asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private Leslie Dillon, No. 32,176, late of Labour Battalion, the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, now residing at 31, Trewent Street, Earlsfield, has been informed that his pension, of which he has been in receipt since demobilisation, will cease in May of this year; that while in service in Salonika he contracted malarial fever and neurasthenia; that on his return to England he was sent to the Neurological Hospital, Church Lane, Tooting, where he remained for 11 months; that he is unfit for employment because of his neurasthenia and debility; and will he take steps to have the case inquired into?

I am having inquiries made into this case, and as soon as I have received a full report I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether a new regulation has been issued in the case of wives not legally separated but living apart from their husbands, that pension allowances are not now payable unless a maintenance order or deed of separation has been obtained; whether he is aware that the only remedy is an action for aliment against the husband, involving outlay which in many cases the wife cannot afford; and whether, in view of the hardship that this involves in the present withdrawal of allowance, he will give instructions that such allowances shall be continued where the circumstances have been investigated by the local war pensions committee and where the allowances have hitherto been paid?

The purpose of the grant of an allowance for a wife is to enable the pensioner to support her in his own home. If she is separated from him and has no legal claim upon him for maintenance, no allowance would be payable. I have, however, discretionary power to grant an allowance where it is clear that the husband is liable for the wife's maintenance under a maintenance order or deed of separation. I regret I am unable to make payment in any other circumstances.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very hard that allowances should be withdrawn pending the obtaining of these maintenance orders and will he not give the local War Pensions Committee powers to continue the allowances until some arrangement is made?

Unfortunately, although cases of hardship may arise, I think my hon. Friend will agree that I cannot help matters. In cases of this kind I must have something definite, either a maintenance order or something to go upon. Perhaps my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me.

I will.

Will the right hon. Gentleman describe the position in respect of a wife who is living apart from her husband, who does not know his address, and who is informed by the pension authorities that unless she sues him for maintenance they will stop her allowance?

The hon. Member should put that question down.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a large number of ex-service men whose disabilities have been previously marked as caused by their service are now having these altered to aggravated by service; and whether he is aware that in some cases the next step has been that aggravation has passed away and the men are refused a pension?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for the Central Division of Bristol on the 23rd February, and of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether a large number of ex-service men entitled to pensions are having their papers marked spare-time treatment, fit for light work; whether he is prepared to give a definition of what constitutes light work, so that a clear understanding can be arrived at; and whether, having marked the papers fit for light work, the Ministry is prepared to intimate to the ex-service men where such light work can be obtained?

It is contrary to the specific instructions of my Department for medical officers to certify men as fit for light work. If my hon. Friend knows of any case in which this has been done, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that against his own instructions, these papers are being marked in a very general manner throughout the whole of Glasgow?

No, I am not.

I can send him quite a number of cases.

I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend or any other Member of the House will send me cases of that kind.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men confined in lunatic asylums on 1st January, 1921, 1st October, 1921, and at the present date?

The numbers of ex-service men classified as "service" patients by the authority of of the Ministry of Pensions in county and borough mental hospitals in England and Wales were as follows:

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men confined in pauper lunatic asylums in which the ex-service men are not segregated?

My right hon. Friend is not able to give the figures which are asked for. In some mental hospitals which contain large numbers of ex-service men some segregation is carried out, but generally speaking it is in the interest of the patients that they should be classified according to mental state and conduct.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give a list of the lunatic asylums in which ex-service men are detained, and the number in each asylum?

The particulars for which the hon. and gallant Member asks are too long to be given in an oral reply and, with permission, my right hon. Friend proposes to have the list circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of tradesmen who are entitled to call themselves Royal Warrant holders; and what proportion of that number are on the King's Roll?

The number of holders of the Royal Warrant in Great Britain is 1,182, of whom 559 are on the King's National Roll. The balance includes, no doubt, a number of firms which are either small or highly specialised. But a considerable number might reasonably be expected to enrol. I am taking further steps to bring the matter to the notice of those Royal Warrant holders who have not yet enrolled, and might reasonably be expected to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing a further list of county, city, borough, and district councils who are not qualified for the King's Roll?

We give returns periodically in the Labour Gazette which will probably help my hon. and gallant Friend, but it would be a very formidable list to give the names of all the councils that are not on the list. It would be a very considerable list, but I will consider the point and see whether we can afford to do it.

Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given include Government Departments?

Government Departments are not Royal Warrant holders in this sense.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Colonel Summers, D.S.O., D.S.C., and Commander Pethick, officers with records of distinguished combatant service, have been dismissed from the directorate of the Appointments Board of the Ministry of Labour, after four years of highly successful service in conjunction with a number of voluntary assistants; whether these two distinguished officers have been replaced by two high officials of the Civil Liabilities Department of the headquarters of the Ministry at higher salaries; will he say why this is so; and whether he is aware that the majority of voluntary workers have threatened to resign in consequence unless the aforementioned two officers are reinstated immediately?

My hon. and gallant Friend would appear to have been misinformed in this matter. Commander Pethiek is still being retained in the Appointments Branch of the Ministry of Labour, but in pursuance of the general policy of securing economy of staff the services of Colonel Summers are being terminated as from the 30th April. It is not a fact, however, that the place of this officer will be taken by another official. On the contrary, his post is definitely to be retrenched, and the duties which he has performed will, as from the 1st May, be shared between other officers of the Appointments Branch in addition to their existing duties. The other points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend do not accordingly arise.

As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that his policy is to reduce expenditure, why has he now two permanent secretaries at £3,000 a year instead of one at £1,500?

The answer is that I have not.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the available qualified men on the March, 1921, Post Office Supplementary Clerk Selection Board List awaiting appointments, he will refrain from holding further examinations for clerical appointments until those ex-service men are employed on the clerical staff of his Department?

I am having enquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now announce the arrangements that have been made for restoring the arms and ammunition taken from loyal subjects during the past two or three years by order of His Majesty's Government for safe custody by the Government; whether he can give an assurance that these arms and ammunition will be handed over to their lawful owners by officials of His Majesty's Government without passing through other hands; and whether compensation will be made to the owners for any of this property which has been stolen or lost while in the custody of the Government?

My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Will my hon. Friend say when a statement will be made on this matter, which is urgent as regards many men in Ireland, who want their guns to save their crops?

On a point of Order. There are two Ministers responsible for Ireland. Ireland is in a very dangerous state, and they should be here to answer questions, so that those questions may, if necessary, be supplemented.

The hon. and gallant Member is aware that very important matters are now being discussed regarding Ireland, and no doubt these discussions require the attendance of the Ministers in question.

I was asked to adjourn this question 10 days ago, and I did so, on the distinct understanding that I would get a reply to-day. Can my hon. Friend say when I shall receive an answer?

I will make representations to my right hon. Friend, but I really cannot say myself when the answer will be available.

asked the Chief Secretary what provision was made in

With my hon. and learned Friend's permission, the Chief Secretary will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply to this question, which is rather lengthy, and contains a number of figures.

asked the Chief Secretary what is the amount now standing to the credit of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund; and how it is proposed to deal with this fund, in view of the demobilisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

As regards the assets of the Constabulary Force Fund, my right hon. Friend refers the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which he gave to the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) on the 7th March. The bulk of the persons whose dependants may be entitled to benefit from the benefits branch of this fund are pensioners already, and the disbandment of the force does not affect the purpose of this branch of the fund, which is to benefit dependants on the death of subscribers. No new subscribers have been admitted since 1883, and it is proposed to let the fund continue until there are no longer any subscribers left so that the widows and orphans of deceased members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were subscribers to that fund should be able to benefit.

Will my hon. Friend represent to the Chief Secretary that there are a number of survivors of the men who subscribed up to 1883; that they are now being demobilised with something like 40 years' service and that they are asking for a portion of this money to enable them to leave the country, from which they are being hounded, at the present time?

I certainly will do so.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Mr. W. Henry, clerk in the office of the General Prisons Board, Dublin Castle, has been employed for the past seven years on Treasury class duties; will he say why he has been refused Treasury class treatment; and, seeing that his present duty is classed as executive, why has he been refused the executive grade?

This officer's rank is that of clerk in the Habitual Criminals Registry of the General Prisons Board. His scale of pay is equivalent to that of the junior clerical class, but owing to a decrease in the work of the Habitual Criminals Registry, he has been employed for several months on work in another branch of the office which is usually performed by an officer of the executive grade. It is not considered that this purely temporary arrangement would justify the creation of an additional executive post, and there is at present no vacancy in the executive establishment of the Department which would provide an opportunity of considering his qualifications for promotion.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Mr. Michael Collins at Cork on the 12th March, 1922, as reported in the Press of 13th March, 1922, to the effect that he and his colleagues had made Ireland too uncomfortable for the British, that there were too many ambushed positions in Ireland, and that there ware too many gloomy street corners in Cork and Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that this statement is adverse both in the letter and the spirit to the undertaking given by him and his co-signatories to the Treaty, he will refrain from placing any confidence in this gentleman in future?

Yes, Sir, I have seen the statement quoted by the hon. Member, which clearly refers to the period prior to 11th July last. I do not, therefore, understand the suggestion in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the perpetrators of the murders of the police in St. Bride's Home, Galway, or the muderer of Sergeant Gloster in Cork, or the robbers who raided Ennistymon Rectory and stole a considerable amount of property therefrom, or the committers of many similar illegalities and crimes in Ireland, have been arrested and proceeded against by the administration of the Irish Free State?

My right hon. Friend regrets to state that no arrests have yet been made in connection with the Galway murders of the 15th instant, or the more recent murder of ex-Sergeant Gloster. In the case of the raid on Kilmanaheen Rectory, Ennistymon, the investigations made have resulted in the recovery of the stolen property to the extent of £111, but none of the culprits has yet been arrested. The number of arrests for various crimes made under the authority of the Provisional Government is considerable. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give the exact numbers; but as the House is aware two men are being tried for the recent murder of Mr. Max Green in Dublin, and four men are in custody in connection with the murders of Lieutenant Meade and Sergeant Cunliffe.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether representations have been made to the Provisional Government with reference to the murder of Sergeant Gloster and with what results?

I cannot say.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many murders of, and cases of assault on, private individuals by armed men have occurred in Southern Ireland since the signing of the Treaty; how many cases of compulsory levies of money and private property by armed men have occurred in Southern Ireland during the same period; what is the total amount of money, and private property, respectively, taken under such compulsory levies; in how many cases have the cattle of individuals, which had been driven off, been returned; in how many cases have the lands and houses of private individuals been confiscated by armed men in Southern Ireland during the same period; and in how many cases have the houses and property of individuals been entered upon by armed men in the same area and during the same period in order to compel the owners thereof to give in to illegal demands?

My right hon. Friend regrets that he can add nothing to the reply given yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Kensington South.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the special constables captured at Clones have yet been released; if the murderers of Lieutenant Gronochio, Captain Meade, and Sergeant Cunliffe have been apprehended: if not, whether any steps are now being taken to catch the assassins: and whether any joint inquiry into these assassinations is to be held?

The special constables captured at Clones on the 11th ultimo have not yet been released. No arrests have yet been made in connection with the murder of Lieutenant Gronochio, and the question of holding a joint inquiry into this case is still under consideration. My right hon. Friend understands that four persons have been arrested by the forces of the Provisional Government on suspicion of complicity in the murder of Lieutenant Meade and Sergeant Cunliffe.

How much longer does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect we shall have to wait before a decision is come to as to whether or not a joint inquiry is to be held into these deaths?

I will convey that query to my right hon. Friend.

Is it known where the special constables are confined, and when they will be released?

I cannot answer that.

(by Private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information which he can give to the House as to the circumstances of the murder of two men at Crossmaglen, South Armagh, the attack upon the Belcoo Police Barracks, and the kidnapping of 17 policemen; if he knows what has become of these men; and whether any arrests have been made?

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what took place yesterday at Belcoo, Crossmaglen, Adavoyle, Ballycastle, in Cork, at Drog-heda, and on the Enniskillen-Sligo railway at Renmore; whether four British officers in a motor car were fired upon at a point close to Dublin from an ex-military lorry; and whether a motor car belonging to and driven by General Sir H. S. Jeudwine was stolen close to Naas?

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who is engaged in the Irish Conference, I have been asked to answer these two questions. On receipt of the questions they were telegraphed to Ireland for reply, and I will read to the House the whole of the reply as received up to the present:

"With the exception of the attack near Dublin on the four British officers, none of whom were injured, and the seizure of General Jeudwine's car, both of which are confirmed by the British military authorities in Dublin, I have not yet received any official reports of these outrages, and I have no information except what has appeared in the Press. The military authorities have no evidence that the attack on the four British officers was made from an ex-military lorry."

Can the right hon. Gentleman say who was the sender of the telegram which he has just read?

This comes an official in Dublin Castle, who is in communication with the military authorities.

A British official?

Certainly, an official of His Majesty's Government, who is a civil servant paid by a Vote of this House. I would remind the House of the increasing difficulty of getting specific information on a given outrage from any part of Ireland. I regret that profoundly, as I am sure the House will. It makes it very difficult for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary or myself to give more detailed answers to Private Notice questions.

Has not Dublin Castle been taken over by the Provisional Government, and what is a British official doing there?

Until the Bill which I hope will be before the House at the earliest date becomes an Act, certain officials of His Majesty's Government are still functioning in Ireland.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has no information with regard to the outrages on officers which I cited, and which have taken place on or adjacent to the border?

I have read to the House all the information that I have.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to say whether the Provisional Government accept the responsibility for the payment of the pensions of the ex-professor pensioners of Queen's College, Cork, now University College, Cork; and whether the British Government will guarantee the payment of those pensions?

Any financial responsibility of His Majesty's Government in respect of the payment of the will pass under the Free State (Agreement) Bill to the Provisional Government, and to the extent of that responsibility the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 19th December last, in respect of other classes of pensioners, will apply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Convention of the Irish Republican Army was held at the Mansion House, Dublin, on the 26th March, 1922, at which were present 220 delegates, representing 49 brigades, four members of the general headquarters, officers from eight of the divisional staff, and the staffs of three of the four independent brigades, at which resolutions were unanimously passed reaffirming its allegiance to the Irish Republic, under an executive appointed by the Convention, and declaring that the Army shall be under the supreme control of such executive, which shall draft a constitution for submission to a subsequent Convention; whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to allow such an army to exist; if not, what steps the Government propose to take to prevent it; and whether he can state how many armed men are comprised in such an army?

The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to a newspaper report of this Convention. He has no precise information as to the number of the adherents of this attempt to set up a military dictatorship, but they certainly do not amount to more than a relatively small minority of the people, and he is unable to believe that they will succeed in bringing about a situation which would call for the intervention of the British Government, which, in any event, would be guided by the wishes and requests of the responsible Government.

Having regard to the commandeering of motor traffic in the last few days, will he convey to the Minister my inquiry, and suggest that his attention having been called to the matter, he should make further inquiries or it will be too late?

I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article 54 of the Treaty of Neuilly, guaranteeing equal rights and protection to Bulgarian minorities, has been ignored in Greek and Serbian Macedonian territory; and why the stipulations of Article 54 have not been placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, as provided by Article 57?

The Noble Lord has mistaken the object of Article 54 of the Treaty of Neuilly, which is to protect persons of alien race, religion or language resident in Bulgaria. The protection of persons of alien race, religion or language resident in Serbia and Greece is secured by special Treaties with those two countries. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being made in the Peace Treaty with the Turks to give effect to Article 48 of the Treaty of Neuilly, which guarantees to Bulgaria an access to the Ægean Sea; and whether it is the non-fulfilment of Article 48 that is paralysing Bulgarian trade, thus injuring also the trade of Great Britain?

Article 48 of the Treaty of Neuilly is entirely independent of any Peace Treaty with the Turks. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Are the Government going to take any steps to see that the Treaty of Neuilly is carried out?

I will send my Noble Friend a copy of the so-called Thracian Treaty, which will give him the full information which His Majesty's Government possess.

Can the hon. Gentleman say where the Bulgarians are to have an outlet to the sea?

It is proposed that the Bulgarians shall have access to the sea at Dedeagatch.

What additional rights are they to get in order to have that access to the Ægean?

I am told that the Thracian Treaty has not yet been ratified, but I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of it.

Will the hon. Gentleman also send me one?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Paris Conference on the Near East took into consideration the Treaty of the Trianon and the rights of the Bulgarian people in East Thrace; and, if so, why the reported decision took no account of Bulgaria or of Bulgarian access to the Ægean?

I do not know what are the Bulgarian interests in Eastern Thrace to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The question of Bulgarian access to the Ægean was not raised in the recent Conference, which was concerned with the revision of the Treaty of Sèvres.

asked the Prime Minister whether any modification of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria is contemplated, in consideration of the modification of her situation by the alterations suggested by the Paris Conference on the Treaty of Sèvres?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a definite pledge was given in the Treaty of Neuilly that Bulgaria should have access to the Ægean Sea, he is aware that Bulgaria has no access to that sea and that in consequence British commerce suffers by the additional freightage it has to pay; and if he will see that this fact is taken into account in any territorial readjustment in the Near East?

I would remind the hon. Member of the reply returned to him on 6th March, and of that given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) on 22nd February last, to which there is nothing that I can at present usefully add.

asked the Prime Minister whether the proposal put for ward for the settlement of the German reparations problem by the acceptance of Germany of responsibility for inter-Allied debts was made with the concurrence, of the Allied Governments; if not, have these proposals been submitted to them, and have any answers been received; and has the attitude of the German Government been ascertained?

The hon. Member is presumably referring to a scheme mentioned by me at the recent Conference of Allied Ministers at Paris. This scheme was not put forward as a definite proposal, but as a suggestion for consideration, together with other schemes. Accordingly, the questions asked do not arise.

May I ask whether the British Government has approved, as one of the terms, of the levy on capital in Germany, in view of the fact that they ruled out a levy on capital in this country?

Notice must be given of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government have decided to forego the collection of 26 per cent. German Reparation Duty on fresh fish; and, if so, are they also prepared to withdraw the collection of the same duty on green and other perishable fruits and vegetables?

Fresh fish first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom, in common with other goods so consigned, is liable to the Separation levy, and there is no intention of excluding it. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise. Fish caught outside German territorial waters by German trawlers and brought direct to United Kingdom ports is not liable to the levy.

Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question—why this fish which is dumped by German trawlers is not charged this duty, seeing that it is prejudicing the English trawling industry? Will it be made liable to this duty?

That supplementary question will be brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

(by Private. Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the published statement that an attempt was made by the. Prime Minister at Spa in July, 1920, to squeeze France into acceptance of a British proposal that the price of coal due from Germany to France under the Versailles Treaty as compensation for the wrecking of French mines during the War should be made equivalent to the British export price or, in other words, that France, instead of paying for the coal at approximately £2 per ton, should pay for it at £6 per ton; that the Prime Minister threatened M. Millerand, then French Prime Minister, that he would declare the entente with France at an end and arraign her in the House of Commons unless M. Millerand would consent to raise the Treaty price of German coal to the level of the British export price, and that, by this arrangement, the British Treasury hoped to retain at the expense of France the Excess Profits Duty on British export coal, then being sold at £6 per ton, and whether these statements are in accordance with the facts?

I have seen the statements referred to. They are a complete travesty of the facts of the case, which are as follows: In July, 1920, Germany had failed to comply with the demands of the Reparation Commission for the delivery of coal to France, Belgium and Italy. The Supreme Council summoned German coal experts to Spa, who represented that the insufficient quantity of food available for German miners was one of the chief obstacles to compliance with the demands of the Reparation Commission. The Allied coal experts unanimously agreed that this statement was well founded. The Supreme Council adopted a proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, based on a suggestion by the Belgian Prime Minister, that the Allies should advance to Germany for the purchase of foodstuffs for miners amounts equal to the difference between the prices actually paid for coal to be delivered by Germany after the 1st August, 1920 (with the addition of 5 gold marks per ton in order to secure that the coal should be sorted), and the f.o.b. export price in England or Germany for like coal, whichever were the lower, for a period of six months. The result of this decision was that during the six months in question the demands of the Reparation Commission were almost completely carried out and the critical coal position in France was thereby relieved. So far from this arrangement being of any profit to the British Treasury, this country agreed to make 24 per cent. of the advance to Germany under this arrangement, although none of the coal was received by this country, and it will be recollected that the House voted £5,500,000 for this purpose.

Will my right hon. Friend state whether the Government have or have not any machinery at their command by which pernicious statements like this, which seriously damage the relations between this country and our great neighbour across the water, can be dealt with?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend himself has provided the best machinery. I know no better machinery than a statement made on the Floor of this House.

How can my right hon. Friend justify giving the House this information, which is necessary for the discussion on Monday, after having refused the other information which is equally necessary?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the action of the Mexican Government in retaining the property of the Mexican Southern Railway Company, Limited, while withholding the compensation payable under their own railway law; whether he has any official information as to the ownership of this railway; whether he can state if the Mexican Government are themselves the proprietors of the railway; and, if so, whether he will state the percentage of the shares held by the Mexican Government?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have been informed by the company that the issued capital, consisting of debenture stock and ordinary stock, is held to the extent of 99 per cent. by British subjects, the ownership of the railway thus clearly remaining with the British shareholders.

In view of the fact that the Mexican Government circulated the statement that the shares of this railway company are held to the extent of 53 per cent. by the Mexican Government, will the hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to convey information to that Government that the railway is owned entirely by British shareholders?

I think the answer I have given shows that.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that strong attempts are now being made in the United States of America to capture the bulk of the import trade of Mexico; that such attempts are well organised and supported by American chambers of commerce; if so, whether any efforts are being made to compete by British traders; and whether British chambers of commerce are supporting or would support an attempt to develop a trade with Mexico?

I am aware that efforts are being made by traders in the U.S.A. to promote their trade with Mexico, for which they enjoy geographical advantages, but as I explained in replying to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wednesbury on the 27th March, British trade with Mexico has also been not unsatisfactorily maintained. British chambers of commerce are in close contact with my Department and are ready in this as in other markets to render all assistance within their power.

Is my hon. Friend in a position to state whether or not his Department is in touch with the Foreign Office in this matter, and is he submitting to them any information about the importance of trading relations between this country and Mexico?

Most certainly. My Department is a joint Department of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade and is in daily constant touch, of course, with the Foreign Office on all these subjects.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether an agreement was reached at the Boulogne Conference, or otherwise, between the Prime Minister and M. Poincaré as to the agenda of the Genoa Conference; if so, whether, and to what extent, this agreement limits the subjects to be discussed at that Conference?

Among the subjects discussed at Boulogne by M. Poincaré and the Prime Minister was the Genoa Conference, and the two Prime Ministers exchanged ideas upon the scope and conduct of the Conference. As I stated yesterday, I cannot deal adequately with this matter within the limits of an answer at Question time, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consent to await the Prime Minister's speech on Monday, in which he proposes to deal fully with this point among others. I have drawn his particular attention to my right hon. Friends inquiry.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think, as Leader of the House, that it is disrespectful to the House of Commons when the Government themselves have invited a Debate, that on matters so vital to the due consideration in that Debate as an agreement reached or alleged to have been reached between the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France, we should be dependent until the Debate is initiated by the Prime Minister on second-hand sources of information, and should not be told what we ought to be told, i.e., what was actually arrived at?

I hope that neither my right hon. Friend nor the House will think I would be guilty of any discourtesy, but my right hon. Friend has himself illustrated the difficulty of dealing with this matter by questions and answers. His question has become a speech, and his speech a denunciation. It is not for want of respect to the House, but out of regard to the public interest, that I must, speaking with the responsibility of a Minister, ask the House to allow us to defer our explanations on this matter until the Debate, in which they can be given fully and fairly.

Is it not the fact that the reason the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question is that he does not know the answer?

May I ask if, in view of the fact that the House is to know nothing about this matter until Monday, the right hon. Gentleman will not reconsider his decision not to give more than one day for the Debate?

I cannot, in the state of public business, allot more than one day to it. It is unusual for the House to seek to anticipate a Debate for which a day is allotted by a series of questions on the very subject of the Debate.

As the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give a full day for the discussion of this important question, will he be prepared to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on this subject, which is more vitally important than many other questions for the purposes of which he has made such a Motion.

I am prepared to give a full day, and if it be desired by any of the parties in the House that the Eleven o'Clock Rule should be suspended, I shall be willing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider laying Papers which may be available to Members on Monday morning, so that, at any rate, we may have a little time to consider the points that will be raised?

The Papers which the Government think necessary for the discussion are already laid.

If there was an agreement reached at Boulogne—I do not know whether there was—does not the right hon. Gentleman really think that we ought to have in our possession the text of that agreement?

My Noble Friend is trying to persuade me to do what I have already said that, speaking with the responsibility of a Minister, I do not think it is in the public interest that I should do. I must respectfully decline to answer my Noble Friend's question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state exactly how the staff of the British Empire Delegation at Genoa will be composed; and whether he can give any estimate of the cost involved?

Figures for the staffs of the Government Departments concerned were, given in my answer to the question put yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore).

Is not the staff which was announced yesterday about twice the amount which was considered to be necessary for Washington? Does not the Foreign Office staff amount to 20, whereas there were only seven for Washington, and why do they really require such a large staff at Genoa?

Because the circumstances of the two Conferences are wholly different. I ought, perhaps, in giving the figures yesterday, to have broken them up into what I may call the executive and advisory staff and the ancillary staff. We are allowing three to five Ministers—three principal Ministers—24 experts, and a secretarial staff of 15 people. Then there are 51 others, who include translators, cipherers, clerks, official reporters, typists, messengers and so forth. At Washington the scope of the Conference was far less, the Conference was hold in English, and the British Delegation had the services of the ordinary staff of the British Embassy in Washington to supplement the special staff which they took with them.

Cannot we supplement this staff also by help from our Embassy in Rome, instead of sending out all these people?

I doubt very much whether we could get any material help from our Embassy in Rome at the Conference in Genoa, but we have no desire to spend more on the staff than is necessary. At these Conferences the British Delegations have, I think by general consent, been well equipped hitherto, and I should be sorry to see them undertake this difficult work without proper assistance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the "cabin boy" will be included in the staff?

What is meant by the word "experts"? Could we have the names of these experts, and in what they are expert?

No, I do not think it is necessary that I should give the House the name of every civil servant who is called upon by his Minister to go to Genoa to give such assistance as may be required.

asked the Prime Minister whether the League of Nations have been invited to take part in the forthcoming Conference at Genoa?

No, Sir. The Council of the League have, however, authorised the Secretary-General of the League to place at the disposal of the Genoa Conference such technical information desired by the Conference as the League may be in a position to supply, and the desirability of maintaining a close co-ordination between the decisions of the Conference and the functions of the League, when these are found to come in contact, will be borne in mind.

Is it not absolutely illogical to set up this costly and efficient organisation if it is not to be utilised when a special occasion of this sort arises?