asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the regimental pay drawn by regimental officers of the Indian Army has been proved to be not greater than the pay drawn during the War by officers of the British service, he will cancel the Regulation made by the Indian authorities depriving officers of the Indian Army taken prisoners in the defence of Kut of half their regimental allowances after the first two months of captivity on the grounds that they drew more pay than officers in the British service?

I regret that I am precluded, under the Resolution of this House of 1914, read in conjunction with the Government of India Act, 1915, from cancelling the Regulation referred to, unless the War Office are willing to provide the extra expenditure involved. This they are not prepared to do, as indicated in the reply given by that Department to the hon. and gallant Member on the 22nd June.

May I ask whether it is fair that men who went all through the siege of Kut should be punished by having half their allowance taken away from them?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that the expenditure involved has to fall, by Resolution of this House, on the British revenue, and as regards that he must address himself to the War Office.

I have addressed myself to the War Office, and will the right hon. Gentleman now address himself to the War Office?

I have addressed myself to the War Office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman get some result?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether proposals have been made in the Indian Imperial Council for legislation to regulate the entry into and residence in India of British subjects from the self-governing Dominions and Dependencies on a basis of reciprocity; and, if so, what is the nature of such proposals?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on this subject to the hon. Member for Seven-oaks on the 14th July. I shall be glad to send him the same papers if he so desires.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the state of affairs on the Afghan border is now satisfactory; whether any Bolshevik organisations are now preparing an attack on the North-Western Frontier; whether there is any reason to suspect that the Afghan Government is not carrying out the terms of the armistice or peace treaty; whether an exodus of Mohammedans is now taking place from India to Afghanistan; and to what is this due?

I think the situation on the Afghan border may be regarded as satisfactory. India is notoriously the object of Bolshevik propaganda, but I know of no reason to anticipate an armed Bolshevik attack on the North-West Frontier of India. The answer to the third part of the question now is I have no reason to suspect the intentions of the Afghan Government. With regard to the fourth part of the question, my information is that between 500 and 600 persons have recently emigrated from India to Afghanistan, and 750 more are said to be on their way. The emigration may be ascribed to the Khilafat agitation. I am asking the Government of India for further information.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will accelerate the movement of members of the Khalifat agitation across the frontier into Afghanistan?

That certainly might have a desirable result, but I would prefer to leave that to the Government of India.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the emigrants have been well received in Afghanistan?

I understand that some members of this emigrating party, having been convinced of the advantages of the British connection, have returned from Afghanistan.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to the effect that Mr. Gandhi is now endeavouring to organise a boycott of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales's visit to India?

I understand that Mr. Gandhi has proposed a boycott of His Royal Highness's visit. I understand that, as the House would expect, this disloyal project has found little favour, and I am confident that His Royal Highness will receive a welcome in India which will equal if not excel in enthusiasm the reception he has received in other parts of the Empire.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it publicly known whether he still regards Mr. Gandhi as his friend?

Nobody who suggests disloyalty or discourtesy to the Crown can be a friend of any Member of this House, let alone a Minister.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not Mr. Gandhi had expressed disloyalty last May when the right hon. Gentleman said he was his friend?

At the time I said he was a friend of mine I hoped, but found reluctantly that it was not so, that Mr. Gandhi's regret that his action had led to disturbances would have had permanent results.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Gandhi is the same person who stirred up sedition in South Africa until he was expelled there from?

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the total net amount of the subsidy that has been paid to the Emir Ibn Saud, of Nejd, since the Armistice was signed with Turkey; whether the whole of the sum has been paid in gold; whether the cost falls upon the British, the Indian, or the Mesopotamian taxpayer; what conditions are attached to the continued payment of the subsidy; and when the subsidy will cease?

The total amount of subsidy paid to Ibn Saud during the twenty-two months since the Armistice with Turkey is £110,000, of which practically the whole has been paid in rupees or currency notes. The incidence of the cost has not yet been finally settled. The subsidy is continuing to be paid on the conditions which Ibn Saud has accepted, that he will meet King Hussein with a view to reconciling their differences, will not disturb the existing state of affairs till the meeting has taken place, and will guarantee the good behaviour of his followers during the pilgrimage.

To the last part of the question I can give no answer at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this meeting between the Emir Saud is likely to take place in the near future?

I think so—almost immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House an assurance that expert knowledge and personal experience of Indian railway administration will not be regarded as a disqualification for membership of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the administration of railways in India?

The Committee will include members with expert knowledge and personal experience of Indian railways.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how easily an Indian enquiry develops into an amateur's orgy?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India proposes to pay a sum of money to all wage-earners in India who vote at the coming elections in compensation for loss of working time; and, if so, what will the total payment amount to?

I am not aware of any such proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether persons convicted of waging war and other crimes during last year's rebellion, and since pardoned by the executive, are eligible for election to the new councils; and whether the presence of such persons on these councils, the basis of which is cooperation with Government, is likely to produce good results?

The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the terms of Clause 2 of Rule 5 of the rules for election to the new councils. That rule excepts only persons who have received a pardon, and does not apply to those whose sentences have been remitted by the Indian executive in pursuance of His Majesty's directions for the exercise of clemency.

Are we to understand that as many as 1,700 persons out of 1,778 have been pardoned or let out, and will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these will be eligible for election?

Individuals who have been let out have not been pardoned under the amnesty, and they will not be eligible until five years after the expiration of their sentence.

How many have been pardoned?

I do not think any of them have been pardoned, but I will ascertain.

asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether, in order to secure a tranquil atmosphere during his visit to India, he suggested to the Viceroy that the restrictions placed upon Mrs. Besant and her co-workers, ordered by the Government of Madras, should be cancelled; whether, as a result of that suggestion, the Government of India did recommend the Madras Government to remove the restrictions forthwith; whether this is exerting influence over local governments;

(2) whether, in view of the fact that immediately after his appointment in 1917, he telegraphed to the Viceroy to suggest to the Government of India the desirability of removing the restrictions imposed upon persons who, solely on account of their violent or improper methods of political agitation, had been dealt with under the Defence of India Act, he will explain his statement that he leaves, and always has left, any question as to the necessary steps for maintaining order in India to the local governments and Government of India?

I hope the hon. Member will not wish to discuss again these events of three years ago. They were fully discussed in the House on 16th October, 1917. In so far as they have any bearing on the answers I gave last week, I do not regard any action I took then as being inconsistent with the general policy I have always pursued of leaving to the authorities in India decisions which have to be taken for the maintenance of order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question, which is quite clear, that is, whether it is true that he suggested to the Viceroy that restrictions placed on Mrs. Besant should be removed, and whether he does not think that suggestion is exercising influence on the local government which he stated last week he had never done?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether it is not the case that at present Mrs. Besant is assisting the moderates in India against the seditious elements, and whether, therefore, it is not exceedingly undesirable to raise this question again?

I think I have answered the hon. Member.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman a definite question, not about Mrs. Besant, but about the right hon. Gentleman's own statement made last week that he never had influenced any local government in any way; namely, whether he now thinks this is correct bearing in mind that the evidence shows that he did send a telegram to the Viceroy?

What I asked the Viceroy to do on that occasion was to consider whether the time had not come for the liberation of certain individuals who were interned. The result of deportation or internment without trial is always a question of consideration whether that deportation or internment ought at a particular moment to end. There was no cancellation of the local Government's order. There was a consideration as to whether those orders ought not to be changed, but in my opinion that has nothing to do with the measures taken for the maintenance and preservation of order.

Is there any distinction between the wish of the Minister for India and the order of the Minister for India?

The hon. Member knows well that occasionally suggestions are made to the Government of India for their consideration and on other occasions orders are issued.

Having considered the matter, is the right hon. Gentleman still justified in saying that he has never in anyway exercised influence over the local government?

If the hon. Member quotes, he should quote correctly.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any subsidies are paid by the political department at Baghdad to any Arab or Kurdish chiefs or heads of tribes in the area under British occupation, and, if so, to how many individuals; and what is the total amount paid in this way per month?

I am informed by the Civil Commissioner that remuneration to recognised Arab and Kurdish chiefs takes several forms. Cash subsidies are given in some cases, the total amount of these being approximately £44,000 a year. The precise number of recipients cannot be stated without special inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the estimated revenue and expenditure on account of the civil administration of Mesopotamia for the financial year 1920–21?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth on the 30th June and to the hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan on the 1st July, of which I will send him copies. I hope to be able to give figures very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give the House any further information regarding the position on the Lower Euphrates and on the Baghdad Railway between Ain Dibs and Tulul Bak?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a further statement as to the position in Mesopotamia; whether any and, if so, how many troops have been or are about to be drafted to that country; and whether he can make any statement with regard to the causes of the present disturbances?

The relief column advancing southwards is reported to be engaging an Arab force 2,000 strong a few miles north-west of Rumaitha on 19th. The situation in the Samawa area seems to have improved. The tribesmen have suffered heavily, and there are signs of dispersal. The rising in the Shamiyah district has not spread, and it is hoped that it has been checked. As regards the last two parts of Question 82, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made yesterday. It is quite impossible for me to go into questions of the political relations with the tribes in answer to questions addressed to the War Office. The raid between Ain Dibs and Tulul Bak was a sporadic attack—one of the many which occurred after the rising at Tel Afar, and does not appear to have any connection with the rising in the Middle Euphrates.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what warships have been sold without the obligation to break them up; to whom they have been sold; how many more warships are going to be sold without this condition and to whom; whether any warships have been disposed of without payment; and to whom they have been given or disposed of?

The following warships have been sold without restrictions, for the most part to shipbreakers: British self-governing Dominions, as-follows:

Canada:

1 cruiser,

2 destroyers.

Australia:

1 flotilla leader,

5 destroyers,

6 submarines,

3 sloops.

New Zealand:

1 cruiser.

Newfoundland:

1 sloop,

1 trawler.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question—Were any warships sold to Powers other than our Dominions, without the obligation to break them up?

I have answered that question before. Certain ships have been sold, and I gave the reason for that sale.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a list of the ships to which he has referred?

Ships which have been sold?

Yes.

As far as I recollect, a list was published and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the privilege hitherto accorded to boys at the Royal Naval School at Greenwich of reduced fares for the holidays has been withdrawn; and will he consult with the Ministry of Transport and see if this privilege can be restored?

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the increased railway fares with which the boys of the Royal Naval Hospital School, Greenwich, are being charged, causing their mothers a great deal of worry and distress, and of which the old and the new scales are as follow: (old scale) to Chatham and return 2s. 6d., Plymouth and return 15s., Portsmouth and return, 5s. 6d., Sheerness and return, 3s. 6d.; (new scale) Chatham and return, 9s. 6d., Plymouth and return, 57s. 6d., Portsmouth and return, 20s., Sheerness and return 12s.; and will he consider whether some substantial concession can be made, such as the granting of a half railway warrant?

The answer to the first part of Question 24 is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, and in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth Central, the Royal Naval Hospital School, Greenwich, is not maintained out of, or supported by, Naval funds. I am suggesting to the Governing Body of the Hospital that representations might be made to the Ministry of Transport in order to ascertain whether some privilege could be granted.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the mothers of these boys are mostly widows and the boys have been given this privilege because the pension has been so small, and if this concession is not granted many boys will have to stay behind and will not be able to go home?

My hon. Friend and other Members representing dockyards have put this case before us on many occasions and we have been most sympathetic in the matter. We have very little power as it all rests with the Ministry of Transport, but any little power we can exercise we are exercising on behalf of these boys.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of Skipper A. Wilson, Royal Naval Reserve, of 43, North Street, Peterhead, who has been refused payment of a sum of £4 6s. 6d., being the balance of expenses incurred (as per detailed statement furnished by him) when travelling on Admiralty service from Peter-head to the Orkneys in May, 1919; whether he is aware that the sum of £3 18s. already paid to this officer represents less than one-half of the expenditure which he necesarily incurred on this Admiralty service; whether it is the intention of the Admiralty that officers of this rank should be compelled to defray out of their own pockets necessary expenditure in excess of the subsistence allowance, as per the scale in force at the date when such expenditure was incurred; whether the allowances for an officer of his rank have been increased since the date at which Skipper Wilson incurred these expenses; and what action he proposes to take in the case of Skipper Wilson?

The answer is a long one. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The following is the answer:

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, subject to the following qualifications—firstly, that the expenses were incurred in May, 1918, and not in May, 1919, and secondly, that it, is not considered that the whole of them, amounting as they did to rather more than a £1 a day for lodging and subsistence, were necessarily incurred. As to the third part of the question, I would observe that the scale of subsistence allowance in force at the time was found generally to be adequate taking one journey with another, and to refund expenses incurred in excess of the scale allowances. for subsistence would defeat the two-fold object of the adoption of a scale which is to set a reasonable standard of expenditure on journeys on public service and to avoid the trouble which would be involved both for the officers making the journey and the Accounting Departments if statements of expenses actually incurred were to be required on each occasion. The answer to the fourth and fifth parts of the question is that the scale of subsistence allowance for naval officers was increased from the 1st July, 1919, but it is regretted that it is not possible to apply it retrospectively to May, 1918.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether prize money is being despatched to naval pensioners and widows of naval ratings by means of naval prize cheques, and that this system of payment is causing difficulties by reason of the recipients not being able to readily get them cashed; and if he will make arrangements for payment in future by means of Post Office orders?

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that prize money is being paid by way of naval prize cheques; and if he can have this money paid by money or postal order, inasmuch as many of the persons entitled to prize money have no banking account and tradesmen do not care to take the cheques, or if, alternatively, he will ask certain banks in each locality to cash these naval cheques?

I desire to thank my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Portsmouth North for his kindness in postponing his question from last Thursday. The Admiralty was not aware that the system of paying by cheque prize money amounts of over £10 was causing any great inconvenience to the recipients, but as soon as arrangements can be made and the necessary printing obtained, payments of amounts of less than £40 will be effected by means of the money order system.

Would it not be possible to accept the alternative suggestion that certain banks in the locality should be asked to cash these cheques?

We are trying to meet the difficulty in the way I have suggested, but I will explore the other suggestion at the same time.

Will that not open a way to fraud—to send open cheques in the post which anyone might cash?

Of course, we will consider all these points very carefully.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that prior to the 1st July letters from naval ratings on active service were carried through the post free of charge, provided they were sent from their ships and marked, On active service, and that since the date named that privilege has been withdrawn and, in consequence, the recipients in many cases have had to pay 4d. on each letter; and will he arrange with the Postmaster-General for the old position to be restored?

This was a special War concession, and its retention in existing circumstances could not be justified. Due notice of the withdrawal of the privilege was given to the Navy and to the public. A period of grace is being allowed by the Post Office before unpaid, or insufficiently prepaid, correspondence from His Majesty's ships serving abroad is surcharged.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the question of pay of the Home dockyard workmen serving under agreements at Hong Kong dockyard, and who are paid at rates fixed in local currency, and which question was engaging Admiralty attention in February last, when it was promised that there would be no unnecessary delay in dealing with the petition from the employés?

It has been approved to pay the employes in question 20 per cent. on their Hong Kong emoluments as from the 1st January, 1919. This decision has the effect of considerably increasing the payments, previous authorised, of 10 per cent. on rates of wages. The decision was communicated to Hong Kong by cable on the 8th June.

asked the Secretary of State for War how it is proposed to use the two towers which are now apparently embedded in the mud of Shoreham harbour; and why they were built, and at what cost?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The Admiralty propose to use for experimental purposes the two towers now at Shoreham, which were in an advanced stage of construction at the cessation of hostilities. These towers were originally built as a part of certain defensive war measures, and the total expenditure and liabilities up to date amount to approximately £1,200,000. This sum includes not only the structures themselves, but also other important work which formed part of the original scheme, the details of which the Admiralty are not prepared to divulge.

How much additional cost will be involved in the experiments with these towers?

I should require notice of that. I answered only the question on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the Second Report of the Birth Rate Commission; and what steps he proposes to take to secure constant consideration in future of the practical problems involved?

I have seen the report in question. All statistical aspects of the matter are kept under continuous review by the Registrar-General's Department, now working in close relation with the Ministry. Any steps that are desirable and practicable will be taken, but I am not clear as to any special action by the Ministry that is called for at the present time.

Have the Government any consideration on the social aspects or generally their own services that they lead the way as recognising the importance of the birth rate?

I am not quite clear what special action the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Minister of Health what is the rateable value of premises in the City and County of London licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors; and what proportion per cent. of the expenditure out of the rates on pauperism, lunacy, and police in the City and County of London is borne by such licensed houses?

A return published by the London County Council shows that the rateable value of on-licensed premises in the City and County of London on the 6th April, 1919, was about £1,420,000, and it may be estimated that between three and four per cent. of the rates raised in the city and county for all purposes was paid in respect of those premises. The same proportion would apply to the expenditure on the three purposes men- tioned in the question. The above figures relate to on-licensed premises, which were separately assessed. I have no information as to the rateable value of those premises which were not separately assessed, or as to the rateable value of off-licensed premises.

On a point of Order. I tabled four questions on Monday, and only three of them appear. [HON. MEMBERS: Three only allowed.]

39. I beg to ask the Minister of Health if the right of vacant possession granted to ex-service men who have bought a house for their personal occupation can also be extended to those members of the Mercantile Marine who have served their country during the War?

Further legislation would be required to give effect to this suggestion, and I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill for the purpose.

asked the Minister of Health if Belgian bricklayers are setting from 3,000 to 4,000 bricks daily while the British bricklayer limits his labour to the setting of 300 bricks daily?

An average of 300 bricks per day is a very small figure, but, although the output on housing schemes leaves much to be desired, I am glad to say that this average is generally being exceeded. I have no information as to the number of bricks laid per day by Belgian bricklayers.

asked the Minister of Health whether houses and business premises let by railway companies come under the scope of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act?

Subject to the special provision as to increase of rent in Section 2 (1) ( e ), the Act applies to houses and business premises let by a railway company as it applies to other premises.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the naval mission accredited to General Wrangel has been withdrawn; if not, what is the reason for the delay; and whether he is now aware of the origin of the shipping which conveyed General Wrangel's troops to the northern shore of the Sea of Azov for his recent offensive?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the last part of the question, I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on the subject on the 28th of June by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Surely the First Lord is now aware what this shipping was that violated our agreement by carrying these troops to the assistance of General Wrangel? If he was not aware at the time, surely he can tell me now?

I am not aware of anything of the kind. I am not aware of any violation of any agreement. All I am responsible for is that it is not British shipping. That statement has been definitely made by the Prime Minister.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to obtain from the Soviet Government of Russia an agreement that the Soviet Government shall honour debts to private persons and business firms in this country before the negotiations for the resumption of Anglo-Russian trade are completed; and, if so, under what conditions and arrangements will such Russian debts be paid?

asked the Prime Minister whether any conditions attach to the coming visit of representatives of the Soviet Government of Russia to this country, particularly in the matter of an embargo on propaganda; and why the objection to the presence here of M. Litvinoff has been removed, having regard to what happened when he was last in England?

I am sorry that I can add nothing to what has already been said on this subject.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that many disabled ex-service men at Woolwich are being deliberately given work which aggravates their disabilities or which their disabilities prevent from doing efficiently; and will he send an independent investigator to examine the evidence on this subject which is in the possession of the Woolwich branch of the National Union of Ex-service Men?

My attention has not been called to any cases of this kind, but if particulars are supplied to me I shall be glad to make inquiry. I cannot imagine that it is true that disabled men are deliberately given work which aggravates their disabilities.

On a point of Order. Ought not an hon. Member who makes such a suggestion as this to give some facts in support of it?

asked the Minister of Health whether the position of venereal diseases officer at Bury, Lancashire, a part-time appointment of nearly £350 a year, has been given to an applicant who did not join up for service in the Great War; whether 15 applications were received; whether the three selected for interview possessed at least equal academic status and experience to the one chosen for the position; whether these three applicants had each been over four years in the Army and had served overseas; whether, seeing that other qualifications being equal, an important public post, paid for out of Government funds, should be given to a man who has served in the Forces, and the appointment must be ratified by the Ministry of Health, what action does he propose to take in the matter?

I have not yet received any application for approval of this appointment, but I am communicating with the Bury Town Council in the matter.

asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to prevent the exhibition of carcases outside butchers' shops, which for many reasons is highly objectionable; and will he insist on the prohibition of all blowing of carcases?

I have recently appointed a Committee to advise me as to the measures necessary to secure adequate protection for the health of the people in connection with the slaughter of animals and the distribution of meat for human consumption.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Stapleford and Sandiacre urban council, Notts, have recently decided to cease sewage pumping during the night, thereby causing pollution of the River Erewash; and whether he will have inquiries made into this matter with a view to the abatement of this nuisance?

I am not aware of the decision referred to. I am, however, making inquiries into the matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence between the Imperial and New Zealand Governments as to the indenturing of Chinese coolies in Samoa?

I will consult the New Zealand Government with regard to laying the correspondence in question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table Papers in reference to the action of the Council of the League of Nations in the Aaland Islands question?

The Council of the League of Nations recently decided, with the concurrence both of Sweden and Finland, to refer certain aspects of this question to an international commission of jurists. The case may, therefore, be said to be still sub judice, and His Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, undertake to lay any Papers on the subject for the present.

Apart from the decision of the Council, is it not desirable that the case between Finland and Sweden should be published, and is it not very desirable that the House should receive official information in regard to a matter of that importance?

I think the answer is based upon what is the desire of the Council of the League of Nations, but I will inquire.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire particularly on the point I have raised, as the question of publication goes to the very root of the proceedings?

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the widespread resentment caused by the Ministry of Transport not giving sufficient notice to the holiday travelling public of the increased rate of fares, the Government will re-consider its decision of making 5th August the date for the increased fares coming into operation and postpone them to a later date?

asked the Prime Minister whether, as the railway companies, in their evidence before the Railway Rates Committee, have stated that they made their calculation respecting increased fares on the assumption that there would be no increases in the month of August, he will, in view of the public feeling aroused by the decision of the Ministry of Transport to increase the fares after 5th August, make such arrangements as are necessary, including any requisite amendment of the law, so as to postpone the imposition of any increase of fares, at any rate, until the date contemplated by the railway companies, namely, 1st September, 1920?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of postponing the date for the increase in railway fares until they have fully explored the possibilities of adjusting expenditure to income by getting those railways whose ton mileage rate and freightage load are much below the average of the other railways in the country, to effect such improvements in organisation as will reduce their working costs to the general average?

I cannot add anything to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.

Will the Government consider the advisability of giving 30 days' notice of any increase of fares from whatever date the Advisory Committee may recommend?

I do not think I can add anything to what I said yesterday. The House is aware that by Statute the right to recommend any increase necessary to meet a deficit depends upon the advice of the Advisory Committee. If we departed from that and did not take their recommendation at the beginning we shall be going behind the intentions of the Statute.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that return tickets hold good for two months, and can he say whether on tickets taken out before the increase the return half will have to pay the excess?

I think that has been answered.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the annual amount now paid in dividends to the shareholders of British railway companies; and whether His Majesty's Government will reconsider the question of raising the cost of fares, which is equivalent to a tax on the wages of the working classes, and instead impose a levy on the amount paid to shareholders, who, with the exception of certain directors, render no useful service to the community to justify the receipt of the community's money?

I have been asked to answer this question. The approximate amount paid to shareholders of British railways for the year 1919 was £36,500,000, exclusive of £12,500,000 for interest on debenture stock and loans. Railway fares are a payment for a service rendered, and are in no sense a tax upon wages. If the service is rendered below cost, the community as a whole is taxed in order to subsidise the individual users, an arrangement in which I can see no social injustice. I do not agree with the hon. Member that those who have provided, capital for the railway development essential to the prosperity of the country rendered no useful service to the community.

asked the Prime Minister whether, if the Government had debited itself during the War with the railway rates and fares ordinarily chargeable to private traders and passengers for equivalent services, there would now be any deficit in respect of the railways which the travelling public and traders are now asked to make good; and, if so, what would be the amount of such deficit?

I have been asked to reply to this question. Since 1st April, 1919, all Government traffic has borne the same percentage additions as public traffic, the only material increase prior to that date being the 50 per cent. increase in passenger fares which took effect on the 1st January, 1917. As I informed the hon. Member on the 19th instant, I will endeavour, if he wishes, to have an estimate made of the amount represented by a 50 per cent. addition to military and naval passenger traffic between the 1st January, 1917, and the 31st March, 1919, but no detailed accounts exist. As the hon. Member is aware, the Government is entitled to special rates under the Cheap Trains Act, and it would not be right to credit railway working with the difference between full ordinary fares and those chargeable under the Act. No good purpose would be served by attempting to calculate the effect of such difference upon past deficits. As regards current railway revenue, Government traffic, both passenger and goods, is bearing the same percentage increases as public traffic, and the current deficit on railway working, which it is now proposed to adjust by increasing fares, rates and charges, is in no way caused by the fact that Government traffic was not accounted for in detail in past years and was exempted until 1st April, 1919, from the increase in passenger fares.

Is it the decided policy of the Ministry of Transport that they cannot continue to charge this at cheap rates, when they stepped into the shoes of nearly every great trade in the country, which, if they had been left to themselves, would have had their traffic carried at ordinary rates?

It is not a question of the policy of the Ministry of Transport. It is a statutory provision in the Cheap Trains Act, 1883.

Is it not a fact that this has created an artificial deficit, which is now to be made up by an actual increase borne by the public?

I do not think there is any foundation for that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the sum paid to the deputy general manager of the North Eastern Railway, during the time he was lent to the Government and occupied the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, was £11,000 per annum, made up as follows: £8,000 salary, £2,000 for expenses free of Income Tax, and £1,000 in lieu of a house; whether these annual payments were included in the North Eastern Railway Company's expenditure to be met by the taxpayer under the State guarantee; and whether these sums were disallowed in view of the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty could have been paid the salary of his office if he had not insisted upon serving without payment?

As I was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, I have asked my hon. Friend to put his question to me. The practice adopted with Railway managers and officials lent to the Government during the War was that they should continue to enjoy from the Railway Company their previous pay and suitable allowances in accordance with conditions of service, and it was in accordance with this practice that my right hon. Friend (Sir Eric Geddes) had been paid in the positions he had held in different Departments. In the middle of the War, he was requested to accept the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. This was a purely temporary appointment for the period of the War, and it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that he should not be singled out for less favourable financial treatment because he accepted an office which he did not desire, and the acceptance of which was urged upon him by the Prime Minister and also by myself.

This was, of course, an arrangement which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should not have sanctioned in time of peace, but in the circumstances of the time I think it was right. It was clearly stated in the House, in answer to a question on the 15th August, 1917, that the First Lord of the Admiralty was paid in that way.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this exceptional payment of twice the salary of the Prime Minister ceased, and can he at the same time answer the question whether the £50,000 was paid by the North-Eastern Railway to the right hon. Gentleman during the time that he was First Lord of the Admiralty?

This payment was made when my right hon. Friend ceased to be First Lord, as far as I recollect, immediately after the Armistice. I cannot say certainly as regards the last question, but I believe it was made after he ceased to be First Lord and after this arrangement had ceased.

Is it not a fact that this £50,000 was received by the right hon. Gentleman during the time that he was a Minister of the Crown, whether it was as First Lord or as Minister-designate of the Ministry of Transport?

I do not think that arises, but I am not sure as to the question of dates. My impression is that this was arranged as soon as he ceased to be First Lord.

Are we to understand that the First Lord was paid his annual salary by the shareholders of the North-Eastern Railway when First Lord?

I made it quite plain in my answer. There would have been no question about this, I am sure, if my right hon. Friend had continued to serve, as hundreds of others did in departments, not as a Minister. I quite recognise it was irregular, and in time of peace I should certainly not have sanctioned an arrangement of this sort for a Minister, but in time of war I think is was quite right.

Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport and the First Lord said that during his time of office he did not receive any payment whatsoever, and yet at the same time the Treasury are permitting the shareholders of the railway with which he was associated to pay him a greater salary than he would otherwise have received?

Is it not a fact that this £11,000 does not come out of the pockets of the shareholders of the railway, but is borne by the British taxpayer, under the guarantee to the railways of this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a proper thing that it should have been represented to this country that this right hon. Gentleman was receiving only his salary?

The hon. Member is making a speech.

As regards the question which suggests that my right hon. Friend led the public to believe that he was receiving a small salary, that could not have been so, because I myself answered in this House a question stating that it was being paid in the way I have described. As to the question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Billing), it is true what he says, but it is not the whole truth. During the War thousands of business men were lent by their firms to serve the Government. The Government welcomed that assistance and encouraged it, and I am quite sure that at that time, if it had been suggested that because the railways were under the control of the Government they should adopt a different practice, the whole House would have objected.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to announce the new interim railway rate charges; and how much notice he intends to give traders before they come into force?

I have nothing to add to the previous statements made on this subject.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with his scheme for grouping the railway lines, he will ascertain the views of the manufacturing communities as to local requirements?

The Minister of Transport proposes to ascertain the views of the manufacturing community as well as those of other interests. The Minister is having a first meeting with the Federation of British Industries to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the abolition of anything but mechanically-propelled traffic in congested areas during the busy hours of the day?

This matter is being considered, but, as the hon. Member is aware, legislation would be required if it was proposed to adopt the suggestion.

The hon. Gentleman gave me an exactly similar answer on this point three or four months ago, and has anything been done upon this question of horse traffic?

We have been consistent in the two answers. The matter has not yet been determined.

Will the hon. Gentleman defer the application of this rule until people have been fitted with flying attachments?

In the case of streets where heavy traffic predominates, will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of excluding taxicabs and private motor cars?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will endeavour to mitigate the hardship that the contemplated increase of fares would impose on the holders of season tickets on lines which now give only first and second-class season tickets by introducing third-class season tickets, thus reducing a serious burden upon the middle-class travelling public in certain districts and putting season ticket holders on all lines on an equality?

I will bring this point to the notice of the railway companies concerned, and ask them to give it the most favourable consideration possible.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience caused on certain lines owing to the fact that on the 1st of July the interavailability of railway, season, and traders' tickets on two lines running between the same towns was suspended; and if he will see his way to introduce measures which will permit the interavailability of these tickets to continue?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West on 14th June and to the hon. Member for Rothwell on 7th July, of which I am sending the hon. Member copies. The interavailability of ordinary tickets is being continued.

asked the Minister of Transport why upwards of a million railway men and their wives and families are still permitted to enjoy the privilege of free holiday travelling now that the railways are under Government control and subsidised from national funds, especially having regard to the fact that not only are no cheap holiday tickets being issued to other sections of the community, but the existing high fares are to be again increased in order to pay the further increases in wages recently demanded by the railway men, who are already in receipt of higher wages than many sections of the travelling public to whom holiday facilities are denied?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the question on this subject which he put on 5th July. Section 7 (1) IV of the Ministry of Transport Act continues the same privileges to railwaymen as obtained at passing of the Act.

Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair that not only should ordinary members of the public not have cheap holiday tickets, but that the ordinary fares should be raised against them, whereas the railwaymen have free holiday travel, although their wages have been increased?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the privilege tickets granted to railwaymen bring in at least £500,000 to the railway companies, in addition to which, in all wage advances, the privilege tickets are put forward as an argument for lower wages, and have been accepted —[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—by every arbitrator?

Is not the reason why these fares have been put up to meet an ever-increasing wage bill of the railways, and why should these people who have these ever-increasing wages have benefits which the British public do not enjoy?

Why do they not pay Income Tax?

The question is not quite so simple as some hon. Gentlemen consider. There is a good deal to be said for the view which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) put forward, that these matters have been the subject of consideration when railway wages advances have been considered. So far as the Ministry is concerned, it is bound by Section 7 of the Ministry of Transport Act, to which I desire to ask my hon. Friends' attention. That Section specifically retains to the staffs of railway undertakings the privileges which obtained on the passage of the Act during the period of control.

Are we to understand that if these free tickets were abolished railway workers would demand an increased wage, and will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of this House to inquire into this question?

Will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter is dealt with when the railway fares are increased and legislation is introduced to deal with the matter?

No legislation is needed for the prospective increase of fares; and without the repeal of Section 7 of the Ministry of Transport Act we cannot interfere with the rights given by that Section.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the British financial claim on Germany for costs of the War or reparation, any sum has been included for the cost of the carriage of men and material in this country during the War; and, if so, can he state the amount?

The damage in respect of which compensation can be claimed against Germany under the Treaty does not include the cost of the carriage of men and material.

asked the Prime Minister whether the provisional eastern frontier of Poland laid down last year by the Supreme Council was drawn in consultation with the Polish Government; if not, whether it was communicated to the Polish Government; whether the Polish Government accepted it; whether any persons of Russian birth were consulted about this frontier; and, if so, what were their names and official positions?

The provisional frontier to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was drawn up by the Peace Conference. It was not drawn up in consultation with the Polish Government, or with persons of Russian nationality, though the Committee on Polish affairs, on whose recommendations it was based, took every opportunity of ascertaining the views of the Polish Delegation in Paris on this and other questions.

Did they take the opportunity of ascertaining the views of any Russian politicians or diplomatists in Paris?

I cannot say, but I have no doubt that they would take every opportunity of ascertaining any information which was available on the subject.

May we take it that they did not ascertain the views of Russian diplomatists when this policy was being drafted?

I can only give the answer which I have given.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Civil Service Commissioners are in favour of the appointment of one or more women on the administrative staff of the Civil Service Commission; and, if so, what is the precise ground upon which such appointment is delayed or refused?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth Central (Sir T. Bramsdon).

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the republican flag has been flying over the courthouse in the city of Cork, and that the recorder's court was held in the building; and whether he will take steps to see that the republican flag is removed from public buildings in which the King's courts are held?

My attention has been called to the facts. The General Officer Commanding at Cork has full power to remove the flag in question, and I am confident that he will.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Boyle rural disrict council (No. 2) a resolution was adopted to the effect that every man between 17 and 40 years be made to join the Irish volunteers to help in driving the enemy out of the country, and that they should levy a rate of 6d. in the £ to meet the expenses incurred in training and equipping the force and that the lists of valuations be given to the volunteers, who would compel the tax to be paid; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to permit such a course to be adopted?

I am informed that, though the matter was discussed, no such resolution was adopted. The second part of the question does not arise.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the address of Mr. Justice Samuels to the Limerick county grand jury on 7th July in which he referred to the serious criminal character in the county, and stated that there had been 224 cases of a serious criminal character in the county since the winter assizes as compared with 67 cases in the same period last year; whether, in particular, the learned judge referred to an outrage in which a party of armed and masked men entered a house, dragged two young girls out of bed, conveyed them some distance from the house, and having tried them, sentenced them to be shot, which sentence was commuted to cutting off their hair, which was done; whether this outrage was committed because these young girls associated with police and soldiers; and whether any arrests have been made in this particular case?

My attention has been called to the address of the learned judge on the occasion referred to. With regard to the latter part of the question the imputation against the two girls was of walking with and associating with police. No arrests have been made, as although the girls probably knew some of the perpetrators, they refused to give any names or any information which would help to trace them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate any occasion when any arrest has been made?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question as to the convictions during the past fortnight, I shall be very pleased to answer him.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at the last meeting of the Clonmel Asylum Committee, with the mayor in the Chair, it was unanimously resolved that the picture of Queen Victoria should be removed from the walls, as she was one of England's queens who was the means of having a reign of tyranny carried out in Ireland during her reign; that this resolution was carried into effect; and is it proposed to hand over, in the future, any moneys voted by Parliament to this Committee?

I am aware that such a resolution was adopted. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Leader of the House to a question asked on this subject on Monday last by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer covered only certain grants? Is our money to continue to be paid to this council, which treated Queen Victoria's portrait in such a way?

No Exchequer grant or loan will be made to any council or local body in Ireland that does any illegal act. Further, no money is now being paid to any council which illegally, or by any other act, flaunts, defies, or ignores His Majesty's Government.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total cost of the administration of the Poor Law in the Cities of Dublin and Belfast, respectively; what is the amount of the rate payable in each city; will he inform the House whether serious defalcations have recently been discovered by the Local Government Board in the administration of the Poor Law in Dublin; what is the amount of the same; and whether legal proceedings have been taken in the matter?

The total expenditure of the boards of guardians of the unions of Dublin and Belfast (in which the cities are contained) for the year ended 30th September, 1919, the latest period for which particulars are available, was, respectively, £293,280 and £121,159. The cost of administration in respect of the expenditure is estimated at £37,209 and £34,124, respectively. The Poor Kate to meet union charges was 3s. 8½d. in the £ in Dublin and Is. 7d. in the £ in Belfast, for the year ended 31st March, 1920. As regards the latter part of the question relating to Dublin Union, the matter is at present the subject of investigation by the board of guardians.

Without attempting to flaunt or annoy the Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what legal proceedings have been taken?

As I said, the matter is at present the subject of investigation by the Board of Guardians.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of to-morrow's Debate and having regard to the grave misconception which has arisen owing to the publication of inaccurate versions of the late Colonel Smyth's Order, issued by him as Divisional Commissioner for Munster, he will cause to be included in tomorrow's Votes the Order in question, dated 17th June, 1920?

As the House is aware, it is not usual to publish Orders issued by the police authorities, but, in the special circumstances of the present case, I shall read the Order to the House.

The Order, which was signed by Colonel Smyth, is as follows:

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the intention of the gallant officer who is now dead was to stiffen and strengthen the moral of the Constabulary in Ireland?

Who can say what was his intention?

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government is assisting in the establishment of a university at Singapore?