asked the Secretary of State for India whether any and, if so, how many political prisoners are now in gaol in India or the Andamans as a result of the Bengal troubles of 1915, or the Punjab troubles of 1919, who have not had extended to them the Royal clemency?

I do not understand what is meant by the "Bengal troubles of 1915." If the hon. and gallant Member will state his requirements more clearly, I will make inquiries. As to the Punjab, if by "political prisoners in gaol as a result of the Punjab troubles in 1919," the hon. and gallant Member means persons convicted of participation in the disorders in the Punjab and elsewhere in April, 1919, the answer is, I think, 86.

Is there any proposal to reduce this number, and to extend the Royal clemency to people for whom it was intended? Also were there not Gandhi troubles in Bombay and Bengal in 1915?

I have got the figures with regard to what I understand the hon. and gallant Member means by the Punjab troubles. I have seen a statement that the Viceroy is reviewing these cases himself.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet any information as to the. proposed change of Gujranwala station in order to punish the town for the Punjabriots?

I have not yet received the result of the inquiry I made in response to the hon. and gallant Member's question on the 23rd March. I will let him know as soon as it arrives.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether recently at Nankana 130 Sikhs were burned to death by a Mohant and his 50 Pathan mercenaries; whether the arrival and presence of these Pathans was known to the Punjab government; if so, what steps they took to prevent the massacre; and what punishment has been meted out to the murderers?

Communiqués were issued to the Press two months ago showing that 130 Sikhs were killed and their bodies burnt; and the Mohant at Nankana and 26 Pathan watchmen are among those arrested. I have not the information asked for in the second and third parts of the question, nor the exact details asked for in the last part. If the hon. and gallant Member desires these, it will be necessary for me to obtain them from India.

Is the trial still going on? Is the case sub judice?

I think so.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Legislative Assembly carried a motion claiming for India as a member of the League of Nations a share of the indemnity to be exacted from Germany; if so, whether this claim is allowed by His Majesty's Government to be valid; and whether His Majesty's Government or the Government of India will determine the amount due?

A motion to the effect stated by my hon. Friend was unanimously adopted by the Council of State on 26th March. The claim is allowed as valid by His Majesty's Government. The amount is under discussion.

Is any portion of the proceeds of the Reparation Act being paid over to India, and has India introduced the same method of raising money by a Reparation Bill as this country?

I do not think that that arises out of the question on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the crowds attending Mr. Gandhi's non co operation meetings in India intimidate the railway staff, take possession of the railway carriages, and travel to and fro without tickets; and, if so, what steps are the Government taking to prevent it?

On receiving notice of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I made inquiries by telegram, but have not yet received a reply. I hope to be able to answer his question shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by Muhammed Ali at Madras, namely, that if Afghanistan came to India to fight the British Government the Ali brothers would help Afghanistan, and the further statement that he would be quite content that his brother and he should give up their lives if at the same time the British Empire should breathe its last; and whether the Government intend to tolerate language of this nature, which is a direct incitement to rebellion?

I have seen in the Press an extract which appears to be from the speech in question. I have been informed by telegram that the matter has been, and is at the moment, engaging the attention of the Government of India.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has received any further advice from the Government of India making any practical suggestions for dealing with the industrial depression caused by the depreciation of the rupee?

The exchange position was fully discussed by the Finance Member of the Government of India in introducing the Indian Budget last March, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of his speech. My hon. Friend will see that the Government of India do not consider that there are any practicable steps that they can usefully take at the present time with a view to meeting the difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State, for India whether he can give any information with regard to the reports of the rioting at Malegaon, and as to the causes of such riots?

I have not yet received any further information from the Government of India beyond what I have already communicated to the Press on 28th April and 2nd May.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Madras Legislative Council has decided to abolish the sex disqualification for admission to the roll of electors; and, if so, whether the effect of such resolution will be to enfranchise any women other than such as have separate property?

I have seen reports in the Press to this effect, but have not yet received the official proceedings. As regards the second part of the question, the effect of such a resolution, in the words of the rule approved by Parliament, is that "the local Government shall make regulations providing that women, or a class of women, as the case may be, shall not be disqualified for registration by reason only of their sex." In other words, the qualifications for registration as electors would be exactly the same for women as for men. What those qualifications are the hon. Baronet can ascertain from the rules as approved by Parliament.

asked the Secretary for India whether the reduction of the 39 pre War Indian cavalry regiments of four squadrons each to 21 regiments of three squadrons each is now being carried out or not?

As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 19th and 6th of April, the answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the official title of the Royal Irish Rifles has been changed to that of the Royal Ulster Rifles; if so, at whose instance and on what grounds was this change made; whether the officers or men in the regiment were consulted in the matter; if so, what was the nature of their reply; whether he is aware of the indignation that is felt by all ranks at this departure; and will he take immediate steps to restore its ancient title to this historic regiment?

The question of the titles and designations of all regiments of the British Army has recently been considered by a Committee appointed by the Army Council. The following was their recommendation with regard to the Royal Ulster Rifles:—

"The Committee have taken evidence and have had much correspondence on the subject of the Royal Ulster Rifles. The opinion has been strongly expressed to the Committee that some Irish regiment should be closely associated with the Province of Ulster, as in the case of The Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment (Royal Canadians), The Connaught Rangers and The Royal Munster Fusiliers with other provinces. They consider that the Royal Irish Rifles has as great a claim, if not the greatest, for this association with the Province of Ulster. They therefore recommend that the title of The Royal Irish Rifles be changed to that of The Royal Ulster Rifles."

I do not propose to reverse the decision based on this recommendation.

Were any of the officers or men in this regiment consulted about this change?

Yes, Sir. The officer commanding the 1st Battalion at Park hurst was consulted, and he and a considerable number of his officers were in favour of the change. The 2nd Battalion was in Mesopotamia, and their reply could not be received before the matter was settled?

Is it not the fact that the regiment known as the Royal Irish Rifles was largely drawn from parts of Ireland outside Ulster, and that the original battalion, namely, the 83rd Foot, was the County of Dublin Light Infantry? Had the Army Council the Tight, without the full consent of the officers of this regiment, to change their title?

When the Government considered the matter, did they, having regard to the difficulties of the Irish question, deem this a convenient moment for taking such a course of action?

The first supplementary questions are matters of history, as to which I must ask for notice.

Matters of fact!

The second supplementary question raises matters of policy, as to which it does not fall to me to reply.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the War and during the War the Regular battalions of this regiment were largely recruited in Dublin and outside Ulster, and that the Regular battalions have always had Catholic chaplains appointed to them, which is proof positive that these were not Ulster Regiments?

No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

asked the Secretary of State for War when the new establishment of the Royal Army Service Corps will be announced; and whether, seeing that the present establishment is not adequate to fill the increased number of appointments necessary to efficiently maintain the mechanical transport section of the corps, he is aware that temporary officers are now employed?

The new establishments for the Royal Army Service Corps are under consideration with those for other arms of the Service, and I cannot make any announcement on the subject at present. As regards the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, a number of temporary officers are employed with the Royal Army Service Corps to meet the present requirements owing to the deficiency of regular officers in that Corps.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the total number of officers, namely, 126, stated by him to be employed in the remount service of the Army, does not agree with the list of officers shown in the last Army List as being 148 in number; could the duties in connection with the Territorial boarding out scheme, for which he stated these officers are retained, be performed by the deputy assistant directors of veterinary services attached to each Territorial division, and that the purchases of all horses and camels in India are made by the veterinary service, and that those in England cannot be bought without being examined by a veterinary officer; does he, in these circumstances, still hold the opinion that it is necessary to saddle the country with the present duplication of expense in connection with remounts for the Army; and will he give an assurance that the question of the necessity for the retention of the existing expensive remount department as a separate service will have his careful consideration?

In quoting the figure of 148 officers, my hon. and gallant Friend is evidently including the 22 officers shown on page 314 of the Army List, but, as stated on that page, these are temporary appointments. They are serving in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Constantinople and with the Army of the Rhine, and their, employment is due entirely to the existing military conditions in the countries in which they are employed. They do not belong to the normal establishment of the Remount Department, and are being reduced as rapidly as circumstances permit. As regards the second part of the question, the remount officers are not retained solely for the purpose of the Territorial boarding out scheme. They are performing in addition all their pre War duties in connection with the classification of horses. Their duties could not be carried out by the deputy assistant directors of veterinary services attached to Territorial divisions. I am informed that the purchase of horses and camels in India is not carried out by the veterinary service, such purchases being made by the Indian Remount Department in practically the same manner as in the United Kingdom. The Remount Department and the Veterinary Department in India are separate services, as in this country. As regards the remainder of the question, as promised during the Debate in this House on 20th April last, my right hon. Friend is looking into the whole question of the Remount Department.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the whole of the purchases of camels in India were made during the War by the Veterinary Department, and that the change has probably been made lately?

I am not aware of that. I must ask for notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State, for War whether the branch of the intelligence service known as I 5 is still in existence; if so, how many officers, men, and civilian staff are employed in it; who is its head; what is its estimated annual cost for the current year and upon what Vote is it borne; how many offices it occupies in London and in the provinces; and what are its functions, especially in connection with the organised Labour movement of this and other countries?

It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for in the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether money voted for the service of collecting military intelligence is being devoted to industrial espionage and other activities of that sort?

I have no reason to believe that that is the case.

Ought not this work to be done by the Home Secretary's Department, and not by the War Office, and is it not in the public interest to make that matter clear?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Army school of instruction at Newmarket is said to be making no use of 50 acres of the land which they occupy; that the Ministry of Agriculture, through their Norwich Commissioner, have asked for this land for the purpose of small holdings and allotments which are urgently required; and whether, in view of there being no other land in the neighbourhood equally suitable, and in view of the importance of providing small holdings or allotments in an accessible neighbourhood for ex-service men, he will arrange for this land to be surrendered?

The land referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is used for the recreational training of all ranks at the school of education, and is essential to the health of those undergoing courses. It is hoped to arrange for the school to be moved elsewhere, when the land will be handed back.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how soon there is a chance of this move taking place, and the land being freed for small holdings?

I am afraid I cannot say.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, under the Royal Warrant for Pay, paragraph 496, retired Army officers compulsorily recalled to service are entitled to the same rates of pay and allowances as officers of corresponding Army rank, in addition to any retired pay of which they may be in receipt, and in addition under paragraph 497 are entitled to certain gratuities; whether Army Order 154 of this year cancels this arrangement, stops the retired pay and pension, and grants £5 for wear and tear of uniforms in lieu of gratuities; what justification there is for enforcing one side of the contract as against the officer while repudiating the Government's liability to fulfil the obligations which it has promised; and whether, in view of the fact that many officers will, under the new arrangement, be much out of pocket by having to leave their businesses and having to rejoin the forces, he will reconsider the matter and carry out the provisions of the Royal Warrant?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, according to the regulations of the Special Reserve, paragraph 419, officers of the Special Reserve are entitled to a grant of £50 on being called up during an emergency; whether, also according to the conditions laid down in the Royal Pay Warrant, paragraph 497, such officers are entitled on being demobilised to a gratuity of 124 days' pay for the first year, or part thereof, of service during such emergency; whether, on the 12th April, 1921, or three days after the Royal Proclamation calling up such officers, an Army Order No. 154/21 was issued stating that neither the grant nor the gratuity would be made, but that a grant of £5 per officer will be given for wear and tear of kit; whether, seeing that £5 is not an adequate amount to compensate officers for their civilian disturbance and for providing additional kit, the Government will take all the circumstances into consideration and revoke the regulations previously made; and whether he will give instructions that the Army Order issued on the 12th April shall be at once rescinded?

The grant of £50 provided in paragraph 419, Regulations for Special Reserve, will be issued to officers of the Special Reserve who joined for duty in the present emergency. As regards Articles 496 and 497 of the Royal Warrant, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the written reply given yesterday to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman).

Is it not the case that the War Office are paying officers of the Reserve even when they have only registered and have not in fact been called up or put to any expense; and could they consider giving better terms to the officers who are actually made to do military duty, and either nothing to those who are just registered or only their bare out-of-pocket expenses?

I am not aware of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member first stated, but I will look into it and see whether it is so.

Is it not the case that a great many of these officers were called up before the 12th April, when the Army Order was issued, and ought not they to be given the full gratuity?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend must be thinking of the Special Reserve Officers who were called up before the 12th April.

Yes.

If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the first part of my answer, he will see that I said that the grant of £50 will be paid to those who joined up.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the time is a little close I Considering that the ordinary calling up was on the 9th April, and the proposal for the alteration is contained in an Order issued on the 12th April, does he think it is really giving proper time for officers of the Special Reserve in various parts of the country to have reported themselves, and can he say whether some extension of the date from the 12th April could be given?

They get now the grant of £50, whether they came up on the 9th or on the 12th. It does not refer at all to them.

If they came up after the 12th, will they still get the £50, irrespectively of the Order having been issued?

I would not like to answer that off hand, but I think so. I will find out and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also look into the really grave scandal of giving Reserve officers, who are doing no service at all, three weeks' pay and sending them back to their private occupations, while officers who are called up receive only the poor pay and allowances referred to in the questions?

I will look into that.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to state the number of copiess printed of each edition of the Army List; how many of the copies are distributed gratis; and what is the total cost per annum of the issue?

I am informed that the average number of copies printed of the Monthly Army List is 6,550, and of the Quarterly Army List 710. The numbers of copies distributed gratis ( i.e., for official use), including the War Office, the Army, and other Government Departments, are: Monthly Army List, 4,025; Quarterly Army List, 510. The approximate total cost per annum of the issue is: Monthly Army List, £30,500; Quarterly Army List, £11,000. As the House has already been informed, a Committee was appointed to consider what steps could be taken to reduce the cost of the Army List, and as a result certain details are to be omitted from future editions which will effect a substantial saving. It has also been decided to include advertisements in the book with a view to lessening the cost of production, and the arrangements for their insertion are now well advanced. I would add that a considerable reduction is being made in the number of copies of the Army List circulated in the War Office, and to the Army at home and abroad.

How much has been obtained already for these advertisements?

I must ask for notice of that question.

May I venture to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the new move?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to transfer the Royal Army Ordnance Depôt from Woolwich to Hilsea, and that this transfer will entail the removal of the Royal Field Artillery brigade and depot now stationed at Hilsea; what expense to the public would be entailed by these removals and the necessary alterations to Hilsea barracks to make them suitable for the new occupation; and, if so, can an explanation be given of the advantages accruing by the changes?

The accommodation at Red Barracks and Cambridge Barracks, Woolwich, which is at present shared by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps Depot, Records and School of Instruction with the Artillery College, is inadequate to meet the requirements of both establishments. The question of the provision of alternative accommodation is therefore under consideration, but a definite decision has not yet been reached. I would explain that the Royal Army Ordnance Corps Depôt referred to is the corps depôt for recruits, training, etc., and has no connection with the ordnance depot for stores at the Royal Arsenal and Woolwich Dockyard.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Hilsea barracks have been occupied by artillery for generations, and that a very strong feeling exists among artillery officers that the place should not be handed over to the. Ordnance Department?

I have said that the whole question is still under consideration, and that point, undoubtedly, will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the occupants of the house in Bedford Square, London, known as the Russian Consulate; what Government are they supposed to represent; and to whom do persons in this country wishing to proceed to Russia apply for Russian visas for their passports?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The Russian Consulate in Bedford Square is occupied by Monsieur Onou, who holds the rank of Consul General in the former Russian Consular Service and represented the late Provisional Government. With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Articles 4 and 8 of the Trade Agreement in accordance with which the Russian Trade Delegation is the proper authority in this country to grant a visa for entering Russia.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Russian subjects wishing to travel in France are compelled to go to Monsieur Onou for visas; and is Monsieur Onou still recognised by the Government and assisted or helped in any way?

It is quite true that Russian subjects go to this Russian Consulate, because they have nowhere else to go to, but there is no question of recognising Monsieur Onou.

Will the hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to facilitate the granting of passports to Bolshevist subjects in this country who wish to leave?

asked the Postmaster General whether subscribers to the telephone service who are desirous of paying for each call as they make it are charged 7s. 6d. a quarter for rental of the coin box and a fee for a local call of 2d. instead of I½d,; whether further calls involving a trunk fee of 1½d. are also to be charged at 2d. each, making a total fee of 4d. instead of 3d.; and, if so, will he explain why these additional charges are made, and why a subscriber who pays cash is charged 2d. for a call for which, if he had an account with the Post Office, he would only be debited 1½d.?

As stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds on 19th April, this question is being reviewed.

Will steps be taken to see that these people who pay the money in advance are not charged more because of their payment previous to their receiving the communication?

Theoretically, it is a very simple question, but, practically, it is very difficult. The question is being reviewed. I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the first opportunity.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the great feeling among the people who have these boxes, and the way they are incensed at having to pay 2d. where other people are paying for the same accommodation 1½d.? That is a 33⅓ advance on other people.

I understand the figures, and I realise the difficulty. The question is being reviewed.

asked the Minister of Pensions when the new post War scale disability pension will be in operation?

If my hon. Friend is referring to post War rates of pension for pre War disability pensioners who served again in the Navy during the Great War, I may inform him that the matter is under consideration and that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement at an early date.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not so long ago I was told a decision was about to be made? That was about ten days ago.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what will be the grant payable for the current month to millers per quarter of British wheat milled to make it worth their while to buy such wheat, in view of the new figure published on the 23rd April of 92s. per quarter for foreign wheat during the forthcoming month?

The grant payable to millers in respect of home grown wheat ground during the month of May will not be less than 25s. per quarter of 504 lbs. I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the notice on this subject issued on the 22nd April.

What is the grant that will be paid to the miller—not 55s., surely?

I have said not less than 25s. per quarter of 504 lbs.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that fully 40 percent, of that never reaches the farmer at all?

If 25s. was paid when the guaranteed price was 95s., now that the price has dropped to 92s., why should the grant to the miller remain the same?

Because the price of foreign imported wheat also dropped a certain amount.

Fully 40 percent, never reaches the farmer at all. Can the hon. Gentleman give me any explanation where it goes?

No, I cannot. The sole object of the grant is to induce millers to buy English grown wheat. If farmers choose to sell through dealers, of course some of the money may be stopped there.

In cases where it is sold direct to the miller it does not reach the farmer. Where does it go in that case?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me details I will look into it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how long it is proposed to continue the Government Farm Colony at Patrington, in East Yorkshire, on a profit-sharing basis, in view of the improbability of there being any profits to share; and whether the Ministry can at an early date carry out the recommendations of Sir Lawrence Weaver's Report, and put an end to this attempt to farm? strong and difficult land from Whitehall?

The Ministry is proceeding at once to carry out, so far as is practicable, all the recommendations contained in the Report referred to. The Report did not, however, recommend the closing down of all the profit sharing, settlements, and I am not prepared to consider at the present time the disposal of the Patrington Settlement, at which 52 ex-service settlers and 2 ex-services probationers are now employed. The future working of the Settlement is, however, engaging special attention.

Is there any profit whatever in our share of the transaction? Has my hon. Friend consulted the Agricultural Committee of the East Riding?

Yes, we have been in constant consultation with the committee in question, but we cannot at present dispose of all the property, on which a large number of ex soldiers are now employed.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of Air Force reservists encamped at Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey; how many of these are officers, warrant officers, and non commissioned officers, respectively; what is the weekly cost of maintaining this camp; what duties these officers and men are performing; whether a deputation from the camp waited upon the camp commandant and respectfully represented the great loss and hardship many of the officers and men in camp were experiencing; and when it is intended to release them?

The number of Air Force reservists at Eastchurch is 1,071. This includes 24 warrant officers and 456 non commissioned officers. There are no reservist officers. The estimated weekly cost is £4,000, this figure representing pay and maintenance of the personnel. Beyond the normal duties of the station, no special work has yet been ordered. Representations in the sense suggested in the fifth part of the question have been made by individual airmen on the invitation of the Officer Commanding. The decision to release these officers and men rests with the Cabinet.

Has the Commandant any instructions to release men who can prove hardship in business by being kept on in idleness in this way?

The regular and recognised percentage of men for leave is of course in full force at Eastchurch as elsewhere. Hard cases are dealt with first.

Is it not obvious that these officers and men are really not required? Would it not be a great saving to let them go back?

That part of the question is answered in the latter part of my reply, that the decision must rest with the Cabinet.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Government have disposed of their surplus stock of wool to the British Australian Wool Realisation Association, Limited; what is the quantity of wool so disposed of and the price realised for same; whether the transaction shows profit or a loss, and the amount; who acted upon behalf of the Government in fixing the prices and carrying through the negotiations; and whether, having regard to the magnitude of this transaction, he will issue a White Paper giving all details and particulars?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the remaining questions do not therefore arise. My answer on the 18th April to the hon. and gallant Member for Jarrow explains the nature of the arrangements under which certain stocks of wool have been transferred to the British Australian Wool Realisation Association.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to Ministers as well as Members by the delay in the publication of the index to the OFFICIAL REPORT of PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES; and whether he will direct the Stationery Office to make a weekly index available for Members in manuscript, if not in print?

This question was considered by the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports in 1919, and the hon. Member will find the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 5 of H.C. 244/19. In view of the necessity which still exists for stringent economy in expenditure incurred on account of public services, I regret that I do not feel justified in acceding to the hon. Member's request in the second part of the question.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noticed the second part of the question, which does not involve any extra expense whatever?

I am afraid I cannot possibly agree.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it used to be the duty of one of the Librarians to keep this weekly index in manuscript? It was a tremendous convenience to hon. Members. As that Librarian is still doing the same work, could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Leader of the House see the convenience to hon Members, whether it was printed or not, that this Librarian should keep a manuscript index?

I certainly was not aware of the historical fact to which the hon. Member alludes. It is clearly a question for the officials of the House, and not for a Minister.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the index referred to was not an index to the Debates, but merely an index to questions?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the possibility of introducing legislation to enforce a secret ballot among the trade unions affected prior to all industrial disputes; whether the trade unions have been approached on the point and what are their views on the subject; and whether, in the interests of the entire community, he will see whether it is possible to arrive at some mutual understanding between the trade unions and the Government which will permit of such secret ballots being introduced?

This question was covered by the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 18th April, and I would ask the hon. Member to refer to that answer.

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the crowds of aliens arriving at Liverpool Street station viâ Harwich and at Dover by the steamers from Ostend, and to the miserable appearance of these persons and the unknown language they speak; if they are only passing through this country or intend to settle here; why this invasion is permitted at such a time; and if he has power under the Alien Acts to put a stop to it?

I think the hon. Member must be referring to the aliens arriving in this country as transmigrants, that is to say, purely for the purpose of proceeding to other countries with the through tickets which they hold, and under the bonds given by the steamship companies as security that they will not remain here. No invasion of this country is involved by this traffic, which is of considerable commercial importance to the country. It is closely regulated, and I cannot contemplate stopping it.

Is it certain that none of these men stop in the country as undesirable aliens?

None of them stop as undesirables. I cannot say that none of the people whom the hon. Member has seen have stopped, but the very large majority are passing through.

Is any officer charged with the duty of seeing that they do not lose their through tickets here?

asked the Home Secretary how many windows have recently been scratched in the Metropolitan police area; whether any arrests or convictions have been obtained; and whether the cause of the outrages is definitely known?

There have been numerous cases of window scratching in the Metropolitan police district, but the police cannot estimate the number. In many cases reported to them, the damage is not of recent origin. Proceedings have been taken in two cases, but in both the charge was dismissed; in a third case proceedings are pending. The police prefer not to express any opinion as to the cause of the outrages.

Is there any evidence for the statement that it has anything to do with Sinn Fein?

I have already said the police are not in a position to offer any opinion.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the feasibility of mines being acquired and run on a co-partnership or profit sharing basis, on lines similar to those adopted by the South Metropolitan Gas Company, the debentures in money or credit to be held by the Government on behalf of the public, and a Government representative to sit on the board of directors?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Maldon Division.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average wage per hour worked which would be payable to adult workers in the mines in accordance with the proposal made by the Government to the Miners' Federation at their meeting on the 28th instant?

I have been asked to reply. The average rate of earnings of all adult colliery workers in March, 1921, was approximately 18s. 6d. per shift. The Government's offer was that in no district should wages during May be reduced by more than 3s. per shift. The actual amount of the average reduction over the whole of the coalfields would depend upon the final settlement as to the grouping of coalfields in the federated area, but, assuming that the maximum reduction became operative over the whole of the federated area, the average wages per shift for adults during May would be 15s. 6d. It is difficult to express this average as an hourly rate, as there is considerable variation in the hours worked by different classes of labour.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the shift price in August, 1914?

I must have notice of that question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great uncertainty in the minds of the general community by reason of the dispute that has arisen in the method of calculation by the miners and the mineowners; the mineowners calculating the wage payable on the basis of 5½ days, and the Miners' Federation on the basis of 4·9 days per week, and does he not think in these circumstances it would be better to have the wage calculated on an hourly basis, so that everyone can understand?

I have said that the difficulties in the way of the hourly basis would be more confusing than the method now adopted. I admit that it is desirable that the actual wages payable should be made perfectly clear to everybody concerned.

Is it not a fact that the owners' proposals at the moment are only made conditional upon the miners agreeing that if there is no improvement in the state of trade between now and September that in September the Welsh miners' wages will be 8d. an hour?

I do not know anything of any condition as to 8d. an hour. The condition was that if it was necessary owing to the state of the industry a further fall would take place, exactly in the same way as if the industry improved the workers would get the benefit of the improvement in proportion to the amount paid to the owner.

Is it not the fact that the owners' proposal involved this that if there were no improvement within the next four months the Welsh miners must accept 11s. 7½d. per day reduction in their wages?

I should not like to say offhand.

Is it not the fact?

I am not at all convinced that it is the fact. I could not answer without looking into it, but the proposal of the Government depended upon a temporary arrangement for four months and a permanent arrangement after that.

May I ask for an answer to my uestion—what was the shift wage in 1914?

I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question. I cannot carry these figures in my head.

Mr. Speaker, may I—

The hon. Member's question goes much further than the question on the Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government's offer of £10,000,000 as a temporary subsidy to the mining industry is still open; and, if so, whether there is a time limit on its acceptance?

I venture to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) yesterday.

Is the Government responsible for the posters on this matter, which are going up all over London at the present time?

The hon. Member must ask that of some other Minister.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the West Yorkshire Coalowners' Association are compelling members of the Yorkshire Deputies' Association to leave such association and join the Coalowners' Mutual Aid Scheme, and have declared in some cases if the men do not take this course such men will not be allowed to commence work on the termination of the dispute; whether such action is resented and likely to prolong the stoppage; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid continued unrest and a prolongation of the dispute by reason of the action of the Coalowners?

I have made enquiries, but so far as I can learn it is not the considered policy of the West Yorkshire Coalowners' Association to insist upon the deputies joining the Colliery Staffs' Mutual Benefit Society as a condition of their reemployment after the termination of the miners' dispute. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind of which he will give me details, I shall be glad to have it investigated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this association is compelling its members to leave the Deputies' Association, and that this other association is in no sense a trade union; and is it the policy of the Government to assist in these ideas of breaking up trade unionism, and, if so, why not say so openly?

They do not say it openly because it is not their policy. I am not aware that what is described in the first part of the question is taking place. I am quite aware that the other association is not a trade union. If the hon. Member will give me some facts that will enable me to inquire I will do so.

( by Private Notice ) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statements now being made, more especially by representatives of the miners' interests, the country is now justified in assuming that the dispute in the coal industry is no longer a wages issue, that a readjustment of miners' wages is suggested on a fair and reasonable basis, and that the dispute which is still continuing is for a purely political end which can only be sanctioned or rejected as a whole by the electorate at the polls?

Before that question is answered I wish to raise a point of Order. I would like to know whether there will be an opportunity given, after the reply to the question, for a discussion on what is being stated? We are getting these questions and answers and, as I understand, there is no chance of replying to them. An entirely false impression is thus being created. We are really getting mere ex parte statements. Shall I be in order in replying on the statements made?

The hon. Member has made quite a fair point. Perhaps I was a little easygoing in permitting this question. It appears to raise a controversial subject, and I think that ought not to be introduced in the form of a question, without being put on the Paper. Had the question appeared on the Paper, the controversial part of it would not have been allowed to appear.

May I say that I had no intention of raising any controversy at all?

I was not attributing, any blame to the hon. Member, but rather to myself. I gave a rather cursory glance at the question, and took no objection to it at the moment. I do not think we should pursue the matter any further.

My object was merely to ask the Government to let the country know what I thought was the uncontroversial fact, and whether it is a wages issue or not. The hon. Member who has objected is one of those for whom we have a great respect, and he has been talking of the wages question. I wanted to make it clear whether the wages question has not been ruled out entirely and that the country should know the fact that it had been ruled out.

That makes it more clear that the matter cannot be dealt with in the form of a question, without notice.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give facilities this Session for the passage, through all its stages, of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth on the 12th April last.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is despatching any envoy to Ireland for the purpose of negotiation with Sinn Fein?

The answer is in the negative.

Can my right hon. Friend say if there is any truth in the rumour in this morning's newspapers that the ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin has been entrusted with a message to Sinn Fein?

No, Sir. The Government have not sent a message by anybody, or authorised anybody to open negotiations on their behalf. The position of the Government is as stated by the Prime Minister in the Debate last week.

Then may we take it that there is no truth in the rumour in this morning's newspapers?

I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers. I have no more knowledge about it than hon. Members opposite.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an inquiry has yet been held into shooting by military or police which resulted in the death of Daniel O'Driscoll, aged 16, and the wounding of John Sullivan, aged 18, at Liscahane, Ardfert, on 12th April, and with what result?

I am informed that the finding of the military court of inquiry held in lieu of inquest was that Daniel O'Driscoll was shot when with others he was running away and was called upon to halt, and that no blame whatever attaches to the Royal Irish Constabulary. According to the police report of the occurrence, Daniel O'Driscoll and John Sullivan were found by a patrol of auxiliaries making a trench in a road. They ran away when they saw the Crown forces, and though called upon to halt, refused to do so. Fire was opened on them. O'Driscoll was mortally wounded and died some hours later. Sullivan was also wounded, while engaged in bandaging up O'Driscoll's wounds. Shots which wounded one auxiliary and penetrated the clothing of another were fired from a shrubbery close by.

asked the Chief Secretary whether it is usual for members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including the auxiliary division, to carry out raids and arrests while dressed in mufti; and whether, in view of the dangers of this practice to themselves and to other persons, he will consider the advisability of having such operations carried out always by men in uniform?

Raids and arrests are almost invariably carried out by Crown Forces in uniform and it is only in exceptional cases that this practice is departed from. For obvious reasons it is sometimes necessary for police officers to carry out their duties in mufti.

Can the right hon. Gentleman justify the use of three lorry loads of armed men in the attack on the Castleconnell Hotel in daylight?

I have already stated that in that case my recollection is that the men were on leave.

Is not one of the reasons why men convicted of levying war against the Crown cannot be treated as prisoners of war the fact that they do not wear uniforms?

It is one of many.

It does not apply to Crown forces?

No. Occasionally all police officers have to go in mufti.

Were not both parties in the Castle-connell case in plain clothes?

I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice.

ask the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 30th January Mrs. Grey, of Ballycogoran, near Killaloe, wife of a retired Colonial civil servant, applied for a special permit for her motor car: that no reply was received, but a week later the district inspector came and demanded an essential part of the car, which was given; that on 23rd February a party of auxiliaries, bringing an order signed by the officer commanding G company, Auxiliary Division, commandeered the car; that it was brought back in a damaged condition, whereupon Mrs. Grey refused to receive it; whether he has received a letter from Mrs. Grey stating these facts and asking that she should be paid the value of the car, £560; and, in view of the fact that this letter was written on 11th March, and that no reply beyond a bare acknowledgment has been received, will he state what action he proposes to take in this matter?

The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. On the 28th February, Mrs. Grey was informed that the car was ready for return to her and a cheque was sent her for its use at the rate of 3d. a mile for the distance actually covered. Mrs. Grey replied that she was going away and asked permission to leave the car temporarily in police custody and it has remained at her disposal since. As regards the alleged damage to the car I have ascertained that the near side rear mud guard is dented, the petrol tank screw cap missing, and the accumulator box has been broken and repaired. On the other hand the magneto has been adjusted and re-timed, the foot brake tightened, and the clutch, which was deficient, has been rectified. The car is, as I have stated, at Mrs. Grey's disposal, and I am prepared to pay a reasonable sum in respect of the damage stated above. I am certainly not prepared to pay the value of the car.

Is it in order that cars should be commandeered on the signed order of a company commander?

Yes.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired 20 years ago on a pension of £72 a year receives £28 16s. increase of pension under the Act of 1920, and that a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired about the same time on a pension of £62 a year receives £24 16s. increase of pension, whereas a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired in June, 1918, by reason of physical infirmity, on a pension of £69 6s. 8d. only receives £8 6s. 8d. increase of pension; what is the reason of this anomaly; and whether he will take steps to remove it?

A sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired in June, 1918, on a pension of £69 6s. 8d. per annum, would, if the calculation were made on the pre-War basis, have been eligible only for a pension of £55 9s. 4d. The latter figure, therefore, and not £72 or £62, as quoted in the question, is the true pre-War analogy in this case. The portion of the pension of £69 6s. 8d. which represents a post-War increase, namely £13 17s. 4d., is required by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, to be set oft against the increase which the ex-sergeant might have obtained under that Act if he had not received the post-War increase. This requirement of the Act being clearly essential, no amendment can be contemplated.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that French fishing vessels are constantly seen fishing within the three-mile limit at the Skelligs, Lemon Rock, Cape Clear, Fast-net Rocks, and Blasket Islands; and if he will take steps to ensure that the fishery cruisers are properly performing their duties so as to prevent it?

The Department are not aware that encroachments of the nature referred to are of frequent occurrence, but a few cases have been reported to them. A message received last week that French lobster boats were fishing in territorial waters off Dingle Bay was immediately communicated to the local naval fishery officer at Queenstown.

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to call a round-table Conference on liquor control and licensing legislation?

The Conference will be convened as soon as the necessary arrangements have been completed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intense amount of dissatisfaction caused by the fact that those areas which did such splendid service in the munition work are now penalised compared with those areas which did not do such service?

No, Sir, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question in the affirmative. I come from one of those areas which largely assisted in munition work, and I should hardly be prepared to endorse the view that there was widespread dissatisfaction.

This will lead to a Debate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purpose silver coin is now utilised as part of the reserve against the issue of currency notes; whether there is any limit to the amount of silver coin that may be used in this way; and, in view of the unpopularity of the new semi-nickel coinage both at home and abroad, he can confine the use of the new coinage to the special purpose of such reserve, reverting to our old standard for all silver coinage sent to those Colonies where our silver money is free legal tender?

As a matter of convenience of machinery in connection with the withdrawal of old silver coin, silver coin to the face value of £3,000,000 is now held on the Currency Note Redemption Account as part of the security for the fiduciary portion of the issue, not as cash cover for the non-fiduciary portion. There is no special limit on the amount of such holdings, but it is not proposed to add to them at present. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the injustice which natives of West Africa feel in having the new coinage forced upon them to an unlimited extent?

I am afraid that I am not aware of the feeling on this subject of the natives of West Africa, but I shall be glad to listen to any representation of their views.

Is not the principle laid down in the Treasury that they should take a certain amount of silver coinage for the backing of currency notes?