asked 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?

The whole question is receiving the consideration of the Admiralty and of the companies and persons interested, and the suggestion in the last part of the question will be borne in mind.

Will the right hon Gentleman bear in mind that this is a matter of some urgency, as it is more necessary in time of war than in time of peace?

I assume that.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the men on board H.M.S. "Doris" have not had any leave since the beginning of the War; that some dissatisfaction exists among the ship's company owing to the fact that so many men belonging to other ships have been given leave, including the sister ship "Talbot"; and can he see his way to give the same privileges in respect to leave to H.M.S. "Doris"?

I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answers already given. Leave must depend upon the exigencies of the Service. The process of relieving men as circumstances permit is still proceeding.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are receiving many letters on this matter, that he has given me the same answer over and over again; and cannot he make some representations to their lordships with regard to leave for these men?

If I have given the same answer more than once it is because there is no other answer. Leave must depend upon, the exigencies of the Service, and we do our best in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the clerical staff in His Majesty's dockyards will participate in the new war bonus; and, if that is not to be the case, will he explain the reason for the omission?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on Monday last.

When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to say when these bonuses will be paid?

I cannot make any statement whatever upon that.

asked (1)when it is intended to open up to the writer branch the possibility of gaining wardroom rank, as is open to most other branches in the naval service; and (2) whether, in view of the increase in the duties of experienced writers during the period of hostilities through the abnormal condition of the accounts arising out of the War and the greater responsibility involved whilst working under Reserve officers of limited experience in naval accountant work, as well as training junior writers entered for temporary service, it is proposed to reward them by giving them a proportionate number of commissions as accountant officers, the number of which it has been found necessary to increase to meet war requirements?

In answer to these questions I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me on the 28th September last to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made since last September in the promotion of these men who are eligible for promotion?

I cannot say offhand, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the answer to which I have referred him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seamen, signalmen, wireless operators, enginemen and others receive promotion?

From the answer I gave on the 28th September my hon. Friend will get information. As to what progress has been made I cannot say offhand, but it does not follow from my ignorance that no progress has been made.

I will put another question.

asked what is the earliest age at which a seamen can gain warrant rank, and what is the earliest age at which a writer can gain warrant rank; and how many writers have been promoted to warrant rank at an earlier age than thirty-nine?

The earliest age at which a seaman can gain warrant rank is twenty-four, as compared with thirty-five in the case of a writer. The answer to the last part of the question is one.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what age seamen can attain warrant rank—is it twenty-two or twenty-five?

It is neither; it is twenty-four, that is the earliest.

asked the Secretary of State for War if Mr. J. Broadbent, who is described by the Army as Gunner Broadbent, No. 84,768, Royal Garrison Artillery, was, by a district court-martial held at Portsmouth on 8th June, 1916, sentenced to undergo detention for 112 days; if he is now in the military detention barracks at Gosport; why the Army Order of 25th May last was not obeyed in this case and a sentence of imprisonment and not detention given; and if steps will be taken immediately to correct the decision of this court-martial?

Inquiry is being made.

asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the War is now costing £6,000,000 a day and that there is every possibility of a .still further increase, and having regard to the Government's action in spending large sums on posters and propaganda for the purpose of obtaining national economy, will he say whether, in the motor transport depots all over the country, slightly damaged motor tyre tubes, costing from 20s. upwards, are being scrapped; and, seeing that the Government Departments are in possession of a new and adequate means of permanently repairing these tubes in a few minutes without the aid of expensive plant or highly paid mechanics at a low cost, can he state why this method is not being used more extensively; and whether it is the custom for the motor transport depots to sell these damaged tubes in bulk to dealers at any price they think fit, and at considerable loss to the country?

I have no reason to suppose that motor-tyre tubes which can be repaired by any means and made serviceable again are being scrapped. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Will the hon. Member say whether the Committee which is inquiring into possible economies in the spending Departments is still in existence?

That does not arise out of this question.

Will the hon. Member grant me facilities for proving that I am right in what I have put down?

Yes, certainly; if the hon. Member can give me any assistance of that kind I shall be very grateful to him.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of John Foley, Kilgobnet, Beaufort, county Kerry, who joined the Army in February, 1916, any allowance has been made to his father; whether he is aware that the father is in very poor circumstances, is over sixty years, and has only this son; and whether, under these circumstances, his case will be specially considered?

If the hon. Member will let me know the soldier's regiment, rank, and regimental number, inquiry will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for War why the mother of Private Joe Sullivan, No. 12,840, No. 8110 Gordon Highlanders, attached to 40 Company, British Expeditionary Force, France, Mrs. John Shiels, alias Sullivan, of Ballylahiff, Newcastle West, county Limerick, is not receiving her allowance, although her son says he is contributing towards it; whether when he was in the Irish Guards, which regiment he left to join the Gordon Highlanders, she received last November £l 9s. 6d. from the War Office; and whether, as she is a poor woman, he will take steps to see that she receives her allowance without any further delay?

The hon. Member has written to me about this case and inquiry "is being made.

Seeing that the question was asked a week ago, why has not the hon. Gentleman received a reply?

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has not had a reply. I am sure it is an, over sight and I regret it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital have considered the application of Private Denis Donnelly, Irish Guards, Caherdaniel, county Kerry, who was invalided home from service at the front; and, if so, what increase has been granted on the conditional pension previously granted to him?

The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have recently received this case and given the man a conditional pension of 12s. 6d. a week for six months in lieu of his former pension of 5s. 3d. a week (9d. a day).

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the question of the amount of allowance to dependants, part and wholly dependent, has yet been settled; and, if so, when the amended warrant will be issued?

It has been decided to amend the scale of pensions of partially dependant parents of soldiers who have been killed. In future the present pension of 5s. a week will be increased by such an amount as will, with ,any income received by the dependant, make up the total income to a sum not exceeding 10s. to 12s. a week according to the soldier's rank or to the amount of ascertained dependence if less. The amending warrant will be published as soon as possible.

Can my hon. Friend say whether that is for one or both periods?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, whilst the whole question of war pensions is now under review, he will favourably consider the proposition that pensions for wounds, being a gift from the nation, shall be free from taxation?

I do not think it would be possible to single out this class of pension for special treatment in" the way suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many time expired warrant officers and non-commissioned officers have received notices, addressed to them by their surnames only without specifying their military rank, calling them to the Colours; whether such men are entitled to be recalled instead of called to join the Colours; and if he will give directions that the procedure by which old soldiers are recalled to the Colours shall distinguish them from men called up for the first time under the Military Service Act?

The necessity to adopt a somewhat different procedure in the case of those mentioned in the first part of this question is fully recognised. Some form of notification will, of course, be necessary, but it has been arranged that it shall be of a different colour from that used in calling up men for the first time under the Military Service Act, and that it shall instruct the men in question to rejoin the Colours.

asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the misprint in the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, copied into the Irish Lunacy Act, 1901, by which the word person was substituted for the word prisoner has led to invalided soldiers being classified as criminal lunatics, whether he will introduce a short declaratory Bill to rectify this mistake, and so put an end to a misunderstanding which is causing pain to and resentment by the soldiers so classified and their friends and relations?

I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but, as he is no doubt aware, the change of classification which he desires would have financial consequences which have hitherto rendered controversial the Bills introduced for the purpose. I would add that the description of insane discharged soldiers as "Criminal Lunatics" is merely one of classification in the official records, and in no way affects their treatment, and there is no information to show that it has caused pain or resentment to the soldiers so classified or their friends.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this financial business should be involved in correcting misprints?

On the present classification, the Treasury Grant is paid in respect of these persons. If the classification was altered the Treasury Grant would cease, and the local authorities would suffer.

Am I to take it, then, that we are to continue to have invalid soldiers classified as criminal lunatics?

There are soldiers whose minds are unsound who are confined in military asylums.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information to the effect that British naval prisoners at Forstadmoen, Faaberg, Norway, are subject to harsh treatment, inferior food, and deprivation of liberty; and, if so, will he have inquiry made with a view to securing their better treatment?

The Admiralty have received an official report, dated 14th July, which deals with the treatment of the British naval prisoners interned at Forstadmoen. The men appear to be well treated and fed and to enjoy a reasonable amount of liberty. Certain privileges, including leave, were temporarily stopped owing to the escape of two of the prisoners.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether American representatives in this country have been consulted with reference to the refusal to give Mrs. James Connolly, of Dublin, an American citizen by birth, a passport for herself and her daughters to America; whether he is aware that one of the said daughters also was born in America, and that American authorities hold that in the circumstances in which Mrs. Connolly has become a widow she is now an American citizen; and, she having sold her home under promise of a passport to America and there being no charge against her, whether a passport to the United States will be given to her without further delay?

Passports are only granted to persons resident in Ireland on the recommendation of the Lords Justices of Ireland. No such recommendation has been received in the case referred to.

Can the Noble Lord say why?

The passport was not granted on the recommendation of the Lords Justices of Ireland.

Can the Noble Lord find out on what ground it was withheld from Mrs. Connolly?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the text of any objection raised by His Majesty's Government to the proposed visit of certain American citizens of repute to Ireland this season for a philanthropic purpose; to whom communicated; the nature of any correspondence to which it has led; whether the objection is persisted in; and what result favourable to this country is expected from this treatment of citizens of a neutral State?

No objection has been raised, as suggested in the first part of the question; the other questions do not, therefore, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the entire correspondence between the American and British Governments with reference to the German submarine "Deutschland" will be submitted to the House of Commons before any change in the policy of this country towards America is introduced or any irrevocable step taken?

I see no ground for the apprehensions which the hon. Member appears to entertain, and have nothing further to add to what I stated on this subject on 17th July in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo.

Will the Noble Lord not undertake to consult this House before taking any irrevocable step?

I have answered that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of affairs in Serbia and as to the composition of the Army of occupation?

It would not be desirable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will see, to discuss in public the subject raised by the latter part of the question. With regard to the condition of things in Serbia, the information which reaches us is to some extent conflicting, but unfortunately there seems little doubt that in parts of the country, at any rate, the distress from want of food is very serious and reflects grave discredit on the occupying Powers.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to establish a camp for prisoners of war at Bostall Heath, Plumstead; and, if so, whether due consideration has been given to the fact-that such a camp would overlook the Royal Arsenal and the river, and might be a menace to the safety of the Arsenal and the borough of Woolwich generally?

The suggestion to established a camp for prisoners of war at Bostall Heath has been abandoned.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Turks in their communiqués have from time to time claimed during the Gallipoli Campaign to have captured a large number of British prisoners in the Dardanelles; and, if so, whether the British Government, through the American Ambassador, will inquire what numbers of British prisoners so captured are now in Turkish hands?

The numbers of officers and men captured in the Dardanelles who are now prisoners in the hands of the Turks are believed to be nineteen and 359, respectively. These figures represent the totals of the lists received from the Turkish Government, after check and verification at the War Office and collation with information received from other sources. The figures as thus checked were also referred back to the United States Embassy at Constantinople for further check.

asked the' Secretary of State for War whether difficulties are being put in the way of munition workers enrolling in the Volunteers as the munition authorities are afraid that, should the Volunteers be mobilised, they will lose the services of such munition workers; and whether he can issue regulations to satisfy the apprehension of the munition authorities, making it clear that munition workers will not be mobilised, unless such an emergency arose as to necessitate the mobilisation of every available man in the country, including even munition workers?

Munition workers are not the only category in regard to whom this point arises. A discussion between the various Departments concerned has taken place, and as a result a line of action which will safeguard the position of the workers concerned as regards possible withdrawal from their civil employment has been agreed upon. It is hoped that full particulars will be available very shortly, but various Departments have to be consulted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will furnish a Return of all the Grants given by the Treasury for the purpose of building houses for munition workers, together with the names of the local authorities to whom Grants have been made?

It is not considered advisable to give the names of places where munition workers have been housed. In these circumstances I fear the Return asked for must be deferred.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the amount of the Grants given in connection with Great Britain as compared with the amount of Grants given in Ireland?

I will consider the question from that point of view. I am not sure that I quite understood what my hon. Friend's point was.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Treasury exercises any authority or jurisdiction in connection with money paid by the Munitions Department for contracts given, and whether the Treasury will see that the lowest tender handed in for the construction of these buildings is accepted?

In time of war it is quite impossible for the Treasury to interfere with individual contracts given by a Department.

On what principle does a Government Department give a contract to the second, third or fourth highest man who tenders, while the lowest, and very often the second and third lowest tenders are not accepted, and no reason is given?

If my hon. Friend will address a question to the Minister of Munitions he will give him an answer.

The Ministry of Munitions, like every other Department, will tell me that in the interests of the State they cannot make it public.

asked the Minister of Munitions if he can yet say whether the deported engineers from the Clyde can return to their homes on assurances being given; and, if so, will he indicate the nature of the assurances required?

The matter is receiving my careful consideration. I am in communication with the trade union on the point, and I hope to be able to announce my decision very soon. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put a question down for Monday.

Does that mean that this is being done in consultation with the trade unions?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether the Yate Chemical Company, of Yate, near Bristol, is a controlled firm; if so, whether he is aware of the rates of wages paid there; has any war bonus been given to the workers; and whether such has been applied for and ignored by the company?

The firm has recently been controlled. I am causing inquiry to be made with the questions raised by my hon. Friend, and will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Munitions how many selected munition areas there are where the State now controls the liquor traffic; and whether he can give any particulars as to the working in each case of this arrangement?

There are twenty areas in Great Britain in which the liquor traffic is controlled by General Orders made by the Central Control Board, and a system of direct control has been established in smaller districts contained within three of these areas. Particulars of the working of these different forms of control are given in the recently published Second Report of the Control Board (Cd. 8243).

asked the Secretary of State for War by whose order the officer, accompanied by detectives, when searching Miss Maeve Cavanagh's house in Dublin, threatened to shoot her; if without authority, what notice has been taken of his conduct, promptly complained of; why the property taken from the house has not all been restored yet; why, out of the £50 in gold then taken, notes for only £43 have been returned; and when the balance will be returned?

A report on these allegations has been asked for. In the meantime I must, of course, not be taken as accepting them as correct.

Will the hon. Gentleman return the goods, and then it does not matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, since in all prisons in which any considerable number of tried and convicted Catholic prisoners are detained there is a Catholic chaplain to attend to their spiritual needs, several such chaplains should have been appointed for the requirements of some 1,800 Irish prisoners at Frongoch, and none have yet been appointed; whether he is aware of the resentment of those untried men at being treated worse than convicted prisoners in many respects but especially in this; whether several Catholic chaplains will be appointed without further' delay; whether he will arrange for a visit of inspection of dormitories 3 and 4 at Frongoch by a representative of the American Government accompanied by an independent sanitary inspector, and the prisoners to be interrogated; if not, what is to be done with reference to the insanitary condition of the camp; whether it is with his concurrence that the prisoners are restricted in writing to a small halfsheet of notepaper widely ruled, and required to pay postage on these scraps; if not, whether he will have this restriction removed; why Mr. Sears, a vegetarian for reasons of health, is denied cheese in the camp though he was allowed it in prison; and, seeing that all these grievances are verified by the censor at the camp though previous complaints of them have been denied, whether the Government as a whole will either have them remedied immediately or accept responsibility for the neglect?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The hon. Member's allegation that Catholic chaplains have not been appointed to minister to the Irish prisoners detained at Frongoch is quite unfounded. At the outset the War Office had arranged for the attendance of a priest on Sundays. Representations were made by the Home Office that a chaplain giving his whole time to the camp would be appointed. This was done, and that arrangement now continues. The appointment of an additional chaplain is not considered necessary, especially in view of the large reduction in the number of prisoners at Frongoch. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question yesterday. When the camp was occupied by German prisoners it was reported upon most favourably by representatives of the American Embassy. In answer to the third part of the question, the rule in all internment camps is that letters from prisoners must not cover more than two sides of a sheet of the regulation notepaper. The postage must be prepaid. I have no information as to the diet of the vegetarian prisoner mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that prisoners at Frongoch continue to complain bitterly of the want of an adequate number of chaplains, and how can he reconcile the supply of only one chaplain to such a number of men, while in ordinary prisons there is one chaplain to some thirty or forty men; and will he further answer the last part of the question, which asserts truly that the notes upon which this question is based have been verified by the censor at Frongoch?

The hon. Member is quite mistaken. His question contains a number of allegations which are quite unfounded. I have had no representations made to me recently of any complaint. I had some time ago, and a resident chaplain was appointed.

The last part of the question asserts that the notes on which the question is based were verified by the censor. Some corrections were made, and the question was put on the Paper in accordance with these corrections. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?

The right hon. Gentleman refers to American citizens. Is he aware that two American citizens who landed at Liverpool on Tuesday from the "Philadelphia" were refused permission to land by his Department?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to American citizens.

It does not arise out of the question.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state the reasons why the Government refuse a public and sworn inquiry into the deaths in North King Street; if he is aware that the coroner's jury returned a verdict of murder in these cases; if he is aware that the military authorities were represented at the inquests; and if he will consider the demands of the Irish people for this inquiry?

I have nothing to add to the full answer I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 17th of this month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first question, Why the Government refuse an inquiry?

No such inquiry was ever promised.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been in the district himself?

Oh, yes, I have been there.

What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?

asked the Prime Minister if he will now state the composition of the tribunal and the character of the promised public inquiry into the killing of non-combatant civilians by the military in Dublin in connection with the recent insurrection; whether the inquiry will embrace the cases of the three non-combatant civilians, Francis Sheehy Skeffington, Thomas Dickson, and Patrick M'Intyre, shot at Portobello Barracks and buried in the barrack yard; the cases of the seventy-one prisoners, including women, shot in Richmond Barracks and buried without identification; the cases of Ernest Cavanagh, John Hewson, William Maguire, Harris, Casey, and Fowler, shot in the Eden Quay area the cases of Thomas Hickey, Christopher Hickey, Peter Connolly, Peter Lawless, James M'Carthy, Patrick Hoey, and George Ewing, shot in houses in North King Street and buried in cellars and yards there; the cases of Councillor Carroll, Patrick Nolan, and a boy named Coade; the case of Patrick Derrick, shot in the yard of his father's house in Eustace Street; the case of the Reverend Father Watters, shot dead by soldiers when on his way to administer the last sacraments to the dying; Nurse Kehoe, shot by soldiers while engaged in her professional duties; Mrs. Naylor, shot on Great Brunswick Street bridge; if all those cases are not to be inquired into, will he state the grounds for differentiation; whether all the officers and men involved in all those cases will be produced for examination and cross-examination; whether civilian witnesses will be allowed to appear and give evidence without adverse consequences from the Government; and when the inquiry will open?

With regard to the first part of the question the composition of the tribunal of inquiry into the shootings at Portobello Barracks, which are the only cases in which a public inquiry has been promised, is in course of settlement, and I hope to make an announcement on the subject very soon. Public inquiries have not been promised into the other cases mentioned in the question. I stated my reasons for this decision on the 17th of this month in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

Will the public inquiry include the shooting of one man in Phoenix Park who was a non-combatant?

I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. I said shooting at the Portobello Barracks.

One man was shot in the park.

Does the Prime Minister maintain that the failure to give a ministerial pledge deprives the people in Ireland of rights they otherwise have? Will the Prime Minister explain why he distinguishes between the Sheehy-Skeffington case and other cases under precisely the same circumstances, and how he reconciles the answer he has just given with that given on the 10th May, in which he said that similar cases would be followed by similar procedure?

I have already answered this question many times. I do not want to repeat what I have said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue the policy announced by himself on the 10th May?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why he refused permission to the hon. Member for North Meath to visit Arthur Griffith, an untried prisoner detained at Reading?

asked when the twenty-seven prisoners at Reading will take their trial before the Advisory Committee; whether Arthur Griffith is in Reading, why he is refused visitors, what charge is against him, and when he is likely to be released?

Arthur Griffith is interned at Reading. The grounds for his internment are stated in the notice of the Order which has been served upon him. I have not yet received any recommendation about him from the Advisory Committee, but they are dealing this week with the cases of all the Irish prisoners at Reading who have not previously appeared before them. Griffith is allowed to receive visits in accordance with the rules. Applications from Members of Parliament to pay special visits have been exceedingly numerous, and are allowed as far as possible, but a certain discretion had to be exercised in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many visitors he is allowed to see per week, and why I have been refused permission to see him?

I will see what

The right hon. Gentleman himself has refused me. Will he state the reason?

Owing to the very large number of visits that have been had

How many visits has this man had?

I will ascertain.

You must have known when you refused me.

As hon. Members are aware, very large numbers of permissions to visit have been given.

Not to this man man. You have treated him most shamefully and cruelly.

If the hon. Member who has put the question is specially desirous of visiting this man I will certainly arrange it.

I have applied twice for permission. To my first application there was no answer whatever. To the second there was a refusal.

I will give the hon. Gentleman permission if he attaches importance to it.

They should move the Adjournment more often.

Has he had any visits during the last few weeks?

I understand that he has.

He has not.

There is a very large number of visits, and it is quite impossible for me to know about every one of them.

Go to Potsdam!

I made application to be allowed to visit this man, and I was refused. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the names and addresses of all persons arrested during the rising in Ireland were published broadcast in Irish newspapers; and if he will, in justice to them, so as to enable them to return to their employment, cause their names to be published when their release has been ordered by the Advisory Committee?

I do not think it desirable to make any official publication of the kind suggested. When a prisoner is released, his presence is sufficient evidence that he has been discharged.

Considering that the names of these men were published in every paper in Ireland when they were interned, will he not allow their names to be published when they are released?

Their names were published in order that their friends and families should be made aware of what had happened.

What is the reason for any kind of secrecy?

There is no secrecy at all. The men are released and go home to their friends.

asked if the case of Edward J. Brennan, Dublin, arrested during the recent rebellion, has been inquired into by the Advisory Committee; and, if so, has his release been ordered?

Yes, Sir. The Advisory Committee have recommended Edward Brennan's release, and he was released on the 22nd instant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Brennan is in the employment of a firm controlled by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and will the Government see that he shall be reinstated in his employment?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a letter from a Unionist justice of the peace, Charles H. Peacocke, Esq., Belmont, Wexford, advocating the release of Miss Ellen O'Ryan, now in Lewes Prison; whether he is aware that Mr. Peococke states that he is a neighbour of Miss O'Ryan's family, and that he has known them since 1871 as quiet and industrious farming people, and that Miss O'Ryan was at home in her father's house during the Sinn Fein disturbance, and that she took no part whatever in it; whether he is aware that the only charges against Miss O'Ryan are two letters, one written to her some two years ago with reference to a proposal to pass a resolution at the Wexford Board of Guardians, the other an invitation to a picnic; whether he is aware that the writers of these letters used some words which have been construed into a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act; whether Miss O'Ryan is to be held responsible for other people's words; and, if not, can he say when she will be released?

I have received from the hon. Member a letter from Mr. Peacocke, which shall have my consideration; but, as I informed the hon. Member for West Clare on the 18th July, the Advisory Committee, after personally hearing Ellen Ryan and carefully considering the evidence against her, have recommended that her internment should be maintained.

Did the hon. Member for Newry concur in that decision?

Has any definite charge been formulated against this lady?

Yes.

Can we see what that charge was?

May the Members of the House have an opportunity of seeing the letters so that they may be able to judge?

I understand that the letter to which the hon. Member refers is by no means the only evidence on which the Committee came to their decision. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that it is not possible to retry each individual case across the floor of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lady is prepared to go before any public tribunal and meet her accusers, and have the charge investigated?

This lady has been before the tribunal, and they have made their recommendation.

She does not know what is the charge against her.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that Irish soldiers are fighting for the rights of small nationalities, and why does the Government insist on making war on Irish women?

In connection with the rebellion—

She had no connection with the rebellion.

In connection with the rebellion eighty-two women were arrested by the military. They were all released except five. Of those five two have been released by advice of the Committee, and only three ladies are still retained.

Is it the fact that the Irish Nationalist Member for Newry is a concurrent in this woman's continued detention?

I cannot say what view is taken by individual members of the Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry, who is a member of the Committee, has given every case full consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether farmers and others in many parts of Ireland are ignorant of the Regulations governing the commandeering of hay by the military authorities; and, as there are many people in the cities and towns who have to buy hay at the present time for their horses, will he state what those Regulations are?

Large numbers of posters giving full particulars have been distributed throughout Ireland since the date' of the Order, and I hope that by this time farmers and others interested are sufficiently acquainted with the Regulations. Generally it is provided that no hay may be sold without a Government licence, which may be obtained from officers described as District Purchasing Officers of Supplies. I will furnish to my hon. Friend a list of the officers in Ireland.

Is it not a fact that these officers live a very long way from these country districts and is not great delay caused through a small farmer having to apply for a permit to such an officer? I will give the hon. Gentleman a case. Is he aware that at a market about a week ago a load of hay was brought in and many people with horses wanted to buy it, but the farmer could not sell it, and it had to be taken away? Will he see that the permits can be got without any unavoidable delay?

I will do my best to meet that point.

Is it a fact that while the hay crop of Ireland is about 4,000,000 tons, the Government only want 100,000 tons, and that they are holding up the 4,000,000 tons to get the 100,000 tons?

I will look into that. I do not carry the precise figures in my mind.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only the other day in a certain town in Queen's County hay wholly unfit for the feeding of horses, soft hay only fit for feeding cattle, was prohibited from being sold, and cannot he stop that kind of thing at once?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the employés in His Majesty's Gunwharf, Devonport, will be placed in a similar position to the employés in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, with regard to the extra bonus of 3s. a week?

I am afraid that I cannot answer this question till I know what the Admiralty decision is.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect to have that information?

I hope to have it shortly.

That is what I wanted to know.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether men discharged from the Army in consequence of ill-health or disablement are being called up for re-examination by recruiting officers; whether he is aware that such men were expressly excluded from the Military Service Act by Section 5 of the First Schedule; and whether he will take steps to prevent these men being called up?

I do not think that soldiers discharged in the circumstances mentioned are being actually called up, but they may in some cases be receiving notices. This might occur where a man settles in an area where he is not known and does not take the trouble to communicate with the recruiting officer, who has no means of knowing who a man is or what his history is except from himself. The man has, however, only to explain who he is and to show to the recruiting officer his discharge certificate in order to receive cancellation of his notice, if he is in fact not liable for service. When men discharged on account of ill-health settle in an area where they are known, it is unlikely that they will receive a notice.

Does my right hon. Friend know that the discharge certificate very frequently contains only the words "unfit for further service," and does not state the specific nature of the ill-health? Does he, further, know it is a fact—I can give him information locally—that men who have been discharged for these causes, many of whom are eligible for pensions, are being asked by recruiting officers to go up and see if they are fit for any other work?

I understand that there have been mistakes in the issue of notices with regard to discharged men, and steps have been taken to correct that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recruiting officers are calling up men who have been discharged from the Army to submit themselves to medical re-examination, and that when a medical certificate is produced the recruiting officers insist that they shall undergo that medical examination? I can give him cases.

If my hon. Friend will give me one or two cases, I will look into the matter.

Is there any objection to stating on the discharge certificate the specific reason for the man's discharge, instead of this general statement?

I will consider that point.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, according to the General Report of the Public Trustee just issued, forty-nine married and twenty-two unmarried men of military age are still available for active service; and can he say, seeing that the men on the staff of the Public Trustee's Department are exceptionally young, whether arrangements will be made to replace the men available for active service by men of non-military age or by women?

Of the eligible staff of the Public Trustee Department 58 per cent, have already been released for active service, and 423 women are employed (out of a total staff of 650). The Department has undertaken a large amount of war work in connection with the enactments dealing with trading with the enemy, and in addition the ordinary business of the Department has increased greatly. In these circumstances it is not considered possible to release any further trained officers at present, but the matter is kept under constant consideration.

May I take it from the answer that the figures actually given in the question are correct?

I have no reason to doubt that they are.

asked the Prime Minister if the cases of men in prison for refusal to obey military orders on conscientious grounds are now being considered under the scheme recently announced by him; if any decisions have already been arrived at; if any men have been released from prison under this scheme; and if the cases are being considered in the order of the commitment of the men to prison?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second and, consequently, to the third parts in the negative. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the order is not yet definitely fixed, but that the cases will be dealt with in the way most convenient to everybody concerned.

Am I to understand that no decisions have yet been arrived at?

Yes, the hon. Member may understand that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to accelerate it?

Yes, they are being accelerated.

asked, in view of the contradictory statements which have recently been given, what it is intended to do with conscientious objectors at the end of their terms of imprisonment in cases where the War Office and the advistory tribunal have not accepted the genuineness of the claim of conscientious objection, and in cases where the man has refused to accept alternative civil employment where such has been offered to him; and will the men in both cases be sent back to the Army to repeat past experiences, or will they both be discharged from the Army, or will the two cases be treated differently?

Men whose claims are rejected by the Central Appeal Tribunal will be held to serve in the Army and, on the termination of their terms of imprisonment, will be sent back to their unit. As regards men who refuse to undertake civil employment under the Home Secretary's scheme, I can add nothing to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 17th July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made on behalf of the Government recently in the House of Lords that these men who refuse to obey military orders will be altogether discharged?

I will consider it.