asked the Minister of Pensions what steps are taken by his Department with regard to the proper supervision and legal protection of pensioned children?

Under the War Pensions Act of 1918, I am charged with the duty of making provision for the care of the children of officers and men killed in the War who are suffering from neglect or want of proper care, and, as contemplated in the Act, I have delegated the administration of this duty to the Special Grants Committee. For the most part the children who are thus cared for by the Special Grants Committee on my behalf are those whose mothers are dead. The mother, if living, is, of course, the legal and natural guardian of the child, and I cannot ordinarily assume control unless the neglect of the child is such as to justify an appeal to the Court under the Children Act for the mother's removal.

Have any complaints reached the right hon. Gentleman that proper supervision has not been exercised?

I do not think so. If my hon. Friend hears of any cases, I should be glad if he will bring them to my notice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases where children have been in Poor Law schools, the Poor Law authorities have absolutely re fused to send the children to the homes provided, because they have been so inadequate, insanitary, and overcrowded?

No.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Ballyheigue Castle, County Kerry, recently burnt to the ground, was occupied by Government forces, consisting of auxiliaries, Royal Irish Constabulary, and Regular troops, said to be over 100 men, from 22nd March to 26th March of this year, during the temporary absence of the tenant, Mr. R. E. Palmer that during the said occupation much damage was done to the furniture and household effects; that locked storerooms and cupboards were broken into and the contents used and stolen; that the actual damage and loss amounts to £133 0s. 8d.; that an offer was made on the 9th September by the land agent, headquarters, 6th Division, Cork, to settle the claim for £6 2s.; and whether he will have the matter investigated and see that fair and proper reparation is made to the claimant, the said Mr R. E. Palmer?

These premises were partially occupied by a mixed party of police and military between the dates stated. Compensation has been allowed in respect of one week's rent, 5 cwt. of coal consumed, and the cost of cleaning and disinfecting. No further liability is admitted by the Crown, and the allegations as to damage and theft during the period of occupation, which have been carefully investigated by both military and police, and found to be unsupported by evidence, are denied. If other evidence to the contrary should be forthcoming there will be no hesitation on the part of the military or police authorities in considering it or in bringing any offender to justice or in facilitating Mr. Palmer, if he chooses, to take civil action. If it can be shown that there was any malicious damage in this case the injured party has a remedy in the Malicious Injuries Acts.

asked the Chief Secetary if the police in Ireland have been instructed to refrain from preventing the importation of arms into Ireland and not to search vessels for arms?

asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the case, as stated in the Press, that under the terms of the truce arms and ammunition are allowed to be imported into Ireland for the use of the so-called Irish Republican Army?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that during the last three months arms have been, and are being, regularly imported into Ireland for the use of the Irish Republican Army; whether orders have been issued by any Government official or authority in Ireland, and, if so, by whom forbidding the police from searching for arms in ships arriving at Irish ports, with a view to their seizure; and whether he will take effective steps to stop the importation of arms into Ireland?

asked the Chief Secretary why the police have been ordered to desist from searching cargoes for arms, in view of the fact that the Sinn Feiners have been importing arms during, and in violation of, the so-called truce?

asked the Prime Minister whether arms and ammunition are still being imported into Ireland for the Sinn Fein forces; and what steps are being taken to prevent this breach of the law?

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why my Question, No. 12, has been altered, and the word "rebels" changed to Sinn Feiners? If these men call themselves rebels, and Ministers call them rebels, why cannot a private Member of this House call them rebels?

Under my instructions, questions are not accepted which carry an implication or insinuation. In pursuance of that instruction of mine, the hon. and gallant Member's question was altered.

The importation of arms into Ireland for the use of the Irish Republican Army would clearly constitute a breach of the truce. Rumours that arms and ammunition have been imported since 11th July have come to the knowledge of the British authorities, and every such rumour has been at once investigated. The statement that the police have been instructed to refrain from preventing the importation of arms into Ireland is entirely without foundation. The special arrangements for the search of ships enforced before the truce are still in operation. There has never been any relaxations of the usual customs precautions against contraband, which includes arms and ammunition.

Is it a fact that the special port police who were employed in searching for arms have been withdrawn and are no longer operating?

No, that is not true, but for a short time after the truce was declared certain auxiliary police in certain ports were withdrawn.

Are they operating again now?

They are now operating.

Has there been any alteration since the so-called truce in the procedure of searching for arms which are being introduced for the purposes of the Irish Republican Army?

There has been no change, with this exception, that under the terms of the truce His Majesty's Government, with the Commander-in-Chief, agreed that there would be no search of the person. Other than that, it is exactly the same as before.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why arms carried on persons intended to be used by the Irish Republican Army cannot be stopped?

Because His Majesty's Government wish honourably to obey the terms of the truce.

Did not the terms of the truce refer to people in Ireland? Surely that does not apply to people coming over sea to Ireland.

I did not say that it did. I am dealing entirely with people in Ireland and on shore in Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the terms of peace on the Table of the House?

Is it not a fact that even at the present time American-owned ships of 4,000 and 5,000 tons are arriving in Irish ports, that they are carrying only 400 or 500 tons, and that these ships are being met by small craft when they reach the Irish coast, and not only that, but arms are being smuggled—

"Speech!"

What is happening in Belfast?

In this and any other case, if the hon. Member or any other hon. Member would send or telegraph any information to Ireland, there will be no hesitation on the part of the Government in Ireland to make the most drastic search and endeavour to stop any importation of arms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these ships are arriving in Ireland at the present time; and the Admiralty take no steps whatever to prevent these arms from coming into Ireland?

I cannot admit on a suspicion of the kind indicated by the hon. Gentleman that there is any fact in the case. The Admiralty, and every other unit of the Forces of the Crown, will do its best to stop any importation of arms. I should welcome any information that would lead to a discovery; but mere suspicion of ships arriving is not enough.

rose —

We cannot pursue the matter further to-day.

asked the Chief Secretary if Sinn Fein courts have been held in Dublin, Kilkenny, and elsewhere in Ireland. purporting to administer justice, and inflicting fines and other penalties on British subjects summoned to appear before them; and if such proceedings have the sanction of His Majesty's Government?

asked the Chief Secretary whether so-called republican courts are being held in Dublin and other parts of Ireland, purporting to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction; if he can say what system of law, if any, these courts purport to administer; whether fines or other penalties have been inflicted by these courts on British subjects; and whether the Government holds itself responsible to compensate any British subjects who have been forcibly subjected to illegal penalties?

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that republican courts are being constantly held in Ireland, at which British citizens are summoned to attend and are sentenced to pay fines and to suffer other penalties by these illegal tribunals; whether this course of proceeding has the approval of the Government; and, if not, whether he will state what steps the Government are taking to suppress these illegalities?

Many reports have been received regarding the increased activities of illegal courts in various parts of Ireland since the date of the truce, and steps have been taken which it is believed will result in removing the grounds of complaint. No person in Ireland is under any obligation to attend any court other than the King's Court, and the Government are prepared to afford all necessary protection to persons who are illegally required to attend unauthorised courts or are subjected to penalties by such courts.

Is the holding of such courts a breach of the terms of the truce?

That question is answered by what I have said. The holding of any court, other than the King's Court, that was not held prior to the truce is a breach of the truce.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real cause of these questions is because the Sinn Feiners have declared a boycott against Bass's beer?

I have asked a question in number 7 which has not been answered: whether the Government holds itself liable to compensate people who by terrorism are brought before those courts and subjected to penalties?

If any of these people refuse to pay, I can assure the hon. Gentleman they will be protected. I will consider the question.

I do not mean protection. In those cases where by terrorism in order to save their lives—and there are many such cases—will the Government, which has been unable to give them protection, give them compensation for what they have suffered?

I cannot accept the statement that during the truce anybody has been in danger of his life for refusing to pay such penalties. That is my view borne out by the facts.

Why do you not speed up a settlement and get rid of the job?

I shall consider the question, but I cannot promise to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), as it would leave the door wide open for the payment of fines illegally, and the collection of the money from His Majesty's Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question: what steps the Government are taking to suppress these illegalities?

Steps have been taken which it is believed will result in removing all grounds of complaint.

What steps are these?

In this, as in other matters dealing with the administration of Ireland during the truce and the sittings of the conference—which I believe to be one of the most important conferences ever held in the history of this country—discretion must be given to the Government in dealing with acute questions, and I would ask the hon. and learned Member to accept the answer which I have given as the best answer which I can give.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to define the word "truce," which he has used so frequently? Will he put before the House the exact words of the truce, as until we know these words we do not know what the Government is doing.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the many complaints made of the conditions and treatment of Irishmen in the internment camps; whether he has looked into these complaints; and whether any system of inspection of these camps and of opportunities for the laying of complaints has been arranged?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the remainder this matter has been taken up with the Irish representatives now in London, and a system of joint visits to prisons and camps has been arranged.

When will these joint committees com- mence their inspections, and can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if these complaints are found to be well founded the camp commandants responsible for this informality will be dealt with suitably?

I will not prejudge the decisions of these joint committees.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if these complaints as to the ill-treatment of untried and helpless men are found to be well founded the commandants will be dealt with suitably?

I do not accept for a moment that persons have been ill-treated by officers of the Crown in Ireland, and therefore I will not prejudge.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Mountjoy Prison has been taken over by the so-called Irish Republican Army or whether any of its members are allowed inside as such?

There is no foundation whatever for the absurd allegation that any part of Mountjoy Prison has been handed over to the Irish Republican Army or that any members of the Irish Republican Army are allowed in as such. There are several classes of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison. Some of these are unconvicted, some are undergoing short terms of imprisonment and others sentences of penal servitude. Permission to visit is granted in accordance with the Prison Rules applicable to the various classes.

Has any other Government property in Ireland been taken over for this purpose?

Not that I know.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that during the so-called truce in Ireland the Irish Republican Army has been constantly and openly drilling with Lewis guns, rifles and revolvers, has commandeered lands and houses for military purposes, and has forcibly exacted from peaceable Irish sub- jects contributions to maintain the Irish Republican Army; and what steps the Government propose to take in regard to these matters?

asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of the truce forbid kidnapping of His Majesty's subjects, setting up courts in opposition to His Majesty s courts, requisitioning of houses and material, forced billeting of men, and forced levies of money on His Majesty's subjects, provocative display of forces armed or unarmed, importation of arms, and forcible conscription on the part of the Irish Republican Army and its supporters; whether the Government have reason to believe that some or all of these terms have been broken; and what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to prevent such evasion; at what date were such steps taken; and what has been the result?

Every one of the various acts specified in the first part of these questions would be regarded by His Majesty's Governments as a breach or evasion of the terms of the truce, and instances have in fact occurred of the truce being broken in a number of these ways. Representations have 'been made in the case of every breach alleged, and in a great number of cases this action has had satisfactory results. In certain other cases, however, differences of opinion have arisen as to fact, or as to the proper interpretation to be placed upon a term of the truce agreement, and differences of the latter kind have been under consideration by a Joint Committee of the Conference on Ireland in London.

As the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly referred to the so-called "truce," is he prepared to lay its terms on the Table of this House?

They have already been published, but I shall at once lay them as the hon. and learned Member wishes.

Are we not entitled to have the truce laid on the Table? Is it not the fact that when a Minister quotes from a document we are entitled to have it laid on the Table, and I would like to know when this will be done?

I am not aware that there has been any quotation.

asked the Chief-Secretary whether his attention has been called to a statement recently made in Belfast by the hon. Member for South Tyrone to the effect that Mr. Cope, Assistant Under-Secretary, had given orders to the police in Belfast that, if they had to arrest a Sinn Fein criminal, they must arrest a Unionist alongside him; whether such an order was given by Mr. Cope; if so, on whose instructions; whether the purpose in giving such an order was to convey to the public the false impression that Unionists in Belfast were equally responsible with Sinn Fein criminals for initiating breaches of the peace; and, if such was not the purpose, what explanation can he give of Mr. Cope's order?

I have seen, with profound regret, the statement referred to. It is obviously based on inaccurate information and does great injustice to a loyal and efficient public servant, for whose action in this matter I take full responsibility. Very briefly, the facts are as follows: On 29th, 30th, and 31st August last, a certain portion of Belfast was in a state of very grave disorder. On those three days there were 17 persons killed and 91 wounded. Mr. Cope arrived in Belfast on 31st August. Having satisfied himself after close inquiry on all sides that the disturbances were the outcome of old animosities, affecting alike certain irresponsible elements in each of the two opposing religious factions, Mr. Cope gave instructions on 1st September to the police, enjoining on them the exercise of the strictest impartiality in dealing with law breakers on both sides. It is a grotesque perversion of his instructions to suggest that he directed the arrest of any innocent person. The object of the instructions was merely to ensure that there should be no discrimination between offenders of equal guilt merely on the ground of their religious denominations. It must be obvious that the forces of the Crown, when called upon to discharge the difficult task of restoring order, could not properly observe any other principle.

The position in Belfast was so difficult that military aid had to be invoked. The military authorities are now responsible for the maintenance of order, and for this purpose were given, and still retain, control over all Crown forces in the city.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a question substantially in the terms of that now on the Paper was put in the Parliament of Northern Ireland to a responsible Minister, who was unable to give the information now given to this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he could not supply that information to the responsible Minister in Belfast?

I can accept no responsibility for the difficulties of Ministers in other Legislatures, but I am responsible for the police in Ireland. This was a police matter, and up to the present no other Legislature has anything to do with the Irish police except this Legislature.

Can the right hon. Gentleman lay upon the Table of the House the actual words used in that instruction to the police?

On this and all other questions dealing with military and police orders I must decline to make details public.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that no such instructions were given to the police?

asked the Prime Minister, if, considering the importance of creating an atmosphere of goodwill in Ireland, the persons interned and who have not been tried by the ordinary legal procedure will be released?

This is a question to be discussed in connection with the terms of a final peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will set up a substitution committee to deal with the Air Service technical staff as at present existing in His Majesty's Office of Works Department?

Steps have already been taken to set up such committees, and the work of investigation is approaching completion.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that ex-service men are being discharged from the out-stations while non-service men are being employed on exactly the same work, and will he take steps to remedy this injustice?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the circumstances are entirely different from those in other Ministries. Inasmuch as I am to receive a deputation on the subject early next week, I can be excused from making any further statement now.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a considerable time ago the Treasury undertook to set up these substitution committees in all Government Departments? Is he also aware that it is the failure to do so in every case which is responsible for a great deal of the trouble amongst ex-service men in the Civil Service?

I am not responsible for more than one Department.

asked the Prime Minister whether, although the number of non-service staff employed in a temporary capacity in Government Departments is 53,544, over 6,000 ex-service men, many of them disabled, have been discharged since 1st June, whilst conscientious objectors are being re-instated and overtime is being worked in various Departments; and what steps are being taken by the Government to see that justice is done to ex-service men?

asked the Prime Minister if the reduction of staff in Government Departments is being conducted without allowing for preference or special consideration for ex-service men; whether, since the 1st of June, more than 6,000 ex-service men, many of whom are disabled, have been dismissed from Government employment, while no less than 53,000 non-service men are still employed in a temporary capacity, and numbers of conscientious objectors have been reinstated or are otherwise in Government employment; whether it is still recognised that ex-service men have the first claim on the consideration of the Government and the nation; and, if so, whether he will use his authority over all Government Departments to insist that ex-service men shall be the last to be dismissed in the interest of economy?

asked the Prime Minister whether public statements are still being made to the effect that whilst non-service men and? conscientious objectors are being retained in the public service ex-service men are being retrenched in large numbers; and whether he can take some steps to allay the general suspicion and uneasiness which exists in regard to the matter?

asked the financial Secretary to the Treasury how many alleged conscientious objectors have been reinstated in Government Departments; whether their respective contracts of service are terminable by notice; and, if so, whether he will undertake to dismiss all such persons in priority to any ex-service men?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a great number of temporary ex-service civil servants have lately been discharged or have received notice of dismissal from Government Departments; and whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction exists among these men owing to the fact that many conscientious objectors have been reinstated to the detriment of the said ex-service men?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors have now been reinstated in the Civil Service; and whether this favour shown them has caused the dismissal of any ex-service men?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many ex-service men have been discharged from the Civil Service since 1st June last; how many non-service staff are still employed in a temporary capacity; and what principle is being adopted in these discharges for the recognition of the prior claims of ex-service men?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if since June last 6,000 ex-service men have been discharged from the Government Departments, many of them disabled, and that fresh notices are now being issued; if he can state whether there is any truth in the statement in the circular that has been issued by the Association of ex-Service Civil Servants that a good number of conscientious objectors have been reinstated in Government Departments, whilst ex-service temporary staff are being discharged; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?

The number of ex-service men temporarily employed in Government Departments has fallen from 57,378 on the 1st June last to 51,413, or about 6,000. A considerable number of ex-service men have, however, been transferred in this period from temporary to permanent appointments, and the fall in the total number of ex-service men employed, whether in temporary or permanent positions, is consequently only 2,400.

The decrease in the number of ex-service men temporarily employed is very largely due to the discharge from the Employment Exchange service of men who had been recently taken on for work of a casual nature. Having regard to the general reduction of Government staffs, it was not possible to provide fresh employment for these men or for more than a proportion of those discharged from other Departments.

The number of non-service temporary personnel employed on the 1st October was 46,800, of whom 7,500 were men, as compared with 150,000 on 1st July, 1919.

The necessities of administration preclude the complete substitution by ex-service men of all non-service temporary staff, of however long service, particularly when the non-service personnel is engaged in a Department other than that from which the ex-service men are being discharged. In addition, the women staff who form the great bulk of the remaining non-service staff are largely engaged upon work which is recognised as peculiarly appropriate to women.

No overtime which could be avoided by the employment of additional staff is being worked, nor is the amount substantial.

Conscientious objectors are not employed in temporary capacities, but approximately 230 men, previously hold- ing permanent posts in the Civil Service, who established a bonâ fide conscientious objection to military service, have, in view of the recognition accorded to such objection by Statute, not been discharged from the service. Their retention, after a period of suspension, has not necessitated the discharge of ex-service men.

The policy of His Majesty's Government of according every possible preference to ex-service men in regard to employment has been, and will continue to be, pursued, and the greatest care will be taken that where the imperative needs of the public service are not involved, no non-service man should be preferred to an ex-service man.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officials in Woolwich Arsenal are not carrying out the Government's own orders, but are retaining War hands and discharging ex-service men, and that all the ex-service men are asking from the Government is that they should insist upon their own orders being carried out?

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the point just alluded to is the root of the trouble everywhere— namely, that the hon. Gentleman's own instructions, clearly given, have not been loyally carried out by certain permanent officials? Has he no power to enforce his own orders, and is it not possible to dismiss or otherwise punish some of these disloyal people?

The state of affairs generally is as I have described it. Any particular circumstances in connection with any special Department which are brought to my attention have been, and will continue to be, rigorously examined, and the principles to which I have alluded enforced. If these particular circumstances, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, or further circumstances, are brought to my attention, I shall go into them with the same particularity.

Are civilian workers to have any rights at all?

If these conscientious objectors are discharged from their jobs, could not their places be filled by ex-service men?

Of course if the 230 men to whom I have referred were to be discharged, their places could be filled by others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] They are retained for the reasons, and on the principles, to which I have referred in my answer. It is not open to the Executive to go outside the principles laid down by an Act of this House.

May I ask the Prime Minister is he aware that the retention of these 230 men is regarded as a gross breach of faith with the ex-service men?

Nothing in it.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Messrs. Holt and Company are demanding the return of a part of the gratuities paid to technical officers of the flying services during the period they were attached to the Air Board; whether this is being done on the Air Ministry's instructions; whether the consolidated pay of these officers during the period in question exceeded the pay and allowances which they would otherwise have received; and if the Government, some time ago, issued a statement renouncing all claims for the return of gratuities?

No instructions have been issued by the Air Ministry for the recovery of the gratuities referred to, but it is understood that Messrs. Holt and Company are requesting the return of certain sums which have been issued by them in excess of the amounts allowed by Regulation. The civilian rates of pay issued to these officers on joining the Air Board staff were in excess, and in a large number of cases considerably in excess, of the pay and allowances they had received from Naval funds. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these applications have been sent out by Messrs. Holt and Company franked by the Air Ministry? How can he say that it is not on the Ministry's instructions?

That is new information brought to my notice, and I shall want particulars.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Martinsyde semi-quaver, which was tested with an Alula wing on the l2th instant at Northolt, demonstrated itself to be of any interest as a fighting machine; if so, in what manner; if this machine had previously been tested for performance at Martlesham and for strength at Farn-borough; and whether, during the test referred to at Northolt, the machine was tested with a roll, an Immelman turn, and a spinning nose-dive?

I attended the demonstration myself; it was a private one promoted by those connected with the development of the "Alula" wing. I understand that the object of the demonstration was to show that the "Alula" system of design was not incompatible with high speed. Hitherto it has been the weight carrying qualities of the wing on which most emphasis has been placed. The machine, as shown, was not a practical fighting machine, and I do not think that those showing it had any intention of claiming it to be one. This machine has not been tested at either Martlesham or Farnborough, but certain investigations into its strength are being undertaken, and I have no intention of permitting an official test by an Air Ministry pilot until these investigations have shown the strength of the machine to be adequate.

So far as I am aware, the machine has not been rolled or spun, nor have Immelman turns been attempted. The closest attention is being given by the Research Department of the Air Ministry to this invention, and every opportunity will be afforded to the inventor to demonstrate the value of his device.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the enormous progress made in Germany in the manufacture of civil aircraft; whether, in view of the ease with which civil aircraft can be converted into military aircraft, he will consider the advisability of properly framing the definition of the differences between the civil and military type, and exercise great vigilance in seeing that Germany builds only in accordance with the Allies' rules, as she has pledged herself to do?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The German Government have agreed to surrender to the Allies all the civil aircraft (estimated at some 250 in number) constructed in Germany since the coming into force of the Treaty of Versailles, such manufacture having been held by the Allies to be contrary to the stipulations of the Treaty. In the meantime the construction of all aircraft in Germany is suspended until the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control is satisfied that it has completed the aerial disarmament of the country. Germany has also agreed to accept definitions drawn up by the Allies differentiating between aircraft for civil and commercial use and those that are potentially war machines, the manufacture of the latter being contrary to the Peace Treaty. Measures are being drawn up by the Allies for the effective surveillance of aircraft manufacture in Germany after the withdrawal of the Commission of Control.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the suspension of the manufacture of aircraft in Germany is being carried out, and will he see that the terms of the Treaty with regard to aircraft are rigidly enforced?

Yes, I am satisfied that the information I have given to the House is accurate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British trade mission is about to leave Russia; and, if so, will he state the reason?

The answer is in the negative.

Is it not a fact that this trade delegation was selected by the Foreign Office against the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the head of it was one of Koltchak's chiefs of staff?

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

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the breaches by the Bolshevik Government of the Russian Trade Agreement, and to the fact that it has no value from the point of view of trade, it is intended to denounce the Agreement?

As I pointed out yesterday, the Russian Trade Agreement has had substantial results, though not equal to the anticipations formed in some quarters. The Government is examining the reply of the Bolshevik Government to their despatch on the question of the breaches of the Trade Agreement.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a letter addressed by Mr. Leslie Urquhart to M. Krassin on this subject, and whether he is aware Mr. Urquhart went to Russia most anxious to reopen trade in that country and found it impossible to do so?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

I will send it to the Prime Minister.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, owing to the disbandment of the South Persia Rifles, all British families have had to be evacuated from Shiraz; if so, where they have been sent to; and what steps have been taken by the Persian Government for their protection?

The question of the evacuation of British women and children from Shiraz to the coast has been left to the discretion of His Majesty's representative at Tehran. I am not able to say at such short notice whether any British families have actually left Shiraz, or what special precautions were taken. Inquiries will be made.

Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge as to the safety of British women and children in South Persia?

We assume that, inasmuch as we have received no representations from His Majesty's representative, their safety is assured.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the reports of the devastation and laying waste of the country by the Greek army in its retreat in Asia Minor; whether His Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Greek Government on the subject; and whether any British military attaché or other official is with the Greek Army?

A communication on this subject has just been received through Constantinople from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Angora Government. His Majesty's Government have already made and continue to make representations impartially to both sides as soon as the reports which reach them are confirmed. Two or three British officers are attached to various Greek headquarters as observers.

Have the British officers not sent in reports on this matter? Refugees are fleeing in thousands to Constantinople from those areas.

I am not aware that we have received any representations from British officers.

Have any representations been made to the Greek Government on this particular subject?

Not, I think, on this particular subject, because reports, so far, have not been received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has been taken as yet to secure justice for the Reverend P. S. Irwin against his assailants at Miami, Florida; whether Mr. Irwin has now been forced to leave Miami by threats; whether he is satisfied that British coloured people at Miami are now properly protected in life and property; and when the case of Mr. Hubbard, British Vice-Consul at Miami, was inquired into as to his fitness to protect the numerous coloured British subjects under his ægis?

His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to renew his request to the State Department for information as to the result of any proceedings taken against Mr. Irwin's assailants: the answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. Complaints against the Vice-Consul at Miami were investigated by His Majesty's Ambassador at the end of last year. Sir A. Geddes then expressed the opinion that Mr. Hubbard was a fit person to represent His Majesty's Government at Miami and I have no reason to suppose that he has changed his opinion.

Is it not since this investigation that the Reverend P. S. Irwin has been tarred and feathered and chased out of Miami, and other British coloured subjects have been expelled from Miami with threats; and will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of asking our Ambassador at Washington to inquire into the fitness of this particular Vice-Consul?

I do not think I could do that. Sir Auckland Geddes is now inquiring into the whole of the circumstances of the case.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will furnish returns of the exports from the United Kingdom to Russia, and of imports from Russia into this country, since the signature of the trading agreement between Great Britain and the representative of the Soviet Government?

As the answer contains many figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between the imports and exports from Soviet Russia and from old Russia? The Board of Trade returns do not differentiate in that way at present?

I doubt whether that is possible, but I will make inquiries.

The following is the answer:

The trade agreement was signed on the 16th March, and complete figures for the precise period specified in the question are not immediately available. The following statement covers the trade of the six months April to September.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the continued depression in the West African Colonies and Protectorates is in considerable measure due to the differential export duty on palm kernels exported to foreign countries; whether any decision has been arrived at respecting the early removal of this handicap to their staple trade; and, if not, whether he will request the West African Trade and Taxation Committee at present sitting in this country to take this matter into immediate consideration and to issue an early report?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. The Committee on West African Trade and Taxation is taking evidence on the subject and is expected to report next month.

Am I to understand from that reply that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not aware that the question is due to this differential export duty which is placed upon palm kernels?

What right has this country to limit the market for palm kernels to West Africa?

That is a question for argument.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that time will be given this Session to pass the Guardianship of Infants Bill through its final stages?

In view of the definite assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the 19th August last that the only legislation to be taken would be that which necessitated the calling together of the House, I regret it will not be possible to deal with this Bill during the present Sittings, which are only undertaken for the purpose of dealing with the problem of unemployment.

Can the Prime Minister say he will bring it in next Session? May I ask for that assurance?

I have not yet considered the programme for next Session.

Arising out of that answer may I ask—

I think we really must not have supplementaries to every question. It is better to give other hon. Members an opportunity.

asked the Prime Minister whether an early opportunity will be afforded to the House to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission on the Importation of Store Cattle, in view of the Commission's statement that the removal of the embargo would tend to cheapen the meat supply in this country without in any way endangering home cattle?

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps the Government have taken, or are taking, to give effect to the findings of the Committee that investigated the removal of the embargo upon the importation into this country of Canadian cattle?

asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is the intention of the Government to introduce immediately a Bill to remove the embargo on Canadian store cattle?

The evidence taken before the Royal Commission has not yet been published, although it is expected to be ready shortly, and until the Government has had an opportunity of considering the evidence it would be premature to discuss the Report of the Commission. Moreover, legislation would be necessary to give effect to the recommendations in the Report, and such legislation could not be introduced this Session.

asked the Prime Minister on what date the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917, will, under the present position, expire; and whether it is the intention of the Government to extend its duration?

I have been asked to reply to this question. Provision has already been made in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of this Session for the continuance of the War Addition Acts until 31st December, 1922. The latter part of the question does not therefore arise at present.

asked the Prime Minister whether, owing to the necessity for economy, building pro-grammes for the improvement of Territorial Army headquarters have been generally postponed; and whether, in certain districts where unemployment is severe, the more urgent of these useful works could now be put in hand as special works to relieve unemployment in the locality?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. During the War action on such programmes was suspended, but proposals are now open for favourable consideration on their merits in cases where it can be shown that no existing accommodation can be utilised?

Having regard to the fact that emergency works in order to provide employment are being proposed, cannot these schemes be pressed on?

That is exactly what is stated in my answer.

asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to increasing facilities for employment, the orders for the new capital ships have yet been given out; if not, when they will be; and whether the Government can yet announce any decision with reference to the Channel Tunnel?

The tenders received have now been considered, and the orders for all four vessels are being placed immediately. As regards the last part of the question, no decision has yet been arrived at.

Could not the decision with regard to the Channel Tunnel be accelerated, in view of the fact that a large amount of employment would result on the South Eastern Railway, and possibly in the construction of the tunnel itself?

There are very important strategic consideration's which have to be borne in mind before a decision is taken upon that subject, and even if a decision were taken it would take very many months before any work could be put in hand.

Is it not a fact that the strategic considerations were first considered by the War Cabinet and then by the Cabinet itself a very long time ago—very nearly a year ago—and have not the Cabinet arrived at any decision?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any representations from employers engaged in the machine tool industry with regard to the serious state of unemployment in that trade; and, if so, can he state if any action has been taken in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. I can find no trace of representations regarding unemployment having been made by the employers in the machine tool industry. Should any representations be made they will receive careful consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether, as a part of the ceremony in connection with the celebration of the armistice, new colours can be placed upon the Cenotaph annually?

The question of a formal renewal of the Colours was discussed by the Committee appointed to consider the question of the observance of Armistice Day, and it was decided, after careful consideration, that it was undesirable to renew the colours at any stated time, but that renewal should take place when the need arose.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is aware that there is now a strong feeling in the country, even among the industrial classes, in favour of the introduction of a secret ballot before strikes and in the regulation of so-called peaceful picketing; and whether, in view of this feeling, the Cabinet will undertake next Session to introduce legislation on the subject?

I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on the 18th April last to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall).

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information as to the alleged invasion of Albania by Serbia; whether the conference of ambassadors has yet arrived at an agreement on the boundaries of Albania; and, if not, what is preventing such an agreement?

According to our information, there have been encounters between Serbian and Albanian forces on the confines of the area within the 1913 frontiers of Albania, of which Serbian troops have been in occupation under the terms of the Armistice. Agreement is about to be reached, I hope, at the Ambassadors' Conference as to the frontiers of Albania, and when this has been accomplished it will be possible to ask the Serbian and the Albanian Governments to withdraw their forces to either side of the line agreed upon. Opportunity has already been taken of the presence of the Serbian Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris to impress upon him, on behalf of the principal Allied Governments, the importance of keeping the peace on the frontier. Similar advice has been tendered to the Albanian representative in Paris also.

Can the hon Gentleman tell the House what is preventing this agreement by the conference of ambassadors, and whether he is aware that we were told at Geneva weeks and weeks ago that the agreement was about to be arrived at?

I think there is one comparatively unimportant outstanding point, which I think is in process of solution at the present moment.

I will put a further question on Monday.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has set up a committee to inquire into the differences between the wholesale and retail prices of articles of food and clothing; and, if so, when that committee will be able to make any report?

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

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the large reduction in the prices of wholesale articles, that something should be done to bring retail prices more into conformity with the reduced prices in the wholesale market?

We have received a good many representations on that subject, but it would be quite impossible to have any investigation unless it were made by means of an Act of Parliament which would equip the Committee or Commisson with the necessary powers to force disclosure of all the facts. That is a very serious step to take, and we do not feel, at the present moment, that the facts are sufficiently clear to justify action of that kind.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give powers to the municipalities to open shops in competition with the people who are now keeping up the prices?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that Great Britain intends to co-operate with the United States at Washington to the fullest possible extent in stabilising conditions in the Far East; whether British policy at the Conference in respect of China will be based, not on any national view of sectional interest, but on a broad conception of the interests of the world in securing peace in the Far East; and whether he proposes to make any statement in the House on the subject before the departure of the delegates?

The British Empire Delegation will certainly do its utmost, in co-operation with all the Powers concerned, to secure fair play for all nations and peace in the Far East. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Will there be no opportunity of discussing the utilisation of the Lord President of the Council at Washington after what happened with regard to Silesia?

That does not arise here.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the holders of bursaries for intending teachers are being included by some local authorities in the 25 per cent. of free places in their secondary schools; and whether, since this practice does not in fact mean that a proportion of the free places are held by pupils who are required to give undertakings regarding their future which cannot be required from free placers and fee-paying pupils, he will take steps to prevent local education authorities from regarding any provision they may make for intending teachers as a means of reducing the number of free places in secondary schools held without conditions as to future employment?

The Board's Regulations do not prevent a pupil being counted as a free place pupil on the ground that he or she has undertaken to become a teacher. I have not received any complaints on this subject, though I recognise that local difficulties may have arisen owing to the shortage of accommodation in secondary schools.

aked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to take such steps by way of amendment to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, as will obviate future occurrences of cases similar to that of Dr. Oscar Levy?

The provisions of the Act were passed by Parliament after full discussion and consideration, and it is not proposed to bring in any amending legislation. Nothing short of a complete repeal of the provision would attain the object suggested in the question.

Was it ever proposed during the passage of the Bill that it should apply to cases of this kind, of a distinguished gentleman being expelled after a long period of residence in this country? Was that brought to the notice of the House when it was passed?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must look at the records.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that police-pensioner A. W. Parsons, late acting-sergeant 643, S Division, Metropolitan Police, retired in May, 1915, on a pension of 26s. a week, after 25 years' service; that for two or more years immediately preceding retirement he was continually under treatment by the divisional surgeon, and actually retired on account of physical infirmity; that since retirement Parson's physical condition has become steadily worse, and that he is now totally unable to work; and if he will consider the case under Section 2 (2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920?

This case has been fully considered, and I regret the pensioner is not eligible for any increase of pension before he attains the age of 60.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this pensioner does come under Section 2, Sub-section (2), and has retired on account of physical or mental infirmity, and that it has nothing to do with age?

My information is not in accordance with my hon. and gallant Friend's statement. I understand that the man had leave to retire without a medical certificate.

Is it necessary for a man who retires out of physical inability, as stated in the Act, to have a medical certificate, which the Act does not mention?

This case was gone into very thoroughly, and it is perfectly clear that it does not come within the provisions of the new Act.

In what way does it not come under the Act?

The hon. and gallant Member should inquire privately.

asked the Home Secretary if he will state the powers possessed by the Commissioner of Police under the new Licensing Act to restrict the number of public houses opening for early market trade and to modify the hours during which they may be open; whether, in a matter of this nature, the Commissioner can override the local bench of licensing magistrates; and, if this power is exerciseable by the Commissioner, whether he will state the facts of the cases in which he has taken such action?