asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether his attention has been drawn to letters published in the Glasgow Press intimating the resignation of the majority of the local war pensions committee and joint disablement committee as a protest against the manner in which Bellahouston Hospital is being managed; whether he can state the steps he is prepared to take to allay the general dissatisfaction against, and to restore public confidence in, the treatment of the ex-service men who have to attend this hospital;

(2) whether he has received the report called for into the administration of Bellahouston Hospital; and whether he is now prepared to have an investigation into the conditions alleged to exist in that hospital?

My right hon. Friend has received reports from his regional officers on the subject of the allegations made against the administration of Bellahouston Hospital. The information now before him lends no support to the charges made against the hospital authorities, and the allegations of harsh and unsympathetic treatment of ex-service men appear to be without foundation. In view, however, of the considerable local feeling which has been created in this matter, my right hon. Friend proposes to hold a local inquiry, the precise nature of which he will determine at the earliest possible moment.

In setting up any committee to inquire into the administration of this hospital, will my hon. Friend see to it that some representative of the ex-service men is allowed to sit upon the committee, as in the main the allegations made against the hospital have been made by the soldiers who have been treated there through their organisation?

I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point.

asked the Minister of Pensions what further steps he proposes to take to expedite the hearing of cases now before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; and whether he is aware that from one district alone of Somerset there are eight cases which have been awaiting hearing for periods up to eight months, thus involving ex-soldiers and their dependents in much hardship?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now reached a decision as to the best means of further expediting the work of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal so as to obviate the delays to which ex-soldiers are subjected, sometimes amounting in some Bath cases to as much as eight months?

( for the Lord Chancellor ): Five additional Pensions Appeal Tribunals will commence to sit this month, and further tribunals are in course of formation. The average period which elapses between the date an appeal is received by the Pensions Appeal Tribunals and the date it is heard is at present 10 weeks. In Somerset, all appeals received up to the beginning of, February last have been dealt with, or will be heard within the next two weeks.

asked the Minister of Pensions what special arrangements are made for ex-soldiers who are suffering from shell-shock and are detained in public asylums; how is their treatment differentiated from that of ordinary inmates; and what steps are taken or are in contemplation for treatment especially suited to their malady, and for independent examination at intervals by military doctors with a view to their earliest possible recovery?

Ex-service men are not medically treated in public asylums unless certified under the Lunacy Acts to be insane. Men suffering only from shell-shock are not so certified. Treatment is in such cases provided in an institution of the Ministry of Pensions, the men being under the care of experienced medical officers who have special knowledge of the particular disability and of the appropriate treatment.

Is it not a fact that ex-soldiers in these public asylums are treated as though they were ordinary lunatics, and is not that a state of things that ought to be changed?

I do not think that is true, but I cannot speak with authority on the matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman raise this question with the Minister, so that a specific answer to the question may be obtained?

Certainly.

Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether these soldiers are treated as pauper lunatics, or whether any consideration is given to them having regard to the reason why they are there?

I understand they are not treated as pauper lunatics.

, asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make inquiries as to whether the High Commissioner for New Zealand is inviting 1,000 ex-service men to emigrate to New Zealand with an assurance that house accommodation and employment will be provided; whether he is aware of a report that the New Zealand Government are dismissing men, that unemployment is general, and that the Government are unable to find house accommodation for their own employés; and whether action will be taken to make known to intending emigrants the exact state of affairs in New Zealand?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The question asked by the hon. Member is, I think, due to a misapprehension. In view of temporary difficulties connected with shipping, and the changed housing and industrial conditions in New Zealand, the High Commissioner has taken steps to ensure that only such ex-service men as have a definite guarantee of employment and housing accommodation on arrival in the Dominion shall at present be allowed to proceed. The 1,000 ex-service men to whom the hon. Member refers are, no doubt, those applicants for free passages to New Zealand who have furnished documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the High Commissioner that they are able to comply with these conditions, which are insisted on to prevent the possibility of distress amongst those arriving in the Dominion. The actual number of ex-service men included among these applicants is 363, numbering with their dependents nearly 1,000 souls. Action has already been taken with a view to making known to intending settlers the exact state of affairs in New Zealand.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Employment Exchange officials have been directed to put pressure on unemployed men for the promotion of the Government's scheme for ex-service men in the building trade; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that this scheme is generally regarded as an attack by the Government on the trade unions in the building trade and Employment Exchanges are supposed to act as impartial agencies, he will reconsider this matter?

This scheme has the full recognition and support of the Government, and while I regret that it has not so far been accepted by the trade unions in the building trades, it is in no sense an attack upon them. Posters and leaflets giving particulars of the scheme are displayed in the Exchanges, and managers have been instructed to bring to the notice of any suitable ex-service men on the register the opportunities which the scheme affords them of obtaining employment and securing training in a skilled occupation.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state how many men are employed under the scheme for ex-service men in the building trade and in what districts those men are employed?

As I told my Noble Friend the Member for Battersea South (Viscount Curzon) yesterday, the total number of applications received from ex-service men is now over 8,000. Building employers will, I trust, proceed as rapidly as may be to sign these men on in pursuance of their patriotic undertaking to co-operate with us in this endeavour on behalf of ex-service men. So far, the number of men actually accepted is small, but progress with the scheme has been necessarily very much handicapped by the industrial situation which has developed since its launching on 18th April.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the circular published in the Press yesterday morning from the Building Trades Union?

Yes, I read it. I was sorry to see it, but we are going on all the same.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the houses of Edmund Creed and David Bermingham of Farrahy, of Denis Baily and David Maguire of Shanballymore, of John Cronin of Rockmills, and John Noonan of Quiltkent, were destroyed by Crown forces by order of Colonel-Commandant M. J. Cameron, C.B., C.M.G., A.D.C., on 13th April last, as a reprisal for the assassination of Constables Woodward and Baynes, Royal Irish Constabulary, on 10th April; on what principle these houses were selected; what is the estimate of the value of the property destroyed; whether the owners of the houses were confronted with the evidence, if any, against them; and whether they were given an opportunity to prove their innocence of the death of the constables if able to do so?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask whether eight members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were ambushed and killed yesterday while on their way to bring in the dead body of a murdered man for burial?

These houses were destroyed as a military operation on 13th April, 1921, following the murder of Constables Woodward and Baynes on 10th April, 1921. They were selected as the occupants were bound to have known of the preparations, and failed to give information of the impending attack. Notices to this effect were served in each case. There is no information available as to the value of the property destroyed. I may add that the facts as stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Pennefather) are correct, and eight men were killed while on their way to bring in the dead body of a murdered man for burial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one regrets these murders more than hon. Members on this side of the House? In the case of reprisals, if persons maintain their innocence, as in several cases I have brought to his notice, are they given a hearing, and allowed any sort of defence at all before their whole property and livelihood are taken away?

I have stated that the officer in charge must act on his own responsibility. In the end he is answerable to the Courts. He can be trusted to deal fairly with these cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several cases, especially that of Mrs. Fitzgerald, whose son served with the Forces—

This question has no reference to this particular case.

Might I refer to this important case? In the case of those people who presented an alibi, does the officer put off consideration, and are they given any chance of defending themselves?

Would there be any possible chance of other Members having a separate department where they can have a chance of going on with business? Why do you not pull that man up? He has no shame.

Order, order!

asked the Chief Secretary whether any arrests have been made in connection with the recent burning of the house of the Bishop of Killaloe?

I am making inquiries into this matter. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will kindly repeat one day next week the question, of which I only received notice on Tuesday.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the house of Mrs. Brosman, of Newtownsandes, near Listowel, was destroyed on the night of 10th April; whether this was carried out by order; and what was the reason for this destruction?

This place is in the martial law area, and I have, therefore, asked the Commander-in-Chief to furnish me with a report. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat the question on Thursday of next week.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has seen the statement of Miss Una Daly, of Limerick, that the furniture and property in her house was destroyed on 9th April by soldiers and police acting under orders, that 15 minutes' notice only was given, that £100 in gold was taken, that during the destruction insulting language was used, and that when the destruction was already in progress an officer read a statement that the punishment was being inflicted on Miss Madge Daly because she did not give notice of an ambush in John Street on the previous day; whether he is aware that Miss Madge Daly was in Dublin on the date in question and that the house was over a mile from the scene of the ambush, with the river between; and whether he will state what has been done with the £100 which was taken?

This place is in the martial law area, and I have therefore called for a report from the Commander-in-Chief. If the hon. Member will repeat, on Thursday next, the question, of which I only received notice yesterday, I hope then to be in a position to furnish him with a reply.

asked the Chief Secretary why official reprisals are taken against persons proof of whose implication in outrage is not obtainable?

I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the destruction of property in the martial law area is ordered only in cases where the Military Governor has satisfied himself that the building has been used in rebel operations or that the owner or occupier of the property has aided or abetted the rebels in their campaign of outrage and murder against the forces of the Crown.

What happens when people are able to prove an alibi, as in the case of Miss Madge Daly, of Limerick?

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a military proclamation at Listowel which said that reprisals would be taken against persons known to have rebel sympathies, although no evidence of their implication in crime could be secured?

I must ask for notice of that question.

asked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been drawn to statements in the Press by the Archbishop of Tuam concerning the murder of a man 60 years of age named Horan, of Partry, county Mayo, on 7th March, in his own house by members of the Crown forces; whether this was a so-called reprisal for an ambush at Partry; and whether any persons have been arrested in connection with the ambush or the murder of the late Mr. Horan?

I regret to state that the inquiries which have been made in this case have not yet resulted in the discovery of any clue as to the identity of the murderers. The investigation, however, is still proceeding.

Can we be told, without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, why the Chief Secretary is not here? We have had no explanation of his absence.

That does not arise here. That was asked the day before yesterday, and answered.

asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquest or military inquiry in lieu of inquest has been held on the body of Patrick Cloonan, of Maree, Oranmore, County Galway, who was taken from the house of Laurence Donoghue, for whom he worked, by members of the Crown forces at 3 a.m. on the 5th April, and shot by the seashore a quarter of a mile from his residence; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry?

The finding of the court of inquiry in lieu of inquest was that the deceased died from shock and hæmorrhage, caused by a bullet wound in the chest fired by some person or persons unknown, with intent to commit murder. Three civilians gave evidence at the inquiry, and made no suggestion that the man was taken from the house by members of the Crown forces.

Can steps be taken to make widely known the untruth of the allegations made against the Crown forces by the hon. Member opposite? Will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, send it to our Embassies abroad, so that they may know how false are these statements against British soldiers?

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?

I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the military Court of Inquiry that has been investigating this case was concluded on the 29th ultimo. All the papers, including the report, are now at Cork with General Strickland, by whom they will be forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief as soon as possible.

asked the Chief Secretary whether John O'Leary and Thomas Waters were shot near Moneygall by members of the Crown forces on 27th March; whether O'Leary has since died; what reason is given for this shooting; whether an inquiry has been held; and with what result?

The finding of the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest was that these men were wounded, O'Leary mortally, by members of the Crown forces, who fired at them in the execution of their duty, while they were attempting to escape from arrest after being challenged and called upon to halt.

asked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Thomas Hennessy, a man aged 60, of Crosshaven, county Cork, was shot by a party of men in mufti, alleged to be members of the Crown forces, who arrived in a motor launch and started to search civilians; whether a court of inquiry has yet been held and with what result; and whether any arrests have been made?

The finding of the court of inquiry in lieu of inquest in this case was that the deceased met his death as the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by members of the forces of the Crown, who fired in the execution of their duty, and that he was himself to blame, inasmuch as he failed to halt when called upon to do so by the Crown forces. The court also found that no blame attached to the Crown forces in the matter of his death.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the statement in the question is correct, that the men were in mufti?

I could not answer that.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Proclamation issued on the 14th April last by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in Ireland suspends 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; and whether, in view of the statement that this Proclamation applies only to property that has been destroyed by direction of the Military Governor, he will instruct the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in Ireland to amend this Proclamation in order that persons whose property has been destroyed in unofficial reprisals or by acts of indiscipline by members of the forces of the Crown in Ireland will have an opportunity to claim compensation before the civil courts?

If the hon. Member will refer to the replies which have been given to previous questions on this subject, he will find that no amendment of the Proclamation is necessary to enable claims to compensation to be proceeded with in the civil courts, provided that the consent of the Military Governor is first obtained, and that it is not intended that the consent of the Military Governor should be withheld in cases of the kind suggested in the latter part of the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent reply on this subject the Prime Minister said that courts would not be closed to persons whose property had been destroyed by acts of indiscipline on the part of forces of the Crown? Have these people then to apply to the Military Governor before they can do so?

The reference I have made includes the answer of the Prime Minister. When the consent of the Military Governor is obtained application can be made.

Why should they have to obtain the consent of the Military Governor in the case of unofficial reprisals?

Because it is in a martial law area.

What will happen in the case of a postponed trial when witnesses die, or are otherwise unavailable?

I could not answer that at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister whether the hon. Member for Pontefract has been authorised by the Government to offer to Sinn Fein through Mr. J. J. Farrell, formerly Lord Mayor of Dublin, Dominion Home Rule subject to an Imperial Army and Navy?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no knowledge of such offer.

Is the Government really prepared to make this offer?

My right hon. Friend has made the position of the Government perfectly clear.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Patrick Casey, who was arrested on 1st May at Mitchelstown, County Cork, was tried by court-martial and condemned to death on the following day, and that the execution was carried out the same evening, 25 hours after arrest; whether his attention has been called to a statement made by General Macready, in an interview published in the Press, that, in every case of conviction for murder, the case goes to the Judge Advocate-General in London, and that the latter has to be convinced of the legality of the finding before the military authorities went any further; and whether Patrick Casey's case was submitted to the Judge Advocate-General in London before the execution was carried out?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative and to the third part in the negative. I understand that the statement made by the Commander-in-Chief referred only to the cases of courts-martial under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and not to military courts in the martial law area.

What was the crime of which this man was convicted?

He was seen shooting at an officer twice. He was arrested on the spot, tried by court-martial in the evening, and sentenced to be shot. The sentence was confirmed by the military governor, and he was executed.

What was the nature of the verdict? Was he found guilty of murder?

My recollection is that he was found guilty of levying war, which is treason.

Are we to understand that the Judge Advocate-General had no opportunity of looking into the case, and seeing that the due formalities of the law were complied with?

Seeing that not merely the trial, but the execution was within 26 hours of the occurrence, was there any reasonable opportunity for those who were assigned to defend the accused to master and state the case?

I am sure that if any application were made, it would be duly considered by the court.

Did we not get a pledge in this House that no one would be executed until the proceedings had been placed before the Judge Advocate-General, and full consideration given to the matter?

I have said distinctly that the statement made by General Macready, and which was reported in the newspapers, referred only to cases of court-martial under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, and not to military courts in martial law areas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Macready, in this interview which was given in an American newspaper, said that every man, before execution, was given weeks in which to make his peace with God, and will the right hon. Gentleman say why that opportunity was not given in this particular case?

As I have already stated, General Macready was dealing with cases of court-martial under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, and not with the case of military courts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I am not asking about the interview with General Macready, but about the pledge that was given in this House?

I am not aware that any pledge of the kind was given.

In view of the fact that the Government and everybody does want peace, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a pledge that in future such indecent haste—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—will not be shown?

Notice should be given of matters involving a change of policy as the question of the hon. Member does.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of his statement that a complete sweep was made of the office of the "Irish Bulletin" on 26th March, and that the list of names and addresses of those to whom the "Bulletin" had been sent was captured, and seeing that forgeries of the "Bulletin" are still being received by these persons, he will state what steps he has taken to clear the agents of the Irish Government of suspicion that they are responsible for these forgeries?

I have already stated, in reply to previous questions on the subject, that the Irish Government have no responsibility for these documents, and that I have satisfied myself no public money is being expended on their production. My attention has not been called to any breach of the law in connection with the circulation of these particular documents and, in the circumstances, I see no reason for spending time and public money in further investigations.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether officers of the Government are issuing these forgeries at their own expense?

No, Sir; not so far as I know.

Is it not the case that the list of names and addresses to which the documents were sent was captured by forces of the Crown, and is now in their possession, and that forgeries are now being issued?

I have already answered the first part of the question. As to the last part, there is no foundation for the statement.

Who is sending them out?

I have not the least idea.

No one else can be doing so.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Friday last a raid was made on a hall in Blackball Place, Dublin; whether two or three trade union meetings were proceeding; that one of these was a committee of the local branch of the National Union of Vehicle Builders, the officials of which were engaged in paying sick and unemployment benefit to the members; that about 40 men, including the said officials, were arrested; that the branch books, and presumably any cash remaining, were also seized; that no one is being allowed to see the prisoners; that in order to pay the sick and unemployment benefit this week the return of the books is necessary, and also that application has been made for them; that no reply has been received; and whether he will release the trade union officials concerned; or alternatively, restore the books and any cash taken so that the members of the union entitled to sick or unemployment benefit may be paid?

Notice of this question did not reach the Chief Secretary till 1 o'clock to-day. He is having inquiry made, and will furnish the hon. Member with a reply as soon as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman meet a representative of the society concerned?

I should be glad to see him, but while I have no information, no good purpose would be served.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Chief Secretary whether, before the closing of the Castleconnell Inquiry, steps will be taken to summon all available witnesses?

All available witnesses were heard before the court closed. But I am quite willing to submit to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the question of re-opening the court to hear further evidence. I may add that Mrs. O'Donovan, her niece and her housemaid, who were in the house on the occasion, have been examined.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that all available witnesses were heard, when Mr. Cripps and his wife, who were personal witnesses of the whole occurrence, never knew that the inquiry was being held?

I will certainly submit to the Commander-in-Chief that question.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Cripps has written announcing publicly his willingness to give information, and does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer show that the whole of these military inquiries are a farce?

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if the court had before them the fabricated evidence in the possession of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), namely, a cartridge with a bullet and no powder?

The Government have been considering the question of Mr. Cripps, and I may tell my hon. and gallant Friend that Mrs. Cripps has the greatest disinclination to go to the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "No wonder!"] The Commander-in-Chief will consider with the greatest care, and indeed I will support, the application of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have the matter reopened.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister would like me to postpone this question for another week?

I should be very much obliged if the Noble Lord would postpone it.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations is now fully constituted; and, if not, who have accepted the invitation of the Council of the League to serve on the Commission to date, and how many vacancies remain to be filled?

On 22nd February, 1921, the Council decided to invite the following persons to become members of the Permanent Mandate Commission:

Have these gentlemen voting power on the Council?

They are not on the Council.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the convention for the establishment of the International Court of Justice will be ratified?

His Majesty's Government are doing their utmost to expedite ratification of the Protocol to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice on behalf of the whole Empire, and they are now in consultation with the Dominion Governments on the subject. I may observe that the Protocol has not yet been signed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when this will be?

I hope with very little delay.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the newly-occupied German territory a French proclamation posted up contains a Clause to the effect that no strikes will be allowed to take place; whether he is aware that the text of this proclamation printed in France and for circulation abroad does not contain this sentence; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?

I have made inquiries, but have not been able to obtain confirmation of the report in question.

asked the Prime Minister what is the sum in sterling the Allies have demanded as reparation from the German Government; what sum has been received; and if he can make any statement as to German expressed intentions to meet the Allied claims for reparation?

asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government has been called upon to make a special issue of bonds to the amount of £250,000,000 in terms of Article 232 of the Treaty of Versailles?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in terms of paragraph 12 of Annex II to Part VIII of the Treaty, the Reparation Commission is constituted as the exclusive agency of the Allied Governments for receiving the reparation payments; and, if so, whether the provision of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, which enables the Government to receive payments by way of reparation, is an infringement of that provision?

asked the Prime Minister (1) the conditions under which the French propose to work the coal of the Ruhr for the purpose of obtaining reparation if the ultimatum is rejected by Germany; whether any estimate has been made of the cost of the coal at the pithead and of the price at which it can be sold; what is the estimated amount which will be realised for reparations;

(2) the terms of the ultimatum that has been, or is to be, presented to Germany;

(3) whether, if the ultimatum to Germany is rejected, the Government is committed to joint action with the French in the armed occupation of the Ruhr; if so, what is the number of the forces to be employed; whether further coercive measures are proposed; and, if so, what is their nature?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether any inquiry has been made into the probable effects upon British trade of the occupation of the Ruhr; if so, can he state the result of the investigation;

(2) whether he can state the probable effect of the occupation of the Ruhr upon the coal export trade of this country;

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the reparation collected in the Ruhr will be handed over to the Reparation Commission to be apportioned among the Allies or will be retained by the French Government towards the French share of the reparation;

(2) whether the Reports of the Reparation Commission to the Allied Governments will be published?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Reparation Commission has assessed the amount of the liability of Germany which is attributable to Category (5) of Annex I to Part VIII of the Treaty; if so, whether he can state the amount?

(2) whether the Allied Governments have decided under paragraph 22 to amend Annex II to Part VIII of the Treaty; and, if so, whether he can state the amendments which are proposed?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, under paragraph 17 of Annex II to Part VIII of the Treaty, the Reparation Commission has given notice to the British Government and to the other interested Powers of Germany's default in the performance of any obligation under that Part of the Treaty; and whether the Commission has made any recommendation as to the action to be taken; if so, what were the recommendations;

(2) whether the Reparation Commission has made any estimate of Germany's capacity to pay reparation; if so, whether he can state the amount of the estimate;

(3) whether he can state the number of gold bearer bonds which have already been issued in terms to Annex II to Part VIII of the Treaty; how many of these bonds have been redeemed; how many of them have been disposed of outright or by way of pledge; and whether the Reparation Commission has issued to the British Government a certificate stating the number of bonds it holds for the account of the Government, and certificates stating the amount of goods it holds for the account of this country?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements by Mr. J. M. Keynes, published in the Press on the 2nd May, as to the inability of Germany to meet her financial obligations under the Peace Treaty; and whether it would be possible for the Allies to issue a clear statement dealing with the favourable financial and industrial condition of Germany compared with that of the Allied countries, which have been impoverished by the policy pursued by Germany during and since the War, in order to counteract the pro-German campaign which is being carried on here and elsewhere?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the inter-Allied Conference on German Reparation, he can give par- ticulars as to the calculation upon which the ability of Germany to pay the amount demanded in the way demanded is based?

There are a good many questions dealing with reparation. As I propose to begin this afternoon by making a statement on that subject, I shall be obliged if all my hon. Friends would postpone their questions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the amount of reparation demanded by the Allies from Germany, the amount that has already been paid in sterling and what are the intentions of the Germans?

As I propose to make a very full statement, I have not answered the questions; but I shall be glad to reply to them in the Debate.

asked the Prime Minister whether, according to German law, evidence against the alleged German war criminals must be given in their presence; whether this condition has been waived in the case of the proceedings at the Bow Street Police Court; and, if not, whether he has considered the possibility of the Leipzig Court declining to take cognisance of such proceedings?

I have been asked to reply. The German law as to prosecution for War crimes provides that the Rules of Procedure to be applied, where not otherwise determined by law, are to be the Rules of the Supreme Court of the Empire. The evidence of the witnesses was taken at Bow Street, in accordance with the requirements of the German law, and it has been stated by the representatives of the German Government that it will be admissible before the Supreme Court at Leipzig at the trials of the persons accused. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that objection will be taken to it, more particularly as representatives of the accused persons appeared at the hearing at Bow Street.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on more than one occasion he has told the House that one of the reasons for the delay in bringing these men to trial was that German law required the accused persons to be present when the evidence was taken. Is that wrong?

I do not think I used those words. I said the accused persons, or representatives of the accused persons. The accused persons had an opportunity of being present; they were not present themselves, but their representatives attended.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is never wrong in his law. I apologise.

asked the Prime Minister how long the Government offer to the miners will remain open and under what conditions?

I have been asked to reply. I am unable to add to the information which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my Noble Friend on Monday last.

Are we to understand that the matter will remain quite indefinitely, and that there is no limit fixed?

The answer is perfectly clear.

Can the Prime Minister hold out any hopes, when other matters are out of the way, of tackling this industrial stoppage?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper. It is not necessary for the hon. and gallant Member to ask a supplementary on every question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the threats reported in the Press as having been made by Eddo Fimmen and Robert Williams with a view to inciting labour on the Continent and in England to refuse to load or carry coal from abroad to various English centres; what is the nationality of these persons, respectively; and, if one is a British subject, whether he will consider the expediency of his arrest?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. As reported in the Press, a statement was issued by the Transport Federation that the international transport workers on the Continent would refuse to load or carry coal to England. Eddo Fimmen is of Dutch nationality, and Robert Williams British. In the present state of the law there is no power to arrest either of these persons, and moreover I am informed that Fimmen is not in this country.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the strong views expressed by many of the leading trade unions that foreign coal should not be allowed to be imported into this country, as this would affect the uneconomic price at which home coal is being produced and sold to the public, the Government propose to include coal in the measure to be introduced for the protection of home industries?

The answer is in the negative.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is compatible with the reasonable manner in which the Labour party is acting in wanting to prohibit foreign coal coming in and leaving us no coal that no protection is to be put upon our own coal?

I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Member's question.

Surely we may hope to get some.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prolongation of the strike in the mining industry, he can state if the Government propose to take any further and more drastic steps to secure economy in the use of coal for all purposes?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the Noble Lord to my replies to similar questions which he has asked recently. My Noble Friend has no doubt seen the new restrictions published in to-day's Press. The question of further and more drastic steps to secure economy in the use of coal is under constant consideration and I can assure the Noble Lord that, subject to the public safety and to the maintenance of vital services, the Government is taking all necessary measures to that end.

Would it not conduce to further economy if this House were to begin its sittings at 12 o'clock? Would it not save a great deal of light?

That is not for me to answer. If the Noble Lord is able to throw any further darkness on the situation, I shall be very glad.

Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government to put Regulation 13 passed yesterday into force at once?

That does not arise out of this question.

The Home Secretary knows.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Manifesto, dated 12th April, from a body styling itself the General Purposes Committee of the Civil Service Federation, and signed by two individuals of the names of Chase and Shayler; whether he can state wherein a body holding such views differs from those previously disallowed in the case of the Navy, Army, and Police; whether it is proposed to allow the Navy, Army, and Police to join bodies which take such action and express such views; whether those who do so, or who are associated with the Civil Service Federation in the present instance, will be eligible for the grant of pension and war bonus, now or in future; whether the persons comprising the Committee are known; in what Department the individual Chase was employed; and what further action the Government intend to take, if any?

I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the answers given on this subject to questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side, to which I need only add that Mr. Chase is a member of the staff of the Admiralty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answers to which he has referred me do not deal with the second part of my question, namely, whether it is proposed to allow the Navy, Army, and Police to join such bodies?

I find some difficulty in answering it, because I do not know what are the views "previously disallowed," to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred me. If he will give me a reference, I shall be able to give him a right answer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that bodies expressing such views in the case of the Police and the Navy and so on have been disallowed, and that the permanent forces are not allowed to join them? What action will the Government take in this case?

As regards action, I do not think I can possibly add anything to what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend.

That means that you are going to take no notice at all of it?

On what ground does the Government propose to pay a war bonus to this man Chase?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, to bring home to the public the seriousness of the coal stoppage, he will consider the desirability of publishing frequently statements of those industries which have been compelled to close down owing to lack of fuel, as well as the number of people who are thereby thrown out of work?

It is not possible in all cases to ascribe the discharge of workpeople to one particular cause, such as shortage of fuel, with sufficient accuracy to justify the issue of periodical statements on the subject. But the numbers of unemployed have increased since the beginning of the coal dispute more rapidly than in any recent corresponding period, and there can be no doubt that by far the greater part of these increases are due to the stoppage in the coal industry. At 1st April the number of men, women, boys, and girls on the Live Registers of Employment Exchanges was 1,506,000, while a further 884,000 were claiming insurance benefit or out-of-work donation in respect of short time working. At 29th April the numbers were approximately 1,865,800 and 1,080,000, respectively.

Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government to put Regulation 13 into operation at once?

asked the Home Secretary how many aliens are employed in and about the mines of Great Britain in Scotland, South Wales, Lancashire, and in the Midlands; how many of these aliens are known to be accredited agents of revolutionary propaganda; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to deport such paid agents to their own country?

I stated in answer to a question on 11th April that the alien miners registered in the chief mining districts in Scotland numbered 1,530, being a very small proportion—about 1 per cent.—of the whole mining population. There is no reason to think that the proportion in the areas of England and Wales would be higher—it is probably much less—and as an expenditure of a good deal of time and labour would be required to get out the figures, I do not feel justified in doing it. I should be ready to exercisemy power of deportation in any proper case of the kind suggested in the latter part of the question, but up to the present time no such case has been reported to me.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his judgment, it is necessary to have any aliens in these districts?

To prevent them would require fresh legislation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the powers, which this House would readily give him, to prevent aliens coming into this country and taking the work away from British subjects?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also take steps to see that the agents of foreign reactionary Governments are deported as soon as possible?

( by Private Notice ) asked the hon. and gallant Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the Office of Works, whether he is aware that on Tuesday two large fires were burning in the Library, and yesterday three fires were burning in the same place; and whether he will give instructions during the present crisis that no more coals shall be burnt in the Library?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to the question. So far as possible, we are endeavouring to consult the convenience and comfort of Members, with due regard to economy. There is no coal but coke burnt. I have given instructions, as an experiment, not to allow fires in certain portions of the building.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that yesterday there were no fires at all in the corridors of the House, and many older Members were suffering severely from the cold?

You have got cold feet already.

There is plenty of hot air.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to Press reports of the annual convention of the Federated Confectioners' Association, held at the Connaught Rooms on 29th April, wherein it is stated that a proposal that retail confectioners' profits be fixed at a minimum of 50 per cent. on cost of goods by weight, and 33 per cent. on cost of goods by count, was carried, as was a further resolution to the effect that manufacturers, wholesalers, and multiple shopkeepers be asked not to supply street hawkers and milk traders with goods, and urging the Government to give local authorities larger powers of control; and whether, in view of the fact that the foregoing proposals are directly in restraint of trade, the Government can, and will, take any action in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. I have seen a newspaper report of the meeting referred to, but the matter is not one on which the Government are in a position to take any action.

asked the Prime Minister how soon the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) restrictions as regards working men's clubs will be removed?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am advised that the question of restrictions on the supply of liquor in clubs is inseparable from the general question of the regulation of liquor, which, as the hon. Member knows, is immediately under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 29th April, 1918, that these restrictions were instituted for war emergency only, and not with any temperance idea, still holds good?

Perhaps the hon. Member will address that question to the Prime Minister.

With a view to getting these restrictions removed, will the right hon. Gentleman make them apply to this House, so that we may experience the inconvenience?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a majority of the supporters of the Government regard the continued existence of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) with disapproval, and believe that in so doing they represent the views of their constituents, who assure them that the existence of the Board causes industrial unrest; that these Members of this House desire an immediate opportunity of voicing their views on the Board and ascertaining, by a vote of the House, what Members thereof support the Board's post-War survival; and, seeing that he has received a requisition from 170 Members or thereabouts for such immediate debate and division, will he now give them the opportunity which they desire to exercise apart from any proposed licensing legislation?

Owing to the pressure upon Parliamentary time, it is not possible to give time for such a discussion. As has already been stated, however, an opportunity will occur on the Motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that on the Motion for the Adjournment it will not be possible to get a vote on this subject, and cannot steps be taken to give some date before the Whitsuntide Recess, even if it is only half a day, for a discussion of the matter?

I am afraid there will be no opportunity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Nonconformist vote in this country is in a minority, and does he consider that the Prime Minister should be dominated by it?

asked the Prime Minister what is to be the composition of the conference which it is proposed to inaugurate on the licensing question; whether it is to be a conference of Members of Parliament or of other persons interested in the subject; what are the terms of reference; and what steps are to be taken to secure that the conference shall be representative of the various sections of public opinion which it is necessary to reconcile in order to secure an agreed measure?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in any new proposals for dealing with the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors and any conference of persons in reference thereto, he will appoint neither persons whose business it is to make or vend liquors nor those who profess temperance views, but compose the tribunal wholly of those who consume such liquors ex their own cellars and/or in licensed premises, with power to call both trade and temperance witnesses?

I am not yet able to announce how the conference which is referred to will be composed. But it is our hope that it may be such as to bring together competent representatives of opinions, which, however widely they may differ, may offer useful contributions to the end in view.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it is to be a Parliamentary Committee or a Committee composed of persons interested in the matter outside this House?

I cannot say that we have definitely made up our minds, but I prefer a Parliamentary Committee, if we can possibly arrange it.

asked the Prime Minister if the Soviet Govern- ment of Russia is negotiating a loan with the British Government for £100,000,000, such loan to take the form of an open trade credit, for the purpose of purchasing goods in this country; and whether it is true that the Soviet Government has expressed its willingness, provided that the British Government will recognise it as the de facto Government of Russia, to give an undertaking to make good all claims, as regards real estate, Government bonds, mortgages, and securities of every kind, which may be legally proved by private individuals who are British subjects?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As my right hon. Friend stated on the 22nd March, the British Government in the Russian Trade Agreement has accorded de facto recognition to the Russian Soviet Government. With regard to claims, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the speech which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on that occasion.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to recent revelations as to the export trade in old and worn-out horses, and the indignation aroused thereby in this House and the country, he will take steps to introduce legislation with the object of making this traffic illegal?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The Ministry has considered the possibility of legislation to prohibit the traffic entirely. The difficulty lies, however, in making any proposal which would not interfere with the legitimate trade in fit horses. The Ministry has already made arrangements with the French Government to ensure the slaughter of horses intended for food before shipment and are endeavouring to make similar arrangements with the Dutch and Belgian Governments. I think it would be advisable to wait until the result of these arrangements are seen before proposing fresh legislation. I would also point out that, under the existing Acts which regulate the traffic, namely, the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, and the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, "old and worn-out horses" cannot lawfully be shipped if by the hon. and gallant Member's expression is meant horses which are no longer fit for work; and I have recently greatly strengthened the methods of inspection at the ports.

Does my right hon. Friend realise the consensus of opinion in the House on this subject, and that we would willingly pass through all its stages in a single hour any Bill to strengthen the hands of the Government?

Does my right hon. Friend think he will be able to give a final answer as to the possibility of agreement with the Belgian and Dutch Governments this day week?

I do not think that is possible, but I hope negotiations will be carried through very quickly.