asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the result of court-martial prosecutions in connection with the Punjab rebellion; if such prosecutions have been directed against acts of passive resistance against the Rowlatt legislation; and, if not, whether he will give some indication of the class of crime for which prosecutions have been initiated, particularly those in which capital sentence has been passed?

I have not yet had a full Report, but I understand that capital and other serious offences, such as waging war against the King, murder, robbery with violence, have been tried exclusively by Commissions appointed by the local Government under a Special Ordinance, and consisting of three persons of whom two at least must be judicial officers. Minor offences have been tried and penalties inflicted by courts-martial, the presiding officer being generally a civilian exercising the powers of a first-class magistrate. I understand that acts of "passive resistance" were not in themselves treated as offences by the Punjab authorities.

In view of the untrue statements made in certain portions of the Press and the injury likely to be done in India, will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that his reply is made known in India?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether sentences recently passed by special military Courts in the Punjab included, in addition to sentences of imprisonment, confiscation of the property. of persons so sentenced; whether such sentences necessarily involve the destitution of the innocent wives and children of offenders; and whether he will take steps to revise such sentences forthwith?

My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to sentences passed by Commissions of three judges appointed under the Special Ordinances. Under the Indian Penal Code the forfeiture of property is part of the penalty provided for the offences of waging war against the King, or attempting to do so, or collecting arms for that purpose. The Courts have therefore no option but to include that in the sentence on persons found guilty. But the Government examines all such cases and remits or reduces this penalty in cases in which it would involve the destitution of the family. The local Government has directed that the orders of forfeiture should not be carried out in cases where the convicted person does not pay Income Tax or does not pay revenue exceeding Rs.30 per annum. In other cases special report is to-be made to the Government.

Is India the only part of the British Empire where the sentence of confiscation of property is permitted?

I do not know that.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware of any other part of the British Empire where by sentence a man's property can be taken away?

The question on the Paper only deals with India.

What is meant by "waging war" against the Government in connection with these riots?

The offence of waging war against the Government is an offence dealt with in the Indian Penal Code, and the facts of the case are judged by Commissioners. I have not yet received a full report of these cases.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received, and is continuing to receive, representations from various quarters in India regarding the Rowlatt legislation; and whether he can take any steps to allay the uneasiness evidenced by such representations?

I have received a large number of communications from India on the subject of the Rowlatt legislation, and I would take this opportunity of making it clear that I have given them my best consideration from the point of view referred to in the last part of the question. I believe that the powers given to the Executive by the Rowlatt legislation are necessary at the present time, and that there are no reasonable grounds for the apprehensions felt in India. The Act itself is valid for a period of three years only, after which the whole position will be considered. If the anarchical and revolutionary actions against which the Act is framed are abandoned, the Act will not be used, and there will be no necessity for its renewal.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will favourably consider the case of those officers of the Indian Army who were, through no fault of their own, taken prisoners during the War; if he will explain why they were only credited with half their staff pay, while officers of the British Army were better paid while prisoners than they were while serving with their regiments; if he will explain why the moneys given to the officers of the Indian Army by the Red Cross, to compensate for the dearness of provisions, was debited against them; and if compensation will be awarded to those officers who find their uniform has been ruined by white ants in India while they were detained as prisoners of war?

With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to deal fully with the points he raises.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the importance of the generous arrangement made by him for the treatment of civil and military officers from India suffering from tropical diseases at the hospital of the London School of Tropical Medicine, he will take steps to have his recent announcement on the subject published in India for the information of all concerned?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has under consideration the recommendation of the Indian Cotton Commit tee that the Sukkur barrage should be constructed upon the Indus in order to effect the. extension of the. cultivation of long-staple cotton in Sind?

I hope to transmit shortly to the Government of India the advice of the "Empire Cotton Growing Committee on the recommendations made by the Indian Committee. The Govern-men of India will then, if they have not already done so, consider the whole Report, including the recommendation relating to the Sukkur barrage.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will direct the Government of India to request the pre sent Governors of the provinces which submitted an alternative scheme on the 15th January last to nominate representatives, either now in this country or in India, to express their views before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill?

No, Sir.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day that he represents the Provincial Governments, may I ask how he can represent those Governments when his opinions are directly opposed to their views?

I will take the most scrupulous care that their views are put before the Committee. I understand that the Committee have already decided to hear the evidence of one of those who drew up the alternative scheme.

May not the other five also be represented?

If five men draw up a scheme I should have thought it sufficient to have one to explain it.

Has the right hon. Gentleman nominated only one man to represent his views? How many does he directly nominate?

My hon. and gallant Friend sticks to his point very hard. The oilier day I asked him to suggest to me the names of witnesses he thought ought to be called by the Select Committee. He did so, and I have communicated these names to the Committee, and I have every hope that they will be called.

Seeing that it is the Government of India that is in question, will it not be possible to call more Indians before the Committee. Why should people like Lajpat Rai be prohibited coining to this country to give evidence?

I have not the slightest doubt that the Committee will call for and get what evidence is required.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the Indian extremists and soi-disant moderates are represented by large deputations now in this country, and that there are many organisations of Mahomedans and the working classes of India which are prevented by want of money from sending their representatives, as they are most anxious to do, the Government of India will provide the necessary funds in order that these poor people may be properly represented and thus placed in a position of equality before the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill with the Brahmin and higher caste deputations?

I have repeatedly stated that I will do all in my power to get for the Joint Committee any evidence for which it asks. I do not regard the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion as practicable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that rural committees in India have applied to the Government of India for help to come and give evidence? Are not their views to be represented?

I understand that the Government has not helped any deputation to come to this country, but has simply provided facilities for those who wish to come at their own expense. I do not see how it is possible to differentiate between one deputation and another.

These people are poor agriculturists. Why should not the Government give them help to come to this country?

If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to add that suggestion to the others he has made I will certainly communicate it to the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will suggest to the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill the advisability of taking evidence of some of those who have recently held Provincial Governorships or other high official positions?

Yes, Sir, certainly. Part of the evidence already taken toy the Committee has been of the kind referrd to; and as I informd the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on Wednesday, I shall be happy to submit further names for the Committee's consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can say, approximately, how many British officers of the Indian Army who have been invalided out of the Service owing to wounds or ill-health due to active service in the War have been provided with civil employment in the United Kingdom; and how many of those still seeking employment will he be able to recommend for service in a civil capacity in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, or East Africa?

Arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Labour, as the central authority for questions of resettlement, to make the machinery of the Appointments Department available to officers of the Indian Army equally with those of the British Service. No separate figures for Indian Army officers are kept by the Appointments Department. Every effort is made to help these officers, but it is difficult to find suitable employment for an officer who has been rendered unfit for further service by wounds or ill-health. In regard to the second part of the question, I am already in communication with the authorities concerned as to the possibility of finding posts for any disabled officers of the Indian Army in the countries which have temporarily come under British administration or control.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Ministry of Pensions, in a letter dated the 12th instant, reference Treatment/INS/N.G.R., 861, stated that Stoker James Robinson, First Class, No. K.24942, Royal Navy, was awarded a gratuity of £15, but as, up to the 30th April, 1918, there was no provision for the Ministry bearing the cost of a man's maintenance in a mental hospital, the gratuity was absorbed by the cost of maintenance prior to that date; and whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty that it is not allowable for deductions to be made from war gratuity on account of hospital treatment, he will ask the Ministry of Pensions to refund to Stoker James Robinson the £15 war gratuity which they state they have received on this man's account?

I have been asked to answer this question. This man was discharged on 2nd September, 1915, with neurasthenia, not attributable to service. 1.1 April, 1918, he was awarded a gratuity of £15. In May, 1918, the clerk to the Middlesbrough Asylum reported that Robinson had been admitted to the asylum on 27th November, 1915, and had remained there until 20th April, 1917, that he had again been admitted on 12th January, 1918, and was still an inmate. The asylum was then instructed to classify him as a Service patient, and from 10th April, 1918, his wife and two children have been receiving full allowances. The gratuity was withheld to meet any claim which the guardians might make to meet the cost (over £50) of his maintenance prior to classification. The guardians have been asked whether they will waive their claim in favour of Mrs. Robinson. If they agree to do so the amount will be issued to her less the sum of £2 10s. advanced by the war pensions committee. The decision of the Admiralty applies only to the war gratuities issued by that Department.

Is it understood that these charges are to be deducted from gratuities granted by the Admiralty? Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable to differentiate in this way the claims made on gratuities granted.

That is a rather wide question. If my hon. Friend will put down a specific case, 1 shall be very glad to consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the manager of a German firm at Moscow has been placed in control of the Ministries of Trade and Industries, Transport, and War Supplies, and that as a result of this Germans are being given important appointments in these Departments; and if, in view of the stimulus which is thus given to German trade and the position of British trade owing to the diminishing outlet for home manufacture, he will state what, if any, practical action the Government intend to take in the matter?

(Department of Oversea Trade): I have no official information on the subject, but my attention has been drawn to a letter from the Prime Minister of the Provisional Government of North Russia, which appeared in the Press on 10th July, stating that Mr. Krassin, a German citizen and the manager of a large German firm, had accepted the control of the Ministries of Trade and Industries, Transport, and War Supplies in Moscow, conditionally upon being allowed to introduce a number of other Germans into those Departments.

As regards the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton gave on the 17th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Does the hon. Baronet appreciate the importance of the point of these Germans being appointed in Russia, and, if the Department has not any official information, will it find out whether this is being done?

The importance of the question and the facts in the answer are fully appreciated by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Soviet or Bolshevik Governments have enforced Conscription; if so, what treat- ment is accorded to conscientious objectors; and whether it is the declared policy of foreign Bolsheviks to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, even to the extent, if and when possible, of armed intervention?

In reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, one of the fundamental laws of the Russian Soviet Government, as adopted by the 5th All Russian Convention of Soviets on 10th July, 1018, is that it establishes universal obligatory military service. I am unable to say how far this has been enforced, but the numerous peasant risings against Conscription which have been reported, and the treatment of officers whose wives and families are held as hostages to ensure their continuing in Bolshevik service, make it appear that no special regard is paid to conscientious objections. It is not understood to what class of' persons or Government allusion is made in the third part of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Philip Kerr handed to Mr. Bullit, an official of the American Peace delegation in Paris, a Memorandum in Mr. Kerr's own handwriting containing proposals for an agreement with Mr. Lenin, head of the Soviet Government of Russia; whether Mr. Kerr took this action with the Prime Minister's approval; and what action he proposes to take?

asked the-Prime Minister whether an offer of peace was conveyed to the Bolshevist Government and accepted on the following terms: Recognition of the Governments now existing in Russia, the raising of the blockade, full and complete amnesty for political opponents, the recognition of Russia's financial obligations, and the reduction of the Soviet and anti-Soviet Armies; and whether the Government will once more open negotiations on these lines and endeavour to ascertain whether the Soviet Government is prepared to abstain from military aggression and political propaganda outside Russia and grant an amnesty to political opponents and impartial justice to all classes?

The statement on which the ques- tion is based is absolutely without any foundation in fact. As I stated in this House some months ago, the Prime Minister knew nothing about the supposed mission of Mr. Bullit until after this gentleman had returned. The suggestion, therefore, that any statement had been handed to him by Mr. Philip Kerr, who has been acting as one of the secretaries of the Prime Minister, was obviously absurd, but in order that there should be no possibility of any misunderstanding, we have communicated with Mr. Kerr, who replies that the statement is quite untrue.

asked the Prime Minister whether any agreement, arrangement, understanding, or promise exists between this country and the Peace Conference, the League of Nations, France, Italy, the United States, or any other Power, as to the cost of the military and naval and diplomatic operations undertaken against the Soviet Government of Ruusia; if any such exists can its terms or main features be stated; and whether the various Powers sending troops, munitions, food, supplies, shipping, or other aid to the anti-Soviet forces or districts of Russia are sending Such aid at their own charges, or on some arrangement for payment by this or any other country?

The answer to the first and third parts of the hon. Member's question is that certain agreements have been concluded between the Allied and Associated Governments in regard to the apportionment of expenditure connected with joint Allied operations in Russia. The agreements in question have been concluded by His Majesty's Government with their Allies, and could not be made public without their consent.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a pamphlet that is being widely distributed by post advocating Bolshevism, and quoting the Russian correspondent of the "Daily News" as proving that Russia is flourishing under Bolshevist rule, that the universities have increased from six to sixteen, the number of students increased, and 1,100 versts of railway and 1,200 versts of roads are under construction; and if he will say what steps does he intend to take to counteract this propaganda?

The leaflet to which the hon. and gallant Member appears to refer consists of extracts from Arthur Ransome's book, "Six Weeks in Russia in 1919." The real facts about the effects of Bolshevism, both in Russia and Hungary, are described almost daily in the newspapers, and so many persons, quite as well informed at first hand as the author of the leaflet, are publishing their experiences, that no further steps seem to be called for. I gather that from Mr. Ransome's book the information it contains is founded on a short trip to Russia, undertaken under the auspices of the Soviet Government while there is abundance of evidence available to the public which is derived from more independent sources, and is based on wider experience.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman think that the truth actually reaches those people? Is he aware that a great deal of money is being spent on the circulation of this travesty of the facts?

Has any good come out of Russia at all?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it was the custom of British officers to induce or allow prisoners of war to take up arms and fight against their own countrymen; whether he was aware that such action on the part of General Ironside resulted in the death of six gallant: British officers; and whether he would issue an order forbidding the use of prisoners of war for the purpose above-named?

The battalion in question was formed of prisoners of war who had been forcibly compelled to serve by the enemy, and who were glad of an opportunity to fight with us against their former masters. It is feared that some of these prisoners wore sent deliberately by the Bolsheviks for the express purpose of propaganda and assassination, and the mutiny was caused by these agents. We have evidence that similar efforts were made to introduce Bolshevik agitators in British units. The loss of the gallant British lives is deeply regretted, and by no one more so than by the distinguished general in whom His Majesty's Government have complete confidence.

Is it in accordance with Army Regulations to issue an order for the purpose named in the question?

It is impossible to answer the question in that form. The answer is that the General Officer on the spot is entitled to make what use he can of recruits, wherever they may be found. Many of these men who surrendered evinced a desire to fight for us against their previous masters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that our popularity in Italy is becoming gravely endangered by increasing pro-German propaganda; whether he is aware that this propaganda is being powerfully assisted by the recent action of the Allies upon the Fiume question, the decrease in our coal export to Italy due to our decrease of output, and the shortage of food; and whether, in consideration of these things, of our traditional friendship with Italy, and of her services and sufferings during the War, His Majesty's Government contemplate affording to Italy equal facilities in the matter of food as are being afforded either to Germany or Austria?

I am convinced that the ties of traditional friendship between this country and Italy, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, are too deeply rooted to be seriously affected either by hostile, propaganda or by causes and conditions arising out of four years of war. But he may rest assured that we shall do all in our power to render every assistance to our Italian Ally, and that she now enjoys far greater facilities in the matter of supplies than either Germany or Austria.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will promote the compromise suggested by Italy, whereby the population of Fiume should have the protection of the Italian flag while the port should become a free port open alike to Italy and Yugo-Slav?

This matter is in the hands of the Peace Conference at Paris, and I cannot anticipate their decision with regard to it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to what progress has been made with the salvage of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa, and as to whether a Court of Inquiry has been held into the circumstances attending the sinking of the ships referred to; and if he is in a position to make any further statement with reference to any new facts which may have transpired as to the preparations made by the Germans for, it?

The present situation with regard to salvage of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa is:

Are steps being taken to get hold of the very powerful German salvage plant at Hamburg and Bremen to assist in the salving of these ships?

No, I do not think anything of that sort is necessary. I believe we have the best salvage plant in the world.

asked the Prime Minster what has been decided as to the fate of any ex-German ships salved at Scapa Flow and also the ex-German "Goeben"?

I am informed that no decision has yet been taken by the Peace Conference in Paris.

Before the Government come to any decision in regard to repairing these vessels will they take into account the fact that at the present time there is an enormous amount of repairs necessary for merchant ships, and that it is much more important to repair them than these warships?

I am quite sure the Government thoroughly agrees with my hon. Friend, and they would never agree to take time and money for repairing these ships.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the terms of reference to Admiral Phillimore's Committee on new construction?

The Committee will consider, in the light of the experience of the War, the uses and values of the different types of war vessels; and will advise as to the main naval requirements of each type.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what extra pay and allowances will be paid to the naval officers and ratings employed about the mines in connection with the mining strike; and upon whom will fall the total charge in connection with their employment at the mines?

The matter is under consideration.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if any increase of pay, gratuity, or war gratuity has been or is to be given to the naval nursing sisters for their work?

I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to nursing sisters and reserve nursing sisters of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, and not to V.A.D. nursing members or British Red Cross Association nurses employed in naval hospitals. The rates of pay of Reserve nursing sisters wore revised in September, 1919. The rates of pay for nursing sisters (active service) is at present under consideration. We are at present in correspondence with the War Office on this point, and that Department hopes to be in a position to give its observations shortly. No war bonus is payable to nurses, as they arc in receipt of free victualling, and the larger part of their uniform is provided at public expense. It has been decided to extend the War Office scheme of war gratuities for nurses to the naval nursing staff, and it is hoped to publish full details in the Press at an early date.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has now come to any decision as regards the desirability of publishing a full statement, based on the reports already received from British and American investigators, regarding the alleged anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland, in order that the Polish nation may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them?

His Majesty's Government realise that it is very desirable that a full and authoritative state- ment should be made in regard to the treatment of Jews in Poland. As I have before said, reports have been received from His Majesty's Minister in Warsaw, and a further dispatch is shortly expected. We propose to send one or two persons to Poland to make an independent and thorough inquiry into the so-called pogroms about which very conflicting reports have reached this country. These persons will, it is hoped, be in close touch with the special Commissioner to be sent to Poland for a similar purpose by the United States Government. I hope to be able to announce their names very shortly. I think the hon. Member will agree that the immediate publication of a statement by His Majesty's Government would, in the circumstances, be undesirable.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that one of the Commissioners is a Jew?

I am not responsible for the selection of the Commissioners, but I will refer the question of my hon. and gallant Friend to the Department.

asked the Secretary for War if he is aware- that great dissatisfaction exists among the men who enlisted under the Derby scheme as, although they attested prior to 1st January, 1916, they were not called up until after that date, and in consequence their demobilisation is delayed; and will he consider granting to them the advantage of the same regulations as to demobilisation as have been granted to the men who joined up prior to 1st January, 1916, and treat them as having joined on the date on which they offered their services?

Eligibility for demobilisation in such cases is determined by the length of actual service with the Colours, calculated from the Sate of joining up for immediate service. I regret that I cannot, in fairness to men with longer service, adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Will the hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider these men? They volunteered for service and were told to go back to their usual occupation until they wore wanted, and now they are penalised for doing that.

It is quite true; but a. date had to be set up, and the only date for that purpose was the actual date of joining the Colours.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of burning all the Regulations they have got, and issuing fresh ones which they have some hope of keeping?

I am afraid the bonfire would be a very big one.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would explain the meaning of the words "and young recruits who did not join in time to share in the fighting," which appeared at the end of paragraph 3 of his Memorandum on Demobilisation, 16th July; and whether this was an intimation that such young recruits who do not volunteer would be retained in the Army beyond the 30th of April, 1920, contrary to the law as contained in the Act of Parliament prolonging compulsory military service to that date?

The phrase to which my hon. Friend alludes was intended to refer to those recruits who, either because they were insufficiently trained, or on ac count of their youth, did not embark for any theatre of war or garrison abroad before the Armistice was signed, and who may, if required, be retained by law till the 30th April, 1920. There is no present intention of retaining these soldiers beyond the period authorised by the Naval, Military, and Air Force (Service) Act.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now fixed a date for the statement in this House of the Government's policy in regard to the nationalisation of the mining industry?

asked whether an opportunity will be given to debate the question of the nationalisation of the mining industry on a date previous to the declaration of policy by the Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in the speeches made by himself and the Lord Privy Seal in November and December of last year, and in which the electorate were asked to support a Coalition Government, no mention was made of the nationalisation of any of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; and, if the Government have determined to deal with the subject, will he announce its policy before the Recess, so that it may be debated in the country before an Autumn Session?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the suggestion for the establishment of a Ministry of Mines in the Report of Sir A. Duckham; and, if so, whether he is yet in a position to state the views of the Government with regard thereto?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the complete agreement in all the Reports of the Coal Commission that great changes must be made in the administration of the coal industry and the substantial agreement between all the Reports on the nature of the changes, he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the necessary legislation required to enable those changes to be carried out under the direction of a Ministry of Mines or a Mines Department, while leaving the question of nationalisation to be decided after the effect of these changes has been seen;

(2) Whether, in view of the complete agreement in all the Reports of the Coal Commission that the coal royalties should be nationalised, he will say whether it is the intention of the Government to nationalise the coal royalties?

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Motion, on the subject of the nationalisation of the mining industry, standing in the name of the senior Member for Brighton; and will he give an early day for the discussion of this matter?

I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to what I said in reply to questions on this subject in the House yesterday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that approval by the House of Commons is necessary to give full authority to the Government plan, whatever it may be, for dealing with this urgent national question, and that the House may not be sitting?

We fully realise that, and there can be no question of any action of any kind being taken by the Government without the approval of the House of Commons.

Are we likely to have a statement before the Recess?

I have said so many times, but I am sure that hon. Members realise that there is no question more important and more vital to the interests of the nation, and it is not unreasonable that it should be examined from every point of view before a statement is made.

Has the Government a mandate from the country to nationalise any thing?

So far as I know, I do not think there ever was an election where it was made plainer that the problems before us could not be defined in advance, and that we must rely upon the House of Commons to support us in any steps necessary for dealing with them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any claim was made by any candidate in favour of the question of nationalising a single mine?

I would not like to say that no candidate made that claim, but certainly I did not.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that prior to the War coal was one of our principal exports; that this export is now greatly reduced owing to the fact that America can get and sell coal at less than half the price of British coal; whether he is aware that with the advent of millions of tons of American shipping our export of coal is likely to cease; whether he is aware that coal is the basis of ail our manufactures; that dear coal in competition with American cheap coal handicaps the export of our manufactures and results in great loss to the nation; and can he state what measures the Government propose to take to enable this country to compete with others in export trade?

The Government are fully aware of the serious effect on our export position not only of the reduced export of coal but also of its incidence on cost of production, but I am obviously not in a position to state whether an improvement in these respects may be looked for in the not distant future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country, more than any other, depends for its existence upon our export trade, and will he take measures so that everyone in the country may be made aware of the fact?

Yes. We are doing our best to inform the country in that respect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Yorkshire mine-owners and miners had agreed to an advance on piece rates of 14.3 per cent.; whether the Coal Controller declined to approve this agreement and fixed the rate of interest at 10 per cent.; whether he can state on what date strike notices were handed in; and who was responsible for the action of the Coal Controller?

I have no official information that the Yorkshire mine-owners and minors agreed to an advance in piecework rates of 14.3 per cent. I would, however, point out to the hon. and gallant Member that, even accepting, for the sake of argument, the figures put forward by the Miners' Federation, the advance in piece-work rates for Yorkshire could not work out at a higher figure than 12.2 per cent. I must not, however, be understood as in any way accepting or disagreeing with those figures. In reply to the second part of the question, no request was made to the Coal Controller by any party to approve any rate of increase. The Coal Controller was informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain, in a letter dated 20th June, that meetings had been held in most of the districts, but that no arrangement had been come to, and he was requested to inform the association whether piece-work rates were to be increased, and, if so, whether it was his intention to authorise the owners in each district to arrange the advances, subject to his confirmation. The Coal Controller gave instructions to the Mining Association of Great Britain, on the 26th June, that piece-work rates were to be increased by 10 per cent. when the reduction in hours was one hour, and proportionately for any lesser reduction in time worked, the increase in any district not to exceed 10 per cent. This instruction was modified on the 9th July to the extent that the 10 per cent, was to be an average over the whole country instead of a maximum. The strike notices in Yorkshire were handed in on or about the night of the 10th July. The Government accepts full responsibility for the action of the Coal Controller, and authorised all instructions sent out by him before issue.

May I ask whether the instructions about this 10 per cent. were given only to the Mine-owners' Association and nut to the Miners' Federation, and, if that is the case, why notice was not given at the same time to the Miners' Federation and to the Yorkshire Miners' Union.

There was no instruction issued at, all in the ordinarily-accepted sense of the word "instruction" that is to say, there was no instruction circulated. A letter was received and a reply was given to that letter.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if it be the fact that the Coal Controller never prevented an arrangement between the employers and the miners, there should have, been some official statement to prevent the public misapprehension which has arisen?

There have been many official statements, but it is, unfortunately, the fact that some people do not pay much attention to official statements.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether his statement is correct that the owners and the men had not agreed. I wish to say that the owners both of South and West Yorkshire and the representatives of the miners had agreed to an increase of 14.3 per cent, and it was only after they had agreed that they received an instruction from the Coal Controller. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] That is the position.

No; really the hon. Member is entirely misinformed. The owners were negotiating not on their own behalf but on behalf of the Government whose money, or rather the taxpayers' money, was at stake. They found out what the men's claim was, and then, exactly as I have said in this reply, they applied to the Government asking what they were to do. There was no agreement.

I hare it definitely. Are you aware I have a definite statement from Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Yorkshire Miners' Association, that the arrangement was made as I have said, and that the complaint is that the Coal Controller interfered too late, and that he ought to have interfered earlier before the negotiations.

No.

I have the definite statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am only doing this to try and bring peace. I am sorry the position at present is that the coal-owners blame the Government for the delay, and the men are blaming the Government, and those two people are at a deadlock and waiting for the Government or the Coal Controller to make a move in the matter. I have it definitely that the owners had agreed.

It is no new thing to hear that the Government is being blamed. That is the usual procedure in all these cases, but the facts are as I stated that the Coal Controller was informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain in a letter dated 26th June that meetings had been held in most of the districts but that no arrangement had been come to, and he was requested to inform the Association whether the piece rates were to be increased. Those facts are beyond dispute in writing, and documentary evidence exists to show that the letter was received and an answer sent. I quite understand why the hon. Member (Mr. Grundy) is asking these questions, and I appreciate that fully. With regard to the further point that there is what he calls a deadlock and delay, I do not think that is the case. There is now, or there was an hour ago, proceeding at Leeds a meeting, and I have no doubt it is still going on, at which this very difficult point is being discussed, and that meeting, I understand, is attended by three parties, the representatives of the men, the representatives of the Yorkshire employers, and the representatives of the Government, and we hope that that meeting will find some way out.

I have a document here—

Perhaps the hon. Member will show that document to the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the Report just issued of the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with the Wheat Commission; and what steps he proposed to take with regard to the proposal it contained in paragraph 35 (b), which, by a restriction of the bread subsidy to flour actually used for bread, was estimated to save £14,500,000 yearly?

I have been asked to reply. The Report just issued by the Select Committee on National Expenditure will receive immediate consideration, and the proposals contained in paragraph 35 (b) will be carefully examined.

asked the Prime Minister whether the populations of Belgium and Northern France are suffering in their health from want of milk; and, if so, what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to go to their assistance?

I have been asked to reply. I have no reason to believe that the populations of Belgium and Northern France are suffering in their health from want of milk. As the Leader of the House stated on Monday, supplies of fresh milk are, unfortunately, scarce in these districts, but good supplies of condensed milk have been provided.

Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that the babies in Germany and parts of South-Central Europe are suffering very seriously?

Is it not possible that the question of supplying milk to the women and children in Central Europe could be made the subject, of some international arrangement's

I am not competent to answer questions in respect of Germany. I have answered the question on the Paper. The further question put by the Noble Lord is still the subject of international investigation.

asked the Prime Minister whether the obligation for Germany to deliver] 40,000 milch cows within three months of the coming into force of the Treaty is an absolute one, or whether their delivery is within the discretion of the Reparation Commission?

I am advised that the obligation is absolute, but that the time of performance will be within the discretion of the Reparation Commission.

Is this one of the cases in which the Reparation Commission can postpone their action by a majority or must it be a unanimous decision?

I cannot answer that specific question without notice.

But as the matter stands am I not right in saying that the delivery of these cows has to be. made within three months 1

I have not myself attempted to follow the exact meaning of all these points. The answer which I have given is the answer which has been sent to me from Paris, from the Economic Council dealing with it.

Not the Economic Council.