asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has yet received the report of the Court of Inquiry into the killing of William M'Carthy while in the hands of the police on 27th March last; whether he will give a summary of the evidence; and is he aware that the many findings of these Courts, alleging an attempt to escape from custody as a reason for the killing of helpless men while in the hands of the police are causing doubt and dissatisfaction?

The finding of the Court of Inquiry, in lieu of inquest, in this case was as follows: That the cause of death of the deceased was gunshot wounds, shock, and hæmorrhage. That the deceased suffered such gunshot wounds in the Green Tralee, between 21.00 (9 p.m.) and 22.00 hours (10 p.m.) on the 20th March, 1921. That the deceased died, as aforesaid, immediately or shortly after such wounds were inflicted. That it cannot be definitely established by whom the shots, which caused such wounds, were fired. That shots were fired by constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the execution of their duty at the deceased, after calling upon him to halt following his escape from their custody. That such firing caused posts of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at 12, Denny Street and at the Technical School, Ballymullen, to conclude that an attack upon them was imminent, with the result that the area of ground in the vicinity of the deceased and his escort was swept by machinegun fire. That rifle fire, presumably hostile, was also opened from some point or points in the vicinity of the Green, but that the evidence is conflicting as to the exact period when such rifle fire was opened. That the deceased was himself to blame, inasmuch as he broke away from his escort and did not halt when called upon to do so by constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the execution of their duty. That no blame attaches in the matter to the Royal Irish Constabulary or Auxiliary Division authorities or to any member thereof. The answer to the last part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

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

As I have already explained, the prolonged delay in completing this inquiry has been due to the illness of two important witnesses, a priest and a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, suffering from wounds. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 7th instant, I understood that the two witnesses were sufficiently recovered to give evidence. I thereupon urged the Commander-in-Chief to take all possible steps to complete the inquiry at the earliest possible date. My latest information is that the Court has resumed its investigations, and that the result is expected in the next few days.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to send me the result, or must I repeat the question?

I will send it at the earliest moment.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the members of the auxiliary division, Royal Irish Constabulary, responsible for the death of Mrs. Ryan, of Abbeyfeale, has yet been identified; and what further action has been taken?

I regret to state that, although very careful and exhaustive inquiries have been made, it has not been possible to identify the individual policeman who fired the shot which resulted in Mrs. Ryan's death.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information as to the death of J. Molloy, a boy of 13, who is stated to have been killed by shots fired from a military lorry at Cryanstown, Boyle, on 26th March; whether a court of inquiry has been held and with what results; and whether any arrests have been made?

I would refer the hon. Member to a reply given by me to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 13th inst.

asked the Chief Secretary how many civilians, men, women, and children, have been killed by the forces of the Crown in Ireland since 1st January, 1920, other than casualties in the Irish republican army, which have been evacuated?

It is not possible to give the number with absolute accuracy. Many casualties to innocent civilians have occurred as the result of attacks on police or military lorries in crowded thoroughfares, and it is impossible to state in the cases whether death was due to the fire of the Crown forces or to that of their assailants. Apart from casualties in street affrays or which were the result of accident the number of civilian deaths attributable to the Crown forces is 128.

asked the Chief Secretary if he can give the number of women and of children under 16 who are admitted to have been killed and wounded, respectively, by members of the Crown forces in Ireland since 1st January, 1921?

The numbers are five children and one woman killed and three women wounded. The woman who was killed was accidentally shot and the court of inquiry held that no blame attached to the Crown forces in the matter of her death. The wounding of the three women was also due to accident in each case.

Have these people any opportunity of recovering damages for the injuries inflicted upon them?

I could not answer that question without further inquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the burning of part of the town of Westport, in County Mayo, was an official reprisal for an ambush at a place seven miles distant; if not, whether any steps have been taken to bring to trial those who were responsible for the burning; and whether compensation will be paid by the Government for the damage done?

The statement that part of the town of Westport was burned is misleading. What in fact happened was that the house of one person and the contents of the houses of certain other persons were systematically destroyed by members of the Crown forces acting under the order of their superior officers. The persons whose property was destroyed were in every case known to the local police authorities to be actively engaged in the rebel conspiracy with which the forces of the Crown are contending in Ireland. The destruction of the property, which differs only from an act of official punishment in that it took place outside the martial law area, was not carried out by orders from higher authority. The decision was taken by the responsible police officer on the spot, acting on his own discretion immediately after a brutal ambush, which the authorities had reason to believe was planned in Westport, and in which one sergeant was killed and three men were severely wounded. I am satisfied that the officer concerned acted according to the best of his judgment, believing that immediate action of a drastic character was called for if further outrages were to be averted. The persons affected cannot, in these circumstances, be regarded as having any claim upon the Government, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any of the persons whose property was destroyed had any opportunity to rebut the evidence on which their property was destroyed?

Has not the town of Westport enjoyed a continual peace and freedom from all disturbances due in a large measure to the constant presence of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord Sligo?

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say the rank of the British officer who sanctioned this proceeding?

Not without notice.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly that the owners of this property are believed, on good evidence, to be actively engaged in hostilities to the Crown; if so, why were they not brought to trial instead of their property being destroyed as a reprisal?

Well, there are so many persons who might be brought to trial that in the circumstances, the matter is very difficult.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly answer my question whether these persons whose property was to be destroyed were invited to give any evidence, or given the opportunity to give it, as to whether they were, in fact, guilty?

I must have notice of that question.

Is the House to understand that it is left entirely to the discretion of a local officer, not necessarily of very high rank, to say whether or not these proceedings should be carried out?

Well, of course, there are occasions when it is necessary to act rapidly, and it must be left to the officer in charge to decide.

Are we to understand that the reason for the destruction of this property was the congestion of the courts in Ireland?

asked the Chief Secretary whether two hotels and the shop of Mr. T. V. Honan, in or near Ennis, were destroyed by military on the 20th instant as a punishment for the murder of Sergeant Rue; whether it is believed that the inhabitants of these houses were concerned in or knew of the shooting; and, if not, whether these houses were selected as being owned by prominent Sinn Feiners?

I am awaiting a report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat the question—of which I only received notice on Tuesday—on Thursday of next week.

asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to prohibit the hearing at quarter sessions in Ireland of any cases in which allegations are made against the military?

The hon. Member will find that this matter was fully dealt with in a reply given by me to a question by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division on the 18th instant.

Does that prohibition amount to a declaration that no criminal injuries can be committed by the armed forces of the Crown in martial law areas, and what arrangements have been made to enable those who have suffered loss to recover compensation for the amount of their losses?

No, Sir, it does not.

What arrangements has the right hon. Gentleman made to allow those who have suffered in this way to recover their losses?

I have already answered that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the proclamation issued on the 14th instant by the general commanding in chief the forces in Ireland, suspending the jurisdiction of all courts of justice in all cases whatsoever relating to any claims whatsoever in respect of any damages or injury alleged to have been done by the forces of the Crown, or by any member thereof, save in so far as any proceedings may have been expressly sanctioned by the military governor; and whether the owners of property so destroyed will have the right of applying for compensation to any other court or courts?

My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland has already explained the object of this proclamation, which applies only in the martial law area. It is merely intended to restrain persons whose property has been destroyed by direction of the military governor, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under martial law, from claiming compensation for the destruction at the expense of the ratepayers of the country, and also to restrain persons from bringing purely frivolous actions solely for the purpose of seditious propaganda based on false and fabricated charges against the Crown forces. The answer to the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government is going to put an end to the methods of barbarism which make these things possible?

May I ask if it is the case that the sufferers from acts of indiscipline by forces of the Crown have no remedy, and are unable to claim any form of compensation?

I think it is undesirable to have a discussion by way of question and answer on a subject which is going to form a topic of debate the whole of this evening.

But in view of the fact that questions put in debate never are answered, cannot the right hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of these poor people, who are losing their livelihood, state whether they have any remedy for losses sustained through the acts of indiscipline by the forces of the Crown?

That question has been dealt with in the answer to the question on the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the two members of the Crown forces arrested in connection with the murder of Mr. J. Whelan, of Ballyrowan, the one in connection with the murder of Mr. Lawless, of Maryborough, the two in connection with the murder of Mr. Prendergast, of Carysville Island, and the two others stated on 7th April to be in custody on charges of murder have yet been tried, and with what result; and, if not tried, whether they are still under arrest?

In the Whelan case the summary of evidence is nearly completed, and trial will take place at an early date. In the Lawless case trial was to have taken place on the 8th instant, but has been postponed at the request of the defence until 16th May. In the Prendergast case, owing to the necessity of tracing and bringing to Ireland certain witnesses who had left the country, the summary of evidence is not yet complete; but the case is being pushed on as rapidly as possible. In the two remaining cases the summary of evidence is complete except for a statement from a witness now in England which is being obtained. I hope that the trial in this case also will take place at an early date. All the accused are in custody.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has seen the statement of Mr. Humphreys, an Englishman, of Cork, that on 20th January soldiers came to destroy his house and property as a reprisal for an attack on the police; that he remonstrated and demanded to be arrested and proved guilty before his house was damaged, and was refused any opportunity of making an explanation; whether Miss N. Vaughan, whose house was destroyed on the same occasion, testifies that she received no warning whatsoever; and whether he still maintains that the military authorities allow persons whose houses are destroyed to make an explanation or defence?

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by me to a question with regard to this case by the hon. Member for the Kettering Division on the 24th ultimo.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, in a raid in Dublin on 26th March, the police captured the typewriters and other plant used in the production of the "Irish Bulletin" and the list of names and addresses of those to whom the Bulletin had been sent?

I have nothing to add to the replies given by me to previous questions on this subject.

May I point out that in the right hon. Gentleman's previous replies he has carefully refrained from saying whether a copy of the names and addresses of those to whom the "Bulletin" had been sent was actually captured, and can the right hon. Gentleman now answer that part of the question?

I am sure that it was captured, because a complete sweep was made of the office of the "Bulletin," and it was captured.

asked the Chief Secretary why the property looted at night from the house of Mrs. Ceannt, in Dublin, shortly before Christmas, by cadets and Black-and-Tans, which included evening dresses and blouses, a new suit case, a music case, and all her music, jewellery, her late husband's violin, and 5s. from the maid's room, has not yet been restored; and whether anyone has been brought to justice in the matter?

I have called for a report with reference to these allegations, and am informed that the suit case was taken for the purpose of carrying away a quantity of seditious literature which was found in the house. It was returned to the owner through the Dublin Metropolitan Police on the 7th ultimo. Nothing else was taken except a number of Sinn Fein flags, which were confiscated. Mrs. Kent has signed a statement to this effect. In these circumstances the last part of the question does not arise.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the military governor of the Cork area has issued an order to the "Cork Examiner" newspaper that no reference to the Belfast boycott is to be published without reference to the military governor's headquarters; whether this order was issued on account of the publication of an item of news relating to the boycott which was issued from Dublin Castle; and whether, as the order has been issued under a misapprehension, it will be withdrawn?

I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that orders have been issued by the Military Governor, Cork, that no reference to the Belfast boycott is to be published without his authority. This has been done in order to prevent propaganda relating to the boycott from being used as a cloak for incitements to violence against persons and property. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part, therefore, does not arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government did not take similar action when attacks were made by Belfast Orangemen on the persons and property of Nationalists in Belfast?

This is a martial law area, and martial law does not eixst in Belfast.

Even if it did, the result would be the same.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the trial of the cadets arrested in connection with the Trim looting will be held in public; and whether General Crozier and Captain Macfie will be called as witnesses?

As I have repeatedly explained, the trials by court-martial in Ireland are, as a rule, public, and representatives of the Press are admitted. It is not proposed to depart from this rule in the present case; but it will be within the discretion of the Court in this, as in every other case, to direct that any part of the evidence should be heard in private if, in the judgment of the Court, this course is necessary for the protection of witnesses. In regard to the latter part of the question, I can only say that every effort will be made to bring all material evidence before the Court.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any material evidence has disappeared since General Crozier resigned?

Not that I am aware.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in a recent speech in Australia Archbishop Clune, late Chaplain-General to the Australian Forces on the Western Front, stated that every infamy perpetrated by the Germans in Belgium has been repeated, and in some cases exceeded, in Ireland; and whether any steps have been taken to clear the good name of this country in Australia in view of the special importance attaching to the Archbishop's opinion by reason of his recent employment as intermediary between the Prime Minister of this country and the leaders of Sinn Fein, and the public commendation of his high character then advanced by the Prime Minister?

I have not had the advantage of seeing more than newspaper reports purporting to give the substance of the speech made by the Archbishop. In any case, as the hon. Member is aware, my colleagues and I have taken steps, both in this House and outside, to explain the action of the Government in Ireland and to justify it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether political ecclesiastics have earned the reputation of being more trustworthy than lay politicians?

Is it not a fact that this particular ecclesiastic was considered sufficiently trustworthy to act as agent for the Prime Minister in negotiations with Sinn Fein?

He was certainly not my agent.

Did he not make a disgraceful and monstrous statement attacking the forces of the Crown in Ireland?

Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister paid the highest compliment to the character of Archbishop Clune at the time he was acting as intermediary between himself and Sinn Fein, and now, since his return to Australia, and having seen the condition of things in Ireland, he has described our régime in those terms?

I have already answered the second question. With regard to the first, Archbishop Clune no doubt rendered very considerable services during the War. He was very loyal and patriotic, and gave every possible assistance to the Australian troops.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Chief Secretary whether the attention of the Government has been called to the statement of Dr. Cripps (who was present at the Shannon View Hotel, Castle-Connell, last Sunday week, when 60 Black-and-Tans entered); that the whole place was shot to pieces by a machine-gun, the Black-and-Tans behaving like demented Red Indians, yelling and firing indiscriminately; and that the hotel proprietor, Denis O'Donovan, was killed, together with two policemen; that over 1,000 shots must have been fired, and that one of the bullets Dr. Cripps picked up was a dum-dum bullet; and whether the Government will agree to a similar motion passed in another place in favour of a full and impartial inquiry into the circumstances of the case?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the statements made by Dr. Cripps. I have communicated a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate in another place on this subject to the Commander-in-Chief, and I have asked him to take every possible step to ascertain the real facts in regard to the case. In reply to the last part of the question, as my Noble Friend (the Earl of Crawford) explained in another place on Tuesday, a public military inquiry is already investigating this affair. The relatives of the deceased are legally represented at that inquiry.

Is cross-examination going to be permitted?

Yes.

At a public inquiry?

Yes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement about a dum-dum bullet is not correct, and is he aware that the cartridge in which the bullet was found contained no charge of powder whatever and was merely an empty cartridge?

I am not aware of that, but I am sure the Commander-in-Chief will thoroughly investigate it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly examine the bullet, which is a dum-dum bullet?

Is it not the invariable custom in training troops to have these bullets for instructional purposes in quick loading ( producing a bullet )?

Is it the custom of the Auxiliaries in Ireland to take a bullet, cut it out, and invert it so that it is a dum-dum bullet and use it in their operations?

Have four more executions taken place this morning?

The hon. Member should have given me notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet come to any decision whether any and, if so, what form of inquiry should be made into industrial unrest?

This matter is still under consideration. There are certain difficulties in connection with the proposal for an inquiry into the subject of industrial unrest regarding which the Government desire further information. As soon as a decision is reached, I will communicate with the Noble Lord and he can repeat his question then.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when that time may arrive?

A good deal of doubt has been expressed in many quarters as to the desirability of having an inquiry at the present moment. I have had one or two very important communications on the subject, and I have promised to see representatives concerned and some Members of this House before the Government comes to a decision. It is very difficult, with the miners' strike and other matters on hand, to get the necessary time to see people, and I must hear what is to be said on the other side before the Government come to a decision.

I will repeat the question this day week.

Were there not a series of inquiries all over the country in 1918, and did anything come out of them?

Yes, there were inquiries in 1918 and they supplied the Government with very useful information and helped to accommodate certain difficulties that arose about at that time. There are at the present moment negotiations going on between employers and workmen, and an opinion has been expressed that it is undesirable to interfere with these by anything in the nature of an official inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister if, on the expiration of the period fixed for the Profiteering Act, at the end of May, the Department will be abolished forthwith; are any figures available showing the total cost of working this Department for the year ended 31st March, 1921; what was the cost of the investigation into retail drapers' profits; and will any Report be issued of this investigation?

I have been asked to reply. The Profiteering Act Department will be wound up as soon as possible after the 19th May. The total expenditure of the Board of Trade (excluding office rent, lighting, and stationery) in administering the Acts during the year ending 31st March, 1921, was £45,445 1s. 9d. This includes the expenses of the Central Committee and of Appeal Tribunals. I am unable to state what proportion of the general cost should be debited to the investigation into the profits of retail drapers, and the particular expenses of this investigation have not yet been ascertained. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

How many of the staff of this Department will go over to other Departments?

As few as I can manage.

Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea of the number? It is important.

asked the Prime Minister if the system, inaugurated in the period of the War, of introducing Acts of Parliament in skeleton form, leaving a large number of important and costly details to be dealt with by means of Orders in Council and Departmental Regulations, will now be discontinued; whether he will consider, in any future legislative proposals, where local authorities are affected, the desirability of presenting to Parliament before the Bill is discussed an estimate of the cost to the ratepayers, and making additional charges upon the rates the subject of a Financial Resolution, as in the case of a Bill involving expenditure out of the taxes; and whether instructions should now be given to Government Departments not to press county councils to undertake increased commitments, as is now being done, in matters which should be left to local discretion?

The tendency for legislation to be restricted more to important questions of principle, leaving administrative details to be dealt with by Orders in Council or Departmental Regulations, can hardly be said to have originated during the War, but was in evidence for some years before, and is the inevitable result of the growth of legislation in recent years, both in volume and complexity. I can see little prospect of a reversal of this process in the near future. The matters referred to in parts 2 and 3 of the question are already receiving consideration in connection with the Report of the Select Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution passed by the Mangotsfield (Bristol) parish distress committee stating that the severe unemployment in the boot industry at Kingswood (Gloucester) and district is due to the unsettled state of affairs in Ireland, which fact is verified by manufacturers of boots who are in normal times large exporters of boots and shoes to Ireland, and begging the Government to call a truce of hostilities; and can he offer any hope that this desire will shortly be fulfilled?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is, I am afraid, serious unemployment at Kingswood, but I have no information to show that it is due to the causes mentioned by the hon. Member. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to what I have already said on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Liquor Control Board was a temporary expedient for war purposes and is not subject to Parliamentary control, he will at once abolish it and, pending the introduction of a new Licensing Bill, take the necessary steps to appoint in its place some other body which will be subject to Parliamentary control?

asked the Prime Minister if he will, in fixing the new hours which the Government and the Liquor Control Board are to consider, take into consideration the hours which the coal miners leave their work; and will he consider the giving of the same opportunities to these men of getting reasonable refreshment as the rest of the nation, who do not leave work at the same hours as the miners?

asked the Prime Minister if, before any further relaxations of the Orders of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) are made, an opportunity will be given to the House for discussing such suggested alterations?

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the widespread and continuous feeling in the country against the continuance of the Liquor Control Board and the restrictions imposed by that body, if he will, in accordance with promises made on behalf of the Government, take steps for the immediate abolition of the board and the cancellation of its restrictive Orders?

asked the Prime Minister whether as regards liquor control the Government will put the clubs in the county of Wiltshire in the same position as the clubs in the neighbouring counties of Berkshire, Somerset, and Gloucestershire?

asked the Attorney-General (1) whether, seeing that the Government cannot introduce a Licensing Bill this Session, he will advise the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) of the urgency of announcing relaxations in the present restrictions; and, as regards licensed houses and clubs, whether there will be an opportunity for Members, on behalf of particular classes of their constituents, to suggest common-sense regulation of hours to suit local needs, as for example in the dock districts, where there should be facilities for men engaged in this exacting work performed during irregular hours, and sometimes under severe weather conditions, to obtain refreshment between 6.30 a.m. and 8 a.m., between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., and between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m.;

(2) whether representations will be made to the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) pointing out the necessity of doing away at once with the present restrictions as to the quantity of spirits which may be bought at licensed houses or clubs for consumption off the premises, since the regulation that a whole bottle must be purchased at a time undoubtedly tends to increase the consumption of liquors?

I have been asked to reply to these questions. The decision of the Government that it is not possible to pass an adequate Licensing Bill this Session was announced by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General last Friday. Meanwhile, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) have been asked to continue their functions with an understanding that they would proceed to consider what further relaxations of the present restrictions could properly be made. The decisions of the Board in this matter can be put in force by them in the so-called scheduled areas, that is to say, areas in which their existing Orders are operating, but the differences between scheduled and unscheduled areas cannot be removed without legislation. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for York that some body subject to Parliamentary control should be substituted for the Central Control Board would involve just such legislation as is not possible in the present Session. So far as the questions contain suggestions for amendment of the existing law not already covered by the relaxations announced yesterday, the House may be assured that the Board will give them all the most careful consideration; but it is not possible to say at the present moment to what extent it may be possible to give effect to them.

Seeing that the Liquor Control Board is to remain in being another 12 months, may I ask whether it has plenary powers, or if it has to submit its decisions to the Cabinet for confirmation?

The Board has the power which this House gave it by Act of Parliament.

Has it got plenary powers or has its decisions to be submitted to the Cabinet?

The position is the same as it has always been.

If the Prime Minister cannot find it possible immediately to abolish this most undemocratic Board, will he consider the taking of immediate steps to place the Board under Parliamentary control, so that some Minister in this House may answer questions and be responsible to the House?

The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend has been before the Cabinet, and there is a good deal to be said about it. I had an interview last week myself with the Board at which this subject was considered. I hope in the course of a few days to be able to give attention to the matter. Meanwhile I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion that there should be Parliamentary responsibility, and someone in the House prepared to answer questions. This is one of the subjects which I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during the last 24 hours.

rose —

If we debate this question, we shall be unable to deal with other questions on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give the House as a result of the recent meetings with reference to the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement regarding the proposed action of the British and French Governments against Germany; whether he has received the further detailed information as to the French plans and proposals promised by Monsieur Briand; whether he can communuicate them to the House; whether further proposals regarding reparations have been received from Germany; and when he proposes to make a statement to the House explaining the situation which has arisen?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give further information as to the French plans and proposals for the occupation of the Westphalia coalfields?

asked the Prime Minister (1) what steps the Government intend to take in support of France in the occupation of the Westphalian coalfields if the German reparation proposals are unsatisfactory;

(2) whether the proposed occupation of the Westphalian coalfields is a punitive measure, taken in consequence of the default of the Germans in respect of the disarmament and the failure to punish War criminals;

(3) whether he can state that the object of the proposed occupation of the Westphalian coalfields is to secure reparation from Germany; whether he can give an estimate of the annual amount which will be so obtained; whether that amount will be handed over to the Reparation Commission to be apportioned among the Allies or will be retained by France and applied to the payment of the French share of the reparation.

asked the Prime Minister (1) at what price the coal from the Ruhr will be put on the market; if it will bear any relation to the cost of production; can he give any assurance that it will not undersell our export trade;

(2) whether it is the view of the Government that the occupation of the Ruhr will restore the economic position of Germany so as to make her once more a market for our goods; and what effect is the exaction of this coal tribute likely to have upon the coal industry in this country?

asked the Prime Minister whether the coalowners in the Ruhr area will receive any dividends or any compensation for the loss of dividends during the French occupation of their country?

asked the Prime Minister (1) what steps the French will take to secure the coal from the Ruhr in case of a strike of miners in that area;

(2) whether Germany will be allowed to buy back any portion of the coal from the Ruhr for her own use; and, if so, whether she will be obliged to buy at gold price with paper money?

The general attitude of the Government to the proposed occupation of the Westphalian coalfields was set forth in my answer on Monday last. As regards the details of the plans for the occupation, these are being examined by conferences of Allied experts at the present moment, and their reports will be laid before the Inter-Allied Conference on Saturday. I have, therefore, nothing to add at the present time to what I have already told the House.

May I ask whether, since the answer to my question on Monday, further proposals have not been received from the German Government, or whether, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has not seen them in the Press, and whether, in these circumstances, the situation remains exactly the same? May I, also, have an answer to my question as to whether Parliament will be consulted before action is taken?

I understand—not officially—that proposals have been submitted by the German Government to the Government of the United States. I have seen the proposals, which, I believe, have been published, and I very much regret to say that they are thoroughly unsatisfactory. I wish it had been possible to say that they had altered the situation. They are being examined very carefully, with other proposals, at this very moment by the financial experts of all the Allies who are in London at this hour, and therefore I should be very sorry to express a definite opinion; but I am afraid that there is general unanimity as to the complete inadequacy of the proposals made by the German Government.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has now decided that the German proposals are unsatisfactory—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—does it mean that this country will be committed to a further military occupation of Germany, to which many of us utterly object?

Before there be any further occupation of Germany, the House of Commons will have full opportunity of expressing judgment upon the subject. I understand that it has been arranged that there shall be a discussion on the Foreign Office Vote on Thursday next, and I doubt whether the decision of the Supreme Council will be taken before Monday or Tuesday.

Are we to understand that the country will not be committed to any course of action until the Debate next Thursday?

If, by that, the Noble Lord means that the representatives of the British Government shall not commit the country, in so far as the Government can commit the country, to a particular view as to what action ought to be taken, I certainly do not accept that. It would be quite futile to go into conference under those conditions. That is why I very definitely stated on Monday last what the view of the Government was, namely, that if the German proposals were unsatisfactory—it was not for me to say whether another opportunity would be given to Germany or not—we should stand committed to action as far as the Westphalian coalfields are concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House of Commons an opportunity of answering the specific question, whether this country is to be committed to further military occupation?

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the public accusations made against Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson, in the recent book, "At the Supreme War Council," amounting to a charge of having divulged the Allies' military plans for 1918 in Palestine, and, in view of the fact that the Field-Marshal is not taking legal proceedings against the author, whether the Government intends to take any steps in the matter, or to allow the House an opportunity of discussing it?

I can add nothing to the full answers which I gave on the 18th April to questions on this subject.

Is not the dignified silence of the gallant Field-Marshal in accordance with the traditions of the Service, of which he is so distinguished a member?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling in the Army that accusations affecting the honour of a very high officer are not being met in any way at all?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress of the negotiations on the coal stoppage; and whether, in so doing, he will give instructions that all figures as to wages and profits shall be issued by the Government authorities concerned in a form in which the public can understand them?

I have been asked to reply. Negotiations are still continuing, but they have not reached a stage at which I can usefully make a statement. I will do my best to comply with the desire expressed in the last part of the hon. Member's, question.

asked the Prime Minister whether at the time of the recent stoppage in the coal industry the output of coal by the miners was from 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 tons a year less than before the War; whether at the same time there were nearly 100,000 more men at work in the mines than before the War; whether the value of the above-estimated reduction in output it considerably in excess of the estimated deficiency in the industry which caused Parliament to decide on the immediate decontrol of the mines; and whether it would be possible for the miners to secure the same wage as they were getting before the stoppage if they produced the same output of coal per man as they did before the War?

I have been asked to reply. The figures given by my right hon. Friend are approximately correct, but I do not agree with the inference that he draws from them. It seems to be based on the assumption that there is as good a market for coal at a time of unprecedented industrial depression as at a time of exceptional industrial prosperity. Nor can I subscribe to the view that lack of effort on the part of the miners is the sole cause of reduced output.

Is it not a fact that the cause of the decontrol of the mines by this House was an estimated deficit of £60,000,000 a year, or £5,000,000 a month; and is it not true to say that 60,000,000 tons of coal would at least produce £1 a ton?

The hon. Member can answer that question himself.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any evidence of a plot on the part of the employés of the co-operative societies throughout the country to seize all available foodstuffs for the exclusive benefit of the strikers in the event of a general strike taking place, so that the rest of the population might be starved into accepting the demands of the strikers; what persons were concerned in the plot; and what action has been taken by the Government in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the castigation made upon the employés in this particular movement is a castigation against the honour and loyalty of thousands of ex-service men who served their country during the War, and would it not be advisable that hon. Members, before putting down questions of this character, should make sure of their foundation?

That should be so in the case of all questions.

asked the Prime Minister if he can make a full statement of the position between Greece and Turkey; and whether he can give a date to discuss the situation?

His Majesty's Government are not in possession of any material information regarding the Græce-Turkish situation which has not already been given to Parliament or published in the Press. I would refer my hon. Friend in particular to a full statement made by the First Commissioner of Works in another place on 21st April.

asked the Prime Minister when an announcement will be made as regards the action of the Government on the Report of the Committee on the Payment of Members?

I hope it will be possible to make an announcement on this subject at an early date.

In view of the approach of the Whitsuntide Recess, can the Government make any pronouncement one way or the other with regard to railway passes?

I hope to be in a position to make an announcement before the Recess. I am doing my best, but the House will understand that we have very grave preoccupations.

Some of us now have to buy our tickets, and in case we do buy them for six months, and the Government decide to give us passes, will the Government refund the amount of the difference between the pass we get and the ticket we have to buy? It is a very serious matter to us.

I realise the importance of the point put by the hon. Member, and we will consider it.

Is it not the fact that the railway companies themselves would refund under such circumstances?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some railway companies have intimated that, if they were approached, they would be willing to grant first-class facilities all over the Kingdom to Members of Parliament?

No, Sir, I am not aware of that. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would this afternoon supply me with the information to which he refers.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that a dispute which led to a rupture recently broke out between Costa Rica and Panama; that the stipulations of Article 12 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were broken by both States, and whether, according to Article 16 of the Covenant, these two States are ipso facto deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League including the United Kingdom; whether, in accordance with Article 16, measures are being taken to sever all trade and financial relations and to prohibit the intercourse between British subjects and the nationals of the covenant-breaking States;

(2) whether he is aware that the Republics of Costa Rica and Panama are both members of the League of Nations; that each has resorted to external aggression against the territorial integrity of the other; that each of them undertook, by Article 10 of the Covenant of the League, to respect and preserve each other's territorial integrity; and whether the Council has yet advised upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled?

Both Panama and Costa Rica are members of the League of Nations. Fighting between the armed forces of the two countries broke out towards the end of February in the neighbourhood of the boundary, the exact position of which has been disputed for many years. Early in March the forces of both parties were withdrawn, and I understand that negotiations are now proceeding with the object of settling the boundary dispute through the mediation of the United States Government. In the circumstances there seems to have been no breach of the obligations assumed by the two countries as members of the League of Nations, and the question of action by other members under Article XVI. of the Covenant does not arise.

What is the use of having Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations when it can be apparently so easily broken by two of the smallest States in the world?

Owing to the action of the United States, no serious trouble has arisen.

In regard to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman describes as the mediation of the United States, was it not that the United States told these little Republics to stop, and did not allow them to quarrel, and is there likely to be any other result, whether or not the Covenant is enforced?

Does not Article 16 of the Covenant of the League say that if two countries start fighting without submitting the matter to the League they have ipso facto declared war on all the remaining members of the League? Did not these two countries start fighting, and are not they ipso facto at war with all the rest of the League, apart altogether from the United States?

I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the discrepancies in the various statements that purport to emanate from responsible Cabinet Ministers in different dominions, outlining the subjects proposed to be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, he will give this House any information in regard to the subjects the Government propose to bring before the Conference?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give the House the date for the opening of the Imperial Conference?

No meeting of the Imperial Conference is contemplated this year, but, as the late Leader of the House explained in a reply on 17th November, a meeting on the lines of the Imperial War Cabinets. Meetings will begin about the middle of June. With regard to subjects to be discussed, the most important will be the question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, certain defence questions, arrangements for securing a common Imperial policy in foreign affairs, and the question of the composition, meeting place and agenda of the Constitutional Conference contemplated in Resolution IX of the Imperial War Conference of 1917.

How long is this body going to be known as the "Imperial War Cabinet?"

I cannot say. There has, I think, been some difficulty about the varied nomenclature, but there is no doubt as to what the body is. It is a conference of the Prime Ministers.

Are we to understand that there will be excluded from the consideration of this body the question of Ireland, which is a question that causes a great deal of heart-burning and some insecurity in all our Dominions, all of which have expressed their views?

My hon. Friend obviously will not expect me to express an opinion about the agenda at this Conference. He will know as well as I do that the question of the agenda for the Conference of Prime Ministers is mainly a matter for its own discretion.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agenda has been published by the Canadian authorities and was reported in the "Times" yesterday, and is there any reason why we should not have the same information?

I think if the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory of what appeared in the "Times" he will see that it is precisely in the same language as the terms of the answer I have just given.

Will this House have an opportunity of discussing any of these important questions, such as the Anglo-Japanese Alliance? Provision has been made in the Dominion Parliaments for a discussion so that the Prime Ministers can come here supported by the opinion of their Parliaments. Shall we have the same privilege in this House?

The hon. Gentleman should refer that question to the Leader of the House.

I did address it to the Prime Minister.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to define the responsibilities and limitations of the Ministerial portfolio which, under the designation of Secretary of State for the Colonies, embraces functions never before considered within the jurisdiction of that office; and whether the time has arrived when a more comprehensive title should be substituted for the present one?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has reconsidered previous refusals, on 10th August, 1916, and 26th June, 1918, of the suggestion that the title of Secretary of State for the Colonies should be changed; and whether he will invite suggestions for a more appropriate title to submit to the meetings of the Imperial Cabinet in June?

Yes, Sir. These matters are now under consideration.