asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has issued a circular asking that each employé of the Ministry shall state whether he belongs to any ex-service men's organisation; whether he is willing to relinquish this connection; if not, what reasons actuate him; and whether, if the facts as stated are correct, he will inform the House of his motives in making this inquiry?

I am not aware of the issue of any such circular. Membership of ex-service organisations is enjoyed by a large proportion of the male staff of the Ministry and is not in any way discouraged.

asked the number of cases in which temporary pensions have been granted since the formation of the Department and not renewed on expiry?

The number of temporary disablement pensions granted by the Ministry which have terminated otherwise than by the death of the pensioner is approximately 100,000.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the appeal of Sergeant J. P. Wicks, No. 288,874, Labour Corps, Colne Villa, Colchester, in respect of loss of eyesight, was heard by the appeal tribunal, Sloane Square, on the 11th November, 1920; that the tribunal agreed with Mr. Wicks to abide by the decision of an independent specialist; that there is every reason to believe that the decision of this specialist was favourable to Mr. Wicks; that nevertheless the tribunal rejected his appeal; that the soldier lost his eyesight while in the Army, has a wife and six children, and is practically destitute; and whether he can recommend any source whence assistance may be rendered to the soldier and say what remedy the latter has against the proceedings of the appeal tribunal?

The Pension Appeal Tribunal is independent of the Ministry of Pensions, and I have no control over its proceedings. I am informed by the tribunal that, in the case mentioned in this question, a specialist's report was obtained and considered in conjunction with other relevant evidence, this procedure being in accordance with their statutory regulations. In reply to the last part of the question, I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the decisions of the tribunal are declared by the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, to be final.

Are we to understand that in a case where the appeal tribunal deliberately breaks a bargain come to with the appellant, the appellant has no redress whatever against such procedure? Is there not a court of reference to the Lord Chancellor?

No. I have no control over the appeal tribunal, I am sorry to say.

Upon what grounds has the case been referred to the appeal tribunal? Is it because the Ministry have no power in the case?

Not at all. I think that the tribunal does very good work in this way, that if there is any element of doubt the case is sent to it that the doubt may be removed.

Is there a decrease or an increase in the number of cases referred to this tribunal?

I think that there has been no increase.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider his attitude towards ex-service men who have been certified as suffering from tuberculosis shortly after their discharge from the Army on account of being unfit for further military service, and now considered ineligible for pension; whether he is aware that, while the health of some men is improved by service, the health of others is deteriorated, thus paving the way to tuberculosis; and whether cases of this character will be dealt with more sympathetically, notwithstanding the decision of any medical board examining these men months after their discharge?

I am not aware that claims to pension on the ground of tuberculosis are unsympathetically considered. If the tuberculosis develops within a short period of discharge the disablement, is generally admitted to be either attributable to or aggravated by service, and even where the disease does not develop until after a considerable period the circumstances of the man's military service, and of its effect on his health, are carefully examined. If the Ministry are unable to accept his claim the man is advised of his right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that great difficulty is caused to men drawing allowances when under treatment at home but unable to work in finding persons in responsible positions to witness the form M.P.M.S.D. 29, as the witnesses almost invariably understand that in signing the document they are vouching for the accuracy of the man's statement; and whether, in view of the undertaking on the form that the pensioner will at once notify the local committee if he undertakes paid work, the Ministry of Pensions will limit the obligation to complete the form every week to those men who are able to work but who are required on medical grounds to abstain from using their earning capacity, and that in the case of those where the medical certificate shows total incapacity for work the form should only be completed each time the man comes up for review by the medical referee?

The form M.P.M.S.D. 29, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, is now under revision, and consideration is being given to the difficulty stated in this question

asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the statement that there are over 800 women employed in the Man chester regional director's office, whereby ex-service men are being prevented from obtaining employment in that city; and what action he is taking in the matter?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of correcting, this statement, which completely misrepresents the actual facts. There are, in the regional office of the Ministry at Manchester, 112 women, of whom only 14 are engaged upon clerical work. At the same time, there are 925 men employed, of whom 897 are ex-service men. Of this latter number 407 were disabled in the War.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that as many ex-service men as possible are employed?

Yes. No Ministry employs more ex-service men.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Lieutenant W. C. Haughton, late 7th Warwickshire Regiment, who lost both legs above the knee whilst on active ser vice at Cairo during the War, is not in receipt of a pension; whether he is aware that a court of inquiry found that Mr. Haughton was not on duty at the time of the accident owing to his not having arrived back at camp at a certain time; whether he is aware that Mr. Haughton has a wife and two children to support; and whether he can take immediate steps whereby a man who lost both legs in the service of his country should not be de prived of a pension or grant of any sort?

The papers in this matter have only been received from the War Office during the last week. The circumstances of the accident suggest, I regret to say, that the officer may be ineligible for pension under the Royal Warrant, but further inquiry as to the facts is necessary and will at once be made. In the meantime a grant has been made to the officer by the Special Grants Committee.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Ministry has any authority to require the officers who are patients at Grangethorpe Hospital, Manchester, to fill in forms with regard to their receipt or non-receipt of salaries, wages, or workmen's compensation, as a condition precedent to the payment to them of additional retired pay; and, if not, whether he will take steps to withdraw a memorandum, of the 8th February issued to that effect from the Ministry's office in Chadwick Street, S.W., and to direct payment of all arrears due to the officers in question?

Article 6 of the Royal Warrant of 2nd July, 1920, provides that the retired pay of an officer under treatment may be raised to the maximum if the officer is deemed unable in consequence of the treatment to provide for his own support and that of his family. If the officer continues, under his contract of service, to draw full salary or wages from his employer his ability to support himself and his family is not affected by treatment and the forms are issued to obtain the necessary information on this point.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that there is delay in appellants having their cases heard before an appeal tribunal, particularly in the London region; whether recommendations have been made for considerable increase in the number of these courts; if he can give any reason why there has been such delay in recommendations being carried out; and what steps it is intended to take to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

I am informed that two extra courts are now sitting and that two more will begin sitting next Monday. The question of still further increasing the number of courts is now under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the four courts have been assembled they will not be sufficient to do all the necessary work, and will he take steps to increase them beyond four?

Yes. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that I have no control over the appeal tribunal, but I will make it my duty to approach the Lord Chancellor to see whether he cannot find more courts, because I am very much afraid that there may be an increase in the next month in the number of cases awaiting trial.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see the Lord Chancellor on the matter as soon as possible?

I will do my level best.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not generally known by ex-service men and their dependents that he has no control over this tribunal, and that the Ministry of Pensions is receiving a great deal of blame which it does not deserve?

I am aware of that, but from the questions that are asked in this House and the answers, given ex-service men should realise the position.

Although the appeal tribunal does not come under the Ministry of Pensions at all, will not the decision as to the number of such tribunals be guided largely by the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman?

That is so, and I hope it may be possible, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, to increase the number of these courts.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. E. A. Bragan, widow of the late Private J. E. Bragan. No. 83159 Northumberland Fusiliers, about which the hon. Member for Consett wrote to him on the 10th December and again on the 4th February; whether this woman wrote to the Ministry of Pensions in London on 17th November, 1919, claiming a supplementary allowance as a childless wife not earning wages; whether that letter remained unanswered; whether in Janu- ary she made a similar application to the sub-agent of the local war pensions committed; whether, through the default of that sub-agent, the matter was not brought before the war pensions committee until 10th May, 1920; whether Mrs. Bragan was then informed that her application was too late; and whether she is to be penalised for the neglect of agents of his department?

I am considering the further appeal which has been made by the hon. Member in this case, and will communicate with him as early as possible.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private Andrew Ross, No. 25573, 10th Works Battalion, Royal Scottish Fusiliers, enlisted cm 17th January, 1916, and was discharged on 25th August, 1916, with paper marked cause of discharge, sciatica; that this man was again called up on 14th November, 1917, and placed in the E.C.L.C., with No. 461725, and discharged on 26th November, 1918, as no longer physically fit for War service; that this man was sent on labour duty abroad in France; that this man was on treatment allowance until 1920, and went before a board and was turned down; whether he has been paid a weekly pension of 5s. 6d conditional for 13 weeks; whether he is aware that he was ordered to hospital by the medical officer at Bellahouston war hospital, and has been there since 30th July, 1920; whether this man has received no treatment allowance or pension; whether he has undergone an operation for varicocele in Bellahouston hospital, and was recommended by the house doctor for suspensory bandage; whether this recommendation has been refused; whether he is aware that this man is still in a hospital and is scarcely able to walk; and, as his employment prior to enlistment was that of riveter, can he see his way to give treatment allowance meantime, and have his case sympathetically considered for a pension should his condition on leaving hospital be such as to prevent him returning to his pre-War trade?

This man was originally granted a final weekly allowance under Article 7 of the Royal Warrant in respect of his invaliding disability, myalgia, which was considered to be not attributable to service. He subsequently made a claim for pension for varicocele and other disabilities. The claim was rejected and he appealed to the Pension Appeal Tribunal who upheld the decision of the Ministry. The verdict of the Tribunal is final.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the subsidiary questions at the end of the main question?

I am sorry. I have not dealt with those subsidiary points because I dealt with the main point, which was that this case was finally decided by an independent tribunal; but I will look more closely into the points mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that these are ailments which have developed considerably since the appeal case was decided?

Most certainly I will look into this or any other case where there is any feeling of injustice.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Cornelius Murphy, a Kerry farmer, was accused of being in possession of arms, and sentenced to death by a court-martial and shot; whether he can state how many are in custody, under the same charge; and whether the same method of trial will be followed in their case?

The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the affirmative. I regret that I am not able to give the figures asked for in the second part.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the execution of anyone for merely being in possession of arms is outside the law of this country, and that such a sentence ought not to be put into operation in Ireland or anywhere?

I will deal with that in a later question.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a leading article in the "Weekly Summary," issued to the Royal Irish Constabulary and its auxiliaries, contained the statement that Sinn Fein always was, and still is, a movement based on a murder policy, the aim of which is the apotheosis of assassins; Shinnerea is a blight and a pestilence, and Shinnerea is crime incarnate, and for its propagators the rope and the bullet are all too good; and if he is considering taking action against the editor and publisher and owner of the paper in view of this direct incitement to murder?

I have read the article in question, and do not agree that it is an incitement to murder.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that any suggestion that the propagation of the particular doctrine that the rope and the bullet are too good is a suggestion that those individuals who propagate any such doctrine should either be hanged or shot? Is not that a direct incitement to murder, for which, in loss words, an hon. Member of this House has been sent to prison for three months?

My interpretation is not that of the hon. Member.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is inviting any explanation of the declaration made in the "Weekly Summary" that all those who are opposed to the Government were supporters of murder?

I dealt with that in a previous statement. It is not my interpretation of the article.

Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the sentiments expressed in the "Weekly Summary," that the rope and the bullet are too good for what, with his usual delicacy, he calls Shinnerea?

Will the right hon. Gentleman not stop this publication, which is a disgrace? He can get the "Morning Post" to publish all he has to say

Does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the statement that the rope and the bullet are too good? Is that the manner in which he is going to deal with all his political opponents?

No, but some of my political opponents would deal with me in that way. I can assure the hon. Member that that is not my view of the point.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the current number of the "Weekly Summary," issued by him, states that the opponents of the Government stand for the right to murder; and whether this represents the views of His Majesty's Government?

I do not accept the interpretation of the article in question suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, and his interpretation certainly does not represent the views of the Government.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has anything further to report concerning the breaking into the Tralee Co-operative Stores by the armed forces of the Crown on 7th December last; whether adequate protection is being given to the staff at the stores; and whether he has informed the Tralee Co-operative Society that it may replace the name of the society in Gaelic upon the facia-board outside the premises as well as in English?

If the hon. Member will refer to a reply which I gave him on the 23rd December last, with reference to this matter, he will find that his allegations of violence and intimidation against the Crown forces are not justified. The second and third parts of his question, therefore, do not arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the damage was done, and that the damage is there now to be seen by officers of the Crown if they care to view it with an impartial mind? Can the right hon. Gentleman say now that the armed forces of the Crown did not do it?

I have given the answer supplied to me. If the hon. Member could give me any fact that has not been put before me, I shall see that it is inquired into.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the damaged property, as far as the main doors are concerned, is to be seen now by the right hon. Gentleman, if he is prepared to go to Ireland to see it?

It does not follow because the damage is there that it was done by the forces of the Crown.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay a personal visit to those districts where the damaged property is?

I am actually planning a visit and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accompany me.

I will go, but not with you.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Commission visited Tralee after this date, and that I personally saw the name mentioned in the question blotted out, and that it had been blotted out at the instigation of the forces of the Crown and not by the wish of the Co-operative Society of Tralee?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this name had to be completely eliminated, or, if that were not done, the manager was told to prepare for death within twenty-four hours?

I am not aware of that. If it were true that some persons illegally erased the name in Gaelic or Irish it could not possibly have been done with the consent or approval of this Government which, with the consent of this House, gives thousands of pounds annually for the teaching of Irish.

Seeing that this damage has been done and that the evidence is contradictory, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to grant an impartial inquiry?

asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry or inquest has been held either by the military or police on the bodies of the two men killed at Ballymacelligot on 12th November, 1920; and, if so, what is the nature of the Report received, and if no inquiry has been held what are the reasons for such inaction?

A military court of inquiry in lieu of inquest has been held to investigate the circumstances attending the death of Patrick Herlihy and John MacMahon at Ballymacelligot on 12th November last. The Court found that on that date these men were in the vicinity of Ballymacelligot with about 30 other civilians, that they were ordered to halt by the police, that they did not do so, and were accordingly fired at by the Royal Irish Constabulary, thereby suffering gunshot wounds; that the deceased were to blame for not halting when challenged to do so by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that no blame can be attached whatever in these matters to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what date that inquiry took place?

I have not the date here, but I will communicate it to the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the facts about the conditions under which these two men were killed have been challenged; that whereas the right hon. Gentleman said there was a trench ambuscade, there never was a trench there, and there is no sign of one; and that whereas he also said that 70 men were in the ambush, the creamery is not big enough to hold half that number of men? Is he also aware that the original of the photo of the creamery published by his Department is at least 100 miles away from Ballymacelligot?

A detailed question like that surely ought to have some notice given of it.

I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about a matter which is involved in this question with which he has dealt, and I think I have a right to ask him if he is prepared to stand by the whole of the. Report which is mentioned here.

If the hon. Member will put these details on the Paper he will get an answer.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, in spite of the fact that the prisoners in Ballykinlar camp had received express permission from the English officer in charge of the camp to hold conversation with prisoners in an adjoining camp provided they did not approach to within a certain distance of the wire which separated them, and that this condition was observed, the action of a sentry who fired upon a group of prisoners in order to make them stop talking, thereby killing Patrick Sloan and Joseph Tormey, was described as justifiable homicide by the military court of inquiry?

The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in thinking that permission had been given for internees in one camp to communicate with those in another. On the contrary, such intercommunication had been expressly forbidden in published Orders. I strongly repudiate the suggestion in the last part of the hon. Members question that a military court of inquiry do not conduct their proceedings impartially and fairly.

asked the Chief Secretary how many members of the Crown Forces in Ireland have been arrested for robbery or other charges since 1st January, 1921?

The number of members of the Crown Forces in Ireland who have been arrested for robbery or other offences since 1st January, 1921, is 62.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in this House yesterday he admitted that a week elapsed from the occasion when a certain number of cadets of the Auxiliary Force had committed plunder, and that he was not made acquainted with that fact until he saw it in the newspaper, and if that is so, and he has no such control over his administration, how can we be expected to take the figures he now gives us as accurate?

These figures were supplied to me, in so far as the Army is concerned, by general headquarters in Dublin, and in so far as the police are concerned, by the police headquarters. I will deal with the other point raised In the question in answer to a Private Notice question.

Does this include the persons dealt with by General Crozier—persons dismissed from the Force?

No, I do not think it does.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said that seven cadets had been suspended after the burning of Cork; that 30 men are under arrest in connection with General Crozier's investigation; and does he mean to say that there are only another 23 men all told who have been dealt with? How does he square those statements?

My reply was perfectly clear. I do not think these figures include the 26 cadets about which there is so much controversy, and which I will deal with later on.

Did the right hon. Gentleman not tell me yesterday that those cadets were under arrest now?

The question on the Paper was, "arrested for robbery or other charges." These 26 cadets are under open arrest pending the finding of the investigations now going on.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how cadets who are to be court-martialled can be under open arrest when the platoon commanders are under close arrest; how is that possible.

We hold the senior officers much more responsible for any breach of discipline than anyone under them.

asked the Chief Secretary how many inquests have been held on non-combatant men, women, and children during the last three months; and how many of the deaths have been attributed to Forces of the Crown?

I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with this information at such short notice. Perhaps he will be good enough to repeat his question on one day next week?

asked the Chief Secretary when it is intended to apply the allowances as obtaining in England to the trades instructors, hospital warders, etc., in the Irish prison service; whether he will take immediate steps to have the assimilation scheme completed and announced to the service without further delay; whether his attention has been drawn to a circular of the English Prison Commissioners, dated 8th September, 1920, re subsistence allowance; and, if so, will he take steps to have the same allowance applied to the Irish prison ser vice in accordance with the sanctioned principles of the assimilation scheme?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to questions on this subject yesterday.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the position of Irish prison officers still continues to be onerous and dangerous; whether the Government is prepared to give just recognition to those officers on account of the unprecedented circumstances prevailing in Ireland; and, if so, will he say when it is intended to give the officers the special recognition grant promised them in June last?

I am aware that the position of the Irish prison officers continues to be onerous and in some cases dangerous, but not more so than that of many other servants of the Crown in Ireland at the present juncture. I am accordingly unable to recommend any special gratuity in their case. I am not aware of any promise been given in June last to make any such special payment.

asked the Chief Secretary whether a representative of the Government visited Ireland in June of last year for the purpose of inquiring into the working of the Irish prison service; whether he held prolonged interviews with the elected representatives of the staffs of Mountjoy and Belfast prisons; whether, as a result of those interviews, he made any suggestions or recommendations on behalf of the warder class; and, if so, will he now say what has been done to carry them into effect?

An inspector of the English prison service visited Ireland Last year at the request of the General Prisons Board in order to make suggestions to the Board in the light of English experience. Though he visited several prisons and freely exchanged views with the prison staffs his visit had no reference to pay or classification.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that officers, who have recently retired from the Irish prison service after a long number of years in the one rank, have not been given 75 per cent, of their bonus to count for pensions as authorised in the Whitley Council Report of March last; and if he will take immediate steps to have those pensions readjusted to their proper figure?

Until recently the bonus of Irish prison officers were calculated on a different principle from that in force in the Civil Service generally, but their rates of pay and bonus have now been brought into conformity with those of other civil servants, with effect from the 1st March last. The pensions of officers who have retired since that date will be recalculated as soon as possible on the basis applicable to other civil servants.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to publish in the near future a full account and documents concerning the negotiations with Sinn Fein; for what reason were the negotiations discontinued; and whether they will be renewed?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his speech on the first day of the Session why the negotiations for a truce fell through.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that secondary education in Ireland is in a critical condition; and what steps the Government intend to take in order to tide it over the present difficulty?

Under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, questions of Secondary and other education in Ireland pass under the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliaments, to which the final solution of these questions must now be left. As a temporary arrangement the Estimates for intermediate education (Ireland) for the coming financial year will make provision for grants on the same scale as in the current financial year, and will therefore include the renewal of the special interim grant of £50,000 first introduced last autumn.

Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the published statement issued by the Intermediate Board of Education, Ireland? In view of the statements contained in that document will he give the certificated teachers an opportunity for an interview with him on the subject?

My answer, I think, must be treated as final. This is a matter which primarily concerns the Exchequer, and now that the Homo Rule Act is law this question of education must be worked out under the direction of the Act.

May I, then, further ask whether, having left the intermediate education question untreated for 15 years, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to hand over that heritage, and not to make, financial provision for it?

What about the £8,000,000?

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that among the farmhouses destroyed in the Glengoole district, near Killenaule, on 12th February last, by order of Colonel-Commandant N. J. Cameron, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., was that of a widow named Mrs. Fitzgerald; that Mrs. Fitzgerald protested her entire innocence of complicity in a local ambush and her powerlessness to prevent it, but was given an hour's notice to quit and not allowed to remove her furniture; and that Mrs. Fitzgerald's son served all through the late War; and will he state what purpose has been served by this arson?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have no information regarding the statements made in this question, but I have called for a report.

If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the facts are as stated, will the mother of this soldier be compensated; and will the right hon. Gentleman give directions to his colonel-commandants in future not to persecute the mothers of men who have fallen in arms? Cannot I have that assurance?

53. The hon. and gallant Member asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a communication was addressed to General Strickland, G.O.C., Southern Area in Ireland, on the 18th January, by Mr. Bernard Feldman, a representative of the firm of Messrs. H. Farden and Company, 28 and 29, Cheapside, London, E.C., stating that on Friday, 14th January, he was stopped and searched by three members of the Auxiliary Force in Cork, and that Treasury notes to the value of £6 10s. were taken from him; if it is proposed to compensate Mr. Feldman for his loss; and if he is aware of the great number of complaints of cases of a similar nature that are taking place?

I have called for a report with reference to this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question one day next week.

When questions are asked and the right hon. Gentleman says that he has called for reports, will he send the answers when he receives them to the members who have put the question on the paper?

Yes, I promise to do that: in fact, I always do so.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick McCabe, a young farmer residing at Rockcorry, County Monaghan; whether he is aware that this young man was taken from his home by members of the Crown forces, placed in a lorry, and handcuffed; that while in the lorry he was so badly beaten that he had to be taken to the hospital at Monaghan; that he was removed from the hospital in Monaghan before being physically fit to travel; and that the results of his beating were so bad that he was hardly able to walk to the railway station; whether on arrival in Belfast he was removed to hospital where he is at present; whether there never was any charge against this young man; why he is still being detained in custody; and what action he proposes to take?

I have called for a report with reference to these allegations. If the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question one day next week, I hope that I shall then be able to furnish him with a reply.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state what is the total amount which has been awarded for malicious injury claims in Ireland during the last year; whether many of these claims are not contested by the local authorities concerned, with the result that awards are being made in many instances without a proper scrutiny; and whether, with a view to avoiding an undue expenditure of public money, the Government will appoint a Commission forthwith to re-examine all such claims and fix, with the assistance of experts, the amount that should be awarded in each case, and to make recommendations as to how the liability for these payments is to be met, seeing that in most cases those who inflict the damage are not ratepayers and often come from outside the districts chargeable?

The summarised records of the total amount awarded over the whole of Ireland last year in respect of criminal and malicious injury claims are not at the moment complete. In the case, however, of those councils and boroughs which have repudiated their liabilities, the total of the unpaid awards is approximately £2,500,000. Of this amount £155,000 has been discharged from the local taxation account under the Provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. I am aware that the vast majority of these claims are not contested by the councils concerned, whose inaction in this matter may result in grave prejudice to the interests of the ratepayers. The suggestion that in these circumstances a Commission should be appointed to review the awards shall receive careful consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the National Exchequer has had to pay in the shape of compensation for these claims?

Very little, very little.

Why is it very little, when you have done all the harm?

Then we may take it that the armed Forces of the Crown have not been responsible for anything?

Will the right hon. Gentleman, while taking into consideration whether or not a Committee shall be appointed, take early steps to prevent further public moneys being paid out on these uncontested claims, and before the matter has been further looked into?

The money is not paid from the Exchequer on these claims. In cases where the Council refuse to recognise the authority of this House, and to acknowledge the law of England, and decline to be represented by counsel, the Council's refusal prejudices ratepayers who are primarily responsible for the damage.

Yes, but apart from the injustice to the Exchequer will the right hon. Gentleman consider the injustice to the ratepayers of Ireland, and see that their money is not paid out owing to the default of their local authorities to contest these claims?

The point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a most important one. As the law now stands, the local authority should be, and in all cases where the Council is not acting recalcitrantly is, represented before the County Court Judge in the assessing of damages. The proper authority for the ratepayer to look to is the local authority, and that he has the power to elect. I may add in reference to my previous answer that money is paid out of Exchequer grants in the way of compensation to the widows and dependants of members of the Crown Forces who are murdered or wounded.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that many of these ratepayers are not Sinn Feiners at all, and that they ought to have some chance to say something before these matters come before the Courts, and not be compelled to pay enormous rates for destruction in which they have had no part?

That is a real difficulty—

In cases such as those recited by Judge Bodkin and other learned judges to the effect that this damage has been done by uniformed officers of the Crown—damage to property belonging to innocent persons—is the Exchequer prepared to meet these claims and pay the damages assessed by these learned judges?

I cannot agree to that—

Why not? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what justification there is for withholding from innocent people the damages given to them by the judges when these judges have declared in the clearest and most precise form that these damages have been brought about by the servants of the Crown in Ireland?

I have tried to answer the question as well as I could. If the hon. Member will put his supplementary question down I will endeavour to get him an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have asked for it half a dozen times."] We are dealing with a very difficult, very technical, and legal point—

It is a perfectly constitutional legal tribunal!

Why will the right hon. Gentleman not take the assessment of the legal tribunal in these matters, that is, the County Court judge?

Because it is not the function of the County Court judge, in assessing damages under the Criminal Injuries Act, to allocate the blame to individuals; his business is to find out if the damage is malicious, and to assess the amount. That is one of the reasons why the decision of the County Court judge cannot be taken as final. Another reason is that there is no one, in the present circumstances, in the troubled areas, representing the ratepayers, and therefore the damages may be inflated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the moral right to accept the loyal decision of his own Judges in Ireland when they assess damages to innocent people who have had their property destroyed, and should that money not be paid by the Government whose agents are responsible for this destruction? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the moral right of carrying out the orders of Judges in Ireland?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the £2,500,000 includes the damage done to police barracks throughout Ireland?

Yes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state definitely when this independent committee of inquiry will be set up?

I cannot say anything more.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the universal desire of the inhabitants of Lower Whitehouse, County Antrim, and the surrounding district for the re-establishment of the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at that place; and if he can see his way to comply with this desire in this regard at an early date?

I have ascertained that while it has not been possible to include the police barracks at White-house among those which are to be reopened at once, the matter is receiving careful attention.

Is it not a fact that the telephones and telegraph wires in this district have been cut three times within a fortnight 100 yards from those barracks, and does he not think that the reopening of the barracks at Lower Whitehouse would be a great protection to the inhabitants?

That is not the most serious part of it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the people in this country are asking for the telephone to be cut off?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has yet inquired into the treatment of Mr. S. MacSwiney, brother of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, after his arrest on the 8th February last; whether he was pinioned and pitched half naked into a lorry, his overcoat, watch, and money being stolen; whether he was threatened with death; and what action has been taken?

I am informed that the Commander-in-Chief has not yet received the full Report of the Inquiry he has directed to be made into these allegations. He has ascertained, however, that the facts briefly are that Mr. MacSwiney was pinioned in order to prevent his attempting to escape, but was not ill-treated or threatened in any way. His watch and money were taken from him on his arrest and will be returned to him on his release. This is the usual practice in all cases and the suggestion of theft is quite unfounded.

As the right hon. Gentleman has made inquiries about the money and the watch will he now make inquiries about the man's overcoat and why he could not have it given to him? Is he aware that this man had to walk in his shirt for a long distance in inclement weather?

The hon. and gallant Member must postpone any further items.

Is not the hon. and gallant Member responsible for the accuracy of the statements in his question? He stated that these things were stolen from this man.

I had full information from the sister of the man and I accepted it in good faith.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many of the 124,000 persons wholly or partially unemployed in Ireland are drawing unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation, and what the recent average weekly expenditure has been on this account; how many local authorities in Ireland have made application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for contributions to approved relief works, and how many have not made such application; and whether many non-applications are due to objections to the conditions imposed; if so, what are these conditions which stand in the way of relief of unemployment?

I have been asked to reply. The number claiming unemployment benefit or out-of-work donation in Ireland on the 11th February was 70,492. In addition, 42,583 unemployment books or out-of-work donation policies were lodged in respect of persons employed under systematic short-time arrangements. The average weekly expenditure in benefit and donation for the period of six weeks ending on the 11th February was £43,668.

I am informed that ten local authorities in Ireland have made application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for financial assistance in respect of approved relief works. The number of local authorities who have not submitted applications, although circularised by the Unemployment Grants Committee, is 151. I do not know how far the small number of applications is due to objections to the conditions governing the distribution of the fund administered by the Unemployment Grants Committee. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the circular letters in which the conditions are described.

Am I to understand that the situation as to unemployment in Ireland would be greatly relieved if these 150 local bodies complied with the conditions laid down by the Government?

The committee has got the money, and if the local authorities put up useful schemes of public work they would be eligible to receive it, but 151 of them have not done so, and ten have.

Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department make a grant to the owners of the factories and other property in the town of Balbriggan to enable them to bring back the workers who wore driven out because of the destruction of their property by the armed forces of the Crown?

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has called for an explanation from General Tudor as to why he did not report the serious matter of the dismissal for looting of 26 cadets of the Auxiliary Division of Royal Irish Constabulary, and also the resignation of General Crozier and of Captain Macfie, the Commandant and Adjutant of the Auxiliary Division.

(Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation from the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, because General Tudor had informed him that the offences of the 26 cadets who were dismissed were to be condoned; whether this statement was contained in the letter tendering his resignation written by General Crozier to General Tudor on the 19th instant and whether he is now aware that the 26 cadets were returned to duty, and not, in the first place, for trial?

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the letters which appeared in today's Press exchanged between General Crozier and General Tudor: whether he will now definitely state on what grounds General Crozier and his Adjutant, Captain Macfie, resigned; and in view of the fact that he approved their action, why General Tudor accepted the resignation; and whether the right hon. Gentleman approves of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of these officers who were endeavouring to maintain discipline in the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary?

I will answer the three questions together. The hon. Member for Belfast seems to be under a misapprehension as to an answer I gave in the House to a supplementary question yesterday. I did not intend to convey the impression that I had no knowledge of this very serious breach of discipline at Trim, or that the Chief of Police did not mention it. He mentioned it to me on the 15th instant, and I told him it was a matter of discipline, and he must take the steps he thought best for the discipline of the force. I heard nothing of General Crozier's or his Adjutant's resignation until I saw it in the Press on the 22nd instant. Nor had I until then any knowledge whatsoever of any disagreement between General Tudor and General Crozier in this matter.

As regards the substance of the questions, I again take the opportunity of stating that the sole reason why the cadets in question were ordered to return to Ireland was to enable a thorough investigation to be made of the charges in which they were implicated. It is not the case that they have been returned to duty. There never was, and there is now, no question of condoning looting and the suggestion apparently put forward by General Crozier or on his behalf that his resignation was in any way due to the frustration by higher authority of efforts made by him to secure an improved standard of discipline is one for which there is not the slightest foundation in fact. General Crozier is the officer who, as Commandant, has from the outset been primarily responsible for the maintenance of discipline throughout the Auxiliary Division, and I am informed that he has at no time made any complaint to superior authority in regard to his powers or the means at his disposal for securing an adequate standard of discipline. Having regard to all the circumstances, I fully approve General Tudor's action in accepting the resignation of these officers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? He has given a series of statements, but he has not answered my question whether he has called for an explanation from General Tudor why he did not report the dismissal for looting of 26 cadets, and why he did not also report the resignations of General Crozier and his adjutant.

I thought I had dealt fully with the first part of the question. The second part refers to a letter from General Crozier which I think is dated 19th February, and was sent from an address in Somerset to General Tudor in Dublin. I got a telegraphic copy of that letter yesterday for the first time.

Did General Tudor report to the right hon. Gentleman that he had in his hand the resignations of General Crozier and his adjutant, and the reasons why they had resigned? Did the right hon. Gentleman receive any report from General Tudor on that?

I received the letter over the wire yesterday.

Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation from General Tudor why he waited until yesterday, when the matter was published in "The Times" and subsequently raised in this House, before sending the letter, and why was it General Tudor did not report so serious a matter to the right hon. Gentleman when the incident took place?

I do not think General Tudor was lax in reporting it. The letter was sent on 19th February from Somerset to General Tudor, who was in Dublin. The text was wired to me yesterday and I received it last evening.

I must press for an answer to the question whether the right hon. Gentleman has asked for an explanation from General Tudor why he left the Chief Secretary, who is responsible in this House for the Irish Government, ignorant of the facts until he saw them in "The Times"; why he did not acquaint him of the fact that General Crozier and his adjutant had resigned, and the reasons for their resignation. Has any explanation been asked for from General Tudor in regard to that?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said yesterday he knew nothing whatever about this business until he saw it in "The Times"?

In the preliminary paragraph of the answer I gave just now I tried to make that clear. In answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I saw there might be a misapprehension, and I have done my best to correct it. In my opinion this is a case not of conflict of principle in dealing with discipline in Ireland, but by the unfortunate miscarriage of a letter General Crozier thought he was ignored when, in fact, he was not.

This is the point I want to make clear: Why did not General Tudor acquaint the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that General Crozier and his adjutant had resigned, and why did he not report it to the right hon. Gentleman instead of leaving him to wait to read it in "The Times" newspaper?

My answer to that is, that General Tudor wired over yesterday the letter of resignation from General Crozier. I do not know when he received it. I know it was dated 19th February, and sent from a post office in Somerset to General Tudor, who was in Dublin. I do not think there was any intentional delay on General Tudor's part in sending it.

May I press for an answer to my question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation because General Tudor had informed him that the offence of the 26 cadets who had been dismissed was to be condoned and that the whole question of court-martialling them with a view to greater punishment was only an afterthought when the matter was raised in this House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that can be proved?

Having been a personal friend of both officers concerned, may I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Crozier tendered his resignation because he thought his authority had been undermined, and in view of the fact that there was a mistake, cannot something be done for General Crozier in this matter?

I must confess that this matter has disturbed me a very great deal. These two gallant officers were friends and have worked together for years. General Crozier was appointed to his position on the recommendation of General Tudor. I regret the circumstances more than anybody else, but under the circumstances I do not see how I can do other than support the Chief of Police on whom I rely.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the expression "Chief of Police"? I should like to know when that office was created and whether it is in any way the same as that of Inspector-General of Police?

Do I understand aright that these men were under military law when their case was investigated and they were dismissed the force by their commanding officer, and is there any law or regulation by which they can be taken back to Ireland and tried again?

These men were dismissed as unsuitable for the Auxiliary Division. There was no trial preceding that dismissal. They therefore came to General Tudor and asked that they might have a trial before they were dismissed. That is the whole point. The regrettable feature is that General Tudor was not able, owing to a miscarriage in the post and a delay in the receipt of a letter, to communicate that fact to General Crozier.

Was there no investigation by the commanding officer?

The commanding officer has been suspended, and the inquiry into the case of these men is now proceeding. I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman means the commanding officer of the cadet company.

The immediate commanding officer.

Is it possible for any man in the Auxiliary Division to be dismissed the force without a trial of any kind?

Yes, it is possible to dismiss a man if he be unsuitable for the force.

Without trial?

Yes, without trial, on the ground of unsuitability for the force. If there be a charge of crime against him. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was!"] Yes, I say that there was. There was a charge of crime, and the men asked, and I think fairly asked, that they might be tried.

Might I ask my right hon. Friend what explanation he gives of the very serious statement in the letter that, in General Crozier's view, crime in this case has been condoned? I would like to know what comment the right hon. Gentleman has to make upon that statement.

I have tried to answer that question. I think it was a totally unwarranted term to use, and it is because it was so unjust and unwarranted that it makes it very difficult for me to do other than support the Chief of Police.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg leave to ask to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the lack of control of the Irish Administration, as disclosed by the Chief Secretary in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until yesterday morning, and the grave danger to public peace and order in consequence of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of General Crozier, Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Adjutant, Captain Macfie."

The course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to take may, I am afraid, place the House in considerable difficulty with regard to the progress of the Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill. I understand that, in the interests of the men concerned, it is extremely desirable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment. The effect of not concluding the remaining stages of the Bill to-day may be to deprive the men next week of money which they are expecting to receive.

Why not work overtime?

I do not know whether it would be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his Motion? If so, I should be prepared to take it one day next week when this Bill has been completed. I cannot say what the consequences may be if these people do not receive the money to which they naturally consider that they are entitled, and they cannot receive it if the Bill does not go through to-day. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be prepared to postpone his Motion. If so, I will overlook any question of urgency.

I very much appreciate the point that you make about the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, I am willing to postpone the matter on the understanding that it will be discussed early next week, say, Monday.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will select his own day. All I suggest is that his Motion should not come on until the Unemployment Insurance Bill is through.

In view of what you say, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will give us an assurance that we shall have that day?

I think it will be more convenient to the House if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take his discussion on Tuesday, subject to the permission of Mr. Speaker, which has been already given. He is master, and not the Government.

In view of the desirability of avoiding precedents of this kind, will it not be possible to take the discussion on one of the Supplementary Estimates early next week? [HON. MEMBERS:"No."]

I think the House will recognise that my hon. and gallant Friend has very properly, with the full assent of all his colleagues, fallen in with the suggestion which you have been kind enough to make, and I hope that it will be left there. This is a separate and important question, and I hope that it will be taken separately.

May I draw attention to the fact that the Standing Order deals with urgent matters. If a matter be put off for four days, may I very respectfully suggest that it can be no longer urgent.

Then we will have it now.

I have already said that I would waive that objection. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is postponing the matter for the general convenience of the House, and I do not think that it would be right to take the objection of urgency as one that would debar him.

May I ask whether in future it will be competent for an hon. Member, wishing to move the Adjournment of the House when it is not possible to do so, to use this ruling as a precedent?

It will depend on me or my successor, and, if I choose or my successor chooses to take the same course that I have taken to-day for the convenience of the House, I think the House on such occasion will again endorse such action.

Ought not the opinion of the House to be taken on this matter before the precedents of the House are absolutely altered? By next week this matter will be neither urgent nor of public importance in all probability, and therefore it is creating a very great precedent.

We create precedents every day.

asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken or will be taken by His Majesty's Government to approach the Governments of America and Japan with a view to arriving at a definite understanding on the subject of limitation of armaments?

As the House knows, this question is engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, but it would be premature to make any statement on the subject at present.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Government have adopted the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions relating to the Mercantile Marine and in view of the last paragraph of the Report, he will grant the same; benefits to British fishermen and their dependants who suffered from enemy action during the War?

Arrangements are being made with a view to meeting the situation which will arise on the exhaustion of the lump-sum compensation money granted to the widows of the fishermen in question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the details will be available?

I am afraid I cannot.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Fisheries Bill this Session; and, if so, can he give the date he will issue it to the public?

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the urgent necessity for the Amendment of the existing Salmon and Fresh Water Fishery Acts; and whether a Bill will be introduced to effect this?

The Bill is under consideration, and until it has been considered I am not in a position to make any statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the fishing industry has been very sadly neglected, and that if the Government only gave it sympathetic assistance there is no saying to what extent it might be developed?

I cannot accept the preliminary statement of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am not well informed on the subject. The Bill is being prepared; that is all I can say.