asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are made, if any, that Ambassadors and Consular Agents shall be of British birth; if it is insistent that they shall know the language of the country to which they are accredited, and, in the case of Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and their staffs, if commercial knowledge and a broad grasp of the trade in such countries is regarded as essential; how many such representatives have been appointed since the Armistice; how many are of foreign nationality; and to what countries the latter have been appointed?

As the reply is long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply referred to:

The rule, as regards nationality, applied to candidates for the Diplomatic Service and the Salaried Consular Service, is that they must be natural-born British subjects, and born within the United Kingdom or self-governing Dominions, of parents also born within those territories, but the Secretary of State has power to grant dispensation from this rule when the special circumstances of the case justify departure from it.

As successful candidates are liable to service in many different countries, it is impossible to provide, in the examination, that they shall know the language of every particular country to which they may be sent. It is not essential that Ambassadors should in every case know the language of the country to which they are accredited, but the language qualifications of Consular officers are one of the chief determining factors in the selection of individuals for particular posts.

Commercial knowledge has been taken into account in the selection of Consular officers since the Armistice. Entry into the Consular Service by open competitive examination will be reintroduced this year. A special two-year course at the London School of Economics has been arranged for successful candidates.

The number of persons appointed since the Armistice to the Diplomatic Service is 59, to the salaried Consular Service is 112, to the unsalaried Consular Service is 74. All are British subjects with the exception that five of the unsalaried Consular officers are of foreign nationality, namely, three Norwegian, one Swiss, and one American, all of whom have been appointed to unsalaried posts in their countries of origin in the absence of a suitable resident British subject.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any further statement regarding the position in Eastern Siberia and the Maritime Province; whether an elected Government is established in this area or in Vladivostok; and, if so, what are its relations with His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government?

The answer to the first part of the question is that Nikolaevsk has been occupied by Japanese forces; otherwise no internal change has taken place in the situation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, the relations between the local Government and His Majesty's Consul at Vladivostok are of an unofficial nature; I understand that its relations with the Japanese Government are of the same kind, though I have no very definite information on this point.

When will this House be informed of the whole policy of our Japanese Allies, in view of the great importance to trades and to the Empire?

That is a question which should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the whole of the British military and air mission has now been withdrawn from the Ukraine and the Crimea; and whether they are on their way home to England direct?

The withdrawal is now in progress. As regards the second part of the question, the personnel of the Mission as withdrawn is being concentrated at Constantinople, and will be sent home from there direct.

asked the Secretary of State for War in what capacity the British officers who are reported to have been present at the capture of Kieff and to have denied the destruction of Vladimir Cathedral were there?

British officers were present with the Polish forces, for the purpose of obtaining information for the use of the British Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consul of the Soviet Republic at Meshed, in Persia, was arrested by British troops last year; and whether this is a violation of international law whilst Persia is an independent State?

Inquiries are being made, and a further reply will be given to the hon. Member in due course.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to impose an indemnity on Turkey; and, if so, if a sum of money equal to the price paid to Turkey for the exploitation of the oil of the Baghdad and Mosul vilayets will be paid out of this indemnity to the Arab State which is to be set up?

In reply to the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the official summary of the Financial Clauses of the Turkish Treaty, which appeared in the Press of 12th May. So far as information is available, no payments for the oil rights referred to were made to the Turkish Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount of the oil of the Baghdad and Mosul vilayets was conceded before the War by Turkey to a British or part-British company?

Assurance given by the Turkish Government before the War to the Turkish Petroleum Company covered the whole of the oil rights in the two vilayets mentioned.

Was a concession to exploit all the oil in the Baghdad and Mosul vilayets ceded before the War to a company?

I think that if the hon. Member refers to a statement made by the Prime Minister he will see that point is covered.

In view of the great importance of this matter, why cannot the House be given the information as to concessions made before the War by the Turks to private companies in this country?

The matter was dealt with by the Prime Minister yesterday. I do not see why it is necessary to repeat it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the group in which the Turkish Petroleum Company has been merged; and what share of the capital of this undertaking is held by the nationals of various states, respectively?

I am not aware of the Turkish Petroleum Company having been merged in any group. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any director of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is also a director of the undertaking in which the Turkish Petroleum Company has been merged?

As stated in reply to the previous questions, I am not aware that the Turkish Petroleum Company has been merged in any other undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many non-commissioned officers and men of the old Regular Army were granted commissions during the War; and how many have subsequently resigned their commissions?

The number of permanent combatant commissions granted to Warrant Officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular Army during the War was 6,720, and of these 2,662 have retired or resigned.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men drawing pensions for wounds received during the recent War who have re-enlisted and are now in combatant units and cavalry regiments?

I regret that this information is not available.

Is it possible to get the information?

I think it would be difficult, and would add to the burdens imposed upon the War Office staff at present. We are endeavouring to contract the staff as much as possible. We are doing six times the pre-War work with four times the pre-War staff. I have, therefore, to be very careful in regard to returns, unless there be a very definite need of them. If the hon. Gentleman will make out a case for special investigation, I will let him know what can be done.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private George Cubitt, No. 115,463, King's Liverpool Regiment, was demobilised on 21st October, 1919, and given a protection certificate at No. 1 Dispersal Unit, Prees Heath; that it was afterwards found he had been demobilised in error and notice was sent to him to rejoin his regiment; that the secretary of the Haslingden branch of the National Association of Discharged Soldiers applied, on behalf of Private Cubitt, to his headquarters for an explanation, and that no reply was forthcoming for a considerable time; that the local police authority advised Private Cubitt to remain at home pending further information; and that when he was arrested and court-martialled he was awarded field punishment and had to forfeit 90 days' pay; is he aware that the facts have been placed before his Department to obtain a remission of the sentence, as the mistake was occasioned solely by the War Office, and that this request has been refused; and will he have the case reconsidered?

I am informed that this soldier enlisted on 20th December, 1918, for a period of seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve. In October, 1919, he was sent from France to the United Kingdom to serve at home. In accordance with the usual practice he passed through a dispersal station on arrival home, and was sent on 28 days' furlough. He was issued with a protection certificate at the dispersal station in error. When this was discovered orders were twice issued for him to rejoin his depot, and as he did not comply with these orders he was eventually apprehended by the civil power. He forfeited 90 days' pay by Royal Warrant for the period of his absence. He was not court-martialled, but was awarded 96 hours' detention by his commanding officer. He did not undergo field punishment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say which is the most facile way of getting these cases settled—by question, or by letter to the War Office?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether full information will be distributed to farmers as to the arrangements made by the War Office to carry on the business of the Forage Department which ceases to exist at the end of the present month; what steps will be taken for the removal of forage purchased by the extinct Department but not yet removed; whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. C. W. Parker, of Peakes, Bradwell-on-Sea, from whom 50 tons of straw was purchased on the 6th January, 1919; whether this straw is still, after 18 months, obstructing the farmyard of the vendor, hindering his operations and the production and storage of home-grown food; and whether this straw will be removed in time to make room for the coming harvest?

For some months past the baling and removal of forage has been entrusted to General Officers Commanding the various military commands, who have been instructed to bale and remove stacks as far as possible, but the work has been much hampered by the lack of transport facilities. My attention had not previously been drawn to the straw purchased from Mr. Parker, but I would point out that, in accordance with the usual practice, he is being paid interest at 5 per cent. on whatever portion of the estimated purchase price has remained unpaid, together with a further sum, amounting to 10 per cent. of the full estimated purchase price, to cover rental, loss in weight, etc.

Will my hon. Friend state how the payment of interest to the farmer in question will assist the production of food when the man's stackyard is being burdened for eighteen months with material belonging to the War Office, which should have been removed?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman's answer is satisfactory to Mr. Parker. in that he gets 5 per cent.; but how is that satisfactory to the taxpayer, who has to pay the 5 per cent. on materials that should have been removed years ago?

I am afraid I cannot decide the question as to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. As a matter of fact we are endeavouring to remove this forage, but it, has been difficult, as transport has been short. The Forage Department is being disbanded and the officers are doing their best.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this straw, which is obstructing the farmyard, is removed?

I will have further inquiries made.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether temporary officers serving in the Army of Occupation under the Directorate of Graves Registration and Inquiries will be retained in the Army after the 31st July or be employed in a quasi-civilian capacity by the Imperial War Graves Commission?

The Directorate of Graves Registration and Inquiries will not close down by 31st July, and a certain number of temporary officers will be retained in the Army after that date, in order to carry the work to an early conclusion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that full notice is given to the officers before any change is made?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter before me, and I have just asked that the longest possible notice should be given.

I have been asked to postpone this question.

I only wish to give a more general answer, to show that this is not an addition to the Army, but much less than the provision made in the Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has anything yet to say respecting David Jenkins, a conscientious objector, who was recently arrested by the military authorities and taken to Brecon barracks, and is now awaiting court-martial; and if he will say on what grounds this man has been arrested by the military authorities 19 months after the signing of the Armistice?

This man was arrested by the police because he was a deserter. The circumstances of the case were referred to the War Office and, in view of the fact that Private Jenkins signed an admission that he was the deserter named in the proceedings before the magistrate, a protecting certificate under the provisions of paragraph 518 of the King's Regulations was authorised.

Can other people in similar positions also secure immunity from arrest?

Yes, but each case must be judged on its merits, and exceptional circumstances justify exceptional procedure; but, broadly speaking, if a man signs a confession of having been a deserter and is identified as such, then, unless there is something quite out of the usual, we issue a protection certificate, having regard to the fact that the War has been over for some time.

Are we to understand that if a man desert from the Army, all he has to do is to sign a confession, and he gets a certificate?

No; this refers to persons who deserted during the period of the War.

Is not that much worse?

Though it is much worse, in view of the time that has elapsed and other circumstances, a protection certificate is not withheld. It is not desirable that these men should be at large in the population with this hanging over their heads, and not knowing what to do or how to qualify for any civil status. It is a difficult case to decide.

Are there no men suffering imprisonment for desertion during the War?

Yes, and some men were shot.

Are those men to be kept in custody?

Are there cases where a protection certificate is issued in error?

This certificate was not issued in error. It was issued in compassion.

Are we to understand that any man who succeeded in escaping arrest during the War is now to be let go free, while those who were less cunning and who were captured are in prison?

Is it not the fact that this man was doing alternative service, and after the Armistice he deserted thinking that that terminated the necessity for doing alternative service, and is it not to persons in that position that certificates are issued?

He has got his certificate, and why does he trouble us any more?

May I have an answer to my question as to whether those who escaped during the War are to be allowed to go free and those who did not are to be kept in prison?

I carefully safeguarded myself from any such inference. Obviously, something in the nature of a statute of limitations will have to come into operation.

Might not a general amnesty be made?

That is a further question.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Army and Royal Air Force interned during the War were credited with field allowance while so interned?

Interned officers of the Army and Royal Air Force were entitled to continue to draw field allowance if they were already in receipt of the allowance at the time of internment.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of troops in the Constantinople area on 1st April and on 23rd June respectively; and how many troops were in course of transport to that area on the latter date?

No, Sir; I do not think it desirable to disclose the exact strength of British forces in this theatre of actual military operations.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of troops in Mesopotamia and North-West Persia respectively on 1st April and 23rd June?

I do not see the same objection to giving information in regard to Mesopotamia. Although there is fighting going on there, it is of a sporadic character, and I do not think any harm would be done by giving the numbers asked for.

Why? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, knowing that there are actual operations pending in this area, it is advisable to give the enemy the assistance that is suggested.

Who is the best judge of that?

Not you!

I think the right course for the Minister responsible to take is to give all possible information to the House without saying, in fact, how many men are in particular garrisons. I do not think it does any harm to show what is the general position of our forces in Mesopotamia.

In spite of the wishes of the whole House?

As a matter of fact the figures have been laid before Parliament in printed documents, and there has been very little change, as will be seen when I read them out.

The figures for the Royal Air Force are:—

May I ask if that number includes followers?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made in evidence in a recent case that the chaffeur of a Government motor car, who ran into a woman, had been driving him shortly before the accident; and can he say whether the pledge of the Government that, in the interests of economy, no Minister should continue to use motor cars at the taxpayers' expense has been carried out so far as his Department is concerned?

A certain number of motor cars are allocated to the War Office, and the Secretary of State is entitled to the use of one of these cars when he requires it for official purposes.

The strength of troops in Mesopotamia and North-west Persia, respectively, on the dates specified are as follows:—

Did we not understand from the Leader of the House that Ministers were not to use motor cars which were employed at the expense of the State and the taxpayer?

No, Sir. No Minister was to have a motor car allocated to him, but a Minister who had to do public duty at any time was entitled to use a conveyance.

Therefore you abrogate the new rule, because a Minister can use a motor car whenever he chooses, and that might be all the time.

No. That would not be in accordance either with the spirit or with the letter of the arrangement.

How many cars are in the pool?

I could answer that if the question were put down. The number is not very large. War Office officials have to go on different journeys near London, and often a whole day would be lost if no conveyance were available.

Is it not a fact that these conveyances were not available before the War, and are we not now at peace?

To my mind it is a delusion to suggest that the cause of economy would be served by denying Government Departments the reasonable use of facilities for rapid communication, such as are provided by the motor car and the telephone.

Could not War Office officials hire cars, or use taxis, instead of keeping cars doing nothing?

I do not think the cars are kept doing nothing. Very few cars are kept, and they are used only for official purposes. On these occasions we use them only for strictly official purposes. I am of opinion that a certain number of cars attached to a Department are necessitated by modern conditions. It is quite true that there were no cars allocated to Departments before the War, but there were then hardly any motor cars.

What! Hardly any motor cars in 1914!

The whole development of the motor car is quite a recent one. You might as well say that telephones were not installed in Departments before a certain date.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is not so much the use of the cars as the Minister who uses them?

I do not know.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of ex-service men were recently engaged to work at the Curragh camp in Ireland, and undertook to work 66 hours a week; whether objection was taken by some local civilian painters as to the number of hours worked by these ex-service painters; whether the matter was referred to the engineer officer in charge; whether the result was that the ex-service men were discharged and lost their job; and whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which these men were dismissed?

A number of painters, about 23 per cent. of whom were ex-service men, were, in the absence of suitable local labour, engaged from Dublin for service at the Curragh from time to time subsequently to November last. The weekly hours of work, which up to 1st April last were 66, were from that date reduced to 60, as it was found that the longer hours were not conducive to satisfactory work. In order to ensure more efficient supervision a further reduction to 47 hours per week (the normal hours in this locality for other tradesmen) appeared expedient, and was effected on 8th ultimo. In consequence of this the trade society to which the men belonged are understood to have withdrawn the men. No men were dismissed, and there is no good ground for belief that the alteration of working arrangements was in any way the consequence of representations made to the commanding Engineer officer.

Does the hon. Gentleman say that these men left voluntarily, and were not dismissed at all?

I have said so

How is it that when there is a Bill before the House for a 48-hour week—

Mr. Waddington. [See Col. 221.]

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is increasing distress and unemployment among ex-service men hitherto employed at Gretna factory and living in that locality; and whether he will consider if any steps can be taken to secure temporary employment in the factory for these men until the future use to which the factory will be put has been finally decided upon?

I do not think that the number of ex-service men formerly employed at His Majesty's factory, Gretna, who are now out of employment can be considerable. 33 per cent. of the total number of employés at present at the factory are ex-service men. I am afraid that there is little prospect of absorbing much additional labour at the factory as the existing employés are sufficient to cope with peace-time requirements for cordite. This factory is not adapted for alternative work on any considerable scale. The question of the future of Gretna is at present receiving close consideration.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether a number of ex-service men resident in Gretna have represented to him that they have been waiting for a long period for settlement in small holdings upon Government land in that neighbourhood; and whether he will now instruct the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to carry through a scheme of settlement upon the land in question?

I have received from my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a letter addressed to him which contains a representation of the nature referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I am informed that the negotiations in connection with the proposals to which I referred in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 30th March last have reached an advanced stage. I hope they will be concluded at an early date.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that great delay is occurring in the equipment of the small holdings of approved ex-service men, and that at the present rate of progress no buildings for the men or their stock will, in most instances, be available before the winter; and whether, under these circumstances, he will issue instructions that the small-holding committees of the county councils shall be granted the same privileges for the free acquisition of huts and material from the Disposal Board for the assistance of these ex-service men as are now accorded to the Territorial Force associations for the housing of the Territorial Force?

In the present state of the building trade, some delay in the erection of new cottages and farm buildings is inevitable, but the county councils and the Ministry are arranging, wherever practicable, to adapt existing buildings in order to settle ex-service men on the land as quickly as possible. In view of the fact that the whole of any losses incurred on land settlement schemes falls to be met from public funds, there would not appear to be any object in allowing discount in respect of huts acquired by county councils for this purpose.

May I be assured by my right hon. Friend that, as a matter of fact, he can get enough huts from the Disposal Board to put these ex-service men on the land?

Yes, as far as possible, but I do not think that hutting men for land settlement is a good solution of the problem.

I quite agree.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state under what circumstances Mr. Jabotinsky was conducted to prison and the conditions of his imprisonment?

I am informed that Mr. Jabotinsky was conducted to prison under the escort of a British officer, and travelled first class by rail to Haifa. He walked from the station to the civil gaol, which is quite near, and there spent the night in separate quarters. He proceeded by train the following morning to Acre, and then in a motor ambulance from the station to the civil goal, where he was handed over to the civil authorities by the British officer escorting him. He is confined in division 2 (simple confinement), and is in separate quarters. He is allowed to wear his own clothing and has his own bedding. Any food he wishes may be sent to him. He is allowed exercise in the open every two hours under supervision; facilities for bathing and medical treatment by a doctor from outside the prison if necessary. He has facilities for reading and studying. His wife visits him twice a week, and he is allowed interviews with Zionist friends at any time.

Is it not the fact that Mr. Jabotinsky rendered great service to this country during the War, both in the field and on the platform, and was he not quite justified in taking steps to protect himself and the Jews in Jerusalem from threatened attacks of the Arabs?

A British tribunal has found otherwise, and that has been the opinion of Lord Allenby. The sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment has been reduced to one year, and is being served under the extremely modified conditions which I have described in detail to the House, and which I took the trouble to have telegraphed to me.

Will an inquiry be made into the whole circumstances?

The High Commissioner has gone out to Palestine, and Sir Herbert Samuel will have an apportunity of reviewing this, among other cases, after consultation with Lord Allenby and the authorities on the spot. I am not called upon to anticipate in any way the conclusions he may come to.

Is not an inquiry being held into the occurrences at Jerusalem, and will not Mr. Jabotinsky's imprisonment depend on the result of that inquiry; and when may we expect the result of it?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain A. Baker, Royal Field Artillery, applied for a gratuity under Article 572 (a), 1914, he having rejoined as a sergeant-major on the outbreak of War, and subsequently received his commission; whether Captain Baker claimed for 13 years' service, and was his claim cut down by one year according to a letter sent to him by the Financial Secretary on the 16th instant, the reason being that he had served one day less than 13 years; whether this means to the officer in question the loss of £150; and is he aware that such treatment is common not only among officers, but also among the rank and file who claim service pensions?

Yes, Sir. The regulations base the grant upon the number of completed years' service, as do most regulations relating to pensions and similar matters. The same is the case with premiums payable in life insurance. It is not practicable in such cases to depart from the definite rule that a year means an entire calendar year, as if a concession were made for 364 days the hardship would only be transferred to the case of 363 days and so on.

asked the Secretary of State for War why, in view of the numerous complaints of men who made many sacrifices during the War, and who are now suffering under what they now consider to be a serious injustice, modified service pensioners who are in receipt of service pensions under Army Order 330 (1918), assessed under Article 1151, Pay Warrant, have not been granted the increase under Army Order 325 (1919); and whether he will consider the desirability of including them under that order according to length of service?

I understand that the case of these men is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, to whom any further questions should be addressed.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has yet been arrived at in the case of ex-Sapper H. Vokins, No. 133,220, Royal Engineers (Electrician), Chatham Depôt, whose claim for an alternative pension, based on pre-War earnings of £2 15s., average of 12 months, has awaited decision since 13th September, 1919?

Mr. Vokins has failed to substantiate his claim to an alternative pension, as required by Article 3 of the Royal Warrant, and his application has, therefore, after exhaustive and careful inquiry, been refused.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ask the mayors of the London boroughs who have refused to co-operate in the raising of recruits for the Territorial Army to resign their membership of the London Territorial Association, so that persons who will be prepared to assist the association may be appointed in their places?

This is a matter for the Territorial Force Association, which appoints its own members.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if the anti-aircraft station at Great North Road, Finchley (corner of Summer's Lane, opposite Granville Road), is still in existence; and, if so, what useful purpose it serves, how many men are employed therein, and what are their duties, if any?

A certain amount of anti-aircraft equipment is stored at this anti-aircraft station, and men are employed to safeguard it and keep it in a serviceable condition. There are also the remnants of a London anti-aircraft defence centre, and the personnel are awaiting absorption into the future Air Defence Organisation as soon as the details are settled. The number of officers is 7 and other ranks 26. Proposals are at present under discussion for the removal of the detachment and stores.

asked the Home Secretary if he will state how many police controls were in operation in the Metropolitan police area for detecting infringements of the Motor Car Act between a.m. 26th June and p.m. 28th June; how many police officers were employed; and with what success?

There were 115 controls during the three days; 73 officers were employed, and 165 cases were reported for prosecution.

Is not this giving information to the enemy?

Cannot the hon. Gentleman see his way to increase the speed limit, in view of the great alteration in—

That is a separate question.

Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions at the Home Office to see that all these traps are laid at dangerous corners and places where excessive driving is a common danger?

The hon. Member should give notice of that.

How many times does the Noble Lord's name appear in the 165?

The hon. Member should give notice of that.

asked the Home Secretary if any compensation has been given to all members of the Metropolitan Police Force who served during the War for leave during that period, either by way of additional leave or a money allowance?

Men who served during the War in the Army or Navy received, while so serving, the leave to which they were entitled under the arrangements in force in the Army and Navy. They cannot claim, in addition to this, police leave for the time they were absent from the police service.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that men serving in the Metropolitan Police to-day are actually in receipt of additional leave as a substitution for the leave which they lost during the War, and if so, whether the Home Secretary can give compensation, either in the way of additional leave or in some other way, to the men who served during the War, but retired since the Armistice?

I think my hon. Friend is mixing up two things. If I understand him, does he not refer to men continuing to serve in the police during the War and therefore had arrears of leave due to them under the Police Regulations? These men certainly are getting extra leave now, so far as circumstances will permit, but their case is not on all fours with that of men serving in the Army and Navy and getting the same leave as other men in the Army and Navy.

I think the hon. Gentleman is the one who is mixed. I—

We are entering into a debate.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under the Allied Conventions a number of French, Italian and Russian subjects who are domiciled here with their families left Great Britain for their respective countries; whether he is aware that those of French or Italian origin have been freely allowed to return to Great Britain, whilst admittance of those of Russian origin have been refused on the grounds that instructions to this effect have been issued by the British Government; and will he state under what Law men domiciled in this country are not allowed to return to their wives and families, many of whom are of British birth and who are now kept by the British taxpayer?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No distinction is made between French, Italians and Russians on the ground of nationality if they left in order to serve in the Allied armies; but, as there is reason to know that many Russians left this country professedly to serve in the Russian army but really to evade military service, such men are not re-admitted unless they show they have actually served in an Allied army. The law on the subject is contained in the Aliens Restriction Acts. 1914 and 1919, and the Aliens Order, 1920, Article 1.

May I ask how these men are able to show that they have fought in the Russian Army, seeing that when they arrived in that country it was in a state of revolution?

They have to satisfy the Consuls in order to get a visa before they can start on their journey.

But if the country was in a state of revolution, was it not impossible for the men to join the army?

There has always been a force fighting, one for the Allies and one against the Allies, and they could join either one or the other.

How do they get a visa?

asked the Home Secretary if, at the beginning of and during the War, a number of incarcerated criminals volunteered to go to the front; how many, if any, were given that privilege on the condition that they returned to prison when their services were no longer needed; how many were rewarded and commended for bravery on the field; how many of the survivors returned to prison: how many of those allowed to retain their liberty were sufficiently provided for by the authorities to remove them from temptation; and how many have since been arrested and convicted for different offences?

A certain number of prisoners were released during the War to join the fighting forces, some as volunteers, others later under the Military Service Acts. Most, though not all, were men of previously good character who had served a substantial part of their sentence, and in no case was the condition imposed that they should return to prison when their services were no longer required. It is known that some of them earned military rewards for good service, but it has not, of course, been possible to keep records of their careers, and my right hon. Friend cannot give either the number rewarded or the number (which he believes to be small) of those convicted of subsequent offences.

asked the Secretary for Scotland if, in connection with the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, he will prepare and issue a list of voting areas, including parishes divided into separate areas, Section 15, Area (c), and wards in burghs comprised into one area, Section 15, Area (a), showing in each case the number of licences (public-houses, grocers, etc.); the estimated population; and the number of voters; and indicating areas where county councils or town councils have passed resolutions under Section 43 (18) of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, resolving not to distinguish local government electors in the spring or autumn register or both?

I am prepared to have a table compiled and issued giving a list of "Areas" as defined in Section 15 of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, and, so far as practicable, the population of each "Area" according to the last Census. As the Register of Electors eligible for the purpose of polling under the Act will not be prepared, generally speaking, until later in the present year, it is impossible at present to give the number of such electors. I am prepared, however, to include in the table the number of electors in each "Area" for the purposes of a requisition under Section 5, together with the information referred to in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. Statistics showing the number of licences in all "Areas" could only be obtained by means of a special return involving much labour, and I do not feel able, as at present advised, to include such statistics in the proposed table. My hon. Friend will remember that statistics relating to the areas of burghs having separate licensing courts and counties are published in the Annual Reports on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether private builders of workmen's houses in Scotland are required to submit the plans of such houses to the local authority not later than the 30th of this month in order to qualify for the increased subsidy; and, whether, if so, he will arrange to extend the period in question?

The question of extending the period within which private builders may qualify for subsidy has been considered by the Government. The regulation requiring plans to be submitted by 30th June has been rescinded, and there is now no restriction as to date of submission of plans.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if he can state the number of certificates which have been given under Section 1 of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Acts, 1918, by the Board of Agriculture that premises were required for the occupation of a person engaged or employed in agricultural work of urgent national importance; whether such certificates have been frequently refused although applied for; whether he is aware that great hardship has arisen to farm workers and others owing to the difficulty of finding accommodation for living at a reasonable distance near their work; whether this disability has applied to many soldiers returned from the War and has seriously interfered with the cultivation of farms in Essex; and whether the Board of Agriculture would approve of such certificates being in future granted by the county agricultural committees instead of by the Department in London?

The number of certificates issued by the Ministry between the date of the passing of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, and the date of its repeal by the Act of December, 1919, was 22. In a number of cases applications for certificates were refused, but in every instance the Ministry obtained a full report from the County Agricultural Executive Committee before coming to a decision. In reply to the third part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that while the Bill was under discussion, an undertaking was given by the Minister in charge that no certificate would be issued except for most urgent reasons and subject to other accommodation being available for the person proposed to be evicted. There is no doubt that the restrictions imposed by the Act causes much inconvenience in agricultural districts, but the Ministry has no information that this is specially the case in Essex. The issue of certificates ceased with the repeal of the 1918 Act, but is proposed to be revived by the Increase of Rent Bill, under which the certificates may be issued by the County Agricultural Committees as well as by the Ministry.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, having regard to the fact that £6,400,000 has been spent on the national shipyards at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury, he will state the total tonnage and the market value of the ships that have been commenced and completed at these yards, leaving out of account the ships being built when the yards were acquired by the Government?

Vessels with an aggregate deadweight tonnage of 15,312 tons and a market value of approximately £570,000 were in various stages of construction at the date of the acquisition of the yards at Chepstow by the Government, and subsequently completed. On the 2nd March, 1920, when these yards were taken over by private purchasers, it was estimated that approximately 24,200 tons, having a market value of approximately £710,000, had been worked into the three H Type and the six N Type vessels, of a total tonnage of about 74,000 tons, then under construction. Two of these vessels were in an advanced stage of construction, and one, the "War Glory," of 10,500 tons deadweight, was launched on the 21st April, 1920.

Then are we to understand that ships worth £710,000 have cost us £6,400,000?

My hon. Friend must not understand anything of the sort. That is the capital cost of the whole undertaking.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the late Captain Fryatt's ship, the "Brussels," being sold, he will take steps to ensure that the proceeds of the sale shall be applied in establishing some memorial or endowing some seamen's institution with which the name of Captain Fryatt will be permanently associated?

The Government have decided to adopt the course suggested in the question, and the arrangements necessary to carry out their decision will be made.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say whether any decision has been reached with regard to supplying Members with franked envelopes from Departments in order to enable them to pass on Departmental replies to their correspondents free of charge?

As was promised by the Prime Minister, the subject has been very carefuly considered, but the Government have decided that it would not be desirable to adopt the course suggested in the question. If, however, any Member desires to save the cost of postage on such correspondence, it would be open to him, when forwarding a letter to the Minister concerned, to ask that a reply should be sent direct to the correspondent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that scarcely any Member could feel confidence in these Departments that these letters would ever reach their correspondents; and, secondly, does my right hon. Friend mean that Ministers alone are to enjoy this privilege which they deny to every other Member of the House?

The last question is a very old one. The position of Ministers is different in many respects. They enjoy larger salaries, for instance. With regard to the first part of the question, I hope the hon. Member is mistaken in not feeling confidence in the Departments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House this assurance, that the Department will not only send a reply to the constituents in question, but will send a copy to the Member at the same time?

I should like to have that considered. Of course, it would mean double postage, but I will consider that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider putting ordinary Members of Parliament on the same footing as Ministers, and rely on them to pay their motor fines by means of franked envelopes?

I have never had that experience.

Has my right hon. Friend observed that outside bodies are subsidising Members of Parliament, and increasing their salaries in order to enable them to meet their expenses? Does he think that desirable?

Assuming these Departments do as the right hon. Gentleman assures us they will do, and answer these questions correctly, what is the difference between their sending franked replies and sending them through Members?

There is great administrative difficulty to begin with, and great danger of abuses arising.

Cannot Members of the House of Commons be trusted?

It is not Members of the House of Commons. If these franks are sent they must be available in all Departments, and cases of abuse arising were discovered during the War.

On account of the absolutely unsatisfactory nature of this reply, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the Treasury to prepare an estimate or alternative estimates of the national income?

As stated in the answer given on 3rd June to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East, all estimates of national income involve a considerable amount of guess-work, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to give official endorsement to any particular estimate.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is the considered policy of the Government to inform persons convicted of offences in Ireland who go on hunger strike that they must face the consequences of their action, he will state why, subsequent to the release in the middle of April of 66 hunger strikers from Mountjoy prison, of whom more than half had been convicted of various seditious and treasonable crimes, there has been a further release since that date of 16 prisoners who went on hunger strike after having been convicted by court-martial of various offences?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a question on this subject on the 21st June.

May I have an answer why the Government, having declared they are not going to allow people who have been convicted out on hunger strike, they have, according to official answers, let out 16 in the last two months?

My hon. and gallant Friend's information, I presume, is derived from the answer to which I have referred, and to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to secure the payment of Income Tax in many parts of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Carrick-on-Shannon (Nos. 1 and 2) district councils and board of guardians have refused to supply the supervisor of Income Tax with any particulars regarding assessments; that the Birr (No. 1) district council has decided that no information be given for Income Tax purposes; and that many other newly elected local bodies have passed similar resolutions?

My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that all possible steps are being taken to ensure that all liability to Income Tax is assessed, and the duty collected without undue delay.

Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify that statement, and say what the steps are?

I will amplify it to say that the Inland Revenue Authorities are generally successful in dealing with the grudging as well as the willing taxpayer. I suggest it is not beyond their ingenuity to deal with the passive resister.

Is not the difficulty that they do not know which horse to back—the de facto or the de lege Government?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information as to the proceedings reported to have taken place at Fermoy?

I have not received any official report at the War Office yet on this subject, but the Irish Office have handed me a telegram to the effect that plate glass and other windows in about 50 houses were broken in Fermoy last night by about 400 military men.

Will these occurrences be catalogued in the list of outrages published every week?

No doubt the House can judge of the value of that suggestion.

asked the Prime Minister if the draft of the Arms (Traffic) Convention has been drawn up in its final form and approved by the Allied and Associated Powers; whether other nations have been officially invited to signify their assent and sign that instrument; whether the Government have any information as to the date by which it is possible to hope that this convention will be ratified by the great Powers; whether traffic in arms is being indulged in between many countries, irrespective of the fact that the draft of the convention has been signed as a provisional step towards final ratification; and whether the Government will undertake that British trade will not suffer as a result of the confusion at present obtaining through lack of decision on the part of various Government Departments?

The Convention in question was signed by the representatives of practically all the Allied and Associated Powers in September, 1919, and has been laid before Parliament. Other nations have been invited to give an undertaking to adhere to the Convention when ratified by the signatories, and in the meantime to observe its provisions, and this invitation has been accepted in several cases. I cannot at present forecast the date by which the Convention will be ratified by the great Powers. The protocol of the Convention was drawn up with a view to preventing any traffic in arms taking place contrary to the terms of the Convention, pending its ratification, but I understand that in some countries it is difficult, in view of the domestic legislation in force, to give full effect to the protocol. The question of undertaking a revision of the protocol, in order to meet the difficulty thus caused in securing a uniform application by the different countries of the terms of the Convention and protocol, is now under discussion with the principal Powers interested.

In the meantime, is His Majecty's Government going to supply arms to anyone who wants them to fight with?