asked the Minister of Pensions whether Corporal J. Geraghty, No. 35882, Royal Scots Regiment, now residing at 40, Camp Street, Wednesbury, applied for a pension on 8th January, 1920; whether he has appeared before medical boards at Craigberth Eye Hospital and at Walsall and Birmingham, respectively; whether each board reported in his favour; and, if so, why has no pension been granted?

This man's claim to pension was very carefully considered by my medical advisers who were unable to accept the disability as due to or aggravated by service. Corporal Geraghty appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the consequent refusal of pension, and I am informed that his claim which was heard by the tribunal on the 26th instant was disallowed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, when the medical board reported in favour of this man, why it was not approved by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal?

Because the medical board does not deal with the question or title; that is decided by the tribunal.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can inform the House as to the percentage of applicants successful in gaining their cases put forward before the Ministry of Pensions Appeal Tribunal?

The number of appeals heard by the Ministry of Pensions Appeal Tribunals prior to their dissolution on the 31st October, 1919, was 14,731, and of these 5,064, or 31·2 per cent., were decided in favour of the appellants. On the 1st November, 1919, the Statutory Pensions Appeal Tribunals were established, and from that date to the 30th September, 1920, 13,030 appeals have been heard by these tribunals, of which 4,130, or 31·7 per cent., have been allowed.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many eases are waiting to be hoard by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; at what rate these appeals are being disposed of; and how long on the average appellants have at present to wait before their cases come before the tribunal?

In giving notice of the question I intended to say, "Pensions Appeal Tribunal in Scotland."

I did not know what was in my hon. and gallant Friend's mind; I only knew what was on the Paper. It has not been possible in the time available to obtain figures for all parts of the Kingdom. I am, however, informed from the Lord Chancellor's Office that as regards England and Wales there are at the present time 2,300 cases in the hands of the tribunals. Approximately, 400 appeals are dealt with weekly by the tribunals, of which a certain percentage have to be adjourned owing to the non-appearance of the appellant or the fact that the tribunals require additional information. The average time which elapses between the date the appeal reaches the headquarter office of the Appeal Tribunal and the date of hearing is about one month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a second tribunal for Scot land?

I am quite willing to consider that.

asked the Minister of Pensions the amount paid by the Government for the property purchased in Amelia Street, Belfast, for offices for the Ministry of Pensions; whether the present tenant, who has occupied these premises for the past 25 years and in which he carries on a hem-stitching factory, is to be evicted on the 1st November without any hope of alternative accommodation, which will mean some 100 workers will be thrown out of employment, and also the present tenant's livelihood will be gone and a large portion of his capital which has been sunk in the business lost; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter seeing that there are a number of unoccupied buildings suitable for offices in Belfast at the present time?

I am informed by the Commissioners of Public Works, Dublin, who acquired this property, that the agreed purchase price of the buildings in Amelia Street, Belfast, is £19,000, and that that price was fixed on the express condition that vacant possession of the entire premises would be given to the Commissioners of Public Works on or before 1st November. The Commissioners understood from the agent to the vendors that he was in treaty with the occupying tenants for renting other suitable promises which were then in course of erection, and which were expected to be ready for occupation towards the end of October, at about the same rent as that paid by the firm in question for their Amelia Street accommodation.

May I take it that the present tenant has to move on 1st November?

I understand so. If my hon. Friend says there are no other premises I will make inquiries.

Yes. It is a great hardship on this man carrying on a factory to have his machinery and workers put out on the street. Surely at least two months should be given and alternative accommodation provided.

Perhaps the hon. Member will come and discuss the question with me?

I will do so.

asked the Minister of Pensions the maximum pension allowed to a widow of 62 years of age who lost two sons in the War; whether he is aware that Mrs. Bell, of 2, Erskine Street, Belfast, who lost two sons in the War, never received more than 15s. per we k pension, plus 3s. bonus; that this was reduced in June, 1920, to 11s., plus 3s. bonus, and in September last Mrs. Bell's pension was stopped altogether by the local War pensions committee; whether steps will be taken to renew this woman's pension with arrears due; and, as the case is one of extreme hardship, could supplementary assistance also be given?

I am informed that Mrs. Bell was not dependent upon either of her two sons prior to enlistment, and is not therefore eligible for a pre-War dependency pension. She was, however, at the time of application eligible for and was awarded a pension on the basis of pecuniary need at the maximum rate of 18s. a week under Article 21 (1) (b) of the Royal Warrant. This class of pension is dependent on the financial circumstances of the applicant and her household, and is subject to review from time to time. As the circumstances of Mrs. Bell and her household very materially improved, so as no longer to justify a pension on the ground of need, the pension had to be reduced, and was finally discontinued. I may add, that should her circumstances change, the case would be at once re-considered. Mrs. Bell may, however, be entitled to the flat rate pension of 5s. a week in respect of each son, but she has so far, in spite of application, failed to supply the necessary information for the award of this pension. With regard to the suggestion of supplementary assistance, I may say that I am informed that Mrs. Bell is earning a wage of £2 18s. 6d. a week, and would therefore he ineligible for any such assistance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this widow is 62 years of age and that she fell three months ago and broke her wrist and how then can she earn £2 18s. per week. This widow is appealing out of real hardship and it is a shame that she has to go out to work when she lost two sons in the War and who were her support. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the case?

The facts presented to me bear out what I say. She is earning £2 18s. 6d. per week and I am precluded from taking any action.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had an interview with this widow myself. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. The lady has a broken wrist. It is rediculous to say that she is earning £2 18s. per week.

I said I am quite willing to look into the case if my hon. Friend will produce any fresh evidence and to carefully consider it, but so long as I am informed she is earning that sum I cannot intervene.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of granting an allowance to those disabled men who are using artificial limbs, the using of which incur extra cost of clothing?

As far as practicable artificial limbs and appliances are designed in such a way as to avoid injury to clothing. Where, however, a limb or appliance is likely to cause damage a protective pad or other device is supplied in order to prevent the damage; but where this is impossible the Ministry are prepared to consider payment of a contribution towards the damage directly due to the use of the limb or appliance.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received a petition from certain Members with the Division I have the honour to represent dealing with this question?

I think my answer replies in the affirmative. I am quite willing to deal with any question of damage which arises.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will publish the instructions given by him to the local pensons committees as to the ascertainment of the pecuniary need of the dependants of deceased soldiers and sailors?

The instructions issued to local committees on this subject are already published in paragraphs 129, 134, 136, and 139 of the Local War Pensions Committee's Handbook, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Have any further instructions been issued?

None, so far as I am aware.

asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that m the Local War Pensions Committee's Handbook, page 86, paragraph 318 (3a), dealing with the appointment of principal officers of such committees, it is laid down that the Minister will not be prepared to approve any appointment of a candidate who has not served in the forces unless he is satisfied that no ex-service candidate is suitable for the post; whether he still acts on this principle in making or confirming such appointments;

(2) whether he is aware that the Bristol Local War Pensions Committee received 419 applications for their secretaryship recently advertised; that the committee left the appointment to the Minister, submitting two names for his consideration; that the names submitted were those of the assistant secretary of the committee and a lieutenant-colonel with distinguished service in the late War, the assistant secretary being a young man of about 30 years of age, with no military service, although not medically rejected; that the Ministry appointed the young man with no service, although the other submitted candidate had, in addition to his service, considerable organising experience in civil life; and, if so, why preference was given to the young man with no service, having regard to the War Pensions (Proceedings of Committees) Regulations, 1919, Nos. 8 and 9?

The rule referred to which requires preference to be given, in the appointment of principal officers of local committees, to suitable candidates who have served in the armed forces of the Crown, is carefully observed by the Ministry, and there is no intention of departing from it. In determining the suitability of the candidates, I am bound, when considering fresh appointments, particularly in the case of the larger and more important local committees who are charged with the expenditure of public funds of very large amounts, to give due weight to the relative qualifications of all candidates; and experience and proved capacity in pensions administration must obviously be considered. In the case of the appointment to the secretaryship of the Bristol Local War Pensions Committee, the relative suitability of the two candidates referred to was very carefully considered, and I am satisfied that the most suitable candidate was appointed. Though he had not actually served, he had volunteered for military service no fewer than five times. He had been four years in the service of the Committee, had been assistant secretary for 18 months, and was thoroughly acquainted with the work. I may add, moreover, that the appointment actually made had the support of the majority of the Local War Pensions Committee itself, and that strong representations on behalf of this candidate were made by the ex-service men's federation in the area.

Is the right Gentleman prepared to say that the colonel, who served in the late War, was not suitable for the position?

I did not at all say that. I said that the more suitable candidate was appointed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rule to which he says he adheres states that

"The Minister will not be prepared to approve any appointment of a candidate who has not served in the Forces unless he is satisfied that no ex-service man is suitable."

How does he reconcile that with the appointment of this assistant secretary?

My principle has always been to appoint ex-service men, other circumstances being equal.

The rule does not say so.

It does, but where there are two candidates, as in this case, I must decide in the best interests of the State. All the local people—and after all it is the local committee—told me this was the better man; they unanimously told me that, and in view of these facts and that he did not serve through no fault of his own, I came to the conclusion I did.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the rule amended to say that the most suitable man will be appointed without reference to war service?

No, I cannot do that. The local committee have charge of very considerable public funds, and I repeat that when the local war pensions committee itself has come to the conclusion that the assistant secretary is the best man for that particular job, he ought to get it. I think ex-service men ought to get the first chance, but it is very difficult for a man who knows nothing about pensions work to take control of a very large committee, and in this case I feel bound to say that I think I was justified in making this appointment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by construing this rule so as to give the appointment to the more suitable man he is breaking the rule, because the rule does not say that the ex-service man must be more suitable; he must not be suitable, or else he gets the job?

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that boards of guardians in South Wales have carried a resolution to the effect that, where men who on enlistment into the naval, military, or air forces were passed fit for service have been discharged, and are still suffering from disability, they should continue to receive a pension, and not have to apply for poor law assistance and become chargeable to local rates; and will he consider this suggestion?

I have been asked to reply to this question. My attention has not been called to the resolution referred to. All men who on discharge are found to be suffering from a disability due to War service receive a pension or gratuity appropriate to the extent of their disablement in accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant. If any cases come before a board of guardians in which it appears that the disability, being due to War service, pension has not been awarded, or has been assessed at less than the rate appropriate to the extent of the disablement, the board or their officers should instruct the man to apply to his Local War Pensions Committee so that his case may be investigated in the prescribed way, and may themselves represent the facts of the case to the Regional Director.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases if a man is referred to the War Pensions Committee he will probably starve before he gets anything at all? Is he aware that in many cases these men have received no relief, and if the Poor Law had not come to their assistance their wives and children would have been near to starvation?

If an application be made to the War Pensions Committee, they have power to advance the money in certain cases.

They do not do it.

Then they ought to do it.

asked the Prime Minister whether soldiers wounded whilst on duty in Ireland, and the dependants of those killed, are in receipt of the same rate of pensions as those similarly situated through the European War?

I have been asked to take this question. The answer is in the affirmative. If, in consequence of the injury or death, a claim arises under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1919, pension at the appropriate Royal Warrant rate is granted provisionally pending the settlement of the claim to civil compensation.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he can state the terms of reference to the Committee which he proposes to appoint to inquire into the local administration and machinery of the Ministry?

The terms of reference are to inquire into the system and methods of administration of the Ministry of Pensions with special reference to the working of the Regional and Local Committee systems and the existing arrangements for the issue of pensions.

Is not the Committee to be specifically instructed to inquire into the increasing number of complaints as to the delays in paying arrears of pensions—as is the almost universal experience of Members of the House?

I do not agree there has been an increasing number of complaints. That is, however, among the points the Committee will inquire into.

In order to influence the terms of reference to this Committee I propose to raise this subject on the Adjournment to-night.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about the personnel of the Committee and the qualifications of the members?

I am trying to get the services of some Members of this House and of experts outside.

Are the terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable the Committee to inquire into the working of the Court of Appeal appointed by the Lord Chancellor?

No, unfortunately they are not. That Court was appointed at the instance of this House in order to review the judgments passed by the Military Pensions Committees; therefore I cannot ask this Committee appointed by myself to inquire into the working of a Court over which I have personally no jurisdiction.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will institute an inquiry into the wholesale destruction of co-operative creameries in Ireland with a view to justifying such action, or, in the alternative, of fully compensating these loyal working-men societies which have suffered by the armed forces of the Crown?

I can add nothing to the statements recently made upon this subject in the course of Debate.

May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a further statement with reference to the destruction of these creameries, or is it being left just as he explained it in the Debate?

Nothing is left stationary in Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he does intend to hold an inquiry, as asked in the question?

An inquiry is held into every case in which destruction is alleged.

Will he see that he is represented at any inquiries before a county court judge?

The Irish Government has no locus standi before these inquiries.

But will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the facts submitted at these inquiries?

I do.

Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not send a representative, and ask to be heard?

It is not estimated for on the Irish Office Vote.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Government have received from the proprietors of the Newport creamery a claim for £160 on the ground that that sum was stolen by the military from the safe on the premises at the time the creamery was burned; what reply has been sent; whether the claim was received before the proceedings took place under the Malicious Injuries Act; and whether he can explain why in these circumstances the Government were not represented at the hearing?

I understand that complaint was made by the proprietors of the Newport creamery, that a sum of £160 was stolen from the premises when the creamery was burned. The police have closely investigated the matter and are satisfied that, if money was stolen from the premises, it was taken by civilians whose identity is unknown. The Government has no locus standi at the hearing of claims under the Criminal Injuries Act.

May I have an answer to my question, which asks whether the Government have had a claim put to them and what answer they have given to that claim?

I did not understand that from the question, but at any rate if I have not answered it fully, I wish the hon. and gallant Member would put it down again. I have given the best answer I can to-day.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he has made any inquiries into the burning of this creamery from any other source except from those who are alleged to be the perpetrators?

The persons alleged to be the perpetrators were the military. Inquiry has been made both by the military and the police, and I know of no other tribunal to which I can refer an inquiry in the present disturbed state of the country.

When these military tribunals are set up and the investigation lakes place, what is the procedure adopted in order to get at the real truth from those who do not believe these statements?

There are rules laid down and regulations governing the procedure of military courts of inquiry, and anyone who has got any evidence to give that will help the court to arrive at a just conclusion would undoubtedly be welcomed by the court.

When a claim of this kind is put in, would it not be convenient for the Government to be represented at the inquiry, which is to assess the damage?

The Government has no status before these county court judges, who assess the damage done under the Malicious Injuries Act, and I do not see my way clear to have the Government represented at every one of those scores of proceedings that are held in Ireland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this particular inquiry differs from the rest, inasmuch as a definite claim was made against the Government, as apart from the local authority, in respect of this burning?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to statements in an English newspaper, published on 21st October last, to the effect that on the night of 16th October two lorry-loads of police surrounded the farm of Mrs. Fcency, near Corbally, and flogged three of her sons; that these same police flogged Patrick Raferty, of Coro-fin, on the same night; that on the evening of the 17th October other men were flogged outside Varden's public-house at Cummer, on the main road between Gal-way and Tuam, by police, who also drove up in two motor lorries; that the late Michael Walsh was taken from his house and murdered by police on the night of the 19th October in the city of Galway; and what steps has he taken to inquire into these allegations, and with what result?

Before this question is answered, may I ask whether a question is in order which is merely founded on statements which have appeared in a newspaper?

I am afraid that if I were to rule a question out on that ground, there would be very few questions left.

As regards the incidents alleged to have taken place at Corbally, Corofln, and at Varden's public house, Cummer, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Private Notice question of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) on Tuesday, in which I dealt fully with these cases. The circumstances attending the death of Mr. Michael Walsh in Galway on the 19th inst are at present under investigation by a military court of inquiry, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to this case.

May I ask whether the relatives who state that they have no complaint to make about their sons being flogged have been visited by the very police who are terrorising the neighbourhood, and does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as evidence in a matter of this extreme importance, affecting our relations with the whole world?

I am not aware of the facts as set out in the question.

May I ask if he has seen this morning the very specific statement made by an experienced English correspondent to one of the leading newspapers, the "Manchester Guardian," stating that he has cross-examined the relatives in connection with these flogging cases, and that he has no doubt about the truth of these statements?

I road all the papers, and I have seen the statement referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I cannot accept the statements of a journalist of that or of any other paper against the reports of those officials for whom I am responsible in this House and in whom I have confidence.

As the right hon. Gentleman has specifically declared that this English and other English correspondents are publishing false statements about the military in Ireland, is he prepared to prosecute these newspapers and have this matter investigated in an English court of justice?

As far as I know, you cannot prosecute a paper in England for a false statement as such. In any event I am not responsible far English papers, and I have not alleged and do not allege what the hon. Member refers to against any journalist.

If the publication of these statements undermines the military power and prestige of this country, is it not only fair to ask, in the interests of the military and of truth, that some impartial judicial inquiry should be set up thoroughly to investigate the truth of these allegations?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the suppression of fairs and markets in Ireland is due to military necessity or is a method of waging economic war against the Irish people?

It has been necessary to prohibit all public meetings, assemblies and processions in a number of districts in Ireland, and fairs and markets come within the scope of this general prohibition. The only ground on which this action has been taken has been the apprehension of disturbances and attacks on police if such meetings were allowed. These prohibitions are restricted to certain specific districts of certain counties and the prohibition against fairs and markets extends only to two districts.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of motor-cars used for the perpetration of murder and other outrages which have been seized and confiscated under the Restoration of Order Regulations; whether, in order to save the lives of the police and military and other servants of the Crown and to render the escape of criminals less easy, he will, even at the risk of inconvenience to business and private interests, at once establish more stringent control over the use of motorcars and, if necessary, prohibit their use completely; whether there are at present any Regulations preventing the acquisition of motor spirit by unauthorised persons; and, if not, whether he will at once issue such Regulations?

The figures asked for by the hon. Member in the first part of his question are not available, and to collect them from the police would require an expenditure of labour on their part which I do not think would be justified. As regards the second part of the question, the Government has, under Regulation 9 A.A. of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, ample power to control the use of motor-cars in Ireland. The question of prohibiting the use of motor-cars in certain disturbed areas is under consideration. There are no Regulations in force preventing the acquisition of motor spirit, but it has been decided to introduce Regulations directed to regulate its distribution.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that controlling the use of motor-ears for the prevention of murder is even more important than business or private interests?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless great discrimination is exercised, Very great hardship will be inflicted upon innocent persons; and, further, is he aware that cars and petrol are taken away without anybody's leave?

I am aware of those facts, and I am doing my best to discriminate between innocent people in Ireland and the few who are causing all the trouble.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether soldiers broke out of barracks on Saturday last and destroyed considerable property in Bandon; and how many members of the forces concerned have been placed under arrest?

I have been asked to reply, I have no official information at present, but expect to receive a report shortly.

May I ask if this is the area where three officers forming part of one detachment were foully murdered?

I know that is the case, and several private soldiers have also been murdered or very severely wounded.

And may I ask whether the murderers have been arrested or any sympathy expressed towards them by those who ask questions on this subject?

Will he then take more efficient measures than at present exist to arrest these murderers?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether military courts of inquiry have been held in accordance with paragraph 666 of the King's Regulations to inquire into every case of attack by any section of the military forces stationed in Ireland upon the property or lives of the inhabitants of that country?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. If the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland considers he is not sufficiently informed on any matters such as those raised by the hon. Member he will doubtless cause the assembly of a Court of Inquiry. There is no obligation on any officer to assemble a Court of Inquiry; it is a matter purely for his discretion.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the outrages and murders attributed to the loyal forces of the Crown are really committed by Sinn Feiners wearing stolen uniforms; what further steps the Government propose to take to assist His Majesty's forces who are endeavouring to restore law and order by civilised methods, and whose lives are in the gravest danger; and whether it is the intention of the Government to put the curfew into operation in all the disturbed areas?

It is known that a number of disaffected persons are now in possession of stolen police and military uniforms, and I am convinced that many acts of violence, unjustly attributed to the forces of the Crown, have been committed by such persons. For in-stance, Bellcek Police Barracks and a number of other barracks were recently captured by men wearing stolen uniforms. The Government are taking all possible steps to assist and protect the members of His Majesty's forces who are engaged in the difficult and dangerous task of restoring peace and maintaining order in Ireland, and it is within the discretion of the competent military authorities to put the curfew into operation in all areas where this measure is deemed to be necessary for the prevention of disturbance.

Does the, right hon. Gentleman suggest that the creameries have been burnt by Sinn Feiners masquerading in His Majesty's uniform?

My answer was restricted to the question asked.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many uniforms have been stolen?

I wish my hon. Friend would put that down. It is a very large number, I am sorry to say.

Have the Sinn Feiners stolen motor lorries?

Yes; some have been stolen, and some have been burnt.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to make any statement with reference to the proposed establishment of a special police force in Belfast; and if the House will be given an opportunity to discuss the matter?

The particulars of this force have already been published, and the House has had two opportunities during the last few days of discussing it.

What were the two opportunities?

The best answer I can give is that I have heard speeches on two days from the hon. Gentleman opposite on this subject.

Yes, but I did not get any answer to my speeches.

You did not give time for it.

Oh, no; it was the fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson).

It was not anybody's fault; it was due to the prolonged eloquence of the hon. Gentleman himself.

Is it not the fact, with regard to the special constables already appointed in North East Ulster, three were arrested for looting in Lisburn, and after they were arrested 300 of the remainder of the force resigned; whether one was arrested for looting in Belfast, and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to hand over the custody of law and order to men responsible for conduct of this character? May I also ask—

I think the hon. Member must put some of these questions down.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer those which I have asked?

I do not see why my hon. Friend should expect me to answer questions which have already been answered more than once by the Irish Secretary. As to the arrest of constables, I think that is the best proof that we disapprove of looting.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these special constables are drawn from the class who organised a mob to massacre the Minister for War when he was last in Belfast?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the selection is not based on that ground.

I believe it is by his colleagues in the Cabinet.

They are selected solely because of their reliability in dealing with a specially difficult situation.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Reparations Commission at Vienna has been instructed to prepare a statement showing what are the financial obligations of each State constituted from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire; if so, when this statement may be expected; and whether he will arrange for its publication?

Under Article 203 of the Treaty with Austria each of the States arising from the dismemberment of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy assumes responsibility for a portion of the secured debt, and of the unsecured bonded debt of the former Austrian Government, and such portion has to be fixed by the Reparation Commission on the basis laid down in the Treaty. Article 186 of the Treaty with Hungary contains similar provisions. The Treaty with Hungary has not yet been ratified, and, as far as I am aware, the Reparation Commission is not yet in a position to deal with the question of the apportionment of the debt referred to. The Reparation Commission is an Inter-Allied body over which I have no control, but I have no doubt that the decisions will be published in due course.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement in regard to the announcement by the British Government of their intention not to exercise their rights under Paragraph 18 of Annex II. to Part VIII. of the Treaty of Versailles to seize the property of German nationals in this country in the case of voluntary default by Germany in respect of her reparation obligations.

I am glad to have an opportunity of making a statement on this matter, which has given rise to a good deal of misconception. The paragraph in question reads as follows:

"The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take, in ease of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary in the circumstances."

His Majesty's Government have not renounced their right to take measures such as are contemplated in this paragraph. They have merely declared that among the measures which they might take in given circumstances there will not be included a seizure of the property of German nationals in this country, whether such property is in the United Kingdom or under United Kingdom control and whether it is in the form of bank balances or of goods in British bottoms or of goods sent to this country for sale.

This decision was not taken in consequence of any representations from Germany, nor was it dictated by regard for German interests. The matter has been under consideration for a long time and it was hoped that it might be decided in connection with the general discussion of reparation questions at the Spa Conference or at the Conference proposed to be held at Geneva. In view, however, of the postponement of the latter, His Majesty's Government felt it to be impossible to continue to maintain a threat which injuriously affected British interests without offering any real security for the execution of the Treaty, since, so long as private German property in this country, and, in particular, private bank balances belonging to Germans were exposed to seizure, it was fairly certain that, if the moment ever arrived when we desired to put Paragraph 18 into operation, there would be no appreciable property to seize. The paragraph thus operated merely to keep business away from London and to make Germans keep their balances in neutral currencies, a course which was inconvenient to all parties and involved clear loss to this country without any countervailing advantage.

I may add, by way of further commentary, that there has actually been a campaign in certain of the German newspapers in favour of the handing over of these particular German assets by the German Government to the Reparation Commission in order to punish the individual German owners for sending money abroad.

With regard to the criticism that this action was taken by His Majesty's Government on their own responsibility, without obtaining the concurrence of the Allied Governments, I would say that the words of the paragraph clearly leave it "to the respective Governments" to determine what action may be necessary under the paragraph. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government it would have been both unnecessary and undesirable to seek to share the responsibility of the decision they have taken with the other Allies, thus both limiting their own freedom of action under the Treaty and giving the appearance of desiring to dictate to other Governments as to their action under the paragraph. As a matter of courtesy the decision reached was immediately communicated to the other Powers through the Ambassadors' Council, and also to the Reparation Commission through the British Delegate.

May I ask if this applies to the nationals of other ex-enemy countries as well, and also whether there is any precedent in international law for seizing the private property of ex-enemy nationals as an act of reprisal for the acts of their government?

I must have notice of both of those questions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it comes about that this important announcement is made in an obscure departmental publication and not in this House?

I think the announcement was first made in the "Gazette."

Does the relinguishment of a right of retention or reprisal against German property in British hands or under their control apply only to Gorman property which has come here since the peace was signed, or to other German property already in our hands before that date?

It refers only to the property which has come here since.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. George Lansbury during a recent visit to Russia endeavoured to suborn British military prisoners of war from their allegiance to the King; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?

Reports have been received from certain of the prisoners of war recently in Russia to the effect that Mr. Lansbury had spoken to them in Moscow in praise of the Bolshevik régime and in favour of Socialism generally, but I have no evidence to the effect that he suborned, or endeavoured to suborn, their allegiance to His Majesty.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is at present in possession of the War Office signed statements by many of these prisoners to the effect that Mr. Lansbury said that if they would become Bolsheviks and support the Soviet Government he would undertake to get their release?

I read through all these statements, and that is not my impression of the statements made.

Having regard to the anxiety felt, if I send the right hon. Gentleman copies of these statements, will he look at them again?

Yes, certainly.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to statements being made that the present unemployment in the boot, engineering, and other industries in this country is due to over-production; whether, having regard to the fact that before the War Russia was an important customer for our manufactured goods and is now in urgent need of boots for practically the whole of her population, and motor-lorries and locomotives for the re-establishment of her transport system, while we are in equal need of the wheat, timber, and many other things we formerly imported from Russia, there are any other reasons, except mistrust of the present Russian Government, for the delay in the re-establishment of trading relations with that country?

I have seen statements attributing the present unemployment in certain industries to overproduction. As regards the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal, on Tuesday last, to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington East.