asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether this House can rest assured that no project inconsistent with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the India Reform Act of 1919 to the effect that no revision of the constitution should take place until 1929 will be undertaken without due notice being given to this House?

In accordance with the procedure which has been followed in the past, and is accepted by His Majesty's Government, no modifications affecting the constitution of the Government of India established under the Act of 1919 would be proposed by any Government without due notice being given to this House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the discussion of the Government of India Act in Committee Mr. Montagu said that this Section would not tie the hands of Parliament in any way? The Commission might be issued at any time.

Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether it is not the case that there is nothing to tie the hands of Parliament, but only what he has, I understand, admitted, that Parliament should be informed before action is taken?

indicated assent .

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in spite of the fact that the General Officer commanding the Allahabad Brigade and the Assistant Director of Medical Services, India, on the 30th of October, 1917, assured the Chaplain of Allahabad that Lieutenant Glendining, 3rd Battalion, Royal Irish Rifles, was being sent to England because the climate of India was unsuitable to his health and that he was not being sent as a mental case, Lieutenant Glendining was, on the 1st of November, 1917, at Bombay placed in a wired-in bungalow under an armed guard; that he was then removed on 4th November to the docks under a guard with several certified dangerous lunatics and handed over to Major Dunn, the Officer commanding the "Takada" hospital ship, as an alleged dangerous lunatic; and whether the whole case of Lieutenant Glendining is under the consideration of the Government of India?

I would refer to the answers given in this House by the Secretary of State for War on the 21st February and 4th March. A telegram has been sent to India asking for an early reply in the case of Lieutenant Glendining.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that officers have the right to be heard in their own defence at inquiries into their conduct or efficiency? Why has not Lieutenant Glendining been allowed this right?

I should like to remind the Noble Lord that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the War Office. All that we are doing is asking for the papers.

May I ask why the War Office handed it over to the India Office? If I were to ask the War Office, should I not Le referred to the India Office?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office has referred me to him?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every medical man to whom this case has been referred has found Lieutenant Glendining absolutely of sound mind?

I understand that in the last reply of the War Office they agreed to consider this question. We have asked for the papers.

Have they not been considering it for the last five or six years?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, owing to the reduction in the Estimates for the educational and medical services in Bengal, passed by the Bengal Legislative Council, the Government are now forced to dispense with the services of all officers in those departments whose salaries have not been voted, and that 700 have been dismissed; and what steps it is proposed to take to carry on these services?

The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. and gallant Member. The precise number of officers who have been given notice, three months in every case, is 703. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State has the matter under consideration.

When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to give us a definite answer on this very important matter as to what the Secretary of State proposes to do, in the event of these 700 men being dismissed?

I hope I shall be able to give some information on the Debate next week.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether the Governor of Bengal has taken, or is about to take, over the transferred services in Bengal and administer them; and, if so, in what way the money to carry them on will be found?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he or the Secretary of State in another place proposes to take an early opportunity of stating how the administration of the transferred services is to be carried on in those provinces where the councils have refused to vote necessary supplies?

I hope to be in a position to give full information on the points which the Noble Lord has raised in the course of the Debate which, I understand, is to take place on 15th April, on the Motion of which the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has given notice.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question in a slightly different form was put to the hon. Gentleman last week, and he asked me to put it down again this week? This matter is of the utmost importance. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my noble Friend has not yet given notice of his Motion? Therefore, how does the hon. Gentleman know that it will be in order to discuss this matter?

I beg to inform my Noble Friend that we have made inquiries, but the Governor of Bengal has not yet made up his mind.

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Governor of Bengal has not made up his mind as to what is to happen if this state of administrative chaos continues? Are not the Government doing anything?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the differentiation of pay between married British Service officers, quartermasters, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, with children, serving in India, and those of the same rank serving at home; and what steps have been taken to remove the discontent caused by this reduction of pay on the part of those serving abroad in India?

As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL EEPOET.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me, shortly, what is going to be done. Nothing?

Following is the answer:

In the case of officers so many considerations, such as the varying rate of exchange, differences in the cost of living in the two countries, differences in the conditions of service, and differences in the two pay systems, enter into the question, that a simple comparison of sterling with rupee pay converted at the rate of exchange from time to time current is, I think, to be deprecated as misleading. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, there are certain instances in which such a comparison at the rate of exchange now current will show rupee pay for British Service officers to be at a disadvantage with sterling pay. In the case of other ranks, such minor differences of pay as exist are on the whole in favour of those serving in India. The revision of rates which is due this summer is under active consideration, and great attention is being paid to the factor of local conditions so as to ensure an adequate standard of remuneration, having regard primarily to Indian conditions. The value of rates at home after next July when these are known will also be taken into account when fixing the new rupee rates.

asked whether any member of the depressed classes has been nominated as member of the Legislative Assembly of the Government of India; if not, whether any vacancy exists to which a. member of these classes might be nominated; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to provide for representation of these classes by nomination to the Assembly?

No member of the depressed classes has been nominated to the Legislative Assembly, and at present no vacancy exists. But the Governor-General (with whom personally the right of nomination rests) informs me that he would certainly consider the claims of these classes should a vacancy occur.

Is it not a fact that these classes amount to 50,000,000 people of India, and will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the proper authority to see that steps are being taken?

Are the members of other castes willing to sit with these gentlemen?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what sums have been contributed annually from the Indian Exchequer to various military institutions, naval and military colleges, schools of gunnery and artillery, and other similar institutions from which Indians have been specifically excluded; and whether he will take steps to prevent any such racial distinction being made in future?

I understand the hon. and gallant Member to refer to British training institutions. India does not contribute to any such naval institution. But she makes an annual contribution to His Majesty's Government through what is known as the capitation rate, which covers all the services that the British Government renders in the provision of trained military personnel. It is not possible to give separate figures for institutions such as those to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. Indians are admitted to these institutions so far as they train personnel for the Indian as distinct from the British service, and no racial distinction is made.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much is contributed by India in this way?

I should like to have notice of that question.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that British newspapers are not allowed to be freely circulated in India; that such newspapers as the "Manchester Guardian," "Daily Herald," "Foreign Affairs," "The Crusader," the "Freeman of America," and other progressive journals are continually being stopped; and will he advise the Indian Government to cease this censorship and allow freedom of the Press to prevail in India?

No, Sir; there is no general censorship of the Press in India. If the hon. Member can bring any cases of interference with the circulation of newspapers to my notice, my Noble Friend will have them inquired into.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information with regard to the escape of two of the Kohat murder gang from Afghan Turkestan who are reported to have taken refuge in Afridi territory; whether the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Afridi maliks to hand over these murderers; and whether he will make strong representations to the Amir of Afghanistan regarding the escape of these prisoners, for whose safe custody and secure deportation to Afghan Turkestan he had promised to be responsible?

The two men referred to have not escaped from Afghan Turkestan after deportation. It was discovered early in February that they were not included among the 28 persons who had surrendered to the Afghan authorities and were then in course of deportation. Their present whereabouts are uncertain. The matter has been under discussion with the Afghan Government, and every effort will be made to effect their capture at the earliest possible date.

Is it not a fact that the Amir of Afghanistan made a definite statement that he would be responsible for the safe custody of these people, and now they have escaped?

May I ask whether the two men referred to in this question as murderers have actually been proved to be murderers; and, if not, whether it is correct so to describe them?

Cannot I have an answer to this question? It is a question of definite fact, and must be known.

I did reply—yes.

Then are we to understand that the Government at home still believe the Government of India's action in allowing the Amir to give these guarantees and keep control of these prisoners was the correct one?

That is a matter for debate.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India when the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Lee is likely to be presented to Parliament; and whether an opportunity to discuss it will be given by the Government at an early date after its presentation?

I am unable to make any positive statement until my Noble Friend the Secretary of State has received and examined the Report. There will be no avoidable delay.

Will the hon. Member undertake, on behalf of the Government, that no action shall be taken on this Report which would commit the House without the assent of the House?

Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman refuses to give an undertaking that we shall have a debate on this very important Commission and what is his objection to giving such an undertaking now.

That is a matter of arrangement between the parties.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India what are the principal differences between the proposals in the original Government of India Finance Bill, 1924, and the provisions in the Finance Act as passed into law by the certification of the Viceroy?

The Act as passed reduced the salt duty from Rs.2 per maund proposed in the original Bill to Rs.1¼ per maund. It also omitted certain minor changes proposed in regard to the tariff, the principal one being a reduction in the import duty and excise on motor spirit.

asked the Under secretary of State for India how many King's commissioned Indian officers have been transferred since June, 1923, to the four regiments and four battalions to be Indianised; and what the total number of such officers in those units now is?

I am unable to say accurately without reference to the Government of India, but from a reference to the Army List and Gazettes of India it would appear that six Indian officers with King's commissions have been transferred to Indianised unite and that there are now nine such in these units.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the manner in which mischievous falsehoods are spread amongst ignorant people by the Indian Press, and every official who is called upon to accept responsibility in main taining order is held up to obloquy; and whether he will now consult the Government of India as to the advisability of bringing in legislation to put a stop to this state of affairs?

The more important contents of the Indian journals are brought to my notice every week. There are, no doubt, articles that could be accurately described in the terms used in the question. But when papers commit an offence or an actionable wrong, the Courts of Law are freely used against them, and I do not consider that special legislation is called for.

Did the hon. Gentleman see the disgraceful statements in the Indian Press quoted by Mr. McPherson in the Bihar Legislative Council, and will he take steps to put a stop to the publication of such matter?

I cannot accept that as a Supplementary Question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Land Revenue Settlement Bill was defeated by a majority in the Madras Legislative Council; and what action the Governor of Madras has taken in the matter?

The Secretary of State has received no information on the subject, but inquiry will be made.

In view of the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament for all these matters, will the hon. Gentleman accelerate the method by which the present Secretary of State obtains information from India?

We are awaiting a report of the Debates.

Will the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the reports will arrive, and is it beyond the bounds of possibility to send a cable on the subject?

Have not reports appeared in the Press?

Not full reports.

May I ask for an answer to my perfectly reasonable question, whether, it is not possible to communicate with the Government of India by cable?

The Noble Lord knows that we cannot accept an ex parte statement that appears in the Press. We are awaiting a full report of the Debates.

On a point of Order—[ Interruption .]

On a point of Order. [ Interruption .]

I understand that the Noble Lord is submitting a point of Order.

This is a very important matter, on which it is necessary, in the interests of the House, to obtain information. My point was whether or not—[ Interruption .]

Will the Noble Lord put his point to me?

My point is, in what respect the Supplementary Question which I asked—whether it is not possible to communicate with the Government of India by cable—is out of order?

The Supplementary Question was not out of order. It was put twice by the Noble Lord, with my permission, but he will recollect that a year ago a question might be asked of Ministers, and not answered.

Perhaps I may be allowed to state—[ Interruption ]—that no question that was ever put to me was not answered.

I was not referring to the Noble Lord, but to Ministers.

I understood you were referring to me.

I am sorry that the Noble Lord thought that.

I am quite satisfied.

Did you not appeal to hon. Members, Hr. Speaker, to limit their supplementaries, and have not Members on the Opposition Front Bench put repeated supple-mentaries to-day?

I hope now that I may count the hon. and gallant Member as one of my supporters in this matter.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the firing in Bombay on the 7th March, the police did not observe the safeguards provided by law; that two school boys, of the ages of 11 and 12 years, were amongst the casualties; whether these boys were 250 yards away from the scene on the extreme side of the road, and that the firing was not done in the air nor aimed at the non-vital parts of the people, but at their chests: and whether, in view of these facts, a public inquiry into the conduct of the police has been ordered?

I have no particulars as to the individual casualties, and I am not clear as to the safeguards provided by law to which the question refers. If the hon. Member will give me more detailed information, I will have inquiries made. As regards firing in the air, I should, however, say that the police instructions specifically lay it down that care should be taken not to lire upon persons separated from the crowd nor to fire over the heads of the crowd, as thereby innocent persons may be injured.

Is it not a fact that troops never fire over the heads of crowds, as they might injure people further away?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that at the time of the firing on strikers in Bombay on 7th March no magistrate was present at the scene of the trouble and none was summoned until later; whether, in view of the exemplary conduct shown by the strikers during the weeks of the strike, an inquiry will be ordered into the causes that led to the disturbances; and whether his attention has been drawn to the memorandum drawn up by Mr. Findlay Shirras, the director of labour in Bombay, on the position of the labourers in the present dispute, and the steps that are being taken by the Government to meet the present situation?

Under Indian law the presence of a magistrate before fire arms are used to quell a riot is not essential, but Press reports state that the Commissioner of Police during the riots asked that two magistrates might be sent to the scene of disturbance. The reports which are, by regulation, made by the magistrates and police authorities on the events and the causes of any public disturbance, will doubtless enable the Bombay Government to judge whether there is reason for further inquiry. I do not know of any memorandum by Mr. Shirras answering the description given in the last part of the question.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask for a further report?

Yes, I will.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in the case of the owner of the Ahmedabad Cotton Mill, of Ahmedabad, in Bombay Presidency, some 17 charges were made against him for employing women and children on night duty in contravention of the Indian Factories Act, 1922, and that, after the millowner was fined £100 for one offence, the other cases were withdrawn by the collector; and whether, in view of the seriousness of the offence, he will make inquiries and find out why this withdrawal was ordered?

I have not received any information on the subject, but will ask the Government of India for a report.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the European Government Officers' Association gave evidence in India before the Lee Commission on the Public Services; when such Association was formed and for what purpose; and whether it had any activities prior to this Commission being set up?

I do not yet know whether this Association gave evidence before the Royal Commission. It was formed in 1922. I can. let the hon. Member have a copy of its original rules if he desires.

Was this Association formed with the approval both of the Government of India and the Secretary of State?

Yes, I think so.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Council of State at Delhi on 5th March carried, without a division, a resolution for a fresh survey of irrigation possibilities both from the rivers and wells of India, in the light of scientific advance, and for framing a pro- gramme particularly providing for the organisation of power-lift irrigation from wells; whether he is aware that no such survey has been made since 1901; and whether steps will be taken to give effect to the resolution passed by the Council of State?

Proceedings of the Council of State containing the resolution were received last week, and the views and recommendations of the Government of India on it will be awaited.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the recruiting for certain services and appointments for India is still done by the Secretary of State and not by the High Commissioner for India; and, if so, which are the services and appointments in question?

Apart form military services, chaplains and a few miscellaneous services and appointments the Secretary of State now recruits only for the All-India Services. Other recruitment, being in general that for all posts and services under the control of Governments in India has been transferred to the High Commissioner. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the appointments, recruitment for which is at present undertaken by the High Commissioner.

Following is the list referred to:

List of Services and Posts recruitment for which has been transferred to the High Commissioner for India

1. Librarian, Imperial Library.

2. Keeper of the Records, Government of India.

3. Bacteriological officers (non-service).

4. Town-planning experts.

5. Imperial meteorologists.

6. Mines—Inspectors and Chief Inspector.

7. Explosives—Inspectors and Chief Inspector.

8. School of Mines and Geology—Principal.

9. N.I. Salt Revenue Department—Commissioner, deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners and superintendents.

10. Printing and Stationery—Controller and other officers.

11. Patents and Designs—Controller.

12. Electrical adviser to Government of India.

13. Metallurgical—Inspectors and assistant inspectors.

14. Local manufacturers—Superintendents and deputy of, and chemist in Government Test House.

15. Indian Stores Department—Chief Controller and other officers.

16. Ordnance Mechanics—Chief civil master armourers, principal foremen, foremen, assistant foremen and others graded as such.

17. Appointments made in the United Kingdom to the staff of the Lawrence Military School, Sanawar.

18. Royal Indian Marine Dockyard Staff other than chief constructor, constructor, assistant constructor, and electrical engineer.

19. State Railway—Coal and Mining Department and covenanted staff.

20. Engraver and head engraver, Survey Office.

21. Photo-Lithograph Staff, Survey Office—Two managers, four assistant managers.

22. Mathematical Instrument Office Staff, Survey Office—Officer-in-charge, works manager, two assistant managers.

23. Drawing Office Staff, Survey Office—1st division assistant.

24. Chincona Plantations—Superintendent.

25. North-West Frontier Province—Agri-cultural officer.

26. European carpenter, Forest Department.

27. European gardeners under Government of India.

28. Curator, Industrial Section, Indian Museum, Calcutta.

29. Posts and Telegraph Department—Subordinate wireless personnel, cable foremen, foremen and assistant superintendents of telegraph workshops, instrument mechanicians for workshops and telegraph and telephone offices.

30. Appointments in the Zoological Survey.

31. All appointments made by the local Governments of Governors' provinces to posts and services under their control other than the Bengal Pilot Service.

32. All appointments made by the Government of India for service under a Chief Commissioner.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state in what respects the Secretary of State is still carrying out the functions of agent of the Government of India; and whether he will take steps to transfer these soon to the High Commissioner's Office?

There is little, if any, business now performed by the Secretary of State which can properly be described as agency for the Government of India. But my Noble Friend is always ready to consider transferring to the High Commissioner any functions which, under the present constitution, are suitable for transfer.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the serious outbreak of plague in the Punjab, which is said to have already resulted in approximately 25,000 deaths, and what steps the Government of India are taking to deal with the epidemic?

I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press. The Government of India are being asked for a report.

In view of the great danger of the spread of the plague from the Punjab to Bengal and the fact that 700 medical services are under notice to-day, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these medical services are increased rather than decreased?

Has the hon. Gentleman cabled for this report?

Yes.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the rejection of the grant for the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley by the Bengal Council, the Governor of Bengal will be able to restore this grant, or what steps he is taking to ensure that the province of Bengal will be represented at this exhibition?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bengal Legislative Assembly have rejected the vote of Rs.73,000 to provide for Bengal's share in the Empire Exhibition; and whether the Governor of Bengal has certified the expenditure?

The demand for the current year has been passed in full. A supplementary grant, which, according to my information, was Rs. 89,000 for last year, was rejected, but has been restored.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if any Indian or Burmese workers were among those ordered to cease work by the strikers at Wembley on Monday last; and, if so, in view of the risk of the incident being magnified or misrepresented in India and Burma, will he take steps to have it made known in both countries that no racial significance is attached to it, and that in future adequate police protection will be given to all willing to work at the Exhibition?

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

asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to inquire into the origin of the strike at Wembley; and whether action is being taken to prosecute strikers who tried to intimidate other workers?

I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry as is suggested in the question. No offences were witnessed by or reported to the police which would warrant any action being taken against either the strikers or their leaders.

Did the Government receive any report on the strike from the managers of the exhibition?

I certainly did not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it a condition, precedent to any complete recognition of the Government of Russia, that all British claims for personal injury are settled forthwith?

His Majesty's Government, as the hon. and gallant Member must be aware, granted complete de jure recognition to the Soviet Government on the 1st February, and his question is therefore much out of date.

Is it not a fact that negotiations with regard to these matters are taking place with the Russians, and will the right hon. Gentleman also consider taking into account the cases of persons whose property was requisitioned during the War, for which they are now entitled to compensation?

The answer to both parts of this question is in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister, seeing that the Russian Government has appointed M. Theodore Rothstein to represent them as Secretary-General on the proposed Anglo-Russian Commission, if he is aware that His Majesty's Government, in a Note of 21st September, 1921, made strong representations to the Russian Government against M. Rothstein's anti-British propaganda in Teheran in his capacity as representative of the Soviet Government in Persia; and will the Government represent to the Russian Government that M. Rothstein would not be welcome as a representative of Russian interests in this country?

I am informed that owing to the state of Mr. Rothstein's health he will not be included in the Soviet delegation.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing the Russian Government has appointed Mr. Maxim Litvinoff to represent them on the proposed Anglo-Russian Commission, he is aware that Mr. Litvinoff was allowed in England as the unofficial representative of Russia in June, 1918, on the definite understanding that he would not undertake propaganda in and against this country; that this promise was broken, and that complaints as to this were made by the then Home Secretary, and Mr. Litvinoff's repatriation insisted upon in the same year; and whether His Majesty's Government has addressed, or propose to address, any protest or inquiry to the Russian Government on the subject?

The facts recited in the first two parts of the question are substantially correct. As regards the last part, in the present circumstances I have not thought it necessary to make any representations as suggested. Mr. Litvinoff has repeatedly represented his Government in negotiations in which we have taken part.

Is it not a fact that, early in 1919, M. Litvinoff was requested to leave Sweden and Denmark?

That is part of a question which I disallowed.

rose —

In these international matters, I must see questions before they are put.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the undated letter signed by the late Mr. Charles Tufton, and printed on page 12 of the League of Nations White Book A 18, 1923, VI, was dispatched from the Foreign Office to Geneva prior to the receipt by Lord Curzon of the dispatch from Sir Lee Stack, dated Erkowitt, 6th May, 1923, dealing with Abyssinian slave raids into the Sudan; and whether the contents of this dispatch have been, or will be, forwarded to the League of Nations?

The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a consular representative has now been appointed for Montenegro; if so, whether he has taken up his duties; what is his name; and whether he has had previous experience of the Montenegrins or only of the Balkans?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The officer selected is Mr. Parr, who has been British Vice-Consul at Durazzo since 1922. He has not had previous experience in Montenegro, but is well fitted for the present appointment. He will shortly proceed to take up his duties at Cettinje.

Will he really live at Cettinje or Ragusa?

I should prefer to have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Serbian Government in regard to the treatment of Mr. Milne; and whether guarantees have been given that in future British subjects shall not be subjected to similar indignities?

The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government have expressed to His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade their sincere regret at the inconvenience caused to Mr. Milne, and are calling for a full report into the circumstances. As regards the second part of the question, it is inevitable that travellers who visit districts which they know to be disturbed should experience certain inconvenience, especially if they are unacquainted with the language, but it will of course always be the endeavour of His Majesty's Government to ensure that British travellers are not unnecessarily interfered with.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to submit the Supplementary Convention regarding the international navigation of the Elbe (Treaty Series, No. 17, 1924) for the consideration of Parliament before ratification, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 1st April?

The Convention was ratified on 29th December, 1923, as the hon. Member will see by referring to the text already laid before Parliament. (Command Paper 2091).

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in future these conventions or treaties shall be laid as Command Papers before they are ratified?

I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs outlined the other day the procedure that H.M. Government would like to adopt, provided there be no abuse of the privileges of obstruction that may arise therefrom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with the object of relieving the French Government of the cost of the garrison in the Saar and of carrying out paragraph 30 of the Annex referred to in Article 50 of the Treaty of Versailles, whereby the only military force in the Saar should be the local gendarmerie, His Majesty's Government will instruct our representative at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to suggest that the German Government should be invited to contribute towards the cost of the local gendarmerie?

This suggestion has been considered, but I feel that it would hardly be proper for the League to invite Germany to contribute to the budget of a territory which is not under German jurisdiction, but under the jurisdiction of the League itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest of the oberburgomaster of Dortmund and two other German officials in the Ruhr as a reprisal for the condemnation for espionage of a French officer by the Leipzig Court; whether these German officials have been transferred by Allied authorities to a military prison at Dortmund; and whether this has been done with the knowledge of the Rhineland Commission and with the approval of the British High Commissioner?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the burgomaster of Dortmund has been transferred to a Trench military prison at Zweibrücken as a hostage for Captain Pendariès D'Armand, who has been sentenced by a German Court for espionage; and if this action was taken with the assent of the British representatives on the Rhineland? Commission?

His Majesty's High Commissioner at Coblenz reports that the three persons in question have been arrested by the French military authorities and are now confined at Düsseldorf. I need not remind the hon. Member that the jurisdiction of the Rhine-land Commission is confined to the territory occupied under the Rhineland Agreement. Consequently the High Commission as such is not concerned.

Have we any influence at all with reference to the arrest of public officials in occupied territory? Are we consulted in regard to the policy in any way?

No, we are not consulted on the policy. It is a very delicate position to handle, but His Majesty's Government do their best.

asked the Prime Minister the total cost of the Army of Occupation in the Rhineland in 1923; if the full cost is paid by the Germans; and the number of British troops in the occupied area?

I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is £1,600,000, and to the third part 8,666 all ranks. As regards the second part, Germany now pays on a capitation basis, which, for the financial year 1923–24, is estimated to amount to about three-quarters of the full cost.

asked the Prime Minister if the United States has been paid any part of their claim by the Reparation Commission for their Army of Occupation?

No payments have been made by the Reparation Commission to the United States Government under the agreement with regard to the reimbursement of the costs of the American Army of Occupation of 25th May, 1923 (Command Paper 1973), which has not yet been ratified. During the period of the occupation the American Army of Occupation received from the German Government paper marks to the value of 154 million gold marks (say £7,700,000) in respect of local expenditure. The United States Government has also received Armistice material to the value of 59 million gold marks (say £3,000,000).

What is the balance now of the claim of the United States?

I am afraid I should have to ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question. There is some controversy, as he knows.

asked the Prime Minister whether the new draft convention for the future status of Memel has been accepted by the States concerned; and, if not, whether the matter is now in the hands of the Ambasasdors' Conference or with the League?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, the French Government drew attention to certain errors of drafting in the French text of the Convention prepared at Geneva, and to minor divergencies between the English and French texts. The Conference of Ambassadors are at present engaged in rectifying these verbal errors. There is no question of any modification of substance in the text accepted at Geneva.

May I ask whether the answer to the first part of the question includes the Russian Soviet Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes, before the House rises for Easter, to afford an opportunity for a discussion on the experts' reports on the economic condition of Germany; and whether, in any case, the Government intends to make a statement itself on the subject before Easter?

Until His Majesty's Government have received the report and considered it, I regret that I am unable to reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Clauses in the Peace Treaty to the effect that, if the number of cases justifies it, additional divisions of the mixed arbitral tribunals (enemy debts) may be set up, and in view of the large number of cases which have for so long been held up and still remain to be settled, he will demand the setting up of a third division?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the answer given to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 25th March on the same subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement on the decision of Italy to construct naval bases on the islands of Sardinia and Sicily?

I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, nor would I think it proper to make any comment upon the naval dispositions of a friendly Power within her own waters.

In view of the fact that a moral gesture has been made to Europe, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that is a satisfactory response?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has discovered any secret treaties or undisclosed engagements entered into by previous Governments?

The answer is in the negative.

Are we to understand that the policy of His Majesty's Government, as far as secret treaties are concerned, is just the same as we have always pursued in this country?

No, certainly not.

asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to bring about the decaeualisation of labour at the docks and port3 of the country?

I have been asked to reply. This question is being dealt with by the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Donald Maclean, the appontment of which was announced on 2nd April in reply to a question, by the hon. Member for Moseley.

May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom this question was addressed, whether, in the event of this Committee not reporting; favourably, or not coming to a conclusion, His Majesty's Government are prepared to legislate?

asked the Prime Minister on what estimates were based the figures provided to him by railway companies of the cost of conveying Members of Parliament to and from their constituencies to the House of Commons; whether the estimates were based on the normal price of season tickets, or some approximate forecast of the number of journeys each Member would require; and whether they included profit to the companies or merely the net cost of transit?

The figures furnished by the Ministry of Transport were based on the normal price of season tickets as charged to the public, and it is understood that the estimate supplied by the railway companies was framed on the same basis.

Is it not a fact that, excluding Members around London, this means an average of about £140 for conveying Members to and from their constituencies; and is it right that these great monopolies should be allowed to charge in this way for work of national importance?

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the impending discussion of railway passes to Members of Parliament, he will circulate a White Paper setting forth the practice followed in this matter in the British Dominions and in foreign countries?

As regards British Dominions, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 31st March in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Acton. As regards foreign countries, I would refer him to Command Paper 5714 (1911). I do not think it is necessary to circulate a special White Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether the proposal to grant railway passes to Members is to be left to the free vote of the House; and, if so, should the decision be favourable, can he see his way to postpone the operation of the benefit till the next elected Parliament, thereby giving the electors an opportunity of expressing approval or disapproval of their representatives' action?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Faversham (Major Wheler).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of granting free railway passes to Members of Parliament is not a question that was before the electors at the last Election, and is he aware that the Government have no mandate from the electors in this direction?

Will the Prime Minister take into consideration the fact that the previous Government in 1920 gave to the richest Members of this House a rebate on their Income Tax, and to the poorest Members nothing at all?

Mr. John Harris.

On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the question especially refers to the matter not having been before the electors of this country, may I have a reply to my supplementary question?

That is not a point of Order; it is a little speech.

Surely I am entitled to a reply.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the serious anomalies in wage rates that are arising in different occupations according as they are sheltered from or exposed to competition at world prices, with the result that skilled workers are in many cases being paid less wages than unskilled workers, and a privileged class of wage earners in sheltered industries is being created, largely at the expense of the wage earners in less favoured industries; and whether he will consider the desirability of instituting a comprehensive scientific inquiry by independent persons into the whole question of money wages with a view to disclosing and removing the causes that give rise to these anomalies?

I have been asked to reply. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of a reply which I gave on 2nd April to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the East Birkenhead Division.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is receiving from commercial and other organisations representations as to the injury caused by lock-outs and strikes, also suggestions for further legislation designed to prevent them; and whether, in view of the menace to national well-being caused by the increase of lock-outs and strikes, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee of inquiry into their causes and effects, and to make recommendations designed to minimise the severity and frequency of these industrial disputes?

The subject of industrial unrest is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but I am unable at the moment to make a definite statement in regard to it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he advised the parties in the recent transport strike that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to allow the tramway authorities concerned to divert certain expenditure from revenue to capital account; if so; will he state the specific expenditure referred to; and when he proposes to introduce the necessary legislation?

It was indicated on behalf of the Government to the municipal tramway authorities affected by the recent strike that, in accordance with existing law, the Government Departments concerned are prepared to consider applications for sanctions to meet the costs of reconstruction by means of loans where such sanctions are required and can be given. So far as I am aware, legislation on this point is not necessary.

Does that mean that relief will be given to tramways in respect of the upkeep of the roads, and does not the relief which the right hon. Gentleman suggests mean, in effect, a subsidy to wages out of the rates and taxes?

Any statement that was made is strictly within the powers already defined and given by this House to municipal tramway authorities and Government Departments under private Acts.

As this is a matter of so much importance to municipal corporations who are engaged in that sort of work, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate, at some future time, what is really meant, as we are quite in the dark as to what it means?

It is exactly what I have said.

asked the Prime Minister whether any condition was made during the negotiations in connection with the recent tramway dispute to the effect that the Government would press forward the London Traffic Bill?

The Court of Inquiry had stated that a measure for the co-ordination of London traffic was the only basis at present suggested for re-opening negotiations. I, therefore, pointed out to the parties that the Government were already pledged to the immediate introduction of the London Traffic Bill, and would use their beet endeavours to get their Measure carried into law. It was also made clear that the London Traffic Bill had been prepared and introduced for the purpose of dealing with London traffic, and not in particular connection with the strike.

asked the Prime Minister whether his Government proposes to take any action to protect the public against injuries inflicted upon it by stoppages of industry in national utility services?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now take steps, having regard to recent stoppages of public services and industry through wage disputes, to appoint a strong committee to examine the present methods of negotiation with a view, in the interests of all concerned, to make it illegal for a strike or lock-out to occur till the court of inquiry shall have given their pronouncement?

I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.

Leaving compulsory arbitration out of the question altogether, will the right hon. Gentleman look at Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, with a view to permitting a Court of Inquiry to be held earlier in cases where the public interest is clearly involved?

I think my right hon. Friend will be aware that as a matter of fact we have set up these Courts earlier than has been the custom pre- viously, and one of the matters which will be carefully considered will be whether any alteration is necessary in order to enable us to set them up still earlier.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of summoning an Industrial Conference, in order that employers and employed may discuss methods of carrying on the services and industries of this country with a little less damage to the community?

Is the Prime Minister aware that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) was Minister of Labour he refused to operate Part II of the Act?

I think we had better wait and see if we can come to some sort of agreement that will put things on a better footing than they are on now. So far as the Noble Lord's question is concerned, that and other subjects and suggestions will be very carefully explored to see how practical they are.