asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the charges made against the Irish Executive by Mrs. Agatha Watts, Miss Frances Melland, and Dr. E. V. Brown, of the Society of Friends, as a result of a deputation to Ireland; if these charges include burnings, lootings, beatings and murder of prisoners, and the taking of women hostages; if documentary proofs and signed statements of the above are available; whether any women have in fact been taken as hostages; and whether, as stated by above persons, dictaphones have been placed in confessionals for espionage purposes by Crown agents?

Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to these charges. No signed statements or documentary proofs have been sent to me. It is absolutely untrue that women have been carried as hostages, or that the sanctity of the confessional has ever been violated.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to invite these persons to lay evidence before him, and to clear these very grave charges which have been made?

If they send forward the evidence, it will be carefully considered.

Will you not invite them?

I think they have already been seen by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chief Secretary the number of members of the forces of the Crown in Ireland who have been arrested for offences against the criminal law since the 1st January last; how many have been brought to trial; what the results of the trials have been; and how many remain in custody awaiting trial; the number of members of the forces of the Crown who have been killed and wounded, respectively, and the number of civilians, men, women, and children, who have been killed and wounded in Ireland since the 1st January last; and whether the Report of the military court of inquiry into the murders of Alderman Clancy and Councillor O'Callaghan, of Limerick, on the 7th March last, has yet been received, and, if so, what was the nature of the Report?

If the hon. Member will repeat this question, of which I only received notice yesterday, at a later date, I shall be glad to furnish him with the desired information.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the names of the special constables concerned in looting or robbery at Clones; and whether these constables were using Government lorries and Government petrol on such expedition?

Nine members of the Special Constabulary have been arrested and are now awaiting trial by court-martial in connection with this incident. I do not think it right to make any statement bearing on the facts of the case pending the result of the trial.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I merely asked for the names and not for a statement?

I shall be very glad to furnish the names to my hon. Friend.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss N. Vaughan, occupying premises at 23a, Washington Street, Cork, whose premises were destroyed by the military on the 20th January; that she received no notification of any sort that her premises were to be destroyed; and whether he will have immediate inquiries made into this case?

I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the reason for the destruction of the premises referred to was that they were used by rebels, who fired from them upon the Crown forces on the 15th January last. All the occupants were given one hour's notice in which to remove their valuables.

How could this lady possibly have prevented armed rebels from using her house, and why should she be punished in a case of this sort? Is that supposed to be British justice?

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to a speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on Sunday last at Battersea, in the course of which he is reported to have said that the recent murder of the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Limerick was not only condoned, but was practically ordered by the Government, and whether he proposes to institute any prosecution against the hon. and gallant Member in respect of this statement?

My attention has been called to newspaper reports of the character indicated. It is a monstrous suggestion, and I can hardly believe that the hon. and gallant Member actually made the statements attributed to him. The murdered men were known to the military and police to be anxious to preserve the peace in Limerick, and the City has for a long time been tranquil. These facts were also known to and disapproved by the revolutionary forces.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sentences quoted by the hon. and gallant Member in this question do not fairly represent my statements, and in view of the very specific charges which are made in connection with these two murders, will the right hon. Gentleman have a judicial inquiry into them?

On a point of Order. This report was issued by the Press Association, and I have taken means to ascertain that the report of the hon. and gallant Member's statements is absolutely correct.

If the hon. and gallant Member is prosecuted, will not that be a sufficient judicial inquiry?

asked the Chief Secretary whether K Company of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, has been broken up; whether the cadets who joined subsequent to the 15th December are being drafted into O Company; and whether the command of O Company has been given to an officer who was a section commander in K Company, and was with them when the burnings took place in Cork?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the last part of the question, it is the case that the officer commanding O Company was formerly a platoon commander in K Company. He is an officer with an excellent war record against whom no allegation has, so far as I am aware, been made. The mere fact that this officer was at one time a platoon commander in K Company is no reason why he should not be given promotion for which he is in every way qualified.

asked the Chief Secretary if he has any information regarding a man named Patrick Comer ford, of Barrin Street, Carlow, who was taken from his house by a party of masked men at two o'clock a.m. on the 27th of February and ordered to leave the town for 12 months, and that he had to go at once, which he did, leaving his wife and six children unprovided for; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into this case?

I have made inquiries into this matter, and am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the hon. Member's question, except that the man's wife and family have not been left unprovided, but are carrying on the business of his shop in his absence. The police have been unable to ascertain his present whereabouts, or to obtain any information as to the person by whom he was kidnapped.

asked the Chief Secretary how many members of the forces of the Crown formed an escort to James Murphy and Patrick Kennedy when they were murdered, and why only three of these men have been arrested?

I am unable to add anything to my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 14th instant.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to that part of the question which refers to men whose case is not sub judice —men who have never been arrested at all? Will he state how many men formed that escort, why only three of them were arrested, and what happened to the rest of them?

The three men who are mentioned are to be tried on the 7th April, and pending that trial I think it would be highly improper for me to discuss the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to how many men formed this escort, and what has happened to the remainder of the escort? Has the charge of murder been condoned in their case?

No, Sir.

May I ask whether an officer named Captain Hardy was arrested in connection with the murder of these men and has been subsequently released? I made that statement last night.

Has the charge of murder been condoned?

The hon. Member has asked the same question three times over, and has always had the same answer.

On a point of Order. I beg to submit that the question has never been answered at all.

It may not have been answered to the satisfaction of the hon. Member, but it was answered to the satisfaction of the Minister who gave the reply.

May I ask for an answer to my question?

If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Paper, he will see that there is a question later on, No. 19, on that subject.

Can we not have an answer now as to whether Captain Hardy was not one of the persons arrested in connection with that tragic affair and was released?

These men are about to be tried, and questions which may be asked and answers which may be given might very seriously prejudice the position of those who are on trial and those who are not yet on trial.

On that point of Order May I respectfully submit to you that I am asking no ques-about the three men who are under arrest, but only about persons who have been arrested and then released? May I put it to you that that will not in any way prejudice the three men who are under arrest, and about whom I am asking no question?

I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member. I think that his questions are very likely to prejudice their trial.

May I draw attention to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that he will answer my supplementary question when he replies to a question in the name of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan)? The hon. Member for Barnard Castle is not present, and therefore I would press the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question now.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question put by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) on the 17th inst.

As the right hon. Gentleman refers to an answer to a question of mine, may I state that the question which I then put was not answered, and has not been answered yet? What my hon. and gallant Friend wants to know is, Was Captain Hardy arrested, and, if so, on what charge? That is a simple question. Can we have an answer to it?

It has already been answered.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Mechanics' Institute, Limerick, was raided by the military on Monday the 7th March; whether a number of billiard balls and packs of cards were stolen; whether on Wednesday the 9th February the same premises were entered and the billiard room bombed during curfew hours; whether much damage was done; and what action he has taken, or proposes to take, in the matter?

I have received a report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this matter, which states that the Mechanics' Institute, Limerick, was entered by military on the night of the 7th-8th instant in pursuit of civilians eluding curfew patrol. The premises were again visited on the 9th instant, but the place was not bombed by the military. At 9.30 p.m. on the same date a bomb was thrown into the billiard room by persons unknown, doing some damage. The matter was investigated immediately and, from the fragments of metal collected, the bomb was proved to be of amateur, and probably rebel manufacture. No complaint was made to the officer commanding troops of the theft of billiard balls and packs of cards, and subsequent inquiries show that there is no foundation for this charge.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state if Newry is a first-class police station and Enniscorthy a third-class station; if so, whether he can state on what grounds District Inspector Barrington was removed from Newry to Enniscorthy after he had arrested a number of special constables for looting and for murderous assaults; whether he can state why Sissons and Armstrong, the officers in charge of the special constables in Newry, were allowed to resign if they had no connection with the looting; and whether any of the loot was found in the barracks of the special constables?

District inspectors stationed in Ireland are not, during this abnormal period in Ireland, grouped permanently into first, second, and third class stations. A third-class or second-class district inspector is not necessarily removed to another station on promotion, and, conversely, it is not regarded as derogatory in any way for a first-class or second-class inspector to be transferred to a station previously filled by an inspector of lower rank. As I have already explained, Mr. Barrington's transfer from Newry to Enniscorthy was not a disciplinary measure, and involved no reflection upon his capacity or efficiency As regards the resignations of the two special constabulary officers mentioned, I can only repeat what I said last week that neither of these officers was personally involved in any act of misconduct. The last part of the hon. Member's question raises a point of evidence which, for obvious reasons, I am unable to discuss while the men who have been arrested are still awaiting trial.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that answering a question as to whether any loot was found in the barracks of the special constables is prejudicing the trial of anyone?

I think so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, namely, whether Newry is a first-class police station and Enniscorthy a third-class station?

I have already answered that during this period of trouble there is no such thing as a first-, second-or third- class station. It will be obvious at once to the hon. Member that you may have a second-or third-class station which is one of the most difficult positions in Ireland and needs a first-class inspector.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why Sissons and Armstrong were allowed, or invited, to resign, if they had nothing to do with the looting and their character is beyond reproach? Why did you dispense with the services of such distinguished officers?

I never said that they were invited to resign. The question is, whether they were allowed to resign. I have already said that neither of them was personally involved in any kind of misconduct.

They were, both of them.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the action of the Crown forces in seizing and removing from the offices of Mr. Michael Noyk, solicitor, Dublin, the briefs for counsel which had been delivered in several court-martial cases; whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a general meeting of the members of the Irish Bar a resolution was unanimously passed declaring this action to be an infringement of the privileges of the Bar; whether the briefs contained the instructions for the defence of the prisoners and counsel's notes thereon; and what action the Government has taken?

The offices of Mr. Noyk were searched by the forces of the Crown with the object of finding any papers which might lead to the apprehension of a number of persons who are wanted for various offences. Among the papers taken were some documents relating to recent murder trials, but no improper use was made of these documents, which were returned unread to Mr. Noyk in a sealed envelope. The resolution to which the hon. Member refers would appear to have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts of this incident.

Is it not a fact that at this time a movement was on foot to obtain the reprieve of the sentences passed in these two cases, and that during the period when the reprieve was being agitated for, Crown forces raided this office and took away the briefs, including the instructions to counsel. Is there any precedent, especially in a Government in which the Prime Minister is a solicitor and the Chief Secretary is also a lawyer, for raiding the office of a solicitor and taking away the briefs, as was done in this case?

I have already stated that the conviction had taken place a considerable time before the raid on the office took place. I can assure my hon. Friend that no persons connected with the reprieve or connected in any way with the extending of the prerogative of mercy to these men ever had access to, or ever looked at, any document of the kind.

Is it a fact that briefs were taken away. I ask the Attorney-General, as leader of the Irish Bar, does he attempt to justify it.

No, they were taken away, and when it was discovered what they were, they were immediately returned under seal.

asked the Chief Secretary whether in view of the increasingly grave situation in Ireland and of his declared willingness to explore any avenue that might lead to peace, he will consider the advisability of temporarily withdrawing the force commonly known as the "Black and Tans," and substituting for them an equal number of regular troops, for the purpose of testing the validity of the allegations made in many responsible quarters that the present disorders are due to the conduct of that force; whether, if such withdrawal is followed by a substantial diminution in crime, the chances of peace will be greatly improved; and, if no such diminution takes place, the allegations against the force will be shown to have no basis in fact?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with this matter very fully yesterday afternoon. I have nothing to add to that statement.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the reason of the delay in publishing the Report of the Peat Commission and when it will be issued; and whether he is aware that resolutions were passed last May and at the recent meetings of the Council of Agriculture asking for its publication?

I am informed that the Report referred to is now in the Press, and it is expected that copies will be available in about a fortnight.

asked the Chief Secretary the cause of the delay on the part of the Local Government Board for Ireland in putting into operation the provisions of The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920; whether he is aware that increases of pre-War pensions have been granted by the Board of Governors of Kilkenny district lunatic asylum for the past two months; and if he will consult with the Treasury to have the necessary regulations issued and published under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act as soon as possible on behalf of these poor pensioners?

The Treasury have made an Order and Regulations under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, dated 2nd March, 1921, applying the provisions of the Act to the pensioners of local authorities in Ireland. The Order and Regulations have already been published in the "Dublin Gazette," and copies are about to be issued by the Local Government Board to the various local authorities throughout Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary the number of barracks and courthouses which have been destroyed in Ireland during the years 1919 and 1920?

No barracks or courthouses were destroyed during the year 1919. The number of barracks destroyed during the year 1920 was 533, of which 510 were unoccupied, and the number of courthouses destroyed was 69.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1918?

No.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will reconsider the decision not to make public the Report of the inquiry into the burning of the city of Cork; and whether he can state in how many cases inquiries of a similar character have been held and concerning which the finding has not been published?

I have nothing to add to the statements I have already made with regard to this matter.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Chief Secretary whether sentence of death has been passed on Patrick O'Sullivan, Maurice Moore, and Jeremiah O'Leary, by court-martial in Cork; what are these men charged with, and what are the circumstances?

I have been informed by the Commander-in-chief that the sentences in these cases have not been confirmed or promulgated, and in addition, an application was granted by the King's Bench Division in Dublin yesterday for a conditional Order for Habeas Corpus, and the case will be argued in a few days.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any figures are available showing the trade of the United Kingdom with Ireland during the past six months?

I am not in possession of any figures showing the trade between Great Britain and Ireland during the past six months. I am, however, making inquiry, and should I receive any particulars I will communicate them to the hon. and gallant Member.

Is not Ireland part of the United Kingdom?

asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to securing uniformity in passport regulation, His Majesty's Government could see its way to suggest to the European countries which have not yet fallen into line an extension of visas hording good for 12 months?

When the various countries who sent representatives to the recent Conference in Paris adopt the resolutions which were passed, all visas granted by such countries will automatically be good for a year, unless specially limited to a shorter period.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the possibility of the Passport Control Department of the Foreign Office making the normal British visa an annual one the fee the equivalent of 10 gold francs, in view of the fact that the French are now charging 10 gold francs and threaten to raise this to 25 gold francs if the present British rate is maintained, and that the Belgians are, in fact, charging 25 gold francs because the British rate is so high, whereas they are prepared to reduce the rate to 10 gold francs as soon as the British adopt the recommendations of the Committee of the League of Nations?

Steps are being taken to ascertain whether the Dominion, Indian and Colonial Governments are prepared to co-operate with His Majesty's Government by adopting the Resolutions passed at the Conference regarding passports and visas. The Treasury have been communicated with as to the question of the suggested reduction of the amount of the visa fee.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French are going to raise the charge for visas on 1st April to £1 against British travellers, whereas they only charge 8s. to the travellers of other nations, and that the Swiss charge for visas has been reduced to 5s., and is he aware—

The hon. Member might put those questions on the Paper.

With the co-operation of our Dominions, is it not possible to reduce the cost of our visas?

I hope it may be possible, and I am anxious it should be done.

Is it possible to have arrangements made with other Governments to stop the infernal searching that goes on at the frontiers and the inconvenience caused thereby?

I have done everything I could in my subordinate position to do away with these inconveniences.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Parliament of Finland voted on the 10th March last a payment of 30,000,000 Finnish marks to the German Government for the German expedition under General Von der Gotz in the spring of 1918; whether the threat of this German army to Murmansk and Pet-chenga necessitated the despatch of a British naval and military expedition at great expense when every ship and soldier was required in the main theatres of war; and whether this money should be paid to the British Exchequer rather than to the Germans, particularly in view of the fact that General Ludendorf states in his Memoirs that the expedition was not sent from any sentimental point of view, but simply to serve the military interests of Germany?

I understand this question has been postponed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have immediate inquiries made into this case. I have brought evidence before the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs?

The letter asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone the question states that inquiries are being made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman go personally into this? I want to draw his attention to this state of affairs.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a com- munication from the council of the Royal Borough of Kensington strongly urging that, in view of the fall in the cost of living and the urgent need of cutting down national and municipal expenditure, the existing bonus system of remuneration for persons in the Government service should be reviewed, especially having regard to the fact that the Civil Service bonus scheme has been applied, at the suggestion of the Ministry of Health, to the remuneration of the employés of the great majority of local authorities throughout the country, and that it is difficult for such authorities to modify their own particular bonus schemes while the Government scheme remains in operation; and if he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

A communication has been received from the Royal Borough of Kensington urging that the Civil Service bonus scheme should be reconsidered with a view to its abolition or to a material reduction of the benefits conferred by it. I am unable to accede to this suggestion. A fall in the cost of living, as I have repeatedly stated, entails a corresponding reduction on the recent revision in the bonus payable under the scheme.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, having regard to the fact that this bonus scheme was originally constituted departmentally, and without the House of Commons having an opportunity to express an opinion upon it, and having regard to the fall in the cost of living, it would be desirable to have a full inquiry at present?

The House expressed an opinion upon it in the recent Division, when 39 Members voted against it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this bonus is causing discontent in the Army and Navy because Army and Navy officers do not get the bonus and the civil people do? Could that not be rectified by withdrawing the bonus?

Army and Navy salaries have been very considerably augmented, while Civil Service salaries have not.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish penal servitude; if so, what fault is found with that form of punishment, and what is to take its place?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not arise.

Is it not a fact that two days ago the right hon. Gentleman publicly declared that he wished to abolish penal servitude before he left the Home Office?

No; what I said was that I objected very strongly to the term "servitude" as applied to any of my fellow countrymen, and I adhere to that objection.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will secure that the claims for compensation of British submarined British fishermen and seamen and of seamen seized at German ports immediately before the declaration of war, who were imprisoned in German prisons in defiance of the provisions of the Hague Convention, will be made a primary charge on any sums received by way of indemnity from Germany in respect that these men have suffered severely in person and pecuniary loss, and were overlooked in the Peace Treaty, although they were told to lodge claims as being provided for thereunder?

I have been asked to reply to this question. Claims arising from German action during the War, so far as they fall within the categories laid down in the reparation Clauses of the Peace Treaty, will be considered for the grant of compensation under the conditions laid down in the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 4th May, 1920, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. Claims arising from acts committed by the German Government or authorities during the period between the 31st July and the 4th August, 1914, do not fall within the reparations Clauses but will be submitted to an arbitrator, as provided by paragraph 4 of the Annex to Article 297 of the Treaty, and any compensation awarded may be charged against German property in this country. Seamen injured or otherwise incapacitated by submarine action or as a result of internment are entitled to apply for consideration under the War Risks Compensation Scheme.

Is it not the case that the compensation the seamen are getting who were interned immediately prior to the War is the same compensation as is given to the ordinary civilian, whereas he is entitled to a better scale on the ground that he was protected under the Hague Treaty which has been disregarded?

I think if the hon. Member will read the answer he will see that the claim for a seaman who has been interned can be made under two heads, not merely for compensation under the Reparations, but also under the special claims which are provided for in paragraph 4 of the annex.

May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the long delay in getting further sums out of Germany, could not these seamen get something on account out of the proceeds of the sale of German ships as promised by him some two years ago?

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather mistaken. Of the claims against German property a large amount has already been collected from Germany through the clearing house and the regular monthly instalments have been regularly paid up to date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that claims were sent as far back as 13th November, 1919, to the Reparation Claims Department on behalf of widows and dependants of those who lost their lives by enemy action in sinking the s. s. "Abosso," and that no information regarding the settlement of the claims has been sent to those concerned; and whether he can say when the claims will be recognised and met by compensatory payments?

I am unable to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 17th of March.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not given an answer in relation to the widows and children who have never received a penny?

The hon. Gentleman put a question about compensation under reparation claims. That cannot be paid until the £5,000,000 is available, but that does not conclude the matter. There are the pensions under the War Risks Compensation Scheme, and those, I am informed, are actually being paid to the dependants of seamen who lost their lives.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the declaration of the Canadian Prime Minister that the Canadian Government had received no specific proposal from London about co-operation in exacting reparation from Germany; and whether such a proposal will now be made to the Dominions and to India?

I have not seen the declaration referred to, but there must, I think, be some misunderstanding. The intentions of His Majesty's Government are in accordance with the suggestions contained in the last part of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which it transpired that a sum of £10,000 was, in 1909, granted by a party whip to a gentleman at that time a Member of the House of Commons; whether it is the custom to assist Members of Parliament in this manner to avoid bankruptcy and consequent resignations of seats; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation with a view to preventing such an abuse of the system of party funds.

I have no knowledge of the matter referred to, and have no means of ascertaining the accuracy of the facts stated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the case, since the Gentleman referred to is presumed to have joined the Labour party. It is only fair, if that is so, that the money should be divided equally amongst Coalition Liberals and the Wee Free Liberals who are supposed to be approaching bankruptcy themselves.

What about the National party?

Is not an hon. Member understood to hold himself responsible for the statements he makes in a question, and are we to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has himself inquired into this and found it is correct because it has been denied in the public Press?

I understand this question is founded upon evidence given in the Law Courts on oath.

Are you aware, Sir, that it has been authoritatively denied in the public Press?

I was not aware. A great many things have been denied in the Press which eventually turn out correct.

asked the Prime Minister when he will give a day to discuss the Motion for the abolition of the Liquor Control Board which is upon the Paper, and for which so large a number of Members have expressed a wish to have moved and debated?

I am afraid that it will not be possible to give time to discuss this Motion before the Bill dealing with the matter is introduced.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is the greatest dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs, that the country wishes to start on this discussion with a clean sheet and not with War-time measures imposed upon them, and that it is very little use addressing people against the forces of revolution—

The hon. Member is entering into argument.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information of a recently reported statement by M. Lenin upon the subject of Bolshevism; and whether he is able to give the House the conclusions arrived at by M. Lenin as to the merits or demerits of this form of government?

Such information as is available is to be found in the wireless reports from Moscow.

asked the Prime Minister whether the official of the Treasury appointed to serve on the League of Nation's Committee to consider the organisations, numbers, salaries, and allowances of the permanent staff of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, is to receive a special salary and allowances for that work; and, if so, at what rate and by whom are they to be paid?

An inquiry has been addressed to the Secretariat of the League as to what allowance it is proposed to grant to the representative of the British Treasury. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question after Easter, when I hope the desired information will be available.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Russia is likely to be allowed to enter the League of Nations?

That does not arise out of this question.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the League of Nations may if it chooses revise the mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine while the House of Commons may only accept or decline them unconditionally, that these mandates impose an expenditure of approximately £28,000,000 in the coming financial year, that although no financial responsibility is borne by the League, Great Britain is required under the mandates to present to the League an annual report upon the expenditure connected therewith, and in view of the apprehension widely felt that burdens may be cast upon the taxpayer without parliamentary sanction having been previously obtained, he will give at an early opportunity time for a discussion in the House of the grave issues involved?

asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that the taxpayer will not be called upon to assume any financial liability in respect of the mandates for Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Nauru until he has had an opportunity to express his wishes in the matter?

My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary proposes on his return to make a full statement to the House as to the position in Palestine and Mesopotamia, and the House will have a further opportunity then to discuss the question of the mandates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Colonial Secretary will be back?

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it will be within the power of the House of Commons to repudiate liability respecting the mandates?

Certainly, the House of Commons will have complete power either to accept or repudiate.

Will the Prime Minister answer my question? In view of the absence of the Colonial Secretary, can he say when he expects the right hon. Gentleman back?

I do not know.

Will Great Britain have the first charge upon the Revenues of these countries to repay her for expenditure in respect of the administration of those countries?

That is one of the matters which will have to be considered.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any indication that the Jews themselves are now finding the money for policing Palestine?

I am very hopeful that the Government there will be self-supporting, and that it will provide for its own defence. That is one of the questions which is being considered by the Government.

The Prime Minister says that the matter is being considered. Surely Great Britain is entitled to the first charge on the revenues of those countries in respect of the actual expenditure on those countries.

Certainly, but at the present time, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, there is no Government in Mesopotamia with whom we can deal. We are endeavouring to set up a Government, but we cannot impose a charge until the Government has been set up. That will be one of the first questions to be considered with the new Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether any suggested Amendments to the draft mandate for Tanganyika Territory should be submitted direct to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, or to the Lord President of the Council, or to himself; and whether instructions will be given that Amendments dealing with the draft proposals regarding the continuance of the status of slavery, sale of alcohol to natives, and the proposal permitting the territory to be combined in an administrative union with Kenya Colony shall receive reconsideration by the British Government's representative on the Council of the League?

The draft mandate in question has already been submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make, they can be submitted either to the Lord President of the Council or to myself.

Can the Prime Minister say when the Lord President of the Council will be present again in his place in Parliament?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of inviting the Governments of the United States and Japan to send special representatives to London in June so that the problem of naval armaments may be considered in friendly conference on the lines of Mr. Harding's inaugural speech to Congress and the recent declaration of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and with the advantage of the presence in London of the Ministers of the Dominion's and India?

asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to arrange for the discussion by representatives of this country and of the United States of America of the naval programmes of the two countries?

It is premature to make any statement on this important question.

asked the Prime Minister if he has any official information as to what proportion of the shares in the Skoda munition factory and in Krupps, of Austria, are now owned by French capitalists; and what proportion are in the hands of Schneider, of Creusot, in particular?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the 50 per cent. ad valorem duty on imported cigars imposed in the last Budget is estimated to produce a deficit of £500,000 instead of an increase of £500,000 which was budgeted for; and if he will consider the removal of this duty in view of the injury to the retail tobacconist trade caused by this tax?

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the 8th instant on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a crisis in the retail tobacconist trade?

I have had complaints.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not received correspondence from a large number of retail tobacconists saying that if this tax is continued they will be ruined, and that they will have to raise the price of ordinary tobacco to their customers?

A number of letters have been received.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the agreement between the Government and the Duke of Bedford for the purchase of some 11 acres at the rear of the British Museum was conditional on the land being used for the erection of new buildings for the University of London; whether it contained a clause that in the event of such university buildings not being erected before April, 1926, the Duke of Bedford should have an option of repurchasing the property at the price which had been paid for it by the Government; whether the Government are consequently precluded under the terms of such agreement from using the site for any other purpose other than for the erection of university buildings; whether this site has now been definitely purchased by the Government subject to the above-mentioned restrictive covenant; and whether he will lay a copy of the agreement upon the Table of the House for the information of Members of Parliament?

As stated in the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham on the 16th instant, the agreement with the vendor contains a clause under which, if before 1st April, 1926, the Government give notice that they find it impossible to use the property for the purposes of the university the vendor has an option to repurchase it for the price given, and if he does not exercise the option the restriction of the use of the site for purposes of the university is removed. It is, therefore, not the fact that the Government are precluded from using the site for any purpose other than that of the erection of university buildings. I will inquire whether the Duke of Bedford's trustees have any objection to the presentation of the agreement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can say that it is not a fact that the Government are precluded from using the site for other than university purposes, when the Duke of Bedford has an option to repurchase if it is used for other than university purposes, and will he answer the last part of the question as to whether the site has been actually purchased?

I think it has been purchased.

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not a fact that the Government are precluded from using the site for other than university purposes. How can that be so when the Duke of Bedford has the option to repurchase if the site is used for other than university purposes?

If the Duke repurchases, the question does not arise; if he does not, then we are not precluded.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will inform the House what were the other purposes for which the Government proposed to use the site which they have acquired from the Duke of Bedford at the rear of the British Museum, in the event of the same not being made use of for the purposes of the University of London, as stated in his letter to Lord Rosebery of the 7th April, 1920; and whether the Government propose to acquire another site of equal area for such purposes, in the event of the Bloomsbury site being made use of by the university?

As stated in the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham on the 16th instant, in the improbable event of the abandonment of the scheme, it will be for the Government of the day to determine whether to dispose of the site or devote it to other purposes.

Is the right ion. Gentleman aware that in the letter it was definitely stated by the Minister of Education, in urging the University of London to give an early reply, that in the event of their not requiring the site, the site was required by the Government for other purposes? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the other purposes for which the Government require a site of 11 acres?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the chief of police at Cardiff has forbidden the exhibition of certain posters advertising a meeting, on the ground that they contained the words Lenin, comrade, and Communist party; and whether other printed matter containing any of these words is also liable to suppression?

The answer to both questions is in the negative. What happened was that the chief constable, on being consulted by an advertising company, advised them not to publish a poster without the name and address of the printer. The police took no objection to the words "Comrade" and "Communist," nor to the word "Lenin," except in so far as its use was likely to be misleading.

Is it not a fact that Lenin has announced himself a supporter of the Middle Classes Union?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many prosecutions have been instituted under the Profiteering Acts during the last six months; and what has been the cost of working the Acts in that period, including the expenses of administration, both centrally and locally?

According to returns which have been received, 31 prosecutions have been initiated between 1st September, 1920, and 28th February, 1921. The expenditure of the Board of Trade (excluding office rent, lighting and stationery) in administering the Acts during this period was £23,165. This includes the expenses of the Central Committee and of Appeal Tribunals, but not that of Local Committees, which I am not able to give as they are defrayed out of the local rates.

How many convictions have been secured as a result of the 31 prosecutions?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would give me notice.

Would it be correct to say that it has been costing £1,000 to bring a single prosecution?

That would be a completely inaccurate statement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is ignoring entirely all the work done by the Central Committee in the investigation of prices.

asked the Minister of Health whether certificates for the housing subsidy of £260 granted in 1920, but not yet used, can be used in building houses in 1921, provided that those houses are finished by the end of the year?

Under the Bill which I introduced yesterday, it is proposed that the grant will be payable on houses completed by the end of June, 1922.

When will this Bill be printed, seeing that it is down for Second Reading to-day, and is not available in the Vote Office?

I expect that it should be available this afternoon.

Are houses finished in January of this year now available for grants, or will the grants not be paid until the Bill is passed?

In the case of houses built in January of this year under the existing Act, it is necessary to deduct one-twelfth of the amount that otherwise would be payable. Under the Bill as printed it is proposed that we should be able to repay that one-twelfth.

Will the right hon. Gentleman insert in the new Bill a Clause to prevent a subsidy being paid to builders who build houses for sale and not to be let?

It is open to the hon. Member to propose a provision to that effect.

asked the Secretary for Scotland how many houses have been completed under the Housing Act in Scotland; how many are in course of construction; and what proportion does this figure represent of the total number of houses that were included in the schemes of local authorities that were submitted and approved?

Under the Housing Acts, 1,500 houses had been completed, and 9,590 were in course of construction in Scotland at the 28th February. Seven hundred and ninety-seven of the completed houses and 7,773 of the houses in course of construction are being provided by local authorities, and the sum of these two figures represents 7·5 per cent of the 114,119 houses included in approved schemes by local authorities.

What prospect is there of the remaining percentage being constructed if only 7½ per cent. have been built?

We hope that during the coming better weather and with the increased labour available for building schemes there will be considerable progress.

How do you propose to secure better weather?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last few months have been the driest for sixty-four years?

Not in the Highlands.

asked the Secretary for Scotland how many men of all branches of the building trade are now engaged upon house construction in schemes under the Housing Act in Scotland; how many men is it estimated will be required to carry out the work during the summer months; and whether, if the type of construction of the houses be altered, there is any prospect of absorbing considerable labour now unemployed?

According to returns for the fortnight ending the 15th March, 8,676 men were employed on house construction in schemes promoted by local authorities under the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919. On the basis that two men are required to complete one house per annum, 6,870 additional men would be necessary to complete the 7,773 houses now under construction by local authorities. A wide variety of forms of construction is at present in operation, and I do not think that a further absorption of unemployed labour could be attained by the method suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Secretary for Scotland how much money from all sources has been raised by local authorities for housing schemes; what was the estimated sum required for building the houses that were considered necessary; how much of this money raised has been spent upon house construction; and what has been the total contribution made to local authorities by the Treasury?

According to returns up to the 15th March, the total amount raised by local authorities for housing schemes is £4,648,868. No detailed estimate has been framed of the cost of the total number of houses considered necessary, but the 19,315 houses for which tenders have been approved are estimated to cost £18,900,000, inclusive of the cost of street works. The total contribution made to local authorities by the Treasury to date is £28,178.

asked the Minister of Health whether in the Navy and Army Fund branch of the Ministry of Health there are two first class women clerks who have been assimilated to the lower clerical grade, although they are doing exactly similar work to two men assimilated to the higher clerical grade, and two first class women clerks who have been assimilated to the lower clerical grade, although they are doing exactly similar work to two men assimilated to the lower executive grade; and whether he can state what is the reason for the degrading of the women?

I am not aware of the facts mentioned by my Noble Friend, but I am inquiring into them, and will report the result to her.