asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain why the recognition of the Mexican Government is premature at the present time, and whether he can suggest any method or policy on the part of President Obregon that would facilitate recognition by His Majesty's Government?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what further proposal, to follow their recent encouraging statement, on the part of the present Mexican Government would induce His Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of according the Mexican Government early recognition;

(2) whether he has been informed by the present Mexican authorities that they will be ready to meet all properly established outstanding British claims on condition that His Majesty's Government recognises the existing Mexican Government?

His Majesty's Government have always been anxious to recognise the Mexican Government as soon as they are convinced of its stability, and of its intention to remedy the losses incurred by British firms and interests. The question, for instance, of restoring to the owners, on fair terms, the various properties of British subjects still held by different Mexican authorities is one which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, should be dealt with, and His Majesty's Government would welcome any steps that the Mexican Government might take to deal with this and similar problems. Until some practical suggestion can be made by the Mexican Government for settling these questions. His Majesty's Government consider that recognition would be premature. In September last, the Mexican Government stated that, as soon as they had been fully recognised by other countries, they would be prepared to agree to the appointment of a mixed Commission to negotiate concerning British claims.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent statement of Bekir Sami Bey in the Turkish Nationalist Assembly at Angora to the effect that a new conference of the principal Allied and Associated Powers to discuss the revision of the Treaty of Sevres will take place shortly in Italy is correct; and whether this conference is being arranged to take place in Rome, and when?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now suggest a date for the discussion of the Washington Convention, in fulfilment of the agreement made by the late Lord Privy Seal on the 22nd February?

I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. G. Barnes).

Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of any discussion taking place?

I have looked into the matter. I was under the impression that my predecessor had promised a discussion; but I find that I was mistaken, and that he did not promise a discussion. I think, however, it probably would be desirous to have one, but I am not yet in a position to name a day.

asked the Prime Minister whether the words in general such other measures in the Treaty of Versailles, Clause 18, Annex II., would justify the invasion of territory?

Yes, Sir, the words referred to would justify an invasion of territory if it is considered by the Governments concerned that such a measure is necessary in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, for the application of the principles of the Reparation Act to the Crown Colonies?

No steps have yet been taken for the introduction of legislation on the lines of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act in the Colonies not possessing responsible Government, nor are any immediate steps in contemplation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is very important to traders that they should know exactly what is to be done in this matter? Is the Government taking steps or not?

On re-reading my answer I cannot see that it is other than perfectly clear.

Are we to understand that the Government has no intention of suggesting to the Crown Colonies that they should legislate in this sense?

No immediate steps are in contemplation.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what further sums have been received in the five weeks since 2nd April under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

The amount received under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, during the five weeks since the 2nd April is £9,000.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a position to make the calculation for which I asked, how long it would take to recover the indemnity at this rate?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can apply his own arithmetic.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the Proclamation of Dr. Sun Yat Sen, as President of China, at Canton; over what area his rule is effective; whether any foreign Powers have given him de facto recognition; whether the three most powerful military tuchuns had a recent meeting at Tientsin and have proceeded to Pekin to overawe the civil Government; whether civil war is now threatening throughout China; and whether any special instructions have been sent to British consuls and steps taken to provide for the greater security of the lives and property of British subjects in China?

His Majesty's Government have learnt that Mr. Sun Yat Sen was elected "President of the Chinese Republic" by the active remnants of an old Parliament which does not recognise the existing Government at Peking. Whatever rule he exercises is believed to be effective in the province of Kwangtung only. There is no informa- tion that he has been recognised by any foreign power. The three chief military governors supporting the Peking Government and the Premier have met at Tientsin to consider the present financial difficulties of that Government. There is no information that the dissensions in China are threatening to become more violent than they have been for some time past. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any British subjects still detained in Russia against their will; and whether we are doing our best to help the Americans to secure the liberation of their subjects who are still in prison in that country?

Pending the arrival in Russia of the trade agents under the agreement, His Majesty's Government have caused inquiries to be made through the Soviet Government in regard to each case brought to their notice of British subjects still in that county. Until the result of such inquiry is known, it is not possible to say whether the continued presence in Russia of such persons was or was not involuntary. His Majesty's Government regret that they are not in a position officially to take any action on behalf of United States citizens.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to hold out any hope that visas on passports between Great Britain and France may be abolished in time to be of service to the large number of nationals of both countries who intend to cross the Channel during the forthcoming holidays?

The reply is in the negative.

Seeing that an offer has been made by the French Government, cannot the Government hold out some hope that it will be accepted shortly?

The matter is having earnest consideration, but it cannot possibly be settled before the Whitsuntide holidays.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not hold out some hope that there will be a settlement before the summer holidays—before the House rises?

I hope so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ships of over 3,000 tons displacement, built or laid down since August, 1914, have been or are to be disposed of; and, if so, in what way?

As the reply is in tabular form, I propose, with the Noble Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

Of the vessels of over 3,000 tons displacement, built or laid down since August, 1914, the following have been, or are to be, disposed of, in the manner stated:—

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the coastal-motor-boat base, situated at Osea Island, has been shifted to the Portsmouth area; when the Osea Island base was the total cost, what

is the estimated cost of the transfer; and whether the decision to establish this base at Portsmouth has been arrived at for strategical reasons?

The coastal-motor-boat base is in process of removal from Osea Island to the Portsmouth area, where it will be maintained on a reduced scale The base at Osea was commenced in December, 1917, and completed in June, 1918, at a cost of approximately £195,000. It is estimated that the transfer will cost approximately £17,000. The transfer was decided upon on grounds of econmy.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if their Lordships are satisfied that Portsmouth is the best strategical base under the new conditions?

Yes, Sir. I think they also found there is very considerable economy in the transfer.

Have they considered that it is very false economy to place a base of this sort at Portsmouth for purely strategical reasons, when it may have to be moved again at great expense afterwards.

I am sure that has been considered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of paymaster-lieutenants promoted from writer, commissioned, and warrant writers borne on 1st October, 1918, and 31st March, 1921, respectively; and will he give the reasons that led to the drastic reduction in the number of junior accountant officers, seeing that there is a shortage of these officers and a large waiting list of men passed and highly recommended for promotion?

The number of paymaster-lieutenants promoted from warrant rank borne on the 1st October, 1918, was 11, including 4 officers who had passed the age for compulsory retirement, but were retained as supernumerary on the active list owing to the War. The number borne on the 31st March, 1921, was 9, and this number was increased to 10 on the 1st April, thus completing the full number of ten laid down in Monthly Order 3018a/18. With regard to the second part of the question, I may state that no drastic reduction has been made in the number of junior accountant officers, nor is there any shortage of accountant officers.

asked the First Lord W Admiralty whether any promotions to the rank of warrant writer have been made since December, 1919; if none have been made, will he consider the question with a view to making early promotions; will he state why a first-class higher educational certificate has not been made a test for early promotion to commissioned rank in the writer branch of the Navy, as it has in the seaman and engineering branches; and will he take steps to extend the same facilities to the writer branch of the service?

No promotions have been made to the rank of warrant writer since December, 1919. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Plymouth on the 5th May, further promotions to warrant writer are dependent upon the post-War establishment of the accountant branch as a whole, and this is now under consideration. I assume that in the last part of the question the hon. Member refers to the method of earlier promotion to the rank or relative rank of lieutenant after examination which is laid down in the executive and engineering branches. It has been decided not to introduce such a system into the writer branch, in which the conditions are quite dissimilar, and in which professional experience is of more value than high educational attainments. At the same time the vacancies which would have been reserved under that system, to be filled by selection periodically from those who had qualified, are filled by the promotion of officers for long and zealous service as the vacancies occur.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, inasmuch as the question of the further revision of the pay of the school master branch of the Royal Navy has been under consideration for a long time, he is now in a position to state what the newly revised rates will be, and from what date they will have effect?

This question is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board adheres to the decision in their letter to Mr. Filson Young on 30th October, 1920, which has been published in a recent book, and which lays down that they can make no exception to the rule which has been laid down that, only Sir Julian Corbett can be allowed to see official documents relating to the War?

The reply is in the affirmative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the result of this decision is that the copyright for the whole of the official despatches and all courts of inquiry rests in a single person and a single firm of publishers, and does he not think that is highly undesirable?

I think the issue is not one of copyright. It has been laid down in an agreement between all Government Departments that documents of this character are not to be made public except for very special reasons.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, according to this book, a letter from the Admiralty states that these documents are not under the control of the Board of Admiralty?

That may be. These documents were entrusted to the official historian of the War.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a lieutenant or lieutenant-commander who may happen to be married is getting less pay than married officers of equivalent rank in the Army or Air Force?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the case that some warrant officers, deck and engine-room, in submarines are actually getting less pay than their subordinates, chief petty officers, who happen to be married?

The answer is in the affirmative. It is not practicable to avoid altogether the possibility in any circumstances of a warrant officer receiving less pay than a chief petty officer who is probably some years older. The advantage, however, is purely temporary, and is largely offset by the fact that warrant rank carries opportunities for further advancement to commissioned officer from warrant rank, lieutenant, etc., with still higher rates of pay as well as prospects in respect of retired pay and widow's pension, out of all proportion greater than those open to ratings. The widows of ratings are, in the ordinary course, not eligible for pensions at all.

Is it not a fact that a chief petty officer has a marriage allowance, and a warrant officer has not?

That is quite so, but it is only temporary. After an interval, the position of the warrant officer would be better.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in considering the question of marriage allowance for naval officers, they have compared the present case of a naval officer whose pre-War pay was 10s. a day, and who now gets £292 per annum, with that of a Civil Service clerk, who, with a pre-War pay of 10s. a day, is now getting upwards of £400 a year, though, possibly, not married?

The Admiralty are considering all relevant facts.

Can the hon. Gentleman say the approximate date when this, egg will be hatched?

No, Sir. I should like it to be as soon as possible. There are natural difficulties, on the ground of expenditure.

Will not something be done to correct this gross injustice?

How does the hon. Gentleman justify the awarding of less to naval officers than to others?

I do not know that I can at this stage discuss all the different items which enter into the pay of the Navy.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the Admiralty refuse to deal with and reply to the claim made for increased wages to the employés at His Majesty's dockyards at Malta and Gibraltar; and why the Admiralty refuses to negotiate those claims with the accredited officers at the headquarters of the men's union in London?

All questions concerning the wages of employés at His Majesty's dockyards abroad are dealt with as between the Senior Naval Officer, or other agent for the Admiralty on the spot, and the employés or their local representatives. The Senior Naval Officer acts in accordance with the general or specific instructions of the Admiralty. This procedure is considered to be the best suited to the peculiar conditions at the dockyards abroad, and it is not desirable to act in conflict with it by adopting the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question. There have been claims regarding the wages of employés at Malta and Gibraltar, which have been disallowed; but there has been no refusal to deal with any claim received through the usual channel.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the fees of the architect for the housing scheme of Brandon and Byshottles Urban District Council amount to £13,290, and that they will be still further increased; whether the Ministry has laid down any scale of architects' fees in connection with housing schemes; if so, whether these fees are in accordance with the scale; and whether there is any means of preventing such excessive fees being piled up in connection with housing schemes and increasing the burden both upon the rates and the Exchequer?

A copy of the claim made by the architect for the housing scheme referred to has been sent to me. The claim is considerably in excess of the amount which would be payable under the scale of fees which has been agreed with the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Society of Architects, and the matter is being investigated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this council is building 500 houses in five years to meet the needs of the people, and that architects' fees can be claimed up to £30,000?

I have just told the hon. Member that this claim is very much in excess of the scale of fees that has been arranged. The matter is being investigated, and after investigation we shall see whether it will be allowed or not.

Why is it necessary for these big fees to be paid in respect of housing schemes, seeing that the plans are all of a standard pattern?

This is evidently an arrangement between the local council and the architect.

asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the immediate decontrol of building material as a means of relieving unemployment and accelerating housing schemes by encouraging private building?

There is no control of building materials by the Government at the present time.

asked the Minister of Labour whether an alien arriving in this country and obtaining employment receives, if he afterwards becomes unemployed, exactly the same benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act as a British-born resident workman?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) on 20th April. Aliens are liable to pay contributions and are entitled to benefit in the same way as British subjects. They are required under the Act of 1920 to have four weeks' employment and contributions in an insured trade to their credit in order to be entitled to benefit, or, alternatively, under Section 3 of the Act of 1921, like other civilian claimants, to prove that they have worked in insurable employment during 20 weeks since the year 1919.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can make any statements as to the joiners' strike and the prospects of a settlement?

I regret that I am unable to add anything at the moment to my previous reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 4th May. I am, as he knows, still in touch with both parties.

asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have now applied under the Government scheme for employment in the building trades; and how many are now employed?

The number of applicants for admission under the scheme is now 12,266. The work of executing contracts between the men and the building employers has been greatly delayed, mainly as a result of the general stagnation brought about by the industrial situation. The employers are forming the district committees through which the scheme will be operated, and I have their assurance that no endeavour will be wanted on their part to carry it to a successful issue.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received letters from branches of the Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen, and Clerks requesting him to form, and protesting against the delay in forming, a trade board for shop workers in the distribution trades; whether any step has been taken in the matter; and, if not, will he at once proceed to set up such boards?

I have received many letters from branches of the union to which my hon. Friend refers urging the early establishment of trade boards for the various distributive trades. Trade boards have already been established for the milk distributive and grocery and provisions distributive trades, and I propose to proceed with the application of the Acts to other distributive trades in which such action is clearly shown to be expedient, always bearing in mind the need for caution in the present circumstances of the trade of the country.

If there be a trade board set up, will they be genuine employers on the board and not people nominated by the Government?

My hon. and gallant Friend does not understand the composition of these trade boards. Half the members are representative of the employers and half are representative of the workpeople concerned, and the Ministry of Labour adds one, two, or three independent members.

Does that mean that the Government have no hand in nominating any of the employers' representatives?

What I have said covers the case of the organised trades; but in unorganised trades, if we cannot get a representative employer, it may very well be that we shall have to select an employer who seems to us to represent the trade concerned. Broadly speaking, however, on both sides of the board the persons concerned are representatives of the interested employers and workpeople.

I will ask a further question on the point.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made at the council of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade in the Royal Agricultural Hall, on 12th April, to the effect that the dressmakers in Portsmouth had refused to put the lO¾d. scale into force, and that the last Ministry of Labour inspector who had visited Portsmouth had congratulated the speaker in defying the Government; whether an inspector of his Department did express such a sentiment; whether firms in the dressmaking trade in Portsmouth have ignored or are ignoring the trade board award; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

My attention has been drawn to the statement mentioned in the question, and I am informed that the lady inspector concerned expressed no such sentiments as those ascribed to her. I am aware that some of the dressmaking firms in Portsmouth are not paying certain of the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Trade Board, and I am taking steps to ensure that these employers shall comply with the law.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is taking any steps to bring before employers of labour the importance of keeping places open for those of their employés who have been called up owing to the industrial crisis?

When the Defence Force was formed and the Reserves mobilised, a public appeal was made to employers to keep their posts open for them. I certainly hope they have found it possible so to do. And we shall make every effort on the demobilisation of the Reserves and the Home Defence Force to impress upon employers the duty of reinstating the men wherever possible.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by keeping posts open? Does he mean that fresh men are to be engaged in the place of those men who were called up, and then to be sacked when the others are demobilised, so that the latter can be reinstated; and is he aware that if this operation takes place it is injurious to industry, and that a great many employers think the men were unnecessarily called up, with unnecessary disturbance to trade?

I do not know that my hon. Friend need unnecessarily create difficulties. The employers were appealed to to keep posts open, and I hope the bulk of them will have done so, and if any difficulties of that sort have arisen I daresay they can find a way out without any injustice to the man engaged, the employer, or the man called up.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the date and the occasion when the Miners' Federation asked either the Government or the coal-owners to put up the price of coal at home if it could not be got abroad in order to meet a wage demand?

I am not aware that such a demand was made by the Miners' Federation, but if the hon. Member is referring to a passage in the speech which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on Saturday last at Maid-stone, he will see that he made no reference to the Miners' Federation. He was referring to the various contentions or suggestions which were being made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement, as it appears in the Press, that demands have been made for an increase in the price of coal to home consumers in order to meet the demands of the Miners' Federation, and has he seen the statement of the Acting President of the Miners' Federation, Mr. Herbert Smith, who discloses that it is the most deliberate and wicked lie ever uttered from a public platform? I think the right hon. Gentleman's answer agrees with that.

No, Sir. Before answering this question, I consulted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I have taken the precaution of rereading his words, and if the hon. Member will do the same, he will see that the answer I have given is strictly accurate. I was not aware, until the hon. Member informed me, of the statement made by Mr. Herbert Smith, but it was obviously made upon the assumption which underlies the hon. Member's question, which is unfounded, that the Prime Minister in his speech alleged that this demand was being made by the Miners' Federation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House who are the reliable people to demand an increase in wages for the miners, that would be listened to by the Government or by the employers, other than the Miners' Federation of Great Britain?

If the hon. Member will re-read the speech he will see that there is no necessity for putting that question, which does not arise out of my right hon. Friend's speech.

Is not the Prime Minister's reference to the miners' dispute such as to warrant the inference that is being placed upon it in this House and in the country?

Certainly not in the mind of any careful reader.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military forces are still stationed upon the premises of the Yorkshire Electric Power Company at Dewsbury; if he is aware that the introduction of the military into that area has created considerable resentment in the minds of the inhabitants; having regard to the fact that the military forces are performing no useful function which could not otherwise have been carried out by ordinary workmen, if he will take steps to have the military removed; if he will state whether the costs incurred by the allocation of the force upon the premises will be met by the undertaking, the local rates, or the general taxpayer, and, if in part, in what proportion?

A military guard is still stationed at the electrical power station at Dewsbury. I am not prepared to admit that their presence is unnecessary, or that it is resented by the peacefully minded inhabitants. As regards the remainder of the hon. Member's question, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which was given to him on 28th April last, except that any cost involved is being met out of Army Funds.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Peterborough brickyards have recently been supplied with coal through the intervention of Mr. Frank Hodges and the National Union of Railwaymen; and whether arrangements could be made to send similar supplies to other brickyards in the country which are now prevented from making bricks for housing purposes through the stoppage of coal supplies?

I am not aware that the Peterborough brickyards have recently been supplied with coal in the manner referred to by the hon. Member. The Government are fully alive to the importance of the production of bricks for housing purposes, but they are not prepared, in view of the seriousness of the present situation, to ensure supplies of coal to any industries other than those vital to the life of the community.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the heavy fall that has taken place since the recent decontrol of various of the principal food commodities, together with the substitution since the War of imported beef and mutton for the home-grown articles, and the larger consumption of margarine, fish, and vegetables, has brought the general index figure of food commodities to nearer 80 per cent. than 134 per cent. above the immediate pre-War level; and is he satisfied that the monthly figures as published is in consequence misleading?

The reduction in the prices of the principal articles of food has been reflected in the Ministry of Labour index number of food prices, which fell from 191 per cent. above the pre-War level at 1st November, 1920, to 138 per cent. at 1st April last. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, this index number is designed to show the average increase in the cost of maintaining unchallenged the pre War standard of living of working-class families, and for this purpose it would not be appropriate to take account of possible changes in dietary of the kind suggested. The purpose for which the index number is designed is carefully explained on each occasion on which the figures are published, and, if due account is taken of this explanation, I see no reason why the figures should be regarded as misleading.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if margarine, imported meat, fish, and vegetables fell to a nominal price, that would not affect the cost of living figure?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure given in the "Labour Gazette" for the price of butter is 2s. 9½d., and that the real price is now 1s. 10d.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] At all the multiple stores in London at the present time. I have got the figures here.

The Minister must have notice of any question involving figures.

Might I have an answer to my questions?

The hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question was only an argument arising out of the main answer.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries regarding the rates of pay paid to workers in the linen trade at Belfast?

As I informed my hon. Friend on 4th May, I have made obligatory as from 11th April a piecework basis time rate of 9d. per hour fixed by the Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods Trade Board, and investigation into the adequacy of the piece-rates paid in the trade is proceeding. It is too early to state the result of these inquiries.

Do I understand that I am to have an answer later?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Labour how many women have been placed in domestic service by the Employment Exchanges since the 1st January, 1921, distinguishing, if possible, between those who have obtained employment for the first time from those who have obtained employment by this means on more than one occasion?

The number of domestic service vacancies for women filled in the three months from 8th January to 8th April, 1921, was 40,804, of which 9,107 were for resident service in private houses or in hotels or institutions, 9,722 for non-resident service, 18,268 were vacancies for charwomen, and 3,707 were vacancies for waitresses or others. The number of persons placed for the first time cannot be separately given, but, on the average, 32 separate individuals were placed in every 41 vacancies, or, excluding charwomen, 20 separate individuals in every 22 vacancies—in other words, only a relatively small proportion were placed in more than one vacancy by the Exchanges during the three months.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it cost to place these individuals out per head?

I could give my hon. Friend the appropriation charges for the whole of the Ministry of Labour, and I daresay I could take out of them the cost of the Employment Exchanges, but I think it would be rather difficult for me to say how much each of these 40,804 vacancies which have been filled cost.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state how much it would cost not to fill these vacancies?

That would be an even more complex calculation.

How many domestic servants, that is, women who had been domestic servants, were on the live register, so as to get the proportion of the number available?

Notice must be given of questions involving figures.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the widespread distress in the country, he will cancel Circular M. & C. W. 185, issued 31st March, 1921, and re-issue Circular M. & C. W. 4, of 9th August, 1918, so that maternity and child welfare committees may provide children under five years of age with food?

Circular 185 does not alter the conditions previously pre scribed on which food may be supplied to children under five, except in regard to the supply of milk, which under the circular is to be supplied free or at less than cost price only in necessitous cases In the circumstances no purpose would be served by the cancellation of the circular.

Is it not the fact that at maternity and child welfare centres at this moment the children, and in many cases mothers, are being fed?

Yes, I believe that is a fact.

asked the Minister of Health how many persons bitten by alleged or suspected mad dogs since the first case of rabies was notified in this country after the War have refused the Pasteur treatment; and if any of those persons have contracted hydrophobia?

So far as I am aware there have been only two cases in this country since the Armistice in which persons bitten by dogs which were reasonably suspected to be rabid have refused the Pasteur treatment. Neither of these persons developed hydrophobia.

Is anyone sent to the Pasteur Institute unless they are bitten by a dog supposed to be mad?

I should want notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Health what was the original total estimate for the erection of the new hall for the London County Council; what is the revised estimate; and is there any prospect of a reduction in this estimate owing to the fall, in the price of building materials during the past few months?

This is not a matter within my jurisdiction, and I have no information on the subject.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will be able at an early date to give effect to the promise made by his predecessor and introduce a Bill making provision for a national scheme of superannuation for local Government officials?

As I have previously stated in reply to questions, the Government regret that they cannot proceed with this matter at the present time, in view of the charges which the scheme would impose upon the rates.

asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries regarding the Brentford Board of Guardians having appointed their clerk to the additional position of Superintendent Registrar?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement, but I hope in a short time to be in a position to do so.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, following on the assassination of Sergeant Rew, Royal Scots Regiment, at Ennis, the Clare Hotel, the Old Ground Hotel, the house of Mr. Patrick Considine, and the grocery shop of Mr. T. V. Honan, chairman of the Ennis Urban Council, were destroyed by order of the military governor; on what ground these premises were selected for destruction; whether the owners were given an opportunity of rebutting any alleged evidence against them; whether he is aware that Mr. Honan was ill in bed in hospital at the time of the murder of Sergeant Rew and had been there in bed for three weeks previously; that he is a widower with six small children, the eldest being 13 years old, and that these children are now homeless; and whether he will state what evidence there was against Mr. Honan or his children to justify this destruction of his means of livelihood?

I dealt with these cases in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the West Leyton Division on the 5th instant; but in view of the further facts now brought forward in this question, I have asked the Commander-in-Chief to furnish me with a report in fuller detail. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will kindly repeat the question at a later date.

If it be found correct that Councillor Honan was in bed ill when this occurred, and that it was obviously a mistake, will the right hon. Gentleman give orders for some compensation to be given to him?

I cannot answer that question until I have ascertained the facts.

I will put down this question again this day fortnight.

asked the Chief Secretary whether John Sullivan, 57, Grattan Street, Cork, was arrested on 22nd February, 1921, and detained in Cork military detention barracks until 3rd March, when he was removed to the military hospital; whether he was released on 1st April, mentally unsound; and whether any inquiry will be instituted into his treatment during his detention?

John O'Sullivan, 57, Grattan Street, Cork, was arrested on the 22nd February and detained in Cork military detention barracks until 3rd March, when he was transferred to the military hospital as being mentally defective. On the 1st April he was certified by the medical officer as fit for discharge to relatives and was handed over to his mother the same day. No complaints have been received at any time concerning his treatment, and it does not appear necessary to hold any inquiry.

Is no compensation ever forthcoming when a man is obviously arrested by mistake and kept under detention without any reason being shown?

I do not admit that he was arrested by mistake: the unfortunate man went out of his mind, and the Government are not responsible for that.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the auxiliaries placed under arrest by Brigadier-General Crozier, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., to await field-general court-martial on a charge of looting at Trim have yet been tried; whether the auxiliaries dismissed by General Crozier as unsuitable as a result of his inquiries into the Trim looting have been tried; and what has been the finding and sentence, if any, in each case?

As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Spennymoor Division on the 20th ultimo, 18 cadets are at present awaiting trial on charges of looting and robbery, at Trim. This number includes five of the cadets who were dismissed by General Crozier and also includes several men who were neither arrested or dismissed by General Crozier. Nineteen of the cadets who were dismissed by General Crozier have been exonerated as the result of the subsequent inquiry and have returned to duty. It is expected that the trials of the 18 men now under arrest, the arrangements for which, I would point out involve the consideration and sifting of a very large mass of evidence will be held towards the end of this month.

Are we to understand that these 19 men who refused to give evidence, and tried to hide up crime, have been sent back without any stain at all upon their character?

A very careful inquiry was held. Eighteen were found to have evidence against them. Nineteen were exonerated.

Was General Crozier and his adjutant, Captain Macfie, asked to give evidence at all at the inquiry into the reinstatement of these 19 men?

I could not say that.

Is it not very obvious that General Crozier and his adjutant were principal witnesses in this case, and how can the inquiry have been full when these were not called?

General Crozier was not a witness for the prosecution. All the witnesses who could speak to the facts connected with the prosecution were examined. I take it that General Crozier knew nothing about it except what he was told.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that General Crozier's investigation discovered that these cadets, who have been reinstated, prevaricated and tried to conceal the crime of looting by their comrades; was not General Crozier's evidence necessary in any inquiry? Did he not go to Trim and interview the woman who had been robbed?

All the witnesses before General Crozier were called at the later inquiry.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received representations as to unnecessary suffering caused to expectant mothers and to women with new-born children through certain police and military regulations in Ireland; and whether he will consider the appointment of a committee of medical and infant welfare experts to consult with the military authorities as to the best methods of obviating or minimising such suffering?

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has received no representations of this nature and has no reason to think that there are any grounds on which the appointment of a committee such as is suggested would be justified. He will be glad, however, to consider any representations that may be made to him on the matter. All doctors and nurses who choose to apply for curfew permits can obtain them. Doctors and nurses are also expressly exempted from motor restrictions and can use motor vehicles without restriction as to distance or time.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any evidence of negotiations between the Russian Soviet Government and Sinn Fein in Ireland; and will he inform the House of the nature of the same?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question on the 21st ultimo.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman then promised that a White Paper would be submitted; and if the Government have this information why do they not present it to the House?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the urgency of completing the policy of land purchase in Ireland; and is he able to give an assurance that the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill will be taken this Session?

This Bill will be presented immediately the exigencies of Parliamentary time permit.

Does that mean the Bill will be proceeded with?

When we present Bills, we intend to proceed with them.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any report from the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the allegations against Cabinet Ministers contained in a paper called "Plain English"; whether the report recommends any prosecution of the editor or publisher; and whether the Government has any intention of prosecuting the parties responsible?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Director of Public Prosecutions informs me that he obtained the articles to which the question refers, and formed the opinion that no action by him was necessary or desirable, as he saw no reason to differ from the view expressed by the Secretary of State in the answer given in this House on the 10th March, to the effect that the statements were obviously and outrageously false, and could be made only for the purpose of advertising the periodical, and that a prosecution would only further that purpose. The true account of the Battle of Jutland is contained in the "Official Despatches with Appendices," published by the Admiralty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this paper maintains that a false account of the Battle of Jutland was issued for the purpose of allowing certain individuals to make money upon the Stock Exchange, and that the accusation or allegation is made that certain Cabinet Ministers are involved? In view of the fact that subsequent to the answer made to my previous question the editor challenges the Government to prosecute him, are the Government not now prepared to take action against this individual, when they have taken action against, and sent to prison, humbler individuals for lesser offences than making charges against the public honesty of officials of the Government?

The matter was sent to the Public Prosecutor, and his opinion taken. I have read it. The Government abide by that opinion.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask you if it is possible for a private Member to move a Motion to summon the editor of this paper to the Bar of this House for maligning Members, and making accusations against Cabinet Ministers, thereby bringing the Government of this country into disrepute?

I should like to see the Motion before I give an opinion upon it. I do not think it would be very effective.

Is the editor in question of British nationality?

I understand so.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government not to interfere with sweepstakes upon the Derby promoted by the London Stock Exchange and the principal political clubs, despite the fact that such sweepstakes have been held by the Courts to be illegal under the Lottery Acts?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The policy of the Government is to enforce the law, and each case submitted to the authorities is considered on its merits. But it is not the fact that sweepstakes upon the Derby, participation in which is strictly confined to members of genuine and bonâ fide clubs (political or otherwise), have been held illegal under the Lottery Act. With regard to the sweepstake on the London Stock Exchange, I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Home Secretary on this subject on Monday last.

If I furnish the hon. Member with evidence that members of the Stock Exchange are furnishing these tickets for the sweepstake to their clients, and that thousands of these tickets have been sold outside the Stock Exchange, at a premium, will he consult the Public Prosecutor with a view to taking proceedings similar to those recently instituted against the more or less honourable member for South Hackney?

Anything that the hon. Member can bring to the notice of the Home Secretary will receive due attention.

Is there any difference between members of the Stock Exchange carrying on a lottery and their ordinary business?

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Anglo-Japanese Treaty; whether the terms of the treaty will be submitted to the House for ratification; whether the Government will insist upon Japan recognising her obligations, under the present treaty, to maintain the independence and territorial integrity of Korea and China; and whether the restoration to Korea of her governmental, educational, and other national institutions, now dominated by Japan, will be made one of the conditions of the treaty, together with the cancellation of the treaty between China and Japan, which was signed as a result of Japan's ultimatum to China on 7th May, 1915?

The question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese agreement will be considered at the forthcoming meeting of the Imperial Cabinet, and I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.

May we take it that there will be an opportunity for this matter being explained to the House, and an opportunity for discussing it before it is finally ratified, after the negotiations have taken place?

I cannot make pledges which hamper the Treaty powers of the Crown.

Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the terms of the treaty before it is entered into and signed by the Government's representatives?

I cannot answer that until I know the treaty.

When will the House receive any information as to when the treaty is likely to be signed, so that further opportunity will be given to raise the matter in the House before the treaty is actually accomplished?

I can make no further statement.

I will repeat this question when the House reassembles.

Will the precedents of 1902 and 1911 be followed, when the Foreign Secretary made a statement of the contents immediately after ratification?

As soon as the Government is in a position to give information to the House they will do so.

As this is the first treaty that comes up for ratification since the Covenant of the League of Nations was passed by this House, does not that alter the position, and ought we not to have an opportunity of discussing the question?

I do not see that that makes any alteration.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the indefinite postponement of the introduction of the Licensing Bill, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission in place of the suggested Committee, so as to enable evidence to be given by representatives of the various interests concerned, and in order that a Bill may be subsequently drafted founded on the recommendations of the Commission?

In the view of the Government, the particular questions which still have to be considered before the introduction of a Licensing Bill do not call for the appointment of a Royal Commission but are rather suited to such a conference as has been suggested by Members of this House.