asked the Minister of Pensions whether, on the 11th March, Sergeant R. Bentham, No. 34,566, Royal Defence Corps, and now residing at Golborne, appeared before a medical board; whether a 30 per cent. pension for 12 months was granted; whether the pension has yet been paid; and, if not, will he, in view of this man's unemployment, expedite the payment?

A difficulty as regards entitlement has arisen in this case, but, pending a decision, an interim award of pension at the rate of 30 per cent. has been made, and payment, with all arrears owing, has been authorised.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Ministry could occupy some of the vacant wards in hospitals for the accommodation of disabled men, and so release hut accommodation, such as Ruskin Park, and benefit the hospitals?

This hospital was transferred to the Ministry of Pensions by the War Office authorities. It has been fitted with special orthopædic out-patient arrangements, and special sections for treatment of disabled officers and nurses. It has been found to provide the most convenient and, incidentally, the most economical centre for treating the large body of the disabled in that district.

Is it not possible to utilize vacant wards in hospitals of this character and so release hut accommodation?

We are doing a great deal in the way of utilising many wards in hospitals, but in this case this is not possible owing to the special equipment arrangements.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the inquiry into the administration of Bellahouston hospital is a private one; and whether, in view of the general interest in the matter, he will order the proceedings to be conducted in public?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider this matter. In view of the fact that the interest taken in this question is considerable in Glasgow, it is felt that they would like to have published a record of the proceedings from day to day?

In response to a request for an impartial inquiry, I appointed a Committee the names of the members of which commanded the respect of all people in Scotland. My hon. Friend knows that in this inquiry the medical sheets of the men may be asked for, and I cannot be a party to the public disclosure of such information.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the regional director, when asking names from ex-service men's associations to form an advisory committee in Glasgow, invited names from the International Union of Ex-service Men; if so, what reply was made; whether he is aware that this organisation was principally concerned in pressing for an inquiry into the alleged maladministration of Bellahouston Hospital; and whether this action is responsible for their exclusion from the advisory committee?

I have no information that the International Union of Ex-Service Men is representative of ex-service men in that city to any great extent. That body has been requested to furnish a complete list of its members in Glasgow, but that request has been refused. I am satisfied that the interests of ex-service men are fully looked after by the 26 representatives of the four ex-service associations who already serve on the Advisory Committee. If, however, the International Union will satisfy the Regional Director in Scotland as to the strength of their membership, I am prepared to consider their being invited to send a representative to serve upon the Glasgow Ex-Service Men's Advisory Committee.

Was a request made to this International Union of Ex-Service Men to furnish a list of their members? Was it made by the Regional Director when that body intimated its intention of submitting evidence to the inquiry? Was consent for these men to be present made contingent on their supplying a list of their members and did not the Union consider that the demand was out of all proportion for the purposes of the inquiry and therefore decline to furnish the list.[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

On a point of Order—

The last part of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman—

Order, order!

On the point of Order. The last part of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman contained the statement that this Union had declined to give the list of members. This has only been asked for once, and that on a different occasion—

Supplementary questions should be brief and clear. I wanted to ascertain whether it was a right question to put, and that is why I interrupted the hon. Member.

It is perfectly true that the Union was asked to furnish a list of its members. I had already appointed representatives of four outstanding ex-service men's organisations and I thought I was entitled to ask the number of members of this body as it stands to reason that representation should be in proportion to membership. I think I have met my hon. Friend's point because during the whole of the proceedings of this impartial judicial tribunal three of its members have been present.

Did the right hon. Gentleman call on the other organisations present at the inquiry and giving evidence there to produce similar information as to their membership?

No, there was no necessity, as in their case the information was well-known to the Regional Director. It was only in regard to this International Union that we had not the information.

Is it not a fact that the International Union of Ex-Service Men only represents a very small and very extreme section? Is it not misrepresentative of the opinions of ex-service men as a whole?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the dependant's pension allowed in the case of the case of the late Stoker E. J. Cullis, No. 111,065, Port Talbot, H.M.S. "Indefatigable," has been reduced from 15s. per week to 5s. per week on the ground that the dependant is able to perform work of a light nature; whether he is aware that this decision has been come to without any medical examination or any effort made by the pension authority to ascertain his physical condition; that the dependant in question has been unable through injury to follow his employment for over six years; that he has made several attempts to resume his employment and other light employment and failed; that quite recently he was specially examined on behalf of his employers and that his weekly compensation is being paid without any objection; whether it is the considered policy of his Department to pronounce a dependant, in the circumstances, fit for light employment without reference to medical examination and to prejudice the claim to weekly compensation; and whether he will state by whose authority the secretary to the Central Glamorgan local committee refuses the dependant the right to prosecute his appeal through his committee?

I am making further inquiry into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister whether he is aware that the wife and children of Thomas M'Convey have been refused any allowance on the ground that T. M'Convey was not a soldier, but a working labourer; whether M'Convey's record shows that he joined the Army in 1895, but was claimed off as he was under age; that he joined the 4th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in 1897; that he joined, in 1899, the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, and served in the South African War, and was discharged in 1911 as time expired; that he joined on 8th August, 1914, was passed A1, and placed in the 2nd Battalion Royal Scots, invalided home from France in March, 1915, and sent to Bristol Hospital, was again invalided home from France on 17th November, 1916, and the hospital ship "Angolia," on which he sailed, was torpedoed, and M'Convey was six hours in the water, and, on recovery, was again sent to France, and on 24th December, 1917, was sent to Birkenhead Hospital, was categoried B3, placed in a labour corps, and demobilised in March, 1919; whether he is aware that this man was awarded a pension on 2nd March, 1919, and is at present under treatment in Bellahouston Hospital; and whether, in view of this record of war service, he will have this case reconsidered?

I am having inquiries made into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether a discharged soldier, temporarily unfit for work and receiving while in hospital 100 per cent. allowance, is entitled to any benefit under the National Insurance Acts while in hospital?

Sickness or disablement benefit is not payable to an insured person while he is an inmate of a hospital or similar institution, but the whole or part of the benefit is paid to his dependants, if any, or may be applied towards meeting any expenses for which the insured person may be liable otherwise than to the hospital, or, with his consent, may be paid to the hospital if it is not maintained out of public funds. So far as the money is not used in any of these ways, it becomes payable to the insured person on leaving the hospital. In the special case where the insured person is a discharged soldier in receipt of 100 per cent. allowance, the rate of sickness (or disablement) benefit is reduced by 7s. 6d. a week, unless he has been employed for 26 (or 104) weeks since discharge from the Army.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will have inquiries made into the death of James Hayden, of Crannagh, Borris, County Carlow, on Sunday, 6th March; whether this man was fired upon without warning by a corporal in the presence of six people on his way home from Mass; whether the dead man's relatives were refused admission to the military inquiry; whether the military court, which concluded its sitting on 11th March, has given a verdict; and, if so, whether the verdict has been conveyed to the dead man's relatives?

I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the court of inquiry in lieu of inquest in the case of James Hayden found that the deceased met his death on 6th March last through non-compliance with a military order in that he did not halt when called upon, and was shot by Crown forces in the execution of their duty. He was returning from Mass at the time. Four civilians, including a brother of the deceased, gave evidence, and the relatives were represented by a solicitor. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Chief Secretary whether any reprisals, such as the burning of property, have been officially ordered in any place outside the martial-law area?

The answer is in the negative.

Will any person responsible for an unofficial reprisal outside the martial-law area be proceeded against?

Action is always taken against persons responsible for unauthorised reprisals.

Does not the responsibility for un authorised reprisals rest with the Government, who incite them?

asked the Prime Minister whether the closing of the creameries by military order is approved by the Cabinet?

The Commander-in-Chief in Ireland has the complete confidence of the Government in his difficult task, and their support in this and other measures which he has taken for the suppression and discouragement of crime and rebellion.

Is the right hon. Baronet aware that when this Order has been applied they have shut down a creamery in one place and within 400 yards they have allowed another creamery to exist, and why have they been giving preferential treatment within the military area?

That does not arise.

Was a raid on papers made on Plunkett House, the centre of these creameries, and, if so, for what purpose?

Notice should be given of that question.

asked the Prime Minister what passage in the military code justifies the burning of houses except under circumstances of military necessity and as a reprisal?

No houses have been burned for reasons other than those stated by the hon. Member, and the question therefore does not appear to arise.

Will the right hon. Baronet answer the question, which is: Under what passage in the military code, as stated by the Prime Minister, these burnings took place? May I have an answer?

Is it not a fact that under The Hague Rule 23, Sub-paragraph ( g ), general devastation of territory is allowed if military necessities demand it?

I can add nothing to the answer which has been prepared. No houses have been burnt for reasons other than those stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. The question does not therefore appear to arise.

Will the right hon. Baronet kindly answer the question on the Paper which is: Under what article of the military code the burnings took place?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is not what he now states it to be. It is denied that these burnings took place except under certain circumstances.

asked the Chief Secretary how many houses have been destroyed in the martial-law area by official order since 1st January, 1921?

The number is 185 for the nine counties in the martial law area.

asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to burn the houses of persons in Ireland without proof of their complicity in outrages?

No, Sir. The destruction of houses in the martial-law area has been carried out (1) as a punishment for outrage where the military governor was satisfied that the building was used in rebel operations, or that the owner or occupier of the property had aided or sheltered the rebels. (2) In cases where outrages have been committed against loyal persons, action in the latter cases has been taken against persons of known rebel sympathies. The military governors have invariably taken steps to satisfy themselves personally of the guilt or implication of the owners of the property selected.

Was that done in the case of Mrs. Fitzgerald, a widow whose son served through the War in the British Army?

In these cases where there is evidence against these men of aiding and abetting, is it not possible to take proceedings against them before a military Court?

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the houses of people are burned because they have rebel sympathies, though there is no accusation of participation in outrage against them?

I have answered the question on the Paper, and as regards the supplementary question, I have, at any rate, tried to deal with it in debate.

Is there no possibility of arranging in future to avoid burning the houses of soldiers who have served in the British Army?

How does the right hon. Gentleman define "implication"? Is a Sinn Feiner in politics implicated, or does it mean people who take an active part in the campaign of murder?

What is the object of continuing this policy of frightfulness?

Why cannot you give a straight answer to anything?

asked the Chief Secretary if an officer named Winter is still employed in a position of responsibility in the Irish Administration; and whether this officer's pre-War record was examined before his appointment?

I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Colonel Winter, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., who at present holds the appointment of Deputy-Chief of Police in Ireland. This distinguished and experienced officer was specially lent to the Irish Government by the War Office for this service when the Irish police administration was being re-organised in the summer of last year. As regards the last part of the question, this officer, whose record is one of exceptional distinction, was first appointed in November, 1894, to the Royal Artillery, in which he has since served continuously. He qualified for the Staff College in 1905, and was promoted to the rank of major in 1911 and to that of lieut.-colonel in 1916. He was promoted to the rank of colonel in the Army in April, 1920. As regards his service during the late War, I have already stated, in reply to a previous question, that he was six times mentioned in despatches and was awarded the C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O. and Bar. I should like to add that last week a cold-blooded but, happily, unsuccessful attempt was made to murder Colonel Winter in the streets of Dublin. He was severely wounded in the hand. I am sure that the House will be glad to learn that he is getting better.

asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the shooting, on 15th May, 1921, of the Rev. James O'Callaghan, a Catholic curate, in the house of Mr. de Roiste, M.P., at Cork, and into the shooting at his house in Cork on the same day of Patrick Sheehan; and, if so, what were the findings of the Court?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Rev. Seamus O'Callaghan was murdered on Whit Sunday morning in the house of Mr. de Roiste, M.P. for Cork, during curfew hours; that it is alleged that this was done by forces of the Crown; and what action he has taken?

The finding of the Court of Inquiry in the case of Father O'Callaghan was that deceased was shot at Mr. de Roiste's house on 15th May, and that there was no evidence to show the person or persons responsible for the crime. In the case of Patrick Sheehan the Court found wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. I propose to publish certain documents which will throw some light on the murder.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Father O'Callaghan, before he died, stated that he had been murdered by one of the police, and that he knew who his assailant was?

I have seen that statement.

May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by that reply? Does he not believe it?

I do not believe the fact. Every effort was made by the police immediately after this murder to find the culprits, but all information was refused by the relatives of Mr. de Roiste, who is one of the Sinn Fein Members of Parliament for Cork, and the women who were in the house at the time also refused to give any help to the police. The police did their best to investigate this murder but did not receive any assistance from those occupying Mr. de Roiste's house.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the published statement of the three ladies who were in the house at the time, and was it taken into account by the Court of Inquiry?

The Court of Inquiry can only take into account evidence given before it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relatives in this case refused to go to the Court because long experience has shown that these Courts of Inquiry are an utter farce?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any inquiry into the seven other murders by Sinn Feiners on that day?

Courts of Inquiry are always held in cases of murder, and I must protest against the allegation of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) that these Courts are a farce. They are composed of selected British Regular officers, and that is a sufficient guarantee.

Is it not a fact that these Courts of Inquiry are composed of members of the forces the acts of whose members they are inquiring into.

That is not true in this case. They are composed of British officers of the Regular Army, and as far as I know no allegation has been made against officers in reference to this murder.

Is there the least semblance of judicial appearance about these Courts? Is there cross-examination?

That is a matter for argument.

asked the Chief Secretary whether a man named Thomas Murphy, a well-known republican, was shot while asleep in his house at Foxrock, County Dublin, on 30th May; and what is the result of the inquiry in his case?

The Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in this case found that the deceased man was murdered by some person or persons unknown. Investigation into the matter is still proceeding.

asked the Chief Secretary whether a woman, named Mary Fahy, was found dead in her house at Tullamore, King's County, on the night of the 19th May; whether an arrest has been made; whether an inquiry has been held: and what is the result?

The Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest in this case found that deceased was murdered by some person or persons unknown. The body was found in a ditch some distance from deceased's residence. An arrest has been made, but the police inquiries are not yet complete.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that serious discontent exists among internees in Rath Internment Camp with regard to conditions prevailing there; whether the food ration has been reduced, that the receiving and sending of letters and parcels have been stopped, and that military pickets have been preventing internees from cooking food previously received in parcels from friends; whether Rath Camp is treated differently from others in these matters; and, if so, why that should be so?

Rath Internment Camp is subject to the same rules as other internment camps in Ireland, namely, those laid down in the Royal Warrant for the treatment of prisoners of war. Following an outbreak of concerted insubordination, measures were taken, in accordance with those rules, for the restoration of discipline, and these measures included a curtailment of rations and of privileges.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a civilised method of punishing prisoners to put them on famine rations?

Is it not a fact that amongst these internees are a great many people who have committed the most foul murders?

Try them!

There is no famine ration involved. Some of the internees are suspected of murder.

Why not try them?

They are not tried for the same reason that you cannot try the same Sinn Fein men in London when they have committed murders, namely, the difficulty of getting any evidence.

If these men are hungry and have not enough to eat, and their friends send them parcels, why should the authorities interfere to prevent them from eating and cooking what is sent to them?

Is there any object in the right hon. Gentleman's following the German method?

Go to Leipzig!

The internment camps in Ireland are entirely under military control, and I have every confidence in the administration of the military officers.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has further considered the cases of those pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are separated from their wives and who receive nothing whatever from their wives' income, but are prevented by the definition of means in the Pension (Increase) Act, 1920, which includes wife's income, from obtaining any increase of pension; and whether, in view of the smallness of the pensions of these men and the impossibility of they getting employment by reason of their service with the Royal Irish Constabulary, he will bring in legislation to amend the definition of means in the 1920 Act?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on this subject by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 17th March, to which I can add nothing.

Has the right hon. Gentleman himself further considered the condition of these pensioners, and is it not deplorable?

I have personally considered it, and have made recommendations to the Treasury. It means a further expenditure of public money, and I see no desire on the part of the Treasury or of this House to agree to that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole question of the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and will he not exercise his influence, if any, with the Treasury in this respect?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has further considered the cases of pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are in receipt of very small pensions, often under £50 a year, and who, owing to the age limit in the Pensions Increase Act, 1920, are unable to obtain any increase of pension, and who, owing to their service in the Royal Irish Constabulary are wholly unable to obtain employment, and are, with their families, in a state bordering on starvation; and whether he will bring in legislation to remove the age limit or to give power to dispense with such limit in proper cases?

I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on this subject on the 3rd March last.

Could the right hon. Gentleman once more try to bring a little influence to bear on the Treasury?

How does he think that a man can keep himself and his wife on £50 a year?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that shooting by the police took place at the town of Tralee on the 8th August, 1920, and again on the 14th August; that on the 31st November the county hall and a number of houses were destroyed by the police; and that on the 16th April a creamery and several houses in the neighbourhood were burnt down, on the 19th April the offices of the newspapers, the "Kerryman" and the "Liberator," were destroyed, and on the 21st April more houses destroyed and a man named Bell killed; and whether any members of the Crown forces have yet been arrested or punished for any of these outrages?

As regards the first of these occurrences, the police, confronted by a dangerous and threatening crowd, fired over their heads in order to disperse them. In the early morning of 14th August some shots were fired in the streets of Tralee, but no evidence could be found as to who fired them. On 1st November a military patrol found the town hall on fire. No definite evidence of the origin of the fire has been obtained. The allegation that St. John's Parish Church was fired on with a machine gun on 23rd March is denied by the Commander-in-Chief, and was officially contradicted in the Press on 30th March. The burning of certain houses in the village of Ballymacelligot on the night of 16th April has been investigated by a court of inquiry. In their finding the court declare that they have taken every step to ascertain the true facts of the case, and are unable to come to any decision other than that the burning was carried out by persons unknown. The Commander-in-Chief states that there is no indication that members of the Crown forces were implicated in the bombing of newspaper offices on 19th April. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Acland) on 26th May.

In connection with the Ballymacelligot inquiry, was a verbatim report taken, and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to lay it on the Table of the House for Members to see?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many houses have been burnt in the county of Kerry by Sinn Feiners within the last six months?

I must have notice of those questions.

asked the Chief Secretary whether a woman named Mrs. Foley, aged nearly 80 years, was shot at Carriglea, near Dungarvan, by a man in a military or police lorry, while she was gathering sticks by the riverside; whether an inquiry has been held; and what reason is given for the killing of this in-offensive woman?

This place is in the martial law area, and I have, therefore, asked the Commander-in-Chief to furnish me with a report. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question.

asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the death of a man named Macarthy at Ovens, Ballincollig, on 28th May; and whether any arrests have been made?

An inquiry has been held in this case, but the certificate of finding of the Court has not yet reached me. Perhaps the hon. Member, therefore, will repeat his question next week.

asked the Chief Secretary whether Major Wake, of the auxiliary division of the Royal Irish Constabulary, took evidence at Robinstown, near Trim, between the 24th and 30th March, regarding the looting of that place; and whether his evidence has been used at the court of inquiry and the court martial?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore, arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to saving the lives of Crown Forces, loyalists and rebels in Ireland, he will consider the total withdrawal of all Crown Forces and loyalists from such areas as may be deemed requisite, and the institution of a blockade of such areas by land and sea, to be intensified or modified as requisite?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a similar question by my Noble Friend on the 7th April, I hope that it will not be necessary to have recourse to such measures as he proposes for restoring the authority of the law in Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the suggestion in mind if the present loss of life on both sides continue?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the state- ment of General Crozier that an ex-member of the auxiliary division who threatened to reveal the circumstances in which three men were killed at Killaloe last autumn was approached as to his statement by the Irish Government; and what action he proposes to take to ensure inquiry into this grave charge?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) on 2nd June on the subject of General Crozier's allegations.

askedthePrime Minister whether, in view of the statement of General Crozier that a Report was received by him from an officer who was present at the shooting at Croke Park and forwarded to the proper authority, he will cause investigations to be made as to why this Report was not put before the Court of Inquiry into this case?

I am inquiring into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question one day next week.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give at an early date an opportunity to the House of discussing and voting without official tellers upon the question whether fiscal autonomy should be offered to the South and West of Ireland?

The answer is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general desire for peace between this country and Ireland, which cannot find expression if the Whips are put on?

asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the death at Coolcappagh, County Limerick, of Patrick O'Brien on the 22nd May; and what is its finding?

This occurred in the martial law area, and I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the Court of Inquiry found that the death of this man was due to shock, hæmorrhage, and exposure following injuries received by misadventure, probably caused by falling into a trench.

asked the Chief Secretary the total amount of compensation awarded for injuries to personal property in the Compensation Courts since 1st January, 1920?

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland the total amount, to the nearest convenient date, awarded in compensation by the Irish Courts of Justice to those who have suffered in lives or property at the hands of the Irish Republican party?

The reply is rather lengthy, and with the permission of the House I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet has yet decided the question whether compensation will be paid from Imperial funds where the victims were found to be innocent parties?

That question is still before the Cabinet.

Are the Cabinet ever going to come to a decision on the matter?

The following is the answer: —

If by personal property is meant personal belongings, I regret that I am not in a position to furnish separate statistics, as decrees for destruction of buildings in many cases include also compensation in respect of private property, the two items not being distinguished. The total amount of compensation awarded in respect of the destruction of property in Ireland, including personal belongings, in the last two years reaches a figure of nearly £5,500,000 so far as returns have been received to date. The total amount of compensation awarded in respect of injuries to the person in the same period comes to nearly £1,500,000. The determination of the responsibility for malicious injuries forms no part of the duties assigned to the Courts by which the amount of such damages is assessed. I regret, therefore, that I have no information regarding the proportion of these damages attributable to the Irish Republican army.

The total amounts awarded by Decree notified to the Chief Secretary's Office since 1st June, 1919, are as follow:

These amounts are chargeable under the Malicious Injuries Act to the local rating authorities in whose area any particular act of destruction takes place. In some cases the compensation awarded has already been paid by those authorities. In the case of injuries to police, military and other servants of the Crown serving in Ireland a proportion of the awards are advanced from the local taxation account from grants which would normally be payable to the local authorities but which are now intercepted because they refuse to recognize the authority of the Crown.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that for some weeks there has been a trade dispute at the works of Messrs. Barrett and Company, Westland Row, Dublin; that a strike picket has been on duty outside the premises since the beginning of the dispute, and that no question has arisen as to the conduct of this picket; that on 30th May an armed military car drove up, and the officer in charge ordered the picket away, stating that they could not be allowed to loiter there; that the officer was informed that a trade dispute was in progress and that they were the strike picket; that the officer replied with an expletive against the strike and again ordered the picket off; and whether he will have inquiries made into this matter and give instructions against any further interference with the legitimate right of dispute?

I am inquiring into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will one day next week repeat the question, of which I only received notice yesterday. I must say at once that the military and police authorities must take every step necessary to prevent disorder.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to add to the established list of the Civil Service?

It is not proposed to make any appointments to the established list except in cases where the work is clearly of a permanent character.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the resolution moved by the ex-president of the Chamber of Shipping, and passed by the North of England Steamship Owners' Association, on Monday the 30th ultimo, demanding a free and unrestricted world's market for the sale of tonnage; and whether this war-time restriction will now be removed?

I have been asked to reply. I have seen the resolution referred to in the question, and will do what I can to remove the remaining restrictions on the transfer of ships as soon as it is possible to do so.

In view of the fact that the shipbuiding trade has depended in the past very largely on the sale of British shipping abroad, can the right hon. Gentleman say in what period of time he hopes to be able to get rid of these restrictions?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present the market is flooded with ships, principally ex-German ships, which the British market cannot absorb, and it is having a serious effect on the shipbuilding trade, and there is no earthly hope of a recovery while the ships are in the market?

These considerations are naturally present to my mind. I cannot give a more definite reply at this moment. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the question of an Anglo-French alliance, even without America, will shortly be or has been reopened; and will he assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not commit Great Britain to any such policy without giving this House an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject?

No such discussion has taken place. If the contingency contemplated were to arise, Parliament would certainly be consulted.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received any report from the Solicitor-General regarding the proceedings at the trial of the German war criminals at Leipzig; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the sentences so far passed, immediate steps will be taken to remove the remainder of the trials to London?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I have made a preliminary report as to the proceedings at which I was present at Leipzig. Until the present series of trials before the Supreme Court at Leipzig of the cases remitted to that Court by the Allies has been concluded, the decision of the Allies as to the procedure in other cases cannot be anticipated.

May I ask whether of the seven alleged war criminals remitted to Leipzig three escaped, is there only one now to be decided and was the hon. and learned Gentleman, as representing the British Government, satisfied with the trials so far?

The Allies agreed to send a preliminary list which totalled 45, of which six cases were British. The British cases were ready in advance of the others and have been tried. The two cases which are now being tried are Belgian cases, and, so far as I know, the French intend to bring on some of their cases, because before our Mission left Leipzig some representatives of the French had gone in order to watch the proceedings with a view to their cases being tried. After the series of cases, including French and Belgian and other cases, have been tried, then of course the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Allies.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks, "as representing His Majesty's Government is he satified so far with the result of these trials?"

I think it would be improper to make a statement at the present moment, but perhaps the hon. Member may care to know that the sentence which was delivered in my presence excited great dejection amongst the military party of Germany, and the officers there certainly did not think it was a small sentence to have one of their number sent to an ordinary prison in order to carry out the sentence of 10 months among thieves and other felons.

Am I right in supposing that in one of the very worst crimes which has been committed against British subjects, namely, the sinking of another hospital ship, the German criminal has been allowed to escape out of Germany, and will the Government make representations to get him back?

Every step has been taken, as I will explain when I have a further opportunity to deal with the matter, to secure the arrest of these persons, but the man to whom I think the hon. Baronet refers disappeared immediately upon the original list being published including his name. Every step has been taken to secure him. His property has been sequestrated and there is a warrant out for his arrest, which could be immediately put in force if it was possible to execute it.

Is it true that the French have postponed the trial of their cases till the end of July, as announced in the papers?

I can give no information at all about that. It may be that the Court is unable to sit after a certain time, but I really have no information of any kind about the matter.

In view of the decision of the Court in the case of Neumann, the last man tried, that he was only carrying out the orders of his superior, will the Government retain entire discretion to bring the superiors to trial?

I really think these important questions should be placed upon the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Allied Governments have any power under the Treaty of Versailles to take further action if the sentences imposed by the Leipzig Court are derisory?

I have been asked to reply to this question. Yes, all rights of the Allies made under the Treaty of Versailles have been expressly reserved.

May we understand if these sentences prove to be derisory the Government will take action under the powers under the Treaty?

The whole matter will be reconsidered, as I have said, when the first series of trials has been concluded.

Does that mean before the next election?

asked the Prime Minister what law the Leipzig Court, which is trying war criminals, professes to administer, whether German military law, or international law, or otherwise; whether there is any written or other agreement between this country and the German Government on this subject; and, in view of the fact that the German U-boat commander who sank a hospital ship was acquitted last week on the ground that he acted under superior orders, what steps will be taken to bring those who gave these orders to justice?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that the law administered is German law as laid down in the civil penal code and military penal code. There is no agreement between this country and the German Government on this subject. The question what steps shall be taken will be considered by the Allies when the present series of trials before the Supreme Court at Leipzig has been concluded.

Can the right hon. and learned Member say whether the German penal code as administered in the Leipzig Court is in accordance with the principles of international law?

That is a difficult question, which I am afraid I cannot answer offhand. From my experience at Leipzig I know that the military code was referred to by the President of the Court as being subject to their penal code. He said the military code could not abrogate the ordinary penal code.

Was there any indication of the principles of international law on these subjects being applied in the Leipzig Court?

The hon. and learned Member will remember that this was the Supreme Court of Germany sitting, not to administer international law, but to administer its own law.

asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements have yet been made for a conference to decide the fate of Upper Silesia; and whether British troops there are being employed in driving back German insurgents while French troops are carrying on their previous role in the area under the control of Polish insurgents?

His Majesty's Government are ready for a conference at an early date, but the arrangements have not yet been made. The British troops in Silesia are co-operating with other Allied troops to restore and maintain order, but there has been no conflict between the British troops and the German Self-Protection Organisations. The measures necessary for the suppression of the Polish insurrection by the Allied troops, acting in co-operation, are now being considered.

What is it that is obstructing or delaying the meeting of the conference to decide the settlement of Upper Silesia?

I think it is because other parties to the conference are not ready.

asked the Prime Minister whether notification has been issued by the Board of Agriculture or any other Government Department to the effect that, far from increasing the number of allotments, it is now desirable that allotments taken up under the Defence of the Realm Act should cease and the land be restored to the owners?

I have been asked to answer this question. The Ministry has notified the various local authorities that the Minister's possession of land acquired under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for allotments should cease not later than 25th March, 1923, but the authorities have been instructed to take immediate steps to negotiate for the acquisition, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, of such land in order that the allotments may be put on a more permanent basis. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular letter which explains the matter in greater detail than can be dealt with by question and answer.

Are we to understand that, at a time when money is so difficult to come by, the allotment industry is only to go on if the land be definitely purchased, while, under the Defence of the Realm Act, the people could have the use of allotments until the land was required for building purposes?

No, Sir. In the first place, the liability of the State for land under the Defence of the Realm Act is very heavy; and, in the second place, if my hon. Friend will read the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, he would find that local authorities possess the most ample powers of hiring compulsorily.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have asked over and over again what steps are being taken to meet the present unemployment by increasing allotments and small holdings?

asked the Prime Minister upon what Vote it is proposed to take the Debate on the Middle Eastern policy of the Government; and whether it can be arranged so as to enable reference to be made to the Egyptian, Arabian, Armenian, and Persian aspects of this policy?

The discussion will be upon the Vote presented to Parliament by the Colonial Office for moneys in respect of the administration of Palestine and Mesopotamia and for certain political expenditure in Arabia. In consequence the discussion will, I presume, be confined to those countries, although, of course, the repercussion on their affairs of events in neighbouring countries is not entirely excluded. It would be impossible, however, to make this Vote the occasion for a discussion of affairs in Egypt, Armenia and Persia, which countries are wholly outside the scope of the Colonial Office.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there will be certain difficulties in discussing adequately any of these questions without referring to other countries?

Questions are apt to interlock and overlap, and we have to take the discussion as we can in accordance with the rules of the House, and I think, with the kindness and consideration of the Chair, we generally manage to do so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a discussion of the position in Anatolia and Syria may fairly be taken on this Vote?

I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. It is not for me to define the rules of order. I do not think I ought to be asked to add anything to the general indication I have given. That must be left to the Chairman of Committees.

I presume there is no desire to prevent discussion of recent events in Palestine?

I cannot see why my hon. and gallant Friend should think it necessary to ask that question. The Vote is put down in order that that portion of the Middle East for which the Colonial Secretary is now the responsible Minister should be discussed.

On what date?

I will say later.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that in all diplomatic negotiations tending to define the international policy of this country there is the closest inter-working and understanding between, on the one hand, the Foreign Office and, on the other, the Board of Trade, so that no serious diplomatic step can be taken without prior consideration of its effect on our commercial well-being; and whether this applies in particular to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?

My hon. Friend may rest assured that in all matters affecting them both there is close consultation between the two Departments referred to. In a question of such importance as that of which my hon. Friend makes special mention there need be no fear that the views of any Department will be ignored or overlooked.

asked the Prime Minister whether the members of His Majesty's Government are liable to be surcharged with any loss to the State arising out of the cost of printing and other charges in connection with the recent issue of railway vouchers to Members of this House?

The answer is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are liable to be surcharged for expenditure improperly incurred, and that this has a salutary effect in regard to the spending of public money?

I would not undertake to say what would happen if Parliament refused to cover the expenses which have been incurred already, but as Parliament has not yet refused to do that, I must decline to answer the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements contained in paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Appropriation Account of the receipt and expenditure for air services, dated 18th March, 1920, to the effect that a sum of about £76,000 had been expended in connection with the Cairo-Capetown air route, whereas the sum sanctioned by the Treasury was £3,000; whether any explanation of the occurrence has yet been furnished by the Air Ministry; and what action is contemplated for the re-establishment of Treasury control over the spending departments?

The expenditure in question took place in the Financial years 1919–20 and 1920–21. The matter has been fully discussed before the Public Accounts Committee, and their Report is awaited.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the amount of salaries

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to amend Section 16, Subsection (2) ( a ) and ( d ) of the Finance Act of 1919 so as to extend the relief from Income Tax granted to disabled soldiers drawing wounds, disability, or disablement pensions after their death to their widows?

I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's proposal. I would remind him that the widows' pensions to which he refers are subject to the allowance in respect of earned income, under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1920, and, of course, equally with other assess-

now paid to members of legislative chambers corresponding to the House of Commons in France, Italy, the United States, and in the British Dominions; and what travelling facilities they are also entitled to?

As regards the position in France, Italy and the United States, the latest information at my disposal is contained in a White Paper published in 1911 (Cmd. 5714). I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the latest information in regard to the Dominions.

The following is the statement promised:

able income, to the personal allowance and other Income Tax reliefs.

If it be equitable that a pensioner should be exempt from Income Tax why should not his widow who receives the same pension be exempt? Is not the equity the same?

No. I think that the cases are entirely different, and this was recognised by Parliament when the matter was originally dealt with.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount held in shares by the Government in the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited; what the Treasury value these shares at to-day; and whether the directors appointed by the Government to the board of this company are satisfied with the technical management and organisation, and with the general condition and progress of the corporation?

As stated in the Return of Government Investments presented in 1920 (No. 180), the Government holding in the British Dyestuffs Corporation consists of 850,000 £1 preferred ordinary shares and 850,000 preferred shares, both fully paid. At current market quotations, the value of these shares would amount to about £580,000, but in view of the existing depression in the textile industries and the consequent lack of demand for the Corporation's products, I do not think that current quotations can be regarded as affording any adequate indication of the ultimate value of the investment. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that recent changes indicate that, whilst substantial progress had been made in a task of great difficulty, the board of the company were not entirely satisfied with the position. The Government directors were in full accord with their colleagues as to the necessity of taking every possible measure to secure greater efficiency in the conduct of the undertaking, and steps have been adopted to that end.