asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Report has been received from the committee appointed by the Governor-General in Council to consider the matter of the production and exhibition of cinematograph films in India; and can he give the House particulars?

The Report of the Indian Cinematograph Committee is now in the hands of the Government of India. Pending the publication of the Report which is anticipated very shortly, I regret that I am unable to give any particulars of the Committee's recommendations, but as soon as copies of the Report are received from India, I will place one in the Library.

Can the Noble Lord say whether any correspondence has passed between the home Government and the Government of India asking them to put into effect the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act which was passed last year?

The hon. Member merely asked me about the Report, and I have indicated that it is not possible to make any statement about the Report until it has been published in India.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the views of the Government of India and the Government of Bengal have been received regarding the firing which took place on the railway strikers in Calcutta on the 28th March last; and is he now in a position to make a statement on the subject?

No, Sir. I am not in a position to make any statement pending the disposal of the prosecution of one of the strike leaders on a charge of perjury and bringing a false case in connection with the incidents of 28th March.

If I put down a question for Thursday next, will the Noble Lord be able to answer my question?

No, Sir. I have no control over the time taken by judicial proceedings. They may take months. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will realise, it would be very improper for a Government Report on this question to be published until the action in a Court of Justice arising out of it has been disposed of.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received a Report of the inquiry into the cause of the accident which occurred at the Mudidih Colliery, Jhairia coalfield, India, in April, 1928; and, if so, will he make it available to Members in the Library?

The cause of the accident was the unexpected collapse of a pillar adjacent to pillars which were being extracted in the ordinary course of mining. The surface consequently subsided to a depth of about 10 feet and some miners' dwellings collapsed; 1 man, 1 woman and 4 children were killed; 3 men were seriously injured, and 34 men, 1 woman and 2 children were slightly injured. The Report on an inquiry made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbaid, has been presented to the Local Government but has not yet been received by my Noble Friend nor by the Government of India.

Will the Noble Lord expedite the Report in order that Members of the House can see for themselves and ascertain the real cause of this accident?

I am not prepared to expedite the Report, which will be sent in the ordinary course of events. There will be no delay after the Government of India have come to their decision.

Is the Noble Lord not aware that it appears to be the policy of the Government of India to delay these things? As this matter is of urgent importance to British miners and miners in every other country, will he see that justice is done?

The hon. Member is quite inaccurate in saying that the policy of the Government is to delay these matters. They are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and the Reports as soon as they are received here, if the information is desired by the House, are given accordingly.

Is the Noble Lord aware that this accident occurred on the 9th April, an inquiry was held in May, and now nearly three months have gone by?

Perhaps the hon. Member is unaware of the fact that India is situated by mail some 16 days from this country. The local Governments have to send the Report to the Government of India, and that in itself takes three days; so that the matter cannot be dealt with on the basis of time in the way in which the question suggests.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the General Secretary of the Indian Colliery Employés Union was refused permission by the colliery management to visit the place of the accident which occurred at the Mudidih colliery, Jhairia coalfield, in April of this year; and will he take the necessary steps to empower any duly accredited official of this union to visit the place of any fatal accident in or about the coal mines on future occasions?

The Secretary of the union referred to inspected the surface collapse and the wrecked dwellings on the day following the accident. On asking to go underground he was told that the colliery agent was reluctant to allow outsiders to enter the working until he had made a personal inspection. My Noble Friend does not propose to suggest to the Indian authorities that they should take action of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.

Is the Noble Lord aware that this gentleman is the General Secretary of the only miners union in Northern India, that he asked permission to visit the place of the accident and was refused; is that not contrary to the under- standing of the Indian Mines Act, 1923; and is this man not entitled, as a representative of the miners, to inspect the colliery under the Act of 1923?

The hon. Member cannot have heard my answer to his question. I said:

"The secretary of the union referred to inspected the surface collapse and the wrecked dwellings on the day following the accident."

Is the Noble Lord not aware that this accident was a subsidence due to nothing on the surface, but was all underground, and was not this man, as the sole representative of the miners concerned and their dependants, entitled to go underground to see for himself what had happened?

No, Sir. I do not think he was no entitled until the mine had been inspected by the proper authorities.

I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which has been given by the Noble Lord, I shall raise this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday next.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India have decided to prohibit the employment of all women underground in all mineral-ore mines as from 1st April, 1929; that the prohibition of the employment of women underground in all coal mines is to be limited to a progressive decrease of 10 per cent. each year, so that all women will not be excluded from all coal mines until 1st April, 1939; and will he state what are the reasons for this differentiation, in view of the fact that coal mines are more dangerous and unhealthy to work in than other mines?

The Government of India have published for criticism draft Regulations, under which the employment of women in mines underground would be prohibited in the chief coalfields and in the Punjab salt mines by progressive stages as stated in the question, and forthwith as from 1st April, 1929, in other mines. It is regarded as essential that the prohibition in the chief coalfields should be gradual in its operation, as the summary exclusion of women would result in a very serious dislocation of the industry and its enforcement would arouse the maximum of opposition and might make the reform completely impracticable. If the hon. Member so desires I shall be glad to furnish him with a copy of a communique issued by the Government of India on the subject.

Is the Noble Lord aware of the fact that under the Indian Mines Act of 1923 the Government of India is empowered by Regulations to abolish the employment of women underground in coalmines forthwith if they so desire; that five years have elapsed since that Act was passed, and that under the policy adopted by the Government another 10 years will elapse before women are forbidden from working underground in coalmines in India; and, in view of the fact that India is the brightest jewel in the British Crown, is it not high time that this abolition should take place?

Is it not the case that in other parts of India women have been successfully excluded from working in mines?

Yes, Sir; and I am glad to have the hon. Member's question, because it puts the matter in rather a different light. It is a fact that by progressive stages it is hoped to prohibit the employment of women underground.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the accident on the East Indian Railway at Dankani recently; what were the total casualities in this disaster; and whether he has called for a report by cable?

I have received telegraphic reports from the Government of India, from which it appears that the Senior Government Inspector's report now received by the Government of India confirms the opinion previously given by him, and his finding is that the derailment was caused by the malicious removal of rails by persons unknown. The final casualty list is as follows: 18 Indian passengers and European driver killed outright; seriously injured, eight, of whom two have subsequently died in hospital; slightly injured, 27. Many passengers are said to have run away from the scene of the accident, and there may have been some slightly injured amongst them. The reward offered for information leading up to the detection and conviction of the perpetrators has been raised to Rs.30,000. Four arrests are now understood to have been made. The Government of Bengal has instituted prosecutions against the editor, printer, and publisher of "Forward" in respect of the publication of the letter published in the issue of the 13th instant, in which some of the Government railway staff who went to the scene of the accident are alleged to have killed the injured, and the Government of India have ordered the prosecution of the "Pioneer" by the East Indian Railway for reproducing the same letter. Two libel suits also have been filed by the agent and other railway officers against the "Forward" Publishing Company and the editor and printer of "Forward." The first is on account of "Forward's" remarks in the issue of the 10th July, in which it was alleged that the accident was caused by bad upkeep of the track. The second suit is on account of the letter already referred to.

Is it the Indian "Forward" to which the Noble Lord is referring?

Oh, yes, Sir; not the paper published in this country.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the estimated percentage of ryots who are in debt to moneylenders in British India and in the Bardoli Taluka, respectively?

Estimates of the percentage of indebtedness covering various areas have been made from time to time, but I am not aware of any estimate covering the whole of British India. As regards the Bardoli Taluka, I have no information.

Is it not the case that quite a good percentage of the ryots in the Bardoli Taluka are in debt to moneylenders, and, in those circumstances, is it not very desirable that more sympathetic methods of making assessments should be adopted?

I do not think that the last part of the hon. Member's question has any relevance to the first part. I agree that probably a number of these people are in debt to moneylenders, but in every constituency in this country there are probably people who are in debt to moneylenders, and that has nothing to do with the question of paying rates and taxes.

Is it not the case that in this country the people generally have access to remedies?

Have the Government of India recently promoted any legislation to protect the peasants of India against the notorious action of moneylenders?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many industrial disputes have occurred in India from 1st January, 1928, up to date; how many of them are still in progress; on how many occasions has a breach of the peace taken place; on how many occasions were armed forces used against the workers; what have been the total casualties in dead and wounded among the workers; and what casualties, if any, have occurred among the police or military forces employed?

According to such information as is available, there were in the whole of India 85 disputes between 1st January and 28th June, 1928. A large number of these were strikes of a trivial nature and of short duration. Six of a more serious character are still in progress. My Noble Friend has not the material for an answer to the third part of the question. As regards the fourth, fifth and sixth parts, seven more serious cases of rioting have been reported to him and resulted, so far as he is aware, in 55 police being injured and in four other persons being killed and 54 injured. Malicious derailment of trains in the South Indian Railway strike has also resulted, according to reports so far received, in two persons being killed and 37 injured. This is in addition to the recent derailment on the East Indian Railway, which involved casualties dealt with in the reply to-day to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy).

In any circumstances, did the Government find whether the strikers were armed at all, and, if they were not armed, is it the policy of the Government to attack and shoot unarmed people?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if, before the House rises for the recess, he proposes to make any statement regarding the release of the prisoners who still remain in gaol, or under other forms of restraint, under the provisions of the Bengal Criminal Ordinance Act?

No, Sir.

Can the noble Lord say whether the representations which were made to him recently by a deputation from the Labour party have yet produced any reply from India?

I think that the hon. Member should put down a question on that point. He will recollect, as he was present at the deputation, that the representations were not made to me, but to my right hon. Friend, and he will not only have heard but will have received the typewritten report of what occurred at the deputation.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the latest information concerning the labour dispute and disturbance connected with the strikes; the total of persons killed or injured, separating Europeans from Indians, since the dispute started; and whether there is a possibility of bringing the dispute to an end?

I presume the hon. Member is referring to the strike on the South Indian Railway. So far as my Noble Friend is aware from the reports received, trains have been derailed by malicious obstruction and damage to the track on four occasions, resulting in two persons being killed and 37, including passengers and loyal railway servants, being injured. In four disturbances nine police were injured, two rioters were killed and 14 injured, and a mob injured and attempted to lynch an engine driver who was rescued by the police. The reports do not state how many of the persons killed and injured are Europeans or Indians. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information later than that given in reply to the hon. Member on 23rd July.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the terms on which the peasants of Bardoli offered to abandon their policy of passive resistance; and the reason why these terms were rejected by the Government of India?

So far as I am aware, the peasants of Bardoli themselves have been given little or no opportunity by their self-constituted leaders to negotiate. The chief demands which have been made by the latter were acceptance by the revenue authorities of land revenue at the old rate of assessment pending a reopening of the whole of the re-settlement by a non-official inquiry. The reason why the Bombay Government declined to consider such proposals was sufficiently clearly explained in the Governor's speech of 23rd July, a report of which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.

Having regard to the fact that the peasants of Bardoli have no means of getting adjustments made by representative assemblies, is it not reasonable that they should offer to accept the findings of an independent committee so long as the status quo is given to them?

I think that the hon. Member is anticipating his next question, which deals with this very point.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the peasants of Bardoli have no means of redress, through representative institutions, in regard to their land-tax assessment; and will the Government of, India consider providing such means?

I do not know exactly what the hon. Member has in mind, but the Bardoli settlement was made the occasion for moving a vote of censure in the Bombay Legislative Council in March last, and the motion was lost by 44 votes to 35.

Is it not the case that the peasants in Bardoli, or in any part of India, have no means through repre- sentative institutions of dealing with these questions of assessment of their rates or taxation?

They have the right of making representations through their representatives in the Council.

Is it not the fact that the peasants concerned in all parts of India have no redress at all against the assessment once it has been fixed by the executive officers? Is it not the case that it is an executive order, and that these people have no means of showing their resentment other than this means of passive resistance?

They have the right, through their representatives in the local Legislative Council, to make representations on the subject. [ Interruption. ] The matter, as I have already explained, was discussed in the Bombay Legislative Council, and a motion of censure upon the Government was lost.

Is the Noble Lord aware that none of these peasants have the franchise, and that, therefore, they have no direct voice in selecting the members of the Legislative Assembly, so that they have no representatives?

I should be very unwilling to accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that none of the people concerned in this passive resistance movement have the franchise; I am sure that a great many have the franchise. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware of the situation. His Excellency the Governor of Bombay has made a statement in which he has promised that, if these people will pay their assessment, which is legally due from them, he will cause an inquiry to be held into the whole question of the justice or otherwise of past assessments.

That does not answer my question. May I again ask the Noble Lord, it is or is it not a fact that at least the vast majority of these peasants have no voice in the franchise to return members to the Legislative Assembly for the Bombay Presidency? Answer that question!

Oh!

Is it not the case that, even if they have the franchise, they have no power to deal with the question of assessments?

Mr. James Hudson.

That is a very important question.

It is a purely hypothetical one.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the Colonies have introduced legislation that will give effect to the Clauses contained in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

No Colony has yet introduced legislation that will give effect to the Clauses contained in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927. My right hon. Friend is in correspondence with the Governors of a number of Colonies on this subject.

Is it not the fact that several Colonies promised to introduce legislation giving effect to the Bill, and will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that that promise is carried out?

I cannot recollect any promise. I know that a good many Colonial Governments have this matter under consideration, but it is a case of adapting the provisions of an Act applying to this country to local circumstances.

Were not the House of Commons and the Committee that had the Bill before them informed that the Colonies were only waiting for the Bill to be passed in order to introduce similar legislation?

Yes, some Colonies do propose to introduce similar legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of political prisoners at present in gaol in Palestine, the offences for which they are incarcerated, the duration of the individual sentences, the number of political prisoners awaiting trial, and the number of deportations arising out of political offences that have taken place during the past 12 months?

As the law in Palestine does not recognise any distinction between political and other prisoners, it is not possible to furnish the information for which the hon. Member has asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what action the Overseas Settlement Committee is taking upon the suggestions contained in the Report of the Industrial Transference Board affecting Empire migration?

I have been asked to reply to this question. As indicated by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Debate on the 24th instant, a substantial expansion of the system of preliminary training and testing in this country, which has proved itself a success in enabling non-agricultural workers, including miners, to qualify for assisted passages and land schemes, is in contemplation. We propose, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, to open two further training camps under the Ministry of Labour on the lines of those already in operation at Brandon and Claydon. We also hope to secure the provision of training facilities on a larger scale than hitherto by voluntary societies and municipal authorities, and Lord Lovat, the Chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee, has already consulted the leading voluntary societies with a view to obtaining more extensive cooperation on their part. These training schemes will be dealt with outside the Empire Settlement Act, so as to enable the Government to contribute a larger proportion of the total cost than that prescribed in the Act, and also to enable family allowances to be paid to the dependents of married men during training. Further, schemes to enable migrants to make a career for themselves on the land, whether in the shape of rural housing schemes, of advances to those who have made good as land workers, or of land settlement schemes on a larger scale, are matters for negotiation with the Dominion authorities concerned, and will be actively taken up with them by Lord Lovat, who is leaving in the next few days for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At the same time, in order to stimulate the normal flow of unassisted migration, as recommended, not only by the Industrial Transference Board, but also by the Canadian Parliamentary Committee, which recently urged that an effort should be made to secure a reduction in the ordinary Atlantic Ocean rate to £10, we propose to enter into negotiations with the shipping companies with a view to ascertaining what it may be possible to do in this direction. The question of the regulations and procedure affecting the admission of migrants into the Dominions, which was also discussed in the Report of the Industrial Transference Board, is, of course, one entirely within the competence of the Dominion Governments concerned. The possibility of their simplification or better adaptation to local conditions on this side is, however, a matter which, in so far as practical difficulties or inconveniences have arisen, or may arise, we shall discuss with the Dominion Governments with a view to seeing how far any modifications may commend themselves to them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the normal cost of sending out a family after training to Canada?

Certainly not without notice.

What is the site of these two camps?

I do not know.

Is it not a fact that assisted passages to Australia and New Zealand have been suspended, and, if they were renewed, could not there be effectual migration without any more difficulty?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a specific question.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the young men who will be trained at the new training camps?

No, but I presume they will be on the same sort of scale and lines as at the existing one.

Has the right hon. Gentleman an estimate of the number?

Not yet.

What is going to become of the hundred odd thousand whose names are down to go to Canada?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when it is proposed to start building operations with the new Exchange in Glasgow?

I have been asked to reply. The negotiations with the Government Departments concerned have not yet been completed. Until detailed plans of the accommodation to be provided have been finally approved, and tenders obtained, it will not be possible to specify a date on which building operations will commence.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any idea when this building is to be commenced?

I will make inquiries and let the hon. Member know.

That has been the answer for months. I do not want to know whether inquiries will be made, but when the building is going to start. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman find out?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to encourage private individuals in the country to provide work, he will reconsider the advisability of having the Regulations governing part-time employment made more widely known and framed in such language as to be more easily understood by the unemployed and potential employers, that men in receipt of unemployment benefit can be offered and can accept work for one, two, or three days in any week without forfeiting the unemployment benefit for the remaining days of the week?

I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 21st June.

Will the Minister re consider this matter? If he will do as is suggested in the question, it will help to make a response to the appeal made by the Prime Minister to the House last week.

My right hon. Friend will consider anything that will make that appeal more efficacious, but I fail to see that anything can be done on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Will the hon. Member allow me to state how it could make all the difference in the world?

Yes, Sir, I shall be very glad to hear what the hon. Member has to say.

Is the hon. Member aware that the method, especially in the cotton district, of splitting short time is working out very unfavourably to the men in this respect, and will he consider some modification of the matter?

I am not aware of that fact, but I will discuss the matter with the hon. Member if he has any suggestion to make.

Does the hon. Member understand the point that I am raising? Does he know that, in cases where there are two days' work only in a week, it is very often a question of one day on the Tuesday and one day on the Friday, and that that means that the men are done completely out of unemployment insurance benefit?

I am perfectly well aware of that point, but I am not sure that this is a matter with which we can deal. It is rather a matter between the employers and the employés, but I am quite willing to discuss the point with the hon. Member.

Is it not possible to modify the Regulation so that whichever two days are worked they may count?

I am not prepared to discuss that matter, in answer to a question. I am not sure that we could do anything without altering the law.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons in the building industry in Glasgow and the trades they belong to, and the figures for the same date last year?

As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the hon. Member be good enough to furnish the total number of workers?

The total on the 25th June, 1928, was 2,179 and on the 20th June, 1927, the number was 1,740.

Following is the statement:

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour the districts to which the 700 boys were transferred by his Department for placing in employment up to 14th July?

The list of these districts is rather long, and with the hon. Member's permission I will arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

The districts to which boys from the distressed mining areas have been transferred are:

South-Eastern Division.

London (various districts including the City and West End but generally excluding the East End).

South-Western Division.

Midlands Division.

North-Eastern Division.

North-Western Division.

Altrincham.

Bollington.

Buxton.

Rural Districts in Cheshire.

Ellesmere Port.

Kendal.

Rural Districts in Lancashire.

Macclesfield.

Rochdale.

Scotland Division.

Wales Division.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any estimate of the number of unemployed miners who will become employed as a result of freight relief on 1st December, 1928?

I have been asked to reply. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by attempting to make an estimate of the advantage which reduced railway freights on coal are likely to confer upon employment. It is sufficient to point out that the proposal to bring these lower charges into force before the 1st October, 1929, was urged upon the Government in the interests of employment by representatives both of employers and workmen in the mining industry.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in relation to the recent order for locomotives, etc., placed in Germany there was a fair wages clause in the contract; and, if not, will he make representations to the South African and other Dominion Governments with a view to an arrangement whereby British industry will more largely share in such work required by the Dominions and the Colonies?

I presume the hon. Member has in mind a contract for seven locomotives which was recently placed with Honamag (Hannoversche Maschinenbau A.G.) by the Union Government. I understand that, according to the conditions which govern stores contracts for the South African railways and harbours, the fair wages clause, which constitutes one of the conditions of tender, does not apply to work carried out elsewhere than in South Africa itself, and that this is the position in regard to this particular contract. The conditions of such contracts, so far as the Dominions are concerned, are entirely a matter for the respective Governments, and while I am in complete sympathy with the hon. Member's desire that industry in this country should share as largely as possible in work of this kind, I am doubtful whether representations on the specific point mentioned in the question would help to achieve the object which he has in view.

Could not a note be taken for the next Colonial Conference?

Is it not a fact that the Dominions give us a wider preference than we give them?

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, in British Government contracts for places abroad, the fair wages clause is not inserted?

That does not alter the fact that we cannot interfere with contracts which are placed by our Dominions.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has been successful in his efforts to induce the Polish Government to lower the duty upon imported British-cured herrings; and, if not, what steps he now proposes to take in the matter?

His Majesty's Government have not yet succeeded in inducing the Polish Government to reduce the duty on British-cured herrings, but the question of further representations is now being considered.

Is this a question of retaliation in consequence of our taxing goods coming in to this country?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Nationalist Government made any approaches to His Majesty's Government last spring with a view to an understanding or agreement; and, if so, what form did the suggestions take and what answer was returned on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

No such approaches were made by the Nationalist authorities, with the possible exception of the conversations between Sir M. Lampson and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the subject of the settlement of the Nanking incident, regarding which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd on 4th April last.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any opportunity of discussing Sino-British relations with the representatives of the Nanking Government who recently visited this country, and whether he can make any statement; and if he can indicate the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the question of the recognition of the Nanking Government, the settlement of the Nanking incident, and recent declarations regarding the independence of Manchuria?

I received a call from Mr. Hu Han-min on 18th July, and from Mr. Sun Fo, accompanied by Mr. Hu Han-min on 23rd July. I had friendly conversations of a general nature with these gentlemen regarding the situation in China and Sino-British relations. As regards the latter part of his question, I would refer the hon. Member to the various statements that have recently been made on these subjects in reply to questions in this House—notably my reply to the hon. Member's question regarding Manchuria on 12th July, and my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 18th July on the subject of our relations with the Nanking authorities. I hope that the Nationalist authorities will now settle the Nanking incident.

In view of the importance of these two questions to British trade in the Far East, will the Minister be prepared to deal with this more fully in the Debate to-day?

I do not think that I can say much more than I have already indicated to the House at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Nationalist Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. C. T. Wang, in a recent interview with the American Consul-General at Shanghai, Mr. E. S. Cunningham, expressed the hope that, as the Nationalist Government has established the capital of China at Nanking, the American Government would shortly instruct its diplomatic representative to proceed to Nanking to facilitate various negotiations; whether there is reason to believe that America is ready to recognise the Nanking Government as the central Government of China without waiting for other Powers to do so; and whether he will concert with the Government of the United States with a view to the simultaneous recognition of the Nanking Government by Britain and America, and by such other States as may be disposed to grant recognition?

I have no information regarding an interview between Dr. Wang and Mr. Cunningham, but on the 25th July the United States Minister at Peking signed with Mr. T. V. Soong, the Nationalist Finance Minister, a treaty granting China full tariff autonomy as from 1st January, 1929, subject to national and most-favoured-nation treatment to Americans. I am advised that the signature of this treaty is tantamount to recognition of the Nationalist Government by the Government of the United States of America. As the United States Government have already acted without consultation with other Powers, it is impossible for those Powers to concert with them measures for simultaneous recognition.

Is it not the case that the American Note does not, in fact, go as far as the Christmas Memorandum, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that we ought to take the lead in reorganising our policy in the Far East?

I have no particular anxiety to take the lead, as the hon. Member says, to try and get ahead of anyone else. We have stated the lines of our policy, and, when the Nanking episode is settled, we shall be willing to proceed on those lines.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the American Note sent to the Chinese Nationalist Government offering to begin negotiations for a new series of treaties and the withdrawal of the additional American troops sent last year; whether His Majesty's Government was invited by the American Government to join with it in these negotiations; and what steps he is taking to impress on the Chinese people the friendly attitude of His Majesty's Government?

With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the Note from the United States Secretary of State which was addressed to the Nationalist Minister for Foreign Affairs on the 25th July. The text of this Note was communicated officially to His Majesty's representative at Washington, but His Majesty's Government were not invited to participate in the negotiations. As regards the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I may say that, in our conversations with various' Nationalist leaders, every opportunity is taken both by His Majesty's Minister at Peking and by myself to assure them of the friendly attitude of His Majesty's Government. I have reason to believe that the attitude and policy of His Majesty's Government, especially since the publication of our Memorandum in December, 1926, are now becoming increasingly appreciated both by the Chinese people and by the Nationalist authorities.

If the position is this, that pending a settlement of the Nanking dispute we are withholding recognition from the Nationalist Government, should we not have a better chance of settling the Nanking claims by recognising the Nationalist Government?

The hon. and gallant Member is always inclined to think that his own Government is in the wrong.

That is most uncalled for.

It is quite true!

The hon. and gallant Member will observe that the Nanking Government settled the Nanking incident with the Government of the United States before the United States proceeded further.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was making no sort of insinuation. I was making what I thought was a helpful suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h!"] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment we have been made to look rather childish over this whole business, and, as usual, have backed the wrong horse?

The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to realise that there are 39 more questions on the Paper.

"Events in China have moved with great rapidity during the past few months. The American Government and people have continuously observed them with deep and sympathetic interest. Early in the year the American Minister to China made a trip through the Yangtse Valley region and while in Shanghai he exchanged on 30th March, 1928, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist Government a note in settlement of the unfortunate Nanking incident of 24th March, 1927. In pursuance of the terms therein agreed upon a SinoAmerican Joint Commission has been entrusted with the appraisal of the damages suffered by American nationals during that occurrence.

On 27th January, 1927, I made a statement of the position of the United States towards China. To it I have often subsequently had occasion to refer in reaffirmation of the position of this Government. I stated therein that the United States was then, and from the moment of the negotiation of the Washington Treaty had been prepared to enter into negotiations with any Government of China or delegates who could represent or speak for China not only for putting into force the surtaxes of the Washington Treaty but for restoring to China complete tariff autonomy. Ever since the American Government has watched with increasing interest developments pointing towards the co-ordination of the different factions in China and the establishment of a Government with which the United States could enter into negotiations. Informed through Press despatches and through official reports which have from time to time been released to the Press, the American people also have observed with eager interest these developments.

In a note addressed by the United States Minister in China to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist Government at Nanking on 30th March of the present year in reply to the suggestion of the latter concerning the revision of existing treaties reference was made to the sympathy felt by the Government and people of the United States with the desire of the Chinese people to develop a sound national life of their own and to realise their aspirations for sovereignty, so far as possible unrestricted by obligations of an exceptional character, and it was stated that the United States Government looked forward to the hope that there might be developed an administration so far representative of the Chinese people as to be capable of assuring the actual fulfilment of any obligations which China would of necessity have for its part to assume for the incident to readjust treaty relations.

In a communication addressed to me under the date of 11th July, 1928, Mr. Chao Chu-wu informs me that the Nationalist Government has decided to appoint plenipotentiary delegates for the purpose of treaty negotiations and that he is instructed to request that the United States Government likewise appoint delegates for that purpose.

The goodwill of the United States towards China is proverbial and the American Government and people welcome every advance made by the Chinese in the direction of unity, peace and progress. We do not believe in interference in their internal affairs. We ask of them only that which we look for from every nation with which we maintain friendly intercourse, specificially, proper and adequate protection of United States citizens, their property and their lawful rights, and in general, treatment in no way discriminatory as compared with the treatment accorded to interests of nationals of any other country.

With a deep realisation of the nature of the tremendous difficulties confronting the Chinese nation, I am impelled to affirm my belief that a new unification of China is in process of emerging from the chaos of civil war and turmoil which has distressed that country for many years. Certainly this is the hope of the people of the United States.

As an earnest of my belief and conviction that the welfare of all peoples concerned will be promoted by the creation in China of a responsible authority which will undertake to speak to and for the nation I am happy now to is that the United States Government is ready to begin at once through the United States Minister in China negotiations with properly accredited representatives whom the Nationalist Government may appoint in reference to tariff provisions of the treaties between the United States and China with a view to concluding a new treaty in which it may be expected that full expression will be given reciprocally to the principle of national tariff autonomy and to the principle that the commerce of each contracting party shall enjoy in the ports and territories of the other treatment in no way discriminatory as compared with the treatment accorded to the commerce of any other country."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the negotiations with the Nanking Government for the settlement of the claims of His Majesty's Government arising out of the Nanking incident; and will he take steps to expedite such negotiations with a view to arriving at a settlement at an early date?

The Nanking Government have recently again approached His Majesty's Consul-Generals at Shanghai and Nanking on the subject, and every effort is being made to arrive at a satisfactory settlement.

What has been holding up the settlement of these negotiations?

Have we anyone on the spot at Nanking who is empowered to negotiate?

I do not think the Consul-General is at this moment at Nanking, for reasons I have given to the House, but negotiations have been taking place quite recently, and, indeed, are going on now, between the Consul-General and the Nationalist authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that American coastguard cutters have frequently during the past few months interfered with British vessels in and near the waters of the Bahama Islands, and that such interference has caused much resentment among the inhabitants of those islands; and whether such interference has been made the subject of diplomatic representations to the United States Government?

I am aware that the activities of United States Coastguard cutters engaged in combating the illicit liquor trade in the vicinity of the Bahamas have from time to time given rise to incidents which have reacted unfavourably upon public opinion and resulted in complaints from inhabitants of the Colony. Whenever such complaints have come to the notice of His Majesty's Government or His Majesty's Embassy at Washington, they have been carefully investigated, and, when the circumstances have been found to warrant it, appropriate action has been taken for the protection of British interests.

I may add that in two instances recently (once in reply to representations and once on their own initiative) the United States Government have expressed regret to His Majesty's Government for the seizures by United States revenue forces of suspected liquor smuggling vessels in Bahamian waters, have released the arrested vessels and their crews, and have undertaken to do all in their power to prevent similar cases in the future. In the first of these cases, the United, States Government also undertook to consider disciplinary action against the Coastguard officer concerned, while in the second the officers and crew of the revenue cutter that effected the seizure were placed under arrest as soon as the superior authorities learnt of their actions in British waters. From the assurances that have been received from the United States Government I am confident that they desire to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in preventing embarrassing incidents.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all this trouble could not be avoided by the Bahama Government trying on their part to prevent this traffic and not conniving at this insidious rum running?

No, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a most unfounded statement. The British Government and the Bahama Government have gone out of their way to stop this sort of thing, and I am glad to think that the United States Government recognise that in certain cases their officers have exceeded what was legitimate interference.

rose —

Withdraw!

Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself say that these were illicit rum runners?

Yes, Sir, but that does not justify action within the Bahamian waters by United States cutters.

Does not the seizure of such ships outside the recognised limits constitute piracy?

No, Sir. There is a special arrangement made between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in order to help the Government of the United States in dealing with this traffic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. William Southam and of other British subjects, mostly workers, who deposited roubles with the branches of the National City Bank of New York in Petrograd and Moscow in 1917, and who, in spite of many reclamations, have been unable to recover these deposits; if he is aware that the parent bank in New York guaranteed itself responsible for the deposits to be returned in Tsarist roubles or their value in dollars; that an American court gave a decision recently in a similar case brought by the Bank of the United States against the National City Bank of New York, and the bank was ordered to repay, with interest at the rate of exchange prevailing on 1st September, 1918; and if he will state whether he can see his way clear to make representations to the Government of the United States with a view to satisfying the claims of these British subjects?

My information is confined to the memorandum which the hon. Member was good enough to leave with me in April, 1925. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the American decision which he men- tions I shall be glad to examine the matter further, but in any case there is no ground for diplomatic representations until the claimants have exhausted their remedy in the Courts.

As soon as that has been done and a final decision has been arrived at, and if British subjects are not in a position to get justice done, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to see that all British subjects do get justice?

I cannot answer about a hypothetical circumstance. The claimants must exhaust their remedies in the Courts first of all. Of course, all this unhappy business arises out of the action of the Soviet Government on the seizing of private property in Russia.

Is it not a fact that this New York bank has a branch in Petrograd and promised certain conditions to investors which would be in accordance with the rules of that time, and is it not a fact that they have failed to carry out their obligations as per their promise in 1917?

I think that the hon. Member is assuming as a fact some particulars which the bank dispute, and in any case the remedy of the people who feel themselves aggrieved is in the Courts, and it is not proper to make diplomatic representations to a Government when the claimants have not used their remedies in the Courts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the transactions complained of took place before August, 1917, and before the Soviet revolution?

No, Sir; I do not know.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly investigate and make sure?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, for the purpose of increasing the number of Transatlantic visitors to this country, he will consider taking up with the authorities in the United States the suggestion of foregoing mutually the amount paid upon the visas of British and American tourists in each country, respectively?

The fees at present levied for British visas granted to United States citizens correspond to those charged for United States visas granted to British subjects. As long as the visa itself is retained, His Majesty's Government feel obliged to collect the appropriate visas fees in respect of the services rendered in granting the visa, but they are prepared to reduce the fees to those recommended by the Paris Passport Conference, 1920, whenever the United States are prepared on their part to introduce those fees for all British subjects, whether immigrants or non-immigrants.

Do I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will consider sympathetically anything that comes from Washington in this regard?

On the lines which I have indicated in my question. America has not been willing hitherto to include all immigrants.

Will he apply it to tourists on both sides?

No, Sir, that would be a very unequal bargain.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that the treaty outlawing war as an instrument of national policy is shortly to be signed in Paris, he will consider making representations to the United States Government recommending that an invitation be sent to the Russian Government to give its adhesion to the treaty, in order that no great Power may be excluded?

I do not think that any suggestions are called for from us. The issue of invitations would seem to be a matter for the United States Government in consultation, no doubt, with the French Government, since the signature is to take place in Paris.

If the United States Government propose that an invitation be given to the Russian Government, will the right hon. Gentleman support that proposal?

I shall not support it, neither shall I object to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what civil flying services, if any, are regularly operating in the African dependencies of the Crown independently from, or in connection with, services operating in the Union of South Africa; what further extensions are contemplated; and what amount he expects to pay as subsidies during the coming financial year?

No civil flying services are as yet in regular operation in any of the British African dependencies. Proposals for a regular service between Egypt and East Africa, with a possible extension southwards, have been submitted as the outcome of the experimental service between Khartum and Kisumu and are now under consideration by the Colonial Office in conjunction with the Air Ministry. No proposals have as yet been formulated for the financial assistance of this service from Air Votes during the coming financial year.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to a petition presented by residents at Hamble with respect to accidents which have occurred in that village owing to experimental and instructional machines taking off and landing incessantly, and passing over dwelling-houses at a height of from 10 to 20 feet; whether he is aware that residents at the village end of this Southampton airport are being compelled to erect high flagstaffs to keep aeroplanes away from their houses; and whether he will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the northern end of the aerodrome field will be made fit for use without delay and thus minimise the risk to people living in the vicinity?

As regards the first and second parts of the question, such a petition has been received and considered. No accident, however, has been notified to me as having occurred in Ramble in connection with the taking off or landing of experimental or instructional machines. As regards the last part of the question, the aerodrome is leased by an aircraft company, who are licensees of it under the regulations. Their attention and that of other users has been drawn to the complaints received, and I have been informed that every possible endeavour is made to avoid giving ground for complaint. I understand that the northern portion of the aerodrome is only fit for use as an emergency landing ground, but that the company hope before long to be in a position to improve the surface in order that their flying activities may as far as possible be confined to that portion.

Seeing that this is the second complaint of this nature to which I have called his attention during the past few weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman present a return showing the number of complaints that are being made in regard to this sort of thing?

I should not think that it was necessary to present a return of that kind. I am afraid that these modern methods of traffic always do create noise, and I am sorry that it is so, but, on the whole, the public have borne with it very patiently.

Too patiently.

asked the Minister of Health if he can give any explanation why, out of 1,072 applications for assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, only 334, up to 31st March, 1928, were promised assistance; and why, of those 334 applicants, only 220 accepted the assistance offered?

According to the returns furnished by local authorities showing progress up to the 31st March last under the Act in question assistance had been promised in respect of 334 dwellings, applications had been refused after consideration of the proposals of the local authorities in respect of 256 dwellings, and the balance, viz., 482, were presumably still under consideration at that date. Of the 334 dwellings in respect of which assistance had been promised the position at the 31st March was that work was either in progress or had been completed on 220 dwellings; in the case of the remaining 114 the work had not been commenced, but I am not aware that the assistance promised had not been accepted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether in each case these houses are being occupied by rural workers?

I think they will have to be occupied by rural workers under the Act.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the annual conference of the British Medical Association, held at Cardiff on 24th July, with reference to the effect of noise on public health; and whether he is prepared to appoint a commission to inquire into the matter with a view to giving local authorities effective powers for dealing with this menace?

No, Sir. I have not received the resolution referred to. I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statement of my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, in answer to a question on this subject on Thursday last.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the relieving officers under the control of the West Ham Poor Law Commissioners have been instructed to make inquiries from the employers of sons and daughters of persons applying for outdoor relief as to the amount of wages paid, and that in one or two cases employés have been dismissed because the employers resented having to give such information; and if he will give instructions that such inquiries are not to be made?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second and third in the negative. It is obviously the duty of the guardians to verify, through their officers, the statements of the earnings of persons applying for relief, or liable for the support of persons applying for relief.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this method of ascertaining the wages of the employés has a detrimental effect, because, if the board of guardians are not satisfied that the person in question is not telling the truth, they apply to the employer, and that causes a good deal of suspicion and the result in some cases is that they are discharged.

I have not heard of any such cases, and perhaps the hon. Member can suggest a better way.

asked the Prime Minister if he will, in order to mark the importance and significance of the matter, cause a special instruction to be sent to each of the three fighting services Departments as to the need for taking the Kellogg Peace Pact into consideration as a new factor in the question of national security?

The significance of any international development of first-rate importance, such as the proposed Treaty for the Renunciation of War, is automatically brought to the notice of the Service Departments and the Committee of Imperial Defence in the survey of the international situation which, as mentioned in my statement of the 27th March, 1928, is prepared by the Foreign Office every year. In any event hardly any question of policy affecting the fighting services can be discussed without reference to an international event of this magnitude, and the Service Departments are already fully aware of its importance.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what reductions will be made in the Estimates for next year?