asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 12-mile limit for territorial waters was claimed by the Russian Government before the War; whether attempts were made then to interfere with British vessels fishing in those waters; whether His Majesty's Government then made any protest; if so, with what result; whether any protest is being made now against the same claim and interference; whether some nine or 12 months ago the Russian Government proposed a conference with His Majesty's Government on this subject of territorial waters and other matters; and what was the response of His Majesty's Government?

The Russian Government in December, 1909, passed a law claiming to regulate the movements of all vessels within 12 nautical miles of the shores of the Russian Empire; His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd was immediately instructed to reserve the rights of British subjects. In July, 1910, the British trawler "Onward Ho" was arrested by Russian authorities while outside the 3-mile limit. In consequence of the representations of His Majesty's representative, the ship was shortly afterwards, released. In June last the Russian Trade Delegation in this country communicated to His Majesty's Government a recent Soviet decree for the protection of fisheries, claiming to exclude foreign vessels from Russian waters up to 12 nautical miles from the shore. His Majesty's Government immediately protested, but have expressed their willingness, whilst maintaining their objection to the 12-mile limit, to consider any draft of a convention for the protection of sea fisheries which the Soviet Government might put forward. No such draft has so far been submitted.

Are the negotiations continuing or commenced about this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the limit is not put forward as a territorial limit, but because of the breeding grounds, and can this matter be cleared up?

Have the Government any naval vessels near this spot which could put a check on these piratical operations?

I think the Government have no naval vessels in those waters. I am not quite sure what matter my hon. and gallant Friend refers to as the subject of negotiations. As he knows these fisheries have been the subject of very strong representations which continue to be made to the Soviet Government.

When this took place in June last year were the Boards of Agriculture of England and Scotland informed so that they could warn our fishermen of the danger?

I have no doubt that the Board of Fisheries in Scotland were aware of what was taking place.

Why did the Government in the case of the Czarist Government take strong steps to secure the release of our fishermen, while in the case of the Soviet Government they only made representations?

Would it not be a better policy to agree with the other Powers for a 12-mile limit?

That is an exceedingly debatable question.

Does the hon. Member think it is any use holding any conference whatever with the Soviet Government, because they never keep any of their promises?

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the total exports from Russia into Germany and from Germany into Russia in the year 1913?

There is a marked discrepancy between the Russian and German figures of trade between the two countries in 1913. According to the German figures, exports to Russia amounted to about £43,300,000, and imports from Russia £70,000,000. According to the Russian figures, imports from Germany amounted to about £68,800,000, and exports to Germany £47,900,000. In neither case are the figures of trade between Finland and Germany included.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations to the effect that Greece is not carrying out the spirit of Article 48, Section 3, Part III, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, of 27th November, 1919, in which the Allied and Associated Powers undertook to ensure the economic outlets of Bulgaria to the Ægean Sea; whether difficulties have been put in the way of Bulgaria which restricts her trade through such ports as Dedeagatch; and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in this matter in order to press Greece to carry out the provisions of the Treaty?

The Article quoted from the Treaty of Neuilly im- poses not on Greece, but on the principal Allied Powers to whom the Treaty transferred Western Thrace, the obligation to provide Bulgaria with access to the sea. The principal Allied Powers, to meet this obligation, inserted special clauses in the Treaty, signed with Greece on 10th August, 1920, by which Western Thrace was transferred to Greece, but this Treaty is not yet ratified. Until it is ratified, and Western Thrace ceded to Greece, she cannot be pressed, nor will she be in a position to give effect to its provisions.

Will the hon. Gentle man take steps to prevent the Greeks from molesting the Bulgarians?

I was not aware that they were molesting them.

Has this country any individual obligation to see that the Greeks carry out the Treaty?

No, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many naval cadets are now under training at the naval colleges at Dartmouth and Keyham and in the training cruisers; whether it is considered essential that this number should be trained for His Majesty's Navy; how many cadets were under training in March, 1914; and how many cadets is it proposed to enter during the present year and in 1923, respectively?

651 naval cadets are now under training at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth and in the training ships, as compared with a total of 1,034 under training in March, 1914. No cadets are now sent to Keyham. The present number of cadets under training, when account is taken of the reductions to be made in the present two senior terms at Dartmouth on passing out, is considered essential to meet requirements. The number of entries proposed to be made during 1922 is 164; the number for 1923 will not be fixed until later when requirements can be more clearly foreseen, but a slight increase will probably be found to be necessary.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many gunboats or other war vessels are employed in fishery protection duties; where they are employed; whether the waters of Iceland and the North Coast of Russia are ever visited by these vessels; and, if so, what was the date of the last of these visits, respectively?

Eleven sloops and trawlers are employed on fishery protection duties, the details of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. H.M.S. "Harebell" visited Icelandic waters from the 4th to the 12th August, 1921. No fishery protection vessel has visited Russian waters since the War. A vessel is in readiness to proceed to these waters, but orders have not yet been issued for her sailing.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that recently the fishermen have been treated with much harshness, and does this not show the advisability of sending these vessels much more frequently?

I will take that into consideration.

Do these vessels possess the extreme speed necessary to enable them to catch the craft with which they have to deal?

I must ask for notice of that question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any alteration has been made in the home dockyard Regulations concerning the employment of pensioner chief petty officers of the Royal Navy and colour-sergeants of the Royal Marines in a clerical capacity in certain dockyard offices; and whether it is anticipated that this Regulation will be affected by the recommendations of the Treasury Committee, presided over by Lord Lytton?

No alteration has been made in the Regulations concerning the employment, in a clerical capacity, in certain dockyard offices of pensioner chief petty officers of the Royal Navy and colour-sergeants of the Royal Marines. The question will, however, come under review in connection with the general reorganisation of Admiralty civil establishments.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the giant of a fully licensed bar to chief and petty officers' messes in shore establishments, requested in Item 42 of the general requests of the 1919 welfare committee; and whether he will state if any objections exist to this request being acceded to, observing that non-commissioned officers of the Army and Royal Air Force are in possession of this privilege?

As the conditions at the naval depots differ widely from those obtaining in Army barracks, the Admiralty are of opinion that it is not desirable to sanction the establishment of fully licensed bars. It has, however, been decided to establish bars for the sale of-malt liquors only in chief petty officers' and petty officers' messes at the depots, and provision for these bars is being made as part of the scheme of improvements which is being proceeded with as rapidly as financial considerations admit.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is expected that the award made on the 17th May, 1920, for salvage of the s.s. "O. B. Jennings," Hull, between the 24th March and the 26th April, 1918, will be ready for payment?

This award is waiting the result of arbitration proceedings in the United States, and it is not yet known when they will be completed.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any scheme of compensation for those officers who are to be put out of the Service, voluntarily or compulsorily, has been evolved; and when such scheme will be made public or communicated to the officers?

The whole matter is under consideration, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest a date when he will be prepared to answer my question if I put it down again?

It depends on other Departments, but I intend to make a statement as soon as possible.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the 1914–15 star has been refused to men who served during the War in His Majesty's repair ships; and, in view of the fact that ships like H.M.S. "Cyclops" were armed and able to fulfil all the requirements of a sea-going ship, he can see his way to reconsider the matter and grant to these men the star, and so remove what is regarded by them as a grievance?

The naval award of the 1914–15 star for service in His Majesty's ships is limited to service in those ships which actually went to sea, and as H.M.S. "Cyclops" had no sea service during the qualifying period, it has been definitely decided that members of her crew are ineligible for the star.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement that the railway companies have under consideration the question of the reintroduction of cheap facilities for officers and ratings of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines; and can he now say what reply the Admiralty have received to their representations to the railway companies in this matter?

In December last the railway companies were requested by the Army Council on behalf of the three Departments concerned to consider favourably the question of the reintroduction of cheap travelling facilities for officers and men of the Navy, Army, and Air Force. A reply has now been received from the railway clearing house to the effect that after careful consideration of the whole matter the railway companies regret that they cannot see their way to accede to this request.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of birchings inflicted during 1921 in the Royal Navy, the number of canings, and the maximum number of strokes now allowed for a birching sentence; if it is carried out in the presence of other persons; and whether naval cadets are subject to the same punishment?

The conditions and restrictions under which birching is now permitted in the Royal Navy were given in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 15th June last. The punishment was inflicted on three offenders only in 1921, by the ship's police of a naval establishment, in the presence of the executive officer and a medical officer only. The maximum number of strokes is 24. As regards caning, this punishment may be ordered summarily by the Captain, up to a maximum of 12 strokes, for certain serious offences by boy ratings. Caning is not carried out publicly. It is regretted it is not possible to say how often it was carried out in 1921. Caning (but not birching) is also an authorised punishment for naval cadets.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what number of houses has been erected at Rosyth and district since the Armistice; whether any land has been feued during the past few months for building purposes; whether such land is to be utilised; and what was the cost and area of land recently acquired?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of houses erected at Rosyth and district since the Armistice is 212, inclusive of 152 houses completed under contracts then running. Since 1920, negotiations have been in progress for the acquisition of 100 additional acres of land for houses. The transaction was virtually completed last year although the exact terms of feu have not been finally adjusted. Consequent upon the reduction of staff at Rosyth, the question of building further houses is being reconsidered, and meantime it is not possible to say to what use the land will be put.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this land amounting to 100 acres has been definitely leased or feued by the Government?

Yee, sir.

asked the Minister of Health the total cost of houses finished to date erected by local authorities under the Government's housing scheme and eligible for State assistance in excess of the local penny rate; the total number of houses so erected; and the average cost of the same?

The actual total cost of the 91,864 houses which had been finished on 1st March cannot yet be stated as most of these houses are included in contracts which have not yet been completed. As I stated in the Debate last week, the average all-in cost is estimated at £1,100.

How can the right hon. Gentleman give the figure if he has not got the actual cost of the 91,000? How can he estimate the cost of 168,000, of which 50,000 are not yet built?

I gave the average all-in cost of the 91,000, making the best estimate we could that worked out at £1,100.

asked the Minister of Health the number of houses, the builders of which have received grants from the State, built since the 1st January, 1919, or now under construction?

The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which authorised the grants to persons constructing houses in accordance with schemes made by the Minister, became law on the 23rd December, 1919. Houses commenced before that date are not eligible for the grant. Up to the present time grants have been paid in respect of 28,816 completed houses. According to the certificates received from local authorities, the number of houses commenced but not yet completed is 13,000.

asked the Minister of Health why it is that the housing subsidy for new houses has been discontinued as regards England and Wales, but has been retained in Scotland, and will be granted for new houses built in that country until the year 1924; and will he consider the continuance of the subsidy in the case of rural areas where it can be proved that there were exceptional difficulties in the preparation and advancement of housing schemes?

I have on numerous occasions given the quite definite assurance that where work is undertaken by local authorities in England and Wales with the approval of my Department, and for reasons outside the control of the authority, the work cannot be completed within the period fixed by the original Regulations, the time for completion will be extended as may be necessary.

asked the Minister of Health the separate total amounts of money raised for housing purposes by local authorities by means of housing bonds, local loans stock, mortgage deeds, Public Works Loan Commissioners, and from other sources, to- gether with the average rate of interest paid in each class of borrowing and the average periods for which the money has been borrowed without the option of a break, in each of the above cases?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any suggestions that domestic servants should be placed under the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether, since there is no unemployment among domestic servants and the need for them is almost as great as ever, he will say what was the answer made to these representations?

Representations in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend have been made to me. On consideration I am not prepared to amend the existing law as suggested.

asked the Minister of Labour whether labourers in foundries who have lost their employment by reason of the engineering lock-out are not to receive unemployment benefit; if so, whether he is aware that, during the moulders' dispute, these labourers were refused benefit, but engineers who lost their employment in consequence of the moulders' dispute were paid benefit; and whether he will explain the reason why

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the particulars which the hon. Member desires.

The rules in this respect are laid down by Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Broadly speaking, the following are disqualified for benefit:

• All men actually locked out, and
• All those working in the same Establishment (whether skilled or unskilled) who become unemployed on account of the lock-out.

In the case of a foundry forming part of an engineering works, but carried on in a separate department from the engineering shop, the men employed in the foundry would not ordinarily be disqualified for benefit on account of a lock-out confined to the engineering shop. If any doubt arises as to the application of Section 8 (1) in any case, an appeal may be lodged to the Court of Referees, and, if necessary, to the Umpire, whose decision is final and conclusive.

Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that very many people who are being locked out are being given their unemployment cards, which is virtually an act of dismissal? How will he view that with regard to claims for unemployment benefit?

That fact, of which I have no knowledge, would not affect the claim at all. It all depends on Section 8, Sub-section (1). The question can be raised, of course.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the unemployed of Nantyglo and Blaina at the way they are dealt with at the Employment Exchange; that on Wednesdays and Fridays they have to stand in queues from one to two hours in the street, sometimes in pouring rain, waiting for their unemployment pay; that there is only one Exchange for Nantyglo and Blaina to deal with 3,000 men; and that this means that aged and destitute men have to make a journey of three miles to and from the Exchange twice every week; and whether, with a view to remedying these grievances, he will take steps to have the unemployed living at Nantyglo paid in that area so as to avoid the danger to health arising out of the present arrangements?

I understand that there has been some congestion at the Blaina sub-office in the past, but this has now been remedied. My information is that none of these men live further than two miles away from the nearest office, and attendance is required only twice a week. In these circumstances I should not be justified in incurring the expense of another office.

When was the congestion removed? I have very recent information as to its existence.

I cannot say how recently the change has been made, but it has been remedied.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of women on the unemployment register for London at the present time, and what are the principal trades in which such women are registered; is he aware that there is great difficulty in obtaining female labour, either for indoor domestic service or for daily work in London; and can he suggest to Employment Exchanges the desirability of pointing out to women unemployed the demands for such domestic labour?

The number of women registered as unemployed in the Metropolitan area at 13th March was 51,869, belonging principally to the hotel, restaurant, and boarding-house service, the clothing trades, and manufacture of food and drink. I am aware of the shortage of women domestic servants. It is a standing instruction to Exchange officers to direct the attention of unemployed women to the opportunities of work in domestic service, and large numbers have been placed in employment in this way. As a matter of fact, the number, of women placed in employment by the Exchanges during the last 12 months was 218,000, of whom 124,000 were placed in domestic service—residential and daily.

Are women who are offered employment as domestic servants and refuse it allowed to draw the unemployment benefit?

It is a matter for the local Committee whether they are competent to receive it, and in case of doubt it goes to the Board of Referees.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received many complaints from women such as accountants, typists and dressmakers, who object to domestic service as such, but are quite willing to accept work as ward maids and similar work, which is all lumped together under the title of domestic work, and therefore leads to much misapprehension?

I cannot say that I have. The point is a perfectly simple one. If a woman with children dependent on her asks for benefit her attention is drawn to vacancies which are posted in the office—I wish we had more of them—and if she refuses to take such a vacancy, then a question may arise and, if necessary, it is referred to the Board of Referees.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to grant a return showing the amounts spent by boards of guardians in relieving unemployed persons; and whether he is aware that boards of guardians are anxious to furnish him with the necessary information for such a return?

I will give this matter careful consideration; perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question at a later date.

A fortnight hence.

asked the Minister of Labour, seeing that there is a dispute in progress in the building industry, that wages in this industry are already regulated under a sliding scale which varies with the cost of living, that the employers are demanding a super-cut, that in the matter of hours the employers propose that there shall be an extension to from 49 to 54 in summer, whether he will take steps to prevent this dispute from developing into a lock-out of the building employés?

I am glad to say that the National Wages and Conditions Council for the Building Industry on the 17th March reached an agreement with regard to the alteration of wages and the question of working hours for the building industry.

asked the Minister of Health whether any statistics exist showing the percentage of persons who, making payments under the Health Insurance Acts and registering with a panel doctor, yet never make any recourse to his services even in case of illness, but choose and pay another practitioner?

No statistics on this point are available, but there is nothing to indicate that the percentage of such persons is considerable.

In view of the unsatisfactory working of the Act and of the fact that patients do not desire to fill in the cards, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in an amending Bill?

I do not know what kind of amending Bill the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the pressing urgency of making better provision for securing a pure supply of milk for human consumption; and how soon will he be in a position to introduce legislation dealing with this question?

I fully appreciate the importance of securing purer milk, but it is in my judgment equally important to avoid action tending to decrease the production of milk and add to the price to the consumer. The matter continues to occupy my attention, but I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Can we at least be assured that the Act of 1915, which is on the Statute Book, but it not yet in operation, will not be brought into force until certain amendments have been made in it?

I am considering now how to alter the Act of 1915.

When bringing in legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the producer—the farmer—gets a fair return?

I should like him to do that.

asked the Minister of Health if it has been represented to him that the Regulation governing the production and sale of grade A and grade A (certified) milk, which requires receptacles to be labelled with the name of the farm of origin or the name of the farmer, act in restraint of sales of these high-grade milks, because buyers are thereby led to connect the purity of the milk with particular farms instead of with the Government Regulations under which these milks are produced, so that if for any reason the output of milk from any particular farm diminishes buyers refuse similar milk from some other farm when offered to them in lieu; and will he consider the advisability of amending the Regulations, so that the number of the Government licence shall be substituted for the name of the farm or farmer, with a view to assuring the public in an unmistakable manner that their confidence may be placed impartially on any milk bearing the Government guarantee, and that they are not dependent on any particular farm?

Representations have been made to me on the point, and I will consider it in connection with amending milk legislation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the prices given to the producer of milk is to be 3d. to 4d. per gallon for the months of May and June; and whether he can give approximate information as to what the retail prices are likely to be to the consumer?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset.

asked the Minister of Health what is the substance of the Report on electoral reform he has prepared for submission to the Government?

I am much surprised that the hon. Baronet, who has been a distinguished member of the Indian Government, should press for the publication of a confidential Cabinet document.

Will the right hon. Gentleman engage there shall be no tinkering with Proportional Representation?

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

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Section 49 of the Lunacy Act constitutes (in default of action by the commissioners or the medical superintendent) the sole safeguard against detention at the hands of an unjust petitioner, he will take steps to see that the intention of the above Section is not annulled by the substitution (in the case of a lady con- fined for 13 years in Camberwell Asylum) of the names of two doctors nominated by the husband for the names of the two independent medical practitioners submitted in the application for her examination under the statute, with a view to her discharge?

On the general question I would refer to my answers of the 6th March and 13th February. In the particular case mentioned the Board of Control had two applications under Section 49 before them at the same time—one from persons who were not relatives and the other from the husband who asked to be allowed to send two specialists in mental diseases. There is no reason to think that the husband is not sincerely interested in the wife's welfare and the Board accordingly consented to his application.

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the case of a man summoned at Willesden for non-payment of rates who pleaded inability, but who, it transpired, was buying his house through a building society and paying the instalments with Poor Law relief obtained from the guardians; and whether any steps will be taken to recover the ratepayers' money invested for his personal advantage?

I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a Report which I have obtained in regard to this case. It will be seen from the Report that the statements which have been published about this case are quite inaccurate, and that accordingly the latter part of the question does not arise.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the request to the coroners from the Local Government Board always contained a caution that the Return should include only cases where the jury find that death was brought about by starva- tion or privation due to destitution, or in which a death, primarily due to disease, was accelerated by lack of food, shelter, or medical attention arising from poverty, and that the Returns show that, in all the cases except about 5 per cent. of the whole, this principle was complied with; will he say how the inspectors can always obtain information that a death on which a jury has found such a verdict has taken place unless it is reported to them by the coroner; whether there are now a very large number of deaths from privation which do not appear on the lists; and whether he will reconsider the subject from a health point of view and maintain the lists, with the improvement that the coroners shall be asked to send in a Report after each inquest has been held, and that it be made clear that cases where a coroner sits without a jury shall be included?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I cannot say in what percentage of of cases the instruction mentioned was complied with. The inspectors obtain their information from the Poor Law officers and the local Press, and I have no reason to suppose that any cases of deaths from privation upon which inquests are held escape the inspectors' notice. I will certainly consider whether the present system can be improved.

asked the Attorney-General whether it is now proposed to take steps to repeal the law by which wives charged jointly with their husbands with certain criminal offences are presumed to have acted under the coercion of their husbands, and by which juries are compelled to find a verdict of not guilty?

The question whether any, and if so what, alteration in the law is desirable deserves and will receive careful consideration. The Lord Chancellor proposes, after consultation with me, to set up a small but highly expert Committee to make a Report to him on the subject as a whole. The decision as to whether any alteration should be made will not be taken until such a Report has been received.

asked the Minister of Health whether any representation has been made to him in respect of the recommendation of the Geddes Committee relating to a suggested charge being made for registering the Returns of friendly societies; and what action he proposes to take in connection with the matter?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the questions put by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Alfred Davies) on the 9th instant.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the Contagious Diseases Acts now operating in Uganda, which compel chiefs, none of whom has had a medical examination, to report to the authorities anyone of whom he has reasonable suspicion that he or she has venereal disease; is he aware that numbers of men and women are obliged by British Government officials, and native chiefs acting under their orders, to come up at intervals for a particular form of medical inspection, and that the Colonial Office induces white women, both doctors and nurses, to leave England, where Contagious Diseases Acts are not law, to carry out measures of a similar nature in a British Protectorate, and this without pointing out to them the element of compulsion in the work they are expected to do; and will he take steps to put an end to these objectionable practices?

There is no analogy between the Contagious Diseases Acts formerly in force in this country, which were directed to the compulsory examination of prostitutes, and the measures which have been in force in Uganda since 1913 for preserving a population ravaged by venereal disease. The questions whether the procedure in Uganda can be improved in detail, and whether special reference to prostitutes can be deleted from the legislation without relieving that class from the liability to examination which is considered essential in the case of the general population, will be referred to the Governor. But I am satisfied, as was Lord Harcourt in 1913, of the necessity of drastic action in dealing with the matter. The main legislation on the subject is a native law of the Kingdom of Buganda, passed by and at the instance of the native Government, and the administration of the law is a matter for the native chiefs and not for British officials, though the Government medical officers give their services in examining the suspected cases sent to them by the chiefs. Corresponding legislation exists to cover the case of those not subject to the native law. There has been no complaint from the medical staff as to the execution of these measures except from a woman doctor who was selected for employment in Uganda because of her special knowledge of venereal diseases. Her protest appears to be attributable in part to her conclusion, as a result of her five months' experience, that not more than 5 per cent. of the persons she examined were infected, a view which is not shared by medical men, official and missionary, of many years' standing. It is a fact that her attention had not been drawn before her selection to the special measures regarding venereal disease. They were communicated to her very shortly after her arrival, and it appears that she took part in many examinations before making any complaint. Care is now taken to bring these measures to the notice of any persons engaged primarily for the duty of carrying them into effect.

Is that woman doctor now in the employ of the Government?

I will ask.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the order issued by him for the release of the prisoners convicted of shooting, arson, and other offences committed in Great Britain, and who were sentenced and confined in Great Britain, on the plea that these offences were committed from Irish political motives, were issued on his own individual initiative?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question addressed to me on the 13th February last by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), in which I made it clear that the advice tendered to His Majesty on the occasion referred to was tendered as the result of a Cabinet decision.

What have offences committed in England to do with rebellion in Ireland?

We went into all that, and I pointed out that the Irish Government accept responsibility for the damage done in England, which will be included in the bill which is due from them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that many Sinn Feiners in the South of Ireland, their houses having been destroyed as reprisals, received charitable contributions from the White Cross or similar funds; that these contributions were augmented by compulsory levies from the neighbouring loyalist population; that the houses were in many instances rebuilt on a better scale than before their destruction; and that, in spite of these facts, full claims are being put in for the complete rebuilding of these houses; and is he prepared to disallow such claims?

I have no information regarding the matters mentioned in the first four parts of the question. In reply to the last part, as I informed the House in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates on February 24th, a Commission will shortly be set up with power to hear all outstanding claims with respect to damage to property arising between 21st January, 1919, and 11th July last, and to revise all existing decrees with respect to such damage. The matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are obviously germane to the Commission's inquiry, and will, I have no doubt, be taken into consideration by them.

If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with facts, will he take the necessary steps?

The Commission will be appointed in a few days, and it is the business of the Commission to go into this matter, which is entirely a relevant matter for them.

How is the Commission to obtain unintimidated evidence?

I cannot think of any novel departure.

How will the Commission protect witnesses who give evidence?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as representing the Crown, has no Constitutional right to release before trial prisoners who are in custody; whether, in releasing the Derry prisoners, the Lord Lieutenant acted on the advice of British Ministers; and whether, before giving such advice, the British Ministers consulted the Law Officers of the Crown in England?

As I stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 20th instant, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland gave directions that these prisoners were not to be prosecuted. That statement was correct. I regret, however, to find that, in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) I inadvertently gave the House an erroneous impression in regard to the grounds of the Attorney-General's action in the matter. I said that he had taken his decision on a calculation of the evidence and on general grounds. I understand that, in fact, the course taken by the Northern Attorney-General was the result of a decision for which the Northern Government, as a whole, was responsible, and was prompted by a desire to ease a difficult situation. It has frequently been the practice in Ireland, in cases where the Attorney-General has decided not to proceed further with the case against the prisoner awaiting trial, for the Lord Lieutenant to release the prisoner, and it was in accordance with this precedent that the Lord Lieutenant acted on the present occasion. In the communication from Sir James Craig, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on the 20th instant, he expressly left the responsibility for further action in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, and, in placing the facts before the Lord Lieutenant, after receipt of that communication, I advised him that it was within his power and would be in accordance with practice to act as he did.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any recent instance of the Royal Prerogative being exercised in the case of men who are awaiting trial?

I am informed that there is.

Is it not obvious that these men were released owing to presure brought to bear by His Majesty's Government upon the Government of Northern Ireland, and that they were released against the judgment of that Government?

In all this difficult business it is quite true that the action of His Majesty's Government, as far as it can be effective, is directed towards endeavouring to calm and quiet down passions which are, unhappily, aroused between these two sections of Irishmen. If everyone acted in the same spirit, things would be very much brighter than they are now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the officials of the Provisional Government who looted the boxes and kit-bags containing the personal property of a convoy of the Royal Irish Constabulary en route from Cork to Gormanston camp, while halted for the night of 25th February at barracks at Maryborough, recently taken over by the forces of the Provisional Government have been arrested and punished; whether the per- sonal property stolen from the men has been recovered and returned to them; and, if not, whether compensation has been paid by the Provisional Government to policemen, many of whom have lost the whole of their personal belongings while resting for the night in barracks under the control and in the occupation of the Provisional Government?

I am informed by the Provisional Government that their inquiry into this matter is still proceeding, but that they are satisfied as a result of the investigations already made that these thefts were committed by some persons not members of the garrison, and that no members of the garrison were implicated. A thorough search has been made for the missing property, and some of it has already been recovered and restored to the police. It is hoped that the remainder will shortly be recovered and restored, and that the thieves will be traced and brought to justice.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the. Colonies whether he is in a position to give any further information to the House as to the situation on the border between Northern and Southern Ireland?

I received a telegram yesterday from the Northern Government. It reached me after question time, and as I read a summary of the statement which I had received before that time from the Government of Southern Ireland I think that I ought to summarise this statement also. From the statement received from Sir James Craig I gather that a Crossley tender with armed I.R.A. men which had come from Donegal was found inside the Derry border on the 36th instant. About the same time 20 rifles and 3,000 rounds of ammunition were captured on members of the I.R.A. in the same locality. Pomeroy Royal Irish Constabulary barracks in the County Tyrone were raided on the 19th instant by about 20 men who commandeered a motor-car in the district in the name of the I.R.A. Maghera barracks in the County Derry were raided on the 19th inst by about 30 men while wires, bridges, and roads were cut by members of the I.R.A. The view of the Northern Government is that these raids were organised from Southern Ireland, the local members of the I.R.A. may have taken part in them. Sir James Craig adds that four members of the B special constabulary have been murdered and their homes have been burned within the last few days. Firing is opened constantly on special constables and civilians from the Southern side of the border, but in no case has that firing been replied to. The Government have ordered the destruction of bridges in certain cases to prevent incursions from Southern Ireland into Northern Ireland. The Senior Officer of the Northern B order Commission reports that the situation around Caledon is tense and he fears trouble unless the Provisional Government appoint someone with sufficient authority to restrain insubordinate elements from the Southern Irish border.

I transmitted that part of the telegram which I got to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, and I received a communication from them, which I will also summarise to the House. The Provisional Government say, with reference to the Crossley tender, that it was seized about 100 yards inside the County Derry border. They are informed that the rifles and ammunition which were discovered near Limavady barracks were about 12 or 15 miles away, and that there was no connection between the Crossley tender which strayed across the border—the boundary is a very tortuous boundary—and the capture of these rifles 15 miles away. They further say that there is no connection between these two episodes and the raids in Maghera and Pomeroy. These places are respectively about 25 and 12 miles from the County Derry boundary. These raids were entirely planned and carried out by people resident in Tyrone and Derry with the desire—so it is alleged—to get some protection for themselves against the terror from which they allege they are suffering.

If I give one side I must give the other. I am summarising, but not bringing in needlessly provocative statements on the one side or the other. It is said by the South that it is incorrect to state that fire is opened constantly from the South side of the border, and that the very reverse is the fact. There is a tense situation in Caledon due to firing into Monaghan. The Catholic families in the Caledon district have received threaten- ing notices, and have had to fly to Monaghan for protection. Directly they have gone their houses were burned. I am giving the two sides, and take no responsibility for the statements one way or the other, but I do take responsibility for nakedly disclosing the facts of a detestable situation. The Provisional Government add that some of their people have been wounded.

They also say that the blowing up of the bridges is indefensible and unnecessary, and some of these are County Monaghan property, and they hold those responsible accountable for the loss. They finish by offering that the British Liaison Commissioner should examine the whole position and report. I have received two other telegrams, one from the North and one from the South, which in similar strain make violent accusations and counter-accusations. No doubt the whole situation on the boundary is very lamentable and disquieting. I can only say that I trust that everyone who has any influence will use it in the direction of quietening the situation. It appears to me that the whole question of the measures to be taken to control the border must be reviewed at a very early date by His Majesty's Government.

There are two questions I wish to ask. I did not gather whether the right hon. Gentleman said that the Provisional Government give any reason for their statement that the raids at Maghera and Pomeroy were carried out by men inside the Northern boundary. I would be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information confirming that statement.

No, Sir. I said yesterday that General Macready was of opinion that these raids had not originated from across the border. I suppose, no doubt, he meant that parties had not got into motor cars and gone across to carry out the raids. As to whether individuals have percolated through at earlier stages and had joined with local elements to cause the raids, I cannot say, but I do not believe that was the case, and my information is entirely contrary to the view that definite military raids have been perpetrated from the Southern side of the border into the Northern part within the last few days. May I say that there is nothing more important in the whole situation than that a meeting should take place between the heads of the Northern and Southern Governments. Such a meeting is definitely asked for by the leaders of the Southern Government, and considering the way things are going from bad to worse on this frontier a very great responsibility is assumed by everyone who puts obstacles in the way of such a meeting.

Having regard to the fact that this state of affairs, which the right hon. Gentleman describes, is mainly owing to the boundary question which the Government have raised, will the Government take any steps to expedite a decision on that question, because until it is finished, there can be no end to this state of affairs?

A very good position was reached a few months ago, when an agreement was signed between Sir James Craig and Mr. Michael Collins. Unhappily, events occurred which led to a partial breakdown of that agreement, but the interest of all concerned in this matter is to review that discussion with the intention of bringing to an end a state of affairs which is disgraceful in the highest degree to Ireland and to all connected with it.

In view of the delicacy of these negotiations, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of going over there himself?

I should be delighted.

In the event of no other meeting taking place, such as the right hon. Gentleman desires, will the Government expedite the decision on this question, which they have hung up for months and which is causing the present situation?

The Government would in no circumstances depart from the Treaty. Convenient or inconvenient we shall adhere to that. Whatever else breaks down that must not.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman realise that a state of civil war now exists in Ireland?

I do not consider that it is as bad as that. There is a great deal of tension, but not many lives have been lost in the last few weeks, and the greater part of the loss has taken place in the slums of Belfast.

Arising out of the last statement of the original answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask whether, now that the Treaty has been signed and when the Bill is through both Houses, His Majesty's Government is still to be responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland?

No, Sir. When the present Bill establishing the Irish Free State has been passed, the Northern Government will be responsible, as at present, for what takes place in Northern Ireland, subject to certain qualifications which it would take too long to describe now, and the Southern Government will be entirely responsible for Southern Ireland. The kind of action I had in mind was that the Government might have to consider whether it would not be possible to draw some cordon of Imperial troops between these warring factions in the same way as has been done recently with such success in Silesia.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that when the Bill has been passed by Parliament and the Southern Government is in power, we have any power to set a cordon of troops between the two countries?

Certainly. The frontiers of Ulster, under the 1920 Act, are as much our responsibility as the boundaries of Kent.

If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman give it away in the Bill now before the other House?

I would ask whether, with a view to decreasing or shortening the period of tension, the Government cannot, in agreement with the Southern Government, arrange to hold the Boundary Commission within a month after the passing of the present Bill, which ho told us originally was the desire of the Southern Government?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the highest legal authorities in the land have held that that Boundary Commission is "off" according to the interpretation of the Treaty after the passing of the Bill?

We are getting now a long way from the original question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British South Africa Company has disposed of 2,298,000 acres of land in Southern Rhodesia, for which no payment has yet been received; whether the inquiries promised on 28th June of last year included the value of such lands; and if he can now state the value, and also what steps will be taken to recover either the value or the ownership of the land?

The figure referred to represents approximately the area which at the 31st March, 1918, had been granted by the company under permit of occupation, and the purchase price of which had not yet been paid at that date. Receipts from land held under permit of occupation are credited to land sales account as and when they accrue, and all such receipts since 31st March, 1918, have been so credited. As regards the estimated value of the outstanding revenue on account of land sales, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) on the 28th June last.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether the inquiries promised on the 28th June included the value of such lands?

I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the question and answer of the 28th June, he will find that that point is covered.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to recent reports in the Press as to the activities in Berlin of the German Irish Society, and the openly expressed policy of Count Reventlow to organise disruptive propaganda in India, Egypt, and Palestine; and whether representations have been made to the German Government that such warlike declara- tions are of an unfriendly character and, if persisted in, call for stern diplomatic action?

No, Sir. I have no information of the nature suggested.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the question of the repairs to the Mersey banks was taken up with his predecessor and with the Minister of Health as long ago as early in 1920; whether he realises that the condition that the work must be completed by the 1st June will prevent any action being now taken; why this condition has been put into the agreement; whether he will use his influence to have it immediately removed, in view of the fact that it is impossible for any contractor to say when the work can be started on or how long it will take, as it is entirely dependent upon the river being low for some weeks on end; is he aware that the cost of the repairs will now be more than double what it would have been if action had been taken in the summer of 1920; and can he say who was responsible for this delay?

Yes, Sir, and as I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his earlier question, there was no effective means of dealing with the case at that time under the Land Drainage Acts. Moreover, no public funds were available to deal with the situation, until the present unemployment drainage schemes were instituted. The extension of the time limit laid down by His Majesty's Government in the case of any individual scheme would raise difficult questions of policy with regard to unemployment, but I will consider the question further in consultation with the other Departments concerned, and will communicate the result to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by His Majesty's Ambassador in America in California, which has given rise to a charge of interference in American politics in order to assist the passing of the Pacific Four-Power Treaty; and whether he will make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no desire whatever to influence the American Government or people in a matter which, now that the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is at an end, does not greatly concern this country?

I have noticed in the Press a reference to a speech alleged to have been made by the Ambassador, but I have also seen a statement that Sir Auckland Geddes has categorically denied that he used the words attributed to him. I should have thought that no statement of mine was necessary to make it clear to the United States Government that His Majesty's Government have no desire to interfere in the internal politics of the United States of America.

asked the Prime Minister whether the rule or usage still holds good which requires a Minister of the Crown on resigning office to obtain the sanction of the Sovereign before making any statement involving a reference to proceedings in the Cabinet; whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire obtained such sanction before making his recent speech at Cambridge; and, if so, whether he obtained permission to make his statement elsewhere than in Parliament?

Certainly, Sir. His Majesty's permission is required before an outgoing Minister can state the reasons for his resignation, and the usual course is to ask the Prime Minister to obtain that permission. This course was followed by my right hon. Friend before the publication of his letter in which, rather than by a statement in this House, he preferred to give the reasons for his resignation.

Was permission given to make the statement outside the House of Commons, and, if so, is there any precedent for that?

I do not know that permission has ever been sought as to the place in which the statement is to be made. I saw my right hon. Friend late on Thursday and he informed me he was anxious for the publication of the letter which passed between himself and the Prime Minister, because that would give the reasons for his resignation and dispense him from making a statement in this House.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a special Committee, or Commission, to investigate into and report upon the State trading monopoly carried on by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes against which protests have been made by chambers of commerce and trade throughout the country; and whether, if such Committee or Commission is set up, he will include in it an adequate representation of trading and commercial interests in the country with an independent chairman?

I have been asked to answer this question. I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 21st ultimo to my hon. Friend the Member for South Wilts.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to proceed with the projected Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, market, and store at Tidworth?

I understand that the board of management has erected a central store at Tidworth, but has no intention of opening a market there.

asked the Secretary of State for War how much money has been advanced for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes from the ex-service men's fund?

No money has been advanced for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes from any ex-service men's fund. If, as I presume, my Noble Friend refers to the working capital of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, I would refer him to the reply which I gave on the 13th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen and the Drake Division of Plymouth.

Cannot my right hon. Friend tell the House the amount that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have borrowed from this source in order to finance themselves?

I have already told the hon. Member that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have not borrowed any money from ex-service men's funds, and I have referred him to an answer which shows exactly how they are financed.

What is the object of these institutes?

The hon. Member surely knows that the Navy, Army and Air Force derive great benefit from these institutes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these institutes sell ladies' underclothing and grand pianos?

asked the Lord Privy Seal upon what grounds the International Labour Conference has offered to attend the Economic Conference at Genoa; and whether it is open to any other conference or body to claim attendance at Genoa and by whom invitations are or will be sent out?

The Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation resolved at its meeting in January last to place at the disposal of the Genoa Conference such information as it possessed as to labour and economic conditions in Europe, and also appointed a deputation of six of its members (two Government representatives, two employers' and two workers' representatives) and the Director of the Office to attend the Conference, it invited to do so. Invitations are issued by the Italian Government and the acceptance or not of the offer of the International Labour Organisation will presumably rest with them.

Have the Government any information as to whether the Italian Government intend to ask this self-appointed delegation to join the Conference?

No, I have no information on that subject. I must not be taken as accepting the implication, which seems to underlie the question, that the International Labour Organisation at Geneva can be classed with any voluntary body which might think it could add to the counsels of the nation by being present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the International Labour Office has decided to make an inquiry of its own and that, in order to avoid implications, this offer was made to the Genoa authorities?

I was not aware of that.

Does it rest entirely with the Italian Government to say who is or who is not to be present at the Conference?

Is there any limit at all to the sphere of action of the International Labour Conference?

I am not prepared to define the functions or sphere of activity of the International Labour Organisation without notice of the question. I have been asked about an international gathering for which I have not the direct Ministerial responsibility which attaches to a home Department or to a meeting summoned by our own Government, and I cannot say what will be the procedure here. The Italian Government has, of course, acted on the invitation of the Supreme Council at Cannes. Whether the ultimate determination as to the invitations will rest with the Italian Government, or with the Supreme Council, or with the Conference, I am really not in a position to say.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, having regard to the fact that America is not sending representatives to Genoa, and that the French Prime Minister, apparently, will be unable to attend, the Cabinet will reconsider the question of the attendance of the Prime Minister of Great Britain while his presence is so urgently needed in this country?

No, Sir. It was agreed at the meeting of the Supreme Council at Cannes that the Prime Ministers of every nation should, if possible, attend the Genoa Conference in person, and His Majesty's Government intend to act in conformity with that agreement.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that as so many others are not going, our valuable Premier might be more usefully employed here?

I need not say no one has greater reason to desire the continued presence of the Prime Minister in this country than the unfortunate individual who has to act as his deputy when he is absent, but at the same time this is a matter of such consequence, and the part which the Prime Minister has played, and the influence he yields, at these Councils is so great, that it would be a misfortunate not for us alone if he were prevented from going.

Did the French Prime Minister indicate to our Prime Minister at their recent Conference at Boulogne that he would not be able to attend the Genoa Conference?

Notice should be given of a question of that kind.

Is the Prime Minister's great influence going to be used in the direction of recognizing the Bolshevist Government?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will postpone his inquiries on that subject till the Debate which the Government will initiate on Monday week.

Can we have any information before that date as to what is to be the policy at Genoa?

No; I think the Debate is the proper occasion to give the information.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his intention to give notice of a vote of confidence in the Government before the Genoa Conference?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

This is a different question. The question is whether there will be notice of a Vote of Confidence in the Government before the Genoa Conference and not about the Genoa Conference.

No. I see no occasion for it.

On this occasion will the Prime Minister himself move this Vote of Confidence in himself?

That is very characteristic of the form in which the hon. Gentleman chooses to put his questions. I reply to it simply. We have not yet decided whether my right hon. Friend will himself move the Resolution or whether one of his colleagues will move it.

Will this be a Resolution approving the policy to be pursued at Genoa or approving the policy of holding a conference at all, or simply confidence in the Government?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. C. F. Andrews, one of the pro-Indian agitators in East Africa, is reported to have been recently consulting Mr. Gandhi and obtaining his advice upon the East African situation; whether he will give instructions that methods of agitation of this nature shall not be permitted in East Africa; and whether he will refuse permission to land to those persons trying to introduce them?

I have received no information of communications between the Reverend C. F. Andrews and Mr. Gandhi of the kind referred to by the hon. Baronet. If he can furnish me with evidence of the organisation of agitation in East Africa by persons outside I shall give careful consideration to it.

Is it the case that our difficulties in East Africa are caused by the Gandhi agitation in India?

No, but I suppose they have been accentuated by it.

Will the agitators be treated there the same as Gandhi has been treated in India?

I think the authorities on the spot have taken the necessary action.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to compare the Indian agitation for equal rights in Kenya with the agitation of the non-co-operative movement in India?

There would certainly be no excuse for the hon. and gallant Gentleman understanding me to do that. Nothing in the words which have fallen from my lips justifies that. It is a total misapprehension of the facts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the alleged discovery by the Pasteur. Institute, of Lille, of a vaccine for conferring immunity from tuberculosis on bovine animals; and, in view of the fact that the Pasteur Institute is so largely supported by the French Government as to be almost an official Department, will he consider the advisability of requesting his colleague at the Foreign Office to institute suitable inquiries of the French Government with a view of enabling the treatment to be introduced into this country as soon as possible?