§ 74. Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Whitnall v. Edwards, heard in the Manchester City Police Court on 24th June; whether he is aware that the complainant was an ex-lieutenant who is unable to recover possession of his own house from a tenant, who was a conscientious objector, upon the sole ground that the latter holds under an agreement which entitles him to possession until peace is declared; and whether he can take steps by legislation or otherwise to effect that, so far as the relations between landlord and tenant are concerned, the War may be deemed to be terminated?
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond)I have not seen any report of the case referred to, and if, as I gather, the decision was governed by the ordinary law of property, it would not be a matter with which my Department would be concerned.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTThis question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and I sent full details of the case referred to, and I should like to know when a question of great legal importance is addressed to the Prime Minister by an hon. Member whether there is any Regulation which prevents him getting a reply from the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe rule is that questions which apply to a particular Department should be addressed to the Minister for that Department.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HURSTThe Minister of Health, who has just purported to answer the question, has stated that his Department has nothing to do with this matter. The question relates to the definition the Government has placed upon the phrase "duration of the War." It is a question of great public importance, and I submit having addressed that to the Prime Minister it ought not to have been altered at the Table and addressed to a Minister who has nothing whatever to do with it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERMy attention has not before been drawn to this matter, but I will look into it.