asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the position in which disabled British nurses who have served with the forces of Allied Powers are placed; that these ladies have been refused pension upon the ground that they did not serve under contract with the British military authorities; that they are not pensioned by the governments with whose forces they served; and whether he is prepared to consider bonâ fide cases of hardship due to these facts?

These ladies undertook service direct with Allied Governments or with organisations of Allied countries, and are not therefore eligible for compensation in respect of disabilities incurred during such service, under the terms of the Pensions Warrants administered by my Department. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to recommend the alteration of this Warrant, or, alternatively, will he make advances to the Allied Governments, with a view to securing that these ladies shall not be left in penury?

I am afraid it is not possible for me to alter the Warrant, but I am prepared to do everything in my power to convey the facts to the Governments concerned.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now able to give a decision respecting the case of Mrs. Preece, of 6, Church Road, Tipton, the widow of Private R. Preece, No. 31,349, South Staffordshire Regiment?

An award of pension has been refused in this case on the ground that the disease of which the late soldier died in July, 1919, could not be accepted as contracted or commencing on active service, which terminated in April, 1917. An appeal against this decision has been lodged, and will be forwarded immediately to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for hearing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that I have been informed that this has already been remitted to the Appeal Tribunal, and that this case was raised so far back as February this year, and we are still awaiting a deci- sion? This woman has a family dependent on her, and they are almost on the verge of starvation.

I do not know the facts of the case, but I can say that if the case is not now before the Appeal Tribunal it will soon be there.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been informed it has been remitted there some considerable time? Now he says it is going to be remitted. What does it mean?

I have said that an appeal has been lodged.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that one of the male control of the issue office responsible for reporting that no bugs existed in the Chester hut has now changed his opinion owing to the fact that one of the vermin in question has dropped on his own head; and whether it would be possible for a representative of the Ministry of Pensions to put the truth of the complaints as to vermin to the test by spending one night in the Chester hut or, failing this, can he see his way to fumigate the hut or remove the staff?

I am aware of the nuisance complained of, but since the matter was first reported to me, I have been guided, not by the opinion of any single member of the staff of my Department, but by the advice of experts placed at my disposal by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the First Commissioner. There has been a recent recrudescence of the trouble, but every step will immediately be taken to stop it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest information is that contamination is now being carried in books? It is very necessary that some steps should be taken.

I am taking every possible step.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the amount of land acquired in Ireland for settlement of ex-service men; the names of those counties in which satisfactory progress has been made and also those in which the progress is not satisfactory; and the total number of ex-service men at present placed upon the land in Ireland?

Up to the present the Estates Commissioners have made offers under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, to purchase some 4,350 acres of untenanted land, and their offers have been accepted in respect of 750 acres, but the proceedings have not yet sufficiently advanced in these cases to take possession of the lands. The Commissioners have also instituted compulsory proceedings in respect of 870 acres for which their offers have been refused, but objections have been filed in these cases, and they will come before the Court for adjudication at an early date. The Estates Commissioners have provided holdings for 74 ex-service men on lands acquired under the Land Purchase Acts. The Local Government Board have made 40 schemes up to the present for the acquisition of 647 acres of land. Seven of these schemes, involving the compulsory acquisition of about 83 acres of land, have been confirmed, and the land will be taken as soon as the necessary legal formalities have been complied with. In addition, the Board have agreed to purchase 100 acres of land, but until questions of title have been decided, they are advised they cannot take possession.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that competent ex-service men temporarily employed in the Civil Service are being daily discharged; that generally speaking ex-service men are employed in the lower grades in a temporary capacity only; that high positions are in many cases occupied by young men who avoided service; if he will consider the advisability of ordering a searching inquiry into the whole personnel of the Civil Service;

(2) if he has considered the advisability of discontinuing the competitive examination for the permanent Civil Service until such time as all completely competent ex-service men temporarily employed have been absorbed; (3) if it is his intention to set up substitution committees entrusted with the task of advising on the best methods of substituting ex-service men for others with less claims upon the State throughout the Civil Service, and to give the names of the Departments in which these committees have been set up?

Returns taken for 1st May, 1920, show that out of a total of 122,589 ex-service men then employed in Government offices more than 80,300 were employed in a permanent capacity. So far as is consistent with economy and efficiency in their staffing arrangements, the various Government Departments are doing all they can to retain the ex-service men who hold temporary appointments. As the hon. and gallant Member is already aware, a Committee is being set up to consider what modifications, if any, should be made in the existing arrangements for the employment of ex-service men in Government Departments, and that Committee will also consider the question of the conditions under which ex-service men should be given permanent posts in the Civil Service.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase since the Armistice in the number of persons employed in the Civil Liabilities Department, and the extra cost involved thereby?

I have been asked to reply. At the date of the Armistice the staff consisted of 609 persons, at an estimated annual cost of £79,000. The staff were employed upon the scheme originated in 1916 for meeting the contractual obligations of soldiers with the Colours. After the Armistice an entirely new scheme for giving assistance towards resettlement in civil life was introduced.

As, up to the present, some 246,889 applications under the second scheme have been received, it will be obvious that an increase in the staff was inevitable. The actual increase in numbers has been very small, the total of persons now employed being 660. The estimated annual cost is £136,000, but it should be pointed out that a considerable propor- tion of this cost is due to war bonus and increases to meet the cost of living.

How much of that expenditure relates to Ireland?

I should prefer to have notice of that question.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the proposals of the Government with regard to the financial position of school teachers in Ireland, seeing that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Education Bill before the Adjournment?

An interim grant, estimated to amount to over £350,000, has been made in full and final settlement of all claims of primary teachers for the financial year 1919–20. As regards the remuneration of these teachers from the 1st April, 1920, the Treasury have agreed conditionally to this matter being referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Board. In the case of intermediate teachers, it has been decided by the Treasury also to make an interim grant. The amount of this grant and the method of distribution are at present under consideration.

Is it likely that those disbursements will soon be made, because these people are in a bad way?

I appreciate the distressed condition of many of these people, and I can assure my hon. Friend there will be no delay in issuing the money.

asked the Chief Secretary of Ireland whether William Kane, Samuel King, Thomas Bramble, Samuel Fleming, and John Lappin, all Ulster Volunteers of Londonderry, were tried recently by special Crimes Court in Londonderry before Major Brett, resident magistrate, and Mr. R. Sparrow, resident magistrate, on a charge of carrying rifles and ammunition; whether they were found guilty and sentenced to a fine of £5 each; whether Joseph Trany, of Bunavie, county Limerick, was tried by district court-martial at Cork on 23rd June, 1919, on a charge of having a revolver and ammunition; and whether he was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour?

The prisoners referred to in the first part of the question pleaded guilty and were fined as stated, but I would point out that the hon. and gallant Member, while mentioning all the cases of Ulster Volunteers charged with carrying arms during the Derry riots, and implying that they were given preferential treatment, has omitted to mention that several persons of the opposite faction were arrested in exactly the same circumstances, were brought before the same Court, charged with the same offence, and received the same sentence. The circumstances in the case of James Tracy—not Joseph Trany, as mentioned in the question—were quite different.

Was not James Tracy punished in this way long before there were political murders or assassinations of police in Ireland, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think a better example should be made of men of all faiths and factions carrying rifles, in Londonderry?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is quite natural that Ulster men should arm themselves against the dastardly assassinations of the Sinn Feiners?

With reference to the supplementary question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I cannot, without notice, say when James Tracy was sentenced, but I am convinced that the sentence of 18 months' hard labour for what was in effect threatening the life of an officer was not too severe.

May I ask why these men of different faith in Londonderry are only fined for carrying rifles and ammunition, especially in view of the heavy loss of life in Londonderry, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to take possession of the rifles scattered all over that unhappy city?

The charge was that of carrying rifles and ammunition, and the sentence was given by a Resident Magistrate, and I cannot interfere with the sentence of any judicial officer in Ireland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman now going to take possession of these rifles scattered all over Londonderry?

The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why no steps were taken last week to haul down the Republican Flag hoisted on Wednesday 7th July, on the Admiralty Pier, Queenstown, by order of the Harbour Commissioners; and were any orders issued to the police on patrol duty at that spot not to interfere with this disloyal emblem?

I am informed the flag referred to was hoisted on the Admiralty Pier, which is the property of the Cork Harbour Board, on the 8th instant, and was taken down a few hours afterwards. As far as is known, no such order as indicated in the question was issued to the police.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say who took it down?

I am informed that this flag was put up by certain gentlemen, who are not, at any rate, likely to put up the Union Jack, and was pulled down by them shortly afterwards, for fear it would be taken down by force by those who objected to having the flag up.

Are we to understand from that that the right hon. Gentleman has issued, or will issue, orders to the police in Ireland at once to haul down the Republican flag where-ever and whenever they see it?

That power is now within the discretion both of the military and the police.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the week before last in North Longford a young farmer was charged before a volunteer republican court with using language towards the Irish republican army likely to cause disaffection; that on apologising the sentence was modified and he was only ordered to pay a fine of £4; and are the Government taking any steps to protect law-abiding people from these illegal fines and punishments?

The only information the Government have regarding the incident is derived from a newspaper report, which is not evidence upon which proceedings could be taken.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the County Dublin County Council have pledged their allegiance to the republican assembly in Ireland, hold their meetings under the republican flag, refuse to pay the police rate, refuse to recognise the King's courts, and withhold all information from the Inland Revenue and other Departments for the purposes of taxation; whether there is any Act of Parliament which compels or authorises the payment of moneys out of public funds to a council which denies the authority of this Parliament; if so, will the Government take steps forthwith to repeal such an Act; and, if not, will payment to this council out of public funds be immediately discontinued?

My attention has been called to a resolution substantially to the effect stated in the first part of the question, reported in the Press to have been passed by the Dublin County Council on the 8th instant. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to a question on this subject asked by my hon. and gallant Friend on Thursday last, save that these grants are being made available under the Bill I have recently introduced to pay decrees obtained against local authorities for murders and injuries to property.

Until the introduction of the Bill, will the Government cease paying over our money to rebels?

The Bill has been introduced, and I hope will have an early passage into law, and, in the meantime, no money, so far as I know, is being paid from the Exchequer to recalcitrant county councils.

Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman that no payments in grants will be made to any county councils in Ireland who have taken action similar to that in the question?

I must have notice of specific county councils in reference to grants.

You made a general statement.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the recent Waterford Assizes fines for non-attendance were inflicted by Mr. Justice Gibson of £100 on grand jurors, £25 on special jurors, and £10 on petty jurors; and whether, seeing that the fines so inflicted fall most heavily on those who are drawn from the classes which are the object of the present reign of terror, the Government intends to enforce payment of the fines in such cases?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a somewhat similar question yesterday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House any information about the raid by 50 armed men on the General Post Office, Dublin, this morning; what was the object of the raid; and were any soldiers or police stationed in the building?

I have received the following wire from the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police: At 7.10 a.m. to-day, 15th instant, about 22 armed men entered the Sorting and Mails Department, General Post Office, at Rotunda Rink, Dublin. They held up all the officials and went to the Shute Department Section in the centre of the building and took away the following bags of correspondence. A bag for Secretary, General Post Office. Several bundles of letters for the Accountant, General Post Office. A pouch for the Registrar-General. A sorting box for the Engineer, General Post Office. A bag for the Local Government Board. A bag for the Surveyor of Taxes, Beresford Place. A bag for the Under-Secretary's Office. Two bundles containing about 50 letters for the Royal Irish Constabulary. One hundred miscellaneous letters for Dublin Castle. Eighty letters for the Vice-Regal Lodge. A bag for the General Prisoners Board. A bag for the Cashier, Irish Command. Three men carried the letters and bags to a motor car which was in waiting at the western side of the square outside the office. A large bag containing the correspondence for the Royal Irish Constabulary was lying on the floor partly under a table in the State Letter Department, and was apparently unnoticed by the raiders. The raiders remained ten minutes in the building, and left at 7.22 a.m. on a signal given by the leader, who blew a whistle. He was the last to leave the premises. He ticked off his men as they left. The premises are entered by gates at the eastern and western sides of the Rotunda, and the raid was carried out simultaneously at each side, the raiders driving the officials into the building before them, and most of them displaying formidable-looking revolvers. When they entered they immediately took possession of the telephones and emergency switches in the building, and so prevented any information being conveyed until the raid was completed. The Superintendent was at his post, and immediately after their leaving telephoned to the police. At the time of the raid there were in all about 150 officials, including postmen and overseers in the premises.

There being no guard there, will the hon. Baronet take steps to have a guard in future, and, further, has he any reason to suppose that there was collusion with those inside the Post Office?

As to the second part of the question, I can make no reflection on the service without evidence. As to the part concerning the guard, one of the difficulties in Ireland is to guard all public premises, having regard to the number of constables and military at the disposal of the Irish Government.

In view of the importance of a great building like the Post Office, will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is an adequate guard, either of police or of military, in order to protect the public against these marauders?

That is the same question that has already been answered.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrests have been made?

May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has any information with regard to the arrests of armed men in the district of Limerick?

The hon. Member has not given notice of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the report of the Labour delegation to Hungary and, in particular, to the passages reflecting on the British High Commissioner; and whether any Papers can be laid indicating the views of His Majesty's Government on these passages and comments?

The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. I will consider the possibility of laying Papers on this question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the tribute paid by the Foreign Office Committee on British Communities Abroad to the very valuable work which is being carried on by the British Institute at Florence, any decision has been arrived at as to the express recommendation of the Committee that the Government should continue to subsidise the Institute; and whether every effort will be made to encourage this and similar institutions which are promoting a good understanding betwen this and other countries?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The recommendation of the Committee has been considered by the Government, who have, however, decided that they are unable to sanction further expenditure by the British Exchequer upon the support of the Institute. The valuable work carried on by the Institute is fully realised, and every effort is being made to give it all possible assistance other than by a subsidy.

What is the nature of the further assistance?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the numbers and nationalities of war prisoners that have been repatriated through the League of Nations?

The arrangements which are being made by the League of Nations for the repatriation of prisoners of war have not yet been completed. No ex-prisoners of war, therefore, have yet been transported under the supervision of the League, but it is hoped that 10,000 Bulgarians will shortly be sent back to Bulgaria from Greece, and that many thousands of prisoners of all ex-enemy nationalities, as well as Russians, will be repatriated before the winter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet come to a decision as to publishing drafts of the mandates before the terms are finally settled by the Council of the League, in the same way that the Covenant was published before the terms were accepted?

I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 8th July.

Did not the Prime Minister promise to consider this question, so that the House might have the opportunity to express an opinion upon it?

The Prime Minister did promise to consider it, and it will be done.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state precisely what are the powers possessed by the British representatives on the permanent advisory commission for military, naval, and air questions set up by the League of Nations, in the matter of communicating the military, naval, and air resources of this country to the commission and of what general nature are the military and naval secrets which those representatives are not permitted to divulge?

I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 8th July to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.

Are we to understand that we have certain naval and military secrets which we are saving up for the next war?

Any naval secrets we may have we are holding up in the hope there will be no next war.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Allies have obtained any assurance or undertaking that they will complete the sweeping up of mines in the areas allotted to them under the Treaty of Versailles; and, if so, by what date?

Yes, Sir. Great Britain and the United States of America have cleared the areas allotted to them; France has nearly done so; Italy has a considerable portion yet to do, and it cannot yet be stated when she will finish; and Germany has given an assurance that she will clear her area, but the date of completion has not yet been fixed.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for sweeping up the mines in the Baltic?

So far as possible we are trying to get those who put them there to remove them.

Including ourselves?

Yes.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Conference at Spa has as yet reached any agreement or decision with reference to the payment of reparation and trial of War criminals?

I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Have they reached any conclusion as to the trial?

As a matter of fact I know the subject was discussed at Spa, but I am not in a position to give any details.

asked the Prime Minister whether under Turkish rule Mesopotamia was largely governed by and through Arab officials at a cost of £3,000,000 a year to the country; and whether he will consider the advisability of economising by returning to the same system?

The House has already been informed of the steps that are being taken with a view to the establishment of an Arab administration. I have nothing to add to the statements that have been made.

asked the Prime Minister whether a syndicate has been formed with a view to the exploitation of oil at Mosul; and, if so, what are the names of the members?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on this subject on 1st and 5th July.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state what are the general features of the land revenue system for Mesopotamia in force under the Turkish Government before the War which have been maintained?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 12th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Seaham. I am afraid that it is impossible to deal adequately with the subject in the Course of a reply to a question. I hope that hon. Members will be content to wait until a decision can be reached as to the publication of a general report.

Have any steps been taken to prevent the importation into Mesopotamia of the Zemindar system which has done so much harm in Bengal?

There is no intention, as far as I know, of introducing that system.

Or of the creation of landlords?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether rail communication between Basra and Baghdad, which was cut as a result of the recent rising, has yet been repaired; how many British and Indian casualties, respectively, have been caused in the recent fighting, and what losses of war material and rolling stock have resulted from the attacks made by the insurrectionists on the British military armoured and other trains?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received any confirmation regarding the attack by Arabs with regard to the cutting of the Baghdad Railway and the isolation of and attack on a considerable body of British forces; whether such Arabs belong to the Arabic rulers who were subsidised by this country and India; and what steps are being taken to prevent serious native uprisings?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any further information regarding the operations at Samawah and Rumeitha; what was the strength of the isolated garrison before the outbreak; and whether the sheikh whose arrest led to the rebellion had previously been in receipt of a subsidy from the British administration?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. It is understood that there was no British garrison at Rumeitha before the outbreak, but that a company of Indian infantry proceeded there on receiving news of the attack on the Government buildings, and before the railway was cut. I am informed that there is no reason to connect the rising with Arab rulers who were subsidised by this country or India, and that, as far as is known, the sheikh in question was not in receipt of a subsidy.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the latest information received is to the following effect: Military operations are in progress, but are hampered by shortage of rolling stock, six trains in all having been captured or derailed between Samawah and Diwaniyah. Detachments at Samawah and Rumeitha are isolated. Line has been cut, in addition, above Diwaniyah, but not seriously. Troops at Rumeitha have suffered heavy casualties, and detachment sent in relief has also suffered severely, and are 15 miles from Rumeitha. I may add that the situation in the Shamiyah district and in the Nasiriyh district is reported to be delicate. It will, of course, be understood that neither of the forces mentioned is a large one. No report of any British casualties has been received to date.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that this very serious situation is in operation, namely, that the rail communication is cut between Basra and Baghdad, and has been for several days, and that the forces on the spot are not in a position to repair it, owing to their inferior position to the enemy?

Yes, I think that would be a perfectly fair statement. The railway communication is interrupted at many places on the line, and a large district is in a state of great disorder, and the small local relief column that has so far advanced has not been able to cope with the disorder. A considerable force is now moving downwards from Baghdad. In addition, I have felt it necessary to ask the Indian Government to warn, in case of emergency, further forces to be dispatched to the scene. The communications of the Army in Mesopotamia can, however, to a very large extent, be maintained by the River Euphrates, and are not dependent upon the actual movement of trains along the railways. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that, if sufficient exertion is made, order cannot be fully re-established.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea what caused this disturbance? Will he consider the appointment of a committee to inquire?

I do not see how a committee would help at this stage.

Are some of these casualties due to the very intense heat at the present time, and are proper steps being taken to mitigate the undue effect of the heat?

I have given the House all the information in my possession.

May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the serious nature of the information, whether he will consider the advisability of making a statement at the meeting of the House to-morrow, either by moving the Adjournment at the beginning or at the close, in view of the fact that Baghdad is isolated by rail?

I do not see what object would be met by making a statement if I have no further information to give. If we have any further information we shall certainly give it.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements that coloured troops have been employed by the Poles along the Phoskoroff Zherinka railway on the Russian-Polish front; and whether he is in a position to state that no black soldiers have been sent to the assistance of Poland?

I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on Monday last by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Yes, but Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was that his attention had not been called to the statement: is he aware that I have sent him copies of newspapers in which the statement appeared, and can we have some information on this rather important matter?

I was not aware of the source of the information, but my hon. Friend tells me it was a wireless message. On the face of it it seems absurd.

Have inquiries been made at all into this?

We are not going to make inquiries into every rumour.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the result of the inquiry by Sir Stuart Samuel and Captain P. Wright with regard to the alleged massacres and ill-treatment of Jews in Poland is to show that no grounds exist for the exaggerated reports that have been circulated from German and Bolshevist sources on the subject; if in their Report they state that the Jews in Poland were employed by the Germans to promote and support their tyrannical measures when they invaded Poland in concert with Lenin and Trotsky; and if the terms of the Report and the Government's acceptance of its conclusions have been communicated to the Polish Government?

In reply to the first and second parts of the question, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to draw his own deductions from the Report, which has been communicated to the House. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative, though the Polish Government are doubtless in possession of copies of the Report.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the acceptance of the British conditions for the resumption of relations with the Soviet Government, he is satisfied that all prisoners held by the Soviet government will be immediately released unconditionally; whether he can state what is the latest information regarding the officers and men of the Royal Navy captured at Baku; whether, if all our prisoners are released to our satisfaction, we will release all Russian prisoners who may be in our hands unless they are offenders against international law; and whether the resumption of relations with the Soviet Government is to be understood as involving recognition of their Government?

As regards the first part of the question, the unconditional release of all British prisoners has been accepted by the Soviet Government as one of the conditions of the resumption of trade. As regards the second part, the most recent information received is still very unsatisfactory, but urgent representations have been made to the Soviet Government on this subject. The reply to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the fourth in the negative.

Arising out of that reply and with reference to the naval prisoners at Baku, may I ask did that information come after the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday as to the negotiations?

Oh, no, nothing so recent as that.

How is it possible to enter into these negotiations and invite the Soviet Government to conferences without recognising them?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can probably answer that question as well as I can.

I cannot.

But he is probably aware that in similar circumstances we had trading relations with a country a long time after we had ceased to recognise the Government.

How long is this foolish attitude going to be continued—this extremely foolish and undignified attitude?

I quite recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is an authority on matters that are foolish.

I have been right anyhow?

I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he makes interruptions and interjections I shall have to ask him to leave the House. As he is here as a representative, he must behave himself properly.

asked the Prime Minister whether the suggestion has been made by His Majesty's Government that the Polish troops shall fall back to a line laid down by the Allies as the Eastern Frontier of Poland, and that the Russian troops shall fall back 50 kilometres to the east of this line; what guarantees against renewed attacks have been offered to the Russian Government; whether the proposed armistice terms have yet been accepted; and whether this intervention constitutes de facto and de jure recognition of the present Russian Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the terms of the communication made to the Russian Government concerning the suggested Armistice with Poland; whether, failing the acquiescence of the Soviet authorities, any alternative to an Armistice has been suggested; and whether this alternative has been presented in the name of the Allies as distinct from the British Government?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Russian authorities have accepted the conditions put forward by the British Government as a basis for negotiations with regard to trade; what these conditions are; whether a Soviet delegation is to be sent to this country to deal with political questions in addition, or whether any suggestion to that end has been put forward by the Soviet authorities; what is the point of view of the British Government on this aspect of the matter; and what is the estimated amount of the British commercial claims against the Soviet Government?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the proposals for an Armistice with Russia include the hostilities at present being carried on by General Wrangel?

I cannot add anything to the very full statement which I made yesterday.

May I have an answer to the second part of my question as to what guarantees against renewed attacks have been offered to the Russian Government?

It is true that that was not specifically answered, but it is obviously a question that I cannot answer.

May I have an answer to the last part of my question? Is it not a fact that yesterday it was stated that the message was sent with the knowledge and approval of our Allies, and are they taking joint responsibility if we have to go to war with Russia, and will they help us if there is a new war?

As I understand it, they are acting entirely with us in this matter.

How can you extract a pledge on which you intend to rely from a Government which you do not recognise?

That is one of the difficulties.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the conditions?

They were contained in the reply which I gave yesterday.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Blue Book on Northern Russia will be published; and whether it will contain the telegram from the War Secretary to General Knox of May or June, 1919?

I cannot say at present when the Blue Book will be published. The collection of papers has already begun. It is too early to say what the Blue Book will contain.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Secretary of State for India was not informed of the details of the occurrences in April, 1919, until December of that year, he proposes to take any steps to censure the Government of India for this failure to keep the Imperial Government informed of the events referred to; and whether he will cause all written messages and telegrams on the subject to be published?

The reasons why full details of occurrences connected with the suppression of the disturbances were not elicited until the Committee appointed to investigate them commenced its inquiry have been repeatedly explained by question and answer in this House. No question of censure arises. The position is clearly stated in paragraph 22 of the Government of India's despatch on the Hunter Report, and their conclusions on this point, amongst others, were accepted by His Majesty's Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State was not fully informed, and if this is so, is it not imperative that the Indian Government should keep the Secretary of State informed on all details of these serious matters in India?

That is a matter which has been discussed, not only in question and answer, but in Debate, and I have nothing to add to what has been said.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will order a Return to be prepared showing the number of married women whose husbands are also at work on the permanent and temporary staffs of the various Government Departments; how many of these have husbands also employed in the various Departments; and the number of this latter class who have been transferred to the permanent staffs since the outbreak of War?

This question is one which will doubtless be considered by the Committee which is being set up to inquire into the arrangements for the employment of ex-service men in Government Departments, whether on a temporary or permanent footing. It will be for the Committee to say what information is required for the purposes of their inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause to be conveyed to the Committee the view of the Government that married women whose husbands are in receipt of State pay should give way to discharged soldiers?

When my hon. Friend learns the composition of the Committee he will, I think, feel confident that no point relevant to the question will be overlooked.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the Stationery Office in 1913–14, and what is the estimated cost for 1920–21; which of the present offices were not in existence in 1913–14; what is the estimated cost of each of these in 1920–21; and whether any serious public inconvenience would result if the number of offices or departments was reduced to the pre-War standard?

For the answer to the first and second parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the particulars given in the White Paper recently published on present and pre-War expenditure. In considering the total of the present year's estimate the new charge under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and the greatly increased costs of labour and material have to be borne in mind. I will arrange for the hon. Member to be furnished with a list of the offices and buildings which have been taken over by the Stationery Office since 1913–14.

In regard to the last part of the question, the activities of the Stationery Office as a supply Department, and consequently the number of offices required for the carrying out of its work, depend in the main on the demands made on it by Parliament and by Government Departments. Every effort is made to check unreasonable demands, but it is impossible to effect arbitrary reduction in the Department without reference to the requirements of the Government service as a whole.

asked the Prime Minister whether the introduction of a paper currency in West Africa has caused the old silver coinage to be hoarded and to disappear from circulation; whether a new token currency is being coined in this country, and shipped out there, similar in colour to brass; whether these new coins are to replace the old copper coinage or the former silver coinage; if the latter, do they fulfil the stipulation in the recent Coinage Bill that they contain 50 per cent. of pure silver; and whether, in view of the reduced price of silver, he can see his way to restore the silver coinage to its pre-War fineness with a view to preserving the old belief of the natives in the soundness of British money?

As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is hardly possible to say how far the introduction of notes has accentuated the tendency to hoard silver coins in British West Africa, which dates back to a period long before the introduction of paper currency. As regards the second part, the new alloy coins are substitutes for the West African silver coins, or for the paper notes of similar denominations, which have been found not to be altogether suitable to African conditions. As regards third part, the Coinage Act, 1920, does not apply to this coinage. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Have the Africans got bad money because they have no influence in this House? In view of the fact that the Indians have been able to retain their pre-War standard of rupee, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman not see his way to put both Africans and Indians on an equally fair footing?

How much have the British Government made out of this change in coinage, and do they realise that it has been made purely at the expense of the African negro?

Obviously, I cannot answer the latter question. As to that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart). I have answered the first part in my reply; as to the second, I will represent what he has said to the proper Department.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the acceptance by the Turkish Government of the Peace Treaty, the Allies intend to call on the Turkish Government to co-operate in the suppression of the revolt against Allied garrisons?

The Turkish Government have not yet accepted the Peace Treaty.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Greeks executed a large number of Turkish Nationalist prisoners after the capture of Balikari; and, if so, will the Government secure the punishment of those responsible for this massacre?

I have no information as to any such incident.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the number of mercantile marine captains and officers who have served in ships managed by or for the Ministry of Shipping who are now out of employment on account of these ships having been sold or otherwise disposed of; whether the Government will consider the possibility of granting these captains and officers a certain amount of leave on pay to enable them to tide over the period that they will be out of employment before obtaining berths again; and whether, in the event of such a decision being arrived at, he will consider making it retrospective and making the amount of any such leave on pay vary according to the officer's age, circumstances, and prospects of re-employment?

I have been asked to reply. This matter has already received attention, and the sanction of the Treasury was obtained in April last to the payment, ex gratiâ, and after investigation, of an amount not exceeding two months' pay to captains, officers and engineers, whose employment terminated owing to the sale of vessels in respect of which the Shipping Controller is in the position of owner. Furthermore, it will interest the hon. Member to know that over a year ago steps were initiated for the establishment of a scheme to relieve distress amongst masters and officers of the mercantile marine due to unemployment arising out of the War, and the fund is administered by a committee containing representatives of the officers' associations.

asked the Prime Minister whether it has yet been decided to give a day's Debate for the discussion of the general question of Government expenditure?

I should welcome such a discussion, but I see no prospect of it at present except on a Supply day.

Is this question not considered as being of equal importance with the other questions for which facilities have been afforded for Debate?

That is quite true. I should prefer to see that subject discussed, but it does not depend upon us on Supply day, and I see no other opportunity for it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider his decision not to invite the Treasury to frame alternative estimates of the national income.

I can add nothing to the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 29th June.

If the Government do not know and cannot find out what the income is, how can they find out the proper limit of their expenditure?

My hon. Friend knows that neither the Government nor anybody else can give an accurate estimate of the national expenditure.

Will the Treasury present an alternative estimate?

What is the advantage of an alternative estimate?

Will the right hon. Gentleman put the House in possession of such information as the Treasury possess as to the national income?

I will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ascertain if there is any advantage in giving the estimates which have been made.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent passing under foreign control of British firms, such as Boots and Company; whether any licence or sanction of a Government Department has first to be obtained; and, if not, whether danger of unfair competition to the small trader and monopoly and consequent high prices to the public renders some safeguard advisable?

I have been asked to answer this question. I have seen Press statements as to the particular transaction to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but no licence or authorisation from any Government Department is necessary in such a case. As regards the last part of the question, I can only say developments of this kind will be carefully watched.

Can we have any sort of guarantee that this last new combine will not arrange to squeeze out all the small traders by refusing to deal with them, as was the case with the tobacco monopoly?

I will refer that point to the Board of Trade.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adhere to the exposition of the law by the Lord Chancellor when, as Attorney-General, on 12th July, 1917, he laid down, in connection with the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, the statutory rights of an officer protecting him from punishment on the report of an inquiry which did not comply with the statutory rights this officer possessed under the law?

The statement referred to in the question was perfectly correct, and applies still to the cases with which it is concerned. It has no relation to cases where all that is in question is the exercise of an administrative discretion.

Is it not a fact that General Dyer was punished by the British and Indian Governments and deprived of his command on the Report of the Hunter Committee, which did not comply with the statutory powers?

The answer to which my hon. Friend refers has reference to the legal rights, and the legal rights do not apply.

Was it not directly stated that they were taking action on the Report of the Hunter Committee?

We were taking action in the ordinary way.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will lay the correspondence with the Australian Government in connection with the Anglo-Japanese Treaty?

I have been asked to reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member. The answer is in the negative.

Why do they decline to lay this correspondence?

For reasons which are sufficiently obvious.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is being continued automatically without any further action on the part of the Government; whether it is proposed to continue it without modifications; and whether he will give an opportunity for the matter to be discussed before the automatic renewal of the Treaty comes into Force?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether according to Article VI. of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, unless either party gives notice before 13th July, 1920, of its intention to terminate the Treaty, the Treaty will automatically be renewed; whether the Government have come to any decision to give or to refrain from giving such notice; and, if so, will he state the nature of the decision?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the outcome of the interchange of views between Great Britain and Japan on the subject of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?

A joint communication with regard to the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 1911 has been made by the Governments of Japan and Great Britain to the League of Nations. This communication, which is dated 8th July. is as follows: The Governments of Great Britain and Japan have come to the conclusion that the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 13th July, 1911, now existing between the two countries, though in harmony with the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations, is not entirely consistent with the letter of that Covenant, which both Governments earnestly desire to respect. They accordingly have the honour jointly to inform the League that they recognise the principle that, if the said Agreement be continued after July, 1921, it must be in a form which is not inconsistent with that Covenant. I am unable to make any further statement on this subject at present.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in submitting this matter to the League of Nations, attention has been drawn to the manner in which the terms of the Treaty have already been broken by Japan in her aggressive action in regard to territory in China; and whether the League of Nations has been communicated with in regard to handing that land back?

I think in a matter of such supreme importance my hon. Friend should give me notice.

Has the Government got the full details of the aggressions of Japan which took place after the formation of the demands made upon China?

I think I should be given full and due notice of any further questions.