asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Indian troops who enlisted for the duration of the War are still serving in Mesopotamia and Northern Persia without having had any leave in India; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this injustice by arranging a proper system of leave for these troops?

My right hon. Friend (Mr. Montagu) has asked me to answer this question. I understand that Indian troops in Mesopotamia have been granted leave as far as the exigencies of the service permit. A report from the General Officer Commanding has, however, been called for on the matter, and I will write to the Noble Member as soon as it is received.

Is it not a fact that a number of these men who enlisted only for the period of the Great War, and although two years have elapsed they are still being retained with the colours?

I cannot give details without notice, but if the Noble Lord will put a question down I will answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for India what provision has been made by the Government of India requiring a deposit from each candidate for election to the Imperial and Provincial Legislative Councils, to be returned if the candidate secures a prescribed number of votes, but otherwise to be for feited, the same as in the United Kingdom

The Government of India considered a proposal to include such a provision, but decided that conditions in India are not as yet ripe for the introduction of a penal rule of this kind, and that it was preferable to leave the question to be settled later as experience of the working of the new constitution may suggest. The Joint Select Committee endorsed this view.

If such provision be necessary in this country and in the Colonies, is it not equally necessary in India?

The question is how soon? I think it as well to see if there are any frivolous nominations. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend desires to bring the Indian Constitution to the same position as the British Constitution, but I think a little patience in this matter is advisable.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Report it was laid down that with coming changes there must be greater liberty of action to the public servant in India and that he ought not to leave the task of political education entirely to the politician, but that he must explain and persuade and argue and refute, he will state for what reason were orders lately issued in India forbidding any Government servant to interfere or use his influence in any way in an election to a legislative council except that he may record a vote if he is qualified to do so; and whether he has sanctioned these orders?

The orders issued in India forbidding Government servants to interfere in elections appear merely to have taken the form of drawing attention to a long-standing prohibition of the kind in the Rules of Conduct for Government Servants. The opinions in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, were directed to the advantages of a freer exposition of the policy of the Government by its servants, they did not suggest that Government servants should be allowed or encouraged to turn themselves into electioneers or canvassers.

Is it advisable then to leave the political education of India entirely to agitators?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is not in the interests of the Service itself to interfere in elections.

The Indian Civil Service is different from what it is here, and really almost all the political knowledge is, from an English point of view, contained in that Service. Would it not be wise to use the knowledge they have to help the new Constitution which my right hon. Friend has instituted?

I think there are many opportunities other than interfering directly with elections.

What was the necessity for issuing this strict Order?

I do not know the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason men convicted of offences in the rebellion of 1919, and subsequently released under the amnesty, have now been formally pardoned to enable them to stand for election to the new councils in India?

I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement issued by the Government of India regarding the exercise by the Viceroy of the clemency which is within his prerogative.

What advantage will it be to the new councils to have the presence of these convicted rebels on them?

I do not know whether they will get in. The point at issue and what the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for is for what reason the men convicted of offences and subsequently released under the amnesty have now been formally pardoned. I will supply him with the reasons as stated by the Government responsible for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Is it with his approval that these men have been specially pardoned in order to allow them to stand for the election of the new councils?

My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the Royal Prerogative of the Crown is vested in the Viceroy under the warrant of his appointment, and I do not propose to interfere with that.

This question has nothing to do with the Royal Warrant. The Viceroy went out of his way to pardon these convicted men in order to allow them to stand for the election of these councils.

It seems to me that if a particular prerogative is vested in particular people by custom, tradition, or doctrine, it is not for the Houses of Parliament or myself to interfere with the use of that prerogative. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better see the reasons which the Viceroy himself gives.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that no communications whatever and no suggestions have passed from the India Office at home to the Viceroy of India on this subject?

There were innumerable suggestions and communications connected with this question when the terms of the Royal Amnesty were decided upon. I will look up the records. If my right hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

Is that consistent with the statement that nobody interferes with the Viceroy's discretion? Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that communications and suggestions have passed from him to the Viceroy about matters which should be the Viceroy's prerogative?

I would prefer to have notice of that question, as I do not remember the precise terms of the communications.

Will the same policy be adopted towards Ireland?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now made inquiries into the question of the occupation of part of the Sawe Dagon Pagoda Hill, in Burma, by the military as a fort and arsenal; and whether he will take steps to have such occupation terminated?

The result of the inquiries I have made is that the Government of India have reported that no portion of the pagoda precincts used for religious purposes is occupied by the military, but the arsenal is situated within the outer boundary limits of the pagoda. Prior to the second Burmese War of 1852 the pagoda formed an integral part of the fortifications defending Rangoon, and, in fact, was the citadel, so that in occupying the precincts the precedent of the Burmese themselves has been followed. The pagoda hill is strategically important, but the local government of Burma and the local military authorities are considering the possibility of removing the arsenal elsewhere and of levelling the defences.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the discontent and hardships that have been caused throughout the Indian Army owing to the deductions now being made from officers' pay by the pay authorities in India requiring refund of allowances said to have been overpaid to officers while on service, and the inability, especially of married officers, to meet these unexpected calls; and will he have an inquiry made into the case of all officers from whom these deductions have been levied, with a view to the cancelling of the deductions and the wiping off of the alleged debt?

I have no reason to think that recoveries are being made on so large a scale, but I shall be happy to investigate any material which the right hon. Gentleman may care to send me.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very difficult for individual officers to put forward their own case? I am sure he would not wish to show any favouritism in any particular case which may be put forward here. Is he aware that in some cases hundreds of pounds are being claimed for poor married officers? Will he look at the matter generally, rather than into individual cases?

I am aware that in certain cases there is hardship to officers, and the India Office always does its best to help them. I will gladly investigate the question again and shall be pleased if hon. Members possessing information will assist me by forwarding facts.

asked the Secretary of State for India how the services of Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson, late Civil Commissioner in Mesopotamia, will be utilised now that Sir Percy Cox has replaced him?

Sir Arnold Wilson, who has left Mesopotamia, is about to take some of the leave that is due to him, and I cannot make any statement regarding his employment thereafter. Perhaps I may be allowed to express here the high appreciation of his services which has already been conveyed to Sir Arnold Wilson officially on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made with the formation of locally recruited levies in Mesopotamia; how many British and how many Arab officers have been appointed to this force; is the force organised on a military or police basis; what is the estimated annual cost of this force; and will this fall entirely on the Mesopotamian Budget?

The Arab levies as constituted at the end of 1919 were a civil force consisting of 13 units, with a total sanctioned strength of 6,475.

With effect from 1st January, 1920, three of the Euphrates units were reconstituted as a single unit on a military basis. It was subsequently decided to apply the same policy to the remaining units of the force. The number of British officers in the force is approximately 30; the sanctioned strength of Arab officers is 82.

The sum of Rs.47,59,420, chargeable to Mesopotamian revenues, was included in the Budget Estimate for 1920–21 on account of the levy force. Provision was made, however, for a contribution from Army Funds in respect of quasi-military duties performed by the levies on behalf of the Army.

When shall we have laid on the Table of the House the Budget Estimate to which he has referred, namely, for 1920–21, on account of the levy forces? We have asked for it before.

I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for reminding me of it. I will inquire about it this afternoon.

Is there any prospect of increasing the number of these Arab levies, and will any units be raised from the Assyrians and the Chaldeans?

Is it the policy of the Government to raise sufficient native levies to take over the policing and the defence of Mesopotamia?

I hope the new Arab Government will take immediate steps to increase the Arab levies with a view to releasing our own troops. Up to the present, however, I understand that the efforts of our officers have been concentrated on training efficiently a small nucleus of the Arab Army rather than in getting together a large number of recruits, which it would be impossible to train efficiently.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these levies are recruited from the Bedouins of the desert or the riparian fellaheen? Does he know what class they are or are they all classes?

I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice?

May I have an answer to my question as to whether Assyrians or Chaldeans are being recruited?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many duty boats are employed for communication between Milford and Pembroke Dock; if the number is as great as during the War; and if the number is really necessary and used to the fullest extent?

No boats are, or have ever been, told off specially for communication between Milford and Pembroke Dock. There are two drifters and two harbour launches engaged in attending on the trawlers which are waiting for disposal. This number cannot be reduced at present.

asked First Lord of the Admiralty how many war vessels of any sort have been sold and scrapped since the Armistice; and what is the sum realised from each process for the nation?

It is assumed that the hon. Member is referring to vessels of all descriptions, the property of the Admiralty, used by the Admiralty in the War for warlike purposes. The total of vessels "sold" is 1,231, and the sum realised is approximately £10,024,000. The number of vessels "scrapped" is 638, and the sum realised is approximately £3,464,000.

Have any of the vessels been sold to foreign countries, and, if so, were they sold complete with their guns?

I have in mind a few ships, but if the hon. Gentleman wants specific information, perhaps he will put down a question.

To which countries were they sold?

For the sake of accuracy, it would be better to put down a question.

Were not most of these vessels supposed to be obsolete?

Yes.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and men of the coastguards serving in Ireland, and who, through the conditions of their service, suffer partial or total loss by fire, looting, or otherwise, of their effects, personal or otherwise, are entitled to compensation; whether, if the wives and families of officers and men of the coastguards remain in Ireland, they have to do so at their own expense without any grant; whether he is aware that, owing to the destruction of their furniture, etc., these men have to take furnished houses; how many claims for compensation have been made in this connection; how many are still awaiting settlement; how many claims have been in existence without settlement for two, six, nine and twelve months respectively; what is the reason for delay in settlement; and will the Admiralty permit officers and men so affected to be transperred, with their wives and families, and such effects as they may possess, to England at public expense?

Officers and men of the coastguard serving in Ireland are entitled to compensation from public funds for damage to, or loss of, their uniform, clothing, and household furniture, when such loss is not recoverable from the party responsible for making good. The second part of the question is not understood, as officers and men of the coastguard are entitled to service accommodation or allowances in lieu. No claims in respect of the renting of furnished houses owing to the destruction of furniture belonging to officers and men have been received in the Admiralty, but ten claims have been received in respect of compensation for loss of, or damage to, furniture in official quarters. These ten claims are awaiting settlement. The claims, which were only received in the Admiralty on the 21st October, have been preferred on the local authorities in the first instance, and compensation has been awarded by the Court against the local authorities, but so far as is known this has not yet been paid. Instructions have already been given for the removal of wives and families of coastguard officers and men serving in Ireland and their effects to England at the public expense in all cases in which such removal is considered necessary for their safety. Officers and men who are required for duty in Ireland cannot, of course, be transferred to England.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no undue delay in the payment of claims of this nature? In the case of officers and men who have had their property burned or looted, will compensation be paid as promptly as possible?

I do not think any Department of the Government takes more pains with regard to its servants than the Admiralty.

Are not many of these people suffering hardship through lack of houses? Will he get some accommodation for them?

Where there is difficulty in regard to accommodation, we endeavour to provide it for men with wives and families.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the reason why 1,000 persons who were registered at the employment exchanges in Belfast on 15th October were not pair unemployment benefit; whether the 5,300 ex-service men and civilians in receipt of benefit were in every case discharged or suspended from employment by their employers; and, if not, how many of them were out of work through political and sectarian antipathy on the part of their fellow workpeople?

I am making inquiry, and will let my hon. Friend know the facts as soon as possible.

Is it not a fact, according to the official returns of the Board of Trade in the "Labour Gazette," the record of unemployment in Belfast is now, and has been for 20 years, the lowest in the Kingdom?

My figures do not, I think, bear out that.

asked the Prime Minister whether the coffin containing the remains of the late Lord Mayor of Cork was forcibly seized by agents of the Government at Holyhead on Thursday and conveyed by them to Cork; and, if so, by what authority, on whose instructions, and on what grounds was this action taken?

I addressed the following letter to the relatives of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, which was handed prior to their arrival at Holyhead:

"28th October, 1920.

I am advised that the landing and funeral of the late Lord Mayor in Dublin may lead to demonstrations of a political nature.

I regret, therefore, that the Irish Government cannot allow the disembarkation of the remains of the late Lord Mayor at any other port in Ireland except his native city, Cork.

In order to save you every inconvenience the Government has directed the London and North Western Railway Company to provide a suitable steamer to carry the remains direct to Cork from Holyhead.

This steamer will also convey you and twenty of your friends if you so desire."

The instructions to carry the terms of this letter into effect were issued by the Home Office and the Irish Office respectively, acting on military advice, and with the authority of His Majesty's Government. This action was taken in order to minimise the risk of inflaming public feeling in Dublin, which might have led to breaches of the peace and loss of innocent lives. The coffin and wreaths were moved with all reverence from the train to the boat by officials of the railway company. The relatives and friends to the number of 20 were offered passages to Cork on the same steamer, but they declined.

May I ask first if my right hon. Friend indicated to Mrs. McSwiney in London that the cortége would not be taken to Dublin, and offered her an alternative then, before the procession started at all, to go straight to Cork?

No. The letter was addressed to Mrs. McSwiney, two sisters, and, I think, two brothers and the solicitor, and it was anticipated that she would be on the train. I believe, unfortunately, she was taken ill, and was not able to accompany the cortége.

Is it a fact that the coffin of the Lord Mayor had an inscription on it to the effect, "Murdered by the British Government," and was the coffin carried through the streets of London by men of the Sinn Fein Army in uniform?

Is it not a fact that extraordinary respect was paid to the dead, and that the instructions of the Government were both sympathetic and large-minded?

Was there any reason why this alteration could not have been conveyed earlier than the last day, instead of waiting till the last moment and then upsetting the whole arrangement; and was not the fear justified by the result?

I do not follow the last part of the question. It was impossible to give notice earlier than I did, because the original plan was to allow the relatives to do what they wished with the remains of the late Lord Mayor, but urgent messages were received in the afternoon of the funeral in London that the lives of innocent people would be endangered if the body of the late Lord Mayor were conveyed to Dublin, and that it would be used, as it was intended to be used, by the Sinn Fein leaders, as a great political demonstration. I had no course open, therefore, when that advice came to me than to change the arrangements already made. I did it with every consideration for those to whom the late Lord Mayor was nearest. The steamer put at their disposal was one of the best we had. The body was escorted by part of the Auxiliary Division Force of Dublin, which is composed entirely of ex-officers of the British Army, and part of the Metropolitan Police, and I have not heard a complaint as to the reverence and respect paid to the body of a man with whose views I, at any rate, differed as far as possible.

Is it a fact that this political demonstration, which was to be a great national tribute to a man who at least displayed superb courage in a very materialistic age, took place just the same, and that the only thing that was absent from the demonstration previously organised was the corpse of the Lord Mayor?

That is quite a different thing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the sending of a large force of police in the train, and having a large force of "Black and Tans" to meet it at Holyhead was all done as a mark of respect to the late Lord Mayor?

I never made any such suggestion.

You did.

There were no "Black and Tans" at Holyhead. I specifically asked for members of the Auxiliary Division, composed entirely of selected and gallant officers of the British Army, and I did that because I was informed that 400 Sinn Feiners were going to accompany the boat from Holyhead to Dublin.

Was that true?

That was my information, and it was my business to preserve peace on the steamers, whether going to Dublin or Cork, and to see that a suitable force should arrive with the members of the party in Dublin also.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mrs. McSwiney was consulted, and that it was her wish that the body should go to Dublin, or is it the case that she was not consulted, and that if she had been consulted she would have been quite agreeable that the coffin should go straight to Cork?

I know nothing of that.

rose—

The hon. Member must put down any further question.

I would not have risen again, but I put a supplementary question upon a very important matter.

The more important it is, the more necessary it is to see it on the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there have been any investigations as to the responsibility for the reprisals that have taken place in Ireland by the armed forces of the Crown; whether any persons have been found guilty and, if so, the number; and what, if any, is the nature of any punishment inflicted?

Investigation is made into every case of alleged reprisals by the armed forces of the Crown. Disciplinary action has been taken in a number of cases of indiscipline, but I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the question asked on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow on the 21st ult.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the town of Bandon was again raided on the night of 24th October by a band of soldiers; whether they burned down the hosiery factory in Hill Street; whether the company owning the factory is under the chairmanship of the right hon. the Earl of Bandon; whether the workpeople deprived of work by this outrage are being assisted in any way; and whether any person or persons have been proceeded against or punished for those acts?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put to me on Thursday last by the hon. Member for Harrow. Pending the result of the inquiry which is being held, I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not answer the third part of my question as to whether the company owning this factory is under the chairmanship of the Earl of Bandon? Surely that is common property.

I believe the Earl of Bandon is a director of the company.

Is there any pretence on the part of the Government that the burning of this factory was a legitimate reprisal on Sinn Feiners?

The matter is under inquiry and I cannot make a statement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether if any further murders take place of the character of those of the last two or three days, the Government can see their way to arrest hostages amongst the Sinn Fein leaders, try them for high treason and shoot them if further murders take place?

Good old "General Buckshot!"

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ire- land whether there has been a renewal, in the last two days, of the policy of reprisals, at Littleton, Thurles, Bally-bunian, Tralee, Galway, and Ballyduff; and whether he is now prepared to give a definite assurance that the Government will take immediate and adequate steps to break down this policy of frightfulness which is aggravating the already deplorable conditions in Ireland?

Following murders and attempted murders of police and soldiers in the places mentioned, there have been disturbances consequent upon the search for the criminals. That search is proceeding.

I have called for reports in all these cases, but they have not yet arrived. In most of the cases mentioned the telegraph wires were cut by the criminals, and communication is therefore difficult. I am informed that the police are in a state of great indignation following the assassination of their comrades.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the continuance of the burning of creameries, the firing of towns, the threats of murder against representatives of the British Press, and the destruction of life by the forces of the Crown in Ireland, and, in view of the appalling conditions which these outrages have aggravated, the immediate necessity of such strong and vigorous action on the part of the Government as will put an end to this disastrous policy of reprisals."

Yesterday I said there was not sufficient evidence to support this Motion. I fail to see that there is any fresh evidence to-day. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that as soon as there is any definite evidence on any of these matters I shall be quite prepared to accept his Motion, so far as I am concerned. I think that he has not carried the matter one inch further than it went yesterday. Instructions have been given for a report to be sent in at once, and, for the reasons given, that report has not yet been received. If the House is prepared to discuss these matters it should at least have some further information.

May I point out that yesterday I called attention to the practical burning down of several houses, and the discharge of firearms by forces of the Crown in a Northern town, and that this has gone on in several other places in the country. Is not the only way in which we can put a stop to these things to draw the attention of the House of Commons to what is going on? We have for four days been waiting for information that has not arrived, although, when there is any point in his own favour, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can always get the information. It is four days since some of these incidents occurred, and because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to secure the information, which is in the possession of everybody in this country who reads the newspapers, we are to be denied the right to discuss these matters in this House.

The firing of the towns to which the hon. Member referred resolves itself into the burning of two houses.

That was an entirely different thing. The town I referred to was the town of Dungannon; the town the right hon. Gentleman referred to is in the South of Ireland. This is a Northern town, where political and religious passions may be let loose at any moment, and the forces of the Crown have gone out there, where no policeman was murdered, and have wrecked the houses and fired indiscriminately through the town, and we are told that we cannot discuss the matter here.

The hon. Member places me and the House in a great difficulty because he refers to these matters as "definite matters." For instance, "the burning of creameries." There has been no statement whatever with regard to the burning of any creamery since this matter was discussed a week ago. Then there is the "firing of towns." The hon. Gentleman cites one town. That town is not named in his particular motion for Adjournment. The matter must be definite. A general statement about the "firing of towns" and the "threat of murder against representatives of the British Press," as to none of which there is very definite evidence, lands the House in the difficulty that we are discussing matter with which the House is not and cannot be acquainted.

May I respectfully point out that we here who are raising these matters have no method of getting information unless the information is given to us by the persons concerned and published in the Press. We are now told, that the decision is that only the Chief Secretary is able to bring forth reports—from interested parties who are perhaps the malefactors in these transactions—and we are not to be allowed to discuss the matter in this House, and these horrible proceedings may go on without Parliament being given a right to discuss them.

If a matter is to be discussed it is surely right that the whole House, and not a very small section of it, should have the evidence and the statements on which the discussion is to be based. Until that is afforded I say that the House is not in a position to discuss the matter. As soon as it is made public I shall not for one moment stand in the way of the hon. Member raising the question.

How is it to be made public, except in one of two ways—either through the newspapers, through which publicity has already been given, or through this House in a Debate? Therefore the only way of raising the matter is from the published information in order that an answer might be given in the only right place, namely from the Treasury Bench.

I should have thought that the way it would be made public would be by reports from those who have inquired into it. The newspaper reports are, after all, mostly only second-hand evidence at the most.

Is it not a question of urgency that the life of a British subject, the correspondent of a London newspaper, whose evidence is corroborated by a similar correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" with regard to affairs in Ireland, should be in danger, and that we are not allowed, at the request of more than forty Members of this House, to discuss that subject as urgent in order to know from the Chief Secretary whether the facts are true or not? It surely does not follow that a question raised from this side of the House requires to have that kind of evidence? I would point out respectfully that to-day already my right hon. Friend, the Irish Secretary, in response to a question from this side, instituted an inquiry, the facts of which are denied in the question. We respectfully submit that Parliamentary institutions will be altogether useless unless we have these public opportunities of discussing these matters.

The threat of murder, I take it, is the one about which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked the question, namely, that the man was "threatened by a policeman in uniform." That is the threat of murder, is it?

No.

Is there any other threat?

Yes.

We have had no evidence of it whatever. This is the only one about which, as far as I know, there has been any question. On that question, the hon. and gallant Member bases the statement (whether it is true or not I cannot say) that Mr. Hugh Martin was threatened by police in uniform. Is that a sufficient reason for moving the Adjournment of the House upon the "burning of creameries, the firing of towns, and the destruction of life by the Forces of the Crown"? As soon as the hon. Member will produce a definite matter, I will certainly be prepared to admit it as urgent, and will accept a Motion for the Adjournment at once.

May I submit this, that the House will be put into a very great difficulty if a Minister of the Crown may always avoid a discussion by being unable or unwilling to produce information. If my right hon. Friend can say that he will be prepared to produce the information, either now or as soon as ever he can—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has said so!"]—personally I do not see why we should not discuss it. But I do submit it would be a very disastrous precedent if the functions of this House were put entirely at the mercy of a Minister of the Crown.

The consequences would be equally disastrous if a discussion were taken upon information of this sort, about which the Minister of the Crown who has to defend it has received no information. It is really a commonplace of parliamentary procedure that before a discussion can take place both sides must have information. It is no use having a discussion where certain statements are made as to which the Minister says, "I have not got the information, and, therefore, I cannot deal with it." There can be no discussion under those circumstances.

May I call attention to the fact that 95 towns in Ireland have been partly sacked or looted within the past six months by uniformed forces of the Crown?

It is less than 10 days ago that we had a discussion on that, and therefore what we are now asked to discuss is anything which has occurred between the period of that discussion and now.

We have never had an official report about the looting of any of these towns, and how long are we to be kept waiting for those reports, even although they are official reports of the officers who have, in many cases, conducted the looting and the sacking?

I need scarcely assure you, Sir, that I will obey most respectfully any suggestions that you may make as to the raising of this discussion; but may I say that my explanation of my proposal for the Adjournment to-day, as on previous days, is that these crimes are being committed daily? I have before me evidence—I agree that it is only the evidence of newspapers—that within the last two days, for instance, a woman with a baby at her breast was killed, and that a man was called out and killed, I think in the town of Tralee. I have several other instances of the same kind. I am sure you will quite sympathise with my desire to put an end to these outrages, which are a dishonour to this country. [Interruption.] Yes, to put an end to all of them. [Interruption.] And, I think, if you will allow me to follow that interruption, I will best put an end to assassination by private bodies of men if I attempt to prevent assassinations under the connivance and by the order of the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Therefore, I will take your suggestion to give me the full right to raise this question to-morrow, or until such time as the Chief Secretary puts the House in the position of raising the question by giving us definite information, either in corroboration or in contradiction of the statements of most responsible and respectable newspapers of the country.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to give us specific answers to these questions to-morrow? We do not want another saturnalia of assassination at the end of the week, and we are entitled before the House rises—tomorrow will be our last opportunity—to ask the right hon. Gentleman to have the information before the House. I must point out that it is quite customary to give notice of a question on the Tuesday calling for information with regard to certain incidents that occur in Ireland. We have called for complete answers on the most intricate and difficult questions on the Thursday, and yet this series of murders and lootings and firings of towns can go on for four or five days, and we have no information given to us?

The hon. Gentleman Las had the information that the wires were cut.

On a point of Order. I should venture to say to you, Sir, and to the House, that the position seems to me, and to the Government, perfectly clear. We have no desire whatever to avoid discussions, and whenever there is a specific case put forward the Chief Secretary will at once take steps to get the information, and the moment he has it, we are ready to have a discussion. But it seems to me that it would be a waste of the time of the House if there was a discussion before the Government receives the information. On the other hand, as was suggested by my hon. Friend (Lord It. Cecil) the Government might try to burke discussion altogether by not getting the information. That would be absolutely unpardonable, and if that were done, I am sure that you, Sir, would not tolerate it.

May I say on the point which has just been discussed, that assuming the Chief Secretary for Ireland is in possession of information with regard to the two journalists who have been named, and that if the question is raised to-morrow, it would then be sufficiently urgent and definite in your opinion to give the House an opportunity of discussing it, if supported by the necessary number of Members.

asked the number of Catholic and Protestant policemen in the Belfast area, also their respective numbers in the year 1916; and whether their present proportions are in accordance with the Act regulating the constitution of that force?

The Belfast force at present consists of 542 Roman Catholics and 562 Protestants. The corresponding figures on the 31st December, 1916, were 602 and 550. I am not aware of any statute regulating the religious constitution of the Belfast force or of any other police force in the United Kingdom.

asked the Lord Privy Seal under what authority persons are being arrested and detained in this country without the authorities producing a warrant or making any charge?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. I do not know what cases, if any, are referred to in the question, but Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations provides that any person authorised for the purpose by the competent naval or military authority, or any police constable, or officer of Customs or Excise, or aliens officer, may arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is of such a nature as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has acted, or is acting, or is about to act, in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Realm.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it was under this authority that Mrs. Annan Bryce was arrested and detained at Holyhead?

I cannot say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if I put down a question two days hence?

I will certainly inquire.

asked whether the officer who arrested Mr. J. Annan Bryce at Holyhead on the night of Friday, 29th October, refused to produce any warrant or evidence of his power to arrest her; and under what authority he made the arrest?

I would refer the hon. Member to Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations and No. 55 of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. The officer who arrested her was duly authorised by the competent military authority, and it was unnecessary therefore for him to produce a warrant for her arrest.

Does the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act apply to Holy-head, which happens to be in Wales?

In some cases, in my opinion, it does.

How is it that the Attorney-General, less than five minutes ago, said he did not know how Mrs. Bryce was arrested and my hon. Friend does?

No. I understood that my hon. Friend was not asked any question about Mrs Bryce.

What offence was committed by Mrs. Bryce?

asked whether an inquiry will be immediately instituted into the circumstances of the sacking of Templemore, county Tipperary, on the night of Friday, 29th October?

The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland has ordered a court of inquiry to be held into the incidents alleged to have taken place in Templemore on the night of the 29th October.

If this inquiry is being promoted, how can my right hon. Friend say anything about the facts until he hears the result?

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the despatch sent by Mr. Hugh Martin, the correspondent to a London daily newspaper now in Ireland, and published in that daily newspaper this morning, stating that he was threatened by policemen in uniform in presence of Mr. McGregor, the special correspondent of a London evening paper, in the streets of Tralee, on the night of Monday, the 1st inst., and whether he will give immediate orders that in no circumstances are any journalists in Ireland, British or foreign, to be attacked or punished by the police except under due process of law?

I have read the despatch in question, and I have no information of the incident described therein, but I at once telegraphed to the District Inspector of Police at Tralee to inquire into the matter and to give me all the information in his power. The Government will take every step in their power to prevent any attack on any journalist in Ireland. Every facility is given to journalists, without regard to nationality or papers, to visit all parts of Ireland.

May I ask whether, in view of the very specific charges made in the presence of reputable witnesses, the right hon. Gentleman will himself at once telegraph ordering that no steps be taken against journalists in Ireland, British or foreign?

There are no steps being taken against journalists in Ireland. Ireland is the freest country in the world—for journalists.

I had given notice of a question which related to the matter raised by the question just asked.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet received information as to the entertaining of General Baron Wrangel and his chief of staff on board His Majesty's Ship "Ramillies" on the 19th August last; whether members of the late British military mission to Baron Wrangel were present; and whether this is in accordance with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government. May I ask for a reply particularly to the second part of the question? The first portion was answered on Monday.

There is nothing to add to the reply given on Monday to the hon. Member for East Leyton.

The hon. Gentleman assured me on Monday that he would obtain information if possible whether members of the military commission recently with General Wrangel were present. Will he inform me if he has made inquiry, and with what result?

I thought that what the hon. and gallant Member wanted to know was whether General Wrangel had been on board this particular ship officially invited. I ascertained that and gave an answer. I was not aware he attached particular importance to the other point, and I do not think it is quite fair to press for further information.

Is there any need whatever for mystery in this matter? Is there any objection to officers in their private capacity inviting General Wrangel if he chooses to honour them with his company?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Inter-Allied Admirals Commission at Constantinople has decided to establish a local blockade in the Black Sea against Soviet Russia; if so, for what reason; and whether this policy is contrary to the Supreme Economic Council's decision regarding interference with the trade relations with Russia?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but as long as arms are going to assist the Turkish Nationalist forces, the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, must have discretion to deal with the situation.

Does that mean that all ships can be detained and intimidated and practically prevented from going to Odessa and ports of that sort?

It means that the Commander-in-Chief has the same right as in similar circumstances has always been given to Commanders-in-Chief to take all the steps he thinks necessary to prevent arms going to those who are fighting against our troops.

Is he giving directions that peaceable commerce with Odessa is not to be interfered with by our ships?

There is, I believe, no interference with peaceful commerce to Odessa, unless there is ground to suspect that in particular vessels arms are concealed and are going to those who are practically the enemies of the Allies.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the estimated total amount of saving to the Crown based on the present cost, or the cost as known over some period of this year or last year, in respect of allowances for dependants other than wives and children, including special parents' allowance; allotment concession and family concession; Navy supplementary separation allowance; the London allowance of 3s. 6d. a week hitherto paid in the case of wives resident in London; allowances for unmarried wives and illegitimate children; allowances for adopted children; allowances for children above the elementary school age, at present 14 years; allowances for apprentices and children above the normal elementary school age who are mentally or physically incapable of earning a living; free railway warrants to men for annual leave; wives and children's half-fare passes; and childless wives' allowance, paid by the Ministry of Pension; what is the estimated additional gain to the Treasury from the imposition on officers and men of the Royal Navy of the full scale of Income Tax instead of the special scale which has hitherto applied; and how much has the cost of living increased since the pay of the Navy was last revised?

No statistical record of these particulars has been kept in the Admiralty, but an estimate of the saving has been prepared as follows:—

Separation allowance and kindred allowances, £900,000 a year.

Free railway warrants and half-fare passes, £350,000 a year.

As regards childless wives' allowance, inquiry has been made of the Ministry of Pensions, but I am informed that no statistics exist in that Department on which an estimate of the saving to the Crown in respect of the naval service can be based. As regards Income Tax, so many factors have to be taken into account in the assessment of income for Income Tax purposes that only a rough approximation is possible. The total estimated gain to the Crown, taking into account all factors, is £200,000 a year. As regards the last part of the question, the index figure for the cost of living when the pay of the Navy was last revised was 120 per cent. It is now 164 per cent.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in estimating the index figure of the cost of living, due allowance is made for the item of rent, which has only increased by 40 per cent., and of travelling, which has only increased by some 75 per cent.; and, if so, in view of the considerable proportion borne by these items to the total, he can say what are the items which have increased so largely as to bring up the average to over 160 per cent.?

In preparing the index number relating to cost of living due allowance is made for the increases in rent and in fares, which are approximately as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Labour Gazette for October, in which details are given of the increases in the prices of various items included in the index numbers. It will be seen from these details that the items showing the largest percentage of increases are food and clothing. I am also sending him an extract from the Labour Gazette of March last, showing the methods by which the percentage increases for the various items are combined in the final index numbers.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a certain disabled soldier who was unable, owing to this injuries, to follow his old trade as a stonemason was trained as a joiner at the Lord Robert's Memorial workshop; that he obtained employment with a firm of builders, and that the joiners' union refuse to admit him as a member, and have sent a delegate to say that the man's employment must cease, or else all the union men will be called out; can the Labour Department give an estimate of what such a man's training has cost the State, including allowances for maintenance during training and a grant for tools; and, as the above soldier's pension has been stopped because there are no grounds for further award and as he has a wife and three children, will he do what he can to assist this man and any similar cases which may be brought to his notice?

As my hon. Friend is aware, I received from him last night—and I thank him for it—the information which was necessary to identify this case. I am having an immediate investigation made into the matter, and will communicate further with my hon. Friend as soon as I receive a report on the case.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the present attitude of the various trades unions in regard to the employment of ex-service men who are not members of the particular unions associated with the industry in which they seek employment?

I am afraid I have not the information at my disposal which would enable me to make a precise and detailed statement on the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and anything other than that, he will agree, I am sure, should be avoided.

May I ask if any agreement has yet been arrived at between the Government and the unions representative of those in the building trade?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself are meeting the representatives this afternoon. All I can hope is that they will agree to lend a hand.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to state the number of employers in Liverpool whose names were added to the Roll of Honour during the months of August and September?

The number of employers in the County Borough of Liverpool whose names were on the King's National Roll on 1st August, 1920, was 317. They employ 2,790 disabled men. Six additional employers were added to the Roll during August, 18 during September, and 53 during October up to the 27th of that month, making a total of 394. The total number of disabled men now employed by the firms on the King's Roll is 3,654. In addition, three branches of firms with headquarters outside Liverpool were added during September.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers the figures of the Roll of Honour to be satisfactory?

I do not want to seem ungracious, but there are 400 firms in Liverpool with 25 workpeople, and I think they ought all to be on the Roll.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of men who did not serve in the Navy, Army, or Air Force during the Great War employed in Government Departments on, respectively, the 1st January, 1920, and the 1st September, 1920, and how many ex-service men have been discharged from Government Departments since the 1st January last?

The total number of men, who did not serve in the Navy, Army or Air Force during the War, employed in Government Departments, as denned for the purpose of the periodical returns presented to Parliament in this connection, was, on the 1st January, 1920, 144,144, and on the 1st September, 1920, 124,703. Without circularising the Departments I cannot state the number of ex-service men who have been discharged since the 1st January, 1920, but the total number of ex-service men employed in Government Departments has risen by 15,791 from 110,894 on the 1st January to 126,685 on the 1st September.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any protests against the emergency measure providing for the payment of unemployment benefit by employers instead of through associations who have entered into an arrangement with the Department; whether he is aware that these associations were unaware of this emergency measure until it had come into operation; and whether, before adopting a similar measure in any future emergency, he will give full consideration to the views of associations who have arrangements for paying unemployment benefit to their members?

So far as I am aware, only one association has raised objection to these emergency measures, which are, I think, generally recognised to be inevitable in the circumstances in order to make possible the payment of benefit smoothly and without delay to the very large numbers involved. Such steps as were practicable were taken to give notice to the associations immediately before the emergency measures were put into operation.

asked the Minister of Labour how many men were on the books of the employment exchanges in England and Wales at the end of August last; how many men were placed in employment through the employment exchanges during the month of August; and can he state what percentage of the men registered secured employment through the employment exchanges during the months of June, July, and August last?

At the end of August, 189,851 men were on the Live Registers of Employment Exchanges in England and Wales. During August 25,361 men in this area were placed in employment by the Employment Exchanges. This figure includes a very small number of men who were placed more than once during the month. The proportion of men placed to those registered was 23·9 per cent, in June; 20·8 per cent, in July; and 19·9 per cent, in August. The figures are in all cases exclusive of casual occupations, which I do not include because it has been suggested that the statistics of the work of Employment Exchanges are unduly weighted by figures relating to such occupations.

In view of the unsatisfactory number of employés placed by the Employment Exchanges, does not the right hon. Gentleman think they might be abolished?

I am waiting, without prejudice, the Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes).

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Report?

I cannot say. But as far as I know it should not be long.

Is it not a fact that there has been a large increase in unemployment in the glass industry of this country, and can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason?

I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to look at the figures first. They are very detailed. If he then wishes to put down another question, I will do my best to answer it.

asked the Minister of Labour how many trades unions

asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any, and, if so, what branches of industry in which there has been a decrease in the number of workmen regularly employed since the beginning of the year?

I am having published in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Table obtained from the Z.8 inquiries, showing the numbers employed in certain groups of industries at January and July of this year. I am also sending to my hon. and gallant Friend Tables giving the percentage of unemployed in each month of the year among members of certain trade unions, and also in the trades insured against unemployment under the Acts of 1911 and 1916, which would take up too much space if printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Up to the end of October the number of applications received was 169. Of these, 148 were made by trade unions, and the remaining 21 by friendly societies or associations specially formed in connection with friendly societies. The applications, which come from bodies connected with nearly every industry, indicate a fairly general desire on the part of bodies eligible to do so to assist in the working of the Act.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision on the case of the woman bakers of Glasgow recently dismissed under threat of a strike has yet been come to by the Scottish Bakers' Industrial Council; whether it is the case that one woman in the oatcake-making industry had been for sixteen years working at her trade before this dismissal; and whether, in view of the hardships that such cases entail, he will recommend that these women be temporarily reinstated and their case investigated before, instead of after, they are thrown out of employment?

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the agreements between the master bakers and men's union to return to pre-War conditions, which are having the effect of displacing many women who were employed in the pre-War period with no benefit to the men, while creating great hardship upon many women; whether the masters' association and the men's union are in entire disagreement with the interpretation of the clauses in the agreement dealing with pre-War women workers; and, if so, he will cause inquiry to be made into this admitted hardship?

The scheme dealing with the employment of women in this trade, which has been prepard by the Scottish Bakers' Industrial Council, and to which I referred in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot) on the 28th October, is, I understand, now awaiting consideration by the Scottish Master Bakers' Association, and by the Executive Committee of the Scottish Bakers' Operatives' Union. The question of the temporary reinstatement of the dismissed women is a matter for agreement between these bodies, who are fully aware of the circumstances of the case, and I fear that I could not usefully intervene in the matter at the present time. I am sending my hon. Friend the Member for the, Henley Division (Mr. Seddon) a copy of my reply of 28th October on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that in this industrial dispute, in which women only seem to be concerned, he will take all the steps that he would take if it had been a case in which men only were concerned?

Certainly. There is no reason, if I may say so, for making that suggestion to me.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received an offer from the Cambrian Railway Company to convey freight free over their system to Aberdovey roofing slates from the North Wales quarry district which have been requisitioned for Government housing schemes, and to provide for wharfage; and whether notwithstanding this offer, slates have been sent to Queensferry, entailing the payment of full railway freight and storage charges?

I have not received an offer from the railway company to convey slates on behalf of the Government freight free. Such an offer would mean nothing to the guaranteed railway company, but would be generosity at the cost of the general taxpayer. An offer has been received from them to store slates at their depot at Aberdovey free of charge for storage, and I am in negotiation with the company with regard to the details of this offer. The depot is suitably placed for the reception of slates from quarries in a certain district, but for other quarries it will still be necessary to make use of the depot at Queensferry, which is on the site of a Government factory.

asked the Minister of Health if he will give the following particulars in connection with the purchase of land required for the London County Council housing scheme at Bellingham: Area of site, price asked by vendor, price offered by London County Council, value according to Land Valuation Department, and sum awarded by arbitrator?

The total acreage of the housing estate of the London county council at Bellingham is 294¼ acres. 114¾ acres were bought by agreement. The owner of the remaining 134½ acres agreed to a friendly arbitration as to the price. The expert witness for the vendor placed before the arbitrator a valuation of £79,000. The valuation of the Inland Revenue Department was £30,619. The Ministry had advised an unconditional offer of £32,000. The arbitrator awarded £31,529.

How many similar cases would be required to pay the whole of the cost of the Land Valuation Department for one year?

In this case alone it will take several years.

asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of contracts for the erection of houses by building guilds which have been approved by his Department, with the number of houses embraced by these contracts; and if he can give an assurance that it is the settled policy of his Department to approve contracts with building guilds, provided that the general terms of the contracts are satisfactory?

The Ministry of Health have approved eight contracts, comprising 1,003 houses, between local authorities and building guilds. These contracts form part of certain experimental proposals, in which the guild take the contract for the whole of the work, the number of which will be limited until the working of the guild system has been shown to be satisfactory. A form of contract is now being prepared for use in cases where the local authority desire to build administratively, providing for materials and transport, and to employ a guild as contractors for labour. This arrangement, if adopted, will provide for the guild opportunities additional to the limited number of contracts referred to. It is the policy of the Ministry to approve suitable contracts with building guilds or other persons able and willing to erect houses on reasonable terms.

asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have taken control of several cement works and are selling cement abroad to the detriment of builders engaged upon housing schemes who now find it impossible to obtain adequate supplies?

I am not aware of any case in which the Government have taken control of cement works and are selling cement abroad.