asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state what pensions the dependants of the men killed in the recent alleged mutiny by sections of the Connaught Rangers in India are entitled to receive?

The dependant of any soldier who was killed while in the performance of military duty during the alleged mutiny would be admissible to the benefits of the Royal Pensions Warrant, provided that the soldier's death were not caused by his serious negligence or misconduct.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if anything can be done to assist such ex-service men now resident in Ireland as are subjected to persecution in that country to find refuge and employment in this country?

All suitable available employment in Government Departments and on public works is allotted to ex-service men, and every effort is made by the Government to provide them with suitable employment. The suggestion contained in the last part of the question is not a practical one.

Does that apply to the Catholic workmen who have been driven out of the shipyards in Belfast?

It relates to ex-servicemen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now turn his attention to the Local War Pensions Committees who are not employing the number of ex-service men they ought, and will he see that where women are employed ex-service men will be given the preference?

I will make enquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in February, 1919, six assistant clerks of the Irish Land Commission, with no military service, were promoted to second division clerkships, notwithstanding the fact that there were 15 assistant clerks serving in His Majesty's Forces who were senior to these clerks; whether three ex-service clerks were promoted in March, 1920; and will he state whether ex-service assistant clerks were promoted to fill the six second division clerkships which were vacant in May, 1920?

The Land Commission inform me that six vacancies in the second division staff of their office required to be filled in July, 1918, and the names then sent forward for promotion were necessarily those of non-service men. These promotions were completed in February, 1919. The three assistant clerks promoted to the second division in March, 1920, were all ex-service men. As my hon. and gallant Friend is, no doubt, aware, the Civil Service is being reorganised, and no further appointments are now being made to the Second Division.

Does that not mean that fifteen senior men serving their country were passed over and men who had not served their country were promoted over their heads?

The figures I have given are those supplied by the Land Commission, and only six were dealt with by me.

Leaving bygones to be bygones, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the future in promotion ex-service men will get their turn?

That is the policy of all the Government Departments.

Who is responsible for this Department?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the French Government has introduced a law granting all French soldiers wounded in the War certain travelling concessions; and whether he will exclude from the payment of the increase in railway fares all those ex-service men in receipt of total disability pensions, especially in view of the fact that the pension rate has not increased since September last, though the cost of living has substantially risen?

I have been asked to take this question. I was not aware of the fact mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. The cost of any concessions in railway travelling must ultimately fall on other users. I do not think the method suggested is the most suitable way of dealing with the class of case mentioned. The consideration which we all wish to give to wounded men ought to be direct and ascertainable, and not concealed in indirect benefits given at the expense of the rest of the community. The Ministry of Transport is charged with dealing with railways on a commercial basis.

May I have the support of the Minister of Transport in urging upon the Prime Minister the need of increased disability pensions for disabled men?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received any report of the alleged reprisals by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary against Tuam and other towns in Ireland; and what action is he taking or proposes to take?

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given on Thursday last to the question asked on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend.

How is it that last week the right hon. Gentleman was unable to say anything, and that he is unable to say anything this week? Why can he say nothing in view of the very important measure that is coming up for discussion to-day?

Every effort is being made to get the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Why is it that the occurrence of a month ago, which was of a very serious nature, has not been dealt with in any way by the Government?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether raids have recently been made upon the lighthouse at Mizen Head and the coastguard station at Rosslare by Irish anarchists; whether the stores and gear purloined were only those necessary to ensure the safety of ocean-going steamship traffic chiefly between Europe and America; whether he can take steps to ensure that the fact that these raids are being carried out by Irish Bolshevik anarchists can be made known in America so as to avoid endangering innocent lives; and can steps be taken, by the ruthless exercise of military force, to protect such institutions which only exist for the purpose of safeguarding life at sea?

I have been asked to reply to this question. Raids were made on Mizen Head fog signal station and on Rosslare coast guard station on the morning of the 31st July. The stores taken from the fog signal station were for the purposes stated in the question. The stores at the coast guard station, though not used for the purpose of ensuring the safety of ocean-going traffic, are used for safeguarding life at sea, in that they are employed in connection with the lifeboat station and life-saving apparatus.

The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, this is a matter for the Irish Government, and is, I know, engaging their serious attention.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that everything possible is being done to put these places in a state of defence?

I have just said that the whole matter is engaging the serious attention of the Irish Government. They are looking after it.

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Powell, dated the 20th July, 1920, in the case of Rooney v. the Department of Agriculture, awarding the plaintiff the sum of £402 for damages and costs; whether he is aware that the costs have been taxed to the sum of £245 3s. 11d.; that application has been made by the solicitors for the plaintiff to the Chief Crown Solicitors for payment and a reply has been received that the Department has no fund to meet the amounts; whether that is so; and, if not, will he give directions for immediate payment?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have seen the correspondence referred to, and there is no letter to the effect mentioned in the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question? Will he give directions for immediate payment?

I will communicate at once with the Chief Crown Solicitor on the subject.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the cardinal, archbishops, and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland are the representatives of the Vatican; in view of the knowledge in the possession of the Vatican as to the organised murder campaign in Ireland, whether he can state what action the Vatican has taken, or is taking, to cause these terrible excesses to be denounced by its representatives in Ireland and to assist the cause of justice;

(2) whether he can make any statement as to the official communications or pourparlers with the Vatican in regard to Ireland; and on what date the Vatican may be deemed to have had full knowledge supplied to it by the British Government of the organised murder campaign in Ireland and of the failure of its representatives in Ireland to denounce that campaign and such terrorist methods as are not in accord with doctrines held by all Christian churches and peoples?

I cannot give the information asked for by my hon. Friend, but I am glad to say that these murders have recently been strongly denounced by some members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister whether, as the outcome of his recent interview with, and speech to, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) he has received any answer to his invitation to the authorised representatives of Sinn Fein to put forward a scheme for the better government of Ireland?

The hon. Member's question is based on a misapprehension. What I did was to express my readiness to discuss the situation with any body which could speak for Ireland.

May I ask why, when the hon. Member for East Mayo said he was prepared to accept Cuban Home Rule for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question of mine, said he would not consider it for a moment?

The condition I laid down on behalf of the Government was this: I said we would discuss anything within certain definite limitations, and one of the governing limitations was that there should be nothing in the nature of secession. Cuban Home Rule is the setting up of an independent Republic in Cuba, and, therefore, it is certainly not within the conditions.

Did not the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords make B, speech in opposition to the Dominion Home Rule Bill?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for East Mayo has been violently attacked——

There are many other questions on the Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the existing restrictions on the export of flax from Ireland; what is 4he reason for retaining them; how soon it is intended to remove them; and whether he is aware that, so long as they remain in force, the forthcoming decontrol of the 1920 Irish flax crop will be entirely illusory?

The export of raw flax is prohibited from the United Kingdom, including Ireland, the purpose of the prohibition being to retain in this country the limited supplies of raw material available for the flax spinning industry. The question of the desirability of removing the prohibition is under consideration, and I hope it may be possible to remove it at an early date. As regards the last part of the question, the control of Irish flax hitherto in operation involved the requisitioning of the crop at a fixed price; the removal of the control will give the growers the advantage of such competition for supplies as there may be amongst consumers in the United Kingdom.

asked ( by Private Notice ) the Prime Minister whether he received a deputation of Irish Unionists, headed by Sir Stanley Harrington, at his house yesterday, 4th August; whether the question of Dominion Home Rule was discussed as a remedy for the present situation; and whether, in view of the serious measure standing on the Order Paper for discussion to-day, he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Dominion Home Rule for Ireland?

The answer to the first part of the question is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I received a deputation of Irish Unionists; to the second, that the suggestion of Dominion Home Rule, with important reservations, was made to me by the deputation; and to the last part, that I can add nothing to what I have already said.

May I a sir the Prime Minister if he is going to intervene in the Debate to-day; and, if not, in view of the Bill that is going through the House, surely we can have some statement of the intentions of the Government, more especially in face of the fact that this deputation shows a varying of Irish opinion—that is, of responsible Irish opinion?

I propose to take part in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill (Restoration of Order).

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations have been received from the United States Government with regard to equal rights for United States citizens in the development of the oil-fields in mandated territories; if so, what reply has been made; and whether papers will be laid?

Friendly communications have been received from the United States Government on the subject, and the matter is under consideration, but I cannot at present say whether any papers will be laid.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any interference by His Majesty's Government in the arrangements made by the Austrian Government with the Russian Soviet Government as to the repatriation of prisoners?

The answer is in the negative. The Convention with the Soviet Government was signed without the knowledge of His Majesty's Government. It appears from the text, now received, that certain Clauses involve infractions of the Treaty of Peace, and this point is receiving the attention of the Allied Governments.

Has His Majesty's Government protested in any way against this admirable arrangement?

I said the answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information with regard to the officers and men of the Royal Navy held prisoners at Baku; whether they are in the hands of the 11th Bolshevik Army; and, if so, why Krassin, Kameneff, and their followers are allowed to retain their freedom in this country?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give, to relieve the anxiety of relatives, information as to the condition of naval prisoners at Baku; and what prospect there is of their early release?

I supplied the latest information on this subject to the House on Monday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Ronald McNeill).

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

The Noble Lord cannot have in mind the answer I gave on Monday. That was that the release of air prisoners will be a necessary preliminary to the resumption of discussions with Russian Trade Delegation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he can give, to relieve the anxiety of relatives, information as to the condition of naval prisoners at Baku; and what prospect there is of their early release?

The Prime Minister has already answered this question.

Then can the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister say whether the naval prisoners there are being treated humanely, and can he give any information to relieve the anxiety of the relatives who are gravely anxious as to the treatment and safety?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here on Monday when I gave the latest information which, I thought, was rather hopeful. I cannot reproduce it at this present moment, but I can send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it.

Did M. Krassin say anything at the meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday?

We simply discussed the Polish question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Covenant of the League of Nations has been officially communicated to the Soviet Government of Russia; and, if not, when it will be so communicated?

I do not think that the Covenant of the League of Nations has been officially communicated to the Soviet Government of Russia, but 1 am enquiring of the Secretary to the Council who is now at St. Sebastian.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider whether it should be so communicated?

I am not at all sure about that. The Council of the League of Nations were anxious to send a delegation to Russia, and I do not think the Soviet Government had the same affection for the League of Nations as the hon. Gentleman has.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objection taken by the Soviet Government to action pro- posed to be taken under the name of the League of Nations was that they had not been invited to participate in its deliberations; and that they objected to a few great Powers masquerading as a League of Nations?

I do not think they stated that. That was not their objection. Their objection was that there were people on the League of Nations they did not like.

Was not their objection due to the fact that the Government refused to refer the dispute with Poland to the League as long as they thought Poland was going to win?

What their objections may be I do not know. All I know is that they do object.

Is not the objection of the Soviet Government to the League of Nations a matter to be deplored and not a matter to be exacerbated.

I agree with the rebuke my hon. Friend administers to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Royal College of Art is a highly specialised school founded for, and devoted to, the study and advancement of the industrial arts in this country; whether he is aware that a strong feeling exists amongst those interested in the success of this college that the principal of this college should have a close knowledge and first-hand experience of the schools of art of the country and of their problems and difficulties both from the educational and administrative sides; whether the newly appointed principal of this college was ever and, if so, for how long a master of any school of art; and what knowledge has he got of artistic manufactures in textiles, pottery, silversmithing, metal work, or lace?

In answer to the first part of the question, I may refer the hon. and learned Member to the terms of the published prospectus of the Royal College of Art. In appointing Professor Rothenstein to be principal of the college, I took full account of the feeling to which the hon. and learned Member alludes in the second part of his question. As regards the third and fourth parts of his question, I may refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdare on the 13th July.

Would my right hon. Friend answer specifically the last two questions, which were not answered on the last occasion, namely, whether this gentleman, Professor Rothenstein, has ever been the master of a school of art and what knowledge he has?

It is perfectly true that he has not been the master of a school of art, but after very carefully considering the matter I came to the conclusion that this was the best appointment I could make in the interests of the school.

What knowledge has he?

He has the greatest possible knowledge, particularly industrially.

asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts dealing with workmen's compensation; and, if so, when?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 27th of last month to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Smethwick Division. It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation as soon as practicable, but I am not in a position at present to fix a date.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British firms recently tendered for rolling stock to the Belgian State Railway, the lowest British tender being £725, and that, owing to the depreciated mark, German firms secured the contract at approximately half this figure; that the State Railway in Czecho-Slovakia are inviting tenders for 4,000 wagons; and that the lowest British price is £625 and the German price about half this figure; whether the German Government have fulfilled all their obligations as to rolling stock under the Treaty of Versailles; and whether he will take steps to stop this competition until they have done so?

I have no information, as to the facts stated in this question, but I am sending a copy of the question to the British Delegate on the Reparation Commission.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the effect of German competition on the exchange, which has gone down so extensively?

I am not sure what exchange my hon. Friend means.

May I ask whether his attention has been called to the fall of the sterling exchange in America, in Germany, and in France?

Yes. That, however, is certainly not attributable to German competition, but to facts of a much more serious character.

asked the Prime Minister how it is proposed to deal with Archbishop Mannix on arrival in this country or in Ireland; and will it be possible to avoid any question of martyrdom in the interest of Irish anarchists involved by a possible arrest by shipping him back to Australia?

The decision of the Government is that Archbishop Mannix shall not be allowed to land in Ireland. Such steps will be taken as may prove necessary to render this decision effective.

Would it not be in the interests of this country that Archbishop Mannix should be sent to Ireland?

I think not.

May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information with regard to the alarming news of casualties in Mesopotamia?

I anticipated that my right hon. Friend might wish for some information on this subject, and I have brought down all that is at present in our possession. On 24th July the Commander at Hillah, a post south of Baghdad, and between that place and Basra, sent forward to a point about 6 miles further on the road a small column of three companies of Manchesters, one company of Pioneers, one squadron of cavalry, and a battery of field artillery, in the hope of preventing the spread of disaffection northward.

The column reached its destination. I understand that on the way back to Hillah it was attacked. The actual events are unknown, but the force returned to Hillah with the following losses:-— Killed: British officers, 2; other ranks, 10; Indian officer, 1; other ranks, 7. Wounded: British officers, 4; other ranks, 22; Indian officers, 2; other ranks, 32. Wounded and missing: British, one officer; other ranks, 6. Missing: British, 1 officer; other ranks, 199; Indian: 1 officer, 81 other ranks. Thirty transport drivers were lost, and 260 horses, mules and ponies were killed and wounded. One field gun, 7 ammunition wagons, 12 Lewis guns, and 89 transport carts were lost. I am at present uncertain as to the fate of the 280 British and Indian officers and men who are missing, but I think it altogether premature, and not warranted by the facts, to assume that they have been killed. I cannot say more at the present time, but we are seeking "information by telegraph, and expect it as early as possible. The impression, however, I have derived from those who are watching events there is, that it is very unlikely that a massacre of those missing has taken place.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these casualties belong to the Manchester Regiment?

Practically all the British casualties are in the Manchester Regiment. They are approximately 250.

Both officers and men?

I am not quite sure.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Indian regiments were engaged?

A company of Indian Pioneers.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the temperature at the time of this attack, and is it not possible these may largely be heat casualties?

Yes. We have no right to assume the worst at this stage. The heat in Mesopotamia at the present time is overpowering.

Was it an ambush?

It appears to have been a vigorously pressed home attack on a rearguard or retiring force.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will explain what is exactly meant by Articles 7 and 8 of the Memorandum of Agreement between France and England, dated 24th April, 1920, and how they are consistent with the principle which he has laid down that the whole of the property in the oil in Mesopotamia will belong to the Arab State, subject to any arrangements which were made before the war with Turkey?

I would refer my hon. Friend to answers which I gave on this subject on 28th June, when I explained that the Arab State would receive a return on the whole of the oil won. There is nothing in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Anglo-French Agreement inconsistent with this statement, or with the full enjoyment by the Arab State of the benefits of ownership of the fields. The right of the French Government to purchase oil at market rates or to participate in a developing company which would pay royalty to the Arab State will not in any way prejudice the latter's position.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the intentions of the Government with reference to the continuance of or withdrawal of the bread subsidy at the end of the present harvest?

I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington.

asked the Prime Minister which Governments have been or will be invited to attend the proposed conference in London with the Russian representatives; whether the German Government will be permitted to send a representative; whether trade with Russia will be prohibited during the sittings of the conference; and whether a reply to the invitation sent by His Majesty's Government to this conference has been received from the Russian Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether, at the forthcoming London conference with the Soviet Government, the representative or representatives of this country will bring forward the question of Russia's admittance to the League of Nations?

asked the Prime Minister whether any news has been received from Poland as to the Armistice terms; and whether any protest has been made or received as to the persecution of the Reds in Poland by General Haller's White Guards?

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether he will re-affirm his pledge given on the 21st July that the House of Commons should be consulted before any British intervention takes place on behalf of Poland?

The House will remember that on 29th July we sent to Moscow the reply to the Soviet proposal for a London Conference which had been agreed at Boulogne. To this telegram we have had, as yet, no reply. I may say that we have just received a wire, stating that a telegram has come to M. Kameneff, and that he will communicate it. What is the character of the reply I do not know. I can only give the information up to date. But on Tuesday a wireless Press message was sent out from Moscow stating that when the two Armistice delegations met at Baranovichi, the Soviet delegates declared that the Polish Delegation must be empowered not only to conclude an Armistice, but also the fundamental conditions of peace, and suggested that these powers should be obtained by telegraph. The Polish delegates, however, decided that they had to return to Warsaw in order to submit the questions to the Polish Government.

Upon receipt of this message, the British Government immediately sent the following telegram to M. Tchitcherin:

Telegram ( en clair ) to British Consul (Reval) Foreign Office, 3rd August, 1920.

Urgent.

Following for Tchitcherin.

No reply has yet been received to the message which was sent to the Soviet authorities by the British Government, after consultation with their Allies, as far back as 29th July last, proposing a Conference at London, the essential object of which should be the re-establishment of peace in Europe, and in the first place between Poland and Russia. Meanwhile a wireless Press message has just come from Moscow, stating that the Soviet Armistice Delegation had insisted, as the condition of an Armistice, on the Polish Armistice Delegation being empowered also to conclude the fundamental conditions of peace, and that the Polish delegates, not being empowered to do so, have returned to Warsaw.

The Soviet Government should realise that if they insist upon peace conditions being settled between Poland and Russia, to the exclusion of the other Powers, the bases on which it was proposed to conduct negotiations in London will have disappeared, and the project of a Conference falls to the ground. Further, it appears that the Soviet Armies have now advanced far into ethnographic Poland. If advantage be taken of the delays now caused to continue this advance, His Majesty's Government will be driven to the conclusion that it is not the intention of the Soviet Government to respect the liberty and independence of Poland, and the situation contemplated in their telegram to M. Tchitcherin of 20th July will have arisen.

Yesterday the Lord Privy Seal and myself had an interview with Messrs. Kameneff and Krassin at which we made it clear that this refusal to discuss an Armistice unless the Polish Delegation were empowered to settle the fundamental conditions of peace after the Soviet troops had advanced far into ethnographic Poland, and were marching as fast as they could on Warsaw, necessarily raised the suspicion that the Soviet Government was not sincere in its professed desire for peace and in its declaration that it intended to respect the liberty and independence of Poland— a suspicion which was heightened by the long delay in replying to our telegram of 29th July. We further made it clear that the immediate conclusion of an Armistice on fair terms was the only course which would remove that suspicion.

Further, in view of the fact that ethnographical Poland has been invaded, we have taken effective steps to remove the obstacles in the way of the transmission to Poland from Dantzig of military supplies which were detained at that port.

I think, in view of the critical state of the situation, that I had better make no further statement this afternoon; but should unfortunately our suspicions be confirmed, I will make a full statement to the House on Monday as to such further naval or military action which it may be necessary to take.

As the whole project of a Conference has been put in jeopardy by the advance of the Soviet armies in the territories of ethnographical Poland, there is no use in attempting to answer questions as to the composition or scope of the Conference itself.

May I ask whether the alteration in the Russian policy followed the publication of an article in this country by the Secretary of State for War suggesting an armed alliance between ourselves and Germany against Russia?

That is a perfectly ludicrous suggestion.

Yes.

May I ask, while respecting the right hon. Gentleman's request, whether His Majesty's Government have any objection to Poland being asked to give guarantees against re-arming during the Armistice and re-opening hostilities; and also if he can reply to my question as to whether it is intended to keep up the blockade during the peace negotiations; and whether any steps are being taken to tighten it up now?

I hope it will not be necessary to take steps to tighten the blockade, but that will necessarily depend on the answer which we receive. I do not wish to say anything further.

There is, however, one thing which I would like to add. The best guarantee which Soviet Russia could have against the Armistice being abused, for the purpose of re-arming Poland for offensive purposes, would be to have a fair understanding with the Western Powers. No one can arm Poland except the Great Powers, and an understanding with the? Great Powers will be the best guarantee that the Armistice will not be abused.

In view of the great public anxiety on this most important matter may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is at all in a position so to do, to make a statement to-morrow as well as on Monday?

I do not know what is the communication to which M. Tchitcherin refers in his telegram, which says that "a very urgent telegram was being sent to M. Kameneff." Should there be anything in that telegram to show an important bearing on the situation, I should be ready to place it before the House at the earliest possible moment. I realise the anxiety there must be on the subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be of advantage at the moment to make a definite declaration that a free and independent Poland is going to be insisted on by the Powers?

That is in the telegram of 20th July to which I referred in the despatch we sent on Tuesday to M. Tchitcherin.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the suspicions of the Soviet Government are very natural—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no ! "]—particularly in view of the presence of the Secretary of State for War; and will he see that in the arrangements as to Minutes to the Soviet Government allowance is made for that very natural suspicion on the part of people who are-not so trained in diplomacy as the right hon. Gentleman?

That has-really nothing whatever to do with it. The advance of the Russian Army was not due to an article in an English evening newspaper. This advance is either deliberate policy—I hope it is not a deliberate attempt on the part of the Russian militarists to overthrow every effort to make peace. I sincerely hope it is not. But I hope to be in a better position to say so when I see the communication.

asked the Prime Minister whether any pressure at all is being brought either by the Allies or by Great Britain upon Czecho-Slovakia. to assist Poland with men, arms, or munitions against Russia?

With regard to the hon. Member's question, everything depends on the answer we receive from the Bolshevik Government. If it is unsatisfactory, of course, we shall bring pressure to bear on everybody to give the necessary support in the way of getting munitions to Poland.

Does that mean-to say that we shall urge Czechos-Slovakia to go to war, although they are at present at peace with Russia, and is that the Government's policy?

That is not going to war. We do not go to war if we allow the transit of munitions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Belgium?"] My hon. Friend has not got even the elements of accuracy. When you either supply or permit the transit of munitions, that does not necessarily mean that you go to war.

Then that is all that the pressure is limited to? In the case of the answer being unsatisfactory from Russia, we can understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no pressure brought to bear on Czechoslovakia or the other border countries to use armed intervention in favour of Poland against Russia?

If the answer is unsatisfactory and it becomes quite clear that the Soviet authorities mean to destroy Poland, I certainly could give no undertaking of that sort.

May we be assured, after? the very ominous statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, that no action will be taken by His Majesty's Government to commit us to a new war without the full, open assent of the House of Commons?

I promised to make a statement on Monday, if it is necessary. I hope it will not be necessary. This refers rather to pressure brought to bear by other countries.

Can we understand that Czecho-Slovakia will not be forced against its wish by the great Powers to go to war?

From "what I know of Czecho-Slovakia, it is not likely they will be forced.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) negotiating on behalf of Soviet Russia in this matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether there are indications that a period of increasing unemployment is approaching; and, if so, what steps he is taking to deal with the situation?

Experience has shown that a certain amount of seasonal unemployment is to be expected during the winter, but there are indications that additional unemployment, due to other causes, may be expected during the coming months. The matter is engaging the close attention of the Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken?

As a matter of fact, the House of Commons has taken the most gigantic step ever taken to deal with the problem of unemployment, and at very considerable expense, by the provision of a great unemployment insurance scheme, the most gigantic measure for dealing with unemployment which has been undertaken, not merely in this country, but in any other country at any other time.

If that be so, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying it is engaging the attention of the Government?

That is only one of the very large measures which have been taken. The fact that it has been done is surely not a cause of complaint, but rather a matter for congratulation to the Government and the House of Commons. We naturally have to think about other methods of providing employment, and we are considering what can be done in that respect.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish, for the information of the House, the text of the Spa agreement on the valuation of ships and the allocation of freights?

The Spa agreement relating to the division between the Allies of the reparations paid and payable by ex-enemy powers could not be published without the consent of all the Allies who are parties thereto. It was decided by the Allies at Spa to publish a short summary, which was communicated to the Press and published by them on the 17th July, and I shall circulate this summary in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would not the publication of the full text remove all possible misunderstandings?

I am not aware that there are any misunderstandings, except those deliberately created.

May I ask whether at some time or other all these agreements will be published, so that there will be no more of the secret diplomacy which has been deplored in the past?

The following is the promised summary, as signed on behalf of the British Empire, Prance, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Portugal: —

ARTICLE 1 provides that in pursuance of the Treaty of Versailles the sums received from Germany for reparations shall be divided in the following proportions: —

The remaining 6½ per cent. is reserved for the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State and for Greece, Rumania, and other Powers not signatories of the Agreement.

ARTICLE 2 provides that the aggregate amount received for reparation from Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, together with amounts that may be received in respect of the liberation of territories belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, shall be divided: —

( a ) As to half in the proportions mentioned in Article 1.

( b ) As to the other half, Italy shall receive 40 per cent., while 60 per cent. is reserved for Greece, Rumania, and the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State and other Powers entitled to reparations but not signatories of the Agreement.

ARTICLE 3 provides that the Allied Governments shall adopt measures to facilitate, if necessary, the issue by Germany of loans destined for the internal requirements of that country and to the prompt discharge of the German debt to the Allies.

ARTICLE 4 deals in detail with the keeping of accounts by the Reparations Commission.

ARTICLE 5 secures to Belgium her priority of £100,000,000 gold and enumerates the securities affected by such priority. [These securities were mentioned in The Times of 13th July.]

ARTICLE 6 deals with the valuation of ships surrendered under the various Peace Treaties, and provides for the allocation of sums received for the hire of such ships. It deals also with questions outstanding as to the decisions taken by the Belgian Prize Courts. Belgium receives compensation out of the shares of the other Allied Powers.

ARTICLE 7 refers to the Allied cruisers, floating docks, and material handed over under the Protocol of 10th January, 1920, as compensation for the German warships which were sunk.

ARTICLE 8 declares that the same Protocol shall apply to the proceeds of the sale of ships and war material surrendered under the naval clauses of the Treaty, virtually including the proceeds of naval war material sold by the Reparations Commission.

ARTICLE 9 gives Italy an absolutely prior claim to certain specified sums as a set-off to amounts due to her by Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.

ARTICLE 10 reserves the rights of Poland and declares that this agreement shall not apply to her.

ARTICLE 11 maintains the rights of countries who lent money to Belgium before 11th November, 1918, and makes provision for repayment immediately after satisfaction of the Belgian claim to priority in respect of £100,000,000.

ARTICLE 12 maintains the rights of the Allied Powers to the repayment of credits granted to ex-enemy Powers for the purposes of relief.

ARTICLE 13 reserves the question of fixing the cost of the armies of occupation in Germany on a uniform basis for discussion with the United States of America.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that provision money in the Royal Navy is quite insufficient; and if he can make any statement on the subject, or give any promise that the matter will be considered and an increase made before the House meets again?

I have been asked to reply to this question. It has now been decided to increase the rates of provision and leave allowance to naval ratings from 2s. 1d. to 3s. 6d. per diem, and the necessary orders are being issued accordingly.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the position of the officers on the active list of the Royal Naval Reserve is at present under consideration; if so, whether any decision or decisions have as yet been arrived at as to the future conditions of their service and as to the qualifications of applicants for these commissions; and whether, if the matter still remains under consideration, the views of recognised representatives of these officers are being considered?

This question, together with other questions relating to the Reserves, has been under consideration by a committee on which both the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve were represented. The committee has also had the advantage of learning the views of representative officers of the Reserves, and of duly considering them in framing their Report. This Report is now under consideration-by the Board, but no decisions have yet been reached.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend be able to announce the decision before the Recess?

I am afraid that is impossible. I only saw it myself for the first time this morning, and the other members of the Board have to consider it.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that aliens are still being appointed to responsible positions in the British Consular Service; and if he has considered the advisability of reserving this service to persons of pure British descent and in particular to ex-service officers displaced by the War from their civilian occupations?

No aliens have been or will be appointed to posts in the salaried Consular Service, and aliens are only appointed to posts in the un-salaried service when no suitable British subject is available. With regard to the employment of ex-service officers, I would point out that entry into the salaried Consular Service is now governed by the Civil Service Commission regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the latest appointments is a German with a Portuguese name, who was a British vice-consul during the War, and was strongly suspected of having made use o his official position to assist the enemy in the submarine outrages?

I should be glad to have the facts on which that statement is based. I do not think there is any foundation for it.

If I can substantiate that statement, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have an inquiry into the system under which such an appointment is possible?

Most certainly; but I want to see the facts.

asked the Prime Minister (1) in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for India has taken no steps to clear himself of the charges made against him in this House, and publicly in the Press, of having misled the House and suppressed facts concerning" the outbreaks in 1919, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter;

(2) whether his attention has been called to a speech made by the Secretary of State for India at Cambridge on Saturday last, in which he stated that in his administrative work he had the support of his colleagues in a policy which is alike theirs and his; if he will say whether the Government endorse the policy of the Secretary of State in eulogising Mr. Ghandi whilst he was stirring up sedition in India; and whether they are aware that the Secretary of State says he knew no details of the disturbances eight months after the event?

Before these questions are answered, is it in Order, and is there any precedent, for charging it Minister in a question with misleading the House?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question without a considerable amount of research. I have heard charges made that Ministers mislead, and also that unofficial Members mislead. I do not think the word is out of Order.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India has, of course, the support of his colleagues, and I am surprised that my hon. Friend should think it necessary to put such a question, as otherwise obviously my right hon. Friend would not continue to be a member of the Government. As regards the other statements and insinuations made in the Question, they have been repeatedly dealt with by my right hon. Friend, and I have nothing to add to the answers which he has given.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State stated in this House on 23rd June, in regard to the charges made against him of misrepresenting the facts in this House, that he would answer them in Debate, and in view of the fact that the opportunity was given him of answering them and that he did not avail himself of that opportunity, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Secretary of State has lost the confidence of a large number of members of this House, and is it not imperative that he should either clear his character or resign?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these attacks on the Secretary of State for India are made because he is a Jew?

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my second question.

It is a repetition of the first.

I meant the second on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can have inquiries made as to the voting methods in other Parliaments with a view to obviating the waste of time and energy involved in the present method?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Command Paper 907 of 1902, which is the latest information which the Government have on the subject. Unless, however, there is a general desire for further information I do not propose, in view of the expense involved, to call for further reports.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last two nights over 300 members spent about five hours tramping through the Division lobbies?

This is a very old subject of discussion, and many efforts have been made to save time. A Division used to take a good deal longer than it does now, and I think the hon. Member will find it is very difficult to get any method which is more expeditious than the present one.

Is not tramping through the lobbies the main purpose for which Members come here?

Would it not be better for the comfort, convenience, and dignity of hon. Members if a single question were put from the Chair to clear the whole of the outstanding Supply?

I think my Noble Friend would find there would be most violent protests against that. I can only remember that, when a suggestion of that kind was made in the days when I had the pleasure of sitting on that side, I protested very strongly. That, I think, was the general feeling of the House then, and I think my Noble Friend will find that it is the same now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Monday night some Votes were passed willingly, and other were hotly contested by Divisions?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting three,clerks in the lobbies, as it used to be prior to the War? It takes a greater time now.

I am not sure that that would save very much time. However, if there are any suggestions of that kind, I am certain Mr. Speaker would be only too glad to consider them.

We did consider the whole of that question, and came to the conclusion that the pressure was not in passing the clerks, but in passing the tellers.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory condition of the telegraph rooms of the staff who do the work in connection with this House; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy such a state of things existing within the precincts of the House?

I am aware that the condition of the rooms in question is adversely affected by their close proximity to the boiler house. The matter will be carefully investigated by the Chief Engineer during the Recess, in order to see whether any improvement can be effected.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the room in the pit there is worse than many dog-kennels and stables in this country?

That is probably an exaggeration.

The sooner you go there the better.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing feeling in India against the use of native troops -in the various theatres of war in the Middle East; and whether he can give an assurance that, so soon as circumstances will permit, Indian troops will be withdrawn from Turkey, Mesopotamia, Persia, Arabia, and Palestine?

I have no reason to believe that Indians are unduly impatient at the inevitable delay in the return of Indian troops from the Middle East; every effort is being made to relieve those units who have been long away from India, and the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that sports associations throughout the country are desirous of sending a representative deputation to him to urge the necessity, in the interests of the health and recreation of the people, of the passage of the Open Spaces Bill; and whether he will receive the deputation at an early date in order to ascertain from them the volume of opinion in favour of the Bill and of its early passage into law?

I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by receiving a deputation on this subject, but I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, whose Department is concerned in it, and let the hon. Member know whether it is possible for my right hon. Friend or myself to receive the deputation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) Regulations oblige the consumer of wine or beer to pay for goods before delivery and does not permit payment on delivery; why he must send or take his order to the licensed premises and may not give his order to the representative of the vendor when he calls; and why the brewer or wine merchant may not deliver beer or wine by basket or cycle before 12 noon, but is obliged to use a motor vehicle or horse van?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to this question on Tuesday last.

Would my right hon. Friend not consider whether these temporary Regulations are not lasting a very long time? Is not the time come for restoring some liberty to the subject?

Could not my right hon. Friend say under what Act of Parliament these stupid Regulations are made?

I believe they are in an Act of Parliament, but the stupidity must be a matter of opinion.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Industrial Conference will resume its sitting?

I have been asked to answer this question. The National Industrial Conference has not sat for some considerable time, but the Provisional Joint Committee set up by the Conference has, on various occasions, met to consider important industrial questions. The Committee met on the 17th and 28th June last, to consider the provisions of the proposed Hours of Employment Bill. It is anticipated that the Committee will meet again when the trade union side have formulated their proposals in relation to that Bill.

asked the Lord Privy Seal on what date each of the mandates which have been conferred on a mandatory Power was so conferred, respectively; and on what date in each case the Annual Report of the mandatory Power under the Covenant of the League of Nations becomes due?

The decision of the Supreme Council relating to the conferment of mandates under the German Treaty was dated 7th May, 1919, and that relating to the mandates under the Turkish Treaty, 26th April, 1920. The date on which the Annual Report in each case will become due has not yet been decided.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of Excess Profits Duty payable by the manufacturers of biscuits in the United Kingdom during 1918–19; and what was the tonnage of biscuits produced in respect of which the amount of Excess Profits Duty became payable?