asked the Secretary of State for India whether there still exist any restrictions on the colonisation of British India by British subjects, other than natives of India, or in the purchase, lease, or possession of land in British India by such British subjects; and, if so, what is their general effect?

There are no restrictions on the entry into British India of British subjects, provided that they are in possession of valid passports, nor on their purchase, lease, or possession of land in British India, except that purchases by serving Government officers from Indians are in certain cases subject to the orders of higher authority.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in addition to the disbandment of the three cavalry regiments, four cavalry squadrons, and 52 battalions of infantry up to the 24th February last, the amalgamation of cavalry regiments and the reduction of pre-War infantry battalions is still being continued in India despite his undertaking that no further reductions would be made pending consideration of the whole question by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

On 23rd February I informed the House that arrangements were being made to maintain in India 21 Indian cavalry regiments and 132 battalions of Indian infantry and pioneers. On 25th February I stated that there were in India eight British cavalry regiments, 45 British infantry battalions, and five companies of armoured cars. On 23rd March, and again on 6th April, I stated that no further reductions would be made pending the inquiry by the Subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. This undertaking is being, and will be, strictly adhered to.

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the sum total annually paid out of Indian revenues, excepting for the British Army, for the salaries and upkeep of the Established Church in India; how much of this sum is paid under Section 118 of the Government of India Act, 1915, for the bishops and archdeacons of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay; and how much is outside and beyond this statutory contribution?

It is difficult to give the figures as asked for in the first part of the question, because the chaplains of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in India minister to both the troops and the civil population alike, and it is impossible to apportion exactly the total cost of salary and upkeep between the two. The most recent figures for the total cost of salaries and upkeep, are for the Church of England, £123,180, and for the Church of Scotland, £14,375, and the greater part of these sums is expenditure in connection with the British Army. Of the sum of £123,180, the sum of £7,625 is paid under the Statute in respect of the bishops and archdeacons mentioned.

May I ask on what grounds the Indian taxpayers are taxed for the benefit of this particular Church?

If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes for a statement on that, I must ask him to give me notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War, seeing that ribbons were issued before the recipients received their victory and other medals, whether he is prepared to consider the issue of a ribbon to those entitled to a home service medal at an early date?

The question of the award of a medal to those who rendered service with the military forces at home during the War is at present receiving further consideration, and no ribbon can be issued until a decision has been reached as regards the medal.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the cost per annum to the British taxpayer of keeping the Egyptian Military Police and Egyptian Labour Corps who are employed with the British Army in Egypt and Palestine?

The cost of the numbers provided for in Army Estimates, 1921–22 is: Police, £95,000; Labour Corps, £325,000.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the year 1919, the Secretary of State for War requested a British general and other British officers to proceed to the Baltic Provinces on a military and political mission for the British Government; and whether, seeing that this mission was a success and gave excellent results, which have been recorded in the War Office and Foreign Office Departments, he will say if the whole of the expenses of the mission have been borne by the British Government, or whether the Army Council is charging the British general who was at the head of the mission with some part of these expenses, and is deducting the amount from his half-pay?

My hon. Friend's question has reference to expenditure on entertainment, the whole of which cannot be borne by public funds. The general officer concerned was allotted a specific sum for this purpose, but exceeded it. A portion of the excess has been met by an additional grant, and the balance is being recovered from the officer.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself and the War Office expressed entire sympathy with this officer, and, seeing that it is admitted that this money was spent in the service of the State, is it not very hard that it should be deducted from his half-pay while it is being referred to the Conference in Paris for submission to the other nations whom it is suggested should contribute to this expenditure? Is there no sum from which it could be drawn in this country?

It is not a matter of sympathy, but a matter of Regulation. If there is a possibility of making a further grant, it will be made.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any definite decision has been arrived at as to the future of the experimental ground at Porton; whether he is aware that hardship and inconvenience has been caused to the landowners and smallholders affected owing to the uncertainty in this matter, which has now lasted for several years; and whether he will now pay them, adequate compensation?

For the reasons already explained to my hon. Friend, no final decision has yet been reached as to the future of the experimental ground at Porton. As regards the last two parts of the question, negotiations are proceeding for the settlement of the claims of the smallholders.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the ammunition officially served out with Webley revolvers is a soft-nosed leaden bullet without nickel casing; and whether the ammunition regularly served out with Winchester-Scott automatic pistols has a flat apex?

The ammunition issued for the Webley revolver is the standard pattern all-lead bullet hardened uniformly with antimony which has been used in the Service for many years. As regards the second part of the question, if the hon. Member is referring to the Webley and Scott automatic pistol, the answer is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these revolver bullets, ordinary soft lead bullets, are actually contrary to the Hague Convention, and that at the beginning of the War they had to be withdrawn from the Royal Naval Service for that reason?

I am not aware that these bullets are those to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

asked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to military courts of inquiry and courts-martial in Ireland, what is the practice in reference to the following matters: is cross-examination of witnesses allowed; are counsel permitted to be present; may they speak; is the Press admitted; are they required to submit their reports before publication; and is the evidence published officially or otherwise?

In answering this question it is necessary to deal separately with courts of inquiry and courts-martial. In the case of military courts of inquiry, cross-examination of witnesses is not allowed, except where the character or military reputation of an officer or soldier is affected. Military courts of inquiry are in their nature normally private inquiries, but, unless there are special reasons to the contrary, and excepting in inquiries into purely military matters, counsel are at liberty to attend as representatives of parties directly concerned, and are at liberty to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting material facts. The Press may be admitted whenever deemed expedient. The Press are not required to submit their reports before publication. The evidence is not officially published. In the case of courts-martial there is in Ireland, as elsewhere, an absolute legal right to cross-examine witnesses, to be represented by counsel, and for counsel to address the court. The proceedings must be in open court, and the Press must be admitted unless the court order their exclusion in the public interest or for the due administration of justice. In Ireland the Press have been almost invariably admitted to the proceedings of courts-martial and have been permitted to publish full reports without submission to any authority, but have been requested to omit from their reports the names of witnesses, members of the court and prosecutors or prosecuting counsel. The evidence is not officially published, but the person tried has the right to obtain a certified copy from the Judge Advocate General.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say why no cross-examination is permitted in the case of courts of inquiry, and, secondly, why, in the case of the Mallow inquiry, it is stated that the Press were informed that they were only admitted on condition that they would submit their reports to the court?

I cannot answer, without notice, a specific question with reference to an individual inquiry, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at my answer, which is a very careful one, he will see that counsel in military courts of inquiry are entitled to ask questions.

Is it not a fact that, with regard to some of these courts-martial in martial law areas, the Press are required to cut out all reference to some of the evidence given by some of the witnesses?

They have been requested to omit the names of witnesses, the names of members of the court, and the names of prosecuting counsel, for the very obvious reason that these persons suffer if their names are mentioned.

While agreeing about that, may I ask again whether they have not also been required to omit all account of the evidence given by certain witnesses?

I think not. That is covered by the general answer I have given. If my right hon. Friend wishes for an answer in regard to a specific case, I must ask for notice of the question.

Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question as to why the cross-examination of witnesses is not permitted? Does not he agree that cross-examination is sometimes necessary in order to elicit the full facts?

Cross-examination is permitted in courts-martial. In military courts of inquiry counsel are entitled to ask questions

Apparently I have not made myself clear to the right hon Gen- tleman. Why are counsel in courts of inquiry such as the Mallow inquiry not permitted to cross-examine? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable that cross-examination should take place if the full facts are to be brought into the light of day?

In private inquiries, which courts of inquiry normally are, I do not think it is necessary, but in regard to courts-martial I entirely agree, and so it is provided.

Can the right hon. Gentleman refer us to any rule prohibiting cross-examination in that way?

I can refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the books, with which he is familiar, on military law.

Would the right hon. Gentleman please answer my question, why, in the case of the Mallow court, cross-examination was not permitted? Does he agree that it would have been desirable, and, if so, why was it not permitted?

I heard my hon. and gallant Friend make that assertion, but I cannot admit it, because I do not know the full facts of the Mallow inquiry. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to ask a question about any individual inquiry, I must ask for notice of it.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what scale of pensions is provided for men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are disabled by ambushes or other attacks by Irish rebels, and who in consequence have to be discharged from the force, and for the widows and dependants of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are murdered by rebels; and from what source these pensions are paid?

Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary discharged from the force owing to injury in the circumstances mentioned are granted pensions out of moneys voted by Parliament. The amounts of the pensions are at present fixed on a partly provisional basis pending the passing of the Police Pen- sion Bill now before this House, and definitive amounts will afterwards be fixed in accordance with such new scales as may be prescribed for police forces in Great Britain. The provisional pensions in the cases of men having less than 15 years' service are according to the scale of special pensions for non-accidental injury set out in Part 1 of the first Schedule to the Bill. The provisional pensions in the case of men having 15 years' service or more are according to the scale of ordinary pensions set out in the same part of the same schedule. In addition to the above pensions, constables maimed or maliciously injured in the execution of their duty or on account of having acted as constables may recover compensation from local rates under the provisions of the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Acts. As regards the provision made for the widows and dependants of policemen in the circumstances mentioned, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to his question of the 16th March. No dependants other than widows and children are eligible for the pensions and allowances payable under the constabulary enactments out of voted moneys, but this restriction does not affect claims under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Hugh Beirne, ex-sergeant, Royal Irish Constabulary, who was retired on account of physical disability in December, 1913, after 31 years' service; whether he is aware that Hugh Beirne applied for an increase of pension under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, but was refused on the ground that he was not compulsorily retired and was therefore ineligible for an increase; what justification is there for introducing this limitation, namely, compulsory retirement, into the Act of 1920; and whether he will give directions that the terms of the Act shall be strictly complied with?

The ex-sergeant referred to did not retire from the force because of physical or mental infirmity, and being under 60 years of age, he is therefore ineligible for increase of pension under the Pensions (Increase) Act. The terms of the Act have been strictly complied with in this case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter of application for an increase of pension stated that there was no compulsory retirement, and is there any ground for putting in the word "compulsory"?

Yes, because being under 60 years of age he would have been entitled if he had been compulsorily retired, but being under 60 and not compulsorily retired he was not entitled

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Act says "when a man retires from physical disability," and the officials appear to put in the words "when a man is compulsorily retired"?

He did not retire under either physical or mental infirmity, and he was under 60 years of age.

Is not "compulsorily," which is put into the answer by an official, totally irrelevant?

No. I have already explained it.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the result of the trial by court-martial of the men charged with the Ballymacelligot incidents on 12th November, 1920?

I am informed by the general officer commanding in chief that two of the accused have been acquitted. The cases of the other three are before the confirming officer.

Why were the cinematograph operator and the official photographers present at this famous battle not called as witnesses, as requested by counsel for the defence?

asked the Chief Secretary whether, subsequent to an ambush of police near Dungarvan, a levy of £100 each was made on 25th March on the following residents of the town: Mr. Fraher, Mrs. Boyle, Mr. M. Moloney, Mr. Patrick Hehir, and Mr. Thomas Casey, and as the fines were not paid, except by Mr. Fraher, the furniture of these persons was destroyed; by whose orders these fines were imposed; why these persons were selected; and whether there was any evidence that they were concerned in the ambush?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part the fines were imposed by the direction of the military governor of that martial law area, who was satisfied that the persons mentioned must have known of the impending attack on the Crown forces.

Had these persons who were to be fined any opportunity of rebutting the evidence that was brought against them?

I am quite sure that the military governor before taking such an extreme step made inquiry himself?

Had the persons who were to suffer any opportunity of defending themselves at all?

That must be left entirely to the military governor. He is a British officer of standing.

Why does this officer of standing pick out the house of a woman, Mrs. Boyle? How is she expected to be able to prevent ambushes or assassinations? What is the sense of it?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a Report on the destruction by Crown forces near Skibbereen on 9th March of four houses belonging to persons named Connolly, O'Sullivan, M'Carthy, and Driscoll; whether this was an official reprisal; if so, for what offence; and on what principle these houses were selected?

I am still awaiting a Report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether there is a policy of official reprisals by the Crown forces in Ireland; whether the system of collective fines on towns and areas in which crimes have been committed has been approved by him; and whether these official reprisals and collective fines are confined to the martial law districts in Ireland?

It is within the discretion of Military Governors in the martial law area to direct the carrying out of punishment on districts in which outrages have been committed. The imposition of collective fines is a legitimate and recognised feature of martial law administration, but so far as my information goes, the occasions on which such fines have been imposed are very few. The general policy pursued by the Military Governors in Ireland has the full approval of the Government. The exercise of the powers referred to is confined to the martial law area.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that during the late War one of the charges made against the Germans was this very policy of the collective fine and of reprisals on possibly innocent persons? How does the Cabinet come to approve such a barbarous practice?

Have the Irish Office any information to show that this question was asked on the instruction of Michael Collins?

Before such a fine is imposed, have the persons on whom it is intended to impose it any opportunity of showing that in fact they are innocent?

That is a question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just addressed to the learned Attorney-General, and my right hon. Friend has answered it.

On another matter.

In spite of the cheap and insolent remark of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, may I have a reply to my question?

If these official reprisals are confined to the martial law area, why did the Crown forces burn a creamery in my district, which is not in the martial law area?

I have not spoken of "official reprisals,' which is a term I do not recognise. If my hon. and gallant Friend requires information about particular incidents he must please give me notice. I cannot be expected to have all the facts of all these cases in my mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to my question?

No, I decline to answer that question.

Is it the policy of the Cabinet to impose punishment on people collectively or singly without any opportunity being given to them to examine the evidence on which they are punished or to rebut the same?

It is obvious that in a large number of these cases the outrages which are perpetrated on the Forces of the Crown, the preparation for those outrages, must be within the knowledge of the inhabitants of the districts—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and His Majesty's Government think that it is necessary to bring home to the inhabitants of the district their responsibility.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question that I put, whether it is the policy of the Cabinet—

That is purely a matter for argument. It cannot be dealt with by question and answer.

The question I am asking is whether it is the policy of the Government to impose punishment, without giving any opportunity to the accused to rebut the evidence. That, I submit, is a question of fact.

It is a question which has already been put.

And not answered.

Not answered to the hon. and gallant Member's satisfaction, but it has been answered twice by the learned Attorney-General.

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has any information concerning the shooting affray between two parties of police at the Shannon View Hotel, Castleconnell; what are the names of the men killed and to which police formation they belonged; whether the landlord of the hotel, Mr. Denis O'Donovan, was taken outside the hotel and shot; and whether the family of Mr. O'Donovan are to receive any compensation?

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is a fact that yesterday at Castleconnell, County Limerick, the landlord of the Shannon View Hotel, Mr. Denis O'Donovan, was shot by a party of auxiliaries; and whether grenades were thrown through the windows of the hotel and a Lewis gun trained on the bar, which was wrecked. Also whether Temporary Cadet Pringle and Sergeant Hughes were killed in the struggle, and one Royal Irish Constabulary constable wounded. Whether means are being taken to put an end to such scandalous lack of discipline on the part of the forces of the Crown, and when the transcript of the notes of the trial of the three cadets for the murders of Murphy and Kennedy will be ready, and if they will then be published?

According to a police report which I have received a party of Auxiliaries in plain clothes under the command of an officer entered the Shannon Hotel, Castleconnell, on the 17th instant for the purpose of searching it for suspects. Outside the hotel they observed three bicycles standing against the door and on entering they were informed that these bicycles belonged to three strangers who were in the bar. They thereupon rushed the bar and ordered the three men to hold up their hands. The latter, who were a sergeant and two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were proceeding on leave in plain clothes, thought that the Auxiliaries were members of the Irish Republican Army, and on being challenged at the point of the revolver at once opened fire. Both parties continued firing until the sergeant was killed and one of the constables was wounded. The other constable then made a rush for the door accompanied by the hotel proprietor. Mr. O'Donovan, and in doing so the hotel proprietor was killed and the constable captured. It was only then that the parties discovered their mistake. One of the Auxiliaries a temporary cadet was also killed during the fight. The report adds that the statements which have been made to the effect that Mr. O'Donovan was taken out into the yard and shot in cold blood are emphatically denied by the Auxiliaries. There is no mention of grenades being thrown through the windows of the hotel or of a Lewis gun being trained on the bar, and I have asked for a further report with reference to these allegations.

In regard to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member for the Scotland division (Mr. O'Connor), I would point out that the court-martial of the three members of the Crown Forces charged with the murders at Drumcondra was open to the Press and to the public. I see no ground for taking the unusual course of publishing the official shorthand notes of the proceedings.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is a fact that before the Easter Recess, it was stated on behalf of the Government, that consideration would be given to the suggestion which came from several quarters of the House that these Auxiliaries should be placed under strict military discipline? I desire to ask the Attorney-General now, whether consideration has been given to that suggestion and if so, what is the decision, if any, which the Government has come to on the matter?

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear these bullies out of Ireland?

This hardly arises out of this question.

May I point out that this state of affairs has arisen owing to the lack of discipline in the Auxiliary forces, and therefore perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that the inference does arise that it is because of their want of discipline that such a state of affairs exists?

May I point out that if the hon. and gallant Member wants to put a question on general policy to the Attorney-General for Ireland or to anybody else, he ought to give notice of it in the ordinary way, and if it is of a very pressing nature, and he will give notice to me, I will see whether. it can be allowed at the conclusion of questions.

May I ask if Mrs. O'Donovan will be precluded from coming before a county court judge to ask for damages for the loss of her husband under these tragic circumstances, or will she be prohibited by the recent order of the military authorities against any such cases being heard?

I have already explained that the Military Governor will allow any case, save the classes I mentioned yesterday in my reply, to come before the county court judge.

With regard to the shorthand notes of the Drumcondra court-martial, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Noble Lord in this House yesterday accused one of the Crown witnesses who gave evidence of perjury, and does he not think it very desirable therefore that the full shorthand notes should be laid on the Table of this House?

No, I do not.

Might I ask for an answer to the part of my question asked at the same time with regard to the Castleconnell shooting?

Wait till you get your instruction from Michael Collins.

I made an explanation by your permission, Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the end of questions that I had had no communication of any sort from Michael Collins. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not direct."]—and the insolent remark has been made twice to-day—

Sir William Davison.

On a point of Order—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's tone is not such as commends itself to me.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can give the House any particulars as to the dastardly murder, by a body of men stated to belong to the Irish Republican Army, of Catherine Carroll, who was the sole support of her aged parents, between 80 and 90 years of age, in the Scotstown district of the County Monaghan, early on Sunday morning; whether she was dragged from her bed and, after having her hands fastened behind her back, was brutally murdered in a field near her parents' cottage; whether he is aware that the whole district is living in a state of terror; and what steps are being taken to protect the inhabitants from further outrages of the kind?

At 11.45 p.m. on the 16th, in the Monaghan district, Kate Carroll was dragged from her house by armed men and murdered. She lived with an invalid brother, 53 years old, and her mother, who is 80 years old. Recently Miss Carroll wrote some letters to the police concerning illicit drink traffic in the neighbourhood. These letters were captured from the local postman by members of the Irish Republican Army, and this capture was the cause of her death. After she was dragged out of the house, her hands were tied behind her back, and they forced her along for half a mile. Her dead body was found, with bullet wounds, in a field. The murder has caused a feeling of terror in the district, and every effort is being made, and will be made, to bring the murderers to justice.

Is anything being done for her aged mother and invalid brother, who are now left without any means of support by the death of the breadwinner of the family?

May I ask the right hon. Member, as this is evidently a case where the woman was trying to protest against drink being sold, and as—I ask all the House to listen to this—it is a very important question—

Will the Noble Lady put her question, without lecturing the House?

Yes. As there are often so many reports from Ireland that drink is having such a terrible effect on all of them except the Sinn Feiners—they are the only ones, I believe, who do not drink—will the Government do something to control the drink traffic in Ireland until there is a little more peace in all parts of the country?

I can assure the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that every effort will be made to provide compensation for the brother and the mother of this unfortunate woman. The drink traffic I alluded to was illicit drink traffic.

That is what I meant, either illicit or otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that floggings of native soldiers in the 2nd King's African Rifles are frequent; that recently a bugler of 12 years of age was given 15 lashes; and whether he will consider the advisability of discontinuing this form of punishment, especially in times of peace?

I am not aware that the flogging of native soldiers is frequent in the 2nd Battalion, King's African Rifles, and I have no information as to the incident referred to by the hon. Member, but inquiry will be made of the Governor of the Tanganyika Territory, and the whole matter will be discussed with the Inspector-General after his arrival in England from East Africa.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly supply me with a return showing the number of floggings in the last six months, and, when he has the reply to the inquiry that he has mentioned, will he kindly forward it to me?

I shall be very glad to let my hon. Friend have all the information I am able to get.

Are we to understand that flogging is legal in this Force?

As I think my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, these matters are regulated by Ordinance. If he wishes to ask me exactly what the Ordinance says, I am afraid I must ask for notice of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether cases have recently been brought to his notice where the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has granted permits for collection on behalf of charities to be made in the streets in certain areas in the Metropolis without any reference or notice to the local authorities concerned; what is the reason for such a very discourteous ignoring of the local authority; and whether he will take such action as will ensure that in future the local authority shall invariably be notified prior to the grant of such permits in sufficient time to allow of an objection being raised if desired?

The Commissioner is under no obligation to consult the local authorities, but as a matter of courtesy he does so in cases of a local character. When, however, application is made for a street collection throughout the whole Metropolitan police district it would be impracticable to consult all the authorities concerned—some 135 in number. In such cases the Commissioner decides on the merits, after reference to the Advisory Committee appointed under the Regulations.

Is it really absolutely impossible to consult the local authority first? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the action of the Commissioner is very high handed when he allots a particular day for a large area—not the whole of London—without any reference to the local authorities whatever?

It would be quite impracticable to consult the whole of the Metropolitan Police district.

In this case it was only the area south of the River Thames.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is able to give the House a rough estimate of the number of public centres in the United Kingdom where the shooting of trapped pigeons regularly takes place; and whether he has received any representations from the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals upon the methods of this so-called sport?

In answer to the first part of the question, I could not possibly get the information without imposing a large amount of labour on all police forces. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Without wishing to add to the labours of the police, is it not a fact that these centres are all very well known locally and would not a simple request from the right hon. Gentleman to these localities draw the required information, and if that was not enough are there not enough volunteers who would be only too ready to send the information to him to help to stop this dastardly practice?

If the hon. Gentleman will start the volunteer movement, I shall be very glad.

I shall be delighted if I have your backing.

asked the Home Secretary if it be the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session regulating hours and other matters relating to shops?

I regret I am not in a position at present to make any definite statement on this subject.

asked the Home Secretary whether the 156 police authorities who have approved the payment of pension increases at the full rates include the borough of Southport; and, if so, whether he is aware that in the case of ex-Police Constable Hamer, who is in receipt of a pension of £46 a year, the increase granted only amounts to £9 12s. a year, although the pensioner's average earnings of 35s. a week entitle him to an increase of 40 per cent. under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920; and that the increase in this case has only been granted from November last, payment of the arrears from 1st April, 1920, having been refused?

Increase of police pensions at the full rates allowed by the Act has been approved by the Southport Police Authority. I find on inquiry that ex-police-constable Hamer, who has an Army pension in addition to his police pension and wages, has been given the full increase allowed by the Act from November last, and that an application to allow the increase from 1st April, 1920, is now before the police authority.

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that 57 Scottish fishing boats suffered loss of nets through the illegal action of German, Dutch and Belgian vessels trawling in the Moray Firth during the months of February and March; and whether he is aware that many of the boats were in consequence compelled to desist from the cod fishing, and that these conditions are all the more intolerable owing to the unfavourable prospects of the herring fishing?

I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to similar questions on the 12th April. The statements in the question as to the extent and effect of the damage done are in accordance with the information supplied to me by the Fishery Board for Scotland.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take counsel with the Admiralty with a view to asking them to send up a couple of torpedo boat destroyers of higher speed than the foreign trawlers in order to keep them off?

My information is that so far as speed is concerned the Fishery Board cruisers are quite equal to the task.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all these trawlers which are alleged to he foreign are really foreign trawlers, and is he aware of allegations that many of them are really Grimsby and Hull trawlers in disguise?

I have no information to that effect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the well-known fact that allegations have been made against British trawlers sailing under a foreign flag in order to avail themselves of the fishery ground?

Certainly I have often heard the allegation made, but I have no information that these particular boats fall within that category.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no legal evidence at present that there are any British trawlers masquerading as foreigners and that these are genuine foreign trawlers, some of them Allies and some not?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of damage is done at night and it is impossible to prevent it occurring unless you have a great many more patrol boats and boats of higher speed?

I am quite aware that damage is often done at night and I doubt whether even the presence of boats of higher speed will prevent it. The nets are left at night, according to my information, and there is very little light and it is very difficult indeed to prevent damage being done.

To whom can these fishermen send in their claim for damage done?

I am not aware that there is any claim against anyone. No one regrets it more than I do. Any information they have to send should be sent to the Fishery Board.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the case of private telephone subscribers who wish to instal coin-collecting boxes at their instruments, they will have to pay a rental of 30s. per annum for each box, 2d. instead of 1½d. for each local call, and 4d. instead of 3d. for calls involving the trunk fee of 1½d. to other subscribers; whether he can explain why this charge is made; and whether he will consider reducing the charge per call to the ordinary rate of 1½d., so as to enable subscribers who make little use of their instruments to have a method of contri- bution which eliminates all chance of error in charging up wrong numbers and ineffective calls?

The proposed charges for providing coin-collecting boxes in connection with subscribers' exchange circuits are as stated by the hon. Member. The maintenance of these boxes—which are installed chiefly at hotels, boarding houses, and clubs, and thus serve the purpose largely of call offices—is costly, and the check exercised by the telephonist as the coins are dropped into the box adds considerably to the cost of operating the calls. The boxes as at present designed will not take half-pennies, and to introduce additional mechanism would be a costly process, the burden of which would have to fall upon the subscriber. I may add, however, that the arrangements as to the application of these charges are being reviewed.

Is it not the case that there are boxes in existence which take half-pennies, whatever may be the new pattern?

I do not think there are any in the Post Office service.

Is it not a fact that in America they have purely automatic machinery that does not require this additional human service of checking the pennies?

When the inquiry sat in London, evidence was given in regard to the circumstances in America in respect to the matter mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, but up to the present no satisfactory box has been made.

If it is the case that 1½d. is only charged in the public call boxes, why do they want more in the case of private subscribers? Does not that show that there is a satisfactory mechanism in existence which will take 1½d.?

Is it not a fact that within 100 yards of this House, on the Metropolitan Railway, the machines have been adapted to receive 1½d.?

It is a fact, and I have used it many times myself. I have men- tioned that the whole question is being considered, and if my hon. and gallant Friend can make any suggestion which will help us I shall be only too glad to consider it.

Will it be competent for the Committee now sitting to consider the question?

Yes, certainly.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can inform the House as to the most distant point with which telephonic communication has at any time been established with London; and with what Continental capital regular connection can be obtained by London telephone subscribers?

Satisfactory speech was obtained with Berlin (over 800 miles) before the War in the course of experiments. The most distant point with which communication is now obtainable is Marseilles (720 miles). Regular connection can be obtained by London telephone subscribers with Paris and Brussels, and, when sufficient land lines are available in France, a similar service also will be available with Switzerland.

Is not that a very pitiable distance for a telephonic service in comparison with what has been done on the other side of the Atlantic, where telephonic communication is made between Catalonia, within thirty miles of the Golden Gate of the Pacific, with Cuba, over 5,000 miles, and is there nothing we can do to increase the length?

The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to say it is a pitiable result, but I should be very glad if we could copy America as far as that is concerned.

Is it a fact that Downing Street has been connected with Moscow by telephone for some time?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the efficiency of the telegraph service is detrimentally affected by the present policy of the Post Office with regard to promotion; whether the claims to promotion of highly skilled and efficient officers with long experience in their craft are frequently overlooked, with the inevitable result that many of the older men are disheartened and disgusted; and whether, seeing that a dispirited officer ceases to be of value to the service, he will experiment by promoting the senior efficient officer to the next vacancy at Edinburgh, in the hope of securing an efficient, contented, and keen service?

The claims and qualifications of all eligible officers are carefully considered before promotions are made. Due regard is paid to seniority; but merit rather than seniority is the basis of selection, and I see no reason to modify this principle in the case of Edinburgh.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what the Pirbright testing station cost; what is the annual expense of running it; how many animals are tested each year; whether cases of contagious abortion have occurred; if so, whether the owners were recompensed; and whether agriculturists know the risks they run in sending animals to Pirbright?

The capital cost of the cattle testing station (including land, erection and equipment of buildings) was approximately £20,000; during the War the station was closed and it was not re-opened until 18th August, 1919. The net annual cost of running the station, including the farm, for the last year of account was £1,600, but the circumstances of that year were abnormal, and it is expected that the station will be self-supporting in the future. The number of animals tested was 97 in 1919, 452 in 1920, and 31 in 1921 to date. One case of contagious abortion has occurred in animals sent to the Ministry for the purpose of undergoing the tuberculin test, but this animal undoubtedly acquired the infection on the premises of the original owner. No animal has ever contracted the infection of abortion at the testing station, and no question of compensation on this account has ever arisen. Owing to the effective system of isolation agriculturists do not run any risk in sending animals to the cattle testing station.

When was the owner of that animal notified that contagious abortion had taken place, and what recompense was made to him?

He was notified immediately. I do not think that any recompense was made as the disease was contracted on his own premises before the animal was sent there.

Was it not four months after that, and did he not receive recompense of £45, which was absolutely inadequate?

Will the hon. Member give notice of these questions, and I will have the details inquired into.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can give assurances that the already restricted turfed areas in St. James's Park will not be subjected to further reductions by the construction of new roadways and similar improvements?

The answer is in the affirmative, unless Parliament authorises any change which involves such a reduction.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state the terms on which the hut at present occupied by the Young Men's Christian Association in Trafalgar Square is held; whether other bodies, such as the Salvation Army, have asked for similar sites on like terms; and whether, in view of the fact that the War is over, the time has arrived for the removal of this building?

Permission was given for the Young Men's Christian Association to erect the hut in question at their own expense, without payment of rent, but subject to an undertaking to demolish the building and restore the ground when required. They are already under notice to fulfil this obligation, and the hut will be removed as soon as practicable. Similar facilities have been sought by other bodies, but it was not thought desirable to extend the practice.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the Crown Estate Paving Commission, in levying a rate upon the tenants of the Regent's Park Estate for the period of 12 months beginning Christmas, 1920, and ending Christmas, 1921, levied the same not upon the basis of the existing valuation list, but on the basis of a valuation list which only came into force on the 6th April, 1921; and, if so, whether any precedent or justification can be adduced for basing a rate upon a valuation nonexistent at the time when this rate was struck?

I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners levied a rate for the period from 25th December, 1920, to 24th December, 1921, on the basis of the valuation referred to by the hon. and gallant member; that the powers of the Crown Estate Paving Commissioners in respect of the assessment of property and levying a rate are conferred by the Act 5, Geo. IV, c. 100, and that the Commissioners are advised that the rate was levied in accordance with the powers conferred upon the Commissioners by that Statute.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a rate can be levied in December on the basis of a valuation to be made in April?

It appears to have been an intelligent anticipation of events. I am advised that they acted within their powers.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the privileges granted to civil servants of the Jewish religion in respect of the important festivals of the Passover; and can arrangements be made whereby these men might be allowed to observe their religious festivals without being penalised by losing their pay or their annual leave?

I am not aware of any general instructions governing the absence from duty of civil servants of the Jewish religion in respect of important festivals.

Instead of penalising these men either by deduction of pay or loss of annual leave, could not an opportunity be given to them to work later at another period?

This is a matter which falls almost entirely within the sphere of influence of the actual Department concerned. In the absence of any general Regulation any particular cases affected by the occasions mentioned can only with advantage be raised in the Departments concerned.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that 14,169 children in the London area have been saving in expectation of a seaside holiday under the grants allowable by the 1918 Act; and whether he will reconsider the decision to cancel this grant, which helps the poor of London to a brief holiday they otherwise cannot secure?

I presume the hon. Member refers to the suggestion made by the Board to the London County Council that in view of present financial conditions the council's expenditure on school journeys during the year 1921–22 should not materially exceed their expenditure on this purpose during 1920–21, and that certain new developments involving additional expenditure should be postponed. I understand that the approved arrangements for 1921–22 will cover rather more journeys than last year.

Having regard to the reports of the medical officers with respect to the benefits derived from these holidays, could not the right hon. Gentleman regard these holidays as a form of economy?

Nobody appreciates more than I do the value of these school journeys, but in the circumstances we thought that in the present year it would not be proper to enlarge the opportunities that have been given.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the total increase in the annual grants to the Scottish Universities for the year 1920–21 amounts to £81,000 and in the case of the three constituent colleges of the University of Wales to £16,000 and that, taking population as the basis of comparison, the increase in the case of Scotland is about 96 per cent. and in the case of Wales only 44 per cent., and that in the case of Scotland the increase is unconditional but in the case of Wales is an advance out of the Treasury equivalent for the 1d. rate which is to be raised by the Welsh county councils; whether he is aware that the University building grant in the case of Scotland was £248,000 and in the case of Wales £50,000 and that on the basis of population Wales is entitled to £89,200; and whether, in order to remove this injustice to Wales, he will bring immediate pressure on the Treasury to distribute these grants in an equitable manner?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question may I ask if he is aware that the grants to the Scottish Universities are to a very large extent Statutory grants, made in return for revenues which belonged to the Universities, and which were commuted under the Act; and whether, therefore, he considers that they are altogether out of the range of comparison with grants made to other Universities in other parts of the Kingdom?

The increased grants to the Scottish and Welsh Universities for the year 1920–21 are as the hon. Member states them, but a further sum of approximately £24,500 is due to the University of Wales under the £ for £ arrangement and will be paid immediately the levy of the 1d. rate throughout the Principality has been certified. The percentage increase over the previous year will then be Scotland 96 per cent. and Wales 111 per cent. The £ for £ arrangement is a special arrangement with the University of Wales made in order to stimulate local support to the University. Prior to the levy of the 1d. rate by the Welsh county councils the proportion of the income of the University of Wales which was derived from local sources was very far below the corresponding proportions in England and Scotland. I am not sure how the hon. Member has calculated the University building grant in Scotland as £248,000. No building grants have been made since the present University Grants Committee was appointed in 1919, and returns relating to earlier dates suggest a figure very much lower than that quoted. As regards the last part of the question, the assistance given to the University of Wales appears on any fair test to be, if anything, more favourable than that given to Scotland. On the basis of the number of full-time students in residence in 1919–20 (the last year for which statistics are available) the grant per student in Wales is more than twice the Scottish figure.

Am I to understand that the Scottish grant bears only the relation of 93 per cent. to 111 per cent. of the Welsh grant, although within the Scottish grant there is included the statutory grant to which I have referred, which represents their own hereditary income?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that another University in the Empire, the McGill University, raised six million dollars in five days for its own increased expenditure?

Can the hon. Gentleman say why, in view of the fact that Wales gets so much more than Scotland, the results are so poor in Wales?

I am only in a position to deal with the figures. Wales is getting not absolutely more than Scotland, but less. In reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Craik), it is not the direct relation between the Scottish and Welsh grants of 96 to 111, but the percentage increase on last year.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why Wales should be penalised to the extent of pound for pound, in connection with this grant, whereas the Scottish grants are unconditional?

I cannot admit anything in the nature of penalisation. Rather one would be inclined to say it is in the direction of benefit to Wales as a stimulus to local effort. I understand that this is an arrangement which was made on a common basis for that purpose of stimulating local effort in Wales.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that women teachers who continue in their profession after marriage and resign when their children are born are liable to be deemed not to have resigned in consequence of marriage and to be therefore ineligible for the concession provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918; and whether, in view of the importance of securing that this concession should apply to married teachers who return later to their profession, he will make a definite ruling as to the maximum number of years after marriage within which the resignation must take place for the purpose of benefit under the above-mentioned Section?

The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act provides for a reduction in the period of service qualifying for a pension in the case of women teachers who cease to be employed in recognised service in consequence of marriage. I am advised that a teacher who remains in service after marriage, and retires later in consequence bf child-birth, is not within the terms of this provision. The Board have no power to make any such general or definite ruling as is suggested in the last part of the question. Their duty is, in each individual case, to decide whether the cessation of employment is in fact in consequence of marriage, but I may add that the fact that a woman teacher does not leave employment immediately after marriage is not regarded by the Board as necessarily excluding the operation of the Section.

Is it not a valuable thing for the public service that married women should stay on after marriage if they have no children, and would it not be a good thing to put some reasonable limit within which if the woman stayed on she would not lose her pensionable rights, and if legislation is necessary to effect this, will the right hon. Gentleman include it in his next Education Bill?

The Board by administrative action does allow a certain amount of latitude. Each case is decided on its merits.

What is the amount of time within which the teacher would be allowed to stay on and not lose pension?

The Superannuation Act is young, but I think we have allowed a period of 12 months.

Does the Minister realise that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, and if the Minister himself thinks it a good thing that married women should continue, will he get it put right?

I cannot pledge myself to introduce a Bill. The Teachers Superannuation Act is expressly framed with the view of enabling married women to return to the teaching service, and the period during which they absent themselves to bring up their families has been specially included so that they may return and at the same time have all the advantage of the years during which they have been absent.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Alice Grigg, who, having served as a certificated teacher for 39 years, retired in October, 1920, at the age of 60, and received her pension for one month, after which time she was married, on 24th November, 1920, to an English-born man naturalised as an American citizen; whether he is aware that her pension has been stopped from the date of her marriage; and whether a woman teacher on marriage with a citizen of another state must necessarily lose the pension she has earned by services to her own state?

The facts are as stated in the question. I greatly regret that it has been necessary to cease payment of Mrs. Grigg's pension, but Section 10 of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, provides that no allowance shall be payable to any teacher who is not a British subject, and the Board have no discretion to depart from the terms of this provision.

Does it not seem a little unfair that, if after all her years of service she marries a man of different nationality, recognition of her service is refused?

I think that it is a hard case, but at the same time I am not entitled to go outside the law.