asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to publish the evidence which was given at the official inquiry into the Army Canteen Board (India); when the Government proposes to announce its decision as to the future of this board; and whether this organisation is still carrying on its operations and incurring further liabilities?

So far as I am aware, there is no formal evidence to be published. The Government of India are being advised in their inquiries by experts who have been kindly lent by the authorities of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and it is hoped that a decision as to the future will be reached before the end of the year. In the meantime the board is continuing to operate under strict financial control and with the assistance of the experts mentioned.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the nature of the charges brought against the seven European members of the Army Canteen Board (India); and how many prosecutions have been brought against any European members of the staff of the board since the inception of the under taking in 1921?

Except in the case of Mr. Pleydell, the late controller, who was convicted for an assault resulting in the death of an Indian coolie, my only information as regards Europeans is that contained in paragraph 10 of the Report. I have certain details regarding the con- viction of three employés of the board, but it is not shown whether they are Europeans. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend these details if he desires.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the losses which are being sustained by the trading of the Army Canteen Board of India will affect the rebates granted to units in India; and, if so, to what degree?

The rebate has not been dependent on profits, and so far as I am aware units have not suffered in this respect.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has received any representations from provincial legislative councils as to the need that is alleged to exist for the appointment of special women factory inspectors; and, if so, whether the Government proposes to take any steps to induce local Governments to make such appointments?

The Government of India have directed the attention of the Provincial Governments to the recommendation of the International Labour Conference of October, 1923, favouring the appointment of women for certain classes of factory inspection work, and have expressed the hope that in the larger Provinces it will shortly prove possible to make an advance in this direction. No report has yet been received of the action, if any, which has been taken by Provincial Governments.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the growing industrialisation of India and the urgent need that exists for an efficient system of factory inspection under the control of the legislative councils, it is the intention of the Government of India to bring the subject of labour under a Minister's control on the transferred side of provincial administration?

No, Sir. The subjects to be transferred were settled in 1920 after most careful inquiries by many authorities, including a Joint Select Committee of Parliament, who recommended that no material change should be made before the Statutory Commission had inquired and reported. It is true that the recent Reforms Inquiry Committee considered the desirability of making some slight readjustments between the lists of transferred and reserved subjects, but this was not one of the subjects they considered from that point of view. I cannot admit that the system of factory inspection is lees efficient as a reserved subject than it would be if it were transferred.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what proportion of applicants was selected during the past year for the postgraduate courses in agriculture at Pusa and the special course in animal husbandry at Bangalore; and whether the Government of India proposes to amend the rules for the selection of such candidates, so as to make provision for the training of a larger number of Indian students than is the case at present?

The figures for 1925 have not yet been received. In 1924 there were 32 candidates for the postgraduate courses at Pusa. Six were selected, of whom one did not join and two left early in the year. It is not known how many applications there were for the 15-month course at Bangalore in animal husbandry and dairying which began in January, 1924, but it was completed by five students. There were 21 applications for admission during the second session, and of these two were selected. I have no information regarding the second part of the question, but inquiry will be made of the Government of India.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House of the amount of the subsidy paid by the Government of India to the steel industry under the Steel Industry (Protection) Act during the last financial year and of the amount expended by the Government on agricultural development during the same period?

The accounts showing the exact amount paid in bounties to the steel industry during the last financial year have not yet been received, but the amount for the preceding year was sixty lakhs, and the latest estimate received for 1925–26 is 85 lakhs. The Government of India spent, during 1924–25, 30 lakhs on agricultural development. This is, however, only a fraction of the total Government expenditure in India on agricultural development, as the greater part of such expenditure is charged to Provincial Governments. The Government of Madras, for example, spent during 1924–25 about 16 lakhs.

asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the financial condition of affairs in the State of Khairpur; whether he is aware that the Government of India has sent or loaned Mr. Mahomed, of Bombay, as vazir; that Mr. Mahomed's daffadar has been arrested by the orders of the Mir of Khairpur; that the salaries of the State servants have not been paid for months past; and what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to improve the administration of public affairs in Khairpur?

I have seen reports which indicate that financial and other conditions in Khairpur are a matter for serious concern. I cannot at present say more than that the whole matter is being very carefully considered by the Government of Bombay and the Government of India.

asked the Under-secretary of State for India whether he has recently had his attention drawn to any evidence which would justify him in concluding that Mr. F. C. Bose, chief executive officer of the Calcutta Corporation, should be released from confinement in Mandalay gaol as a détenu under the Bengal ordinance; and what decision he has reached in the matter?

No evidence regarding this détenu has been recently seen by my Noble Friend.

Is the Noble Lord aware that on two recent occasions in the Law Courts in Calcutta this détenu has. received large sums by way of damages from newspapers which repeated the allegations on which, presumably, he is detained?

In my private capacity I have seen reports of the trials in question. The hon. Gentleman must not assume, however, that the accusations made in the newspapers were necessarily the same as the charges, which were brought against this gentleman, on which, after they had been considered by the Government appropriate action was taken.

Is the Noble L rd aware that the charges to which he has just referred have never yet been made against this man, and that he is unaware of any charges against him?

No public charges were made against him, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is not necessary. It would not be possible, in the time which a Minister is presumed to occupy in answering a question, to explain the whole system. Charges have not been made publicly in any Court of law because this gentleman was proceeded against by other methods.

Will the Noble Lord say whether the Government of India have any documentary evidence against Mr. Bose?

I am not prepared to give any more answers on this matter than those I have already given—that, in the opinion of the Government of Bengal in the first instance, of the Government of India in the second, and of my Noble Friend, this gentleman was guilty of the charges brought against him.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has yet been reached as to the future of the Indian Medical Service; and, if so, if he can give any details as to that decision?

I regret that I cannot at the moment add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on the 23rd November last, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. My Noble Friend hopes to receive the Government of India's final proposals very shortly.

(for Mr. LANSBURY) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India propose to act on the recommendations of the Reforms Inquiry Committee as to an increase in the number of representatives in the Indian Legislatures; and, if so, whether action will be taken in the matter before the forthcoming elections?

The Government of India's proposals on this matter are now under my Noble Friend's consideration, and he has not yet arrived at his decision. But I think it probable that some additional seats will be created in the provincial councils before the next election for representatives of Labour and the Depressed Classes, as the Committee recommended.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he can state the procedure which is followed in Portuguese East Africa in the securing of indentured native labour for work in Kenya Colony;

(2) whether any steps are to be taken to ensure that the indentured labour from Portuguese East Africa, to be imported into Kenya Colony under the new Regulations, shall not be pressed or forced in any way; and whether any official protection will be provided for such labour;

(3) what steps have been taken to provide for the moral and material well-being of the indentured labourers whose importation into Kenya Colony has been recently sanctioned by the Colonial Office?

I will deal with these three questions together. No sanction has been given for the importation of indentured labourers into Kenya, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his previous question on the 8th June.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the increas- ing number of cases of cattle stealing by natives from white settlers in Kenya Colony; whether he can give the figures for conviction for the years 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925, respectively; whether he is aware that only a fraction of the fines imposed are collected and that, in some cases, settlers have had to give up sheep breeding in consequence of the frequency of thefts; and whether he proposes to take any steps to improve the administration of justice in the Colony in this respect?

The information in my possession does not enable me to answer the hon. Member's question in detail, but I understand from a report in the local Press of a debate in the Legislative Council of Kenya on the 16th March that the prevalence of stock thefts has been inquired into by a committee whose report is under consideration by the Colonial Government, and that an amendment of the law is contemplated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state on what grounds the case of Lord Delamere has been selected for special investigation from amongst the numerous cases in which accusations of obtaining grants of land by applying in the names of other persons have been brought against residents in Kenya Colony; and why Government resources have been used to enable him to meet the accusations made against him?

The charge of "dummying" alleged against Lord Delamere in the local Press was quoted, not only in the book "Kenya," but also in another place by a Noble Lord, who said:

"We want to know what has been the action of the Colonial Government itself in the matter."

The reason why the Command Paper was confined to the charge against Lord Delamere has already been given in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wegdwood) on 20th May.

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to why the resources of the Government were used to enable Lord Delamere to meet these accusations?

That is not the case, Lord Delamere is entirely free to meet any charges, but he is concerned here with rebutting charges made against himself and the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the complaints received from residents of Jamaica as to their grievances connected with the labour, police, legal, medical, and postal administration of that island have been now duly considered; and if he will state what steps have been taken or proposals made for remedying them?

I have no knowledge that any such complaints have been received for some time past, but, if they have, I have no doubt that the Governor is inquiring into them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is able to state when the East Africa Loan Bill will be submitted to the House?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to introduce the East Africa Loan Bill?

I will answer these questions together. I hope that it will be possible to arrange for the introduction of the Bill shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the East Africa Loan Bill will be discussed, and if he will provide a large scale map in the Tea Room showing the projected lines of railway before the discussion takes place?

I hope that it will be possible to arrange for the introduction of the Bill at an early date. It is not yet decided what projected railway lines are to be included in the Schedule of the Bill, but as soon as the information is available I shall hope to arrange for a map to be furnished, as desired by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can report any progress in the negotiations with the Chinese authorities concerned for the removal of the boycott on the trade of Hong Kong?

I am not yet able to add anything to the reply returned to the hon. Member for South-East Essex on the 10th June.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in whose hands are the negotiations on our side?

That is one of the questions under consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can furnish comparative statistics showing the effect of the disturbances in China on British trade with that country?

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

Can my hon. Friend give us any rough idea as to what has been the effect?

Yes. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the exports of United Kingdom produce to China and Hong Kong for the first quarter of 1926 are better than they were in 1923 and better than in 1925, but not quite so good as in 1924. Cotton has done badly, but better than in 1923.

Following is the answer promised:

The following figures show the general trend of our exports to China and Hong Kong in recent years.

1. Declared values of the total exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom registered as consigned to China and Hong Kong during each of the periods specified.

2. Total quantities of cotton piece goods of all kinds manufactured in the United Kingdom registered as consigned to China and Hong Kong during each of the periods specified.

NOTE.—From 1st April, 1923, the above particulars exclude the direct exports, if any, from the Irish Free State to China and Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the state of afiairs existing in China of the increasing disregard of international obligations, as evidenced by the breach of the loan agreement relating to the revenue of the salt gabelle, and of the fact that there is not now any central Government existing or any immediate prospect of a central Government whose authority will be universally recognised, he will approach the great Powers who were signatories to the Washington Treaty to secure an exchange of views as to the policy it is now desirable to pursue?

The serious state of affairs in China, and the breaches of international obligations to which the hon. Member refers, have engaged the anxious attention of His Majesty's Government for some time past. The difficulties are greatly increased by the fact that, as there is no central Government, it is not possible to deal with these matters through the ordinary channels. His Majesty's Government have taken full account of these difficulties in the instructions sent to His Majesty's Minister at Peking, who is in close touch with the delegates of the other Powers attending the Tariff Conference, and is also acting in co-operation with the representatives of the Powers more nearly affected by the attack on the salt administration at Tientsin. For the present His Majesty's Government are of opinion that no useful purpose would be served by any more formal consultation with the Powers who were signatories to the Washington Treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of reserve funds in the banks to meet the service of loans guaranteed on the salt gabelle in China; and whether these reserves have been drawn on hitherto?

I understand that these reserve funds, which amounted in 1925 to some 7,000,000 dollars, have not so far been seriously drawn upon, but I am still awaiting more precise details from Peking.

Are those American dollars, or silver dollars?

My hon. Friend is quite entitled to ask what is a most reasonable question, but I am ashamed to confess that, without reference, I cannot answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if the question of marking goods as Empire produce or of Dominion origin will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference?

The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter is embodied in the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill, which was read a Second time in this House on 12th May last. Communications on the subject of this Bill have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions, and it will, of course, be open to any of the Governments concerned to bring the matter up for discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, if they so desire.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the setting up by the International Chamber of Commerce of a Committee on Trade Barriers, whose object will be to facilitate the removal or diminution of the obstacles to trade in Europe; and whether he will instruct the British representative on the preparatory Commission of the International Economic Conference to take all possible steps to carry out the policy which is thus supported by the representatives of British and of world commerce?

My attention has not been specially called to the appointment by the International Chamber of Commerce of a Committee on Trade Barriers, but I am, of course, aware of their general views on this subject. The task of the preparatory Committee of the International Economic Conference is to draw up a programme, not to recommend or carry out a policy. Its Members are not representatives of Governments, but persons selected for their expert knowledge. There can therefore be no question of my giving instructions to the British members on the Committee.

Does the general policy of the Government favour the abolition of trade barriers?

Who are the selected persons acting on behalf of Great Britain?

I cannot say now, but they are experts, and I understand they are selected subject to the League of Nations.

Has Mr. Zimmermann been called to the Conference?

Did the Government have regard to M. Loucheur's statement last year that working-class representation should be obtained?

We are well aware of all the representations which have been made by M. Loucheur and others.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the association between the iron and steel trade and the coal trade, and the bearing that an improvement in the iron and steel trade would have on the production of coal in this country, he will again consider, in arriving at any legislation for the coal trade, the question of safeguarding the iron and steel trade?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 17th March, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to state what is debited against the profit-and-loss account of the Kelham beet-sugar factory before the trading profits are determined; and what is the proportion of the trading profits due to the corporation?

As was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Hillsborough on 23rd November last, the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act does not provide for the laying before Parliament of the particulars of the statement of profit and loss of the beet-sugar companies or of any of their financial statements other than the balance sheets. My hon. Friend will, therefore, understand that I cannot give him the information asked for.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how the initial outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Carluke was traced to imported pig carcases?

In connection with the confirmation of foot-and-mouth disease in the original outbreak on the sewage fields near Carluke, the Ministry's superintending veterinary inspector was instructed to visit any premises in the area connected with the sewage system from which infection might have been conveyed. Among other places he visited the Carluke Bacon Factory, and in the course of his examination of pig carcases newly arrived from Rotterdam, discovered definite lesions of foot-and-mouth disease in some of the carcases. Subsequent examination of other portions of the cargo which had been distributed to other bacon factories revealed further infected carcases.

May I ask whether the Dutch inspectors who disputed the tracing of the source still dispute the fact that the disease was traced to these carcases?

I do not think they disputed that the disease was traced to these carcases at Carluke. I think the right hon. Gentleman probably refers to their statement that these were Belgian carcases and not Dutch. I have no reason to doubt that. The infected Dutch carcases were sent to Carlisle, and came from quite a different ship.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Ayrshire bacon is made from foreign pigs?

Not now.

Can the Minister tell the House why these carcases were allowed to come in at the ports?

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the responsibility for the inspectors of meat imports is with the Inspectors of the Public Health Authority, and it is not, difficult to understand that an inspector with no veterinary knowledge might overlook a disease like foot-and-mouth disease.

Is it not advisable that the inspectors at the ports should have this necessary knowledge?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Carluke is in Ayrshire or not?

I think it is in Lanarkshire.

asked the Minister of Agriculure if he is aware that the Ministry of Agriculture are stopping the landing of all bristles arriving from the Continent; and whether he can inform the House that all brushes containing these bristles have been prohibited from being landed also?

I am advised that the risk of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease by imported bristles is very small, and on Saturday I arranged, after consultation with the trade, for the issue of licences to individual importers for the importation of bristles, subject to certain conditions which the trade have undertaken to observe, to prevent the introduction of disease. I do not propose therefore to prohibit the landing of brushes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any further information with regard to importations of cherries containing the maggot of the cherry fruit fly?

As I stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham, on Friday last, 11th instant, I have issued an Order prohibiting the import of French cherries unless accompanied by an official certificate that they have been grown in a, district free from cherry fruit fly. In response to representations which I have received, I have postponed the operation of the Order until midnight to-morrow in order that those concerned in the trade may have due notice of the prohibition.

Has everything been done to push the sale of homegrown cherries?

Home-grown cherries are not yet on the market. I hope that at the period when they do appear on the market the public disgust at maggoty cherries will have ceased and also the French imports.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the short notice of prohibition of importation of fresh cherries from France has considerably inconvenienced importers in Hull, who have not had time to inform packers and prevent shipments already arranged for, and whether he will consider postponing the prohibition until the 22nd June on the understanding that any affected cherries will be destroyed on landing?

In order to meet as far as possible the inconvenience to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, I postponed the operation of the Order until midnight to-morrow. I regret I cannot entertain his suggestion for a further postponement, nor can I entertain his suggestion as to the examination of consignments and the destruction of those found to be infected, since it would not be practicable to detain arrivals of cherries at the port for a sufficient time to enable each lot to be sampled and tested.

Could not this matter be left to the importers, who are as interested as he in seeing that no infected cherries come inland? Cannot they be trusted?

These importers have proved unable to deal with this matter in the past. I am doing all I can to avoid inconvenience, and I have given instructions that the discretion allowed in Article 3 of the Order will be used to allow the importation of cherries which are shown to be free from maggots, and despatched not later than to-day.

Is not this another case in which the Liberal party are advocating the Merchandise Marks Act?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give a figure showing the increase in the prices paid by the consumer during the first three months of 1926, as compared with the corresponding months of 1911–13, in respect of the commodities covered by the agricultural index number published by the Ministry of Agriculture?

I regret that I am not in a position to furnish this information. The prices collected by the Ministry are wholesale or producers' prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether legislation will be introduced at an early date to prevent the sale in Great Britain by the Russian Soviet Government of confiscated British property; and whether he has recently been urged by the London Chamber of Commerce to introduce legislation on the lines indicated as soon as possible?

As at present advised, His. Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce such legislation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lenin, the late head, of the Soviet Government, had boasted that not only was he out to destroy capitalism in this country and elsewhere, but to make the capitalists pay for their own destruction; and does he think it desirable that the British Government should assist them in the fulfilment of that boast?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lenin has been dead for a very considerable time?

In reply to my hon. Friend's question, I fear that I do not appreciate its bearing on the question which he put or on my answer.

Does the Foreign Secretary not realise that people owning capital in this country have not only had that capital taken from them, but it has actually been sold in this country with the aid of the British market; and does he think it desirable that the Foreign Office, which represents the foreign interests of British citizens, should take steps to prevent the British market being used for the sale of stolen British goods?

If I thought, or the Government thought, that the remedy proposed by my hon. Friend was an effective remedy to secure redress for injured British citizens, we should not hesitate to employ it, but we do not think that it would serve the interests of injured British citizens, and it raises some awkward questions of international law.

Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the doctrine that the Foreign Office exists solely to represent the foreign possessions of British subjects?

I did not understand that my hon. Friend stated that doctrine.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state what his policy is in this matter?

To continue as at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Russian trade union leaders are or have been accorded diplomatic privileges to this country as Russian government officials?

His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the Soviet Government officials to whom diplomatic privilege has been accorded are, or have been, trade union officials. His Majesty's Government take steps to ensure that no person who is persona non grata should be appointed to a diplomatic post in London, but the fact that an official has been a trade union leader would not in itself render him objectionable.

Have the couriers of the Russian trade unions been accorded diplomatic privileges?

I think I answered a question on that subject before, but I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would put it on the Order Paper.

Will the Foreign Secretary say what purpose is served, if any, by the retention of that Embassy and those officials in this country?

That does not arise here.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any other Russian subjects other than the officials of the Russian Soviet Government are accorded diplomatic immunity in this country?

That does not arise out of the question. If my hon. Friend will put a questionn on the Paper asking for the information which he desires I will do my best to answer it.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that petrol belonging to British subjects, which was appropriated by the Russian Soviet authorities without compensation, is being sold in this country; whether he is aware that companies with British names are being utilised by the Soviet commercial representatives to sell the petrol in question; that the corporation of one of our great cities, apparently unaware of the circumstances, have just placed an order for the supply of petrol, originating as above-mentioned, for the next 12 months; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the facts referred to in the first two parts of the question, and I have seen statements in the Press to the same effect as the third part. As has already been stated in replies to similar questions, I have no power to prohibit this trade.

Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister and the Government, in the interests of the trade of the country, and also of the people whose goods have been taken from them, that power should be obtained if there is no power?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 95 per cent. of the oil-bearing wells in Russia were the property of the State before?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any details with regard to the Anglo-Turkish Treaty dealing with the Mosul area; whether he is in possession of the official documents on the subject; and when they will be published?

The text of the Treaty has to-day been received from Constantinople, and the necessary steps are being taken to have it translated and laid as a White Paper at the earliest possible date.

Is not this Treaty a satisfactory answer to those critics of the Government who prophesied immediate disaster?

We have so many satisfactory answers to the critics of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have within the last six months been made to the Soviet Government with regard to their activities in this country or in other parts of the British Empire; and, if so, whether any correspondence will be laid before Parliament?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information tracing money sent from Russia for the general strike to the Soviet Treasury; and, if so, what protest he has made or intends to make?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the information which he has received regarding anti-British actions or utterances by officials of the Soviet Government during the recent general strike and the present stoppage in the coal industry; and what action he is prepared to take?

asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government are proposing to take in view of the fact that the donation of money by the Russian Government to one of the parties in the present dispute is an infringement of the Russian Trade Agreement?

In the conversations which I had with the late Charge d'Affaires, I clearly stated that anti-British propaganda here and elsewhere was one of the main obstacles to any improvement in Anglo-Russian relations, and indisposed His Majesty's Government to any fresh negotiations as long as it continued. His Majesty's Government have always felt that the necessary conditions of successful negotiations were, first, acceptance of the ordinary rules of international law by the Soviet Government, and, secondly, an assurance of the good faith of the negotiators such as would be provided by the observance of existing agreements between them. I have in the main been content to state the policy of His Majesty's Government in these general terms and have not considered that any useful purpose would be served by detailed protests in regard to particular instances, but a few days ago—just before I left for Geneva—I instructed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow to inform the Soviet Government that His Majesty's Government cannot pass over in silence the action of the Soviet Commissariat of Finance in giving special authorisation for the transfer to this country of funds destined for the support of the general strike. He is to point out that the general strike was an illegal and unconstitutional act constituting a serious threat to established order, and that the special action taken by the Soviet Commissariat of Finance in its favour does not conduce to the friendly settlement which the Soviet Government profess to desire of the questions outstanding between the two countries. I will consider the request for papers, and shall be obliged to the hon. Members whose questions refer to this aspect of the matter if they will give me time for consideration.

May I ask whether the Government are carefully weighing up the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the present Trade Agreement with Russia, as indicated by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for India?

All aspects of the matter are under consideration by His Majesty's Government.

Has the money that has been transmitted been transmitted from Soviet sources, or resources, or was it merely with the sanction of the Financial Commissariat of the Soviet Government?

What is within our knowledge, and was the ground of my protest, is that the stipulations of the law in force have been waived in order to permit the transmission of this money in support of an illegal and unconstitutional strike.

That being so, has not the time come when we ought to do something more than protest against this?

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, does he assume that the Russian Government, or the Commissariat of Finance, would take the view of His Majesty's Government with regard to the general strike—[ Interruption ]— and that they could be expected to regard it as anything other than an industrial dispute?

It is not for me to say, I think, what I would expect the Soviet Government to do, but in ordinary relations of courtesy between different nations the Government of one nation would not go out of its way to help support intended for any illegal movement in another country. As regards the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hands-worth (Commander Locker-Lampson), His Majesty's Government have already announced, through the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that they had these matters under consideration, and would make a statement on Thursday. I do not know whether I might say, in general, that, in view of that declaration, I should be glad if I were not pressed with unnecessary questions on the matter to-day.

Further arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, would he not regard the action of the British Government in advancing money to Russian anti-revolutionaries as being illegal from the point of view of the Soviet Government?

Does not the action of the Soviet Government in this particular constitute a direct breach of the Trade Agreement of 1921, and will not my right hon. Friend use his influence to terminate that Agreement?

The question just put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend is one of those questions which I would particularly desire to have deferred until His Majesty's Government can make a general statement.

rose—

As the matter will come up again on Thursday, I do not think we need pursue it further to-day.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that large sums of money have been sent into this country since the termination of the general strike by the Russian Soviet Government, directly or through organisations under its control, which will result in prolonging the coal dispute and the loss of British coal export markets; and whether the Government intend to deal with any future remittances in the same manner as similar remittances sent here during the general strike were dealt with;

(2) what sums of money were sent over to this country during the course of the general strike from Russia, and by whose authority they were returned; what sums of money have been sent over to this country since the termination of the general strike to the Miners' Federation from Russia; and on what dates?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will seek the opinion of the House before the Government exercises its powers to intercept any contributions intended for the relief of the miners' dependants?

As I stated in the answer which I gave to somewhat similar questions on the 10th instant, the whole question of these payments from Russia is being considered by His Majesty's Government, and I hope to make a full statement on Thursday.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first £25,000 offered to the workers of the country when the general strike was in operation was refused by the General Council of the Trade Union Congress?

Does this money come direct to London or through Paris or some other European city?

I propose to make a full statement on Thursday.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the opinion of the House before he exercises his powers under the Emergency Powers Act?

Certainly not. The Emergency Powers Act confers certain powers on the Secretary of State, and it is his duty to exercise them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question which deals purely with questions of statistics? Can he say what sums of money have been received, and on what dates?

I propose to make a full statement of all the moneys I have cognisance of on Thursday. I have not the information with me now.

Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement he made last week that money had been received from the Soviet Government in this country during the General Strike?

Are communications from the Foreign Office to Soviet Russia on matters that affect industrial conditions and questions of law and order in this country communicated to the Home Office?

I prefer to answer all these questions on Thursday.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give us an opportunity of debating this matter?

I said the other, day that is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Chief Whips, and not myself.

Inasmuch as questions have been put on the Paper, could not we press for an answer whether we shall have an opportunity of expressing an opinion and giving a vote before the miners' dependants are deprived of funds from any source?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not jump to conclusions as to what the decision of the Government must be. I repeat that the responsibility for carrying out the Regulations is on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, and if I did wrongly, the proper remedy is open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think we cannot discuss this matter properly by way of question and answer, and could we not have a free and open Debate?

We appear to be doing it rather effectively this afternoon. Still, I will represent that to the Prime Minister.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that certain sums of money in aid of the miners are coming from Belgium, Germany and other countries, and do you propose to prevent that money being sent to the Miners' Federation?

I have said, until the Cabinet arrives at a conclusion I am not able to make a statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which deals with Soviet money prolonging the coal dispute? Does he regard money sent by the Soviet Government to feed miners' children as wrong?

rose—

I think we must wait until Thursday for further questions.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Home Secretary, I beg to give notice that, at the end of Questions, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

At the end of Questions —

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the serious allegations made against the Russian Government, you propose to reconsider your decision as to Parliamentary questions not to apply the rule as to a friendly Power?

I do not think I can act on allegations. I can deal only with facts as they are at the time.

May I point out to you that a Note has already been sent by His Majesty's Government to Moscow in which these allegations are contained, and, as this subject is of immense importance to the constituents of many hon. Members, is it not desirable that we should be allowed to put questions freely upon it?

From time to time there are matters of some controversy between Governments which still remain in what is known as friendly relations. It would be quite impossible for me to sit in judgment on these matters. I must deal with them in accordance with the old practice of the House.

If, as seems probable, the Home Secretary can on Thursday prove his case that the Soviet Government is not either civilised or friendly—

Order, order!

You are ten times more uncivilised than they are.

The hon. and gallant Member is not only putting a hypothetical question, he is anticipating. I can take no notice of such questions.

I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the statement of the Home Secretary that the Russian Government sent moneys to this country during the general strike for the purposes of a general strike."

I must ask the hon. Member to await the statement of the Home Secretary on Thursday. If some new departure be then announced, it will be open to him at that stage to move the Motion. At present we have no information to that effect.

On the point of urgency, may I submit that, while this statement stands uncorroborated, it is creating bad blood between two friendly peoples, and therefore there is every reason why its accuracy, or otherwise, should be debated at the earliest possible moment?

That may be so when the facts are placed before us, but it is the greater reason for not aggravating the position until such is the case. The hon. Member had better wait, and perhaps he will renew his Motion on Thursday, after the statement has been made.

You say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a question of fact. Are we to assume from that that the statement of the Home Secretary is really a question of fact?

That is not a question for me.

The point that has been raised on this question, and also on the previous one, is the act of a friendly Power. How far must a foreign Power go before its action ceases to be friendly?

That is a matter for the Government, and not for me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of wages paid to each class of worker who volunteered for service on the "British Gazette" during the period of the general strike?

In many cases the workers were unpaid volunteers. Of the rest, with the exception of certain technical experts, who were paid at the same rate as they would have received from their normal employers, the payments were based on the scale of wages laid down in the agreements between the various London Printing Trade Unions and the Newspaper Proprietors' Association.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether to any person employed on this newspaper any special premium was paid?

Not as far as I am aware, but I cannot answer definitely without notice.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that two Post Office employés, Woods and Ablett, in charge of the Post Office refreshment bar, North Western district office, refused, during the late general strike, to serve two volunteers in that emergency on account of their loyalty in serving the Post Office, ejected them, and insulted them; that a Post Office overseer, R. G. Clarke, on written complaint being made to him, took no action to prevent the victimisation of these men; whether Woods, Ablett and Clarke belong to the union of Post Office workers; and what disciplinary action he is taking in the matter?

The inquiries which I have so far been able to make in this matter do not confirm the account given by my hon. Friend, but I am asking for a further report and will communicate with him later.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the intention of the Egyptian Government to apply for membership of the League of Nations; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to such an application?

I have no information beyond the reported statement in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the Egyptian Parliament that the Egyptian Government intend to apply for membership of the League of Nations. I am not prepared at this stage to define the attitude of His Majesty's Government in circumstances which are still purely hypothetical.

asked the Minister of Health what is the present procedure in the appointment of certifying factory surgeons by the Home Office; and whether he is satisfied that this procedure is the best calculated to obtain a proficient and efficient medical service?

I have been asked to reply. The appointments in question are made by the Chief Inspector of Factories under Section 122 of the Factory and Work- shop Act, 1901. Vacancies as they occur are advertised in the "London Gazette" and communicated to the medical Press, and applicants are required to give particulars of their qualifications and experience and of any other appointments they may hold. The applications are carefully scrutinised and inquiries made, and, in the case of important districts, arrangements are made for the candidates to be interviewed by one of the medical inspectors. Where there is more than one candidate, the advice of the Senior Medical Inspector is taken. The Chief Inspector is satisfied that under this procedure the best men available are secured, and I have received no complaints.

Are the vacancies advertised also in Edinburgh, or only in the "London Gazette"?

So far as English factories are concerned, only in the "London Gazette."

Is it not the case that you have English people in Scotland carrying on this work, and also Scottish people in England carrying on this work; and is a man debarred merely because of his nationality as to which country he shall practise in?

Not at all. Scotsmen carrying on their work in English factories have the advantage of English domicile.

asked the Prime Minister, having regard to the possibility of at least 200,000 or more miners being unable to find employment at the conclusion of the present stoppage in the coal trade, if the Government will immediately prepare a scheme of Empire migration to meet this problem and endeavour to make arrangements for the settlement of these men and their families overseas?

The possibility of affording to miners opportunities for settlement overseas is receiving consideration. I would remind my hon. Friend that no scheme of this nature could, of course, be carried out except with the full approval of the oversea Government concerned.