asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can yet state the terms of reference proposed for the Royal Commission on the Indian Civil Service; and will the terms of reference include the relations of the Civil Service to the Ministers now given responsibility and responsible to the Indian Legislature?

As the terms are rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They have already been published in the Press. The terms, which include "the general conditions of service," of course, cover the subject referred to in the latter part of the questions.

Is the Noble Lord aware that the terms of reference have caused the Legislative Council at Delhi to reject the vote for this particular matter, because they do not include the question of the relations between the Civil Service and the Legislature, which is the point of this question?

I have seen the announcement of the action of the Legislature, but I do not think that it arises out of this question.

Are we to understand that the Government is going to persevere with this Royal Commission, in view of the fact that the Indians have refused a vote of credit for it?

I have already announced, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it was the intention of the Government to move the appointment of the Commission.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Royal Commission on the Indian Services will be nominated; whether, in order to avoid delay, it will be possible for the Commision to issue an interim Report dealing with the more urgent of the matters referred to it; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the advisability, in the interests both of economy and of speed, of having the inquiry in India conducted at some convenient central point?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to answer the first part of the question, but I hope that it will be possible to announce the personnel of the Commission at a very early date. As regards the second part, I cannot at present add anything to the reply given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) on the 26th February. I will bring the suggestion made in the third part to the notice of my Noble Friend, who is fully alive to the urgency of the question, and to the necessity for conducting this inquiry as speedily and in as economical a manner as possible.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received from India the full statement for the release of the 107 so-called political prisoners by Sir William Marris, the newly-appointed Governor of the United Provinces; and if he can give the result of the discussion by the authorities in India on the question of the exercise on a general scale of the discretion vested by law in the local Governments?

May I ask you, Sir, whether the expression in the question, "so-called political prisoners," is not a reflection on the Government of India, and is it in order to be put so in a question?

I do not like assumptions of this kind put in questions, and I will give instructions, for their removal.

As the answer is rather lengthy, I will, with the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to carry out the undertaking given by the Secretary of State on the 15th and the 28th June, 1921, that the Government of India, in the comprehensive resolution which they were about to issue on the pay of the Indian Civil Service, would deal with all the circumstances, including the cost of sea passages?

I do not think that the reply given by the late Secretary of State, to a supplementary question on 28th June warrants the construction put upon it by my hon. Friend. As regards the question of affording relief in respect of the high cost of passages, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Sir C. Yate) on 12th March, to which I cannot at present add anything.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Punjab Government have decided to reduce the police budget by three lakhs of rupees, involving the immediate disbandment of the armed police reserve, despite the warning of the Inspector-General of Police; that the Punjab council have de manded the unconditional release of all prisoners, numbering some thousands, sentenced in connection with the Sikh Akali agitation and have refused to accept the Government proviso that the release should be conditional on the prisoners undertaking not to repeat the offences for which they had been sentenced; and that the Government was defeated; and whether the Government of India have stated that they consider the disbandment of the armed police reserve a safe policy to pursue in view of the threatened warfare and bloodshed which the Punjab Government desired to prevent?

Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend quite realises the importance of these matters, and has inquired of the Government of India. They report that the reduction of 3 lakhs in the Punjab Police budget will involve the disbandment of 606 out of 20,000 men, the men disbanded being constables who had been temporarily engaged for the district reserve. The Governor in Council decided that he was justified, in view of the political and financial conditions in the Province, in taking this risk, and the Government of India express agreement. The decision of the Punjab Government as to the release of prisoners has not yet been announced, but my Noble Friend has been in consultation with the Government of India on the subject, and no decision in this matter will be taken without his knowledge.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the total amount in sterling for which orders have been placed since the 1st April, 1922, for the supply of rails rolling stock, and other materials for the company-managed railways in India; and what portion of the total represents orders given for the supply of articles manufactured in Great Britain?

The total amount of the orders mentioned by my hon. Friend is £6,867,500, of which £6,665,000 represents orders for articles manufactured in Great Britain. As I have already informed my hon. Friend, the orders for material placed during the same period by the State-worked railways amount to £1,735,000, of which all but £200,000 worth has been placed in Great Britain.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any and, if so, how many Moplahs have been transported to the Adaman Islands; how many are imprisoned in jails in India and Burma; and whether the sentences they are serving were inflicted by courts-martial or by the ordinary criminal courts of British India?

As regards Moplahs transported to the Adamans, inquiry has been made from the Government of India. On the 31st August last there were 8,185 Moplahs confined in jails; and there were then, or shortly after, 1,875 cases still to be finished in which 3,150 persons were being tried. Most of those convicted had been tried by the special courts, consisting of or including civil judicial officers, established Under the Malabar Ordinances. Military courts ceased to try cases when martial law ended on the 26th February, 1922. Up to the end of December, 1921, military courts had, it is believed, tried only 28 persons.

Can the Noble Lord tell us how many cases are still pending?

No; as the result of a previous question asked by the hon. Gentleman, I am making inquiries into the whole position.

Will the Noble Lord tell us how many were actually transported to the Adaman Islands, and how it is that the Adaman establishment, which was closed down by his predecessor, is now again open?

That is one of the questions about which I am making inquiry, as I promised a week ago.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Foreman's Association of India regard the Indian Ordnance Factories Provident Fund as it now stands constitutes a breach of faith as compared with the recommendations made before the Palmer's Committee and, in consequence, service in the Department is now less attractive than as under the old pension rules; whether he is cognisant of the fact that the Association agrees with the principle of the fund but considers more equitable terms should be given if it is adequately to replace the old conditions; and will he endeavour to obtain a satisfactory solution to the difficulties which have arisen between the Foreman's Association and the Government of India?

The Secretary of State has no information on the matter, but will ask the Government of India for a report on the points raised.

asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal supplied free, or at prices below market rates, to the miners in the Durham and Northumberland districts during the months of December, 1922, and January, 1923; and what would have been the cost of this coal to the miners if they had been obliged to purchase it at the market rates?

The quantities of coal supplied free of charge during the months of December, 1922, and January, 1923, to miners in Durham were 131,193 tons and 141,409 tons respectively, and to miners in Northumberland 52,413 tons and 55,778 tons respectively. No coal was sold at preferential rates to miners in these districts. I have not the information that would enable me to say what the cost of the free coal would have been to the miners if it had been purchased at the market rates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the coal supplied to the miners in Durham is not the best coal, but generally the worst coal that comes from the mines?

I am afraid I have not looked into that.

asked the Secretary for Mines what proportion of under ground examiners in mines in charge of shifts are unqualified men; and whether he contemplates taking steps to reduce the number of men not fully qualified?

The qualifications of firemen, examiners and deputies are laid down in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, and, so far as I am aware, there are no men without such qualifications employed as underground examiners in charge of shifts.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many prosecutions have been instituted by the Ministry against the mine owners or their agents for allowing the illegal use of dry rock-drills in the iron-ore mines in West Cumberland; and the result of such prosecutions?

The use of dry-rock drills is illegal only when drilling in ganister, hard sandstone, or other highly silicious rock, the dust from which is likely to give rise to fibroid phthisis. So far as our knowledge goes at present, these conditions do not obtain in the West Cumberland iron-ore mines, and, therefore, no prosecutions have been instituted by my Department against owners or agents of iron-ore mines in which such drills are used. As I informed the hon. Member, in reply to his question on 7th March, I am now taking further advice on the matter.

Is the House to assume from the reply that the use of dry rock-drills in limestone and ironstone mines is legal?

As far as I am informed, it is.

Is it not a fact that in boring in these iron sections there are 10 chances to one in travelling 10 feet of getting a rock which will give a greater spark?

further asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give a reference to any inquiry of any sort which has been specifically made into the effect upon the workers of the use of dry rock-drills in the iron-ore mines in West Cumberland; and will he lay copies of such Report or Reports upon the Table of the House?

I am not aware of any inquiry other than that referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on the 7th March. I shall be happy to send him a copy of the information obtained and communicated to the Department by the doctor who made the inquiry.

Would the hon. Gentleman reply really to the question whether there was any inquiry into the use of dry rock-drills in the iron-ore mines, and the effect on the men?

As I say, I am not aware of any other inquiry than the medical inquiry.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the London and Cologne Steamship Company, Limited, of London, have had to cancel all sailings, both inwards and outwards, between London and Cologne; that at the present time they have awaiting export to Cologne over 1,000 tons of goods, including Government stores for the Cologne British garrison, foodstuffs, and raw materials, the latter for factories in the Cologne area owned exclusively by British nationals; and, if so, does he intend to allow the complete stoppage of British export trade in this manner to continue?

I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the facts. His Majesty's Government have already made strong representations to the German Government regarding the conditions in Cologne, and the importance of facilitating in every way possible the passage of British trade inwards and outwards. Arrangements have been made by the War Office for the carriage of stores to and from the Rhine.

Is it the fact that ships arc travelling from Cologne or not?

I must have notice of that question.

Can the hon. And gallant Gentleman say whether any good results have come out of the representations he has made?

I hope to be able to say so in the course of the next few days.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the trouble caused by these Regulations?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the same answer was given to me a week ago by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that the traders in Cologne complain that the position is quite unchanged?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that this particular ship was despatched from Cologne? Does he know whether that is so or not?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, owing to the embargo placed upon their property by the French military authorities at Ruhrort, a London firm of importers of sulphate of alumina are unable to fulfil their contracts at home, with the result that British chemical works they supply are likely to close down and throw several thousand men out of employment; that a London textile firm with £10,000 worth of textile goods, originally imported from Bradford and upon which the German duties have already been paid, is unable to export these goods from Cologne to Hamburg without paying a further 10 per cent. duty to the French military authorities; and that these eases are typical of a large number; if he will state whether His Majesty's Government are consenting parties to the position under which British commercial intercourse with Germany, within the boundaries of the German Republic as defined by the Treaty of Versailles, is subject to interference by, and to the payment of customs, taxes, and licences to, French or Belgian military authorities; and, if not, whether he will inform the House what measures His Majesty's Government propose to take on the matter of the principle involved, apart from representations in regard to particular cases of such interference?

I have no information respecting the cases to which the hon. Member refers. If details can be supplied, they shall be immediately investigated. With regard to the remainder of the question, His Majesty's Government have formally dissociated themselves from responsibility for the French and Belgian independent action and, as the House is aware, they are doing their utmost to secure concessions of principle that will ensure that the consequences of this action shall be as little prejudicial as possible to British trade.

My I take it from that answer that the Government do not accept the decision that the French military authorities have any right to interfere with British trade in a country not under French sovereignty?

I have already said that the Government have dissociated themselves from the action these two countries have taken in this matter, and the hon. Gentleman can draw what conclusion he considers well.

Have the Government dissociated themselves from the French levying taxes on our traders?

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we have any power to prevent the French doing so?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the recent advance of the French and Belgians into the Ruhr district, British goods imported into unoccupied Germany through the occupied area paid an import duty, collected by German officials of 10 per cent. ad valorem, whereas, as a consequence of the Franco-Belgian advance, they now are required to pay an import duty of 10 per cent. collected by French Customs officials on entering the occupied area, and a further duty of 10 per cent. collected by Gorman officials on entering the unoccupied area?

I have been asked to reply. Before the recent advance, duty on goods destined for unoccupied Germany was paid to German officials either at the frontier or at an internal Customs house, the duty being that fixed by the German Customs tariff according to the nature of the goods. At the present time goods which are not on the free list pay duty to the occupying authorities at the uniform rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem. I am informed that the early re-introduction of the German Customs tariff with some modification is being considered, and that the question of the levy of duties on goods in transit through the occupied areas to unoccupied Germany is also under consideration. I believe the German Government regard such goods as still liable to the duties of the German tariff, but I am not aware what steps are taken, in practice, by that Government to enforce payment of duty in unoccupied Germany on goods entering from the occupied areas.

Are we to understand from that answer that the Government is not prepared to deny that, under the new arrangements, an import duty is first collected by the French Government officials, and that a further duty of 10 per cent. is collected by the German Government officials?

So far as we know, there are no German Customs at all, either in the occupied or unoccupied territory. It is very difficult to get exact information, because the line is always changing as the French advance.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is aware that, despite the promises of the Franco-Belgian authorities that all goods sent forward before the 20th February on which export licences had been obtained and duties paid would be released forthwith, cabled advices are still coming to hand in London from British firms' representatives on the spot that it is impossible to move such goods owing to the attitude of the Franco-Belgian authorities; and, if so, does he intend to take action to protect the interests of British export and import trade?

I have been asked to reply. I am fully aware of the difficulties of trading with occupied Germany in present circumstances and His Majesty's Government are in constant communication with the French and Belgian Governments on the subject. If full particulars of individual eases are forwarded to the Board of Trade every effort will be made to obtain reasonable treatment where there is a British interest involved.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take every opportunity of trying to liberate British trade with the Rhineland and Germany from the hampering restrictions recently inflicted upon it; and will he make such efforts in connection with the evident desire of the French Government to secure our co-operation in dealing with the Turkish demands?

His Majesty's Government are continuing to do everything possible in the direction suggested in the first part of the question. The Turkish reply to the peace terms offered at Lausanne is to be shortly discussed with the expert advisers of the French and other Allied Governments. I have no doubt that the Allies will, as heretofore, find themselves in agreement, and will continue to act in close co-operation in the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the system of censorship established by the French authorities in the invaded German territories; that this censorship leads to great delays in the delivery of correspondence to and from these territories and England; that it takes as much as 16 days in some cases for business letters to reach this country from Frankfort; and that this censorship is liable to misuse through the divulgence of private commercial matters to the harm of British business interests; and whether representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the French Government on the subject?

His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that correspondence between the occupied German territories and this country is unduly delayed or liable to censorship by the French authorities. If the hon. Member will give me details of cases in which complaints have been made, they shall be investigated.

Is the hon. Gentleman in communication by telegraph with the Royal High Commissioner at Coblenz?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is free passage at any and what points between the area occupied by the British Army of Occupation centred at Cologne and unoccupied Germany, without the interposed control and customs barrier set up in consequence of the recent advance of and supported by French troops in that region?

The French authorities have established customs posts at certain points outside the eastern perimeter of the British area and claim to exercise customs control of goods passing between that area and unoccupied Germany. With these exceptions there is free passage in and out of the British area.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain a little more clearly what is the exception to the proposition that the area occupied by the British army is now surrounded by the French authorities?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will perceive, I think, a very great difference. There is no occupying French army surrounding the eastern portion of our area and, as I understand, the civil administration is still in the hands of the ordinary German authorities. There are, it is quite true, a few selected posts—customs posts—put up by the French, but that does not alter the general status of the territory in which they are situated.

Is it not a fact that the French have now established a post at Bensberg, which separates two distinct parts of our area, and that for direct communication from one part of the area to the other it is necessary to pass through a French post?

I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will answer it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of German civilians who have been killed in the Ruhr by French soldiers during their occupation?

I have no authoritative information on the subject.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ascertain how many French and Belgians were killed by the Germans in 1914?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to revert to the old pre-War passport application forms?

The form of application now in use is practically identical in all material points with that in use before the War, except for the additional requirement of photographs and of a few descriptive details necessary for identification purposes. There is no intention of reverting to the pre-War application form.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any additional information beyond that which has appeared in the newspapers concerning the loan of 400 million francs contracted by the Polish Government with France for the purchase of war material, the construction of guns and munition factories, and for other military purposes; and whether information has recently been received from His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw in respect to military preparations on the part of the Polish Government?

With regard to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 7th instant in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Ilford. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ambassadors' Conference has decided that Memel is to be awarded to Lithuania?

The Ambassadors' Conference has decided that Memel shall be assigned to Lithuania under certain conditions?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ambassadors' Conference have decided that Vilna shall be awarded to Poland; and what authority the Ambassadors' Conference has for making a decision?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Ambassadors' Conference derives the authority to take such a decision from Article 87 of the Treaty of Versailles, which stipulates that

"the boundaries of Poland not laid down in the Treaty will be subsequently determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers."

Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the exact status of this Ambassadors' Conference? Is it a continuation of the Supreme Council? What is the connection of the Council with the Conference?

The Ambassadors' Conference, of course, represents the Governments who have given them their powers, and the decision in this case is taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, who are acting through the Ambassadors, who are assembled, for convenience sake, in Paris.

Is it not the fact that the whole relations of Poland and Lithuania, which comprises the question of Vilna, were some time ago handed over to the Council of the League of Nations for decision, and has the Council of the League concurred, or had any opportunity of expressing its opinion about this award by the Ambassadors' Conference?

No, Sir; it is not correct to say that it was handed over to the League of Nations. The League of Nations were informally asked if they would devise conditions and submit them to the parties interested. They did so, and the parties, as a matter of fact, rejected those terms; consequently, the responsibility for a decision was thrown back upon the Allied and Associated Powers.

Had our representatives on the Ambassadors' Conference instructions to agree to these terms with any qualification?

I would like notice of that question. I could not say offhand.

Has this House any authority at all over these decisions arrived at by our representatives to this Ambassadors' Council; is it out of our jurisdiction altogether?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well the manner in which Parliament can exercise its authority in matters of this sort.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, as illustrated by the decisions of the Ambassadors' Conference last week in the case of Vilna, to substitute the actions and decisions of the Ambassadors' Conference for the actions and decisions of the League of Nations?

The decision of the Ambassadors' Conference, as has already been explained to the hon. Member, was directly based on the authority conferred on the Allies by Article 87 of the Treaty of Versailles. There is no question of substituting the actions and decisions of the Ambassadors' Conference for those of the League of Nations, whose authority with regard to questions which fall within its competence necessarily remains unimpaired.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that recently Germany definitely offered France 7,500,000,000 dollars (seven billion five hundred million dollars) equal to approximately £1,600,000,000 (one thousand six hundred million pounds) in settlement of reparations exclusive of reparations in money, coal, iron, and in kind already made, and that France refused this offer without making an alternative proposition; and whether the British Government was aware of this refusal?

So far as I am aware, it is not the case that a definite offer on these lines has been made in the manner suggested. I have heard that on certain conditions the German Government contemplated making an offer of thirty milliard gold marks (£1,500,000,000) at the time of the Allied Conference at Paris. As to the circumstances of the German overture, I would refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper 1812, page 68. As my hon. Friend is aware, the British Government at the time of the Paris Conference considered that £2,500,000,000 might be found to be within Germany's power to pay, subject to a moratorium; but their proposals were not accepted by the Allies and the Conference broke down.

(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has ratified the decision of the Council of Ambassadors to hand over the Sovereignty of the Ukrainian territory of Eastern Galicia to Poland; whether he is aware of the fact that over 75 per cent. of the population of this district are of Ukrainian stock; whether this decision is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants, as promised by the Decree of 25th June, 1919, to which Decree England affixed her signature, and will this Decree be taken into consideration before ratification?

May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is a question on this subject on the Paper to-morrow? Is it in order for hon. Members, by Private Notice, to anticipate questions which are on the Paper?

If that be the case, the hon. Member has raised quite a sound point. It had escaped my notice.

It is in the name of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).

Is it the same point?

I think it is.

I was quite ignorant of this question being on the Paper.

I accept the statement of the hon. Member.

We will keep to the rules.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to consult the States signatories of the North Sea Convention, 1882, as to the extension of the fishery limits agreed on in Article 2 of the Convention, with a view to the exclusion of foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth and other areas within which trawling is prohibited under the bye-laws of the Fishery Board for Scotland; and, if not, whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Is it not possible to take effective action against foreign trawlers trawling in the prohibited areas when British trawlers are subject to prosecution?

I am not unaware of the many difficulties in this matter, which has been a burning question for many years; but I am not in a position to give any further answer than the one I have given.

Can this case be reconsidered again—

Which case?

The case of the Moray Firth?

I cannot give a promise to that effect, because I do not think the Moray Firth case will be taken out of the general number.

Is there any real question of negotiations with foreign Governments?

I should not like to give a definite answer.

Is not the real solution of this question a revision of what is called the three-mile limit.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the three-mile limit does not apply to the Moray Firth, and will he, therefore, have the case of the Moray Firth reconsidered?

As I have said, I cannot really give a pledge to that effect. I do not think my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that the three-mile limit does not apply to the Moray Firth.

further asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the territorial sea-limits claimed by Norway and Sweden within which trawling by foreign vessels is prohibited; and the number of cases during the past year in which action by prosecution or otherwise has been taken against British trawlers fishing within the limits claimed by those States?

The Governments of Norway and Sweden each claim that their territorial waters extend to four miles for fishery purposes; as regards the second part of the question, I am only aware of five cases in Norway.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what steps were taken against the foreign trawlers? Was it by prosecution?

I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will put down another question, I will give that information.

Does not the four-mile limit run outside the islands?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information as to alleged purchases of war material in this country on behalf of the Polish and Yugo-Slav Governments; and if he will furnish the house with the figures giving the present strength of the military forces of Poland, Yugo - Slavia, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary?

I have been asked to reply. In regard to the first part, I am not aware of any such purchase having been made. In regard to the second part, according to the best information in my possession, the figures are:

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advances have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Rumanian Government since the Armistice; whether, in making such advances or loans, any attempt has been made by His Majesty's Government to protect the interests and rights of British companies whose oil properties in Rumania were destroyed and who were therefore entitled to indemnity; and whether, in view of the admitted liability of the British Government to the Rumanian Government in respect of any such sums, any conditions were laid down for setting aside out of the moneys advanced to Rumania a sufficient sum to cover the liability?

Since the Armistice, His Majesty's Government have advanced about £5,000,000 to the Rumanian Government. A sum of about £3,000,000 was advanced in order to enable Rumania to pay British Government Departments for munitions, etc., supplied during the war period, and was therefore in substance a consolidation of existing indebtedness and not a new advance. About £2,000,000 is due to this country from Rumania in respect of relief supplies given since the Armistice. This is the British share in a general scheme of European relief, under which advances, totalling in all £12,500,000, were made to Rumania by the United States, the United Kingdom, and various European countries. At the time when these relief supplies were delivered to Rumania, the difficulties in connection with the compensation in respect of oil property in Rumania destroyed or damaged in 1916 had not yet arisen, and in any case it would not have been practicable to attach to such advances conditions such as those referred to in the second and third parts of the question. No advances have been made since the 31st March, 1921.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Agreement made in 1921 between His Majesty's Government and the Rumanian Government, whereby the indemnification promised by the British Government to the Rumanian Govern- ment for the compensation by them to the British companies for the destruction of their oil properties, carried out by a British Commission acting under instructions of His Majesty's Government, is to take the form of the cancellation of a part of the Rumanian war debt to this country, is in writing; what is the date thereof; and whether a copy of it will be placed upon the Table for the information of Members of the House?

The agreement was contained in correspondence in August, 1920, between the Treasury and the Rumanian Minister of Finance. The essential part of the agreement is as follows:

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Rumanian Minister of Finance agree in principle that it is desirable that the sums due by the British Government to the Rumanian Government in respect of damage done to the Rumanian Oil Wells at the time of Rumania's entry into the War should be set off against a corresponding total of the Rumanian Government's debt to the British Government, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made for the settlement as between the Rumanian Government and the proprietors of the oil wells of the claims of the latter against the Rumanian Government for compensation in respect of damage to the wells. It is further agreed that it is for the Rumanian Government and not the British Government to arrive at an arrangement for settlement of the claims for compensation above mentioned."

Now that there is a Commission in Rumania dealing with British claims, will it not be possible for the Under-Secretary to make a representation to the Commission, so that British claims can be given a fair hearing?

I daresay that is a matter for consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will cause to be made a definite announcement to the effect that the Government will not admit any further liability in the event of there being a deficit on account of the British Empire Exhibition; and what liability exists at present?

Under the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Acts, 1920 and 1922, His Majesty's Government have undertaken to pay, up to an amount not exceeding £100,000, a proportion of any loss which may result from the holding of the exhibition. As the hon. Member is aware, guarantees have been received from other sources to the amount of £1,103,000.

For what proportion of the loss is the British Government responsible?

It depends upon what the loss is.

What is the proportion?

Our pro portion of the loss is subject to average; if there be any loss.

May I ask whether disparaging questions on the British Empire Exhibition are not, perhaps, the safest of all ways of securing that deficit?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the British export trade in dyed yarns to China is being crippled by the competition of yarn dyed locally with cheap German dyes; and what steps does he propose to take?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the Mexican Consul-General

I understand that China has for many years imported British grey yarns in large quantities for dyeing locally, and that the trade in dyed yarns with that market has in consequence been small. I do not think that there is any action which I could usefully take in the matter.

Would not a simple remedy be to repeal the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state what is the date of the last official figures he possesses with regard to our trade with Australia; and whether he will state what was the total amount for the last 12 months for which figures are available, together with the amount per head?

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the last two figures—the total and the amount per head per annum?

I have received no report of the address mentioned in the first part of the question; but I am fully aware both of the desirability of encouraging trade with Mexico and of the present difficulties. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure my hon. Friend that all steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to make the position clear to the Government of Mexico.

May I send 2my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of that report?

I shall be glad to have it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what further progress, if any, has been made by local authorities in reacquiring under the statutory powers land now held as allotments which is to be surrendered from the provisions of the war emergency legislation on the 25th of this month; whether he can state approximately the total amount of land still to be acquired by councils; and what further steps he proposes to take to hasten the acquisition of this land or the provision of alternative land for allotment holders who will be dispossessed?

The Ministry has done everything possible by inspectors' visits and otherwise in the direction of urging local authorities to use their powers of re-acquring, under the Allotments Acts, land at present used for allotments under D.O.R.A. powers. The Ministry has every reason to think that a large propor- tion of such land has been re-acquired, or, where this has proved impracticable, alternative land has been obtained, but, as stated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 19th February last, it is not possible to give even an approximate figure of the land acquired, and I am unwilling to impose upon allotment authorities additional work by calling for a statistical return.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send one final communication before the 25th inst. to these authorities, inasmuch as a large number of allotment holders will otherwise be dispossessed?

I will consider that suggestion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the high retail price of bread in view of the cheapness of wheat; what is the average price paid to the British farmer for wheat; and what, assuming this price, is the profit to the retailer on a sack of flour of 280 lbs., assuming that the loaf is sold, respectively, at 8d., 8½d., and 9d?

I am aware that complaint has been made that the price of bread is high in proportion to the price of wheat, and this and similar complaints in regard to other foodstuffs are now being investigated by the Committee which I recently appointed to inquire into the methods and costs of selling and distributing agricultural, horticultural and dairy produce in Great Britain, and to consider whether, and, if so, by what means the disparity between the price received by the producer and that paid by the consumer can be diminished. According to the returns made under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, the price of British wheat now averages about 9s. 6d. per cwt. Bread is not usually made exclusively from British wheat flour. The present price of the average quality of flour for bread-making is about 39s. per 280 lbs., and about 90 4-lb. loaves can be made from this quantity of flour. The actual cost of the flour in a 4-lb. loaf is therefore at present prices about 5¼d., and the difference between this and the price at which the bread is actually sold represents the costs and profit of the middleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to issue an Order in Council allowing the importation of breeding stock into Great Britain?

The Ministry proposes, in accordance with Section 7 of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, to lay before each House of Parliament a Draft Order with regard to the introduction into Great Britain of breeding cattle from Canada.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to allow the importation of breeding cattle from Canada would be a distinct breach of faith with the agricultural community.

I do not realise that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government are much more anxious to encourage agriculture in Overseas Dominions than at home?

That is an argument.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the railway companies have reduced the rates on cotton goods by 14 per cent., leaving those rates at 62½ per cent. above the pre-War rates, whereas, in the case of agricultural produce, they refuse to reduce the rates below the present figures, which represent an increase of 76 per cent. above those of pre-War rates; and will he make representations to the Railway Rates Tribunal to remove this discrimination against the agricultural industry?

I have been asked to reply. The railway companies are at liberty to make such modifications on their charges as the circumstances, in their opinion, warrant, and I have no particulars of the rates on cotton to which the hon. Member refers. I would remind the hon. Member that the Railway Rates Tribunal has power to determine any application for reduction made to them, but initiative rests with the traders.

Has the Minister of Agriculture made an representations to the Rates Tribunal with reference to the excessive charges for the carriage of agricultural produce?

I would remind the hon. Member that the initiative lies with the traders, or any body that feels that it has a grievance. If they have a grievance in regard to rates, it is their duty to go to the Rates Tribunal and ask the Tribunal to give a clear judgment on the matter.

Has not agriculture a grievance, and does not the Minister of Agriculture represent agriculture?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can take steps to bring together representatives of agriculture and the railway companies to consider the reductions of railway rates on agricultural produce?

Not long ago I received a proposal of the nature referred to in the question, and I immediately utilised all the means at my disposal to forward this suggestion. I am glad to say that arrangements are now being considered for the establishment of a private and unofficial Committee representing both agriculturists and railway companies to investigate the present methods and cost of transporting agricultural produce and livestock by rail. The Railway Companies' Association will nominate the railway representatives and the farmers and landowners will be asked to nominate an equal number of members. I feel confident that by the frank interchange of opinion, and by the reconsideration of existing practice concerning packing, grading and loading of railway wagons very great economies can he effected for the mutual benefit of agriculture and of the railway companies.

Will the right hon. Baronet include a Labour representative on that Committee?

I am not nominating the representatives.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the progress of the negotiations between the agricultural labourers who are on strike on a farm in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire and their employer; and whether the dispute between labourers and members of the National Farmers' Union in Norfolk has yet been settled?

With regard to the dispute on certain farms in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, there is no change in the situation at the moment, but negotiations are proceeding. The dispute in Norfolk is still unsettled. As the hon. Member will have seen from the Press reports this morning, a meeting between the leaders was held on the l7th instant. Although no agreement was then reached, I understand that negotiations are still proceeding, and that a further meeting will be held this week.

Has arbitration been resorted to in the Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire dispute?

Not that I am aware of.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he could make any statement in regard to the crisis arising from the fall of agricultural wages and profits such as may prevent an extension of the strike already begun in Norfolk, and so avert a disaster to British agriculture?

No, Sir, I am sorry there is no statement that I can make which would have that effect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing number of

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in introducing

I do not think that the conclusion mentioned follows from that, and I am told that there are only five unions or thereabouts which are concerned.

I beg to give notice that on the first suitable, occasion I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the question.

further asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the proportion of wheat grown in Great Britain to imported wheat in the years 1913, 1917, 1918, 1919, and 1922?

As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, county councils are empowered to make loans to statutory smallholders in cases where facilities for obtaining loans from a cooperative credit society are inadequate. It does not seem necessary, therefore, to deal specially with their needs in the proposed Credit Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider lowering the rate of interest at present proposed?

That will be considered when the Bill comes in.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider other smallholders who are not under the scheme?

I think the hon. Member had better wait for the introduction of the Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to publish the Report of the Cabinet Committee which was appointed to consider the use of mechanical instruments in slaughtering animals?

The publication of the Report referred to would be contrary to the usual practice in connection with Cabinet Committees, from which it is not proposed to depart.

Has any decision been arrived at in this matter?

No, not yet.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that since the recent introduction of the policy of taxing the export of raw produce from West Africa the exports there from have fallen both in value and volume; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of abolishing the duties in order to aid a revival of trade in West Africa?

I have been asked to reply Export duties on produce are not of recent introduction in West Africa. They were first imposed in Nigeria and the Gold Coast in 1916, in Sierra Leone in 1918 and in the Gambia in 1899. Their abolition would cause serious financial loss to the West African Governments, and I fear there is no practical alternative form of taxation which could be imposed to make up such a loss of revenue.

Is it not a fact that this export tax on produce in West Africa has done an enormous lot to reduce the production of the natives, and is really impoverishing the Colonies in that way more than any other Measure can do?

We must argue that on another occasion.

asked the Prime Minister whether any attempt has been made by His Majesty's Government to arrive at a settlement with the Russian Government since the end of the Hague Conference; if he is aware of the number of outstanding questions between the two Governments that are in need of solution; and whether he has yet decided upon a policy towards Russia; and, if so, what it is?

I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 27th November last and to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) on the 26th February.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he asked me to describe what the policy of the last Government was towards Russia? Has he discovered a policy? I have asked the question quite seriously.

And I have given a quite serious reply.

Is the matter being considered? Is any Committee sitting on it, or is anyone thinking what to do, seeing that we are losing by this?

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that British merchants are handicapped in doing business in Russia by the absence of diplomatic relations between the British and Russian Governments; and that this state of affairs will be rendered more acute by the commercial treaty now being negotiated between the German and Russian Governments; and what steps he proposes to take to assist British merchants in trading with Russia?

His Majesty's Government have no reason for believing that either of the two statements contained in the first two parts of the question has, or will have, any foundation in fact; and they are unaware of the necessity of taking any such steps as are suggested in the concluding paragraph.