asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how many masters and officers of British merchant vessels are interned in Germany in military prisoners of war camps and places other than the civilian camp at Ruhleben; what steps are being taken to secure that these officers shall either receive the treatment with regard to internment in a neutral country or repatriation which was agreed at The Hague in respect of officers of His Majesty's Navy or Army, or, alternatively, the treatment agreed to with regard to civilians; and whether any of these officers have been either transferred to neutral countries or repatriated since the agreements were respectively arrived at dealing with the question of combatant prisoners of war and civilians interned in Germany and this country?

I am informed that the number is approximately 378. The German Government are well aware of our views on this matter, and the situation created by their refusal to repatriate certain classes of British merchant service officers and seamen under the various civilian agreements is engaging the serious and immediate attention of His Majesty's Government. In reply to the last part of the question, a number of British merchant service officers have recently been repatriated or transferred to Switzerland or Holland.

May I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he recognises that his Department is in all respects responsible for the merchant service and for the interests of these men who are interned in Germany, and who are not given fair play by the German Government?

I am quite aware of that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that his Department safeguards their interests, so far as any Department of His Majesty's Government can do that?

We work in very close consultation, and we shall safeguard their interests so far as we can.

asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether, as the Berne Agreement of 28th December, 1917, has now been ratified by the Turkish Government, negotiations will now be commenced forthwith with a view to arriving at an agreement for the mutual repatriation of all officers and men of the Navy and the Army of the two countries who have been prisoners of war for a period exceeding eighteen months?

No agreement exists with any enemy country for the repatriation of such prisoners, but only for their transfer to a neutral country. His Majesty's Government consider that it would be preferable to await the results of the Berne Agreement, now ratified by the Turkish Government, before considering so complete a departure from previous Allied policy as is suggested by my hon. Friend. Transfer to a neutral county is, I fear, impracticable in the case of British and Turkish prisoners, as has been already stated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as transfer to a neutral country is impracticable, it is absolutely necessary, if anything is to be done in this matter, that some new departure should be made, and is there any reason why the new departure suggested in my question should not be attempted?

I am afraid it will take some very considerable time to carry out the provisions of the Berne Agreement as it is; also I fear it is only too likely the number of our prisoners involved would be very much larger than in the case of any other country. As to the general question, it must be a matter to be discussed between all the Allied Governments, and, even if I had the power in the matter—which my hon. Friend knows I have not—no one Government, I think, would make a declaration of principle on the matter.

Because those negotiations take so long to carry to any effective use, is that not a reason why they should be commenced forthwith, even if they are so very difficult?

Yes; but it is no use commencing negotiations if you do not know the principles on which you are going to conduct them, and, as I say, a matter of tins kind has always been ruled the other way in discussions between the Allied Governments, and to start on a new principle would be an entire reversal of the Allied policy.

In view of the difficulties my hon. Friend has experienced, may I ask him whether steps have been taken to send out clothing to these unfortunate officers and men in Turkey?

Yes; that I have answered more than once. Steps in various directions have been taken.

asked who will choose the first 1,000 prisoners who are to be repatriated from Turkey under the recent agreement; when the 1,000 have left Turkey, who is to choose prisoners for repatriation from among the remainder, and what is the standard of sickness to be applied; and whether it will apply to all who now or in the future were within the standard?

The first 1,000 British invalid prisoners of war to be repatriated from Turkey under the Berne Agreement will be chosen by the Turkish authorities without the formality of official medical inspection, in order to save the time which the latter would necessarily take. The Turkish authorities may, of course, be expected to choose for repatriation those prisoners whose state of health renders them least likely to be of use to His Majesty's Government, and these will naturally also be the prisoners whose state of health renders their repatriation most urgent. We assume that the Turkish authorities in making the selection will avail themselves of the opinion of the British medical officer prisoners. After the repatriation of the first 1,000 the selection for repatriation, will be made by medical commissions composed of two Turkish doctors and one British prisoner doctor. The standard of disability for repatriation from Turkey under the agreement is the same as that in force with Germany for the purpose of transfer from that country for internment in Switzerland. It will apply to all prisoners who now fall, or who may in future come to fall, within its terms.

Have representations been made to the Turkish Government that a fair proportion of rank and file should be amongst those exchanged?

I believe the text of the agreement contained something to that effect. I cannot carry it in my mind, but I think that is so.

asked whether any arrangements have yet been made with the Netherlands Minister in Constantinople or with any other representative of a neutral Power to visit Turkish camps where prisoiners of war are interned in pursuance of the recent agreement; and, if so, what the arrangements are and how soon the inspection will be made?

Immediately on the receipt of news of the ratification of the Berne Agreement by the Turkish Government, the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople was requested by telegraph to take steps to carry out its provisions in regard to the inspection of internment camps by his representatives. As the Dutch Government were kind enough to appoint two gentlemen to their Legation at Constantinople for this duty some time ago, His Majesty's Government hope that the inspections will be able to be carried out at an early date, but they have no positive information on the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the boat train from. Stranraer is due to reach Carlisle at 12.45 a.m.; that it waits there for an hour and is not due to arrive at Euston until 10.20 a.m.; that a train from Perth reaches Carlisle at 1.5 a.m. and, leaving at 1.25 a.m., is timed to reach Euston at 8.20 a.m.; if he is aware that a large number of passengers travel from the North of Ireland to London viâ Stranraer; and if he will see that the system of preferring the Scottish traffic to the Irish is discontinued?

I am communicating with the railway company on this matter, and will inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if it is the intention of the Railway Executive Committee to further restrict train services during the ensuing summer months; and if he can state if it is intended to still further increase ordinary passenger fares?

I am afraid it is impossible to say what further restrictions of train services may become necessary during the summer months. There is no present intention of increasing ordinary passenger fares.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement as to the price of rail way season tickets being increased; if they will be restricted in the future only to bonâ fide residents in any particular area; and can he state, if the Railway Executive Committee report in favour of such an increase or restriction, if he will allow such decisions to be discussed in this House before they are made effective?

I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the whole question of railway restrictions shortly, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will await that statement. In the meantime, I am afraid I cannot add to the replies regarding season-ticket holders given to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Merthyr on the 15th and 24th April, respectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the new Order restricting the supply of gas, he can state in what manner it is proposed to apply the restriction to consumers who are supplied by slot-meters; is it proposed to alter these meters so that only a minimum quantity of gas will be supplied each week; if not, as there are no registers on these meters, will he state how the consumers can know what quantity of gas they are consuming or compare it with any previous consumption; and whether, in view of the number of these meter consumers in the London area and the high price they pay for the gas they consume, he can see his way to exclude all slot-meter consumers from the new Regulations?

I am not aware that there is any necessity for an alteration in slot-meters to enable consumers using them to comply with the Order, under which all classes of consumers are treated alike. If any slot-meter consumer is in doubt as to his quarterly consumption in 1916 or 1917 he can obtain this information from the company giving the supply, and can estimate the average weekly rate to which he is entitled. Owing to the large number of such consumers, it would be impossible to achieve the object of the Order—namely, a reduction of at least one-sixth in gas consumptio— if they were excluded from its operation. The price charged for gas is by Statute the same for prepayment as for ordinary consumers.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the case of those consumers by slot-meter who have to depend upon their slot-meter for cooking purposes, he would be prepared to supply them with extra coal to make up for it?

In dealing with the coal rations for London, it has been arranged that consideration will be given to those using gas as well as coal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee the same calorific power—it makes all the difference in the world?

I am afraid we cannot do that any more than we can guarantee to the gas companies that they will be able invariably to secure all the coal that they require.

To whom should application be made?

Application should be made direct to the undertaking.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the calorific power is below what it should be it takes a great deal more gas to boil a kettle?

I cannot answer as to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all German ships in the ports of the British Empire and of the Allies have now been commandeered?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. As regards the German ships in the ports of the British Empire, the answer is in the affirmative. The Controller is not aware of any German ships in the ports of the Allies which have not been commandeered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to certain articles which have recently appeared in the Press, written by Mr. George Young, and containing criticisms on the Diplo- matic Service and the Foreign Office; whether Mr. Young is still a member of that service; and, if not, in what circumstances he retired?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to these malicious articles. Mr. George Young was first secretary in the Diplomatic Service at Lisbon when war broke out. He did not retire. He deliberately refused to remain at his post, in spite of the express instructions of the then Secretary of State that he should do so. In view of this grave dereliction of duty in. war-time, the Secretary of State decided that he could not accept Mr. Young's offer of resignation, and caused him to be informed that his services were no longer required.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay on the Table the dispatch of His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon recommending Mr. Young's application for more active employment or leave to resign in order to go on active service; and whether the Foreign Office could make any statement as to the value of the services of Mr. Young in connection with the Foreign Office as recognised personally by himself and also officially?

I do not think it would be worth while laying it on the Table of the House. I have stated to the House the considerations which induced my predecessor in office to take the course he did. He did not take that course, I am quite sure, without very grave consideration.

Is the right horn. Gentleman aware that Mr. George Young is a member of the Victorian Order?

May I ask whether Mr. Young is at the present time being employed by any Government Department?

No.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, would it not be fair to this officer that the circumstances in which he left the service should be made public in full?

I have made them public in full in the answer I have just given.

Is it not a fact that this officer holds a very distinguished record, and that his services during the War should receive greater recognition than is implied in the right hon. Gentleman's answer?

I have stated the circumstances as far as I am aware of them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be ready to give us more information on this subject when we have the Foreign Office Vote?

Of course, when the Foreign Office Vote comes on, if there be time it is in the power of any hon. Gentleman to put any question he likes. I cannot say what answer I shall give until I hear the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that, at least, this gentleman is not suffering from hallucinations?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to state the result of the Italo-Slav conference recently held at Rome; whether the agreement reached has been adopted by the Italian, British, and French Governments; whether there will be consequent amendment or denunciation of the Treaty of London of 26th April, 1915; and whether all the Allies have been informed of this new phase of the problem of the Adriatic coast?

The resolutions of this Congress have already appeared in the public Press. As to the second part of the question, the conference was not official, and there has been no question of the adoption of the resolutions by the Allied Governments.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Italian Minister and Foreign Secretary received this Conference and made speeches on the occasion?

I fail to see how that affects, qualifies, or contracts the answer I have given the hon. Gentleman.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept all the statements made by the two Italian statesmen on that occasion?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a booklet entitled "The Secret Treaties," by F. Seymour Cocks, published by the Union of Democratic Control, which at page 40 gives a translation of Article 15 of the Treaty of London, by which it is made to appear that France, Great Britain, and Russia pledge themselves to support Italy in not allowing the representatives of the Holy See to undertake any diplomatic steps having for their object the conclusion of peace or the settlement of questions connected with the present War; and whether, having regard to the facts that the only thing that this Clause does is to say that if Italy objects to the Pope sending a representative to the peace conference we would support that objection, he can, in order to prevent this publication being used against us in Ireland and elsewhere, by quoting its exact terms make clear the meaning and construction of this Clause?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the statement, as it appears in the text of the pamphlet, must be read with a footnote, in which is quoted the explicit statement made by my Noble Friend the Minister of Blockade, on the subject. With this I am in entire agreement. The text of the pamphlet is inaccurate and misleading.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a Committee has been set up to consider inventions for dealing with the submarine menace; if he will state the names of the Committee and whether they have power to grant monetary rewards for meritorious inventions; and to whom inventors who have schemes should apply?

The arrangements for the consideration of inventions dealing with the enemy submarine are as stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 11th March. Monetary rewards have been, and will continue to be, made for meritorious inventions. Inventors having schemes to communicate should apply to the Secretary, Board of Invention and Research, Victory House, Cockspur Street, S.W.1.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks the names of the Committee who deal with these inventions?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that down again. I thought it was covered in the answer of the 11th March, but now I see it is not.

May I ask whether this is a special Committee, whose sole duty is to deal with this type of invention, or whether it is a general Committee for dealing with any types of inventions; and, also, how many monetary rewards have been paid to inventors whose ideas have been adopted?

With regard to the earlier part of the question, if my hon. Friend will look at the reply of the 11th March, he will see that is answered. With regard to the latter part, I cannot say, and I am not sure it would be expedient to say, how much, but I will consider that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if Admiral Bacon is on that Committee?

I cannot say without notice.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the absence of weekly publication of the tonnage of ships sunk by enemy submarines, he will publish each week a statement of the number of British ships attacked, along with such general information of the results as may be of public interest?

The revised method of publishing losses, which was decided on after very full consideration and consultation with our Allies, was only recently brought into force, and to amplify it in the manner and to the extent proposed is considered undesirable.

Does that answer mean that intervals of a whole month must elapse before any information is made public as to the war against the submarines?

Oh, yes. The statement issued last week was that the tables of losses would be given on the Thursday morning following the 21st of each month.

Does that mean there will be intervals of one month before any official information is published?

Yes.

Then it will be three weeks old.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether grants and allowances made to the widows and dependants of officers and men in the mercantile marine, and disablement grants and allowances made to officers and men of the mercantile marine, who have served on -vessels to which the provisions of Section 90 of the Naval Discipline Act have been applied and which have already been granted on the lower scale hitherto in force will, as from the 24th April, be increased to the full Service scale, so that all officers and men who have served under similar conditions and have been injured or killed during the War, or their dependants, will receive the same pensions and allowances for the future?

All allowances already granted to officers and men of the mercantile marine, who had signed on for the period of the War, in the pay and service of the Admiralty, in vessels to which the provisions of Section 90 of the Naval Discipline Act applied, and their dependants, will be brought up to the Service scale as from the date mentioned, namely, 24th April, 1918, when such authority as is necessary has been obtained.

asked the Postmaster-General the reason for withdrawing from Mr. George Matheson, on or about 20th March last, his certificate of competency in wireless telegraphy, thereby depriving him of the power of exercising his profession?

It is not advisable in the public interest to state the circumstances in which Mr. Matheson's certificate was withdrawn, but I shall be happy to communicate them privately to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Labour whether a dispute between the Port of London Authority and their employés has taken place; whether he appointed an arbitrator to settle the matter; whether the Authority refused to be a party to the arbitration; whether he has now proclaimed the Port of London Authority; and whether, in the interests of the trade of London, he will state what effect this Proclamation will have?

To clear away certain misconceptions, I should like to reply fully to the hon. Member's question. On 9th February the National Transport Workers Federation notified the Ministry of Labour that they had made a general claim for an advance of wages for all general cargo workers throughout the country, and they suggested a conference of the interested parties.

After some correspondence with the federation, the Chief Industrial Commissioner invited on 5th March the employers at the chief ports to an informal conference on the 8th March. The Port of London Authority did not accept the invitation, but the employers who came were of opinion that the Port of London should convene a meeting. This suggestion was conveyed to the Port Authority, who, however, did not see their way to call together such a meeting or to attend any conference on the subject.

The Ministry of Labour accordingly summoned a joint conference, at which all the parties present agreed to the settlement of the case by arbitration, and upon the terms of reference. The case was referred to the Committee on Production for arbitration, and the parties were notified. The Port of London Authority, however, expressed their intention of Ignoring the arbitration.

The Authority is not subject to the provisions of Part 1 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and it is thus not possible to compel their observance of the Court of Arbitration. I was advised, however, that the situation might prove serious if the claim of the men at this port were not heard with the others, and I accordingly approached my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions with a request that if he agreed he should advise His Majesty to issue a Proclamation making applicable to the apprehended dispute at the Port of London Part 1. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, under which the Ministry of Labour now have power to refer for settlement any dispute to which the Act applies which exists or is apprehended between employers and employed.

If the Government have any more trouble with the Port of London Authority, will they consider the advisability of the Government taking over the management of the port, and so protect the interests of labour and trade during the War?

We will consider each emergency as it arises.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Board of Trade was consulted in these transactions?

Oh, yes, they have been.

Was the Board of Trade consulted by the right hon. Gentleman before making the arrangement for the Ministry of Munitions in regard to the Port of London?

No, the Board of Trade was not consulted.

Then I am not surprised at the result.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to introduce and place on the Statute Book legislation dealing with the naturalisation of allied, neutral, and enemy aliens during the present Session; and is there any Committee at present engaged in considering this after the War problem?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I hope at once to introduce a Bill dealing with the denaturalisation of aliens, which is the only part of the question requiring immediate legislation. Other points connected with naturalisation have already been fully considered, and proposals have been framed which will, I hope, be adopted at the end of the War.

Is there not a Committee sitting now, and dealing with this matter?

The Committee has sat and reported.

Will the Home Secretary consider the advisability of requesting that all aliens should wear distinguishing badges in their button-holes to show—

That does not arise out of this question.

asked the Prime Minister whether a date has been fixed for the assembling of the Imperial War Conference; and is it intended that one of the subjects for discussion will be the fixing of uniform regulations throughout the Empire as regards not only the naturalisation of enemy aliens, but also as to the conditions under which they will be allowed to resume or acquire property and engage in trade and commerce?

The date has not yet been settled. The list of questions for discussion is a matter for the Conference, and I am unable to make any statement on the subject.

asked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether the Ministry of Information have bought a number of motor cars for giving cinematograph displays; if so, how many of these cars are being used for this purpose; what is the cost of the same and what is the staff employed thereon; and whether he can state the working expenses per car per week?

The Ministry of Information owns ten motor-cars for giving cinematograph displays. These cars were purchased by the former Department of Information for use in Russia, at a cost of £13,000, inclusive of all necessary mechanism. The staff employed per car consists of a soldier driver and a soldier operator, both of a low military grade. The working expenses per car per week are approximately £14, exclusive of the hire of films. Since there is no present opportunity for their use in Russia, the cars have been lent to the War Aims Committee and. are under the control of their lecturers. I may add that they have been an immense success.

Could not these cars be used at the present time to greater advantage at the War overseas?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the speech by Count von Roedern on 23rd April, stating that a fundamental taxation division into direct and indirect taxes would at present be premature, as the amount of the indemnity which they would win was not known yet in Germany; and whether, having regard to this statement and that of the Finance Minister for Saxony, also of Admiral von Tirpitz and the resolutions of the Bremen municipality, all demanding war indemnities, he will make quite clear that all previous statements with regard to the policy of no indemnities must be regarded as no longer having effect?

I do not think this is the time when any useful discussion can take place as to the terms of peace.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to a statement in the "Frankfurter Zeitung" during the last day or two that the German Treasury Minister nowߞߞ

The hon. Gentleman must give notice of a question like that.

On a point of Order, Mr. SPEAKER. May I suggest that the supplementary question arises directly out of the main question?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman was asking whether the attention of the Leader of the House has been called to an article in the "Frankfurter Zeitung" on a certain date, and then he was proceeding to read the article out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister should have notice.

On a point of Order, Sir. Does not my supplementary question bear directly on the question which deals with a subject of very great importance?

It may bear directly on the main question, but if so, why was it not inserted in the main question?

Because the statement was only published in yesterday morning's papers.

Then the question might have been postponed.