asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men at present confined in pauper lunatic asylums; the number of men so confined whose dependants receive treatment allowances; and the amount of such allowances?

The number of ex-service men at present receiving treatment in county or borough asylums at the cost of the Ministry is approximately 6,210, and of these some 4,140 have dependants eligible for and in receipt of treatment allowances. The amount of the, allowances is regulated by Articles 6 and 7 of the Royal Warrant.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the very large increase in the number of men in lunatic asylums since January of this year—some 35 per cent. or more?

I do not think that is so. I made reference to that particular point in reply to a question yesterday. I should like to have some further notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. H. J. Lawrence, late Labour Corps (Ministry of Pensions, reference No. 11/M/359,574), who is still under treatment at Headington Hospital, Oxford, for a gunshot wound; whether he is aware that this man is married, has one child, and receives only 7s. 6d. per week; that he has to wear irons on his leg, and is not able to earn a penny; will he do his best to get this pension increased; and, in the alternative, has Mr. Lawrence no other remedy than to appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal?

This man is not receiving treatment for the disability arising from the gunshot wound, for which he is being compensated at the rate mentioned. Treatment was provided in advance as a matter of urgency for another disability in respect of which he made claim to pension, and although after full consideration of all the circumstances it was not found possible to admit this claim, the treatment is still being continued as a special concession. The only right of appeal against this refusal of pension is to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

Is it not a fact that this man, entirely through a wound received in the War, has now to wear irons on his leg, and how can a man support a wife and child on 7s. 6d. a week?

This case was only brought to my notice this morning, as my hon. Friend knows. I will look into it personally.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Michael Sweetman, a Protestant, farmer, residing near Skibbereen, was murdered last February; whether later all the stock was driven off the farm by the Sinn Fein forces; whether, on 21st July, 10 days after the truce began, a quantity of the furniture was stolen from the house; whether, at the end of August, a large body of men, who said they were acting for the Irish Republic, seized and threshed all the corn on the farm and sold it and kept the proceeds; whether, subsequently, Mrs. Sweetman and her son were served with a notice to leave the district within 48 hours and left in consequence; whether, within the last fortnight, an auction has been held on the farm by Sinn Fein at which everything was sold; what measures the Government took to protect Mrs. Sweetman against these outrages; and what steps, if any, they have taken on her behalf since this occurrence?

This is a most deplorable case. I understand there is some question as to whether Mrs. Sweetman and her son were in fact ordered out of the country by Sinn Fein, but otherwise the facts appear to be as stated. So far as I am aware, no complaint was made to the police, and the circumstances did not come to the knowledge of the authorities until after the event. The fullest investigation is being made, and as soon as the facts are available the Government will make it their business to see that Mrs. Sweetman receives such reparation as is possible for what she has suffered.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a loyalist farmer in the Kenmare district of County Kerry, who has been raided by Sinn Feiners no fewer than 19 times since the truce, during the course of which raids practically all his cattle, agricultural machinery, and moveable property has been seized by Sinn Fein authorities; and what steps he has taken in this case?

This is a flagrant and persistent breach of the truce, in which representations to the local Sinn Fein liaison officials have proved ineffective. The matter has now been taken up with the Chief Liaison Officer in Dublin, who has been pressed for full reparation.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is in a position to give any information respecting the holding up of a train at Milltown railway station, on the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, on 7th November, by a band of armed men, who plundered the van containing a considerable sum of money?

The police report that this robbery was carried out by two men, one of whom was armed with a revolver. The police are pursuing their enquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the raid upon Oakfield Park, Raphoe, the residence of Mr. C. V. Stoney, D.L.; and what steps are being taken to apprehend the perpetrators of this outrage?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the latter part, the police have the matter in hand.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman's house was raided by 50 armed men, and that there were only women present, who were treated in a most disgraceful way?

I was not aware that there were 50 armed men, and this is the first time I have heard that any women were treated disgracefully there.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that any of these breakers of the truce have been brought to trial, and any of them punished? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these people who have been guilty of gross breaches of the truce have been prosecuted and brought to justice?

On both sides?

A number of persons have been arrested. The House will remember the case of the kidnapping of Mr. Hunt the other day in Belfast, for which three men are now under arrest, and will stand their trial in the usual way.

Have any been punished yet?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate as to the number of breakages that the truce will endure before it falls to pieces?

asked the Chief Secretary what provision has been made, or will be made, for men of the Irish police, forces who, whilst acting in the discharge of their duty, were seriously wounded by Sinn Feiners and the Irish republican army, and who, in consequence of such wounds, had to retire from the force whether a distinction is made between those so wounded before 1st April, 1919. and since that date; and whether those so wounded before 1st April, 1919, and who were consequently forced to retire, will receive something more than they would have received had they retired voluntarily?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the full reply which I gave to him on this subject on the 19th April last. The pay of the police was increased as from 1st April, 1919, and consequently pensions awarded in respect of retirement on or after that date are in general based on higher rates of pay than pensions awarded in respect of retirement before that date. Certain changes in the pension scale, apart from the pay on which it is based, have also become operative subsequent to the 1st April, 1919. The men referred to in the last part of the question who were obliged in consequence of non-accidental injury to retire before 1st April, 1919, having served for a period which would have entitled them to retire voluntarily have, in fact, been awarded pensions greater than they would have received had they retired voluntarily on the completion of the same period of service.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that men who in the discharge of their duty have been wounded by Sinn Feiners get no extra allowance or pension to compensate them for those wounds and for the compulsory retirement which follows upon the wounds?

In these cases the men get awards for malicious injuries. They get cash payments on account of the awards they receive from the County Court Judges, in addition to their pensions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the majority of cases these awards for malicious injuries which are supposed to be paid by county councils are not paid at all, and that consequently men—of whom I can give the right hon. Gentleman particulars if he requires—who have got these awards, have really got nothing whatever to compensate them for wounds received in the service of the British Government?

Should not those policemen who were wounded before 18th April, 1919, be placed on exactly the same footing as those wounded afterwards?

In reference to wounded policemen or soldiers, they have the first claim on the money under my control intercepted from the grants to local authorities. I know of no case where a wounded soldier or policeman has not had a cash advance on the amount of his claim.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that these wounded and disabled policemen get the same training allowance and other allowances as men disabled in the Great War?

That question does not arise.

asked the Chief Secretary if during the truce the ban on English products continues to the detriment of our trade and the increase of unemployment; and if the question of raising the ban is being considered by the Conference?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar question by the hon. Member for Macclesfield on the 24th October. In regard to the last part, it is obviously impossible for me to give any information regarding particular questions discussed at the Conference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of suggesting during the Conference an extension of the truce to an economic truce as well as a military truce?

What is the use of extending a truce which is only being kept on one side?

asked the Chief Secretary whether the police barracks at Kesh, County Fermanagh, were raided on the evening of 4th November by a number of armed men; whether they took away rifles bombs, and ammunition; and whether h has made inquiries into the matter, and if so, with what result?

The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. Immediately news of the raid was received at county headquarters, the police turned out in force and searched the district. The result of this search and of subsequent inquiries supports the conclusion that the perpetrators of the raid came from a distance. The perpetrators have not yet been identified, nor have any of the missing arms been recovered. Inquiries are being pursued.

Were representations made to the liaison officer of the Sinn Feiners?

Immediately this occurred.

With no results?

With this result that the Sinn Fein liaison officer is doing his best to assist the Crown to find the perpetrators of this outrage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he knows that the Sinn Fein officer is doing his best?

If the Sinn Fein liaison officer is fit for his work, surely he should be able to name the people who perpetrated the outrage, because he is nominated by the I.R.A., under which these men work.

Some doubt exists as to who did perpetrate this outrage on the police barracks at Kesh. The Sinn Fein officials have given assistance to the Crown in endeavouring to find the robbers of the barracks and of these arms.

In saying that some doubt exists, is it wished to convey the impression that this was done by officers of the Crown?

asked the Chief Secretary whether military hutments in Tipperary were raided on the evening of 4th November; whether one or more Lewis guns, a number of service rifles, and a box of bombs and ammunition were removed; and whether the Government are taking any, and, if so, what measures with regard to the matter?

I have been asked to reply to this question. This theft has been reported, and a military inquiry is pending.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the workhouse at Ballyshannon has been occupied by the Irish republican army; whether an armed sentry was posted at the gate; whether he can inform the House for what purpose the workhouse has been so occupied; and what steps he has taken in the matter?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Oxford on Monday last, to which at present there is nothing to add.

asked the Chief Secretary whether local authorities in Ireland who have refused to recognise the authority of the Crown are demanding payment of rates from persons who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Irish, republican administration; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take in the matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the latter part, ample protection is given to any person in Ireland who refuses to pay an illegal demand.

What is the nature of the protection to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes?

We have a very large armed police force and a much larger military force prepared to assist any person who resists these demands.

As a matter of fact, do they give any protection or assistance, or are they prevented from doing so?

They are not.

Does this protection consist in protecting the individual summoned, or does it take the form of action against those who are summoning, which is the best protection?

Is it not a fact that the Corporation of Dublin by its Town Clerk regularly summons people before the Sinn Fein Court in Dublin?

There was a Court of that kind on the day on which the Conference assembled in London. I had to use my discretion as to whether I would break up that Court by force on the day the Conference assembled, or submit the matter to the Sinn Fein representatives with a view to the discontinuance of the Court. I chose the latter course as the better one, and it has been successful. This Court in Dublin does not sit.

asked the Prime Minister whether the assurance given by him in August last that in any settlement which may be reached the interests of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police will be secured applies both to the existing members of those two bodies and to the pensioners and retired members of those bodies, many of whom are in great straits in regard to money?

Certainly; my hon. and learned Friend can rest assured that the interests both of serving members and of pension ex-members of the Irish Police Forces will be fully safeguarded in any settlement which may be arrived at.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the inspector and other officials of the Local Government Board in Ireland are discharging duties in connection with local authorities who have given their allegiance to Dail Eireann; and, if so, whether he will explain why officers paid from Government funds should work for such authorities?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The inspector and other officials of the Local Government Board discharge statutory duties under the direction of Government, and they are in no sense officers of the local authorities. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Postmaster-General, speaking at Rushden on the 4th instant, to the effect that it would cost £250,000,000 at least and probably 50,000 lives to conquer Ireland; and whether that statement represents the opinion of the Cabinet?

I have not seen the statement made by my right hon. Friend, nor do I think it desirable that I should say more than I did last Monday week at this stage of negotiations which I still hope may prove successful.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the repeated violations in spirit and in letter of the terms of the truce agreed upon with the representatives of Sinn Fein, he will obtain adequate guarantees from the Sinn Fein delegates at the conference now proceeding that any agreement arrived at between them and the Government will be adhered to by their followers in Ireland?

I view with grave concern the breaches of the truce that have occurred in Ireland. They are at once taken up through the machinery established for the purpose, and my colleagues and I are satisfied that the representatives of Sinn Fein with whom we are negotiating are doing their best to secure the observance of the terms of the truce.

In view of the fact that there have been over 500 breaches of the truce in the last three months, will the right hon. Gentleman say how, if these occurrences take place when he has got the delegates over here, he expects them to deliver the goods when the matter is removed from Downing Street to Ireland?

The hon. Member is giving his opinion.

asked the Chief Secretary whether at Strokestown, in the Mullingar area, the military forces are occupying a large private house; whether in the same place a force of the Irish Republican Army, two or three times as strong, is stationed in the workhouse armed with machine guns and a bombing section with armed sentries continually posted; whether this is not a provocative display of force and thereby a breach of the truce, and what steps are being taken by the Commander-in-Chief to safeguard such outlying detachments in cases where they are largely outnumbered by the forces of the rebels in the event of the truce coming to an end in this and in other localities.

I only received notice of this question at 11.30 this morning, and am sorry that I have not been able in the time available to obtain the details necessary to enable me to deal with the points raised. The latter part of the question involves purely military considerations. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army in Ireland is fully aware of the situation in that country.

Will the right hon. Baronet carry out special inquiries in this case? In view of the fact that this information only reached me by post this morning, it was not possible to give earlier notice, but it comes from an officer of the regiment stationed there, and the military have very serious fears for their safety.

Following my usual custom, I wired the Noble Lord's question, as I should any other hon. Member's question, to the Commander-in-Chief himself.

Is it usual for officers in His Majesty's Forces to communicate direct to Members of Parliament, instead of direct to their Commander-in-Chief?

The information did not reach me direct from the officer, but it comes from an officer.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Irish Republican Army is mobilised with arms and munitions of war in numerous camps throughout Ireland, while the loyalist population has been disarmed, he can give an assurance that adequate military and other arrangements have been made for the protection of the loyal population of Ulster and Southern Ireland in the event of a breakdown in the present negotiations with the Sinn Fein delegates?

That is not the question of which I have received notice.

May I say, in explanation, that Mr. Speaker asked me to alter the form of the question, and put the latter part first. I asked Mr. Speaker whether it would be desirable for me to communicate with the Prime Minister, but he said that, as the substance of the question was the same, I need not trouble to do so?

The first words were really preamble. It is the latter part which was the real question.

I only want to point out that that is not the question of which I received notice. I will answer the question of which I received notice.

As the House has already been informed, it has been agreed that if the negotiations unhappily break down there shall be reasonable notice of the termination of the truce, and His Majesty's Government would, of course, do all in their power to protect life and property. It would not be desirable that I should make any statement as to the measures which the Government have taken, or are prepared to take, in that contingency, which I earnestly hope will not arise.

asked the Prime Minister what explanation he has to offer for placing upon the Table an Order in Council transferring powers to the Northern Parliament of Ireland; whether under Clause 72 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, these powers cannot legally be transferred until the two Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland are functioning simultaneously, or, failing that, until such time as a substitute form of Government has been set up for the Southern Parliament; and whether, in view of this breach of the Act of 1920, the Order in Council will be withdrawn?

The reasons for adopting this course were explained by me very fully in the course of Debate in this House on Monday, 31st October, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim. If the hon. Member will look at Section 69 of the Act, he will see that express provision is made for the machinery of Orders in Council to accomplish the purposes referred to in that Section.

How is it that this Order only appeared on the Paper yesterday and that there is no opportunity of a humble Address being presented or any other step taken, in view of the Parliamentary business coming to an end this evening, to discuss the matter further?

I assume that the Order in Council was only drafted, and when it was ready it was placed on the Table of the House. That was only yesterday.

Is it a fact that the Order was made on 31st October, and was not placed on the Table of the House until last night. Is it fair to Parliament that an Order of this character has been allowed to remain for 10 days and is laid on the Table of the House on the eve of the Prorogation of Parliament, thus preventing hon. Members from exercising their constitutional right of discussing it?

I think my hon. Friend is quite wrong. He is referring to a totally different Order. I know, as a matter of fact, that the Order was not ready at the end of last week. I had an opportunity of discussing it. It was prepared at the end of last week, and it was adopted at the Council yesterday.

If the right hon. Gentleman has seen the Order, is he aware that it is a perfectly simple document, which would have occupied no time in its preparation, and is it not very unfair to hon. Members who wish to discuss the matter?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability, in view of the present condition of the negotiations, of withholding this Order until the House of Commons is really in a position to form a judgment on the result of these negotiations?

The negotiations can make no difference in so far as this Order is concerned. There is no proposition that the powers of the Northern Parliament should be taken away, and, therefore, before those powers are functioning, it is essential that there should be an Order of this kind, and it is very unfair to the Northern Parliament that its Executive should be paralysed for lack of powers of this kind. When the case was presented by my hon. Friend to the House the other day, the general sense of the House was, that in the interests of equity and fair play they should be conferred upon them immediately.

If that be so, why were these powers withheld so long? Is it not really a fact that there is no one in favour of this Parliament at all, not even the Members of it?

The hon. Member is really arguing the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that at the beginning of last month France had six international air routes in operation; that next year France proposes to create air connections between France and her colonial possessions, communication between Corsica and Tunis being carried out by a seaplane service, and from Marseilles or Toulon to Algiers by airship, as well as aeroplane connections between Oran and Morocco, and between Toulouse and Morocco viâ Spain; and that British aerial transport to-day, from leading the world in 1919, has dropped behind both France and Germany; and whether he will now make a statement as to what is the definite policy of His Majesty's Government towards aviation, both military and civil?

I am aware of the activities of French aviation, as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, and it is obvious that the French Government fully realises the importance of aeronautics, both service and civil. But I do not think it is possible, in the form of question and answer, usefully to compare the French, or German, and British positions in this matter. A full statement of the Government's policy in regard to civil aviation has recently been made, and I cannot, at present, add anything to what was then said. If my hon. and gallant Friend wants something further and more comprehensive, I must ask him to wait until the Air Estimates are introduced next Session.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, who, as we all know, has the interests of aviation greatly at heart, whether he will agree to discuss with me the possibility of organising an Imperial Air Service?

May it not prove very difficult to regain our ascendancy in the air if the rumour that the Air Ministry is to be done away with prove correct?

Have any recommendations been made by the Geddes Committee relating to the Air Ministry, and, if so, what are they?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

May I have a reply to my question?

That arises out of the next question on the Paper.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Young, the chief inspector under the Ministry of the Interior, was present at an interview on 13th October between the Mudir of Assiut, Badreddin Bey, the Controller of Public Security, and a number of members of the Committee of Reception to Zaghloul Pasha, where it was stated that the police commandant had just declared in the presence of the President and five other judges of the Assiut Native Court, and of others, that there were armed men in the house of Mahfouz Pasha and in other places near the landing slip of the steamer on which Zaghloul Pasha was at the time; that he had also announced that other armed bands would arrive by the evening train, and that these men were all to be used to prevent Zaghloul Pasha from landing, to attack him in the streets if they failed to prevent his landing, and to attack the reception tent if he reached it: that the police commandant, on being asked why the police did not prevent this, replied that the Government wished it, and that Badreddin Bey had accused him of being a Zaghloulist because he protested; and will he say whether Mr. Young made any protest against this action?

I have no information with regard to the alleged incident.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of changing this policy, and is he aware that Zaghloul Pasha, who has the whole of Egyptian opinion behind him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!")—

The hon. Member must not make a speech.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Zaghloul Pasha is deliberately prevented from visiting various points of welcome in Egypt, and will not the Government consider the advisability of giving him scope to visit any part where the public require him to attend, without menacing him and all his people?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

On a point of Order. That supplementary question arises out of the question on the Paper.

No. This is about a particular incident.

Yes, at Assiut.

The hon. Member is asking a general question.

On a point of Order. May I submit that this question concerns the whole question of the freedom of movement of an individual in the country of Egypt, and, as such, a supplementary question, in my opinion, is in order.

I am afraid that it is my opinion that counts in this matter.

asked the, Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that this House has never discussed the desirability of a change in the Constitution of Egypt or given its sanction to any drastic change by vote or otherwise, he will give an undertaking that no commitments are made until Parliament has registered its decision that such changes should be considered?

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham on the 27th ultimo.

Is it not the fact that if any commitments are made on this subject without first consulting Parliament, it will be extremely difficult for His Majesty's Government to go back on any such commitments, and may we not ask that no drastic change shall take place until the matter has been placed before this House, as Parliament has never given its sanction to any complete change?

Is it not the fact, too, that any such agreement must be ratified by the common people?

Undoubtedly Parliament will have to be consulted in any important change in our relations with Egypt. Anything done will be with the sanction of Parliament; but it is quite impossible for the Foreign Secretary to conduct negotiations if every suggestion put forward is to be submitted to Parliament.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not conducting negotiations with a foreign country, but with a country for which, before the whole world, we have made ourselves responsible; therefore this House should certainly have the right to consider the matter?

I have always said so. No doubt the House of Commons has the full right to consider every change that is suggested.

Is the Prime Minister aware, before any Treaty of Alliance, based on good will, can be arrived at with the Egyptian people, that we can no more bring that alliance about by disregarding the chosen leader of the Egyptians about a Treaty of Alliance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I expect I am in the hands of the Speaker.

This is quite a different matter, and does not arise out of the question on the Paper. The hon. Member is now asking quite a separate question.

Has this House ever expressed itself as not satisfied with the Government of Egypt, and may we take it that no steps will be taken until this House has expressed its opinion?

Have there not been various promises by British statesmen since the 'Eighties?

It was clearly stated the other day that Parliament would be consulted.

Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government hold that they have the power to negotiate away part of our territory?

"Ours!"

Not yours!

This is merely arguing the question.

asked the Prime Minister the approximate number of men which it is estimated will be found employment for six days per week for three months and for six months, respectively, for every £1,000,000 granted to local authorities by the Government to assist them in combating unemployment, and the total amount of money which the Government is prepared to allocate for these services during the next six months?

As regards the amount to be provided by the State for unemployment, I would refer the hon. Member to the Memorandum accompanying the Supplementary Estimate for Civil Services presented to the House on the 19th October. Pending detailed examination of the various schemes submitted or to be submitted by local authorities, I regret that it is impossible to frame an estimate of the number of men for whom employment will be found for every £1,000,000 of Government grant.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that, with 1,750,000 unemployed, he has no idea as to the number of men who will be employed by the various schemes which the Government have submitted?

Not at all. There is an estimate in the Memorandum giving certain information on the subject, but the hon. Member wants the figure for every £1,000,000 spent, and that figure cannot be provided.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the published declaration of the Russian Government to recognise the debts of the Tsarist Government; whether he is able to state what is now the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to granting credits for the relief of the famine-stricken population and area in Russia; and what is its present attitude to this urgent matter, having in mind its relation to the international claims of humanity and to the equally pressing question of distress caused in the country by unemployment?

Correspondence with the Soviet Government about the recognition of Russia's foreign liabilities was laid on the Table of the House on 3rd November. In answer to the last parts of the question, I can add nothing to what was said by the Prime Minister in the House on 16th August last and on 8th November by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the Report stage of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether the recent step forward of the Russian Government towards acknowledging its debts has been met by any corresponding advance by His Majesty's Government, and, if so, what?

Is it not a fact that at the present moment the Russian Bolsheviks have a college at Teheran teaching Indian rebels how to conquer India?

Has any time been suggested in which these debts should be paid?

On a point of Order. When I put a question to the Prime Minister, which you allow, Mr. Speaker, as relevant, will you allow that answer to be given and not to be blanketed by irrelevant questions?

If I allow an hon. Member to ask a supplementary question, it is not an assurance that there will be an answer.

asked the Prime Minister whether the change in policy of His Majesty's Government, respecting assistance to Russia, was due to representations from the French Government or from Russian emigrés in this country?

There is no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the Russian famine.

Has there not been a change?

Has there been any real need to change since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech in this House advocating that assistance be given to Russia?

As a matter of fact assistance is being given, and my recollection is that at the end of the speech I said that one of the most effective ways of assisting Russia was for her to pay her debts and so establish confidence in the trading countries.

Can the right hot. Gentleman give the comparative figures of the assistance given to starving Russia and assistance given to military enterprises against Russia?

Ought not all these forms of charity to begin at home?

Really, that is a matter which we debated only yesterday.

asked the Prime Minister whether, apart from the Anglo-Japanese alliance, as published, the British delegates at the Washington Conference will be affected by any treaty, agreement, or alliance affecting the Far East the terms of which have not been published but to which Great Britain is a party; and whether, in view of the importance of open diplomacy, he can make our national position clear on this matter?

There is no unpublished treaty, agreement, or alliance which will affect the British delegates at the Washington Conference.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Washington Conference, he will state if there exists any military or naval agreement, understanding, or arrangement of any sort between this country and Japan not arising out of the terms of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, but supplemental thereto?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the determination of the Government to introduce and carry a Bill to reform the Second Chamber during the coming Session; and, if so, will such a Measure take precedence of all other legislation?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot state the order of precedence of Government business next year, but this Measure will be among the first to be taken.

How do you know you will be here?

On a point of Order. May I say that a clerical error in this question makes it somewhat ridiculous, and I do not wish to put it in that form.

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his question?

By your leave, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister what is the present position as to the trial of German criminals accused of crimes and offences in their treatment of our prisoners; and whether, in view of the breakdown of the Leipzig trials, this country, in conjunction with France, will demand the execution of the Treaty of Versailles and the surrender of these accused persons for trial?

I have been asked to reply. The present position is that Italy, at the end of July last, delivered the dossiers, in the cases which she is sending for trial, to the Supreme Court in Leipzig. Those cases will, I understand, be tried by the Court this autumn. When those cases have been tried, the committee of lawyers of the countries that submitted cases for trial in Leipzig, appointed by the Supreme Council in August last, to report to the Council upon the trials in Leipzig, will be in a position to meet and make their report. Until this report has been received and considered by the Supreme Council, any such action as is suggested would be premature.

In view of the atrocious crimes that have been proved against the German criminals at the Leipzig Court and the utterly inadequate sentences passed upon them, will the Government use their utmost efforts to bring the remainder of these criminals before a public tribunal?

Is it not the fact that in every case the Court imposed the highest sentence within their power?

I do not think the suggestion contained in the latter question is correct. With regard to the first, I must ask for notice.

asked the Prime Minister if the attention of the Govern- ment has been drawn to the letter of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, in the Press on the 7th instant, exposing the unfair treatment of officers, civil and military, who took an active part in suppressing the Punjab rebellion of 1919; and, in view of the additional facts brought out in that letter, if he can state what steps the Government intend to take to safeguard the future prospects and to prevent the further persecution of those officers, British and Indian, who have been and are so seriously affected by the orders issued, as shown on page 50 of the Government's Review of India in 1920?

I am sorry that I am not in a position to answer this question. I have not had time to go into it. I will circulate an answer in the course of the next 24 hours.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also look into the case of the High Court judge who was compelled to retire because he did not feel able to meet the man he had sentenced to transportation for life as a Minister of the Province?

asked the Prime Minister whether proper pressure is being brought to bear upon Hungary to insist on the ineligibility for the throne of Hungary of all the Hapsburg aspirants, including Joseph and Albrecht, as well as Karl; and what measure of disbandment of the Hungarian army and irregulars is being enforced by either the Supreme Council or the Little Entente?

The Allied Powers pointed out to the Hungarian Government that the law depriving the Hapsburg Dynasty of the rights of succession would not apparently exclude the possibility of the election of a Hapsburg as King at some future date. The Hungarian Government have now given an undertaking to conform to the Declaration of the Allied Powers of February, 1920, to the effect that the restoration of any member of the Hapsburg Dynasty could not be tolerated. They have further declared that they will not proceed to a solution of the question of the Hungarian throne without previous consultation with the Allied Powers and without obtaining their consent.

The work of disarming Hungary in accordance with the Treaty of Trianon is proceeding, but progress has been inevitably delayed by recent events. The States forming the Little Entente are not under the Treaty entitled to representation on the Commission of Control.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reported recognition of Admiral Horthey given in yesterday's papers is real or not?

I do not think we know.

We know nothing about it.

Is this attitude in regard to Hungary considered consistent with the Hungarian right to self-determination?

There were pledges after the War!

There are difficulties in preserving peace in that quarter of the world; and there are many things which must be taken into account. That is why the Powers are intervening. I am afraid if Hungary took a certain course it might mean war, and that is the last thing that the world wants now.

If the Hungarians ask for a King, is there any objection to them having one?

"Yes" and "No!"

asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government intends to abolish both the Air Ministry and the Air Force as a separate service?

No such decision has been taken by His Majesty's Government.

asked the Lori Privy Seal whether, to husband Parliamentary time, steps can be taken to ration supplementary questions next Session in the same manner as starred questions, so that any Member asking, say, one starred question and three supplementary questions shall be deemed to have exhausted his right to put oral questions that day?

My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion does not appear to be practicable, but may I be permitted to express the hope that hon. Members, when asking supplementary questions, will show consideration for the rights of their colleagues?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of this House are already on half rations in relation to supplementary questions?

No, Sir, I have not perceived there was any limit to the supplementary questioning.

Is it not a fact that only some of them receive half-coupons nowadays?

Would the right hon. Gentleman define the rights of the back-benchers in this House?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only way in which we can get the real truth is by putting supplementary questions?

That seems to me to be a gratuitously, offensive suggestion. I would beg the House to observe, in the first place, that they have placed a limit on the time to be occupied by questions; and, secondly, there has been placed, with general assent, a limit on the number of questions which may appear on the Paper to be asked on any one day. The object of that arrangement is to spread the time available in a reasonable way amongst the different Members of the House. If supplementary questions grow in number, as the number of questions on the Paper are limited, the purpose for which the limitation of questions on the Paper was undertaken is defeated; and every additional supplementary question and every supplementary question put without necessity is a reduction of the rights of other hon. Members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a suggestion which I made last Session to his predecessor, that there should be another half-an-hour given to questions, especially as they really are the only important business in the House?

I dissent from the premise of the hon. Member, and I do not think that his remedy would be a good one. If we gave another half-an-hour, I am convinced that in a comparatively short time exactly the same difficulty would arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman defer any alteration until after the General Election?

That seems to me to be an unnecessary supplementary question, because I am not proposing any alteration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to say what action has been decided with regard to the inclusion in the Whitley Council, dealing with the Civil Service, of some non-official members?

No, Sir. The matter is still under consideration.

As His Majesty's Government have now had this matter under consideration for over four months, can the hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be arrived at?

I am afraid I cannot estimate the time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake that in any readjustment of civil servants' salaries which may be made, the remuneration paid to temporary ex-civil servants shall not be less than that paid to permanent civil servants who are doing similar work?

Detailed comparison between the remuneration of permanent civil servants and of staff temporarily employed on the basis of the duties severally performed is not feasible as a basis for determining adjustments of pay. The remuneration and grading of the two groups have been fixed on different systems, which preclude detailed comparison. To illustrate the fact that changes in the remuneration of either group have not necessarily coincided hitherto with changes in the remuneration of the other, I may mention that the considerable reduction made in the remuneration of permanent civil servants on 1st September last did nit extend to the remuneration of the temporary staff. An adjustment of the remuneration of the latter to altered conditions is now under consideration.

Does the hon. Member's answer mean that temporary civil servants performing the same work as the permanent civil servants are not necessarily paid the same salaries?

Generally.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement before the House rises as to the decision of the Government in the matter of a marriage allowance to officers of the Royal Navy?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets that he is not yet in a position to make any statement on this question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give the cost to the State of the last British delegation to the League of Nations at Geneva; what is the estimated cost of the League for 1921–22; what share is to be paid by Great Britain and what share by the other members of the League; can he say whether all these shares have been paid and, if not, what steps are being taken to recover the amounts due; what proportion of the total amount is paid to the International Labour Office; what is the salary paid to the chairman, M. Albert Thomas; and what are the accumulated emoluments paid to Sir Eric Drummond?

As the answer is rather long, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the claims for reparation for damage in this country due to enemy action commenced its sittings; how many sittings it has held; how many claims it has examined and has yet to examine; and in how many cases has it advised that compensation should be granted?

The Royal Commission commenced its sittings in the latter part of August and has held six meetings. I understand that at those meetings the Commission has examined a number of typical cases for the purpose of determining general principles with a view to dealing with individual cases in the light of such general principles. The number of claims already received to date is 43,000.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the cases will be reached of the victims of the German bombardment of the Hartlepools in December, 1914, and is he aware that these victims have now waited nearly seven years?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question without inquiry.

Will they have to wait another seven years?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what portion of the £14,056 of revenue collected under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act from 1st October to 28th October was paid in respect of goods imported from France?

The amount of the duty levied during the period in question on goods consigned from France was £1,563.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the effect of having imposed a flat rate of duty on goods imported from Germany, regardelss of fluctuations in the value of the mark, is that goods now bought in Germany will pay only about a quarter of the duty payable on goods purchased at the time of the passing of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will consider the advisability of adopting a sliding scale of duty?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the flat-rate duty of 33⅓ per cent. imposed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act has proved as effective in respect of imports from Germany, since the depreciation of the mark to 1,100 to the £, as was anticipated when this Act was passed into Law during a period when the mark stood at 240 to the £; whether he will state the rate of duty now necessary to counteract the bounty on exports derived from the difference between the external and internal value of Germany's currency; and how he proposes under the Act to deal with fluctuations of exchange of this nature such as have occurred in nearly every European country since the passing of the Act?

I have been asked to answer these questions. The imposition of a rate of duty varying with fluctuations in the exchanges was fully considered before the introduction of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, but proved on examination to present grave difficulties. In view of the shortness of the time during which Part I of the Act has been in operation, and the fact that no Order has as yet been made under Part II, it would obviously be premature for me to express any opinion as to its effect.

Does the hon. Gentleman then state that the Act is as effective now when the mark is in the neighbourhood of 1,100 to the £ as was anticipated at the passing of the Act when the mark stood at 240 to the £?

No, I did not state anything of that kind.

Is the Act achieving the purpose for which it was introduced and passed by this House?

Yes, I am quite satisfied that the Act will prove effective and useful, and it is already doing so. All the difficulties which the hon. Member is presenting now were present to our minds when we introduced the Bill, and it was never suggested that the German exchange was not likely to fluctuate or depreciate, but it was argued and proved that it would be impracticable to have a duty which varied every day of the week with every variation in the market.