asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the diplomatic body in Pekin have given their consent to the appointment of three Chinese representatives on the Shanghai Municipal Council?

The Corps Diplomatique have agreed in principle to Chinese participation in the municipal administration, and have notified the Chinese Government accordingly. So I have no reason to suppose that any objection will be raised to this specific proposal. Their consent, however, has not yet been asked, since this matter is one of those the settlement of which is now being negotiated between the Consular body at Shanghai and the local Chinese authorities.

Are these the only Chinese representatives on the Municipal Council, or are there others elected previously?

I should like to have notice of that question.

How are these appointments made? Are the members co-opted, or what?

I should like notice of that question, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Canton Government has notified the Hong Kong Government of its readiness to negotiate regarding the settlement of the Canton-Hong Kong strike and anti-British boycott; and whether he has any information regarding the present position of the negotiations?

Yes Sir; it is hoped that negotiations for the settlement of the anti-British boycott will be begun at Canton on the 15th July.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amounts, with the names, of the loans that have been issued on the security of the salt gabelle?

The following loans have been issued on the security of the salt gabelle:

Who looks after the administration of these funds at the present time?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question on the Paper, and make it a little more precise as to what he means by administration?

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the security is still sound?

I have answered a question on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects who are resident in China; the number residing in the treaty ports; and the number residing outside the treaty ports?

The latest available statistics show that in 1924 the total number of British subjects in China was 14,701. No exact figures are available showing the proportion resident within the treaty ports, but it is estimated that this comprises more than one-half of the total.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Regulations exist as to the issue of passports to persons about to be married who wish to spend their honeymoon abroad; and whether he can make any statement for the guidance of persons so concerned?

In the case of persons about to be married and wishing to leave this country immediately after the ceremony it is the practice to issue post-dated passports in the married names, and to hand them to the officiating minister or registrar for delivery as soon as the wedding has taken place. Information to this effect is furnished to all inquirers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the circumstances under which Mr. J. Martin lost his eyesight in Russia; whether he was charged with any offence by the Soviet Government and, if so, with what offence; whether any application for compensation has been made on his behalf to the Soviet Government by His Majesty's Government; and whether he has received any compensation or help from His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Martin stated in 1923 that he had become practically blind as a result of an attack of spotted typhus fever contracted during his imprisonment in Moscow in 1919–1920. So far as I am aware, Mr. Martin was not charged with any offence at the time of his arrest or during the term of his imprisonment. In reply to the representations made by His Majesty's Government on Mr. Martin's behalf in 1923 the Soviet Government stated that he had been arrested as a suspicious foreigner at a time when intervention in the internal affairs of Soviet Russia was still being carried on by a number of States. In answer to the third point, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) on the 30th June. Mr. Martin has not received any compensation or financial assistance from His Majesty's Government.

If the Government have been unable to get compensation for this very sad case, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the case one in which the Government should give Mr. Martin something to go on with in the way of financial assistance?

There is a great number of cases outstanding for which we should like compensation from the Soviet Government, when the time comes that we may profitably resume negotiations.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an exception? The man has lost his sight and cannot earn a livelihood?

No, Sir; I really cannot make exceptions in favour of particular subjects.

Is it not the case that the reason for the blindness was fever, due almost entirely to our stopping preventives and medicines going into Russia at the time of the blockade?

No, Sir. I think there is no foundation for that statement.

Is it not true that this man was tied to his bed and flung among dead bodies in prison, and that is the sole reason why he lost his sight?

I must have notice of that question. I cannot carry the details in my head.

Is it not a fact that the blockade was in operation at the time that this man was arrested?

Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a statement such as we have just heard without definite proof being submitted?

I am afraid many statements of the kind are made by hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is the officer in charge of the mixed police in the international zone of Tangier and what is his nationality; what control is exercised over the police by the Tangier administration; who are the British members of the Tangier administration; and whether they have been instructed to exercise proper control over the police with a view to preventing abuses?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the nationality is of the international police officers in Tangier against whom certain charges have recently been made; and to what extent is His Majesty's Government responsible for these appointments?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that serious complaints have been made with regard to the international police force in Tangier; and whether he will press for an immediate inquiry into its methods?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the investigation into the police scandals in the international zone at Tangier involves any British subjects?

If I may, I will answer these questions together. The civil police of Tangier are under the control of the Administrator, who is in turn responsible to the Tangier Legislative Assembly. The Commissioner at the head of the force is of French nationality and the force is composed of police officers of different nationalities, including two Spanish Assistant Commissioners. The Commissioner and one of the Assistant Commissioners have been suspended. His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for any appointment in the Tangier police. The principal British members of the Tangier Administration are the three British representatives in the Assembly, the Director of Finance and His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier. Neither the British representatives in the Assembly nor the Director of Finance are under the control of His Majesty's Government. So far as I am aware, no British subjects are involved in the abuses which are alleged to have taken place. As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was informed on the 5th instant, His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier is pressing for a full inquiry, but I am unable to state whether any British subject will take part in any investigation which may be made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be well to use his influence to secure that, at least, one British officer should be appointed to this mixed police force?

Where there is a competent authority, I am loth to interfere with their discretion so long as I have no reason to believe that they are failing in the execution of their duty.

In view of the scandal that has occurred, would it not be possible for His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier to press that one of the Assistant Commissioners should in future be an Englishman; in default of that, would it not be possible for the administration at Tangier, where so many affairs of this sort have occurred, to be taken over by the League of Nations?

Many things are possible, but not always expedient.

What are the abuses complained of?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a draft Convention dealing with the international aspect of the private manufacture of arms will be drawn up before the Seventh Assembly of the League of Nations meets?

A committee of inquiry appointed by the Council of the League has already drawn up a preliminary draft Convention. The committee is considering the preliminary draft in the light of the replies which have been received from the members of the League to a questionnaire issued by the Council of the League. It is hoped that this work will be completed and an amended draft drawn up before the next Assembly of the League.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain has ratified the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and the Implements of War drawn up by the League Conference of June, 1925; and how many other countries have ratified, and which?

Great Britain has not ratified the Convention. No official notification has been received of its ratification by any other Power.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what authority the granting and withdrawing of mandates is, under the Treaty of Versailles, vested and by whom mandates were allotted before the League of Nations was constituted?

The Treaty of Versailles contains no provisions vesting the granting or withdrawing of mandates with any authority. Under Article 119 the sovereignty over the ex-German colonies was transferred to the principal Allied and Associated Powers, who allocated the mandates for those colonies before the signature of the Treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries into native labour in Asia and Africa have been undertaken by the League of Nations secretariat, or the International Labour Office, or by committees of these bodies; and whether any further inquiries have been proposed or are projected?

I have been asked to reply. In accordance with a recent decision of the Governing Body the International Labour Office has undertaken an inquiry into native labour questions with special reference to forced labour and indentured labour, and a small advisory committee of experts is being appointed to assist the Office in its task. I understand that no inquiry of this kind by the League of Nations secretariat has been undertaken or is in contemplation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he is aware that employés recently transferred from Pembroke and Rosyth Dockyards have been compelled to sell their houses at great financial loss owing to the depreciation in value following the closing of these yards; that they are unable to obtain accommodation at Portsmouth and Chatham; and will he consider the appeal of the men concerned that the Government should bear some of the financial losses which their policy has inflicted upon these transferred men?

I have no information as to losses actually sustained by Admiralty employés through the sale of their houses at Pembroke Dock and Rosyth. The possibility of such losses in regard to Pembroke Dock has, however, been represented to the Admiralty, and the matter is at present under consideration. As regards the additional expenditure incurred by the employés who are unable to obtain unfurnished accommodation, provision has already been made for the payment of lodging allowance. Particulars as to these allowances were given in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 21st April last [OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1195–6]. I should add that, although that reply was in respect of Devonport, the same rules apply to the other dockyard towns.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that just lately one of these men had to sell a six-room house for £10, and that another one with a 10-room house cannot let it for 5s. a week?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is considering the question of enlarging the docking accommodation at Sydney, in consultation with the Government of the Commonwealth, so as to enable it to take the largest units of His Majesty's Navy; what would be the, approximate cost; and whether the Commonwealth Government is prepared to bear part of the cost of such enlargement?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the last part does not, therefore, arise. Without full investigation of all the conditions, no approximate estimate of the cost could be given.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that under Article 1915 of King's Regulations warrant officers were pensioned on retirement at the age of 55, but that since July, 1922, they are compulsorily retired at the age of 50, it is proposed to grant compensation to those who were promoted before July, 1922, when the terms of service were altered to their disadvantage, and who, as a consequence, have the prospect of losing five years' service with attendant emoluments and rights?

I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to officers promoted to warrant rank before the special retirement scheme of 1922 came into force, who have not since received promotion to the rank or relative rank of lieutenant. The compulsory age of retirement of warrant officers was reduced from 55 to 50 years in conjunction with the retirement scheme of 1922, when drastic measures had to be taken to effect the readjustments rendered necessary by the changed conditions after the War. These measures involved almost all classes and grades of officers in some sacrifice. Warrant officers promoted before the introduction of the scheme, who now have to retire at an earlier age than was originally laid down, suffer no greater hardship than the officers of all classes who were compulsorily retired in 1922, in many cases a considerable number of years before the ordinary retirement age, and I regret that no special compensation can be granted to them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was specifically stated in the Regulations when they were appointed that these men would have the right to serve until the age of 55, and in these circumstances cannot the Admiralty see their way to fulfil the contracts, as non-observance presses so hardly upon these people?

I am afraid that the same consideration must apply.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to Admiralty Telegram No. 608, of 6th March, 1926, authorising reorganised allowances for Admiralty civilian staffs serving at Trincomali and Rangoon, whether, in view of the fact that the cost of living is equally as high at Bombay as at these places, he will consider assessing the allowances of the foreman of the laboratory and two storehousemen employed at the naval armament supply depot, Bombay, at an annual rate on similar lines to Trincomali and Rangoon?

The allowances for Admiralty civilian staffs appointed from home for service abroad are assessed with regard to the circumstances at each place. There is no evidence that the allowances paid at Bombay are inadequate.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the 8 per cent. of promotions to lieutenant authorised by Appendix X, Part XIA, of the King's Regulations, Admiralty Instructions, are intended for each branch of warrant officer; and whether all executive warrant officers, namely, gunners, gunners T, boatswains, signal boatswains, warrant telegraphists, etc., are considered as one branch for the purpose of promotion to lieutenant in the same manner as warrant engineers and warrant mechanicians?

Generally speaking, the 8 per cent. of promotions to lieutenant is intended for each branch of warrant officers. The various classes of executive warrant officers are considered separately, except that gunners and gunners T, in accordance with longstanding practice, are, for the purpose, considered as one branch.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many engine-room artificer apprentices from His Majesty's Ship "Fisgard" are going to Chatham to complete their training; whether, as in this training it has been the practice to utilise as instructors in practical engineering chief and engine-room artificers, and as now orders have been issued that instructions have to be given by dockyard employés, he will say what is the reason for this change; and is it likely to decrease expenditure in the cost of training?

About 120 artificer apprentices will be transferred to Chatham in the first instance. As the workshops of the Mechanical Training Establishment at Chatham are in the dockyard, and the apprentices will do much of their work in the dockyard shops, it will be more convenient that the practical instruction should be provided from the dockyard. It is anticipated that the change will ultimately result in a small saving, but efficiency and convenience, and not economy, were the primary reasons for it.

asked the Minister of Labour why J. M. Bell, pick sharpener, Rassington Main Colliery, near Doncaster, has been refused unemployment pay, seeing that he is normally employed by the check-weigh committee, with whom he has no dispute, and is now out of work through no fault of his own?

I am having inquiries made, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

asked the Secretary of State for Air the result of the tests of the windmill aeroplane, Cierva Giro?

By arrangement with Senor de la Cierva, a demonstration of the auto-gyro was given at Farnborough in October last. The Air Ministry subsequently ordered a number of these aircraft from British firms, and one flew for the first time on 19th June. It is proposed to carry out an extended series of trials during the present summer in order to enable the Air Ministry to decide as to the probable utility of this type of aircraft for Service and civil flying.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these aeroplanes have been ordered?

Four have been ordered.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what financial or other assistance is afforded by his Department to private flying clubs where new pilots are being trained; and what inducements are held out to young pilots when they receive a certificate of proficiency?

Agreements for a term of two years have been made with six light aeroplane clubs, whose constitution has been approved by the Air Ministry, providing for the grant to each of a sum not exceeding £2,000 for the purchase of initial equipment, a grant not exceeding £1,000 for each year of the agreement towards maintenance of the equipment, and a replacement grant, if required, during the first year of half the cost of replacement within a maximum of £1,000. As regards the second part of the question, a grant of £10, of which half may be given to the club member, is made to the club for each member who, having been trained on club aircraft, obtains a pilot's certificate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prospective pilots have to pay high charges for the tuition they receive, and could he not do something to provide opportunities for those who are less capable of paying for tuition?

I do not think there is any general dissatisfaction with the conditions, which are in the nature of an experiment. I will watch the point raised by the hon. Member.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these pilots have certificates?

I could not say without notice.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that many eminent men of the past associated with the growth of Parliament are represented on canvas or in stone throughout the Palace of Westminster, he will take into consideration some form of memorial to Simon de Montfort?

As my hon. and gallant Friend omitted to draw the attention of the Office of Works to the omission from the Estimates of the necessary financial item for the erection of such a memorial, previous to the Estimates receiving the approval of this House, the First Commissioner regrets that no funds are new available for the purpose desired. I may perhaps add that if anyone is prepared to offer such a memorial, the First Commissioner would be prepared to consider its acceptance.

Is not this great statesman the real father of the Mother of Parliaments, and should not some effort be made to put up a memorial worthy of him?

It is a question of finance, and no provision has been made in the Estimates.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even the Office of Works are not quite sure whether there is a memorial to him or not, and that one of their most intelligent men spent the whole day in running round to see if he could find one?

I do not accept the suggestion that one of the most intelligent men was sent round.

Is the Home Secretary not aware that Simon de Montfort was guilty of sedition?

I understand that he improved his ways later in life.

In considering the question of these memorials, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there was a certain Guy Fawkes who took a much more reasonable view of this place, and is much more popular with the public outside?

If the hon. Member wishes me to go into great detail, I ought to have notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, as a result of the embargo placed upon the importation of pig meat from the Continent, the price of stores, in preparation for the Christmas trade in this country, has risen considerably; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. The increase in the price of store pigs since the issue of the Order prohibiting the importation of car cases from the Continent has been inconsiderable. No action in the matter on my right hon. Friend's part is either necessary or desirable.

Is that answer based upon the average price of store pigs?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the total export of British arms and ammunition year by year since 1920, the country of destination, and the amount per year in each case; whether the arms and ammunition come from private British firms or Government-controlled firms; and, if from both, the amounts in each case?

I would refer the hon. Member to Volume III of the "Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom," for the year 1924, pages 502-519, in which full particulars are given of the exports of arms and ammunition of United Kingdom manufacture in each of the years 1920 to 1924. Corresponding details for 1925 are not yet available, but the total exports of arms, ammunition, etc. in that year are shown in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December, page 177. As to the second and third parts of the question, I regret that it is not possible to supply the information desired by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the return of Messrs. Hoskins and Son, Limited, of Trinity Street, Birmingham, to Somerset House for the year 1926 is overdue; whether he is aware that no return was filed at Somerset House during the year 1924; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The annual return of a company is by Section 26 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, required to be filed within 21 days after the first or only ordinary general meeting held in the year. It was not considered necessary to require the filing of a return for the year 1924 having regard to the fact that the particulars given in the 1923 and 1925 returns respectively are identical. The registrar has no evidence that the filing of the 1926 return is overdue.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the last return filed by this company was on 23rd March, 1925? Is not that more than a year ago and is not a return overdue?

The time between the last meeting and the date on which it is necessary to make a return under the Act is 15 months. There may have been a second meeting in 1925, so the Board has no evidence that the law has not been complied with.

Are we to understand that any company has the option not to file a return for any particular year it chooses if it holds that the same particulars appear on another return?

No, Sir. If by the end of any particular year, 1926 for instance, this company had not filed its return, it could be compelled to file it by December, 1926.

But does not that last answer contradict what the hon. Gentleman said previously? Is it not the case that no return has yet been filed for the period from October 1922, to October 1923?

Yes, that is true, but it was not considered necessary to enforce the filing, because by the time the Board of Trade were aware that the company had not filed in the year 1924 the 1925 returns were available, and as they were actually the same as 1923 it was felt that it was not necessary to take proceedings.

Has there not been a breach of the law?

As this company has not complied with the law for the period stated, is the Board of Trade not prepared to take action against it for failing to obey the law?

They would do if they considered that action were necessary, but here is a company which makes a return for 1925 identical with that for 1923, and if the Board were to take proceedings in every case on the grounds on which it is suggested they should do so by the hon. Member and where it is considered that no useful purpose would be served they would merely be acting in an oppressive manner.

What is the point about this company? Is it of public interest?

You will see later.

asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal imported into Great Britain since 1st May; the countries from which such coal has been imported; the amount; and the cost in each case?

The amount of coal imported between 1st May and 3rd July was 1,102,789 tons. It came from the Continent and the United States. I regret that I am not in a position to give the further details asked for, except in so far as they were given on 28th June, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Doncaster.

Was all this coal imported by private companies, or has the Government imported any of it?

No, I think this is all privately imported.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department keep figures in order to safeguard any profiteering by coal merchants in the case of domestic coal?

I am not doing anything to interfere with the interests of foreign trade, because it is not necessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that foreign coal must come in at whatever price is going to be charged to the domestic consumer?

asked the Prime Minister if he will now state clearly and in detail the exact proposals of the Government for implementing the Coal Commission's recommendation; the date when these proposals were submitted to the Coal Owners' Association and the Miners' Federation; which of the proposals were accepted or rejected by both parties; and, further, will he give the date when he last invited the owners and workers' representatives to meet in joint conference to discuss these or other proposals for a settlement of the mining disputes?

I have been asked to reply. To recapitulate all the information asked for by the hon. Member would take me far outside the bounds of an answer to a Parliamentary question. Most of the points raised by the hon. Member have already been the subject of Debate in the House on more than one occasion.

Is it not the case that the coalowners rejected the Prime Minister's proposals on the 21st May, and that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain also rejected those terms because of the implied immediate reduction in wages and lack of essential details; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, after six weeks have elapsed, it is the duty of the Government to convene a further meeting of the two parties at which the present detailed proposals can be laid before them and discussed?

If I may say so, the argumentative form of the hon. Member's supplementary question really shows that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with in detail by question and answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question, namely, when last did the Prime Minister invite the two parties to meet together to discuss the reorganisation proposals of the Government?

Not for some considerable time, and the reason is that it is no good asking the two parties to meet together to discuss reorganisation or any other proposals until it is propitious and some good can be obtained by the joint meeting of the two parties.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the last date on which the Government met the owners with regard to the wage claims that had to be set down and in response to which they were going to get the eight hours; and will he state whether the Miners' Federation were given an invitation to discuss the same question?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Londonderry in another place last night stated with emphasis that the owners had accepted the Report, and can he say whether there is any truth in that as far as the Government are concerned?

I cannot continue to answer these questions without notice as regards statements made in another place which I have not seen and which really do not arise from the question on the Paper.

Are not these matters, on which information is being asked, matters with which the Government have already dealt, and are not we on this side entitled to answers to the questions we are asking?

In view of the tremendous national importance of the statements that have been made with regard to reorganisation acceptance or rejection, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, and the country through the House, definitely whether the coalowners have really accepted the reorganisation proposals of the Government or not?

The answer of the owners was quite definitely given at an early stage of the proceedings, as the hon. Member knows as well as I do, and that is exactly why I referred to the fact that the information which is at the disposal of the Government has also been at the disposal of the hon. Member himself. Nothing further with regard to that particular point has transpired that I am aware of, speaking on the spur of the moment in reply to a supplementary question.

May I ask whether the owners accepted categorically the recommendations of the Commissioners? Did they or did they not?

All I can answer to the hon. Member is that the exact degree of acceptance of the private owners, whether he would describe it as categorical or not, of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, was pub- lished in the "Times" two months ago at least, and it is as open to the hon. Member as it is to anyone else to place his exact interpretation upon that. I have no other information as to the degree of acceptance which I can give.

I am asking simply what the Government's interpretation was. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in five respects they have said they agreed, and the others were modifications. Do I understand that the Government believe that they did accept under conditions of that character?

I do not see how the Minister can answer that question. It involves other parties.

With great respect, may I ask if the Minister will be good enough to state whether the coalowners have expressed their willingness to accept the reorganisation proposals with which the Government are now dealing?

I think that that question should be put down.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that two Indians, Usmani and Dange, sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment at Cawnpore in 1924, are suffering gravely in health as a result of the conditions to which they have been subjected; and whether the Government of India propose to take any steps to improve these conditions?

I have no knowledge that the health of these prisoners is affected; but I will see that the inquiry reaches the Government of India.

May I ask whether the result of that inquiry will be sent to me, or whether I shall have to put down another question?

That rests with the hon. Lady. Perhaps she will put down another question.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any, and, if so, what, efforts are being made in Scotland for the encouragement of bird sanctuaries; and whether the proposals by the city of Glasgow to convert a portion of the Ardgoil estate into a wild life reserve is to be devoted solely to birds?

A Committee has been set up under the auspices of His Majesty's Office of Works to consider the question of the establishment of bird sanctuaries in the Royal Parks in Scotland, and a bird sanctuary has been created by that Department on the borders of Duddingston Loch in the Royal Park of Holyrood. Bird sanctuaries have also been created by the corporation of Glasgow in the public parks of that City As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that the corporation have decided that the proposal to convert a portion of the Ardgoil estate into a wild life reserve is not practicable, and that there is no prospect of any part of the estate being devoted solely to birds.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that many interesting forms of wild life are to be found on the banks of the Clyde, and where could they better be preserved than in a sanctuary, and will he ask the authorities to reconsider their decision?

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that none of these forms of wild life referred to by my hon. Friend are put in sculpture so as to frighten the birds away?

Is it not a fact that a great deal of ignorance is being displayed by hon. Gentlemen who ask such questions?

Does this indicate another split in the Tory party?

Not yet, but it will not be long.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens with over 15 years' residence in this country, and against whose character there is no charge, have applied for naturalisation and been refused since 1st January, 1925?

As my right hon. Friend stated on 23rd June, in answer to the hon. Member for Central Southwark, the total number of applications which were refused between 1st January, 1925, and 31st May last, was 339. I cannot undertake to give any information as to the applicants' length of residence or their character.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of the residency for the Governor of Northern Ireland?

The cost of the residency for the Governor of Northern Ireland, including adaptations and furniture, is approximately £58,000.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is paid for by Northern Ireland or by the taxpayers of Great Britain?

There is an arrangement by which the cost of upkeep is borne by the Government of Northern Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost borne by Northern Ireland?

I cannot say without notice.

Does the reply given to the hon. Member for Ilford mean that the whole of the £58,000 for furniture and alterations is, in fact, borne by the British taxpayer?

The taxpayers of Northern Ireland are British taxpayers.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has been requested by the Joint Committee on Departmental Markings to receive a deputation on the question of the recent Southborough examination in order to lay before him the anomalies arising out of the methods adopted in awarding Departmental marks; and, if so, in view of the hardships inflicted on many ex-service men, if he will agree to the request?

Yes, Sir; I have received such a request. I have informed the Joint Committee that I am unable to regard the associations constituting it as representative of candidates at the Southborough examination, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to receive a deputation from them on the subject. In any case, however, I should not feel justified in interfering with the awards made by the Civil Service Commissioners.

Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired personally into the nature of the grievances of these men?

I have already said that I cannot interfere with the discretion of the Civil Service Commission.

Is it not the case that the Departmental markings are not the work of the Civil Service Commissioners, but the work of the Department?

No; it is the work of both. The Departmental markings are forwarded to the Commissioners, and they are responsible for the ultimate award.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to inquire into the method of marking?

No, Sir; I do not consider that is any part of my duty.

Since when have the Civil Service Commissioners been granted autonomy and freedom from Government control?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to inquire into the history of this question, he must give me notice.

Is it a fact that the Civil Service Commissioners are subservient, or are they not?

They are charged with certain duties—

rose—

Order, order!

Is it not necessary in the interests of purity of administration that the Civil Service Commissioners should be independent?

Is there no way of silence being maintained while an hon. Member is asking a question?

When the Minister is giving a reply, are there no means of letting him make his reply without interruption?

May I have an answer to my question?

We cannot deal with two questions at the same time. There seem to be so many of these questions that I think it would be better if they were submitted in the ordinary way. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will now complete his interrupted answer.

It is so long since I made my answer that I should be very glad to reply to any question put to me if I can hear it, but I cannot hear half-a-dozen questions at the same time. If the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question, I will try to answer it.

The question I desire to ask is, whether it is or is not a fact that the Civil Service Commissioners are under the jurisdiction of the Government?

No.

Let the Financial Secretary answer the question.

Certainly, they are not under the jurisdiction of the Government in the sense that the Government have a right to control them.

Although they are financially under the control of the Government, is it not essential in appointing Civil Service Commissioners that they should be absolutely independent of the Government of the day?

Certainly, that is so.

asked the Minister of Labour for what reason the adver- tisement of the quantities of the goods indented for by His Majesty's Stationery Office have been omitted from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" since March last; and whether, in view of the public interest of the subject, he will arrange for the old system to be renewed?

The specification of quantities, to which my hon. Friend refers, was confined to a few items out of the long list of Government contracts published monthly in the "Gazette," and was discontinued in order to save space, on which there are always great demands. It would be quite impracticable to give quantities generally, and I am afraid I do not see any sufficient reason, in view of the pressure on space, for making an exception in the case of the items referred to.

Has the action been taken as the result of the inquisitiveness of other Members and myself, who are very anxious to find out these particular details?

No, that is not the reason. The correct reason is the one I have just given, that there is no sufficient reason for differentiation between these and other contracts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Members of the House use these figures constantly in questions in the House?

Has the hon. Gentleman referred to the "Labour Gazette" previous to March last?

Yes, I have. Apparently these figures were given in relation to a limited number of contracts appertaining to printing contracts, and there has been no reason why this trade should be picked out, and the number given in it when they were not given in any other.

(for Mr. NAYLOR) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Treasury to terminate the existence of the Stationery Office Joint Industrial Council?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Great Britain has received any substantial railway concessions in Iraq owing to the waiving of the claim of about 94 lakhs of rupees against the Iraq Government?

The answer is in the negative. As I have already stated, the claim on account of transferred assets was waived in accordanct with the recommendation of the Financial Mission. The ownership of the railways in Iraq still vests in His Majesty's Government, and the question of their future is under consideration.

Can my right hon. Friend state the actual amount that is waived? I understand that 94 lakhs is not the right amount.

I think the amount waived is, roughly speaking, about £570,000 nominally.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under what statutory or other authority the amount has been waived?

If statutory authority is required, it will, no doubt, be secured. The Iraq Government have been informed that we are not going to press this claim further, in accordance with the Report of the Financial Mission.

I am asking if the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House under what authority the Government have acted in waiving this claim?

I understand that the Government are entitled to waive a claim if it is not considered that the further pressing of that claim is necessary. If statutory authority should be required, no doubt it will be secured.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we shall have some opportunity of discussing this gift of public money to the Iraq Government before it actually takes place?

It is not a question of a gift taking place. These are certain claims for work done during the War, which we have pressed in the past, always subject to an undertaking on our part to consider the matter further. The Financial Mission advised the Government not to press this claim. When the Colonial Office Estimates come before the House, that question can be discussed.

Is it not the fact that the sum in question is an agreed debt to the Crown, and can an agreed debt to the Crown be waived without the consent of this House?

As I have repeated more than once, we regard this as a claim which has never been a finally agreed sum.

Was it not agreed in the Financial Agreement as a debt due to the Crown?

The Financial Agreement was accompanied by a Note from the British Government saying that they were prepared to give further consideration as to the amount of that sum, and in the last Treaty an undertaking still further seriously to consider that question was again given by the British Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Government propose to terminate this lavish remission of debts of foreign countries?

That question should be addressed to another Minister.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps are being taken to arrange a conference between India, China and Japan, similar to the conference recently held in London between European Powers, to consider the question of hours of labour?

I have been asked to reply. No steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government or the Government of India.

Does not the Noble Lord realise that it is important that a conference of this kind should be undertaken for the purpose of securing protection for British labour?

I really do not know what the hon. Member has in mind about this conference. I have made careful inquiries and cannot find that any sort of proposal has been made to the Government of India to hold such a conference.

Does not the Noble Lord think it would be wise to call a conference in view of the Eight Hours Bill?

That is a very wide question which it is almost impossible to discuss by way of question and answer. In any case I can take no responsibility for the action of Japan or China.

Does not the Noble Lord realise the necessity of getting the decision of the International Labour Office in relation to the eight hours ratification considered in India?

That is an entirely different question. The hon. Member asked me whether the Government of India intend to take part in a conference between India, China and Japan. The question of the eight hours ratification is an entirely different matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour indicated in an answer just given that the International Labour Office has been dealing with this question for a long time past.

(for Mr. BARNES) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department have received, either directly or through the Foreign Office, any communications from other countries raising questions as to the probable effects of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill upon their trade with this country?

No, Sir.