished Civil servants, Sir Guy Fleetwood-Wilson and Sir William Byrne.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these places will be filled in the absence of these men before the trial?

I think the heads of the Departments are awaiting the result of inquiry before taking any definite steps.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these places have already been filled in their absence?

asked the Home Secretary whether the uniform worn by Irish or Sinn Fein Volunteers is modelled on the British uniform but of a dark green colour?

The uniform of the Irish Volunteers resembled that of the British Infantry, but was dark green in colour.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he could not, in consultation with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major Walter Guinness) devise some uniform for feather-bed officers in this House, who are here when they ought to be in the "big push"?

Stay-at-home Major.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is with the sanction of the Government a secret military order has been issued in Ireland prohibiting advertisements, appeals, and collections for the Irish Volunteer Dependants' Fund; whether the secrecy is to prevent the prohibition becoming known in America and the Colonies; and whether he will have the prohibition publicly withdrawn and this work of charity and mercy allowed to proceed freely?

My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has asked me to answer this question. The War Office have no knowledge of any secret military order of the kind mentioned, but inquiry is being made to see whether there is any substance in the hon. Member's allegations.

In view of that reflection will the hon. Gentleman inquire in the city of Kilkenny?

I have said that I am making inquiries.

Will the hon. Gentleman also inquire whether the military authorities have issued instructions in Kerry to prevent the exposure in windows of booklets and photographs published by Unionist firms in connection with the rebellion in Dublin?

That will be inquired into as well.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a request, dated 11th July, from the Foreign Jews' Protection Committee against deportation to Russia and asking him to receive a deputation; and, if so, what answer, if any, has been returned?

I am not aware of whom this committee is composed, and in the first instance, am asking for information on that point.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a communication from the Jewish Board of Deputies which, while upholding it as the duty of Russian Jews to support the Allies in the War, refuses to support the policy of deporting them to Russia; if so, whether he can make known any answer which has been sent; and what action he proposes to take?

The terms of the resolution were: That the Board supports the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the enlistment of friendly Aliens who may be Jews and offers to assist the Government in any way it may think fit as regards the composition of the proposed Special Tribunal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there was definitely and intentionally no reference to the policy of deportation?

I received no dissent from the policy which has been announced; in fact, the resolution sent to me approved of the policy.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a telegram stating that the Monarchist party were asking for the deportation of these subjects because the revolutionary movement was being instigated from other countries, and is this deportation due to this demand?

My attention has not been called to the statement in question. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that in any case the action I have taken has no relation to any such matters, and is not prompted by any suggestion, direct or indirect, from the Russian Government.

asked the Home Secretary whether steps will be taken to provide that workmen injured by enemy air raid or bombardment shall be compensated on the same basis as under the Workmen's Compensation Act when the accident is in any sense due to the nature of the employment?

I am advised that according to recent judicial decisions a workman injured by air raid or bombardment in the course of his employment will be entitled to compensation under the Act as it stands at present, if he can show that by reason of his employment he was exposed to special risk not shared by the public at large

asked whether cocaine can now only be sold to civilians as well as to soldiers on a doctor's certificate or prescription; whether the purchaser is obliged to give up the certificate or prescription to the vendor and whether any record is kept of the number of certificates given by and the amount of cocaine ordered by individual doctors?

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to two cases, in one of which a Frenchwoman was convicted of selling spirits in an infamous house in Great Peter Street, Westminster, frequented by soldiers of overseas contingents, while, in the other, two men and a woman were convicted of selling cocaine to members of His Majesty's Forces, a penalty of one month's imprisonment in the first case and imprisonment for a few days to a few months in the second being the only punishment that could be inflicted; whether he will introduce legislation for dealing adequately with crimes so revolting and hurtful to the Army; and whether meanwhile such premises could be seized and occupied under the Defence of the Realm Act by the police or the military authorities?

My attention has been drawn to the cases referred to. I will consider whether any steps can be taken with a view to increasing the penalties for the illicit sale of intoxicating liquor to soldiers. As regards the sale of cocaine, a medical prescription is not required under the present law. The maximum penalty for illicit sale is six months' imprisonment and a fine of £100. The new Regulations on this subject which I announced in the House recently will be submitted, I hope, at the next meeting of the Privy Council.

Would it not be possible, pending legislation, to take possession of the premises as suggested in the last part of my question?

I propose to consider the hon. Member's suggestion. I should not like to say off-hand.

Will provision be made in the new Regulations for the supply of necessary quantities of cocaine to dental practitioners, both registered and unregistered?

Yes, Sir, that is being provided for.

For both registered and unregistered dental practitioners?

I must ask for notice of that.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will now return to the owner the leaflets headed "Right of Asylum" taken in a recent domiciliary visit to a house in Lexham Gardens, seeing that no charge has been preferred against persons who have distributed this leaflet?

I am informed that only a proof of the pamphlet was found at Lexham Gardens. I understand that the Competent Military Authority proposes to deal with this and the copies of the pamphlet found elsewhere under Regulation 51.

asked the Home Secretary if he will inform the House what steps he intends to take to carry out the recommendations of the War Charities Committee?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hopes very shortly to introduce a Bill for this purpose.

asked the Home Secretary if he will say whether his Department contemplates making arrangements for the employment of interned aliens on agricultural work; and will such arrangements provide for their employment in Ireland?

The experiments made in England in the employment of interned aliens on agricultural work have not so far been attended with much success. I do not think they are likely to be extended to Ireland.

asked the Home Secretary if he can now state the result of communications with the Treasury on the subject of payment of teachers' salaries monthly; and if he will state whether a war bonus is payable to any teachers and, if so, where are such teachers domiciled?

The subject of the payment monthly of teachers' salaries was brought before me on Friday last by a deputation which included the hon. Member, and the case made by the deputation will be forwarded to the Treasury. As regards the latter part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to the question of the hon. Member for North Meath on the 20th instant.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the observation made by the magistrate at Highgate when a householder was summoned for showing too bright a light at 10.14 p.m.; whether the penalty for the offence is £10 and the householder was only fined 1s.; and whether, in view of the danger caused by showing a bright light after the specified hour, he can see his way to make some statement supporting the inspector who gave evidence on that occasion in support of the action taken by the police?

From the remarks made by the chairman of the Bench when passing sentence in this case it would appear that the justices took into consideration the explanations offered, and particularly the fact that the occurrence took place very shortly after lighting-up time. No intervention on my part appears to be called for. The maximum fine that can be inflicted in such cases is £100.

asked the Attorney-General if he will state when the present practice of trying British-born subjects by Court-martial in camera and executing decisions so reached was introduced; whether before those trials or before the executions the legality of that procedure and the law, if any, on which it was supposed to be based were ascertained, and the fiat of any Civil Court, judge, or Law Officer obtained; how many British-born subjects have been executed and how many are now undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courts-martial held in camera; and, seeing that this procedure is not warranted by any law, but only by a Regulation which has never been judicially reviewed, and that its victims are now powerless to have it so reviewed, whether he will take immediate steps to get a decision of a competent Civil Court on the legality or illegality of holding field-general courts-martial in camera, in order that Parliament may deal with the matter this Session?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the practice was introduced at the outbreak of war. The answer to the second part of the question is that the Irish Law Officers advised in favour of the legality of the proceedings. The third part of the question should be addressed to the War Office. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I got an answer in this House to the effect that the Irish Law Officers did not accept responsibility, and in view of that answer, which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he not have the decision of a competent Court upon this matter before the Session closes?

I cannot have the decision of a competent Court. The hon. Member is in error as to the functions I discharge. As to any previous answer in reference to this matter and the Irish Law Officers, I have not any such answer in my mind, but I will inquire into that.

If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the Irish Law Officers did not give any flat or authority for these proceedings, will he then act?

There is no question of my acting. Whatever the Irish Law Officers advised, I am satisfied these proceedings were legal. I cannot go beyond that.

In view of the fact that the Law Officers have not advised in these proceedings, will the Prime Minister himself say whether he will deal with these matters of life and death before the Session closes?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister when the Government authorised a secret circular to be addressed by the military authorities to the Press in Ireland prohibiting the publication of blanks indicating matter censored; if he can state the cause that led to the issue of this circular; whether such an order has been issued to the Press in this country; whether it is to be enforced by the suppression of periodical publications printed with censored parts blank; if he will name any publication now due which has been prevented from appearing by this order; and, seeing that the omission of print from paper is not a positive act punishable under any Statute, that to compel concealment of the blank would be to compel a misleading false pretence, and that the secrecy of the circular prevents the public being informed that they are being misled, will he say under what statutory provision this circular has been issued and the publication of if forbidden?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Press in Ireland has had the benefit of the same guidance in this matter as has been given to the Press in England. The circular was a request to the Press, and has been accepted and followed in the spirit of loyalty to the national interest which might be expected. The object of suppressing blanks indicating matters censored is to avoid the suggestion of information to the enemy.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper—whether, as a matter of fact, a secret circular similar to the one mentioned in this question has been sent to the Press of this country, and whether a publisher is not at liberty to publish a blank publication if he chooses?

I have given an answer to that already.

I postponed this question by request from this day week until to-day, and at the further request of the right hon Gentleman I postpone it until to-morrow. This is the third and last time of asking.

asked the Prime Minister whether the arbitration between the War Office and the National Relief Fund is now completed; and, if so, what amount the War Office is to repay the fund?

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not let us know whether this arbitration is now completed in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement outside the House the other day that he is going to give an extra £6,000,000? This money is due to them, and can the right hon. Gentleman let the House know when the War Office is going to pay the money back to this Committee?

I am afraid I cannot fix a date. I will do all I can to hurry it on.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much, if any, of the National Relief Fund has been expended in connection with the relief of men in the Royal Navy; and whether it is intended to repay the same so expended to that fund, and, if so, when?

We have no information as to expenditures from the National Relief Fund, except those already given in the published accounts. From this it appears that from the beginning of the War until 31st March, 1916, the total expenditure from the fund in relief of both naval and military cases was £2,624,249. It is not possible to distinguish money expended on relief for the Royal Navy from similar expenditure for the Army. There is no intention of refunding from Navy Votes the money thus expended, but arrangements are in force for recovery, in proper cases, from separation allowance payments, of sums advanced from the fund in anticipation of the issue of separation allowance.

Is it not a fact that this money was contributed for civil and not for naval and military purposes?

I am not aware of that. I should have thought there could not have been very much expended on behalf of naval cases. Great care was taken to meet claims at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Dublin Metropolitan Police caused by the recent orders instructing them to go through a course of military training and musketry drill; if he can say whether this is being done on the advice of the opponents of Home Rule; if he is aware that the Dublin Metropolitan Police were called upon to pay their own expenses, including board and lodging, whilst at Dollymount Camp undergoing their drill; if he is aware that this action on the part of the authorities is resented by the men, who maintain that they joined a civil and unarmed force for the protection of life and property; if he is aware that men long over military age, with from thirty to forty years' service, were compelled to take part in these military drillings; if he is aware that the Dublin Metropolitan Police resent being turned into an armed force under a military body; if he will say whether it is contemplated to increase their pay or grant them a bonus for this military work; if he is aware that the Dublin Metropolitan Police are the lowest paid force in the United Kingdom; if he can say when their conditions are likely to be improved; if he is aware that the action of the Government and their suggestion to appoint resident magistrates to try persons who could not be found guilty of charges made against them by either judge or jury and the continuance of martial law is looked upon with distrust and suspicion by the Irish people; and if he will say what steps, if any, he intends to take to find out the views of the Irish people as to the best means of a settlement of the Irish question?

I am not aware of any dissatisfaction amongst the Dublin Metropolitan Police in respect of musketry training except on the part of a few malcontents. This training is being carried out by direction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief with the consent of the Government. The cost of conveyance of Dublin Metropolitan Police to and from Dollymount is being defrayed out of public funds. In the first instance, the men remained at Dollymount during the whole course; they were provided with free lodgings and were messed at a lower rate than in their own barrackc. Arrangements were subsequently made to limit the course to a daily attendance of three hours, thus permitting the men to live and obtain their meals in their own barracks. Orders were issued that no man over twenty-five years' service was to be detailed for this course, but I regret to say that inadvertently a certain number of men over that service were included in the classes. It is not proposed that this force should carry rifles when on duty or otherwise except in cases of the gravest necessity. An extra messing allowance has been approved for men on musketry duty sleeping at Dollymount, and an application for the grant of a war bonus for the force is receiving consideration. It is not the fact that the Dublin Metropolitan Police are the lowest paid force in the United Kingdom. As regards the large issues raised in the last two parts of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to statements previously made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a suggestion has been made that these men should be trained in the use of firearms, this being another term for coercion?

I have nothing to add to my answer.

Is it not the fact, as alleged in the question, that these policemen were called upon to pay their own expenses, including board and lodging, whilst at the Dollymount Camp undergoing drill. If that be true, and I believe it, will he take steps to remedy it?

If the hon. Member will read my answer he will see that I have replied to it. It certainly is not the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction that exists in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, so much so that meetings have been held to protest against their treatment as well as the conduct of one of the principal officers and one of the chief advisers of Sir John Maxwell.

No; I was not aware of it.

.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee which he has appointed to consider the commercial and industrial policy after the War will have power under the terms of reference to recommend a general tariff on foreign imports for the purposes of revenue and for the protection of Home industries; and, if not, whether he will enlarge the reference, so as to enable these two matters to be included?

The questions to which the Government desire to direct the special attention of the Committee are set out in the second part of the terms of reference; but the reference is so drawn as not to hamper the Committee in considering any questions which they may think relevant to the main object of their inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state why Ireland is not represented on the committee appointed to consider the Commercial and Industrial Policy to be adopted after the War; if he is aware that Ireland needs a share of the revival of trade; and if, in justice to Ireland and the Irish soldiers, he will appoint Irish representatives on the committee.

As I informed the hon. Member for Waterford on Thursday last, I shall be glad to consider any suggestion he may make.

asked whether the members of the Committee appointed to consider commercial problems after the War, and who are nominated in view of their personal ability to consider such problems, will deal with such problems as affecting the United Kingdom only or of the Empire as a whole?

asked why no representatives of the Dominions have been appointed on the Committee on industrial and commercial policy to be adopted after the War, having regard to the fact that the Committee is to inquire into the resources of the Empire and how the sources of supply within the Empire can be prevented from falling under Foreign control?

asked why in the constitution of the Committee appointed to consider the terms of the report of the recent Paris Conference and industrial conditions after the War there is no one included from the Dominions or Dependencies; and what steps the Government will now take to remedy this omission?

asked the Prime Minister what arrange- ments, if any, he proposes to make for the representation of the Oversea Dominions on the Committee which is to consider the commercial and industrial policy to be adopted after the War, with special reference to the conclusions reached at the Economic Conference of the Allies?

I will answer these questions together by reading a telegram which was sent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Self-governing Dominions early in May: His Majesty's Government desire as soon as practicable to convene a Conference representative of the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India to consider the commercial policy to be adopted after the War. In view of past fiscal controversies in this country, we consider it essential as a prior step in order that the Conference may have practical results, to set up a Committee here with a view of discovering how far agreement among ourselves may be possible under the changed conditions brought about by the War. But we wish to make it clear that in our judgment the appointment of this Committee, whatever may be its result, will not as we hope delay unduly the holding of the larger Conference or interfere in any way with the free and unprejudiced discussion of the problems with the overseas representatives. I trust that this method of procedure will commend itself to your Ministers. The Dominion Governments concurred in this procedure, and the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers has accordingly been appointed.

Was not that telegram sent prior to the sitting of the Paris Conference; was not the composition of the Paris Conference modified in order to comply with the reasonable request that the Dominions overseas should be represented; and, in view of the fact that the principle was there recognised, is it not reasonable now that, in working out the details of the scheme, the Dominions should be represented?

No, Sir Mr. Hughes went to the Paris Conference as representing the Empire, not as representing any particular Dominion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman desire the free discussion of the fiscal system throughout the country or is it to be confined to this Committee?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of altering the constitution of the Chelsea Commissioners so as to include civilian representation?

As at present advised, I do not think it necessary to add to the number of civilians, who now constitute about one-third of the Commission.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the civilians on this Committee are connected with the War Office and that, in fact, there is no civilian at all on the Committee?

I do not think it improbable, when you are dealing with Army pensions, that the majority of members should be representatives of the War Office. My hon. Friend is quite in error in thinking that there are no civilians on the Committee.

I have examined every name on the Committee and there is no name that is unconnected with one of the Departments. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these pensions are now paid over a much wider area and that therefore there ought to be civilian representation; and is he also aware that the Treasury has not yet appointed its representative?

asked the Prime Minister what Government Departments are responsible for bringing to the notice of the public in this country and in neutral countries the black list of firms which have business relations or sympathies with the enemy; what steps are being taken to make the list a comprehensive one and to ensure for it the widest publicity; and whether copies will be placed in the Library of the House and circulated to the Press?

The Statutory List, which is presumably the list referred to by the hon. Member, is compiled by the Foreign Trade Department of the Foreign Office and is issued by the Privy Council Office, as a Statutory Order, and distributed by the Foreign Trade Department. The original list was issued by Proclamation on the 29th of February, 1915, additions being made by Order of Council from time to time; a consolidating list, containing all the names added up to the date of issue, is published every two months. All reasonable steps are taken to secure for it publicity, including communication to the Press.

Are there not British subjects abroad who are trading with the enemy not with standing this list?

I do not think the Statutory List affects the question of British subjects abroad trading with the enemy.

It ought to!

As my hon. Friend is aware, we issue the Statutory List in accordance with an Act of Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister who is at present in control of the Executive Government of Ireland; and who is responsible to this House for the Irish Executive?

The Civil Executive Government of Ireland is being administered by the Lords Justices acting under the general direction of His Majesty's Government conveyed through the Home Secretary. In accordance with constitutional precedent, when the office of Chief Secretary is unfilled, or there is no Chief Secretary in the Cabinet, the Home Secretary is responsible to this House for Irish Affairs. In military matters General Maxwell exercises the powers of General Officer Commanding in Ireland, which include, of course, the exceptional powers conferred on the military authorities by the Defence of the Realm Act.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made on behalf of the Government on 11th July, to the following effect: I say with a certain amount of confidence that under the system which exists at this moment there ought not to be much fear of Ireland getting out of hand. General Sir John Maxwell is responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs, with, I believe, some 40,000 soldiers to support him, and with the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary in his hands. Lord Midleton asked me whether he would have a free hand. I am certainly not aware of any case in which his hands have been tied by any restrictions calculated to interfere with his authority or his freedom of action. There is no Lord Lieutenant. There is no Chief Secretary. There is no representative of the Irish Government in either House of Parliament. That was the declaration of Lord Lansdowne, made on behalf of the Government. How does the Prime Minister reconcile that declaration with the answer he has now given?

These are rather debatable points. My answer must be taken to be the opinion of the Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received information that the reasons of necessity for the safety of the Empire, which were urged on leaders of Irish political parties as making necessary an immediate settlement, exist after an interval of two months with an equal urgency, or has he information that the difficulty then apprehended is no longer of such vital character and affords no immediate justification for the introduction of controversial legislation during the continuance of hostilities?

This question raises controversial points which cannot be dealt with in an answer to a question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when he expects that the present Parliamentary Session will end, and when he anticipates that it will be necessary for the House to reassemble?

I am afraid I cannot at present answer this question.

asked the Prime Minister whether, despite all the provision existing for allowances and pensions, there is increasing hardship due to the increased cost of living; and whether he is prepared to consider an all-round increase in the minimum allowances to overcome this hardship?

I fear that any all-round increase in the rates of separation allowances and pensions is on financial grounds quite out of the question at the present time.

Is not the increase in the cost of food from 1st July, 1915, till to-day between 45 per cent and 50 per cent.—that appears in the "Board of Trade Gazette"—and in view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision he has now given?

We know all the facts.

Then I will raise the question on the Vote of Credit this afternoon.

asked the Minister of Munitions (1), in view of the fact that the inquiries concerning the application of the Central Liquor Control Board to the south-eastern area heard the evidence of the representatives of the licensing justices of each Petty Sessional division, the licensing justices of each county borough, the municipal authorities, and the police constabulary, who all testified against the action which has now been taken, whether he can state on whose evidence the Government have relied and what was the object of going through the pretence of holding inquiries; (2) whether he will receive a deputation of members from the south-eastern counties on the application of the Liquor Control Board Regulations to those counties; if so, will he postpone the Order until he has heard their views on the matter; and (3) whether he is aware that an Order applying the Liquor Control Board Regulations to the south-eastern area comes into force to-day; whether he is aware that the Board held an inquiry at Canterbury for Kent on 8th May, and at Brighton for Sussex and Surrey on 12th May, at which every speaker expressed the opinion that there was no necessity whatever for any extension of restrictive measures, and that no useful purpose would be served thereby; and whether, in view of the fact that the decision is against the unanimous evidence of all the recognised authorities of the south-eastern counties, he will at once withdraw the Order?

I am not able to accept the hon. Member's description of the views of the representatives of local authorities and licensing justices, who attended the inquiries which were held, as a fair summary of the proceedings at those inquiries. As the hon. Member observes, the Order comes into operation to-day, and while the Department will be glad to receive any representations respecting its operation which may be addressed to them, I am not aware of any grounds for the postponement or withdrawal of the Order, which was based upon the request of the military authorities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman state that the military authorities in Kent and Canterbury asked for this Order?

Yes.

Since the Department is not willing to accept the account which the local authorities represented at this meeting themselves gave, will the right hon. Gentleman in future have an official shorthand note taker in order that there may be no doubt?

I think there was an official shorthand writer. I saw a long report afterwards and I think it purported to be a shorthand report. I will look into it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the representatives of the local authorities and licensing justices and magistrates all give an account of this which he will not accept?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these Regulations and Orders have been in force in the North of England for months and months?

That does not arise out of this question.

( speaking from the Opposition Gangway ): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the wearing of their uniforms ashore by merchant captains and officers has been officially sanctioned by the Admiralty and the Board of Trade; whether he is aware of cases where senior naval officers have questioned these uniforms stating that, being similar to naval uniforms, they are calculated to deceive, and, as such, those wearing them are liable to prosecution under the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether, in order to avoid placing such indignities upon merchant captains and officers and for the sake of better order and discipline on merchant vessels, he will consider the desirability of adopting a standard uniform recognised by the Government for the use of officers of the merchant service, thus abolishing those uniforms of a heterogeneous kind which are adopted by different shipowners and which are liable to question under the new conditions of the law?