asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Executive Committee have cancelled the facilities which up to now have been given to munition workers who are working away from their homes of week-end railway tickets at special rates; if so, is he aware that it will affect many thousands of munition workers and in many cases prevent them visiting their families; and will he therefore reinstate the special facilities?

The withdrawal of the limited number of cheap week-end tickets formerly issued to employés in controlled establishments was decided upon as a result of the most careful consideration of the whole of the circumstances by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions of War and myself, and I cannot hold out any hope that these special facilities can be restored. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that War Munition Volunteers and certain other classes of munition workers are still granted special travelling facilities on the occasion of a generally observed trade holiday.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of Munitions will grant these munition workers an increase of wages in view of the increased cost of travelling— another 12½per cent?

That question must be addressed to the Minister of Munitions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take into consideration exceptional cases where men have to go long distances?

All the relevant facts were most carefully considered. We did not come to this decision without carefully considering all aspects of the case. I am afraid that it would be very difficult to make any exception whatever.

Is it a fact, as suggested by the question, that there are many thousands of persons interested in this matter?

Oh, yes!

It would be true to say that several thousand tickets were issued per week.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, without detriment to the public interest, he can state what were the difficulties the Coal Controller found that precluded German prisoners of war from being employed in.mines; whether he is aware of the shortage of miners in this country owing to their having joined the Colours; and whether, considering the urgency of the matter, the difficulties referred to can be overcome, with a view to the employment of the prisoners in the manner indicated?

The difficulties in the way of the introduction of German prisoners of war to work in coal mines are not such as can be readily overcome, but the Controller of Coal Mines is still considering to what extent they can be employed upon work connected with coal mining.

:If I put the question down in a fortnight's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me any information?

:If I have anything new, I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend the information.

:Would it not be preferable to secure the exchange of British miners who are prisoners in Germany for German prisoners here?

That is a question which I am not in a position to answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state whom the Government propose to appoint as delegates to represent this country at the conference with Germany to arrange for the exchange of prisoners; whether they propose to include Lord Newton and General Belfield in their number; and whether the Government is prepared to afford this House an opportunity of discussing the proposed appointments before they become effective?

As I informed my hon. Friend on Friday, this is really a question for the Leader of the House, and I understand he has a Private Notice question on the subject which he will answer to-day.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the forthcoming conference at The Hague in connection with the exchange of prisoners of war?

:In view of the importance which the Government attach to this subject, they have appointed the Home Secretary, in addition to Lord Newton and General Belfield, to act as the British delegates.

:Will the question of prisoners in Turkey be taken into consideration?

:Not, of course, in connection with this delegation.

:When is the conference likely to take place?

:My right hon. Friend and his colleagues propose to go in a day or two.

:Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the appointments of Lord Newton and General Belfield before they are confirmed?

:The appointments have already been made, and I should be very much disappointed if the House is not satisfied with them.

:Will any attempt be made to negotiate with the Turkish Government for the exchange of prisoners?

:I believe efforts have been made, but I should like notice of the question.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that they will have the very widest discretion to discuss the whole question of prisoners, both in Germany and Holland?

:They will have a very wide discretion.

:Will they be protected from Lord Northcliffe's attacks?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is a scarcity of food at the prisoners of war camp, Groningen, Holland; that some time back the Admiralty stated that there was no need for parcels to be sent to the Navy men interned in Holland, as they could obtain what they wanted through the canteen if money was sent in lieu; that now the conditions have changed; if he can see his way to allow parcels of food to be sent to the prisoners of war again; and, if not, what action he proposes taking in the matter with a view to the Navy men being better supplied with food?

Representations as to the inadequacy of the rations supplied to the men interned at Groningen have been received. It is understood that the present scale of rations is the same as that authorised in the case of the civilian population of Holland. The Admiralty are, however, in telegraphic communication with the Naval Attaché at The Hague on the subject generally. Any action in the direction of sending food from this country, whether by means of parcels or otherwise, could, however, only be taken with the sanction of the Netherlands Government, who are responsible for the scale of rationing.

asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) what are the monthly rations of the interned prisoners at Groningen, Holland; whether they are considered adequate; and, if not, what steps he intends to take to improve their condition?

The answer is covered by the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to No. 26.

Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department taking steps to try to arrange an exchange of these prisoners in view of the rations, which are notoriously inadequate?

That is bound up with the larger question of the exchange of prisoners as a whole.

Are the prisoners in Holland included in these negotiations?

There is nothing to prevent their case being discussed, and I have no doubt it will be discussed.

asked the Prime Minister what exactly are the powers and duties of Lord Newton as head of the Prisoners of War Department; and whether the negotiations with Germany are being conducted by him or by the Foreign Office?

The Prisoners of War Department, which had previously been a Department of the Foreign Office, was reconstituted under a decision of the Cabinet dated 26th October, 1916, since which date the Foreign Office has ceased to be responsible for the policy pursued in regard to prisoners of war. Under the above decision the Prisoners of War Department works n conjunction with other Departments concerned in questions affecting prisoners of war, and. in case of a difference of opinion involving any questions of policy arising between them, Lord Newton, as Controller of the Prisoners of War Department, was directed to bring the matter before the Cabinet.

If there had been delay in ascertaining what was going on between France and Germany, would Lord Newton or the Foreign Office be responsible?

Clearly the Foreign Office would not be more responsible than the rest of the Government. But, as a matter of fact, Lord Newton could not be responsible, for he had no knowledge.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that parents are charged £2 15s. a month for bread sent from Copenhagen to their sons who are prisoners of war; and whether, seeing the rations which are allowed to conscientious objectors in this country for doing comparatively little work, he can see his way to supply men who have fought for their country and had the misfortune to-be taken prisoners with bread rations free of charge to their parents?

The charge made for bread sent from Copenhagen is 10s. per four weeks in the case of officers and 7s. 6d. for other ranks. In neither case does this cover the cost involved. Should relatives not be in a position to meet this charge, the bread is sent free.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received through the British diplomatic agent in Moscow a request from the Russian Government not to conscript any more Russian subjects in this country; and, if so, what answer has been returned?

The Russian People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs has forwarded to His Majesty's Government a request that the necessary measures may be taken to stop the compulsory recruiting of Russians in England. We are still considering the nature of the reply to be returned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government claims the right to impress foreigners into her armies; if so, whether there is a corresponding right for Russia to call up British subjects resident in Russia; does the Soviet Government recognise exemption granted to British subjects resident in Russia; by whom are such exemptions being granted; and are there any and what corresponding exemptions being granted to Russians in this country, and by whom?

The hon. Member is aware that, by the terms of the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, His Majesty's Government have power- to incorporate in the British Army citizens or subjects of an Allied State, with whom His Majesty's Government have made a Convention or agreement for the purpose, if the persons in question do not elect within a certain period to return to their own country for service in its Army. The Military Ser vice Agreement with Russia entitled His Majesty's Government to make use of this power over Russian subjects, and gave the Russian Government a corresponding right to call up British subjects in Russia. I do not think that the question of the Soviet Government recognising or not recognising exemptions from military service issued to British subjects arises, since there is now no Army in Russia from service in which British subjects could be exempted. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 30th April last.

If these Russians are not going to be put into our Army, would it not be better in the circumstances that they should be deported to their own country?

I will consider that.

Can the Noble Lord state whether there is any Soviet Government? Is he aware that anarchists do not believe in government at all?

asked the Minister of National Service whether Ukrainians or Poles resident in the United Kingdom are being called up for national service in the British Army; and, in such event, whether, in determining the status of an alien-born subject and his liability for military service, Russian or British law should be applied, and in particular in deciding the question who is a Russian subject within the terms of the Convention with Russia of July, 1917?

Natives of the Ukraine or Russian Poland, who are resident in this country, and are of military age, as prescribed by the Anglo-Russian Military Service Convention, are being called up for service in the British Army in the same manner as other Russian subjects in this country. The latter part of the question appears to relate to the construction of an Act of Parliament, and if a case arose where the liability to military ser vice was disputed, I assume it would be a matter for the Courts to decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Abraham Glucksmann, of New York, has been arrested by the London police and fined £20 for failing to report himself under the Russian Convention of 1917, he having received his first papers as an American citizen and having formally renounced his allegiance to Russia, and that his arrest has been effected notwithstanding that he had previously voluntarily offered to serve in the English Army but was refused acceptance; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to remove the results of this action?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am advised that the fact that this man made a Declaration of Intention to become an American citizen, and purports to have renounced allegiance to Russia, does not confer American citizenship on him or affect his Russian nationality. I am not aware that he volunteered for service in the British Army and was refused. The information in my possession shows that after making several endeavours to leave this country for America in 1916 he applied to go to Russia under the Convention in 1917, but failed to take the opportunity of doing so which was afforded him. I see no ground for taking any action in the case.

asked the Minister of National Service whether he has yet pre pared any scheme offering special terms to discharged men who wish to re-enlist; and, if so, can he give the details?

I regret I have nothing to add to the answer given on 28th May. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, and it is hoped that an announcement will be made shortly.

asked the Under secretary of State for War if Private N. B. Grimley, No. 57634, G Company, 3rd Yorks, West Hartlepool, who enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps from the Home Hospitals Reserve, is now in an Infantry unit; and whether, in view of his statement on 5th February, 1918, that Royal Army Medical Corps men who en listed from the Home Hospitals Reserve were not being transferred to combatant units, this man may be returned to the Royal Army Medical Corps in accordance with his own request?

Instructions have now been given for Private Grimley to be retransferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps.

asked the Under secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into the treatment accorded to the men of No. 4 Southern Company, Non-Combatant Corps, Chiseldon Camp, Swindon, who are subjected to all kinds of persecution at the hands of the officer commanding, who stops their leave, in violation of Headquarters' instructions, and gives the men fourteen days' C.B. for inadvertently omitting to remove numerals from fatigue tunics to walking-out tunics, and who, contrary to the practice of other units at this camp, furnishes no minor offences report to Headquarters?

If the facts are as stated by my lion. Friend, the men concerned should exercise their rights under Section 43 of the Army Act and: paragraph 439 of the King's Regulations.

asked the Under secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private A. Child, No. 7631, 7th Royal West Kent.Regiment, enlisted on 18th March, 1904, for twelve years, to be extended to thirteen years in the event of war, which period expired on 18th March, 1917; whether Child then applied for his discharge and was refused; whether he is aware that Child became a conscientious objector to killing his fellow men in 1908, but felt that his oath of allegiance was binding until he had completed his term of enlistment; whether he is aware that Child refused to obey orders in March, 1917. when his time expired, and was. sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour, one month remitted by district court-martial; whether he is aware that he was afterwards sent back to France, where he has since been court-martialled twice, receiving sentences of twenty-eight days' field punishment and nine months' hard labour, respectively, the latter term having just expired in No. 5 Military Prison, France; whether he is aware that this man is now awaiting trial by court- martial for again refusing to obey orders; and, seeing that all this procedure is contrary to Army Order of 25th May, 1916, which provides for the soldier who has committed an offence against military discipline and states that the offence was the result of a conscientious objection to military service shall be sentenced to imprisonment and not to detention and shall be confined in the nearest civil prison, will he see that Child is sent to this country to serve his sentence, so that he may have an opportunity of appearing before the Central Tribunal to have his case investigated?

If the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend, I can only say that it has not been our practice to permit the transfer to civil prisons, in the event of their being sentenced to imprisonment by court-martial, of men whose conscientious objection has been evinced under circumstances such as those disclosed in the question.

Is it not a fact that in the Army Instruction on this point it is distinctly stated that these men would be sent even from France to this country to carry out their sentences?

This is quite an exceptional case. This man enlisted in 1904 as a soldier for thirteen years' service. His position is entirely different from that of a man who is called up as a conscientious objector under the Act.

asked the Under secretary of State for War whether, under the new Military Service Act, ex-warrant officers who come under the new age ex tension will be reinstated in their old rank; and whether any such warrant officers who volunteer before being called up will be given their former rank?

The answer to both parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative, provided such warrant officers are medically fit, and were not discharged from the Army for inefficiency or misconduct.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the conscientious objectors stationed at Knutsford have been transferred to the Princetown Settlement in South Devon; whether he is aware that the village of Princetown is a summer resort for people in the West Country seeking health and change of air and that the inhabitants resent the presence of the many hundreds of conscientious objectors now overrunning this part of Dartmoor; that these men are under no discipline out side working hours; and that practically Princetown and its immediate neighbour hood are now in possession of conscientious objectors; will he say why conscientious objectors were taken away from Knutsford; whether he received any complaints from the local residents about the conscientious objectors while there; and, if so, what was the nature of the complaints?

The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that some only of the conscientious objectors at Knutsford have been transferred to Princetown. Strong complaints were received from Knutsford against retaining a work centre for conscientious objectors in a populous centre in which there were two auxiliary hospitals for wounded soldiers, and it was. decided, before the recent disturbances at Knutsford, to move the centre from that place. The men at Princetown work for the greater part of the day and remain under certain disciplinary restrictions out of working hours.

Were there no other causes of complaint than the fact that these two hospitals were in the neighbourhood?

There were, but those causes of complaint were not the reasons for the removal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been, called to the allegation that on 11th May two conscientious objectors stopped to sneer at a man who had lost his foot in France, that one of the conscientious objectors was a professional pugilist, and: that a soldier passing thrashed one of the conscientious objectors, whereupon the other conscientious objector joined in the fight and struck the soldier with a stick over the head and face; and will he see that men who apparently have no objection to fighting British soldiers are sent to take their proper place in the Army at the front, so that their fighting proclivities may be used against the enemy?

The Committee saw a reference to this incident in the Press and made immediate inquiries with a view to disciplinary action. It has, however, been found impossible so far to identify any of the parties.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he has not sufficient control over the conscientious objectors to enable him to discover who were these two men who were walking along the road?

If the hon. Member can assist me in discovering them, I shall be very glad.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to find who was the soldier who lost his foot in the War?

The answer must be taken as being accurate as far as I have been.able to ascertain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that permission was given to the Rev. N. B. Walke, of Cornwall, to address the conscientious objectors at Princetown on the condition attached to that permission that Mr. Walke was to obstain from political propaganda; whether he is aware that after the service in the prison Mr. Walke visited the hostel or club kept up by the conscientious objectors in the village, where he met a number of conscientious objectors; that on leaving the hostel a document fell from his pocket bearing the headings Objects of the Brotherhood, Constitution. Conditions of Membership; that one of the objects of the brotherhood cited in the document was to create a common fund to enable men and women to obtain a livelihood and to maintain their families engaged in propaganda and other work; and whether, in view of the fact that this hostel is being used for propaganda work, he will cause it to be immediately closed?

I am informed that Mr. Walke was given permission to hold religious services in the centre on condition that; he confined himself to religious topics. As to his activities outside the centre, I have no information, but the statements in the question will be considered by the Committee.

Ts this the first time that this has been brought to the notice of the hon. Gentleman?

I do not think it is.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say if any minister other than Mr, Walke has been given, a similar privilege with regard to addressing the conscientious objectors, and with the same condition attached thereto; whether any complaint has been received by the Home Office of such privilege having been abused; and what action was taken in the matter?

Other ministers have been given similar permissions subject to the same condition. No complaint of abuse has been received.

Is the right hon. Gentleman certain of the last statement which he has made?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the many difficult questions which have arisen and must arise in connection with treaty or convention rights over the subjects of the United Kingdom and other Allied countries in relation to military service in particular and to the differences in status in the different countries—e.g., the doctrine of the United States of America that a man may expatriate himself—he will appoint a Commission or a Select Committee of the House to at once consider the subject arid report?

I think that such questions as arise of the nature indicated in the question can be dealt with by the existing judicial and administrative machinery, and I do not think that the proposal in the last part of the question could usefully be adopted in present circumstances.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether proposals are being considered for the requisition by the Government of the wholesale milk trade; and, if so, whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing such proposals before their adoption by the Government?

As regards the first part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given last. Thursday to the hon. Member for East Nottingham. The second part should, I think, be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Is it the intention of the Government to requisition supplies of condensed milk?

I should require notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture when he intends to introduce legislation to regularise the position of allotment holders; and whether there is security of tenure apart from such legislation until the autumn of 1920?

I hope to be able at an early date to introduce legislation which will give additional security of tenure to allotment holders. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Secretary for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the letter of Sir Subramaniya Aiyer, K.C.I.E., to President Wilson; whether this letter was grossly defamatory of British rule in India; whether this letter evaded the, censorship; whether any action has been taken against the sender under the Defence of India Act; (2) whether Sir Subramaniya Aiyer was among those making representations to him during his recent visit to India; and whether the Government proposes to deal with the assertions in the letter to President Wilson?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the letter addressed by Sir Subramaniya Aiyer to President Wilson, in which he states that President Wilson and other leaders have been kept in ignorance of the full measure of misrule and oppression in India, that officials of an alien nation, speaking a foreign tongue, have forced their will upon it, that they grant themselves exorbitant salaries and large allowances, that they refuse education, sap the people of their wealth, impose crushing taxes, and cast thousands of people into prisons for uttering patriotic sentiments, and that the prisons are so filthy that often the in mates die from loathsome diseases; whether he is aware that this gentleman has fallen under the influence of Mrs. Besant; and what action he proposes to take with a view to putting an end to such propaganda?

The disgraceful letter is correctly described in the questions. Its impropriety is all the more inexcusable because of the position of the writer. I was amazed to read of its recent publication. But the assertions in the letter are too wild and baseless to require or receive notice from any responsible authority. No action has as yet been taken as regards the author, but I am in communication with the Viceroy on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this member of a short-lived race is already upwards of seventy-seven years old, and that this is a senile production?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has issued or will issue in India in the vernacular papers, where this be possible, the result of the trial of natives of India at San Francisco for revolutionary propaganda of a pro-German and anti-British nature?

I have inquired from the Government of India what steps they have taken, or propose to take, to make public the result of the trial.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will undertake to submit his proposals for the amendment of the Indian Government to Parliament in the form of a Bill; and, if not, in what way does he propose to submit them to Parliament?

As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 28th May, the proposals that the Viceroy and I are submitting to the Prime Minister are embodied in a Report, and this is now before the War Cabinet. My hon. Friend will realise that the grave preoccupations of the War Cabinet at the present time have made it impossible for them to come to a decision yet as to the course that should be adopted. In accordance with the announcement in Parliament of the 20th August last, ample opportunity will be afforded for the public discussion of proposals resulting from my mission to India, and if His Majesty's Government decide to give effect to the recommendations it will be necessary in due course to introduce a Bill for the purpose.

asked the Prime Minister if, in response to an appeal received through the Vatican, the Government have undertaken that there should be no aircraft attack on cities not in the vicinity of the battle front during the day time on 30th May; whether a like appeal was made to the Allied Governments concerned; and, if so, with what result; if he can state whether any similar action has at any time been taken by the Vatican with reference to the bombing of hospitals and the torpedoing of hospital ships by the Germans; and, if so, with what result; and, if not, whether, as the lives of British" soldiers and sailors wounded while fighting in the defence of. freedom may be regarded as of not less value than those of the persons who assemble on Corpus Christi Day to pray for the success of Germany in her attacks on the liberties of the world, the Government will take the opportunity to make representations to the Vatican on the matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether an undertaking was given, or an announcement made, by the British Government that a German town should be immune from attack by British aircraft on the 30th of May; if so, at whose request was such an undertaking given and what reasons were offered for compliance with it; were the military authorities in France consulted on the subject; was any promise of reciprocal immunity from aerial attack by Germany on cities of the Allies obtained in consideration of such an undertaking; if he is aware that a church in Paris was bombarded on that day by the Germans; and will he give an assurance that no such unmerited favour to the enemy will be allowed to interfere with the prosecution of military operations in future?

asked the Prime Minister whether, when assenting to the request of the Vatican that there should be no air attack on Cologne on the feast of Corpus Christi, the attention of the Vatican was drawn to the shelling of Paris on Good Friday whereby casualties were inflicted on the congregation of a church, to the recent aerial bombardment of hospitals at Etaples, and to the air raid on London on Whit-Sunday night?

The appeal referred to was received by the French and British Governments, and the reply in the terms already announced was sent after consultation and in agreement with the French Government. The staff of the Air Ministry was also consulted. The action of the Germans in shelling Paris in spite of our undertaking will not be forgotten, in the event of any similar appeal being made in the future.

Can the right hon. Gentle man say whether any undertaking was given by the German Government that the aircraft used for the protection of the back areas should not be used for bombing our hospitals and troops on Corpus Christi Day?

It was precisely in connection with a question of this kind that we consulted the staff of the Air Ministry. They were of opinion that the use referred to could not be made, if for no other reason than that the notice was too short to enable other dispositions to be made.

What reasons were advanced for this favour being shown to the enemy?

I am afraid it would be rather difficult to give reasons for and against by question and answer. I am sure my hon. Friend will see that there is great deal to be said on both sides in regard to an appeal of this kind.

Were the Government influenced by the fact that the Foreign Office is under the influence of the Vatican?

The Foreign Office had really nothing to do with it. It was a decision taken by the War Cabinet after full consideration of all the relevant facts.

Will any such consideration be shown to the Germans in future?

If the hon. Gentle man will look at the last part of my answer, I hope he will be satisfied.

Will the House and the public have an opportunity of seeing the full correspondence in this matter?

There was no correspondence except the telegram conveying the request, and the announcement made in the Press as to our reply.

Has the attention of the Vatican been drawn to the fact that on Whit-Sunday night London was bombed by German aircraft, and to other facts?

No; they were not. It is quite obvious that the Government would have been fully justified in view of the raids at Whitsuntide in refusing altogether to consider such an application. In addition to that, it seems to me an example of German mentality that such a request should have been put forward after what happened at Whitsuntide. Though I think it was an impudent request it does not follow that it would be unwise to accede to it.

Do you not think that the Germans think we are a lot of fools?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Germans were asked to take reciprocal action to spare on that day other places behind the British lines, and, if not, why not?

They were not. I should have thought that such a request was quite unnecessary. If we had made such a request it might have implied that we were making a bargain. We were not; we were doing this because we thought it was right to do it.

Has the Government any information that the Vatican made a request to the German Government in regard to the bombardment of Paris on Good Friday?

We have no knowledge of any such representation having been made. Perhaps it is right to say that we have called the attention of the Vatican to what took place on Corpus Christi Day in Paris.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any independent technical inquiry has been made as to air-raid damage Caused in January at the printing works of a weekly journal, where many casualties resulted, other than, any inquiry on behalf of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police; whether there were concrete floors in this building over the basement in which the casualties occurred; if so, whether these floors had been pierced by the bomb that was dropped from enemy aircraft or whether the bomb fell just outside the building and did not pierce any of the concrete floors; whether the criticisms that have been made against the police regarding the selection of these premises as an air-raid shelter were, accordingly, un justified, and likewise the stricture against the utility of concrete floors as affording a reasonable shelter against dud shells, incendiary bombs, and explosive bombs of moderate size used in air-raid attacks; and whether he will state if he knows of any case in the Metropolis where an enemy bomb of any description has so far pierced three or four concrete floors, so that the public may know if a. reasonable amount of shelter may be expected where they are protected by a number of concrete or reinforced concrete floors?

I understand that inquiry has been made by technical experts appointed by the Committee of Scientific and Industrial Research. The building had concrete floors over the basement, none of which were pierced by the bomb, which entered the building by a pavement light. The occurrence, therefore, affords no reason for doubting the utility of concrete floors as affording reasonable protection against blind shells, incendiary bombs, and explosive bombs of small size. I would remind the hon. Member that the buildings available as air-raid shelters are not classified as bomb-proof, but they are quite suitable for the purpose for which they are primarily intended, namely, to afford shelter against splinters of bombs, shells, etc., for use by persons who happen to be in the open when the raid takes place.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether it is still pro posed to apply Conscription to Ireland; if so, when and under what conditions; (2) if he can now announce the policy of the Government with respect to Irish Home Rule; whether he is aware that the prospects of settlement are being seriously endangered by the prolonged delay and by the policy pursued meantime in other directions; and what further steps it is proposed to take?

I cannot add any thing to the previous replies on this subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to state when Conscription is to be applied to Ireland and when the Home Rule Bill is to be introduced?

As I have said, I cannot make any statement on the subject.

Are we to understand that no troops are to come from Ireland for the purpose of the present campaign, and that the Military Service Act is a fraud on the older men in this country?

The hon. Member will make a mistake if he comes to that understanding.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the action and delay of the Government is inducing everybody to think that there will be no Conscription and no Home Rule?

That does not arise out of the question.

asked what further action the Government propose to take in regard to the men and women arrested in Ireland on suspicion of treasonable conspiracy; whether it is pro posed that they should have the right of open trial or be enabled in any way to defend themselves against the charges made against them; whether any who may be able to establish their innocence will have an opportunity of doing so before any tribunal; and whether the Government propose to set any limit to the imprisonment without trial of these deportees?

The persons referred to were arrested and interned by an Order made by the Chief Secretary under Defence of the Realm Regulation 14 b. The Order served upon each person arrested stated that if within seven days from the date of serving the Order he or she submitted any representations against the provisions of the Order to the Chief Secretary such representations would be referred to an advisory committee pre sided over by a judge of the High Court. If the report of the committee satisfies the Chief Secretary in any case that the Order of internment may safely be revoked or varied the Chief Secretary will revoke or vary the Order accordingly.

Do these interned people know that they may have the right of legal assistance in making any representations of the kind mentioned in the answer?

The hon. Member had better put that question down.

Have any requests been received?

I cannot answer that.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has now framed the Regulations under which persons interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulation 14, and lately resident in Ireland, will receive letters, visits, and parcels; and whether he is aware that though they and their friends were informed over a fortnight ago that visits from relatives and legal advisers and the privileges of letter writing were to be freely accorded no such privileges have so far been allowed?

These persons are allowed within certain limits to communicate direct with their friends and to receive letters and parcels from them, and have been informed of the regulations govern- ing such correspondence. Visits from relatives cannot be allowed at present, but any application from a prisoner to see his legal adviser will be considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that though these persons were told a fortnight ago that they might see their relatives— their children, for instance— up to this morning they had not been allowed either to see or to communicate with them by letter, and that there are children awaiting dispositions being made for them who are not allowed to see their parents?

I am not aware of that.

As this matter has been brought to the attention of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary repeatedly during the past week, will the right hon. Gentleman take up the matter at once with a view to preventing these persons being treated worse than ordinary criminals?

I have only to say that visits from relatives cannot be allowed at present.

Why are all letters between parents and children prevented, so that there is not one word of communication with these persons allowed at present?

These persons are allowed, within certain limits, to communicate direct with their friends and receive letters and parcels from them,

As my experience is in direct conflict with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, will he allow me to see him immediately after Questions on this matter?

I will always be glad to Bee my hon. Friend.