asked the Secretary of State for India whether the draft rules under Sections 1, 2, 4 (3), 10 (3), 12, and 33 of the Government of India Act, 1919, will be submitted to this House as were the preceding rules; and, if not, how hon. Members wishing to have these rules modified may bring their views to bear before the rules are enacted?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except as regards the rule proposed to be made under Section 33, which, I am advised, must, under the terms of the Section, be made and laid upon the Table, and cannot be submitted in draft for approval by Resolution.

When are these expected to be submitted—in the Autumn Session?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has information to the effect that any Government servants have joined in the non-co-operation movement organised by the Hindu agitator, Mr. Gandhi; and, if so, whether such Government servants have been dismissed from their situations?

According to my information there have been a few cases among subordinate Government servants of sympathy with the non-co-operation movement. The form in which these persons expressed their sympathy was to resign Government service. I understand that the theory is that Government servants should show their non-co-operation by resigning if they have other means of support.

asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason general officers of the Indian Army have been deprived of the Indian element in their pensions by the new scale lately sanctioned for British officers of the Indian Army?

The pensions of Indian Army officers before the recent revision were not made up of British and Indian elements, so that they cannot be regarded as having been deprived of any benefit previously enjoyed by them. It was considered that the maximum rates of retired pay approved for British service general officers should apply to general officers of the Indian Army, but the method of calculation adopted ensures that in almost every case the general officer of the Indian Army can obtain this maximum after considerably less service than would be the case in the British Army.

Is it the case that the increased pensions to Army officers, given in view of the extra cost of living, is not to be based, as formerly, on Army pay in all ranks; whether it is not the case that the Indian element was formerly maintained in the pensions of senior officers up to the rank of lieut.-general and disappeared only at the rank of general—whereas now the Indian element is only partially represented in the pension in the rank of colonel, and disappears entirely at the rank of major-general; whether the effect of the proposed change upon officers of the Indian Army is not seriously to penalise in retirement the ranks of colonel, of major-general and of lieut.-general; and whether the effect of this will not be to discourage officers from entering that service?

Whatever may be the case with regard to pay I am informed that with regard to pensions there was no Indian element before revision. The question the hon. Member asks is a very complicated one, and I should like to see it in print or in writing before I could answer it in detail. Perhaps he will be good enough to forward it to me, and I will let him have an answer by letter.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has yet ascertained how many persons actively engaged with Mr. Ghandi in connection with the All-India Khalifat Committee were interned during the War or convicted in connection with the disturbances in 1919, and afterwards released; and, in view of the fact that the Government of India consider Mr. Ghandi was the leading spirit of a movement intended to paralyse government in 1919, will he state what action, if any, has been taken to prevent Mr. Ghandi and his associates from causing further trouble?

No full list of the members of the All-India Khalifat Committee has reached me. But among the persons who joined Mr. Ghandi in a. Khalifat deputation to the Viceroy last January, four had been interned during the War, and two had been convicted in connection with the disturbances of 1919. The actions and speeches of Mr. Ghandi and his associates are being very carefully watched by the Governments in India. I propose to leave to them in full confidence the determination as to what action may be necessary.

Could not Mr. Ghandi be confined in that particular district to which he belongs?

The question of maintaining law and order in India is one entirely for the Government of India and the Local Governments, and I do not propose to interfere.

asked the Secretary of State for India what was the total number of persons convicted for offences in connection with the disorders in India in 1919; how many have since been released; and what were the conditions on which they were released?

The total number convicted was 1,925. Of these, 1,061 were released, 111 on conditions. I have no-certain information as to the conditions imposed in each case, but I read to the House on the 7th July in full the conditions imposed in one case, which is probably typical. If the hon. Member wishes, I will inquire as to the conditions in the other cases.

I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would. May I ask whether this wholesale clemency which has been shown to those who have taken part in murders and outrages is going to be extended similarly to those officers and men in the Indian Civil Service whom the right hon. Gentleman condemned and proposed to punish?

I am not prepared to accept the description of the clemency shown, nor am I prepared to accept the hon. Member's description as to what has "been done to members of the Indian Civil Service.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any persons convicted for offences in connection with the disorders in India in 1919 have been pardoned; and, if so, how many?

The House will recall that, in replying to the hon. Member last week, I stated that none had been pardoned. Immediately after I had given that reply, which was, I think, a correct inference from the telegram that I circulated, I received another to the effect that before the amnesty the Viceroy had pardoned "about 36" persons convicted of breaches of martial law regulations in the Punjab. Another telegram received from the Government of India on Saturday reports that in the Bombay Presidency out of 123 persons convicted 72 have been released. None of these received a pardon. The 72 are included in the answer I have just given to the hon. Member's second question.

Are we to understand that those persons who were pardoned are now eligible to stand for these new Councils?

I would refer to the Rules as sanctioned by this House, but as I have not them before me I would rather not express an opinion without reference to them.

asked the Secretary of State for India if Lala Harkishen Lal, Lala Duni Chard, Drs. Satyapal and Kitchlew, and other Punjab leaders, have been pardoned as well as released; if so, will they be permitted to stand for election to the new councils; if not, will he furnish the House with a Return showing what leaders have been pardoned; and will he make representa- tions for pardoning the leaders who have not been fully amnestied, as without such step being taken the reform scheme has no chance of success in the Punjab, and is likely to he boycotted in other provinces?

I am informed that the only persons pardoned in the Punjab were about 36 persons convicted of breaches of martial law regulations. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Rule 5 (2) of the Electoral Rules. The exercise of the Royal prerogative of pardon is vested in the Viceroy by the warrant of his appointment, and I am not prepared to interfere with his discretion.

May I ask for an answer to my specific question, as to whether the four gentlemen named are eligible, or whether they are to be excluded from participation in the Punjab Legislative Council elections?

I thought I had answered that by referring the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Rule 5.

Have they been pardoned or not?

No; I have informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the only persons pardoned have been 36 persons convicted of breaches of martial law regulations. The individuals to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers were convicted of very grave offences.

This is a very serious matter, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman understands. Am I to understand that there will be no extension of pardon to these people who are, it is true, extremists, but who would be more safely situated within the legislature than outside? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Does the fact of no extension of pardon to them mean that the Government do contemplate the possibility of no extension of the non-co-operation movements in the Punjab: and is the right hon. Gentle man aware—

On a point of Order. May I ask if an argumentative question of this sort is permitted to be addressed to a Minister—

You are not the judge; sit down!

The Speaker is the judge, not you!

This is a matter of great importance to India and to our rule in India.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a specific question, instead of making a statement, he will get an answer.

The question I wish to ask is this: In view of the situation, are we to understand that a pardon will not be extended to any of these leaders, in order to enable them to take part in the government of India?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions four names, and there was the phrase "other Punjab leaders." I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "other Punjab leaders"—

You know!

Therefore I was not prepared categorically to say that none of them has been pardoned. But if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know whether any of these men to whom he refers will be pardoned, I would reply to him that the prerogative of pardon has been vested by His Majesty, and on his behalf, to the Viceroy, and I do not propose to make any recommendation or to interfere with the discretion that has been reposed in the Viceroy.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of officials of British nationality and the number of persons of local origin engaged in the administration of the mandatoy territory of Mesopotamia; whether it is proposed to allow competent persons in the latter category to assist in the government of their native land; and, if so, to what extent?

The only Department for which exact figures are at the moment available is the Judicial Department, in which, out of a total pesonnel of 231, British number 10, persons of local origin 215, the remaining six being Egyptian (1), Indian (4), and Syrian (1). Figures for the rest of the administration have been called for, and I will send them, when received, to the hon. Member. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, and I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement of policy read to the House on 23rd June.

Does that include, as apparently it does not, Indian Civil Servants engaged in Mesopotamia? If so, are they engaged at the high rates of pay they draw in India with the extra allowances?

As to the rates of pay, I must have notice, but I imagine that the figures I gave of the Judicial Department would include in the ten British any Indian Civil Servants, if any, in that Department.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not the figures of the Revenue officials from British India employed in Mesopotamia, of whom it is believed there are several?

The hon. Member was asking a specific question; I have not the figures down here.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether ho can make any statement before the House rises as to the Order in Council fixing the rates of post-War pensions?

I am informed that the Inter-Departmental Committee considering this subject hope; to present their Report this week.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached with regard to increasing the injury pension of 14s. 3½d. per week to Mr. William Gurling, of Sculthorpe, who, through the loss of both his arms by an accident in a cruiser in 1879, is totally incapable of earning anything, and whose case has been under review by the appropriate Government Departments since May of last year?

Gurling is in receipt of naval and Greenwich Hospital pensions amounting in the aggregate to 17s. 6d. a week, which cannot be increased under existing Naval Regulations. Proposals, however, are now under consideration for increasing, subject to certain conditions, naval pre-War pensions, and Gurling's claim will be dealt with as soon as the details have been finally approved. It is anticipated that an announcement will be made almost immediately.

When will the Order-in-Council be issued in regard to pre-War pensions?

I believe, although I am not quite certain, that an Order-in-Council for pre-War pensions may get the Royal Assent to-morrow. As to when the Order-in-Council dealing with post-War pensions will be made, I can hardly say.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to those officers who were retained in their employment for the period of the War, though their time for pension had been reached before the War and were given an increase of 15 per cent. on their pay; and if these gentlemen are to receive their pensions from the date the same were due and 25 per cent. on their pay, or what it is proposed to give them for their services?

Officers who were voluntarily re-employed before the War, and who continued to be employed in the same appointments during the War, receive a bonus of 15 per cent. on their pay in lie of counting the time for increase of pension. Applications have been made for these officers to receive the bonus of 25 per cent. granted to officers called up for service during the War. I have gone into this question personally, and I regret that in view of the very heavy additional expenditure which would be involved in the Navy and in other Services, this concession cannot be granted.

Is it proposed to pay these officers their pensions for the period of the War?

I do not think so, but that is quite a different question. I think not.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether since 1912 the Admiralty have made grants to the Navy Employment Agency as being the recognised permanent channel of employment for ex-naval ratings; whether notice has been given that the Admiralty will discontinue the grant on 1st October; whether, as the expenses have for many causes more than doubled, this will have the effect of closing an institution which for many years has rendered the Admiralty invaluable and expert assistance in finding employment for ex-naval ratings; and, in view of these facts, can the matter now be reconsidered?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships are in Norwegian waters, north of latitude 65; and for what purpose?

rose—

Do not answer!

In present circumstances, it is not in the public interest to give the information asked for.

asked whether there is any official publication in existence which gives a complete list of the ships which are surplus to the requirements of the post-War Fleet?

There is such a document, prepared for Admiralty use only.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the names of those officers, and especially their rank, who sat on the Officers' Pay Committee and decided against a marriage allowance as distinct from pay, and the date on which this Committee sat; and if the Committee recommended increased pay in lieu of marriage allowance?

The names and ranks of the members of the Committee, the dates on which it was appointed and made its Report, and a list of its recommendations, are given in Command Paper No. 2Y0 of 1919, to which I beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend. The Committee added a special note as regards marriage allowance, the substance of which was that they were strongly averse from the introduction of a married allowance, and considered that their proposals as to pay, taken as a whole, would obviate the necessity for any differentiation between married and single officers. One member did not entirely agree with the rest of the Committee, and proposed a "Married Quarters" Allowance graduated according to rank and payable to all officers from flag officers downwards. His views were not concurred in by the rest of the Committee, nor by the Board of Admiralty.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if ho can give the date from which the new scale of provision money for the Royal Navy will commence?

Payment of provision and leave allowance at the increased rate of 3s. 6d. a day will take effect as from the 23rd July, 1920.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the petition of the Rosyth Dockyard Chargemen's Association presented in December last year?

A decision has not yet been reached concerning the questions of status and emoluments raised in the petition referred to by my hon. Friend, but a communication will be made to the petitioners on the subject very shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that eight months is too long for a Government Department to come to a decision?

No, I do not think so. The Department has a great deal to do, and we are most anxious to do justice in regard to this most important matter.

(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement with reference to the dissolution of the second Welfare Conference, and give the reasons why such a course was found to be necessary; and whether this step will prevent the holding of the second Welfare Committee in the autumn, or whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to reassemble the Inter-port Representatives in the autumn with a view to the holding of the Committee?

My Noble and gallant Friend is, no doubt, referring to statements which have appeared to the effect that the meeting of Inter-port Representatives at Devonport to consider requests to be placed before the next Naval Welfare Committee has been dissolved by Admiralty order. So far is this from being the case that the Admiralty letter of the 3rd August, communicating to the Commander-in-Chief, for the information of this Conference, decisions on the previous year's requests, stated:

"Their Lordships are of opinion that it is desirable that the Welfare Conference should now proceed with the consideration of requests to be placed before the next Committee, in accordance with the approved procedure, and that it is their unmistakable duty to the rest of the Service to do so."

The conclusion not to proceed with the Conference was come to by the Inter-port Representatives, although not in accordance with the advice in this letter, and was communicated to the Admiralty by telegram from the Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, last Saturday. The Admiralty regret that this conclusion should have been arrived at. In the opinion of the Board, the benefits secured for the Navy this year are considerable, and the precedent of bringing such a Conference to an end because other requests, after careful consideration, have not been granted is obviously not in accord with the spirit in which the Welfare system was set up, and cannot possibly contribute to the success of that system. For the moment, therefore, I can only say that the working of the Welfare system is suspended by reason of the conclusion of the Inter-port Conference not to continue their deliberations. That this would be the result of such a conclusion was pointed out in the Admiralty letter to which I have already referred, and which stated as follows:

"Should the members of the Conference come to a different conclusion and renew their request to be allowed to dissolve, it should be clearly pointed out to them that the Admiralty regard the dissolution of the Conference as terminating for the time being the programme laid down for the working of the Welfare scheme this year; the. Welfare system, however, having been set up by the Admiralty, cannot be permanently dissolved except by the Admiralty, and it will, therefore, remain in suspense at their Lordships' discretion."

The question of taking any special action in the autumn will be considered by the Admiralty with reference to what may appear to be the wishes and the best interests of the Service.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the instructions under which the Government authorities in the Black Sea are acting in their relations with the forces of General Wrangel and towards the Bolsheviks: and whether any new instructions have been issued in the last seven days?

There are no instructions to act in relation with the forces of General Wrangel or towards the Bolsheviks. No new instructions have been issued.

asked what are the instructions to ships in connection with the blockade of Soviet Russia; and whether any fresh instructions have been issued in the past seven days?

There are no instructions. No fresh instructions have been given.

Is the reason for that the fact that we have kept up surreptitiously a blockade ever since the Armistice with Germany?

I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to be offensive, but he appears to ignore the fact that here, speaking as a Minister of the Crown, I have repeatedly stated that the blockade was raised long ago He now suggests that that statement on my part is not true.

In view of the new situation, will any steps be taken by the Department of the right hon. Gentleman to sweep up the mines in the Baltic?

No, Sir; I have told the House repeatedly that the sweeping up of the mines in the Baltic is work for the Russian people and the Russian Government; and it is a work they can very well do, and do with great efficiency if they choose. It is not our business to go into the Gulf of Finland and sweep up mines that were not laid by us.

Would it not be possible for the Admiralty now to give the Russians plans as to where the mines are so that they can sweep them up?

I think the answer to that should be reserved till application is made by the Russian Government—I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to speak for it or not. Until they make their suggestions the Admiralty cannot act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that British lives will not be risked in sweeping up Russian mines?

Most certainly, Sir. The Board of Admiralty have no intention whatever of risking valuable British lives in doing work for other people, which they can well do for themselves.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I dot not wish to be offensive to anyone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but may I ask whether it is not the fact that the restrictions are so vexatious on the merchant shipping of Soviet Russia that it practically amounts to a blockade?

That, really, is pure imagination on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But it is no good my answering, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not accept my answer. There are no restrictions. If he refers to the Gulf of Finland, as he, knows, and as has been disclosed by replies to previous questions, the Gulf of Finland is mined, but these mines were not laid by us. They were laid for the main part by the Germans or by the Russians.

What about the Black Sea?

One thing at a time. This is a different case altogether. I am dealing now with the Baltic. The duty of raising these mines rests with those who laid them, not with the British Admiralty nor the British Government. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are no restrictions as to trade. It is quite true that there is no trade going on, but that is for a very different reason.

asked the Prime Minister what is the position of the Russian General Harptmann in this country, and whether the Government have had, or now have, official relationships with this gentleman?

I am informed that the General referred to is at present in England. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that this General claims to represent General Wrangel in this country; and whether, as we are not supporting, but in fact discouraging, General Wrangel, he will not be given his passports before he stirs up more mischief?

I have already given the answer that the Government have no connection whatever with this gentleman. I can see no reason whatever why he should be turned out of the country.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that the French Government have definitely decided to recognise General Wrangel, and are sending a High Commissioner to Sebastopol?

The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some Members of this House have written to the employers in their constituencies appealing to them to place their names on the King's Roll under the National Scheme for the employment of disabled men; and will he state what progress has been made in assisting ex-service men to obtain employment by these appeals?

Yes, Sir. I have done so myself, and I understand that other Members of this House have don so too. I am certain that it would be of great help to disabled men in finding employment if hon. Members generally would take similar action and write to employers in their constituencies appealing to them to place their names on the King's Roll. I propose, if I may, shortly to send to every hon. Member a statement showing the firms in or about the area which he represents who are on the King's Roll; the number of disabled men whom those firms are employing; the number of firms in the area which, as it appears to me, ought to be on the Roll; and the number of disabled men in the district who are registered as unemployed.

Did not the Members of the House as a whole approach employers with this object, and was there not a very large response to the request?

I cannot say offhand. There have been two appeals, and I think the response to the earlier one was very considerable.

May I, on behalf of numerous ex-service men, thank the right hon. Gentleman for his endeavours in this direction, and may I be allowed to express the hope that during the Recess he will remind hon. Members who may have inadvertently omitted to write to employers, in the interests of their constituents, to reconsider the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour if any decision and, if so, what has been come to with regard to the future of the Appointments Department consequent upon the reduction in the work of the Department owing to the maintenance and training grant scheme coming to an end very shortly; from what date will these new arrangements take effect; and will the result of these new arrangements be to place the Appointments Department under the control of the officers now in charge of the Employment Department of the Ministry of Labour?

I welcome the opportunity given me by my Noble Friend of explaining a matter about which misconceptions appear to exist. There is a considerable overlap between the activities of the Employment and Appointments Departments, and it has become increasingly clear that to promote smooth working and secure economy a closer cooperation between them was desirable. It is recognised, however, that it is necessary to preserve the separate entity of the Appointments Department and to maintain its existing machinery. All that is proposed, therefore, is that the Director of that Department in each of the areas should work under the supervision of the Divisional Controller who already is a general representative of the Ministry within his Division, and that the Headquarters Office will be under the Principal Assistant Secretary in charge of the Employment Department. In other respects the organisation with its separate offices and staff will not be disturbed.

Have these new arrangements been considered by the Committee now dealing with future unemployment?

I cannot say that this question has nothing to do with that inquiry.

Is it proposed to continue this Appointments Branch permanently?

It will continue as long as there are officers for whom we are seeking appointments. The moment they are all employed—I hope it will not be long delayed, although I fear it may—the branch will disappear.

Can we have an assurance that there is no intention of replacing disabled ex-officers, now serving in the Appointments Department, by officials from the Labour Exchanges?

Certainly, there is no such intention. We have, under Government orders, given preference to ex service men, and particularly to disabled men.

asked the Minister of Health whether the withdrawal of the land taxes, which caused house building to be diminished, if not abandoned, is to be followed by legislation again interfering with the building trade by way of restraint of what public departments and authorities may designate luxury building; and whether it is desirable that the lesson learnt at such heavy cost should so soon be forgotten?

Local authorities already have powers under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, for prohibiting building operations which interfere with the erection of houses, and I am of opinion that further powers are necessary, as the present powers in many districts have been found to be insufficient to limit quite unessential buildings which further increase the difficulties arising from the shortage of skilled building labour.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the remedy he proposes will not aggravate the disease which he wants to cure?

If I thought so I should not propose the remedy.

What is going to be done about taking empty houses in big towns?

The local authorities have very wide and comprehensive powers to deal with them.

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the report approved by the Housing Committee and the City Council of Manchester, which offers certain criticisms against his Department, and accuses them for some of the delays in the erection of houses; whether he admits these complaints to be well founded: and, if not, what answer he purposes to give to the City Council?

I have received a copy of the report in question. So far as there was any delay in the placing of contracts, my Department cannot be blamed for refusing to agree to prices which were unreasonably high. The delays, however, are mainly due to the shortage of skilled labour, which is further aggravated by the fact that the powers of the Council in connection with the limitation of unessential buildings have been found to be insufficient. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are making proposals for dealing with both these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in December last the Housing Committee decided to place contracts with a number of local builders, that this was taken out of their hands by the Ministry of Health, that the scheme was held up until February because the Ministry of Health wished to place the contracts with their Department, and that, when the Committee decided to go on with the matter, they found that the Ministry had altered the plans of the houses, and thus delayed the building by the contractors?

Yes, the action in question was taken by my personal instructions, because, in my opinion, there was sufficient evidence to show that there was a combine against the Ministry to force up prices in Manchester.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, also, that the Manchester Corporation are held up in consequence of luxury building—that, although they exclude luxury building in Manchester, it is taking place in other parts, and men are being drawn to work on those luxury buildings at a higher rate?

I am quite aware of that, and I sympathise with the Manchester Corporation in their difficulties. We propose to alter the law as soon as we can. There has been competition for builders in that district, and the main cause of the delay is that there are not sufficient workmen.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received an answer from the British delegate on the Reparation Commission as to the German competition with British firms in rolling stock in Belgium and Czechoslovakia; what is the reply given; and whether Germany has delivered all the rolling stock required under the Treaty of Versailles?

I regret that, as no reply has yet been received from the British Delegate, I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the reply when he receives it?

I will send it to my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Polish attack on Russia was an unprovoked outrage, it was in accordance with all principles and conventions of European society that Russia, after repelling the unwarrantable attack that was made on her, dealt directly with the aggressors; and will he inform the House what advice the British Government or the Allies gave Poland before the attack was made on Russia?

I cannot add anything to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on this subject yesterday.

May I ask whether we shall have a further statement from the Prime Minister as to the progress of negotiations betwen Poland and Russia before the House adjourns?

If anything new arise, yes; but if not, there cannot be a further statement.