asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of Lord Sinha's assurance of the 26th July, 1920, that the franchise for the Indian Legislative Assembly would be conferred on retired Indian officers of the Indian Army, the necessary steps will be taken to confer the franchise on these officers before the date of the next election?

Lord Sinha's promise of sympathetic consideration referred to the next revision of the franchise, which the Joint Select Committee recommended as a sequel to the Statutory Commission of Inquiry. The present amendments in electoral rules are in no sense a revision of the franchise.

When is the revision of the franchise likely to take place?

That matter will not come on until the next revision of the franchise, which, as I stated in my answer, was recommended as a sequel to the Commission of Inquiry.

Can nothing be done to bring these officials on the roll?

It would require an alteration of the franchise, which, in its turn, would require the authority of Parliament, and it cannot be considered apart from other questions which would require to be discussed at the same time.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that in a large number of cases white children orphaned in India are adopted by natives and Eurasians; can he give any figures showing how many children have been so adopted during the last five years; and can he see that steps are taken to stop this practice?

I am not aware that there exists any large number of cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. The matter is not one as to which any precise information exists nor could figures be collected without great difficulty. I will forward copy of the hon. Member's question to the Government of India for their information and have no doubt that if any abuse in a particular case were brought to their notice it would receive their careful consideration.

When may I ask this question again?

I will inform the hon. Member, and he can put down a question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can now give any information as to the trial of the alleged Bolshevist agent, Shakat Usmani, at Peshawar, for alleged conspiracy in India; and whether the trial has thrown any light upon Bolshevist propaganda in that country?

This man has been arrested, but, so far as I know, has not yet been brought to trial.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has yet any news as to the health of Lala Lajpat Rai, or can give the House information as to the likelihood of his release?

Information as to Lala Lajpat Rai's present state of health has been asked for from the Government of India by last week's mail. I am unable to give any information as to the last part of the question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering that a deposit of £150, or some Rs.2,250, is required from each candidate for Parliament in England, to be forfeited if the candidate fails to get the required number of votes, he can state upon whose advice a deposit of such a small sum as Rs.250 in the case of provincial councils and Rs.500 in the case of the Indian Legislature has been fixed as a condition for nomination for candidature in India; and whether the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter, in consultation with the Government of India, with a view to fixing a larger and more adequate sum?

The amount of the deposit was decided upon on the advice of local Governments, of the Committee of the Indian Legislature which considers amendments to the rules, and of the Government of India. My Noble Friend does not regard the amounts as inadequate, having regard to conditions in India, and does not propose to reopen the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has considered the evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire in support of a demand for an impartial inquiry into the sinking of the steamship "Okara"; if he is aware of the opinion on the subject in responsible quarters in India; and, with a view to allaying public feeling, will he institute an inquiry regarding the condition in which this ship was allowed to proceed to sea?

I have sent on to the Government of India the evidence sent in by the hon. Member. The Government of Bengal have decided to order an inquiry to be held. My Noble Friend has as yet received from India only a brief telegraphic report.

Will the Noble Lord press that this inquiry be conducted by an officer of the Board of Trade, seeing that the conduct of officers in the Indian service may be a subject of review?

I regard this question as of some importance, and I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is most necessary that there should be an impartial inquiry. This inquiry will be of the impartial nature provided for under the Act which deals with such matters. It will be set up by the Government of Bengal, and it would not be possible under the Act to have sitting on that inquiry a representative of the British Board of Trade.

Would any member of the Board of Trade be able to attend as a witness?

Certainly, if his evidence were admissible he could appear as a witness.

Would such an inquiry take up the question of large combines keeping some steamers continually in foreign waters so that they are not under Board of Trade control?

The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the totally inadequate increase in salaries as compared with the increased cost of living that has been granted to Indian civil servants, combined with the low exchange value of the rupee, he will favourably consider the proposal that has been put forward to pay the salary of European Government servants in India in terms of 2s. to the rupee (instead of 1s. 4d. which at present prevails), pending the Report of the Royal Commission on the subject; and whether, in view of the fact that the passage to England is now 150 per cent. higher than in 1920, he will grant one free return passage to every European Government servant (including his family) of three completed years' standing?

Proposals of the kind indicated in the question have been put forward in memorials from Service associations which will be considered in due course by the Royal Commission on the Indian Services. I am not in a position at present to make any further statement on the subject.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the relationship of Northern Rhodesia to this country is that of a Protectorate only; whether instruments exist whereby His Majesty's Government becomes the competent authority to arrange an agreement with the British South Africa Company with regard to lands occupied at present by people who are not yet subjects of the British Crown; or whether it is proposed to submit any proposed arrangement to the paramount chief and native rulers of Northern Rhodesia for their consent?

As stated, Northern Rhodesia is a Protectorate and the natives are not subjects of His Majesty, but the position with regard to the land is not in any way affected by these facts. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, but I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his questions on the 13th June.

Are we to understand that the negotiations with the Chartered Company do not in any way concern the ownership of land in Northern Rhodesia?

I would not like to say that. The whole character of the concessions from Lewanika, and the attitude of the Colonial Office at that time has, of course, an important bearing on the winding-up of the Chartered Company's administration in Northern Rhodesia.

Are we to understand that the ownership of land is now under discussion with the Colonial Office, in spite of the recommendation of the Buxton Committee that it should be submitted to the Privy Council?

Yes, that is so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British South Africa Company includes in its claims to the lands of Northern Rhodesia a claim to the commercial ownership of the native reserve areas and to either, or both, the surface and subsoil assets?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Woolwich East on the 13th June.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a treaty has recently been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Arab Government of Trans-Jordania; whether the terms of it will be laid before Parliament; and when it is intended to bring it before Parliament for ratification?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Has not some treaty, convention or agreement been discussed with the Arab ruler of Trans-Jordania?

Yes. We are discussing how His Majesty's Government can carry out their international obligations under the mandatory system, and how that can be reconciled with the utmost freedom of Arab administration in Trans-Jordania.

Will there be a treaty?

I do not think so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kenya delegations visiting this country in order to make representations to His Majesty's Government are composed of officials, Indians, and settlers; is he aware that there is no delegation from the natives, and that they are also desirous of sending a delegation; and whether he is prepared to give to the native delegation the same facilities for stating their case as have been accorded to the other sections of the community?

The Kenya delegations include Dr. Arthur, who was specially selected by the missionary bodies in the Colony to represent their views in the matter of native interests and who has shown from the beginning that his attitude is entirely independent. The application for a native delegation to be received does not come from any authoritative body in the Colony, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been able to approve of such a delegation. The hon. Member may rest assured that native interests are in no danger of being overlooked.

Am I to understand that the natives, who form four-fifths of the population of that country, are to be refused an opportunity of presenting their views themselves?

I think the Governor and the native Commissioners are fully acquainted with the native views, and those views have been conveyed quite clearly to my Noble Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the natives have repudiated Dr. Arthur and that we have in this country perhaps the best native Commissioner that has ever been in Kenya, Mr. Ainsworth, and would not his views be taken in preference to the missionary, Dr. Arthur?

It is not a question of preference. Dr. Arthur represents the views not so much of the natives as the missionary societies, and that is the only ground on which he comes before us. The native interests are being very carefully watched and safeguarded. The people who repudiate Dr. Arthur are an insignificant minority.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the proportion belonging to British India, the Native States in India, and Portuguese India, respectively, of the 22,822 Indians and 2,430 Goanese in Kenya Colony on 31st December, 1921?

The census was taken on 24th April, 1921. There were then in Kenya 12,697 British Indians, 10,035 British-protected Indians, and 2,521 Portuguese Indians.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what proportion of the European males, numbering 4,801, in the Kenya Colony on 31st December, 1921, was British and what proportion foreign?

The census was taken on the 24th of April, 1921, and the number of European male adults then enumerated was 4,736. Of these 4,142 were British born, 280 were British South African Dutch, and seven were naturalised British subjects. The remainder, 307, were non-British Europeans.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the reason for the delay in establishing the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, as provided in Clause 3 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act; whether he is aware that the delay is causing much hardship to many ex-service men; and what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter?

In reply to the first and third parts of the question, the trust cannot be established until the necessary legislation has been passed by both Irish Parliaments. A Bill for this purpose has been passed by both Houses of the Northern Parliament, and a similar Bill was introduced into the Free State Parliament on the 13th instant. In reply to the second part of the question, I am not aware that any such hardship as is suggested by the hon. Member is being caused by the delay, inasmuch as pending the establishment of the trust, the provision of houses for ex-service men is being carried on under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular cases, and will supply me with detailed information, I will, of course, give them the fullest consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of ex-service men in Northern Ireland who should have been provided with houses but for the failure of the Free State Government?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the original Act was passed four years ago to help ex-service men in what was then practically a hostile country, and is he aware that that Act is practically null and void; and will he see that every step is taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that these men who served His Majesty's Government are looked after?

The Bills to set up the necessary body are going through both Parliaments in Ireland.

Are we to understand that the statement that there is no hardship applies only to Northern Ireland, but does not apply to the Free State?

Obviously there were great difficulties in what was a hostile country, and it is only recently that they have been able to get holdings in the Free State. It is true that they have not got so many as they should have got, but they have still got a considerable number.

Why has the Act not been put into force in Northern Ireland which in no sense can be considered a hostile country?

The Bill has been passed by both Houses of the Northern Parliament, but has not yet received the Royal Assent.

rose ——

We must get on with the questions.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been found possible to make any progress with the scheme of resettlement and provision of land for ex-service men in the Irish Free State for which Imperial funds have been voted; has the Free State Government appointed its representative on the Commission; and, if through local hostility to men who fought for the Empire the scheme is abortive, can the money be used to assist the migration of and the provision of land for these ex-soldiers in the Dominions overseas?

In reply to the first part of the question, continuous progress has been and is being made with the provision of houses for ex-service men in the Irish Free State under Section 4 of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, and of the money provided by Parliament for this purpose approximately £150,000 has been expended during the current financial year. In reply to the second part, the question of the appointment of trustees does not arise until the necessary legislation has been passed through the Parliament of the Free State; and a Bill for this purpose has now been introduced into that Parliament. I understand, however, that it is the intention of the Free State Government to nominate General the Right Honourable Sir Bryan Mahon as their representative on the Trust. The last part of the question is hypothetical; but I may say at once that inasmuch as a considerable number of men are already in possession of houses provided under the Act, there is no ground whatsoever for anticipating that the hypothesis will be justified.

I was asking about the provision of land, and the hon. Gentleman is talking about houses.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a question I will find out the number of acres.

How many men have been settled on land and how many houses have been built in the South and West of Ireland?

I will get those figures if the specific question is put down. I will communicate with Dublin.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum of money has been advanced by the Irish Grants Committee to distressed Irish loyalists in this country against decrees or claims to compensation and by way of free grant or loan without security?

The amount advanced by the Irish Grants Committee to persons in this country on the security of decrees or claims to compensation is £85,813, and the amount of free grants or loans without security is £30,236.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many claims for compensation for pretruce damage in Ireland have been dealt with to date by the Wood Renton Commission?

Up to the 9th instant the Wood Renton Commission had dealt with 11,058 claims.

Does that refer to undefended cases?

To cases defended before the Commission but not defended before the County Court.

Are not promises the only thing that they could get from the Government?

That does not arise out of this question. I was asked how many cases have been adjudicated on by the Wood Renton Commission, and my answer is 11,000, which is a very rapid rate of progress.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to inform the House what is the total sum actually paid in respect of pre-truce claims for criminal and malicious injuries in Southern Ireland which arose between January, 1919, and the 11th July, 1921, the date of the Treaty, estimated at approximately £10,000,000, for which the British Govern- ment and the Irish Free State Government are jointly responsible, in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into between them; what is the total sum which has been paid by the Free State Government in respect of post-truce claims, estimated to amount to over £60,000,000 sterling, with regard to which His Majesty's Government have admitted responsibility for seeing that adequate compensation is paid; and, in the event of a negligible amount only having been paid to date, when it is expected that a settlement of these claims will be arrived at?

As my hon. Friend is aware the important matters raised in his question are engaging the close and earnest attention of His Majesty's Government at the present time, and I am not in a position at the moment to add with advantage anything to the written reply I gave my hon. Friend last Monday.

As many of the claims are now over four years old, does not the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that immediate representations should be made to the Free State asking for a return as to the actual amounts which have been paid?

As I said, we have asked for these returns and they are promised. They are expected to come regularly every fortnight after 1st July.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the agreement entered into between the British Government and the Irish Provisional Government which is referred to in paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the British Government's letter to the Irish Provisional Government, dated the 26th July, 1922, Command Paper 1736, and is known as the heads of a working agreement for implementing the Treaty so far as the same relates to undertakings given by the Provisional Government for the safeguarding of the lives and property of the loyalists in Southern Ireland, and of their rights in respect of damage for malicious injuries to person or property?

In the time available it has not been possible to complete the necessary consultation with the Government of Irish Free State upon the question of publication of an agreement to which the two Governments were parties. I shall therefore be obliged to my hon. Friend if he will be good enough to repeat his question this day week.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Clause 1 of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, of the Irish Free State is retrospective in its application to a period prior to the passing of the Irish Free State Act by the Imperial Parliament, in that it rendered void or reviewable decrees and awards made by County Courts in Ireland under the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Acts, and seeing that such retrospective Act is beyond the constitutional rights and powers of the Irish Free State, he will say why such Act was not reserved for consideration and the advice of the Imperial Government before the Governor-General of the Free State assented to the Act on behalf of the Crown?

I am advised that the hon. Member is mistaken in his assumption that Section 1 of the Act to which he refers is beyond the Dominion rights and powers of the Irish Free State; and the question does not therefore arise. I may add that my information is that the decrees and awards referred to are rendered reviewable but not void by the new Act.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and other Members of Parliament drew the attention of the Government to the fact, when this Bill was still before the Free State, that it invalidated certain agreements arrived at in the Treaty itself; and were representations made on behalf of the Government to the Governor-General of Southern Ireland that it was inadvisable to give the Royal Assent to a Measure which invalidated the Treaty?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if a case were undefended in the County Court, there was still a right of appeal to the High Court, and are we to understand that, notwithstanding these two opportunities of trial, a decision arrived at by a lower Judge or a higher Judge is still reviewable by the Free State Parliament?

Under the terms of the Act which has recently received the Royal Assent, I understand they have taken power to review these cases. Whether they are going to do so or not, I do not know. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies consulted his competent legal advisers at the time as to whether it was outside constitutional powers; they went into the question very carefully, and their advice was that it was within the power of the Free State Parliament to pass such retrospective legislation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these were British subjects—

All Irishmen are British subjects.

whose cases were being tried before the Irish Free State Act was passed, and are we to understand that His Majesty's Government is to stand by and do nothing when British subjects, who, since then, may have sacrificed their British citizenship, are to have their claims made null and void?

It is not a question of the claims being made null and void. His Majesty's Government in this, as in many other matters of great complexity arising out of this compensation question, are not inactive; on the contrary, great political questions are involved, which will require and are engaging the attention of the Cabinet.

As this is a matter of great constitutional importance, may I ask whether it was not specially provided in the Act setting up the Free State, that if anything in that Act was contrary to the Treaty, the Treaty was to prevail; and as certain of these Sections are admittedly contrary to the Treaty, should not the Governor-General have disallowed them?

We have searched the Treaty to find if there is anything in it which conflicts in any way with this Act, and there is nothing in the Treaty about it—absolutely nothing. This is one of the difficulties inherent in the case, on the constitutional point, but the legal advice given to His Majesty's Government is that the previous Act, being an Act which applied to Ireland only, under the terms of the Act passed by this Parliament last December, that Act has the quality of a Dominion Act and cannot be amended.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, having regard to the importance of the question, the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted?

My Noble Friend took the advice of his law advisers—I do not know which Law Officers.

Is it not the fact that it was the law advisers to the hon. Gentleman's own Department who were consulted? Has he consulted the Law Officers of the Crown?

It is not for me personally to consult anybody. I think Sir John Risley and Sir Francis Greer were consulted in the first instance.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know of a single instance in the history of the country where a final British Court has decided a case and it has been made reviewable by another State?

No, I certainly do not.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the case of Mr. Travers Blackley does not come within the scope of the Damage to Property Compensation Act; and whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances of this case, His Majesty's Government will take steps to see that compensation from one source or another is paid for the personal losses and damage sustained by Mr. Blackley?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the latter part of the question, I am informed that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Dublin, on the 8th May last forwarded to the Cavan County Council Mr. Blackley's complaint that the moiety of his salary from county funds for the quarter ended 31st March, 1923, had not been paid, at the same time informing the council that the State had paid its moiety of his salary for this period. The county council, on 11th May, in reply stated that a pay order in favour of Mr. T. R. Blackley for a quarter's salary had been posted to him on that date. If the hon. and gallant Member is in a position to let me have information to the effect that Mr. Blackley has not received this pay order I will make further inquiry.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the payment of salary is only a small thing, and that the substantial matter is the damage in regard to business and property, and will he get into communication with the Free State Government as this is a very exceptional case?

I know that this is a very difficult and exceptional case. I understand that the claim for compensation is going to be heard at an early date.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is necessary for British visitors to Southern Ireland, either for pleasure or business, to be provided with British passports; and whether such passports require any visa from the representatives of Southern Ireland in this country?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the Report issued by the Committee which dealt with the advisability or otherwise of the Workmen's Compensation Act being applied to Gibraltar; whether the workers' representatives were afforded an opportunity of sitting upon this committee; and what further steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The Secretary of State has considered the Report. As far as I know no representative of the wage earners was invited to serve on the Committee: but its report which recommended that the Workmen's Compensation Act should not be applied to Gibraltar was unanimously approved by the Executive Council of the Colony, which, I believe, contains such a representative. One of the principal difficulties about applying any Workmen's Compensation Act in Gibraltar is that the bulk of the daily wage earners are Spaniards resident outside the Colony.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether officers serving in the Colonies are assessed for Income Tax in their respective areas of service; and whether, on their leave visits to this country, any salary payments becoming due and payable by the Agents-General for the Colonies are subjected to deductions for British Income Tax?

If the legislation of a Colony provides for the levying of an Income Tax, officers in the service of that Colony would be liable for such payments as may be required by the local legislation. As regards an officer on leave in this country, any liability to British Income Tax, which he may incur in respect of leave pay has, in recent years, been assessed by the various bodies of local commissioners of Income Tax. Provision is, however, made in this year's Finance Bill under which the liability will be dealt with by the Crown Agents, and the appropriate amount of tax collected by deduction.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any inscription has been placed on the Governor's Palace at Dares-Salaam, and the nature of the inscription?

There is no information available on this subject. I have already stated that it is incorrect to describe Government House, at Dares-Salaam, as a palace.

Will the hon. Gentleman obtain the information, and, in the interests of accuracy, may I describe the house as a palace?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me some information which I have been unable to obtain in the Colonial Office I shall be very grateful.

Is it a fact that the sign outside the palace is "For sale"?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state with regard to cotton goods imported from Great Britain into Tanganyika by a British importer, sold by him to an Indian dealer, retailed by the Indian to an African trader, and sold by him to a native purchaser, the number of duties and taxes payable and of licences necessary before the transaction can be completed?

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on this subject on the 11th June. Any local trader will have obtained, generally at the beginning of the financial year, a trading licence, the fee for which will eventually be repaid to him as a deduction from any Profits Tax payable. The annual payments required for licences and Profits Tax cannot be regarded as part of a transaction in cotton goods.

Are these laws now being considered?

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of some papers dealing with this subject. We have now received a despatch, which we are considering, on this particular point.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether persons from Great Britain visiting any of the Dominions, either as tourists or settlers, require to be provided with British passports; and whether such passports require any visas from the Dominion authorities in this country?

The Governments of all the Dominions except Canada and Newfoundland require British subjects from this country visit- ing the Dominion concerned, either as tourists or settlers, to be provided with British passports. Such passports do not require endorsement by the Dominion authorities in this country.

Has the suggestion been made to the other Dominions? They might be induced to follow the example of Canada in this matter.

I believe that representation is under the consideration of the Australian Government. In; Australia they do require persons to be in possession of passports, for whatever purpose they come and from whatever country.

Is the question to be raised at the Imperial Economic Conference of having this restriction removed?

I must have notice of that question?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, now that the naval garrison has been withdrawn from Ascension and the administrative control of the island has been transferred from the Admiralty to the Colonial Office and placed under the Governor of St. Helena, whether the annual tribute of turtles hitherto paid to the Admiralty is now being enjoyed by the Secretary of State and himself, or whether it will continue to be sent to the Admiralty as heretofore?

I have been asked to reply. The facts are that for more than 150 years the green turtle has been known to make a habit of visiting the beaches of Ascension Island, and while the island was treated as a tender to one of His Majesty's ships, and was manned by a naval crew, it was the custom for some of these creatures to be caught and used to supplement the ration of the officers and men serving in the island. Opportunity was occasionally taken to send a few turtle home to the Admiralty, but no expense to public funds was incurred. Now that the naval and marine officers and men have been withdrawn, there is no one in the employment of the Crown available to seize these visitors to the island, and the turtle, I believe, are, in consequence, unmolested; at any rate, neither the Secretary of State nor the Admiralty have any means of securing the continuance of the practice by which some of the turtle found their visit extended from that island to this. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the original proposal for the use of these turtle by the Navy put forward by Sir George Young, the great-great-grandfather of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young).

Considering the very able manner in which the island was administered during the whole of the 150 years it was rated as H. M.S. "Ascension," will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make arrangements to allow the tribute of turtles to be continued to the Lords of the Admiralty?

I wish I could. The fact remains that these turtles were gathered by ratings on Ascension Island and were sent home in any ship which happened to be coming home. One turtle was given to the captain of the ship for bringing the turtles home. I may add that, while there was a certain amount of mortality among the turtles, the turtle belonging to the captain of the ship never died.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman put one in the tearoom?

Following is a copy of Sir Geo. Young's letter of the 9th December, 1771:

"Weazle" at Portsmouth.

December the 9th, 1771.

Sir,

I beg you will be pleased to represent to My Lords of the Admiralty, that in the late Voyage of His Majesty's Ship "Weazle" under my Command to Guinea; the greatest part of her Company were very much afflicted with the Scurvey—the coast afforded no refreshment but fish and none of that below Sierra Leone, and although the Island St. Thomas abounds in every necessary of life, yet from the wildness of the cattel and the natural indolence of the natives everything is bought extreamley dear, a Purser's Jacket or Shirt, Value six or seven shillings, will purchase no more than a couple of Fowles, or a small cabbereta, and notwithstanding, the seamen sell all their cloaths, it seldom happens they have more than will give them a fresh meal or two, which is their only ressource in the whole Voyage—in the passage to England the ship must necessarily go within 70 leagues of the Island Assension, where the Green Turtle at that time of year is to be procured in great plenty without any other expence than the Mens labor, I should be under no Difficulty with respect to the safety of the King's Sloop, having been at the Island three times, and should Their Lordships think it proper to give leave for the "Weazle" to touch there on her way Home; it would in my humble opinion be a means of greatly refreshing my people, stop the fatal progress of the Scurvey, save many a good man's life and would not prolong the Voyage more than about one week.

I am, Sir,

Your most obedient and very humble servant,

(signed) GEO. YOUNG.

Philip Stephens, Esq.

Minute by the Secretary, 12th December.

To be done. Let him know it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any representations from the Arabs in Palestine protesting against the slow progress being made with the Rutenberg concessions; and, in the event of further prolonged delay, will he consider withdrawing these concessions?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part of the question is hypothetical, and I am therefore unable to reply.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Government of Palestine is authorising the change of all the laws and nearly all the names of towns and villages from Arab, Roman, and Greek to Hebrew; and will he make representations to the Palestine authorities that such practices should not be allowed until the same is passed by a duly elected Assembly representative of all the community in Palestine?

No, Sir, I have no reason to believe the facts to be as stated in the first part of the question, and therefore I see no necessity to make representations to the Palestine Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has anything to report with regard to the present position of Sir Herbert Samuel's Advisory Council; whether the Moslem and Christian members are contemplating resignation; and, if so, for what reason?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information with regard to the resignation of the Arab members of the Advisory Council of Palestine; and whether the views which have prompted this protest will be taken into consideration in shaping the future policy of the Government in Palestine?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information with regard to the reported resignation of the Moslem members of the Common Special Council in Palestine; and whether he can state what steps the Government propose to take to deal with the situation?

The position is that the Arab members of the Advisory Council have written to the High Commissioner stating that they are unable to participate until an assurance has been given that they will not thereby associate themselves with the Constitution as set up by the Order in Council of 1922. Sir Herbert Samuel is proceeding to England on leave very shortly, and until the Secretary of State has had an opportunity of discussing the whole question with him, I should prefer to make no further statement. I will only say that the Amendment Order in Council recently published provides for all contingencies and places the High Commissioner in a position to carry on the administration of the country whether or no a particular community or its representatives abstain from co-operation. The House may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will support him in doing so.

Do not all these incidents happening in Palestine give some reason to doubt the real worth of the Government's policy there?

That cannot now be debated.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the repeated failures of the Government to establish a successful representative legislative assembly in Palestine as shown, firstly, by the fact that on the 29th May the Palestine administration declared the elections to be null and void, secondly, the failure of the Government to form a legislative council, and, thirdly, the refusal of the Arab population to vote for the candidates to act on the proposed advisory council, His Majesty's Government will reconsider their whole policy in relation to Palestine and grant a national Government elected by a majority of the inhabitants of that country, Moslem, Christian, and Jew, with powers of control over their own internal affairs?

The hon. Member does not appear to be accurately informed as to the facts. There was never any question of the Arab population being invited to vote for candidates for the proposed advisory council. With regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government, I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member for Acton.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now furnish the complete returns for the recent Palestine elections?

A return on the subject has recently been presented to the House as Command Paper No. 1889.

What provision has been made for the Arabs in the interval?

Mr. Gilbert!

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present Constitution of Fiji and how many electors are enrolled as voters; whether he is aware that important sections of the community are either not represented at all or are inadequately represented; whether the Governor has urged that the question of Constitutial Reform in Fiji be taken up; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter?

The Constitution of Fiji provides for an Executive Council and a Legislative Council. The Executive Council consists of the Governor, the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney-General, and two unofficial members nominated by the Governor. The Legislative Council consists of the Governor, 12 nominated members (including one Indian member), seven members elected by persons of European descent, and two native members. The number of registered electors at the time of the last election was 1,133. The number on the present voters' roll is, I understand, 930. The total European male population, over the age of 20, at the Census of 1921 was 1,688. The question of representation on the Legislative Council is under discussion with the Governor.

In view of the wish of the overwhelming majority of the electors that such a course should be pursued, will the hon. Gentleman's Department consider giving the unofficial members equality of representation with the nominated members, leaving the Government the casting vote?

That can be taken into consideration, in connection with the question of Constitutional Reform now under discussion.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the re-statement by the Russian Government of charges of espionage against Mrs. Harding, the British journalist, for which the Foreign Secretary has declared there is no foundation, and in view of the worldwide publicity which is once again being given to this unfounded accusation, the British Government, in the reply which they are now preparing to the Russian Note, will insist, in addition to the pecuniary compensation they are obtaining for her imprisonment, upon an unqualified withdrawal of the allegations complained of?

His Majesty's Government have several times stated emphatically that the charges made against Mrs. Stan Harding by the Soviet Government were entirely without foundation, and in their Memorandum of 29th May they have again reiterated this declaration. It is impossible to prevent the Soviet Government repeating their false accusation if they choose to do so, but their compliance with the demand of His Majesty's Government for substantial compensation to be paid to Mrs. Harding is an acknowledgment of the justice of her claim, which rests upon her innocence of the charges preferred against her, and in these circumstances nothing would be gained by pursuing the matter further.

In view of the fact that the publicity given to this libel in America has caused Mrs. Harding great distress, will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of making some similar statement for publication to American correspondents?

I do not think I can take any steps which will give it greater publicity than an answer to a question in this House.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the next step to be taken by His Majesty's Government in the negotiations with the Russian Government for the settlement of the questions still outstanding between the two countries?

As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, agreement has just been reached with the Soviet Government upon certain specific issues. It would be premature to break fresh ground until His Majesty's Government have been able to observe the manner in which such agreement is carried into effect.

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the present state of affairs is not satisfactory on either side—the question of claims of British subjects, for example, is still outstanding—and is it not desirable that we accept the proposition to hold a conference on all outstanding questions?

I quite agree that the position is not satisfactory, but my answer stands with regard to the opportunity.

asked the Prime Minister whether, now that the recent dispute with the Russian Government has been satisfactorily ended, His Majesty's Government will invite the Russian Government to a conference at which private claims on both sides may be produced and examined in a reciprocal spirit of good will, and at which such public issues as may still divide the two Governments may be approached in the same spirit, with a view to the settlement of all outstanding differences and to the resumption of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries?

His Majesty's Government do not consider that a conference with representatives of the Soviet Government could at present usefully be convoked.

If His Majesty's Government received a proposal from the Soviet Government for a conference, would they refuse it?

I am unable to answer a hypothetical question of that kind.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of persons now employed in the Passport Department of the Foreign Office; and whether he can assure the House that the number of persons now employed at the Foreign Office, more than four times the number employed in 1914, will be substantially reduced in the near future?

The number of persons now employed in the Passport Department of the Foreign Office is 266, of whom 8 are permanent and 258 temporary. I referred the hon. Member on 11th June to the reply to a previous question, in which the reasons for the inevitable increase in the staff of the Foreign Office were fully stated. I do not anticipate that any substantial reduction will be possible in the near future.

Do the conditions which prevailed at the time of the answer to which the hon. Member has referred prevail at the present time?

Yes, I think so.

Is it not a fact that, if this system—to which many of us object—is to go on, there is no country in the world where it is carried on more efficaciously and cheaply and with less red tape than it is here?

I believe that is so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what European countries admit British passports without any visas; if the Government have made any representations to other countries to withdraw their conditions of visas; and can he make any statement as to whether the Government favour the withdrawal of visas on all British passports?

Agreements for the mutual abolition of visas have been concluded with France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg. It is hoped shortly to conclude a similar agreement with Sweden. Portugal have declined to conclude an agreement. A pronouncement to the effect that His Majesty's Government would favour the withdrawal of visas on all British passports could not be made without giving rise to demands for reciprocal treatment; and the time has not come, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government for the complete abolition of visas for aliens seeking admission to the United Kingdom.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as it is deemed desirable to continue the use of passports, he will put forward the suggestion that the life of a British passport be increased from two years, as at present, to a period of five years or more?

The possibility of extending the period of validity of British passports is under consideration by the various authorities concerned. There are a number of questions involved in any such extension, but it is hoped to arrive at a conclusion at an early date.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire into the case of Hermann Roechling, member of the Landesrat, in the Saar Valley, who has recently been prohibited by the Inter-Allied Rhineland Commission from entering or passing through occupied territory, despite the fact that free intercourse between the Reich and the Saar has been promised to the Saar population; and whether he will make representations with a view to permission being granted to M. Roechling to visit his iron and steel works in the Ruhr and his banking business in Frankfurt-on-Main and Berlin?

I have no information as to this case, but inquiry will be made.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of the resolutions which have been placed on the agenda of the next League of Nations meeting in reference to the Saar Valley administration?

asked the Prime Minister what precise proposal is to be made by the British representative at the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations Council in reference to the administration of the Saar territory?

The Secretary-General of the League of Nations has been asked to put the following item on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council:

" Saar Valley —1. To draw attention to the Decrees of 7th March (maintenance of order) and 2nd May (picketing).

2. To propose an inquiry as to whether the administration of the Saar Basin by the Governing Commission has been in accordance with the spirit and terms of the Treaty of Versailles."

asked the Prime Minister the names of the British representatives at the next meetings of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations?

As I have already announced, the Lord Privy Seal will represent His Majesty's Government on the Council of the League. As regards representation at the meeting of the Assembly, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Is it not essential that these persons should be chosen as soon as possible, so that they may study the problems that will come up?

I think that anyone who is chosen will be fairly familiar with the problems, but the Assembly does not meet until September. They will be chosen before long.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided whether the other parties in the House should be represented on the Delegation? A question was put the other day on that point.

Not yet.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Council of the League of Nations has had under consideration the question of re-organising the international bureau upon slavery; whether this bureau, although now under the League of Nations is established at Brussels; whether the re-organisation has been carried out in such a manner as to render the bureau competent to assist the Powers in fulfilling the obligations of the Powers signatory to the anti-slavery convention of 1919;

(2) whether it is proposed to retain indefinitely at Brussels a separate bureau for dealing with slavery; whether, although this bureau is situated at Brussels, only those Powers who are signatory to the Convention of 1919 will be called upon to contribute to its cost; and whether he will consider if it is desirable to continue the practice of limiting financial obligations for a League of Nations bureau to the Powers who may adhere to particular Conventions?

I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. S. R. Wells) on the 4th instant. The remainder of Question 62 and Question No. 63 do not, in the circumstances, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the scope of the proposed conference on Tangier; when it is going to meet; and who will be the British representatives upon it?

The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension in referring to a conference. It is only proposed that informal conversations should take place between British, French, and Spanish experts with the strictly limited object of endeavouring to find a common basis of agreement which would render it possible to hold a conference. It is hoped that these conversations will begin during the present week. His Majesty's Government will be represented by Mr. Robertson, His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Tangier, who is now in London.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the similar conditions existing, he will extend the scope of the inquiry into the lace trade to include an inquiry also into the silk trade?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the First Reading of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 1923, was passed by a majority of 82 and the Second Reading being also passed by the House without dissent, and having due regard to the fact that 50 Members of this House, representative of all parties, petitioned the late Prime Minister to give further facilities for the passage of this Measure, whether he will favourably consider their request?

I regret that, in view of the state of public business, I can hold out no hope of facilities being given for this Bill.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unfortunate impression likely to be made on opinion in India by the curtailment of the Debate on Thursday last, he will secure for this House a further opportunity for discussing Indian affairs at an early date?

No, Sir, in the present state of business it is not possible to grant special facilities for the continuation of this discussion. There are, however, the usual opportunities on Supply.

As it was not the fault of the Opposition that the Debate was postponed, are they to be deprived of their limited privileges in order that the Government should secure the proper discussion of Indian affairs? Is it not the duty of the Government to provide an opportunity?

It is nobody's fault, and it is not the duty of the Government to perform impossibilities. There certainly could be an occasion for further discussion on Supply if either of the parties in the House which have the power of choosing the subjects in Supply chose to exercise that privilege in that way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give us an extra day on Supply?

I would with pleasure if there were one, but there is no extra day.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government admit the claim of the United States Government to exercise jurisdiction over matters of internal economy and administration of British shipping in American territorial waters; and whether the Government can make any further statement with reference to the enforcement of the Volstead Act in respect of British shipping?

I must refer my noble and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to him on the 7th June. I cannot make any further statement on the subject at present, although it is one which is receiving the most earnest and continuous attention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 5th June I put this same question to him, and Mr. Speaker directed it to be put on the Paper? I have not yet had an answer.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the existence of a proposal by the United States to restore the right of foreign vessels to possess sealed supplies of liquor within American territorial waters in exchange for an agreement extending the right of search to 12 miles from the coast?

The United States Government have proposed the conclusion of a treaty by which, for the purpose of enforcing prohibition on the import of liquor into the United States, United States officers should be allowed to search British vessels within 12 miles from the coast. In return the United States Government would be prepared to allow the transport of liquor in British vessels if placed in bond in the above-mentioned area. The matter is under consideration.

Is it not the fact that any alteration in the extent of the territorial waters should be the subject of international agreement, and entirely separate from the question as to whether or not liquor is to be admitted?

Yes, Sir, certainly. There is no question here of altering the international law as to territorial waters; the only question that arises at all is as to an agreement as to special treatment within the territorial waters of each country of the nationals of two nations.

Will not this matter also raise the question of the fishing rights?

There is no question of interfering, as I have stated, with international law as to territorial waters.