asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that in the Local War Pensions Committees' 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; and 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 re- ceived 419 applications for their secretary-ship; that the Committee left the appointment to the Minister, submitting two names for his consideration; that the two names submitted were those of the assistant-secretary of the Committee and a lieut.-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, and that the Ministry appointed the young man with no service, although the other candidate had in addition to his service, considerable organising experience in civil life; and if he will state for what reason preference was given to a young man with no service, having regard to the War Pensions (Proceedings of Committees) Regulations, 1919, Nos. 8 and 9?

In reply to these questions, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for the Central Division of Bristol on the 28th October.

Can we have quite clearly the construction the right hon. Gentleman puts on this paragraph? Is it he is to be "satisfied that no ex-service candidate is suitable," or that "no ex-service candidate is more suitable"?

In every case I can I appoint ex-service men. In this particular case the candidate was one of great experience and the work of a most intricate and difficult nature. In view of the representations made to me, not only by the Committee, but by ex-service men who had come in contact with the work of this man, I had to come to the conclusion I did.

asked the Minister of Pensions if it is the intention of the Government to place secretaries and officials of the local war pensions committees on the permanent Civil Service establishment?

I have received proposals in this sense, which are receiving consideration.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has recently been receiving complaints regarding the treatment by regional boards of cases of ex-soldiers suffering from neurasthenia; whether he is aware that men suffering from periodic outbreaks of acute neurasthenia and collapse have been marked fit for work by regional boards and, on attempting to work in machine shops, have proved a danger to themselves and their fellow workers; and whether he will issue instructions to all regional directors to take greater care in dealing with these cases and to follow up such men's medical history more carefully?

Complaints regarding the treatment of neurasthenics by Medical Boards are occasionally received and have in every instance proved on investigation to be without foundation. I have no information that would in any way support the suggestion in the second part of the question, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of any specific cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into them at once. Instructions have already been issued to Medical Boards pointing out the difficulties attending the examination of neurasthenics; and the members of the Special Boards which examine these cases are selected not only for their knowledge of this particular disease, but also for their tact and consideration in dealing with this type of pensioner.

asked the Minister of Pensions why men who, on enlistment, were passed fit for service into the naval, military, or air services, have been discharged and are still suffering some disability, should not continue to receive a pension instead of having to apply for Poor Law assistance?

The function of the Pensions Warrant is to compensate for disability due to war service, and if a claim to pension is refused on the ground that that condition is not fulfilled, the claimant has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal, whose verdict is, by statute, final.

Has the Minister of Pensions no prerogative in the matter?

I am afraid not. I have looked into the question very carefully, and I am told I have not.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of ex-service men who have been refused pension on the grounds that their disability is not attributable to service and yet who are incapacitated to such an extent that Poor Law relief has been necessary, it is proposed to make special provision for these cases?

Such provision already exists in a statutory right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, whose decisions are final, but which is a body quite independent of the Ministry of Pensions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes from six to twelve months before the appeal is heard, and that in the meantime disabled men are compelled to apply to the Poor Relief Committees?

I am assured by the Ministry of Pensions that the average period is one month.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases, not infrequently, where very often twelve months are occupied before the hearing takes place and that in these cases the ex-service men are compelled to go to the Poor Law?

I do not say that there may not be exceptional cases No doubt there is a good deal of hardship inflicted in these cases, but I am told that they are very rare and are attributable to the difficulties which have arisen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole question as there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men upon this question?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Boards of Guardians are passing resolutions of protest against ex-service men being treated in this way?

Whether we give an opportunity for discussion must depend upon whether there is a general desire for discussion. The Ministry of Pensions would like to have a discussion, and if we can find time we shall give it.

Could you not solve this problem by definitely laying down the principle that where a man was definitely accepted for service as a fit man, and discharged from the Service as a disabled man, that disability was attributable to service?

It is very easy to lay down general principles of that kind. I have no doubt that you would get rid of the difficulty, but there is another danger which we have to keep in mind, and that is the danger of overburdening the Treasury. The pension list of this country is heavier than in any other country in Europe, and the scale is a more generous one. We have to take into account all these circumstances, and it is for that reason that we have to scrutinise much more narrowly than we like to do all these circumstances.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the present practice of calling up disabled soldiers before incessant boards is causing great irritation and frequent injustice; and if the time has come to instruct boards to fix pensions for periods of not less than 12 months, and, in cases of permanent disablement, finally?

Medical Boards are already instructed to make assessments for as long periods as possible; and a recent analysis of the position showed that over 80 per cent, of the current assessments were not due for revision for at least 12 months. Permanent assessments are given so soon as the disability has clearly reached a final and stationary condition.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in quite a number of cases men receive the award and at the same time notice to attend the next board? Is there any reason why the pension should not be assessed for at least a year ahead so that these men may have some kind of security?

As I have pointed out, 80 per cent, of the cases now in existence have been settled for a period of twelve months, and that, I think, is a very large proportion.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give instruction that they shall be so assessed in every case? Is there any reason against that?

In the interests of the State I cannot give such an instruction. A man may be perfectly well at the end of six months, and why, if he is well, should I or any board give him a pension then? I must consider my duty to the State.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men in regard to the working of the Statutory Pension Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor, both as to decisions and delay, he will see that the terms of reference to the Committee appointed to inquire into the administration and machinery of the Ministry of Pensions are wide enough to include these tribunals?

I do not agree with the statement in the first part of the hon. Member's question. I am informed that the tribunals are now hearing about 400 cases a week, and the number of complaints received by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, Central Office, House of Lords, as to the decisions is very small, less than one per cent. The average time which elapses between the date when the appeal reaches the headquarters office of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and the date of hearing is about one month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, whether the inquiry will be large enough to include the Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor?

That is a tribunal which is outside the scope of the Ministry of Pensions. It is an independent Court set up so that it might be independent of the action of the Ministry of Pensions. If it were subject to the Ministry of Pensions, that would be a complete contravention of the spirit and letter of the Act of Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that an inquiry which excludes an important section of the administration of pensions must be incomplete and unsatisfactory, particularly as there are a large number of complaints in regard to this final appeal Tribunal?

The inquiry would be an inquiry into the action of a Tribunal set up by Parliament.

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many soldiers and policemen were killed and how many were wounded in Ireland during the month of October; and how many persons have been arrested and brought to trial in connection with such offences?

asked how many members of the police and military forces stationed in Ireland were murdered between the dates 1st October and 1st November inclusive; how many persons were arrested during that period and charged with these murders; how many were convicted; and how many executed?

The number of policemen murdered during the month of October was 22, including one district inspector, an ex-officer of the Army, and the number wounded 28. The number of soldiers killed was 14, including seven officers, and the number wounded 30, including three officers. Particulars of the number of arrests for this particular class of crime during the month are not yet available, but the total number of civilians brought to trial by court-martial during the month was 223, of which 167 were convicted of offences connected in varying degree with attacks on the forces of the Crown, and 17 persons who were convicted of direct complicity in such attacks have received sentences ranging from 10 years' penal servitude to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. In one case there was a conviction for murder, and sentence of death was imposed and executed.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the administration of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act will be a reserved or a transferred service under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?

The administration of the Act in question is not transferred to the Irish Governments under the Government of Ireland Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of his discovery that certain Irish assassins never sleep more than one night running in the same place, he has yet devised any more efficient system of bringing these murderers to justice than the practice adopted by certain of his subordinates in burning next day the houses of other people in the vicinity of the outrages?

I am satisfied that all possible means are being taken to apprehend and bring to justice the criminals who are committing the murders of policemen and other outrages in Ireland.

Is it the case that only one man has been arrested, tried and executed for murder?

For the murder of police or soldiers, yes, but there are several awaiting trial.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether three men—namely, John Gaynor, Springfield Road, Belfast; John M'Fadden, Springfield Road, Belfast; and Edward Trodden, Falls Road, Belfast—were murdered by uniformed men; whether any inquest was held in these cases; and whether any of the assassins were brought to justice, or what the Government propose to do in the matter?

A military court of inquiry was held in each of these cases. In the case of John Gaynor the court found that he was killed while resisting arrest by members of the police force, who fired justifiably in the execution of their duty. The finding in the cases of John M'Fadden and Edward Trodden was that death resulted from bullet wounds inflicted by persons unknown.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at one o'clock on the morning when these occurrences took place, a motor lorry full of uniformed men went from one of these houses to the other and murdered these men in the presence of their wives and children?

No, I am not aware of that, and it is a very serious allegation to make against the police.

I make the allegation, and I will do more: I will make it outside. I want to know now whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give a full and complete inquiry into the assassination of those men in the presence of their wives and families at one o'clock in the morning? I never heard a more infamous answer in my life.

If the hon. Member has any evidence to bring before a court in Ireland, showing that the police in this case, as alleged by him, were guilty of assassination, I shall be very pleased to set up a court so that he may give that evidence.

Do I understand now from the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to set up an independent court to inquire into this?

I have given my answer.

Let us be clear about it. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set up an impartial, independent tribunal for the purpose of investigating all the circumstances in which three innocent men were murdered in the dead of night in the presence of their families by uniformed men?

I have given my answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if any more policemen or soldiers are murdered in Belfast, there will be more than three Sinn Feiners shot?

You would not have the courage to shoot anybody!

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 8th September, 1919, some hundreds of soldiers left the barracks at Fermoy and proceeded to wreck the town, under the leadership of some of their officers in mufti, by way of reprisal for the shooting of a soldier in an attack on a military party some days before; whether over 50 shops were wrecked and looted and a great deal of the property thrown into the river; whether no attempt was made by those in authority to stop them, though several of their officers resided in the Royal Hotel near where the wrecking occurred; whether the men who attacked and shot the soldier did not come from Fermoy, but were all from outside districts 20 or 30 miles away, as they have all been arrested or are certainly known to the authorities; whether the shops wrecked belonged principally to people who belonged to no political party, for example, the local branch of the Munster and Leinster Bank and Messrs. Tyler's boot shop, Messrs. Tyler being an English firm, suffered damage sworn to be over £1,000; whether the persons injured claimed compensation, and decrees running into thousands of pounds were ordered to be paid by the ratepayers, including persons whose property was destroyed; whether these decrees were made by the Recorder of Cork and several of them were on appeal confirmed by a High Court Judge sitting as Judge of Assize; whether the Government were represented on the hearing of all these cases by a legal representative; whether, in view of the fact that absolutely innocent persons were injured and absolutely innocent persons have to pay for damage, the Government have done anything or intend to do anything to compensate these people; whether they have not been paid the amount of compensation granted by the Recorder; and why was no punishment meted out to the troops for this outrage although many were ready to come forward and identify the officers and men who were implicated?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to answer the detailed points raised in this question, but a report has been called for from the military authorities.

Will the report be ready for the discussion on the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill, which comes before the House to-morrow?

I cannot answer definitely, but I should think not.

Can the right hon Gentleman say why it is that, although these incidents took place a month ago, he has not yet received any report?

There are a great many details in the question on which it was thought necessary to get information from Ireland.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any report has been called for between the 8th September and to-day—until this question was on the Paper?

I cannot say without notice, but I shall be glad to answer if a question is put down.

I can answer it myself: there has not.

Will this organised destruction of property and looting, carried on by forces of the Crown, only be inquired into by the military authorities when questions are asked in the House of Commons?

Inquiries are held locally, but it does not follow that we have the information in London.

Would it not be better—[Interruption]—if the Secretary of State for War paid some attention to these regrettable outrages, in preference to reviewing books for the "Daily Mail"?

That does not arise on the question.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the shooting on Monday night of Mr. Leo White, an ex-lieutenant of the Dublin Fusiliers, by forces of the Crown during the course of a raid on his premises at Clara, King's County; and whether any of his assailants have been arrested?

My attention has been called to the allegation referred to by the hon. Member, and I have directed that the matter shall be carefully investigated. Pending the result of the inquiries, which are still proceeding, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement explaining the murder, by uniformed officers of the Crown, of an ex-officer in the British Army?

That is the very point that is under inquiry.

When will the inquiry be completed, and who is making the inquiry?

The inquiry is being made by officers of the Army.

As this concerns the honour of the British Army—this butchering of a ex-lieutenant of the Dublin Fusiliers who fought for four years in Germany for the rights of small nationalities—I want to know when an impartial inquiry will be made, and not an inquiry by military officers?

As the hon. Member says, it does involve the honour of the British Army, and I am here to-trust the honour of the British Army in the hands of British officers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether newspaper representatives will be allowed to be present at this inquiry, so that the evidence will be published?

The rule is that all these inquiries are open to everybody.

Does the right hon. Gentleman pledge his word to the House that all these inquiries, are public.

As I have said, that is the rule; but a Court of Inquiry, like every, other Court, has the right, for good reason, to exclude the public from the hearing.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what proportion of trials the representatives of the Press have been admitted?

If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will try to get an answer to it.

Has the Press been admitted to any of these inquiries?

Yes.

They have not.

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made inquiries into the allegation by Mr. Hugh Martin that his life was threatened by Black and Tans in Tralee; if so, what is the result of his inquiries?

I have made inquiries into this matter, and find that the County Inspector was not present at the time and has no knowledge of any threat towards Mr. Martin. He states that the police furnished two correspondents with information sought by them concerning the recent police murders in this district. Mr. Martin called at the police barracks, Tralee, yesterday and asked for protection. He was informed that, in the opinion of the police, he is not in danger, but, in view of his request, he would be given all possible protection.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman suggests that both Mr. Hugh Martin and the correspondent of the "Evening News," Mr. Macgregor, are deliberately misleading the people of this country and this House in their statements?

That is not my suggestion. I have made inquiries of the County Inspector, who I say was not present himself, and his wire in reply was that he had no knowledge of any threat of this kind.

May I ask whether the District Inspector has made no effort to find out which of the police threatened Mr. Martin or were present or whether he has done anything to sift this account of a disgraceful episode?

He has made every effort he could in the short interval between the time he was wired to by me to find an answer to the question to-day. He would have to parade the police and make individual inquiries. In the meantime let me remind the hon. Member that the police and soldiers are doing their best to search for criminals who during the past few days have murdered several policemen.

Does the Chief Secretary state that he has received a message from the inspector that he intends to parade the men and endeavour to secure their identification?

That would be in the ordinary course of his duties, and I have every confidence in the county inspectors

Then your statement was purely imaginary?

What criminals!

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a report that armed forces of the Crown have made another attack on the Athlone Printing Works resulting in enormous destruction and complete stoppage of the works and enforced idleness of the employés, and will he make inquiries into this matter and say whether special steps are being taken to enable these workpeople to resume their employment?

I have called for a report on this matter and have just been informed that the Athlone Printing Works were burned down at 3.30 a.m. yesterday. The police authorities state that all the local police, consisting of some 20 men, were in their barracks at the time, and that there were no other police in Athlone. Athlone is at present, under a curfew order which operates from 10.30 p.m. to 5 a.m., and I am informed that the curfew patrol did not see the outrage committed. Further inquiries are being made. I am glad to say no person was injured.

Seeing that an attempt was made on Sunday, 17th October, to destroy the same works when the military were said to be in control of the place, were any steps taken to prevent their destruction?

Every step is being taken to prevent destruction.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether these work people and their dependents are to be provided with maintenance pending the restoration of their means of livelihood in the same way as people are compensated whose property is destroyed?

I must have notice of that question, because a great number of legal points are involved, and I could not venture to answer it off-hand.

Who is suggested by the Government as having committed this crime?

No one has been suggested by the Government as being responsible for committing this crime.

Perhaps it never happened

Up to the present the Government has no knowledge of who committed the crime.

The right hon. Gentleman states that Athlone is under Curfew-law, and therefore there were no civilians on the streets of Athlone when this thing took place. The military were in complete charge, and why were these premises allowed to be burned down without action being taken?

Are we to understand that the evidence which come to hand from unofficial sources that armed forces of the Crown were not present is incorrect?

"Not present?"

I mean "were present"

I have given the best answer I can in response to the hon. Member. This answer comes in response to a telegram sent by me late last night after getting notice of the question. Inquiry is proceeding. I am only too happy to give, the House all the information in my possession.

Have any representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman from some of the officers in charge of these printing works?

I have not received any.

May I ask, Sir, if it is customary for supplementary questions to be read?

Sit down.

I may say they were not read.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the answer which he has given confirms him in the opinion that Ireland is the freest country in the world?

That is not what I said yesterday in response to a question in reference to certain journalists. My answer was, and on reflection I confirm it, that Ireland is the freest country in the world for journalists.

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Houlihan who was dragged from his bed, bayonetted, and then shot by uniformed men in Ballyduff, Co. Kerry; whether John Conway, father of six children, was shot through the brain in Tralee, Co. Kerry, when returning from devotions; and whether another man named Wall was shot dead during indiscriminate firing by the police, and an ex-soldier named Simon Connor, shot through the stomach and seriously wounded?

I have received a report to the effect that John Houlihan was shot by masked men at Ballyduff at about 6 a.m. on Monday the 1st, and that Thomas Wall was fatally wounded in Tralee from gunshot wounds. Courts of inquiry will be held in these cases. In the case of John Conway a court of inquiry has been held and found that he died from natural causes. I have not yet received a copy of the proceedings of this court, but I am informed by the police authorities that the deceased was found dead near his home on the 1st instant, and the body bore no traces of gunshot or other wounds. I have received no report as yet in the case of Simon O'Connor, but I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that he was seriously wounded.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military lorry which was ambushed and captured near Youghal, County Cork, on Tuesday last, with loss of life, and casualties and loss of arms provided armoured protection for its occupants and whether it was provided with a machine gun, and if not, will he immediately take steps to prevent unnecessary loss of life and casualties by providing military lorries on dangerous services in Ireland with adequate protection and equipment for defence.

No report on this incident has yet been received, but on the question generally I would refer the hon. Member to the answers to his previous questions on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers to my previous questions have been no answers at all?

That is nothing new.

There was no information contained in them. In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

There is another question before you.

I read the answers this morning, and it seems to me they gave very full information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been asked eight times?

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Ellen Quinn who was shot on Monday evening last, and whether it is the fact that this woman was sitting on the lawn in front of her house, County Galway, with a young baby in her arms when she was fatally wounded by a rifle shot fired from a passing lorry containing uniformed men, and whether he is aware that there is a general practice on the part of uniformed men to drive about country districts in motor cars wildly discharging rifles and revolvers, to the great danger of innocent people, and will he take immediate steps to have the parties guilty of this murder brought to justice?

I regret to have to say that Mrs. Quinn was fatally wounded on the 1st instant. A Court of Inquiry opened on the case to-day at 10 a.m. I am informed by the police authorities that two police lorries were passing at the time, and it may be that the wounding resulted from a shot fired in anticipation of an ambush in the neighbourhood.

From the baby in her arms.

Who are the baby killers now. [HON. MEMBERS: "You!"]

It is not the general practice for uniformed men to act as the hon. Member suggests in his question.

It is.

May I ask whether there is any record kept of the patrols run by these motor lorries; whether the ammunition has to be accounted for when they return; and whether there is any log kept by these motor lorries?

Of course there is a very careful record kept of the patrols, the number in the patrol, those in charge of the patrol, the time of departure, the route, the time of return, and the amount of ammunition expended; but in Ireland, especially in counties like Galway as it is to-day, the police and the military have every right to anticipate ambushes, and to prevent them if possible.

If that is the case, can my right hon. Friend say if there will be any difficulty in tracing which lorry this was; and, if so, can he assure the House that the most drastic steps will be taken to deal with the person who shot this woman, taking pot shots at innocent women?

I must protest against that allegation.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the continuance of the policy of frightfulness during the last few days by the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland, including murder, the burning of towns, the destruction of property, and the threats of assassination of English Pressmen for publishing the details of these crimes."

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many cottages have yet been built or land bought to build them in County Fermanagh for ex-service men.

In four of the five rural districts in County Fermanagh schemes which include provision for 88 cottages and plots have been made, but no steps can be taken to enter on the lands proposed to be acquired or to build cottages thereon until the statutory period for lodging objections to the schemes, namely, a minimum period of 21 days, has expired. If objections are lodged a formal inquiry must be held. No avoidable delay will be allowed to take place, but the carrying out of the statutory preliminaries takes considerable time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue Departments employ a much smaller percentage of disabled ex-service men than any other Government Department; and if, considering the great amount of unemployment which still exists amongst disabled ex-service men, he will at once give instructions for inquiries to be made as to the possibility of utilising the services of a larger proportion of men who have been injured owing to their duties in defence of this country in the Great War?

I am aware that in the Departments in question, owing to the character of the work, disabled ex-Service men form a smaller percentage of the total staff than in a number of other Government Departments, but I would point out that the? percentage, which must necessarily vary as between Departments, is in both cases substantially in excess of that which the Government has asked employers generally to adopt. The question of the extended employment of ex-Service men, whether disabled or otherwise, in these two Departments, is being further considered in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Lytton's Committee on the appointment of ex-Service men to osts in the Civil Service.

Considering the large number of these men who are unemployed, would it not be a good thing if these Departments would endeavour to follow the example of other Departments of State, which employ three times the number of men that the Treasury do; and will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made into the matter?

It is very much easier to get a large percentage in Departments which have a large temporary staff, than in those Departments the large proportion of whose staff is permanent. The figures as regards temporary staff are not at all so bad as my hon. and gallant Friend would imagine.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the Members can judge of the figures only by the Papers placed before them?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received many letters of protest from all over the country with regard to the action of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) in putting back the hours for Sunday closing to 9 o'clock; whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position, unrest, and irritation caused by these irksome restrictions throughout the country, which have not in any way diminished the consumption of liquor but have rather increased it, he will inform the House when he purposes to entirely remove these restrictions; and will he give comparative figures showing the amount of liquor, both beer and spirits, consumed in this country each year both before and since the restrictions of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) have been in force?

With regard to the first part of the question, which deals with Sunday closing, my right hon. Friend has received letters both from opponents and from advocates of the change and has asked for a Report upon the subject from a Committee of Members of this House. With regard to the second part of the question, I would advise the hon. Member to wait for the Bill which will shortly be introduced. With regard to the third part of the question, I do not think the figures asked for would be of any value in this connection. The amount of liquor consumed was far more strongly influenced by the Orders of the Food Controller imposing restrictions on output than by any Orders of the Central Control Board.

May I ask whether the Committee which has been set up proposes to take evidence, and whether it will be competent for representatives of churches, brotherhoods and others interested in maintaining a sober Sunday in this country to make representations in any way to the Committee as to their views?

I am not aware what procedure the Committee proposes to adopt, but if the hon. Member will put a question down I shall be very glad to answer it.

May I ask whether there is any objection to churches and bodies of that kind making representations to the Committee as to their point of view?

None whatever.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the intense disappointment experienced by members of working men's clubs that alcholic beverages cannot now be purchased on Sundays after 9 p.m.; whether he is aware that the alteration back from summer time to normal time does not materially affect the hour at which members leave their clubs; and whether, under the circumstances, he will not wait for any Report from the Committee which is to be set up to inquire into questions affecting the consumption of alcoholic liquor, but will allow the clubs to return to their hours of between 7 and 10 p.m. on Sundays at which such liquor can be supplied?

I have been asked to answer this question. As the hon. and gallant Member will recollect, the question of the hours for the sale of liquor on Sunday evenings is now under investigation by a Committee of Members of this House: and in any case it is not in the power of the Government to take the course suggested in the last paragraph of the question.

When is the Report likely to be handed in?

That depends upon the deliberations of the Committee.

Would it not be possible in the meantime to allow the same Regulation which was in operation during summer time now that we have got back to Greenwich mean time?

That might be possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of workmen's clubs have reverted to pre-War hours in Sheffield without interference by the police who in this matter are much wiser than the Government?

Is my right hon. Friend aware—

We had better see the question on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in pre-War days persons requiring a small amount of spirituous liquor were able to purchase the same and take it to their own homes for consumption, whether, according to the present Regulations, it is impossible for a small consumer to purchase anything less than a bottle of whiskey or brandy unless furnished with a medical certificate; and whether, considering that promises have been made to do away with the restrictions of the Defence of the Realm Acts, steps will at once be taken to rescind this Regulation in order that the liberties of the people in this matter may again be restored to them?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question. The Regulation referred to is part of a code with which the Government have repeatedly said it is undesirable to interfere fundamentally pending further provision by Parliament on the general subject.

Will the Committee which is now sitting have this question before them, and, if so, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that any report will be presented to the House?

I understand that the reference to the Committee is restricted to the question of Sunday closing.

Are we to take it that it is to be a permanent Regulation that a man shall not be allowed to go to a public-house to purchase what he wants and take it home for his own consumption?

There is no permanent Regulation. We hope that Parliament will soon have an opportunity of reviewing all these Regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing practice of people clubbing together, buying wholesale, and dividing it with one another, and is not that an abuse?

asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has yet appointed its representatives for the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations on 15th November, 1920; who are these representatives; whether they will have instructions as to the British Government's policy on the restoration of peace with Russia, disarmament, the admission of new members of the League, and other important matters; and whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing these instructions?

The names of the representatives of the British Government have already been announced in the House on the 22nd October, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harborough. The representatives will receive instructions on all subjects, which are included in the agenda paper for the Assembly. I do not think that it would be desirable that there should be a discussion in this House.

Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he also is going, or not?

I think that will depend a good deal on circumstances. I have not decided yet.

You hope to?

Possibly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the possi- bility of nominating one woman as a delegate?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations has decided to recognise General Wrangel; and whether he will instruct the British representative on the Council to propose that a public declaration be made by the Council that the activities of Generals Wrangel and Balahovitch are contrary to the League's policy of restoring peace in Eastern Europe?

The question of the recognition of General Wrangel has not been considered by the Council of the League of Nations. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the Aaland Islands;

(2) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the constitution of Danzig?

asked the Prime Minister (1) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the constitution of the permanent Mandates Commission;

(2) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the League's guarantee of the minority clauses of the Austrian and Bulgarian peace treaties?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether Signor Tittoni submitted to the Council of the League of Nations at the Brussels meeting a plan for the international control of monopolies of raw materials; and, if so, whether the scheme in question will be published without delay;

(2) whether the League budget for 1921 was discussed at the Brussels meeting of the Council of the League of Nations; if so, what decision was arrived at; whether the proportion to be contributed by this country was fixed; and, if so, what is that proportion?

asked the Prime Minister what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with regard to the future status of Armenia?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Reports of the permanent Advisory Commission on Military, Naval, and Air Questions were received by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels; and, if so, what were their terms?

asked the Prime Minister whether, at the meeting just held at Brussels, the Council of the League of Nations drew up a programme limiting the armaments of the various States which are seeking admission to the League; and, if so, whether that programme can be published forthwith?

asked the Prime Minister (1) what is the substance of Dr. Nansen's Report on the repatriation of prisoners of war presented by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the Council at the meeting just held at Brussels;

(2) what is the substance of the Report of the campaign against typhus which was presented by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations Council at the meeting just held at Brussels?

These questions relate to the proceedings at the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Brussels. I am sure it would be quite impossible, and if possible quite improper, to attempt to summarise the documents embodying the results arrived at. Those documents will be published in full by the "Official Journal" of the League of Nations when that comes out. No doubt before that time arrives we in this country shall have received from the secretariat authentic copies of all these documents, and as soon as they arrive I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, that they should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Whether, in addition to plac- ing the documents in the Library of the House of Commons and their publication in the "Official Journal" of the League, it will be necessary or desirable to publish them separately as a Parliamentary Paper it is hardly for me to determine, but from the point of view of the League of Nations there is no objection to any degree of publicity which can possibly be given to these documents, but they cannot be summarised.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when he hopes to be able to do this?

It is only fair to the secretariat of the League of Nations, a very hard-working and hard-worked body, to say that they are under special difficulties at present, because the whole headquarters staff is in process of transition from London to Geneva. That may cause some delay, but I do not think the delay will be very long. If the hon. Member would like to put down a question a little later I shall be able to give him the information he desires.

In about a week?

I should hope less than that, but I cannot promise.

On what occasion can these matters be discussed in the House of Commons, and is the proper method to lay the Papers in the Library of the House of Commons and not inside the jurisdiction of the House?

I was not aware that it was part of the programme of any party in this House to rediscuss in the House of Commons all the questions which were discussed in the Council of the League of Nations. If that is their object, I think the Session will be not inconsiderably prolonged. But the hon. Member will see, at any rate, that if he wants to raise a particular point, if, when he sees the documents, he says, "A different decision should be come to," or "The line taken by the British representatives is one which the House of Commons ought not to approve," or any other amiable conclusion of that kind—if he wishes to discuss those questions in the House of Commons, he should address himself to the Leader of the House.

Accepting the amiable suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask the Leader of the House if he considers it right that the League of Nations in this Assembly should come to decisions internationally affecting this country, and that there is no proper method of raising them on the Floor of this House without recourse to documents which do not belong to us, being laid on the Library of the House of Commons, and, therefore, the only resource left to hon. Members is to ask for special days from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House to raise those questions?

What other possible method has ever existed in this House for dealing with such questions? My right hon. Friend has explained the process with perfect clearness. If there is any subject on which there is a general desire for discussion, a request can be made, and time will be given.

Does that mean that we as a nation may be committed to an international decision, seeing that we are a component part of the League of Nations, without the authority of this House in ratification except by the extraordinary method of asking for a day?

The hon. Member's question implies that there can be no League of Nations if every subject, before it is discussed or decided, has to be debated in this House.

asked the Prime Minister who are to be the representatives of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India at the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva?

:

Canada— Right Hon. Sir J. E. Foster, G.C.M.G.; Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, K.C.; The Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C.;

Auntralia— The Hon. D. E. Millen;

Union of South Africa—Sir R. A. Blankenberg, K.B.E.; Right Hon. Lord Robert Cecil, K.C.;

New Zealand—The Hon. Sir J. Allen, K.C.B.;

India—Sir W. S. Meyer, G.C.I.E., K.C.S.I., B.A.; Sir Saiyid Ali Imam, K.C.S.I.; His Highness Maharaja Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji, K.C.S.I., The Jam of Nawanagar.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the form of draft mandate drawn up by the League of Nations Union, and recently published by them, for mandated territories in Africa; and whether the Government will adopt such a form and submit the same for approval to the principal Allied and associated Powers?

The terms of the Mandate are under negotiation with the Allied Powers. They are based on the recommendations of a Committee presided over by Lord Milner.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the aggravation of the present anomalies in the incidence of local rates caused by the general though widely-varying increases in local rates, he will appoint forthwith a Royal Commission to examine and make recommendations regarding the relation of Imperial to local taxation and expenditure, the basis of assessment, incidence, and method of collection of local taxation, the redress as far as possible of inequalities of burden between areas of low and high rateable value, and other matters cognate thereto.

The Government are fully alive to the importance of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. In view of the enquiries by the Royal Commission and Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, the latter of whom reported in 1914, I do not think there would be any advantage in the appointment of a further Royal Commission as suggested.

asked the Prime Minister what is the number of the staff of the Russian Soviet so-called trade delegation now in this country; and how is it now composed?

The delegation and staff of the Russian Soviet Trade Delegation number twenty in all.

asked the Prime Minister what is the present position with regard to the exchange of British pri- soners in the hands of the Russian Soviet Government?

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has so far been made with regard to the interchange of service men and civilians between this country and Russia; whether any Russians have left this country during the last ten days in accordance with the agreement in question; and whether, during this same period and in respect of the same agreement, any English people have crossed the Russian frontier?

Eight Russian subjects, whose return to Russia was especially desired by the Soviet Government, left the United Kingdom on 27th October. They have, however, been detained at Danzig until there is an end to the difficulties made by the Azerbaijan Government with regard to the release of our prisoners at Baku. In the hope that these difficulties would shortly be overcome, 215 Russians were embarked at Alexandria for Constantinople on 28th October. They will there be joined by a further party and arrive in the neigh bourhood of Odessa on 5th November. Their release is naturally dependent on the release of the Baku prisoners. Twenty-one British subjects, including the members of the Siberian Military Mission, reached Finland on 30th October and 41 more arrived on 31st October, of whom 13 were men, 14 women, and 14 children. The names of the repatriated persons will be communicated to the Press as soon as they are received. Since this reply was prepared, we have received to-day a telegram, dated 31st October, from the President of the Government of Azerbaijan, which runs as follows:—

"Herewith I beg to notify you that on 28th October the former British Consul in Baku and all the British prisoners were released from prison. They will be sent to Tiflis, where-to the people's commissary for Foreign Affairs of the Azerbaijan Republic has departed, there personally to negotiate the details of the transfer of the prisoners."

In view of the above message, there is every hope of being able to proceed with our original programme and complete the exchange without any further delay.

Are we to understand that the prisoners at Odessa will not be surrendered until after these men are sent on to Constantinople?

I have already said that.

Has the Republic of Azerbaijan been recognised by this Government, and, if so, where is Azerbaijan?

asked the Prime Minister what is the present position of negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Soviet Government's representatives now in London in regard to the consummation of an economic agreement?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Lord Privy Seal gave him on 26th October in answer to a similar question.

Has nothing happened since that time?

A great deal has happened. The answer just given by my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Harmsworth) shows what has happened in the release of these prisoners.

asked the Prime Minister if he will issue an instruction to all Government Departments to rely in future upon the Ministry of Transport to provide for their railway rolling stock requirements, to forthwith hand over to the Ministry of Transport all railway rolling stock in use or intended for use upon statutory railways, and to release from public service all officials hitherto employed upon this work in the several Departments?

I have been asked to answer this question. All main line wagons owned by Government Departments have been, or are being, transferred to the Ministry of Transport Pool and allocated to the railways, with the exception of wagons controlled by the Admiralty and the Office of Works. Those owned by the Admiralty are special wagons for naval traffic and are unsuitable for common use. Wagons hired by the Government are being returned as rapidly as possible to their owners. So far as the present circumstances permit, wagons suitable for general use will be handed over to the Ministry of Transport.

May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom I addressed the question, if he will see how futile it is for him to ask the traders of the country to unselfishly follow him in his desire for better working of the railways when his own Ministers, in this case in particular, as far as I could hear the answer, the Commissioner of Works, will not place his wagons in the hands of the Ministry of Transport to be moved with the other wagons of the country? I should like an answer from the Prime Minister.

That is a matter for argument in Debate rather than for Question Time.