asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House any details of the small disturbance reported from Samawa, in the Lower Euphrates Valley?

This question should be addressed to the War Office.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Political Department at Baghdad entered into a formal agreement with the heads of the Arab tribes living west of the Euphrates for the maintenance of peace between the latter and the present temporary military administration on 5th May; and whether a copy of this agreement has reached the India Office?

The Civil Commissioner reported on the 15th May that a provisional agreement had been reached with the representatives of the Arab Government on the Upper Euphrates as regards the frontier between Mesopotamia and Syria. Copies of this agreement have not yet reached me. So far as I am aware, no other agreement has been concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether hostilities are threatening between Ibn Saud, Emir of Nejd, and the Sheikh of Koweit; if so, on what grounds; what steps are being taken by the British representative to prevent such hostilities; and whether any subsidy is still being paid by the British or Indian Governments to either of these two Arab notables?

I am not aware that hostilities are threatening between Bin Saud and the Sheikh of Koweit. There was some local trouble in May last between subjects of the latter and tribesmen subordinate to Bin Saud; but I have no reason to anticipate that the consequences will be serious. The Sheikh of Koweit receives no subsidy from the British or Indian Government. Bin Saud receives a subsidy of £5,000 a month.

Is he still receiving that subsidy of £5,000 a month?

Yes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government is now in a position to lay the terms of the Anglo-French agreement in regard to Mesopotamia upon the Table of the House?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 7th instant. We have had no further communication from the French Government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when it is likely to be laid before the House?

I think very likely the question will be raised at Spa. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question when the Prime Minister returns.

asked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the speech made by Mrs. Naidu at the Kingsway Hall on the 3rd June, containing allegations of brutal and infamous conduct against the troops of the Indian Army; and whether he proposes to take any proceedings with regard to these charges?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Mrs. Naidu at a mass meeting held to protest against the Hunter Report in Kingsway Hall, on 3rd June, 1920, to the effect that Indian women had been dragged into the market place, stripped naked, flogged, and outraged; and whether he will call upon the Indian authors of the Report referred to to give proof of this charge, and prosecute them if they fail to do so?

I have ascertained that Mrs. Naidu based her charge that women were stripped naked, flogged and outraged, on allegations made by witnesses to the Congress Committee. I am having enquiry made as to an allegation which might justify the charge against certain Indian subordinate police. If this be proved it will, of course, be suitably punished. With this reservation, the charge is entirely untrue. The charge was not made in the Congress Committee's Report.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state on what date he was aware that the civil authorities at Amritsar had called on the military for assistance; and on what date he was aware that the civil authorities at Amritsar had resumed control?

On the 14th April I knew that troops had been despatched to Amritsar. About the middle of June I was informed that martial law had been withdrawn from Amritsar City on the night of the 9th June.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state at what date the minutes of evidence of the Hunter Commission were received in this country?

Proofs of the Minutes of oral evidence were received at the India Office in February and March last. Complete sets of the Minutes of oral and written evidence were received on the 15th April. A supply sufficient for distribution was received on the 12th May.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made at a mass meeting held at the Kingsway Hall to protest against the Hunter Report on the 3rd June, 1920, to the effect that Indian women had been dragged into the market place, stripped naked, flogged, and outraged; and what steps the Army Council propose to take in the case of an officer with the rank of major who is reported to have been one of the speakers at that meeting, and to have said that he could not feel that there was any impossibility in the stories coming home from India?

The officer referred to has relinquished his commission, and the Army Council have therefore no jurisdiction over him.

asked the Secretary of State for India at what date the Commander-in-Chief in India revised his decision concerning the action of General Dyer in dealing with the revolutionaries in Amritsar; and whether that revised decision of the Commander-in-Chief was in any way influenced by His Majesty's Government?

The decision of the Commander-in-Chief in India to remove Brigadier-General Dyer from his command was made when the Report of the Hunter Committee had been seen by him. It was communicated to General Dyer on 22nd March last. I am not aware that this was a revised decision. The answer to the last part of the question is, of course, in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commander-in-Chief approved the action of General Dyer, and therefore this must have been a revised decision?

I am not aware of that, and I do not think it is so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman yet aware that at the Legislative Assembly at Simla General Dyer's conduct was approved by all the official representatives of the Government?

I am not aware of that, and I have carefully read the Debate over again, and I do not draw the deduction which the hon. Gentleman does. I would refer him specially to the utterances of Sir William Vincent.

Did the right hon. Gentleman read the speech of the Adjutant-General before the Legislative Council which entirely approved of General Dyer's action?

I did not read it in that way, but I will also refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the remarks of Sir William Vincent on the attitude of the Adjutant-General. I say again I am satisfied that the Commander-in-Chief in India did not reach any conclusion on General Dyer's attitude and acts until the report of the Hunter Committee had been received.

Was not the Adjutant-General speaking on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief when he spoke before the Committee?

The spokesman on behalf of the Government in that Debate was Sir William Vincent. He explained the views of the Government on General Hudson's speech. I will send my hon. Friend a marked copy, which I think will completely dispose of the case.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether all the documentary evidence on which he came to a decision concerning the action of General Dyer has been presented to Parliament; and if not, whether he can see his way to making a complete disclosure of the evidence submitted to him as Secretary of State for India?

If the hon. Member is referring to the evidence heard in camera, I am not prepared to publish it. All the other evidence has been published.

Were there communications between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of India which have not been published relating to the Dyer case?

There have been heaps of communications between the Government of India and myself.

I said relating to the Dyer case.

Including the Dyer case. If the hon. Member infers from that that anything I wrote to the Government of India altered or was intended to alter or was concerned with their judgment on General Dyer, he is under an erroneous impression.

I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will publish these documents so that we can judge for ourselves, as we cannot trust him in this matter.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the discharge of my duty as Secretary of State innumerable communications on all sorts of subjects pass between me and the Government of India. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that these should be made public, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I must ask the House to accept my assurance on the subject that I exerted no sort of influence, and made no suggestion which could possibly lead to the insinuation that the Government of India formed their views on any suggestion of mine.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman still wishes to inform this House that he knew of none of the details at the end of December?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council as a body met to consider the question of General Dyer; and, if so, was the Chief of the Imperial General Staff present?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff was not present at the meeting, being in attendance on the Prime Minister at the Spa Conference.

Are we to understand that the decision in General Dyer's case was given by a majority of the civilians, and not by a majority of military men?

The decision was unanimous. In any case, the military element outnumbered the civilian.

Are there not five civilians on the Army Council as against, at the most, four military men?

There were four military officers and myself and two Parliamentary Secretaries. The Secretary was not a member of the Army Council at that time. I carefully postponed the addition of the Secretary and of the Financial Member until that matter had been decided, in order to guard myself against the very kind of suggestion the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes.

Was there not a sharp division of opinion, and then subsequent, in order to make a better case, did they not come to a unanimous decision?

That is quite untrue. There was a difference of opinion on the question whether General Dyer should be retired and definite disciplinary action taken against him. The conclusion to which we came—that which I read to the House—was accepted and agreed to unanimously and spontaneously by all present.

Were there any reporters present?

asked the Secretary of State for India if the Joint Committee now sitting on the new Indian rules is taking into consideration the desirability of the representation of the zamindars on the Council of State and their request that they should be given separate representation on the body, in view of their interests in the country and their loyalty to the throne?

The Government of India and their non-official advisory committee carefully considered this question and decided that there was no need to provide in the Council of State (as they have provided in the Legislative Assembly) for separate representation of landholders as such, in view of the fact that the composition of the electorates for that body is such that the landlords may be expected to secure their due share of the elective seats. The Joint Select Committee saw no reason to differ from this conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he has recently vetoed a Bill for the establishment of an Indian defence force; if so, if he will state his reasons for so doing, in view of the fact that the Government of India had themselves projected the measure;

(2) if he is aware that armed civilian forces were of great use in the Indian Mutiny in protecting numbers of women and children; and, in view of the present state of unrest in parts of India, he can say whether fresh legislation to train and arm European civilians in India for use in case of emergency will be suggested by him to the Government of India?

As I have stated before, I did not sanction a Bill based on compulsion, but I have authorised a Bill on a voluntary basis. I share with the hon. Member of the desire to see an efficient Indian Defence Force, and I trust the Bill now to be introduced will secure it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he has vetoed this Bill, in view of the fact that the European community in India, the Chambers of Commerce in India, and the Government of India had all supported the Bill, and even put it forward?

The objections of His Majesty's Government to compulsory military service are well known to the House, and the action they have taken in the Peace Conference was in pursuance of that objection. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the first necessity is to produce an adequate defence force in India, and if voluntary methods do not secure it, I shall have no hesitation in recommending to His Majesty's Government to take compulsory measures.

Considering that compulsory military service exists in Australia, why is there any reason that the right hon. Gentleman should prohibit the same in India?

I am not aware that compulsory military service exists in Australia.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the labour situation in Madras, and as to the position of the trade unions there?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any information regarding labour troubles in Madras; whether the Government are supplying the employers with military workmen, and thus assisting the employers in resisting the demands of the workmen; and whether he will have full and immediate inquiries made into this matter?

The latest news I have from Madras is that a meeting of employers and workmen has requested the Government to appoint a Committee to inquire into the causes of the present unrest and the remedies to be applied. I have not heard of the employment of military workmen, but am inquiring on the point.

Is the right hon. Gentleman assured that the troops are not beng used against strikers in Madras at the present time?

I am quite confident that everything will be done by Lord Willingdon to secure a solution of any present difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he took any steps to try Mr. Gandhi for his responsibility in regard to the disturbances in India during the spring of 1919; and, if not, will he state the reason?

The Governments of India and Bombay did not see fit to prosecute Mr. Gandhi who, in a public speech at Ahmadabad, expressed his deep sorrow at the form the agitation had taken, and who disclaimed any intention of encouraging violence.

After the Hunter Committee reported, did the right hon. Gentleman then take any steps to see that steps were taken against Mr. Gandhi?

I preferred to leave the whole matter to the Government of India and the local Government. I recollect what the Hunter Committee said on the subject, but, of course, there is a great difference between moral and legal responsibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that any attempt to prosecute Mr. Gandhi would be worse for our hold upon India even than the Amritsar affair? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Gandhi inaugurated a Satyagraha movement and regretted afterwards the consequences that resulted. If he now inaugurates a new movement of the same kind, it cannot be said that he is in ignorance of the consequences that may follow.

Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that if anyone publicly expresses regret afterwards for having caused riots and bloodshed it is quite sufficient?

That is not what I said. I leave and I always have left any question as to the necessary steps for maintaining order in India to the local Governments and the Government of India.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local Governments prohibited Mr. Gandhi coming into their districts, and that at the same time the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in this House saying that Mr. Gandhi was one of the saviours of India?

There can be no doubt—many other people have said it—that Mr. Gandhi's services to India, particularly in South Africa, were very great indeed, and there can be no doubt as to the high character of Mr. Gandhi. Many people who have high characters are politically mischievous. The local Governments were perfectly right, in my opinion, in prohibiting the entry of Mr. Gandhi into their provinces, and I think the utterances of His Majesty's Government on the subject show that they supported them.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is proof of this Mr. Gandhi's high character and his sincerity that he has now joined, as secretary of the Khalafat Committee, a committee which is pressing points totally against all those that he has hitherto pressed and entirely opposed to his own former principles?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if Mr. Gandhi, after what happened last year, persists in a form of agitation such as that which he is now conducting, it would be absolutely impossible to take the same view of his action as was taken last year.

That is not the question I asked. I asked if it were a proof of his consistency and sincerity that he has joined, and acts as secretary of, a committee which is propagating notions entirely opposed to those he held previously?

I am afraid it is very difficult to answer a charge of that kind without satisfying myself as to the exact nature of it. What I am concerned in is that the Government of India and the local Governments, in their determination to maintain order, will take adequate steps against anybody.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House are to-day advocating views contrary to those they advocated years ago?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Gandhi is still free to go undisturbed throughout India; whether he is now at the head of the All India Khalafat Committee; whether four of his colleagues on that committee were interned during the War for hostility to the British Government, one convicted in the Amritsar conspiracy, and one sentenced to transportation for life; whether this committee has passed a resolution protesting against the Turkish peace terms and recorded its unequivocal refusal to accept them; and what steps he is taking to see that Mr. Gandhi and his colleagues do not create further trouble and disorders?

I have never received any complete list of the members of the Central Khalafat Committee, of which Mr. Chotani appears to be the president and with which Mr. Gandhi is closely associated; and the notice given me was too short to ascertain which of the individuals who were interned or convicted are members of it. Some, certainly, are closely associated with the movement. It passed a resolution in the sense described by the hon. Member. The Government of India and the local Governments are watching the situation closely and taking precautions. For instance, the Seditious Meetings Act has been applied to Delhi, and there have been certain prosecutions elsewhere. I am satisfied that they will take all steps necessary to maintain order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that he has not informed himself of what is going on there?

I have taken steps to inform myself of what is going on. I must leave the provisions necessary for maintaining order to the Government of India and the local Governments, and I do submit to this House that it would be extremely dangerous for us here to try to dictate, suggest, or interfere with measures taken by them.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not keep himself fully informed of the particulars, even if he does not choose to interfere? Are we to be told presently that the right hon. Gentleman has had no details of this Committee which has been form d, or is he now fully informing himself?

May I ask whether Mr. Gandhi is not now endeavouring to organise a boycott of the Prince of Wales's visit to India?

I think Mr. Gandhi's efforts are thoroughly mischievous, but I would prefer to leave their proper treatment to those in whom His Majesty's Government and, I hope, this House have complete confidence, namely, those who have charge of the maintenance of law and order in India.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still proud to describe himself as one of Mr. Gandhi's intimate friends?

Is it not the case that in the communication of the Government of India a severe censure was passed upon Mr. Gandhi, and that in the right hon. Gentleman's own letter to the Government of India no such phrase of condemnation occurs?

I endorsed in my letter to the Government of India the general findings of the Government of India, and therefore I endorsed that passage to which I have referred, and I am prepared to support any steps the Government of India think necessary in the very difficult situation which now arises, but I will not dictate to the Government of India any steps. I prefer to leave it to them.

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present attitude of the Government of India towards Mr. Gandhi; and whether that gentleman is now permitted full liberty of action in the presentation of his views of India?

I am not aware of any restrictions.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the only day assigned to the Indian Estimates was entirely devoted to the discussion of the Amritsar episode, he will arrange for another day to be given, as soon as possible, for the purpose of discussing Indian administration in general and the policy of the Secretary of State for India in particular?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that this House will be afforded no full and proper opportunity for criticising the administration of one of the most important and extensive portions of the British Empire—a course which would be absolutely without precedent?

I did not mean to convey more than was expressed in my answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's seaplane-carrier "Ark Royal" has been used for carrying refugees who are typhus cases in the Black Sea; how many times she has been so used; whether she was disinfected immediately after each voyage; how many cases of typhus there have been among the crew of this ship; how many of the crew have died; and why properly-fitted hospital ships were not used for this purpose?

His Majesty's seaplane-carrier "Ark Royal" was used on one occasion for carrying refugees who were typhus cases in the Black Sea. She was disinfected immediately afterwards. There were sixteen cases of typhus fever among the crew in the "Ark Royal," of whom eight were landed at Batoum on the 14th May last, five more landed and sent to the 82nd General Hospital, Constantinople, on the 17th May; one, Mr. Scott, Warrant Engineer, was also sent to this hospital on the 19th May; one on the 20th May, and one on the 27th May sent to the 20th Stationary Hospital. Two deaths were reported, namely, Mr. Scott, Warrant Engineer, and Chief Shipwright C. Mattinson. The only hospital ship was not at that time available, and the urgency of evacuation necessitated the use of all available craft.

May I ask whether a hospital ship is now available in the Black Sea; and, if not, would it not be better to send a hospital ship which is not fully employed from the Atlantic or Home Fleet?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Admiralty have done all in their power to secure that there shall be a hospital ship in attendance.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the wreck of the "Empress of India" will be marked by a gas buoy as promised?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the losses sustained by fishermen as the result of wrecks being unbuoyed at the present time; and when he proposes to replace the light and bell-buoy to mark the wreck of H.M.S. "Empress of India?"

With regard to the first portion of Question 29, this is a matter for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I am informed that the Department is aware that serious losses are being sustained by fishermen as a result of the nets fouling the wrecks, particularly in Lyme Bay and the Rye district. It is hoped to have the light buoy in position by 23rd July next.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his Department has purchased any land in or in the vicinity of Inverkeithing; and, if so, will he state the date or dates of purchase, the acreage bought, the price paid, and the proposed use of the land?

As this is a somewhat lengthy answer, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply referred to:—

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On 20th March, 1919, the Admiralty purchased a property known as Naval Base Mansions, standing on roods of land. On 15th May, 1919, they bought about 90 acres of land with the various buildings standing thereon. Negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of further areas, including about 50 acres of land and about 117 acres of foreshore and fundus, and it would, therefore, be detrimental to the interests of the Crown to disclose the prices already paid. The establishment of a submarine base in Inverkeithing Bay was commenced in 1917, possession being taken of the necessary lands under the Defence of the Realm Act. After its commencement, advantage was taken of the dredging which had been performed to effect economies by erecting a pier there for shipping aeroplanes to the Fleet, instead of further east where originally contemplated, and where construction and protection would have been more expensive. After the Armistice it was decided to abandon the Submarine Scheme. It is necessary, however, to maintain the aeroplane pier and dredged channel thereto as part of the permanent organisation of the Fleet. In view of the fact that the Admiralty was committed to complete the purchase referred to above, and failure to do so would have involved large claims for compensation, and that a large sum had already been expended on dredging, it has been decided to complete the purchase and thus secure to the Admiralty the benefit of the expenditure already incurred.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act apply to the houses at Rosyth occupied by the dockyard employés and having regard to the dissatisfaction there at the high rents existing before the passing of the Act, he will order a new inquiry into the whole question at which the Rosyth workers would be represented?

The rents charged to dockyard workers at Rosyth have not only been made the subject of special inquiry from time to time, but they are continuously under consideration at the Admiralty. An inquiry has recently been instituted into the rents paid at all Admiralty establishments throughout the country with the object of fixing as far as possible uniform rents for similar accommodation, but the results of this investigation are not yet to hand. Under the circumstances, it is not considered necessary to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose any immediate increase of rent at Rosyth under the Act?

No, Sir; there is no automatic increase of rent under the Act. It is not proposed to make any increase of rent at the present time. Moreover, after the report to which I have referred is received, if we find there are any special cases in which it may be necessary to raise the rent the Admiralty will carefully consider them.

When does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect to have the result of these investigations?

I hope very shortly.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any official paper, publication, or source of information to which an hon. Member can refer in order to ascertain what are the requirements of the post-War fleet; and, if no such papers are available, will he grant a return giving this information?

I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the statement I published with the Navy Estimates for 1920–1921.

Is the statement inclusive?

It contains a very full declaration of the post-War policy of the Admiralty.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether sales of ships of the Royal Navy, together with the relative strength of the post-War fleet, have been as yet considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence; and, if not, whether it will be part of the duties of this Committee to consider the question of relative strength of the Royal Navy?

The disposal of surplus ships of war is dealt with by the Admiralty. Any questions as to the functions of the Committee of Imperial Defence should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to place between 80 and 90 destroyers on the sale list; whether vessels of the same type and equivalent value are still on the Navy List of the two next strongest naval powers; if he will state what will be the strength of the British, United States, Japanese, and French navies in torpedo-boat destroyers when the sales are completed; whether any stipulation as to their being broken up is to be inserted in the conditions of sale; and whether ships for sale are stripped of any of their fittings?

The list of ships for disposal includes a number of destroyers of various types of obsolete pattern and inferior fighting value. Among these are vessels of similar type and equivalent value to vessels on the Navy List of other Powers. Owing to the difference in types of destroyers of British and foreign navies, it is not possible to afford any comparison on a numerical basis. With very few exceptions the surplus destroyers have been sold for breaking-up purposes, and confidential fittings and all armament have been removed.

What are the exceptions of the destroyers that have been sold not to be broken up; to what Power or Powers have they been sold?

I should not like to give that without notice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will give him the information.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the proposal to increase the amounts payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act; if he can say if and what increase the Admiralty propose under the dockyard compensation scheme; if the same will be retrospective; and from what date?

Pending consideration by the Government of the Report of the recent Committee on Workmen's Compensation and the passing of such amending legislation as may be thought desirable, I am not in a position to make any statement as to the effect of such legislation on the existing schemes under the Act.

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that these workmen's compensation is not dependent upon the Workmen's Compensation Act, but is a special scheme?

asked the Minister of Labour what is the weekly average of unemployed receiving benefits paid through the Torquay Labour Bureau since 1st January, 1920; what is the number of males and females for whom situations have been found in the same period; what is the number of applications made by employers for workmen during this period; and what is the number of the present staff and the estimated cost to the end of this year, and of this sum how much is paid in rent and other expenses?

During the six months ended 2nd July, the average weekly number of persons receiving Out-of-Work Donation and Unemployment Insurance Benefit at the Torquay Employment Exchange was 364. The total amount of donation and benefit paid during these six months was £12,375. During the same period 421 males and 541 females were placed in employment by this Exchange. The number of vacant situations notified by employers to the Torquay Exchange during this period was 554 for males and 1,374 for females. The staff at the present date numbers 16; the estimated cost for the year ending 31st December, 1920, is £4,335, of which sum £350 is for rent of two sets of premises, one of which is temporary. The staff is being reduced immediately to 13, and the possibility of a further reduction is being considered. This will, of course, affect the estimated cost which I have stated.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that some less expensive quarters might be rented at the present time, especially in view of the present condition of the housing problem?

Well, I will look into that question of accommodation.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among disabled soldiers with the rates of allowances they are receiving at the training centres; and if he can make arrangements for these payments to be raised to correspond to the increased cost of living?

As I said on Monday, I have received many representations from various sources in regard to this matter, and I have laid the facts before my colleagues. I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce a decision.

asked the Minister of Labour what were the num- bers of new applications and uncompleted cases handed over by the late Civil Liabilities Commissioners for Notts and Derby and Lincolnshire, respectively, when those officers resigned their position; and what are the numbers and estimated annual cost of the salaries of the staff now engaged in the same work in those counties?

The number of cases handed over were for Notts and Derby, 41; Lincolnshire, 142. The present staff consists of one Commissioner, one Investigating Officer, and two Clerks, at a total annual cost in salaries of £1,063 6s. per annum. I may perhaps add that the total annual cost of the office under the old administration, when it consisted of two Commissioners and four Clerks, was £1,347 12s., including £160 for additional and special travelling allowance to one of the Commissioners.

asked the Minister of Labour how many new applications have been registered by the 34 Civil Liabilities Commissioners recently appointed at a salary of £500 each during the six weeks from 29th May to 9th July inclusive; and how many new applications were registered during the six weeks from 31st May to 11th July inclusive in the year 1919?

The number of new applications received by the 34 Civil Liabilities Commissioners during the six weeks from 29th May to 9th July inclusive, was 7,447. In addition, there were received for appeal or revision 4,214 cases. The number of cases outstanding with Commissioners at the end of the period was 2,877. During the corresponding period of 1919, when there were 65 Commissioners, the number of new applications registered was 21,712. But the number of cases outstanding with Commissioners at the end of that period was 19,338.

How much longer is it necessary to keep this large staff in existence?

They will not be kept a moment longer than is necessary, but I must appeal to my hon. Friend to allow us to have a sufficient staff to carry out this work, delay in which means a real hardship to poor people at the other end of the line. So far as I am concerned, I shall prevent that by all the means in my power.

asked the Minister of Labour whether having regard to the conditions under which the office staff and servants in certain large hotels live, he will say if he has yet seen his way to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the catering trade; and, if not, when he expects to be able to do so?

I have caused inquiries to be made with a view to the establishment of Trade Boards to cover workpeople engaged in catering, and discussions on the point are proceeding between the Labour Ministry and representatives of the employers and work-people concerned. As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, there are considerable variations in the conditions of the different branches of catering, and the problems of definition and demarcation are very complex. We are proposing almost immediately to circulate to the employers' associations and trade unions concerned, for their observations, definite proposals for the appointment of separate Trade Boards for:

(a) The Light Refreshment and Dining Room Trade;

(b) The Hotel, Boarding House, and Restaurant Trade; and

(c) The Public House Trade.

I regret that I am unable to state definitely when it will be possible to establish the Trade Boards, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is receiving urgent attention.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been taken to end the carters' dispute at Ton-bridge, where men have ceased work owing to local coal contractors refusing to advance a wage of 32s. per week of an average of 65 hours per week?

An officer of my Department is seeing the parties locally, with a view to arranging a joint conference, if possible.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Town Councils of Chatham and Luton have threatened to dismiss certain officials of the Corporations if they persist in their applications for the war bonus which the Minister has himself recommended to these authorities as a reasonable scale, and which has been approved and recommended by the National Joint Council for the Local Government service; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard Local Government officers from victimisation?

I have received no such information.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

I have made inquiries, and have not found anything out.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Housing Commissioner in Birmingham is ruling that living rooms in new houses shall not be more than eight feet from floor to ceiling, and that no wash-basin shall be fixed in the bath room, although the provision of a wash-basin saves labour and is a great convenience; and whether this attitude on the part of the Housing Commissioner is based upon the Regulations in force?

I am advised that as a general rule eight feet is a sufficient height for rooms in approved housing schemes, and I have accordingly adopted this height as a standard, though I am prepared to allow a greater height where special circumstances appear to require it. I agree that wash-basins are a convenience, but where a bath is provided they cannot be regarded as essential, and in view of the present very high cost of building houses I cannot agree to them being brought into account for Government financial assistance. It is, of course, open to local authorities to exceed the standards laid down by my Department on the understanding that they will themselves bear the extra cost involved.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent inquest in Southwark on a case of anthrax and the jury's verdict thereon; if the deceased had been employed in a warehouse storing imported skins where no preventive regulations were carried out for this disease; and whether, in view of this case, he will consider as to issuing an order to compel all such warehouses to carry out the Regulations for the prevention of this disease amongst workers who are employed in handling all foreign skins in this country?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received a letter from the Coroner and reports from the factory inspectors dealing with this case. The worker was employed in a building which was being temporarily used as a warehouse. The precautions recommended by the Home Office were not being observed in this building though they were observed in the main building belonging to the firm. The question of strengthening the measures taken for the prevention of anthrax in this and other trades has recently been under consideration by the Home Office, and it is proposed to bring the existing rules with regard to hides and skins up-to-date and to re-issue them as compulsory Regulations of general application to all premises which come under the Factory Acts.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the sale of the "Daily Herald" has been prohibited in the German districts under British military occupation, and that newsagents there are unable to obtain it; and whether he will give instructions for the removal of any such prohibition?

I am informed that the sale of the "Daily Herald" is not and has never been prohibited in the territory occupied by the British Army in Germany.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only is the "Daily Herald" prohibited, but other newspapers circulating in the same area are prohibited from quoting articles which have appeared in the "Daily Herald"?

My information is derived from a communication received from the spot, and it is entirely contrary to the information received by my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made during recent negotiations to safeguard the interests of British investors in Russian bonds and municipal stocks and of holders of Russian securities in general.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has suggested the conclusion of an armistice between the Japanese army in Siberia and the Russian and Siberian forces in Eastern Siberia; if not, whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to only propose armistices on those fronts where the Russian forces are winning; whether His Majesty's Government has proposed an armistice to the Russian Government between its forces and the troops operating under General Baron Wrangel in South Russia; and whether General Baron Wrangel advanced into South Russia without the permission of His Majesty's Government and after putting himself unreservedly into our hands for the making of peace.

In answer to a question of which I have received private notice, I am giving to the House the exact terms of the communications with the Soviet Government on these subjects.

Will the right hon. Gentleman's later answer include the question of General Wrangel's forces and the Japanese forces?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will listen to the text of the answer.

asked the Leader of the House whether he can give the House the text of the communications with the Russian Soviet Government on the question of re-opening trade relations and the proposal for an armistice?

I have here a statement as to the conditions on which the British Government would begin trade relations, the reply of the Soviet Government, and a dispatch sent subsequently in regard to the armistice. I propose to read the last. As the documents are long perhaps the House will allow me to circulate the two former.

The text of the Note, dated 30th June, addressed by His Majesty's Government to M. Krassin for transmission to the Soviet Government is as follows:

The British Government has given careful consideration to the Memorandum produced by M. Krassin of the 29th June on the negotiations which have been proceeding since the arrival of the Russian Delegation at the end of May. The British Government has, during the course of these negotiations, shown its sincere desire to end the isolation of Russia from the Western world, and to reach an agreement for the resumption of trading relations which might pave the way to a general peace. They do not think that any useful purpose will be served at this moment by attempting a detailed reply to the Russian Trade Delegation Memorandum, or by entering into arguments of a recriminatory character. The negotiations have now reached a stage where it is necessary to bring them to an issue. It is not clear from M. Krassin's Memorandum whether the Soviet Government really desires the restoration of trading relations or not, or what are the conditions upon which it is willing to resume them. In order, therefore, to arrive at a definite decision, the British Government now repeats what it has declared throughout, that it is willing to make an agreement for the mutual cessation of hostility and the resumption of trading relations with Russia, and asks for categorical replies, yes or no, as to whether Russia is prepared to enter into a trade agreement with the British Empire and other Powers on the following conditions:

First, that each party undertakes to refrain from hostile action or undertakings against the other, and from conducting any official propaganda, direct or indirect, against the institutions of the other party; and, more particularly, that the Soviet Government will refrain from any attempt by military action or propaganda to encourage any of the peoples of Asia in any form of hostile action against British interests or the British Empire. For reasons already given, this, in the opinion of the British Government, is the fundamental condition of any trading agreement between Russia and any Western Power. Trade is only possible under conditions of peace or armistice. The British Government pro pose what is tantamount to a general armistice, as the condition of the resumption of trade relations, in the hope that this armistice may lead ere long to a general peace.

Second, that all British subjects in Russia should be immediately permitted to return home, all Russian subjects in Great Britain or other parts of the British Empire who desire to return to Russia being similarly released.

Third, that the Soviet Government in return for a corresponding undertaking from the British Government agrees to recognise in principle that it is liable to pay compensation to private citizens who have supplied goods or services to Russia for which they have not been paid. The British Government ask for some declaration of this kind at the present time. because it believes something of this nature is essential to the effective starting of trade between the two countries. It considers it a matter of simple justice, for instance, that where a merchant has supplied the Russian people with a thousand ploughs, which have been used, or are still being used, by the Russian people to their own great benefit that the Russians should admit that they ought to pay that merchant and the workman who manufactured the ploughs for the goods and services they have rendered. Unless Soviet Russia is prepared to admit that it must deal with those with whom it now wishes to trade on some recognised principle of justice, trade on a large scale, such as is desired on both sides, will be found to be practically impossible. The British Government does not ask that these debts should be settled now. It is prepared to leave the determination of Russia's liabilities under this head, as Well as all other questions relating to debts or claims by Great Britain on Russia or by Russia on Great Britain, to be mutually settled at the negotiations of peace. But it considers it necessary that the Soviet Government should make a declaration on this point in order to give the necessary confidence to Western merchants, manufacturers and workers to embark upon manufacturing and trading operations.

Fourth, the British Government agrees to the conditions laid down by the Soviet Government in regard to commercial facilities, communications and so forth, provided they are mutual, and excepting that it cannot agree to surrender the right possessed by every civilised Government, and which it freely accords to the Soviet Government also, to object to the entry as an official agent of any Government of any person who is non grata to itself. It asserts, however, that it has no intention of debarring any Russian on the ground of his Communist opinions, provided the agents of the Russian Government comply with the normal conditions for friendly international intercourse.

The British Government now awaits a definite statement from the Soviet Government as to whether it will accept these principles as the basis of an agreement to re-open trade relations between Russia and the British Empire and any other Power willing to accept the same conditions. If an answer is returned in the affirmative, the British Government will be willing to discuss details with any experts or representatives which Soviet Russia may nominate, except such as have already been refused. Should, however, no affirmative reply be obtained within one week of the presentation of this Note, the British Government will regard the negotiations as at an end, and, in view of the declared unwillingness of the Soviet Government to cease its attacks upon the British Empire, will take counsel with its Allies as to the measures required to deal with the situation.

30th June, 1920.

The following reply was received by wireless from Tchitcherin on 8th July:

Complying with the desire of the British Government in purpose to arrive to an early peace between Russia and Great Britain, the Russian Soviet Government accepts the principles as laid down in the Memorandum transmitted on July first by the British Government to the President of the Russian Delegation, Krassin, an agreement between Russia and Great Britain which will be the object of negotiations between both Governments that have to begin without delay. The Soviet Government agrees that the plan proposed by the British Government will have to be considered a state of armistice between Russia and Great Britain, and shares its expectation that this armistice will pave the way to a definite which at (?) a time protesting against the affirmation, contrary to the real facts, relative to presumed attack of Soviet Government, realises once more that as to Soviet Russia in her relations with Great Britain desires nothing but peace, and that the absence of the same disposition on the other side was the only cause preventing it from being as yet attained.

His Majesty's Government despatched, on 11th July, a further telegram to the Soviet Government as follows:

The British Government notes the acceptance by the Russian Soviet Government of the principles laid down in its Memorandum of 1st July, as the basis of an agreement for the resumption of trade regulations and the cessation of mutual hostilities, and it therefore agrees to continue the negotiations for a definite trade agreement as soon as the Russian delegates return. The British Government has a further proposal to make. The Soviet Government of Russia has repeatedly declared its anxiety to make peace with all its neighbours. The British Government, which is no less anxious to restore peace throughout Europe, therefore proposes the following arrangement with this object in view:

(A) That an immediate armistice be signed between Poland and Soviet Russia whereby hostilities shall be suspended: the terms of this armistice should provide on the one hand that the Polish army shall immediately withdraw to the line provisionally laid down last year by the Peace Conference as the Eastern Boundary within which Poland was entitled to establish a Polish Administration. This line runs approximately as, follows: Grodno, Vapovka, Nemirov, Brest-Litovsk, Dorogusk, Ustilug, East of Grubeshob, Krilov, and thence West of Rawa Ruska, East of Pryemysl, to Carpathians. North of Grodno the line which will be held by the Lithuanians will run along the railway running from Grodno to Vilna, and thence to Dvinsk. On the other hand, the armistice should provide that the armies of Soviet Russia should stand at a distance of 50 kilometres to the East of this line. In Eastern Galicia each army will stand on the line which they occupy at the date of the signature of the armistice.

(B) That as soon as possible thereafter a Conference, sitting under the auspices of the Peace Conference, should assemble in London, to be attended by representatives of Soviet Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, with the object of negotiating a final peace between Russia and its neighbouring States. Representatives of Eastern Galicia would also be invited to London to state their case for the purpose of this Conference. Great Britain will place no restriction on the representatives which Russia may nominate, provided that they undertake while in Great Britain not to interfere in the politics or the internal affairs of the British Empire or to indulge in propaganda.

The British Government, as a separate proposal, suggests that an armistice should similarly be signed between the forces of Soviet Russia and General Wrangel on the condition that General Wrangel's forces shall immediately retire to the Crimea, and that during the armistice the Isthmus be a neutral zone, and that General Wrangel should be invited to London to discuss the future of troops under his command and the refugees under his protection, but not as a member of the Conference. The British Government would be glad of an immediate reply to this telegram for the Polish Government has asked for the intervention of the Allies, and if time is lost a situation may develop which will make the conclusion of lasting peace far more difficult in Eastern Europe.

Further, while the British Government has bound itself to give no assistance to Poland for any purpose hostile to Russia, and to take no action itself hostile to Russia, it is also bound, under the Covenant of the League of Nations, to defend the integrity and independence of Poland within its legitimate ethnographic frontiers. If, therefore, Soviet Russia, despite its repeated declarations accepting the independence of Poland, will not be content with the withdrawal of the Polish armies from Russian soil on the condition of a mutual armistice, but intends to take action hostile to Poland in its own territory, the British Government and its Allies would feel bound to assist the Polish Nation to defend its existence with all the means at their disposal. The Polish Government has declared its willingness to make peace with Soviet Russia, and to initiate negotiations for an armistice on the basis of conditions set out above directly it is informed that Soviet Russia also agrees. The British Government, therefore, would be glad of a definite reply within a week as to whether Soviet Russia is prepared to accept the aforesaid proposal for putting an end to further unnecessary bloodshed and giving peace to Europe.

I should like to ask two questions arising out of that answer. The first is, to whom was this communication made? Secondly, the words "British Government" have been used throughout. Are we to understand that it is made on behalf of the British Government alone, or on behalf of the British Government in conjunction with its allies?

The message was sent by wireless to the Soviet Government in Moscow, but it was sent with the knowledge and approval of all our allies.

May I ask now why an armistice has not been proposed between the Soviet Government and Japan in Siberia, and does the Government only propose an armistice when the Russian arms are winning?

No. The problem with which we are directly faced, more immediately than the other, is, of course, Central Europe. I have no doubt after the armistice has been concluded with Soviet Russia the other consideration will be dealt with.

Had the Cabinet the permission of the House to do what they have been doing with Soviet Russia without any consultation? It is disgraceful.

The Government of the day must always take a responsibility of that kind. We have taken it on the assumption that we had the approval of the House of Commons, and I think that assumption will prove to be correct.

No, it will not.

Would the Leader of the House agree that having regard to the fact that Poland deliberately took the offensive, there is a case for compensation to the Soviet Government?

How are the delegates for Eastern Galicia to be selected? Will they be selected by the Polish Government or by the Ukraine? Secondly, is Eastern Galicia held to be part of Poland or not?

Under this arrangement will M. Litvinoff be allowed to come as one of the delegates?

As regards the two questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood), I do not think it is possible for me to give an answer to either. As regards the last question, it means that they can send any representative they please, not to take part in a conference with us, but to take part in a conference for securing general peace.

Will the delegates from Eastern Galicia not be selected by the Polish Government?

It is obvious that as I was not present and the information is only sent by telegram, I cannot answer a question of that kind.

Did the British Government consult Mr. Lansbury and the "Daily Herald" in regard to their action?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether the State Department at Washington has removed trade restrictions between the United States and Soviet Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government will place British merchants on the same footing as American merchants by removing trade restrictions between this country and Soviet Russia?

In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Leyton on the 13th instant; the answer to the second part of the question is dependent on the result of the trade negotiations with the Russian Delegation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that while we are dawdling with this question the Americans and other neutral countries are capturing the markets?

No, I do not see that.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the Press on 12th July that a large staff of French military experts, numbering 900 officers with 2,000 orderlies, were specially selected for service with the Polish Army with a view to rendering the Polish offensive against the Soviet forces more effective; and, if so, what was the attitude of the British Government with regard to this matter?

The French have always had a military mission in Poland to advise the Poles of the organisation of their Army, but we have no detailed information as to numbers. No special mission to assist the Poles against the Soviet forces has been reported to have left France. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

If the figures are as stated in the question, does it not indicate that considerable help has been given by the Allies to the Poles in their offensive against the Soviet forces?

The information I have given, which is all we possess, is that a special mission was not sent for this purpose. The mission that was sent before was sent to help the Poles in organising their Army.

Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries as to whether quite recently the numbers of the most expert military advisers of the French has been added, making the numbers such as stated in the question?

I rather hesitate to promise to question another Government, over which we have no control, as to action which they may have taken.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Soviet Government, prior to the Polish offensive, declared their preparedness to arrive at an agreement with the Polish Government to the end that further hostilities might be averted, and that peaceful relations might be established between Poland and Russia on a basis of the national independence of Poland being recognised by the Soviet Government and according to the delimitation of the frontiers between Russia and Poland laid down by the Supreme Council in the last month of last year; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the British Government to use their good offices in this matter; (2) whether, when the Polish offensive against the Russian Soviet forces first began, due consideration was given to all its consequences by the Supreme Council; whether, in the event of the success of the counter-offensive of the Soviet forces and the invasion of Poland, as delimited by the Peace Congress of Versailles, there was any understanding that armed forces of the Allied Powers would intervene; whether, in relation to the general attitude of Poland towards Soviet Russia, the views of the Supreme Council were conveyed to the Polish Government; and, if so, did those views counsel that Government as to probable consequences of the conflict, or was a conflict discouraged?

The hon. and gallant Member is doubtless alluding in the first part of his first question to the wireless messages sent by the Soviet Government, but as the House is aware the negotiations in question were never opened. As regards the remainder of the questions, the attitude of his Majesty's Government towards the Polish offensive has been fully explained to the House on several occasions and in particular in the Debate on the 20th of May.

Why, if that is the case, are they now interferring with the relationships between Russia and Poland?

Again I will ask the hon. and gallant Member to wait until he has heard my statement.

You might have made it before.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any Report from Sir Horace Rumbold, British Minister at Warsaw, with regard to the ill-treatment of Polish prisoners captured by the Bolshevists; and, if so, will he communicate to the House the information contained in such Report?

A Polish military report of 6th June states that five Polish soldiers have been returned from the Bolshevik lines with one or both eyes gouged out.

On the strength of that statement, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in any arrangement that may be made with the Soviet Government, care will be taken to remember the inhumane manner in which the Polish soldiers have been treated by these Bolshevists?

In any arrangements made with the Soviet Government we shall consider, not so much the interests of the Soviet Government as the interests of the British Government and of the world.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Annual Report regarding the administration of Nauru Island to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations will be made by the British, Australian, or New Zealand Governments?

The Report will presumably be presented by His Majesty's Government, as representing for this purpose the British Empire, to which the mandate has been given.

Are we to understand that the administrator appointed by the Australian Government will report direct to the Colonial Office?

I do not know about reporting direct, but the report will eventually come through the Government.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the united efforts of the three Governments will be equal to this task?

asked the Prime Minister how many members comprise the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); what is their remuneration; what is the total number of their staff; have they a Government building placed at their disposal; and what will the Board cost the taxpayer in the current financial year?

There are twelve members of the Board, and none of them receive any remuneration for their services. Office accommodation is provided by the Office of Works. Including the employâs in Carlisle and other direct control areas, the staff of the Board numbers about 1,250 persons. I am informed that the work of this Board does not involve any permanent charge on the Exchequer.

Who pays the 1,200 staff?

The Liquor Control Board pays out of the business, and in the end the business will pay for itself.