asked the Minister of Pensions how many cases there have been in which an ex-service man or his widow have claimed a pension which has been refused on the ground that the disability was not the result of war service; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which some of these decisions are causing?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Macpherson) is not able to be here to-day and has asked me to reply to his questions.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt both by local pension committees and by ex-service men as regards the awards of disability pensions; and can he see his way to recommend the Government to so remodel the present system as to ensure a greater feeling of confidence in the public mind with the ultimate awards?

I am not aware of any grounds for dissatisfaction with the present system under which pensions are awarded in accordance with the amount of disablement due to service, the man having the right of appeal to a Medical Appeal Board on the question of assessment and to an independent tribunal on the question of attributability.

Would it not be possible to put a little more humanity into the replies of this Department? There is something very curt and heartless about an official negative.

I will forward the suggestion to the proper quarter.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the unrest and dissatisfaction which exists amongst widows, dependants, and disabled men in connection with the present rates of disability pensions, which do not allow them to live in comfort; and whether, seeing that the grant of supplementary allowances in certain cases amounts to an admission of the inadequacy of the present flat rate, he will consider the desirability of increasing the pension to men totally disabled and to the widows and children of men who fell in the War?

I have to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Smethwick on the 28th February, of which I am sending him a copy. The supplementary allowances which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind are no doubt those made by the Special Grants Committee, which are intended to provide for exceptional cases of hardship.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether in all cases when the appeal of an ex-service man, as distinct from an officer, is under consideration, steps are taken to ensure that on the Appeal Tribunal there is always an ex-service man as a member of the deciding body?

The answer is in the affirmative. The constitution of the Tribunals is regulated by Statute, which provides that in such cases one of the members of the Tribunal shall be a disabled ex-service man.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many demobilised service men have died from various diseases which they had contracted during war service, the final stages only developing in civilian life; if he will state if anything can be done for the widows and children of such de- ceased men beyond the appeal to the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal; and if he will state the number of such appeals dealt with, stating the number successful or otherwise?

The Appeal Tribunals have heard and decided 1,978 appeals lodged by widows against decisions by the Ministry that the disease from which the husband died was not contracted in or aggravated by his service. Of those appeals, 523 were allowed and 1,253 rejected. The decisions of the Tribunals are declared by the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, to be final.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these appeals that have gone to the Appeal Tribunal have been turned down, thereby inflicting great hardship on the widows, particularly when the doctor's certificate of death certifies that the disease was contracted during military service?

These Appeal Tribunals consist of one doctor, one lawyer and an ex-service man.

Does the Tribunal consider the man's medical sheet during his service, and is due weight given to the local doctor's opinion?

I must ask the hon. Member to put any question down.

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot answer, Why is not the Minister of Pensions here? Is he electioneering? Could he not choose another day for that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Penistone!"]

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, under the regulations of the Special Grants Committee, supplementary pensions and allowances can only be granted to non-relatives in charge of orphans or neglected children of deceased ex-service men; and, if so, whether the regulations can be amended in order that the same benefits may also be granted to relatives in cases where the Local War Pensions Committees consider it would be in the interest of the children that this should be done?

Special rates of pension are payable under the warrant in respect of all motherless children, whether in the care of relatives or of strangers. Under the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, children of deceased soldiers who are suffering from neglect are placed under the care of the Minister, and in order that he may be able to give them the medical or other special attention that they need, and at the same time secure suitable foster-parents for them, certain supplementary grants are made available for their benefit under regulations administered by the Special Grants Committee. It is not possible to extend these regulations to motherless children generally, for whom the special rates of pension payable under the warrant are considered to be adequate.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in the event of a dependant entering a rate-aided institution, for instance, a lunatic asylum, the pension to which such an individual is entitled is suspended during such period as the dependant remains an inmate of the institution; whether the ratepayers under these circumstances in fact have to shoulder a responsibility that is really the State's obligation; and whether, in such circumstances, he will consider the desirability of providing that, in lieu of suspension of the money to which the individual is entitled, it should be paid to the local authorities in relief of the rates until the inmate emerges from such an institution?

The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The matter is at present under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether compensation will be paid, or has been paid, to the relatives of the late Mr. Crowley, murdered by cadet Hart, of the Auxiliary Police; who will find the money; whether he is aware that Mr. Brady, resident magistrate, was present at the beating and murder of Crowley and Canon Magner, and states that the other cadets in the lorry made no attempt to interfere; that Mr. Brady's house was subsequently raided; whether Mr. Brady was called as a witness at the official investigation; whether these other cadets were punished in any way; and whether any of them are now employed in Ireland?

It is open to the relatives of the late Mr. Crowley to claim compensation in the ordinary way under the Criminal Injuries Act. Such compensation would be payable from the local rates. In regard to the remainder of the question, a written statement by Mr. Brady, setting out in full the circumstances of the murder, was fully considered in the course of the official investigation into the conduct of the cadets who were witnesses of the occurrence. As a result of this investigation it was decided that these cadets were in no way responsible for the crime, and that no action was called for in their case.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it just in a case of admitted murder by a policeman that the rates should be charged with the compensation to the relatives? Has he not enough humanity to award some compensation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]—to the widow and seven children without their having to claim against the rates?

I hope I have as much humanity as any hon. Member. Many very, very grievous cases come to me every day. I cannot alter the law, and my answer must remain that the relatives of Mr. Crowley can claim compensation in the ordinary way under the Criminal Injuries Act.

Was not something paid to Mrs. Quin and was her husband forced to appeal? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman exercise a little grace in these matters?

I must ask for notice of that.

The husband of this poor woman was murdered by one of the uniformed officers of the Crown, who was found guilty of murdering an innocent man on a country roadside. Does the right hon. Gentleman declare, apart from humanity or the question of justice, that the Government are not responsible for compensation to be given to this poor woman whose husband has been murdered?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman dishonouring the humanity of the British nation?

May I press for an answer to my question? The Government cannot bring this man's life back, they cannot return him to his widow and little children. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do for the victims of one of the cruellest murders ever committed?

Like every other hon. Member of this House, I am bound by the law passed by this House. I cannot alter it. As it now stands, anyone who sustains malicious injuries has a legal remedy, and it is impossible for me, with the best wishes in the world, to go outside the law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make representations to the Cabinet on the lines suggested by the question of the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin)?

Has not the right hon. Gentleman declared at that box that when the Crown Forces are found guilty of destruction or killing the Treasury will bear the expense and not the county?

I have never said that. I have said that in hard cases I will consider the matter, but while Ireland is in a state of rebellion it is impossible to give a definite decision on isolated cases, however hard.

Was Mr. Brady's house raided?

If the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the law is correct—that he has no power to grant compensation—how can he consider special cases? Will he introduce a short Bill into the House of Commons to so change the law as to enable him to pay compensation to these horribly treated people, the wives and children of victims of officers of the law admitted by the Military Courts to have committed these crimes against innocent people.

Any question as to future legislation I must ask to have notice of.

May I ask—

The hon. Member has had his answer.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that John O'Connor, of Gloundaeagh, Farranfore, Co. Kerry, was arrested on 15th December last whilst on his way to church, and driven away in a motor lorry; that he was beaten while in the lorry, thrown from the lorry into the road, fired on, and wounded; that civilians then carried him into the house of Thomas Brosnan, Threegneves, Currow, Farranfore, where he was tended by the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, of Killentierna, Farranfore; that four officers returned from Farranfore, to which place the lorry had proceeded, in a motor car, and, on ascertaining from the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan where O'Connor lay wounded, entered Brosnan's house and murdered O'Connor by firing three revolver bullets into his head; whether he is aware that the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, Mr. Brosnan, and other eye witnesses are prepared to testify to the foregoing facts on oath; whether an inquiry has been held; whether these witnesses were called; what was the finding; what action, if any, has been taken; and whether any compensation is to be paid to the widow and seven children of the murdered man?

I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the inquiry directed by him to be made into the circumstances attending the death of this man is still proceeding. It will be the duty of the court to obtain and weigh all the available evidence, and I am requesting the Commander-in-Chief to furnish me with the result of the proceedings at the earliest possible date.

Is it not a fact that I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this case two months ago, and how is it that it takes nearly three months before a disgraceful episode of this sort is looked into?

Without prejudging the facts of the case, it is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief. The area is under martial law, and I must, naturally, await the result of his inquiry.

asked the Chief Secretary whether at the court-martial which convicted Conway and Potter of the murder of Lieutenant Angliss 15 witnesses were brought to prove an alibi for Conway and seven to prove that Potter was in bed at the time?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the 30th January a body of auxiliaries, accompanied by two sergeants of the Elphin Royal Irish Constabulary, surrounded Creeve Catholic Church, while Mass was in progress, and planted a machine gun in a field commanding the sacred edifice; that as the congregation left the church they were all, including women and children, searched, and a number of men were beaten with rifles, etc., in the course of an attempt to extort from them information as to persons on the run; that, in the act of striking a young man with a rifle, one of the auxiliaries missed his aim and smashed a church window; that the officiating priest was subjected to search, during the progress of which he was compelled to keep the sacred Host, which was in his custody at the time, in his outstretched hand in order to prevent desecration; that the church and sacristy were thoroughly searched, the priest being forced to open the tabernacle on the high altar; that even an empty ciborium, used for the custody of the sacred communion wafers, was peered into; that a tabernacle on a side altar, for which the priest had no key, was broken open; and whether, in view of the enormity, in the eyes of the people, of this sacrilege, he will have inquiries made into the matter, and give instructions that such acts shall not be repeated?

I have called for a report with reference to these allegations. If the hon. Member will kindly repeat one day next week this question, of which I only received notice on Tuesday, I hope then to be able to furnish him with a reply.

When an incident of this character takes place, when it is notorious that it has taken place, and when the fact that it has taken place has been published in the Press, does not the right hon. Gentleman himself inquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made?

Reports come to me in the usual way, but I cannot accept reports in the Press as accurate—

Not when prompted by the Government?

And if an hon. Member asks me a question on a specific event or incident, I am bound to refer to the authorities in Ireland for an official answer.

When charges and allegations of so serious a character as these are made against the uniformed officers of the Crown, and when these facts are notorious and are published in the Press, does not the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of his own administration, call for reports at the time in order to gather whether they are accurate or not? It is now five weeks since this outrage took place, and since it was published in the Press that it had taken place.

If an outrage has taken place inquiry is automatically made into it; but, unless it is raised by an hon. Member of this House, I do not personally ask for a report of every alleged outrage in Ireland.

When an inquiry has automatically taken place, is the right hon. Gentleman informed of the result of that inquiry?

Certainly, in the usual way, if I call for a report of a specific case; but not all reports on alleged outrages in Ireland are forwarded to me.

May I ask who are the authorities in this case—whether this body of auxiliaries are under the control of the military or of the police authorities?

I should require notice of that question. I send my request to both authorities for a report from both—the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the Police.

Has the time not yet arrived when the right hon. Gentleman can definitely inform the House under what control this irregular body of auxiliaries are—whether they are under the military or the police, or any control?

Perhaps I may answer that question in addition to what was said in Debate the other night. In the martial law area all the police and military are under General Strickland. In the rest of Ireland the police and military work in co-operation, but the police are under their police head, and the military under the Commander-in-Chief.

Who really is the head of the police in Ireland?

General Tudor.

What is his precise position?

Chief of Police.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiry into the case of Mr. E. Dorrins, a member of the United Operative Plumbers and Domestic Engineers' Association, who was taken from his bed at his own home in Dublin at 12.30 a.m. on 3rd February by Crown forces, and after ill-treatment by them was conveyed in a motor lorry through the city and was asked by the officer in charge whether he would like to be drowned or shot, and was taken to Capel Street bridge where three members of the Crown forces flung him into the river; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I have made careful inquiry into this matter and am informed that Mr. Dorrins was admitted to the Jervis Street Hospital, Dublin, about midnight on the 3rd ultimo, suffering from shock as the result of being immersed in water, and was detained as a patient for a week, but that the police have been unable to obtain any information as to the persons by whom he was assaulted. The military authorities to whom I have also applied have no knowledge of the occurrence.

asked the Chief Secretary how many members of the forces of the Crown formed the escort in charge of James Murphy on the evening of the 9th February last when James Murphy was murdered?

Three persons have been arrested and are awaiting trial for this murder. It would, therefore, in my view be improper for me to make any statement at present in regard to the facts of the case.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state whether there were only three persons on this lorry or whether there were more?

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the Crown forces at Cahirvoneen, near Kinvarra, County Galway; whether these forces stripped naked six young farmers, and put them lying face down on the ground with heavy stones over them; whether, after burning their clothes, they forced these young men to carry from the farmhouse of Mrs. Quinn fowl, bacon, flour, and other things to a lorry which was waiting, after which they mercilessly beat these young men and dismissed them; and whether he will take any action to have the guilty parties punished?

As I stated, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Harrow Division on Tuesday, I have directed full inquiry to be made into this matter. I must necessarily await the receipt of that report before making any further statement in regard to this matter.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the operation of Part II of the Schedule to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, many pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary with small pensions are being deprived of the increase of pension which they would otherwise receive under that Act; whether, for instance, he is aware that a Royal Irish Constabulary man who retired on account of physical infirmity in 1917 with a pension of £66 11s. 2d., and who would, but for Part II of the Schedule, have received an increase of 40 per cent. to his pension, namely, £40 8s. 5d., has been, under the operation of Part II. of the Schedule, adjudged to be entitled to receive only £8 8s. 10d. increase; and whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to avoid such cases of extreme hardship?

The provisions of Part II of the Schedule referred to are essential for the purpose of securing that due allowance is made for increases of pre-war pension already granted through improvement in pensions scale or increase in pensionable emoluments since the 4th August, 1914. The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend is, therefore, not practicable.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these faithful servants of the Crown are in a state of extreme penury—worse, many of them, than those who are in receipt of unemployment pay in this country?

I know that many ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are in very hard circumstances, but it is for this House to decide whether their pensions shall be increased, and not for me.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the small pensions and very straitened circumstances of many pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the difficulty they have in getting employment of any sort, he will, as soon as possible, introduce a Bill to amend the Pensions Increase Act, 1920, on the lines urged on him by a deputation of these pensioners on 8th July, 1920; whether such Amendments will include the abolition of the age limit of 60 years, the elimination of earned and unearned income, and a reasonable increase of pension; and whether he has urged the Treasury to agree to such Amendments, and with what result?

The position of the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners was very fully considered when the Pensioners (Increase) Act was passing through this House. I cannot, therefore, hold out any hope amending legislation on this subject.

May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the extremely hard cases that have arisen under the operation of this Act, and especially Part 2 of the Schedule; and will he ask the Treasury to provide the money or bring in a Bill to amend that Act?

I have asked the Treasury, and they have referred me to the House of Commons.

Will my right hon. Friend then bring in a Bill?

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 not yet in a position to give this information. I will do my best.

Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the list those soldiers or policemen who were murdered while unarmed?

asked the Chief Secretary whether Mrs. James Ryan, wife of the hon. Member for South Wexford, who is in prison without charge, was arrested on 16th February last at Wexford for having refused to allow a martial law proclamation to be exhibited in the window of her private house and imprisoned in Water-ford gaol; whether she was taken away from an infant aged eight months; what steps have the authorities taken to see that the infant, now parentless, is provided for; and whether it is with his approval that the military power compels a lady in Mrs. Ryan's position to exhibit a martial law proclamation in her private house?

I am informed that Mrs. Ryan was arrested on 16th February, by the direction of the competent military authority, for refusing to exhibit a martial law proclamation in the window of her house. She was tried by Summary Court on 26th February, fined £15, and released. Previous to her arrest arrangements were made for her children to be cared for by her sister.

How many women are in prison in Ireland for such offences?

Are we to understand that Mrs. Ryan has paid the fine and been released, and is now at liberty?

I have said so; she is released.

Have you arrested the baby yet?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that William J. Doherty was arrested in or near Strokestown, County Roscommon, on the 14th instant, and conveyed under military escort to Longford military barracks; whether Mr. Doherty is being kept in chains, and whether no one, not even the military chaplain, is allowed to see him; whether he is aware that Mr. Doherty's solicitor wrote to the officer in command asking for information as to the charge on which Mr. Doherty was being detained, and as to when and where it was proposed to try him; that although the solicitor requested an early reply for the purpose of preparing the defence no answer has been received; whether he will make inquiries into this matter; and whether he can now state the charge against Mr. Doherty and the date and place of his trial?

I have directed inquiry to be made into this case. If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question next Thursday, I will endeavour to furnish him with the information that he desires.

Is not this incident connected with the alleged looting of a bank at Strokestown, about which I asked the right hon. Gentleman in my speech on Tuesday, and as to which I have not yet had a reply?

I remember the speech of the hon. Member with great pleasure, but I must have notice of that question.

Have there been too many cases of looting for the right hon. Gentleman to remember that one?

asked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Sean McGrath, secretary of the Irish Self-Determination League, has been arrested in London and deported to Ireland; if so, if he will say under what Act of Parliament Mr. McGrath was arrested; whether any charge has been preferred against him; and for what reason he has been taken to Ireland?

asked the Chief Secretary on what grounds Mr. Sean McGrath, residing at 23, Rochester Place, Kentish Town, was taken from the office of the Irish Self-Determination League, 182, Shaftesbury Avenue, was refused permission to consult a solicitor, or to communicate with his wife; and where he is now detained and upon what charge?

I have been asked to reply to this question and question No. 53. Mr. McGrath was arrested at 182, Shaftesbury Avenue to give effect to an Order for his internment in Ireland issued under No. 14B of the Regulations made under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. He did not ask to communicate with his wife, but the police did, in fact, inform her of his arrest and whereabouts. He was not refused permission to consult his solicitor, but he did not ask to see him until 7 p.m., and it was not found possible to arrange an interview before McGrath's departure for Ireland early the next day. The solicitor was, however, offered and accepted an interview at police headquarters, where he was given a copy of the Internment Order and other particulars. Mr. McGrath is interned as a person who is suspected of acting, having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland, and is at present in Ballykinlar internment camp.

Does that mean that anyone in England can be arrested under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, and be taken over to Ireland to be tried there?

That depends on what he has done.

Does the Act apply here? May I have an answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Be careful!"]

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, who was arrested on 16th February, was on 19th February placed in solitary confinement in a punishment cell in which there is not light enough at mid-day to read without candles; and that he has been deprived of the four hours' exercise in the open allowed to other prisoners, and is instead taken for 20 minutes' exercise in a corridor; and whether he will state by what authority special punishments are inflicted on untried and uncharged prisoners in gaol?

I received notice of this question only yesterday. I at once gave direction for the most searching inquiry to be made into these allegations.

asked the Chief Secretary what precise degree of legal training is required of a Judge-Advocate at a court-martial?

Judge Advocates at courts-martial in Ireland are persons approved by the Judge Advocate General as having a sufficient degree of legal training and experience. In addition, when the trial is on a capital charge under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, the Court must include as member a person certified by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the Lord Chief Justice of England to be a person of legal knowledge and experience.

asked the Chief Secretary whether there was any evidence of the use of incendiary bombs in connection with the burning of Cork; and whether any such bombs are issued to, or are in the possession of any, Forces of the Crown in Ireland?

The earlier reports which reached me with regard to this matter seemed to indicate that such bombs had been used, but this was not confirmed by later information. No incendiary bombs have at any time been issued to any of the Crown Forces in Ireland.

Would the right hon. Gentleman, in order to clear up this and other cognate matters, publish or place on the Table of the House General Strickland's Report?

He dare not!

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that a complaint was made to the officer commanding troops, Thurles, by a woman as to the conduct of two soldiers; whether an inquiry was held; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry?

The Commander-in-Chief informs me that he has not been able to identify the incident referred to from the particulars contained in the hon. Member's question, which do not include either the substance of the complaint or the date of the occurrence of which he complains. He has, however, asked the Officer Commanding at Thurles to furnish a report. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question one day next week.

May I repeat a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman the other day, namely, whether, when questions are put to him and he is not in possession of full information, and is calling for a report, he will be good enough to convey the report which he has received to the Member who put the question, without his having to put down a special question in regard to it?

I must answer a question in the way that I think will give the greatest information to the Member who asks it and to the whole House. I cannot pledge myself to issue in full all the reports I receive.

Will the right hon. Gentleman write to the Member who puts the question and let him know?

I thought that that was always done.

asked the Prime Minister whether he had received, before the 9th October, any information concerning the sacking of Balbriggan by forces of the Crown on 21st September, 1920, resulting in the death of two women and four children; and, if so, what is the character of that information?

I received a full report concerning the occurrences at Balbriggan on the night of the 21st September last, many days before the 9th October. I have at no time, however, received a report to the effect that the deaths of two women and four children resulted from the disturbances on the night in question. I am informed that there is no truth in this allegation.

May I ask the Prime Minister why he was not acquainted with events which took place nearly a fortnight before he went to Carnarvon on 3rd October and delivered a speech on the Irish situation which, according to this information, entirely misrepresented the facts of the case?

I do not accept that statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether between the months of June and October last, inclusive, any proposals for the initiation or continuance of the policy of reprisals in Ireland were laid before the Cabinet or any section of the Cabinet; whether such proposals were discussed; and whether any decision upon the subject was given or any form of sanction extended to such a policy?

The Irish policy of the Government was constantly under consideration by the Government during the time named in the question, and has been frequently explained in Debate in this House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman definitely state that no official sanction whatsoever has ever been extended to the policy of reprisals, at any rate, beyond that which has been supplied in his early speeches?

Statements have been made in this House repeatedly by the Leader of the House, the Chief Secretary and myself as to the policy of the Government and by those we stand.

May I ask for a definite answer from the right hon. Gentleman? Has any official sanction ever been extended to the policy of reprisals? That question has never been answered. Will he answer it now?

I can add nothing to what I have said.

Does the right hon. Gentleman admit official sanction?

asked the Prime Minister whether any provision exists for an appeal from a death sentence passed by the military courts set up in Ireland under the Restoration of Order Act, 1920, and other Acts; and, if not, whether, in view of the large number of death sentences inflicted by these courts, he will make immediate provision for appeals to the civil courts from such military courts?

I have been asked to reply.

I want the Prime Minister to answer it.

The Prime Minister has asked me to answer it, and I am going to do it. The Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920, passed only last August in circumstances familiar to this House, contains no provision for an appeal to any civil court from the courts-martial to which jurisdiction is given under that Act. The procedure of these courts follows the law and practice relating to courts-martial held under the Army Act, for which a sufficient and suitable system of review is in force, and from which any appeal to a civil court would be entirely inappropriate. The proceedings of these, as of all other courts-martial, are reviewed by the Judge Advocate-General before confirmation of sentence. The accused can also avail himself of his right to petition the Commander-in-Chief and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. It is not proposed to take any such action as is suggested.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that a universal feeling prevails in the country that many innocent men are being executed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I know and you do not—he will consider the desirability of setting up some non-military tribunal for the purpose of having all the evidence investigated before the sentence is carried out?

We considered very carefully before, we ever set up martial law the desirability of setting up a civil tribunal. We should have bean very glad to do it if it had been possible, but we came to the conclusion, that having regard to all the exigencies, it was quite impossible to do so. To do so at the present moment would, I think, interfere with the course of justice. Everyone is very shocked at the necessity for inflicting the death penalty on a largo number of men, but, after all, if you only look at the figures you will find there are far more murders than there have been punishments.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which I know he will treat sympathetically, whether he is aware that really the major portion of all the evils which have sprung up in Ireland during the last four years were due to the executions in 1916, and whether, in view of the crop of troubles which have been consequent on those executions and the great feeling of horror created in the country, he will consider the desirability of trying to do something to stop this thing and try to approach the question in some other way, and not continue a policy which is bound to poison all future relations between this country and Ireland?

Am I right in supposing that in the rebellion of 1916 some 300 of our soldiers were murdered, and only 15 executions at most?

In the rebellion there were a number of people killed as well.

That is undoubtedly so, and the same thing applies now, though not quite in the same proportion. Anyone who looks at the figures will realise that we cannot possibly allow murder to go unpunished. The only suggestion my hon. Friend put forward was that there should be an appeal, but he now goes very much further, and practically suggests that we should not punish the murderer at all. That, I think, is something which will not commend itself to his more mature reflection. With regard to finding any other methods of pacification I should be only too glad to do so. There is another question put by the Noble Lord above the Gangway (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) which I propose to answer later on. I should be very glad if it were possible to find other methods.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that when the Restoration of Order in Ireland Bill was passing through this House he stated that the infliction of the death penalty would require some further authority from this House, and, secondly, in such a case as that of the man James Allen, who was shot for being in possession of a revolver and a military book, where there is no evidence of complicity to murder but simply the possession of arms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] May I be allowed to put my question?

They do not like it.

Remember Woolwich, and do not try to bully us.

Hon. Members opposite seem to resent the putting of a most serious question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I will repeat the question: Whether the Prime Minister recollects that when the Restoration of Order in Ireland Bill was going through this House, he stated that the infliction of the death penalty would require further authority from this House, and, in the second place, in such a case as that of the man James Allen, who was shot the other day for being in possession of a revolver and a military book, whether he will see that there is an appeal allowed to the highest military authority from the Court which passes the death sentence?

My right hon. Friend is quite wrong. I never said that when martial law was proclaimed it would require further authority from this House. If he will only refer to the statement which I made on the Friday, when I announced martial law, he will see that I stated most distinctly that unless deadly weapons were surrendered by a certain date, every man found in possession of them would have the death penalty inflicted. James Allen had in his possession not only a revolver, but three dumdum bullets. What did he have those bullets for? If murder is to be stopped in Ireland, very exemplary punishment must be inflicted upon those who, in defiance of an order of the Government, insist upon keeping weapons of this kind in their possession. They are only using them for the purpose of murder.

You have no evidence of that.

No evidence! What more evidence do you want than the fact that a man, after an order has been given that weapons must be surrendered, had in his possession a revolver and three dum-dum bullets?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this declaration is to be universally applied in Ireland, and whether he is aware of the fact that persons found guilty of carrying revolvers and ammunition in Ulster have been fined 40s. and costs?

That is not in a martial law area. There are other parts of Ireland that are not under martial law.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what period is allowed between the confirmation and the carrying out of the sentence?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase of murder, arson and looting in Ireland, and having regard to the fact that it has been shown that the use of force by the Government only leads to further murders and other violence, he will consider the advisability of holding a conference with the elected representatives of the Irish people, in order that their assistance and co-operation may be enlisted in securing the reign of law and order.

I have repeatedly expressed my readiness to confer on the problem of Irish Government with any person or body of persons who can legitimately claim a right to speak on behalf of the Irish people.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from making declaration that everybody knows are fatal to any conference?

I do not know the particular declaration to which the Noble Lord refers. If he means the declaration that we cannot assent to an Irish republic I canot possibly withdraw that.

Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish leaders have lately made an announcement that they are willing to accept terms which this country could give and which are not in the least inconsistent with either the unity or the safety of this Empire or the supremacy of the Crown?

I have always stated that I should be perfectly ready to confer with the responsible Irish leaders upon that basis. It is no fault of ours that a conference has not taken place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the responsible leaders of Irish opinion have been put in prison?

Would not the chosen representatives of the Irish people be the proper persons with whom to negotiate a settlement?

Certainly, and I stated so in the statement which I made in the House before separating. We should be perfectly willing to give every facility for the elected representatives of the Irish people to meet in order to make any proposals to the Government, or to arrange a deputation to meet the Government, and again it is no fault of ours that that has not been done.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman impose the condition that the Irish should lay down their arms?

No. That was in reference to the question of a truce. In the matter of a truce we regard the laying down of arms as essential. It is a totally different matter when it is a question of conferring with the elected representatives of the Irish people who have been elected to this House by constitutional means at the last General Election.

Are we to understand that there has been an offer that the representatives of the people, all of them unreservedly, are to be permitted to meet for the purpose of considering any proposals and that they and the representa- tives of the Government should meet together for the purpose of endeavouring to bring about a settlement of the Irish Question?

My hon. Friend knows the statement which I made in that respect. There are certain people, whose names I have promised to give, whom we cannot allow to meet. They are suspected on good grounds of having taken part directly in murder. We could not possibly assent to their meeting. There is no distinction between Irish Members and any other Members in this respect. Any Member reasonably suspected of crime of that character would be liable to arrest. With the exception of those men—and they are very few—we would certainly give every facility for their meeting.

Were any reservations of this character made when the representatives of the British Government met the representatives of the Boers in South Africa? Could not some of the things done by these representatives be described as the right hon. Gentleman has described some of the things done in Ireland? And is there any possibility of a conference ever taking place if the right hon. Gentleman insists upon getting men to admit that they are murderers when they are not?

Really it is an insult to the Government of South Africa to suggest that there is any comparison between men who fought openly in the field and men who patrol the streets as civilians under the protection of the law and turn round and shoot their guardians.

rose—

Mr. Pennefather [who asked Question No. 44, col. 2006].

asked the Chief Secretary the number of hackney motor licences in the Aughnacloy police district which have been refused renewal by the competent military authority owing to the district inspector's carelessness in making his reports on same; is he aware that great hardship has been caused by this carelessness, many families being deprived for weeks of their means of subsistence; and will he take steps to ensure that these men shall get their permits without further trouble?

This question appeared in the paper yesterday, and I have directed immediate inquiry to be made into this matter.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the burning of 20 houses in the town of Ballylongford, County Kerry, on Tuesday, 22nd February, by the forces of the Crown; whether seven lorries of these forces visited the town, and raided and looted houses, before finally setting them on fire; whether, amongst other buildings raided, was the local post office, from which over £30 worth in cash and stamps was stolen; whether the lorries afterwards drove back to Tralee laden with loot; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

These allegations refer to the Martial Law area. I have called for but have not yet received a report with reference to them. I will furnish the hon. Member with the desired information as soon as I am in a position to do so.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. T. Healy, K.C., has not drawn up a series of questions to be put to Captain King, R.I.C., bearing on the Mallow inquiry, and has refused to accept such procedure; and whether he will now require Captain King to be produced as a witness?

Yes, Sir. It is, I believe, a fact that Mr. Healy has refused to accept the procedure which had beein suggested in this case. County-Inspector King who, the House will remember, was badly wounded in the foot on the occasion of the brutal murder of his wife at Mallow, is at present in Scotland under medical care. It is thought probable that he will have to undergo an operation. I have specially sent an officer to interview him and to arrange for his attendance at the Inquiry if his doctors permit him to travel. If he is unable, on purely medical grounds, to attend, it is proposed to place a sworn statement of his evidence before the Court.

Will it not be possible to adjourn the Court to Scotland, or part of the Court, and give Mr. Healy a chance of examining the witness? It is in the interests of justice.

I see no reason for making an exception in this case.

asked the Chief Secretary whether Dermot O'Sullivan, aged 17 years, has been sentenced to death in connection with the Drumcondra ambush on 21st January last; whether he is aware that the evidence against this youth is not conclusive; and whether it is intended to execute a youth of 17 years of age on such evidence?

It is the case that Dermot O'Sullivan with four other civilians have been sentenced to death by a general court-martial. As regards the remainder of the question, I can only repeat what I have already stated in reply to similar questions put by hon. Members in other recent cases, that I must decline to discuss in this House either the evidence on which the court based their finding, or the advice which it may be my duty to tender to the Lord Lieutenant. The House may be assured that every relevant consideration will be carefully weighed in this, as in every other case, before a final decision is taken.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself has seen the evidence, and is he aware that there is some grave doubt about the matter in regard to the identification?

By whom were you briefed?

By the mother.

Why were you briefed, you traitor?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it very undesirable to have a boy of 17 years executed, apart from the fact that the evidence is not of a character altogether to justify an execution?

Is it not a fact that most of these murders and assassinations are carried out by youths who are Irish gunmen from America?

I do not think I can add anything usefully to what I have already said.

asked the Prime Minister whether, without detriment to the interests of the nations involved, he can give the House any information as to the strength and composition of the League of Nations force which is under orders to proceed to Poland to occupy Vilna; and will he say by whom the expenses of the force are being met and where it is located at present?

I can add nothing to the reply which was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this subject to a Private Notice Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East.

With reference to the reply to my question, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the definition of an Archdeacon as an ecclesiastical officer who performs Archidiaconal functions?

Who is in command of this force?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Select Committee to examine and report upon the great inequalities of the incidence of local rates, with power to make such recommendations as may seem desirable in the basis, method of assessment, and collection of local taxation as well as the reallocation of rating areas?

I am not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Government are fully alive to the importance of this matter and are giving full consideration to it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman in giving consideration to this matter take into account that the last Royal Commission on this subject is 20 years old and that local authorities are getting more and more restive now owing to the gross inequalities of rates and rateable value in the various areas, and in view of the tremendous rise in rates this year it is really a very urgent question from the point of view of local authorities generally?

I agree it is a very urgent question, and when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer there was a Debate on the Address on it and two or three Debates in the course of the Session. But I think the hon. Member is wrong in saying that was the last enquiry. I appointed a Select Committee I think it was—a very able body of men. That could not have been 20 years ago. I agree that it has always been urgent, and it is much more urgent now becuse of the very heavy burden of the rates.

asked the Prime Minister how many motor cars are at present in use by all the various Government Departments; and how many motor cars were in use by all the various Government Departments at this period of the year in 1914?

The number of motor cars in use in London by Government Departments is:

Does the right hon. Gentleman see any reason why there should be such a great increase in the number of cars used by the Department in comparison with 1914, and might not the very useful economy be made of discontinuing the running of the majority of these cars?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many businesses are using motor cars for the purpose of economy?

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that great quantities of work are available in country districts; that those requiring work are prevented from taking this work owing to the inelasticity of the regulations of the Wages Board; and if he will direct that modifications be made in the regulations, with a view to removing this present cause of unemployment?

The Orders of the Agricultural Wages Board relate only to employment in agriculture as denned by the Corn Production Act. The amount of ordinary agricultural work available is not larger than usual at this time of year, but it is understood that in certain parts of the country the reclamation or improvement of land has been undertaken with the view of providing additional employment. Whether any such operations come within the statutory definition of employment in agriculture can only be decided by reference to the circumstances of the case, and if my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of any case which he has in mind, I shall be glad to submit the facts to the Agricultural Wages Board for their consideration. As my hon. Friend is aware, exemption from the operation of the minimum rates of wages can only be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the Corn Production Act, and does not rest in the discretion of the Minister or of the Agricultural Wages Board.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians have protested against the neglect of the Government to provide for the unemployed, in conse- quence of which the guardians of the poor have been compelled to expend thousands of pounds of the ratepayers' money in relieving distress amongst such men which would have been unnecessary had provision been made by the Government; if he is aware that the Board has protested against the non-fulfilment of the schemes of relief works proposed by the late Ministry of Reconstruction for absorbing men demobilised from the forces during the past two years or more with the object of preventing unemployment on a large scale, and requested that the Government make a sufficient grant from the Imperial Exchequer to unions and parishes to repay the whole of the cost of the relief in money and kind which boards of guardians are allowing the unemployed and their families; and if he will take action in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the representations referred to in the earlier parts of the question. As regards the late Ministry of Reconstruction, the efforts of that body appear to have been limited to asking for particulars as to works which might be undertaken on the conclusion of the War. A good deal of this work has been put in hand during the last year or two, and in so far as this has not been done already, I trust that local authorities will be encouraged to take advantage of the assistance which may be received from the Unemployment Grants Committee. The Government's contribution towards the relief of unemployment takes the substantial form provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act which is now being extended; large grants for the construction of arterial roads; the assistance which is given, through the Unemployment Grants Committee; alternative work and short time in Government establishments; and the expediting of the lay-out of roads and sewers on approved housing schemes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of men and women cannot find work and are not entitled to benefit under the Unemployed Workers Act, and is he aware that boards of guardians in many parts of the country are absolutely compelled to give relief in moneys and in kind for the purpose of keeping these people alive? Does he not think that something ought to be done to relieve local authorities of a terrible burden?

The West Ham Guardians have received a reply to their petition that an Exchequer grant should be made in relief of local rates that this cannot be granted.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the hard case of many Liverpool dock labourers, who have been reduced to a state of semi-starvation through the postponement of out-of-work pay due on Friday last, and, if so, will he take immediate steps to alleviate this distress, and to ensure that no similar delays occur in future?

I have taken up by telegram the question of whether any men last Friday failed to receive any Out-of Work Donation due to them. If so, that shall at once be remedied. It may be, however, that the men in question exhausted last week what was due to them under the fourth extension of Out-of-Work Donation, or the amended Unemployment Insurance Act of last December. The Bill, which we shall immediately receive back from another place, is designed to render assistance by extending the period of benefit. And if, as I hope, it becomes law to-day, every effort will be made to commence payment at the earliest possible date.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that such cases are due to the fact that, although the dock labourer may be idle four days a week, he is only entitled to draw one day at the end of the week, and then there is some difficulty in getting it? It is owing to the unfortunate conditions under which they have to apply under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Perhaps the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me.

asked the Prime Minister if events in Cilicia since the Armistice afford any justification for the contention that the Armenians have been or will be less humanely treated by our French Allies than by ourselves; and whether under the Treaty of Sèvres or any other international instrument or agreement any greater responsibility for the future of Armenia and the Armenians rests upon the British than upon the French nation?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that printing is the one nourishing trade under communism in Russia; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the dumping of plays and novels by popular British authors which have paid no royalties to the writers?

I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there has been activity in the printing trade in Russia. As regards the second part of the question, the remedies afforded by Section 6, 11 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1911, are thought to be sufficient to prevent the dumping of such plays and novels in the United Kingdom.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement in the Bolshevist Press in Russia that the Soviet Government has now abolished the rights to all private ownership in books; and whether he has any information as to why this paricular branch of private enterprise was hitherto spared.

His Majesty's Government have no information about this particular decree of the Soviet Government.

In the event of the Foreign Office finding out that the information published in the Bolshevist newspapers is correct that they have suppressed the rights of private ownership in books, will the Government look after the interests of Comrade Bernard Shaw?

asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his cognisance and approval that assistance was given last autumn by certain Government Departments to certain Russians in the preparation of imitations of a Moscow newspaper for use in propaganda in Russia against the Government of the Russian Soviet Republic; whether he knew at the time of his conversations with M. Kameneff that British officials were being employed and British public money expended on such propaganda; and whether the conduct of such propaganda is still part of the policy of the Government?

The reply to each of the three parts of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is dealing with the matter in more detail in reply to the other question on the subject which the hon. Member has put down.

As the subsequent question will not be reached, will the right hon. Gentleman say that, if the facts are as stated in that question, the Government will deal with the matter very severely indeed, and how can we expect propaganda not to be engaged in in this country if we permit it ourselves abroad?

The answer will be circulated. There certainly is no public money involved.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been, drawn to an appeal by the American Federation of Labour to organised labour in this and other countries to unite against the ruthless persecution and slaughter of labour unionists in Russia; and will he await the result of this appeal before committing this country to any course which would imply recognition of the Soviet Government, against which organised labour in Russia is in revolt, so far as is possible under the circumstances which exist there?

No information on this subject has been received beyond what has appeared in the public Press.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are in receipt of any information with regard to a reported attempt to overthrow the Communist Government in Moscow and Petrograd?

Reports similar to those which have appeared in the Press have reached H.M. representatives in the Baltic States to the effect that disorders have recently occurred in Moscow and Petrograd. It appears that in Moscow the trouble originated amongst the workmen, while in Petrograd it extended to the sailors and the soldiers of the Red Army. Later information tends to show that the revolts have for the present been suppressed by the military forces of the Soviet Government.