asked the Secretary of State for India if he can state the number of floggings that have taken place in Burmah in the last six months; how many of these floggings were public; the number of lashes given in each case; the instrument by which the punishment was inflicted; and the composition of the court-martial or other Court that passed these sentences?

The figures are returned annually. I have no figures later than those for last year and I see no reason to call for a special inquiry. The canings are not public and the sentences are passed by the ordinary civil Courts. There have been no court-martials in Burmah for offences other than those of a purely military nature.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in accordance with Indian Army Instruction No. 184, of 1919, those compulsorily detained in military service will be eligible for the Army of Occupation allowance from February, 1919; if so, whether this allowance is also to be paid to temporary officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps compulsorily detained in India for the Afghan campaign; and, if not, could the reason be given?

:The bonus increase of pay from 1st February is admissible to all officers of the British service, including temporary R.A.M.C. officers who were in India on the 5th April and had not already been detailed to proceed home on medical grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps serving in India receive pay in pounds sterling at the new rate of exchange of 1s. 8d. to the rupee; and whether the result of this is seriously to reduce their effective pay as measured by the purchasing power of the rupee in India?

:Assuming that the hon. Member refers to temporary officers, the fact is at present as stated in the former part of the question, but I am in correspondence with the Army Council on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a full statement as to the real situation in the Afghanistan fighting, bringing matters up to date?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan on Thursday, the 10th instant. Except for affairs of outposts, there is now no fighting with the Afghans, and we have every reason to hope that the Afghan Peace Delegates will present themselves at our lines on the 22nd instant.

asked the Secretary of State for India if it is intended to allow the present ruler of Afghanistan to retain his throne in view of his recent unprovoked attack upon British territory?

As the House is aware, the Amir has asked for an Armistice, and it is hoped that peace negotiations will shortly be opened. Our object is to secure our frontiers against a recurrence of such unprovoked attacks; but it is not our present intention to express any opinion as to who the future ruler of Afghanistan shall be.

asked the Secretary of State for India when the Papers regarding Afghanistan, including the full text of the communications from the Amir and of the Viceroy's replies, will be laid before the House?

Papers will be laid as soon as possible. Having regard to the negotiations at present on foot, I cannot indicate the precise date.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay down any specific number of commissions to be conferred upon Indians each year from among Indians already serving in the Army, and from among young educated Indians who under go special training and education with a view to their becoming officers at the commencement of their regimental careers, respectively, or are commissions to be granted from time to time as suitable individuals obtain recommendation?

It is not proposed to grant commissions every year to Indians already serving in the Army, but a limited number of commissions is being granted to Indians who have specially distinguished themselves in the War. I am not quite sure who are the "young educated Indians" to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers but if he means Indians who seek admission to the Army through Sandhurst, the number to be nominated every year is ten.

asked the Secretary of State for India how many commissions in the Indian Army have been granted to Indians since the announcement of August, 1917; whether all such commissions have been granted to Indians who were serving in the Indian land forces; and what principle is to be adopted in granting commissions to Indians in the future?

I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to permanent commissions. Nine of these have been given to Indian officers serving in the Indian land forces who have specially distinguished themselves during the War. Five Indian cadets have been admitted to Sandhurst and will receive commissions in due course if they qualify. Five more will join next term, and it is intended that there shall join ten annually. A further limited number of commissions will be granted to Indian officers for special distinction in the present War, and to those cadets considered qualified at the Indore Military College, which closes shortly But otherwise commissions will only be given to Indians who qualify at Sandhurst in the ordinary way.

Is there any limit of age to the cadets admitted to the Indore Military College?

I think there is, but I should not like to say from memory. I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of State for India why the Imperial Cadet Corps at Dehra Dun was closed; and whether it is to be reopened?

The Imperial Cadet Corps was closed during the War as the course of education there was not suited to war-time conditions. I have not yet had any proposals from the Government of India as to its being reopened.

asked the Secretary of State for India in what particulars General Shaw failed to act up to his full responsibility in connection with the Karachi troop-train incident?

I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 9th instant.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has never dealt with this question at all? Did not the India Office condemn this gallant officer without waiting for the Report of any Court of Inquiry, and has not the right hon. Gentleman, equally without waiting for any fresh Report, said that the officer did not act up to his responsibilities, and as it is therefore clearly a matter of Parliamentary action and not a Court of Inquiry, ought not the right hon. Gentleman, in common fairness, to say in what respect this officer is to blame for not acting up to his responsibilities?

I really think I have done everything I can for this gallant officer. An inquiry was held, as a result of which my predecessor made a statement about him on the authority of a telegram from India. As I thought there were irregularities about the inquiry, I offered him, more than eighteen months ago, a new inquiry. He has not accepted it. If he does not want to leave the matter where it stands now he can get it put right, or, at any rate, he can get these matters inquired into by a new Court of Inquiry. I leave that offer open for another week from now, but if after that it is not accepted, I really must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to let the matter drop.

Is it not a fact that the information quoted in this House by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor arose out of an inquiry in which officers junior to this officer came to certain conclusions, and ought not the whole case to be reopened?

It was because I thought the inquiry was irregular, and because I thought the gallant officer had a case that I offered him a new inquiry. I cannot do anything more, because he has not accepted it.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman prejudged the whole issue by saying the officer did not act up to his full responsibilites? Does not that show that it is useless, from his point of view, to have an inquiry? If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws, the inquiry stands on a different basis.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me to withdraw an opinion based on one inquiry I can only offer another inquiry into the question. Unless that offer is accepted the first inquiry must stand.

How can hon. Members satisfy themselves that the information upon which the right hon. Gentleman has based his opinion is more accurate than the information which was supplied to the Secretary of State in July, 1916, by the Government of India?

I do not think the House of Commons is a suitable tribunal to inquire into a matter of this kind. If the papers are to be re-examined it must be by an ordinary military inquiry.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and publish the correspondence and details of the former inquiry in order that the House may have an opportunity of judging?

The papers are very voluminous, and I do not think they are of sufficient general public interest to publish them. They are available for the only proper tribunal to re-examine the matter—an inquiry under the Military Acts.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman set himself up as a tribunal above the Court by prejudging the issue?

How can that be said when I have offered another inquiry?

Is any case too insignificant which will serve to show that the administration of the Government of India is based upon truth and justice?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there are British officers in India who were passed by a medical board as long ago as March last as unfit to remain in India, and are still kept in the Plains waiting for passages to be arranged; and, considering that the health of these officers will in all probability be permanently injured, ho will state what steps are being taken to compensate them in the event of their being unable to follow their profession on their return to England?

I have no reason to think that the return to this country of officers who are passed as medically unfit to remain in India is being delayed; but I will have inquiry made.

asked the Secretary of State for India who are the several gentlemen at present in this country who are well qualified to explain the views of the local Governments in India should the Select Committee desire to hear the views of the various Provincial Governors?

I have placed before the Committee the names of all gentlemen, official and unofficial, at present in this country, whose recent duties or experience seems to qualify them to give evidence. It is for the Committee to decide whom they will hear.

asked the Secretary of State for India to how many members of the various deputations from the National Congress, the Indian Moslem League, the Home Rule for India League, the Servants of India, and similar associations have A 2 and other priority certificates for passages from India to England been given by the Controller of Passages under the Government of India, and how many of these are believed to have arrived in England; and if he has any information as to any more coming?

The answer to the first part of the question is "I do not know," and to the second, "No."

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the Peace celebrations or otherwise, there will be a review of the Fleet or a naval display at Spit head this summer; and, if so, on what date?

It is regretted that it will not be possible to hold a Naval Review at Spit head this summer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any seats are reserved for naval officers and their wives and any for naval ratings and their wives to view the Peace celebration processions on 19th July?

I regret that it has not been practicable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Has not this been done in the past for naval officers and their wives and families?

I cannot say without looking into the matter.

asked what is the present monthly consumption of coal for the Royal Navy?

It has not been possible within the time since my hon. and gallant Friend's question appeared on the Paper to furnish the information for which he asks; neither has publication of such a Return been made in the past. But I can assure him—if I rightly interpret the reason for the question—that the question of economising coal consumption in view of the present supply is constantly before the Board, and frequent instructions have recently been issued upon the point.

Can I have an answer if I put the question down in a week's time?

I will see.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to increase the working hours of the men in the Navy as an offset against the additions to pay recently granted?

Certainly not!

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the pensioned chief engine-room artificers serving in the torpedo store, Portsmouth, and who were under fifty-five years of age on the 4th August, 1914, are not to receive the war gratuity given to other naval ratings; and why these ratings in question are not to count the time served until the signing of the Peace Treaty for increase to their pensions, seeing that these men answered the call to the pennant when the Royal Proclamation was issued, but were ordered back to their civilian employment and were told that the torpedo store was their war station, and that some of these men were sent away to war (naval) bases during the War and were not in receipt of the emoluments which other active service ratings were receiving?

The men referred to are civilian employés of the dockyard who continued on their peace employment during the War. They are therefore not eligible for the Naval war gratuity. They are also debarred from the grant of any increase of pension in respect of their civilian employment by the Regulations, which expressly prohibit the counting of civil time towards naval pension. If, however, any of these men had periods of mobilised service prior to being returned to their civilian employment, these periods count for increase of pension, and when added to former service may entitle the men, in some cases, to increased rates of pension. Although my hon. Friend does not raise the point, he will no doubt remember that under the decision of the Government on Recommendation 51 of the Jerram Committee, those long-service pensioners under fifty-five who, after mobilisation, were retained in their civilian employment under the Government, will receive the revised scales of pension now payable.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to give any details with regard to the naval arrangements in connection with the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada?

His Royal Highness will embark in His Majesty's ship "Renown" at Portsmouth on Tuesday, 5th August, and will visit, St. John's, Newfoundland, and thence proceed in a light cruiser to St. John, New Brunswick, Halifax, and Charlottetown, re-embarking at the latter port in His Majesty's ship "Renown" and proceeding in that ship to Quebec.

asked the Minister of Labour if members of His Majesty's Forces who were certified by the Ministry of Labour as contract men prior to 1st February, 1919, are eligible for demoblisation under the new Army Council Instructions?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley on the 9th instant, in which it was pointed out that slip men are not affected by the recent Army Order unless they are eligible for demobilisation under Army Order 55—i.e., on the ground of length of service, age, or wound stripes, etc.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the further definition of extreme compassionate grounds in connection with release from the Army laid down in Army Council Instruction No. 421, of 1919, issued on the 4th July, does not go far enough, and that there are still a large number of cases of an extreme compassionate nature which cannot be dealt with under the present instructions; and whether, in view of the above, he will take into consideration the further extension of the principles upon which these Regulations are based, so as to provide, at any rate, that release should be granted in cases where there are two parents both aged or infirm and dependent on the son, and also in the case of a widower father who, through age or infirmity, is unable to support himself?

As he has already stated, my right hon. Friend hopes to issue this week the Memorandum he promised, setting forth the further steps which will be taken consequent on the ratification of Peace to reduce our armed forces and to release men in the order best calculated to mitigate hardship. We desire to release as many men as possible, but my right hon. Friend does not wish to anticipate the statement by partial answers.

In view of the unsatisfactory results that have been obtained in connection with these compassionate releases, will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of setting up a small Committee at the War Office to deal with all these compassionate cases?

My experience is that a Committee would lead to delay. What my right hon. Friend is anxious to do is to avoid delay.

If a Committee is set up we may get some results.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until he sees the Memorandum which my right hon. Friend hopes to issue this week. It is not very much to ask him to do. I hope then that all his doubts will be set at rest.

Will the hon. Gentlemen take care to see that the claims of the men in the East are not overlooked?

I hope that their case: will be fully considered.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether Post Office Civil servants who joined the Colours during the War have, on demobilisation, been docked of a part of their war gratuities on the ground that during their period of service part of the Civil pay formerly payable to these men had been paid to their dependants; and whether the dependants of such men were in receipt of separation or dependant's allowance during the War?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There is no difference between these men and other soldiers in regard to the issue of separation or dependant's allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that all enlistments from the Post Office consisted of Derby men; whether many of these men were not released because of the importance of their work until after Conscription was in force; and whether his pledge to the Derby men means that every Derby man will be released before any conscripts?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that practically all the members of the Post Office staff attested under the Derby scheme; whether he is aware that many of them could not be released by the Post Office until after the Military Service Acts were in operation; and whether it can be understood that his pledge to release the Derby men is applicable to all attested men no matter on what date they were called up?

I do not recollect giving any pledge regarding Derby men, but on 29th May I stated that I hoped, as soon as conditions permit, to begin to release these men in order according to the month in which they joined up. The majority of Post Office employés who were applied for by the Postmaster-General as pivotal or for special release have been released irrespective of the date on which they joined the Colours for continuous service, and the remainder are being released in accordance with the instructions recently issued providing for the early release of men eligible for demobilisation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention of sending any of these Derby men to India?

I hope to issue tomorrow morning the Memorandum which I promised a fortnight ago. In that it is laid down that no Derby man, no conscript soldier, shall proceed East of Suez, to a distant theatre, and that no Derby man shall go further than the Rhine.

asked the Secretary of State for War if all 1914 and 1915 enlisted men have been by this time repatriated front Egypt; if not, how many are still left; and which classes of soldiers now serving there he proposes next to take in hand for similar treatment?

According to the programme now being followed by the forces in Egypt, all men who joined the Colours in 1914 are due to embark for demobilisation by the end of this month. Those who joined the Colours in 1915 are to embark by the end of August. In addition, all men over thirty-seven are to embark by the end of August, and other men who are eligible for demobilisation under current instructions are to embark by the end of September.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 1914 men are being sent to India for compulsory service, and on arrival are receiving letters thanking them for having volunteered? Will he see that these men are returned?

Yes, Sir. I have given instructions that no conscript soldiers are to be sent to India.

Will the right hon. Gentleman `make a statement showing that all 1914 men who have been sent to India are allowed to return forthwith?

No; they will not return until they are relieved. The release is being carried out on that basis.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the situation in India is now such as to justify the continuance of the demobilisation which was arrested last April; and whether troops can in any case be dispatched to that country in order to release men who are over due for release and whom employment awaits in the United Kingdom?

A number of battalions are already on their way to India, and the remainder of the reliefs will follow in the very near future. Upon their arrival the demobilisation of those eligible in India will commence.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether Sapper F. Charrett, No. 191476, L Signal Battalion, A.P.O. 2, Rouen, attested under the Derby scheme in 1915, but was not released by the Post Office until July, 1916; whether he has served abroad continuously since December, 1916, in Egypt, Palestine, Belgium, and France; whether, in February and March last, he was put on the cadre of his division as a releasable man and was kept for the time being until the cadre went home; whether, in May, it was decided to reduce all cadres by 75 per cent. in order that this percentage could be released immediately; whether Sapper Charrett was included in that number and was sent to the 5th Army Signals at Lille for demobilisation; whether, on the 28th June, Sapper Charrett was ordered to proceed to Rouen signals; whether, on reporting at Rouen, the men were informed that age does not count in the case of Post Office telegraphists, and that they were to be retained; whether he is aware that Sapper Charrett submitted an application for release on compassionate grounds as he is the only son in a position to maintain his aged parents, and his mother, who is over sixty-seven years of age, is in a critical condition; whether, at an early date, his officer informed him that it was unnecessary to appeal on compassionate grounds as he would be demobilised shortly; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the grounds on which these men were informed that the regulations as to demobilisation did not apply in their case?

Inquiries will be made in this case, and my hon. Friend informed of the result as early as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Alan Fisher, No.10522, A Company, 1st Royal Scots, at present stationed at Red-ford Barracks, Edinburgh, whose home address is at 54, West Richmond Street, Edinburgh; whether he is aware that this soldier, who has been on active service for some years, applied for release on compassionate grounds; that his mother, a widow, is dying of cancer; that a brother who would have been of great assistance to the home at present was killed during the last days of the War; that the only other brother at home is deaf and dumb and notable to maintain himself; and that while in Russia Private Fisher, in desperation and as the only means of getting home to see his mother, who was then believed to be on her death bed, signed a form agreeing to serve for a further period with the Army; whether he is now on the point of being sent to India, in spite of urgent representations to the military authorities on his behalf; and whether, in view of the foregoing facts, he is prepared to cancel the order that this lad should proceed to India and also the fresh enlistment form he has signed, and grant him immediate demobilisation on extreme compassionate grounds?

Attention has already been drawn to this case, and instructions are about to be issued for Private Alan Fisher to be retained on home service for the present. As Private Fisher voluntarily re-enlisted for service in the Regular Army, I regret that his release cannot be sanctioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been done with the 320 millions of roubles paid in gold by the Bolsheviks to Germany under the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and which gold was subsequently deposited in the Bank of France for account of the Allies; and whether, now that General Koltchak has been recognised by the Allies, a certain amount of this money will be placed at the disposal of Generals Koltchak and Denikin to enable them to purchase necessary supplies?

I regret that I have not the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member, and am not, therefore, in a position to say whether the suggestion made in the second part of his question is practicable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Nabokoff is still in receipt of funds supplied by the British Treasury; if so, what amount has been paid to him during the present year; on what date was the last payment made; whether it has been decided or agreed that the various payments made to Mr. Nabokoff are to be repaid by any of the existing Russian Governments; and whether, in view of the financial resources of Admiral Koltchak, General Denikin, and their friends in London and Paris, demands have been or will be made for the repayment of all sums not yet repaid in this connection?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second and third parts, the payments made during the present year to M. Nabokoff for the upkeep of the Russian Diplomatic, Consular, and other services for dealing with Russian subjects have amounted to £9,338 19s. 2d.; these payments have been discontinued since 31st March. The answer to the last part of the hon. Member's question is that advances made hitherto are in the nature of a debt to be repaid by a future Government of Russia.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great body of opinion in this country is only too glad to give this help to our Allies, and is sorry that the payment has been stopped?

Is not this amount absolutely negligible in comparison with the sum that has been saved to this country by Russian military action?

asked the Prime Minister how soon he will appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the allega- tions concerning the administration in connection with the Expeditionary Forces sent to North Russia, and in particular with regard to the supplies of whisky which were sent out; and whether the Committee of Inquiry will hear evidence from the men themselves and not merely from the officers in charge of the expedition?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. 1 am not aware of the allegations suggested in the question, but if the hon. Member will furnish more specific information I shall be happy to have the matter inquired into.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is being done in regard to English soldiers who are taken prisoners by the Bolshevist forces in Russia; whether there is any means of communicating with them or getting information from them; and what treatment are they receiving?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is that negotiations are still in progress, as a result of which it is hoped to secure the release of all British prisoners of war still in the hands of the Soviet Government. It is unfortunately no longer possible to communicate with them or to receive information from them. I have no information about the treatment they are at present receiving.

May I ask how many there are, and whether the Foreign Office is taking prompt steps to secure their release?

I cannot give the exact number, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every possible step necessary.

If it is impossible to get into communication with people in Russia, can we rely on information supplied through the newspapers as to what is going on in Russia?

Why not let the Russian people mind their own business?

Will the hon. Gentleman allow the Bolsheviks to communicate with their prisoners whom we hold?

asked the Secretary for War whether any further troops are now to be sent to Russia?

As far as Expeditionary Forces are concerned the answer is in the negative. As the House is aware, we have military missions in certain parts of Russia, and it may be necessary in pursuance of the policy of the Allied and Associated Powers, to add to or strengthen these missions. Any further personnel dispatched will, however, consist of individuals rather than units, and they will be recruited entirely on a voluntary basis.

May I ask whether this policy is not using up available volunteers to relieve these 1914 men in Egypt and India, or a portion of the available volunteers who have a natural bent for military life?

No, it is not so. The men who have been sent to Russia, in the great majority of cases, are men who volunteered specially for Russia, in addition to those who volunteered for the Regular Army.

For what purpose are they kept in Russia?

They volunteered to go to Russia in order to carry out the policy of the five Great Powers in Paris in supporting Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that an officer in the temporary forces is prevented from obtaining substantive rank gratuity because the Army Order dealing with that matter, through evidently an oversight, makes no mention of temporary but only of acting rank; and whether he will reconsider this matter?

My hon. Friend is, I think, under some misapprehension. No difference is made in these respects between the officers in the temporary forces and those in the permanent Regular Army.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large number of Royal Engineer telegraphists have been paid the war gratuity on discharge on the ground that they had not been in receipt of full civil emoluments during their term of services with the forces; whether the continued refusal of the Treasury to pay the war gratuity which all of these men expected to receive on discharge has led to inequalities and anomalies; and whether, in the interests of good administration and to avoid unnecessary unrest and dissatisfaction, he will urge upon the Government the claim of all demobilised Royal Engineers to receive the war gratuity?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I can add nothing to my answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on the 10th April last and to my many replies to similar questions since that date.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the service of these men during the War has been very good, and that the differentiation is very unfair?

Yes, I am quite aware that their service has been very good indeed, but I cannot admit that there is any undue differentiation against them, and I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to remember that these men, alone of all the men in the Army, has received full civil rates of pay as well as their military rates of pay during their military service.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for a referendum in Ireland with a vow to obtaining the opinion of the Irish nation on the alternative forms of government, namely, Dominion Home Rule, constitution as a federal unit of the British Isles, or government by Army of Occupation?

The Government is not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

Are we to assume that government by Army of Occupation is to be continued?

No; but I do not think that this form of referendum would fill the whole bill. I think that we would be asked also to submit the question whether Ireland is to be a republic.

Are we right in understanding that Ireland is governed by an Army of Occupation?

If my hon. Friend understood that he would be wrong.

Is not the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman a bad advertisement for Pelmanism, of which he is such a shining light?

In conformity with the declared principle for which this country in common with the other countries went to war, namely, on the question of the right of all countries to determine their own destinies, is Ireland, in the spirit of that declaration on which you based your war policy, to be allowed the right to determine her own war policy?

There is a little difference of opinion as to the interpretation of self-determination.

I have mine. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his?

I am quite ready, but I think that it would require more time than is available in answering questions.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman allow us a day on which to discuss the question of the definition of self-determination, and, considering that this country went to war to establish the principle of self-determination, is that principle not to be applied only in the case of Ireland, which is controlled by this House and this Government?

Is that principle also to apply to Ulster?

I think that on these two questions I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Did not the Chief Secretary a. short time ago, in replying to a question, declare that Ireland was governed by an Army of Occupation?

I do not think that he put the statement in that form.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the reply of the Chief Secretary, when he said distinctly that Ireland was governed by an Army of Occupation—which was about one of the most truthful statements that ever came from those benches?

asked the Prime Minister whether he regards the action taken by the United States Senate and other persons or bodies representing the American people, in respect to Ireland, as a violation of Article 10 of Part I. (the League of Nations' Covenant), included in the Treaty of Peace, signed at Versailles on 28th July, 1919; if so, what action is it proposed to take, or, if not, and in view of the unsettled policy in regard to Ireland, will he put the future government of Ireland on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?

The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

What is the League of "Nations formed for?

It is being formed in the hope of preventing war.

And is not the best way to prevent war to withdraw Armies of Occupation from countries that are civilised, as Ireland is?

That is not the only good method. Another good method would be to withdraw the necessity of having Armies of Occupation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the necessity by giving the people the right to control their own affairs?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir Edward Carson) on the 12th July; whether he has taken, or will take, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the statements contained therein are calculated to spread disaffection among His Majesty's subjects or would otherwise justify a prosecution; and whether, seeing that other persons have been prosecuted for less inflammatory speeches, he proposes to take action in the matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast, that, if any attempt is made to take away from Ulster men their rights as British citizens, he will call out the Ulster Volunteers, and that if any attempt is made to revive the Home Rule Act or put it into force he will summon the Provisional Government; and what action he proposes to take to show equality before the law for all who advise men to defy it, and threaten violence if the law is carried out?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast at Ballymenoch on the 12th instant, in which he announced his intention of calling out the Ulster Volunteers, and of summoning the Provisional Government if His Majesty's Government attempt to put into force the Government of Ireland Act; whether this declaration is an incitement to direct action against constitutional authority; and whether, in view of the fact that a member of the Government took part in the demonstration at which this speech was made, the Government approve of such action?

:As suggested in one of these questions, I have consulted the Law Officers, and I am advised that there is no ground upon which His Majesty's Government could take action with regard to the speech referred to.

Have any of these Law Officers whom you have consulted made seditious speeches themselves upon the same question?

I think that my hon. Friend's definition of sedition would be different from mine. In any case we must assume that the Law Officers when asked to give a legal opinion give a legal opinion.

Is it not a fact that there are in prison in England men who have been sent to prison for inciting workmen to take direct action by the withdrawal of their individual labour, and is not an incitement to direct action by force of arms much more serious?

My answer shows that this is a legal question, and I do not profess to be a judge of law, but even from the paint of view of common sense there is a difference between hypothetical action and action which has been taken.

Is treason to be justified because the Law Officers of the Crown think it legal?

Would the hon. Gentleman like to be hanged if the Law Officers thought that he should not be?

I am quite sure that I should be hanged if the Law Officers had their way. Is it a fact that at the present time there are three Socialist orators in Belfast Prison for having made speeches inciting the Belfast workers to direct action in connection with industrial disputes; whether these men, comparatively humble, almost defenceless, are to go to gaol for six months; whether some of them are being forcibly fed; and whether men in high places in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I do not care whether it is a speech or not.

But I care. The hon. Member is not entitled to make speeches. He can put his question without all the embroidery.

Yes. If you call me to order for making a speech I shall obey, but you did not call me to order. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Really does he not think that it is bringing the law of the country into contempt? [Interruption.] This is about the last place in which an Irishman will be allowed to speak about the affairs of his own country. You may very soon "have no one here to speak," but while I am here I will speak.

That is all flummery. Put the question.

I will put the question, and press the question. If I am put down here, as my countrymen are in Ireland, I will put up with the consequences.

It is unnecessary for the hon. Member to lecture me or the House. Will he immediately put the question?

I was repeatedly interrupted, and you have not risen to call mo to order. The question I have to put is this, and I want an answer to it—whether three humble men, imprisoned for making Socialistic speeches on the Custom House steps at Belfast, have been sentenced to six months' imprisonment and forcibly fed for suggesting direct action to the workers, while statesmen in this House— ex-Law Officers and ex-Ministers of the Crown—can make far worse speeches without a word of condemnation?

The hon. Member's analogy is not at all correct.

One is rich and the others are poor.

If the workmen to whom he refers had told their fellow workmen that in a certain number of years they would be starving, and that they would be justified in taking direct action, that would be an analogy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bolsheviks in this country and the other extreme industrialists will be satisfied with an answer of that character?

Perhaps the hon. Member will make them understand it.

I will make them understand a few things before this controversy is ended.

As one of the questions asked is in my name, I beg to give notice that, in view of the terms of the reply, I shall at the end of Question Time ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

It should have been done on Monday. The thing must be urgent, and steps should have been taken at once.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the lack of any declared intention on the part of the Government to set the law in motion against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast, in respect of speeches made by him near Belfast on 12th July, inciting to violence and breaches of the law, and calculated to endanger the safety of the Realm." In view of your statement during Questions, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. Members with whom I act on this side of the House considered it was better to raise this subject by placing the question in the ordinary way on the Paper, so as to give the Government the opportunity of consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, and making some considered reply, and, in view of the reply given, I ask leave to move the Adjournment.

asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the organisers of the Sinn Fein movement propose to raise a loan of one million sterling, half of which will be asked for in this country and in the Dominions; and whether subjects of His Majesty contributing to this loan would be guilty of treason?

The answer to the question is in the negative. The organisers of the Sinn Fein movement have not been proclaimed the King's enemies, and I think that such a proclamation would be necessary before persons, if any, aiding them by loans could be held guilty of treason for so doing.

May I ask the learned. Attorney-General whether, according to the actions and the speeches that have been made by Sinn Feiners, he does not think it is necessary at all events that some proclamation should be made, and does he know for what purpose this loan is being raised?

I do not profess to have read all the speeches to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, nor am I prepared on the spur of the moment to answer his other question.

Surely he has read many of the speeches to which I refer, and is it the intention of the Government to take any steps, or is it not?

I must have notice of that.

If he wants to read speeches, will he accept a copy from me of "The Handbook on Anarchy," recently published, where he will find many speeches of his colleagues and friends?

I shall be most happy to accept, without reference to the question of whether I shall read them!