asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consul at Nanking, China, has now received a reply to his request to the National Government asking for further protection for British nationals and property; has the situation in China altered since his last statement; and can he make a statement?

I have received no report regarding the request for the protection of British nationals and property made by His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking nor as to any reply made by the National Government. Military operations against the rebels in Honan have been proceeding on a considerable scale during the past week, but with no decisive result up to the present. In the South, rebel troops have again invaded north-west Kwangtung and are reported to be within 120 miles of Canton. No progress has been made towards the settlement of the Sino-Soviet dispute.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any further communication has been sent by His Majesty's Consul to the National Government?

We are in constant communication with the National Government, but I do not know whether we have communicated again on the definite point mentioned by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to introduce further legislation to deal with the Boxer indemnity?

New proposals for dealing with this question are now under discussion with His Majesty's Minister in China; the question of legislation must await a decision on these proposals.

May I ask whether the body appointed to deal with this matter in China is still in being?

I think the hon. Member had better see me and explain to which body he refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way to inviting the Governments of the United States, France, and Holland to join with His Majesty's Government in making representations to the Mexican Government in the interests of American, French, Dutch, and British holders of defaulted Mexican Government debt?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the new British Minister to Mexico to make it his first duty to impress upon the Mexican Government the necessity for remedying the default of its obligations to British subjects who have invested their savings in the bonds of the Mexican Government and in the bonds of the national railways of Mexico guaranteed by the Mexican Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to make renewed efforts to induce the Mexican Government to fulfil its obligations to those investors who have entrusted their savings to the Mexican Government and which has for the past 15 years defaulted upon its debts to them?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action, if any, is being taken in regard to the various loans from this country to Mexico in which default by that country has occurred?

As was explained in the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) on the 18th November, His Majesty's Government could only take steps on behalf of the British holders of these Mexican bonds if requested to do so by the duly qualified agents of the bondholders. Any such request would receive the most careful attention of His Majesty's Government.

In the event of the right hon. Gentleman receiving such a request will be consider strengthening his position by co-operation with the other countries named, so that Mexico might be in a position to look after the interests of these bondholders and so restore the credit of Mexico, which in itself would be of enormous help to British trade?

I have already stated that any such request will receive most careful attention.

May I ask if the Mexican Bondholders' Committee is still in existence, does it function, and are there any reports—

The hon. Member must put those questions on the Order Paper.

This Mexican Bondholders' Committee was appointed at the express wish of His Majesty's Government, and I am asking that their report should be made public.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will do all he can. in the interests of British bondholders in Mexico?

The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) gave notice of several supplementary questions, but I only received them at a quarter past two this afternoon. I have not been able to obtain the information, and I must ask him to put them on the Order Paper.

May I ask whether it is the custom now for hon. Members to send notice to Ministers of supplementary questions before they know the reply?

No, and it would be a very bad custom to get into.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper showing the steps taken from time to time during the past 15 years by His Majesty's Ministers in Mexico, with or without the collaboration of the International Committee of Bankers, to safeguard the interests of British investors, who have invested many millions of pounds of their savings in direct or in direct obligations of the Mexican Government?

From April, 1917, to August, 1925, His Majesty's Government were without a diplomatic representative at Mexico City. For the past four years, as also previously, negotiations for the settlement of the debts have been conducted direct by the International Committee of Bankers, who act for the foreign bondholders. The Committee have made no request for the assistance of His Majesty's Diplomatic Representative at Mexico City. It will be realised that His Majesty's Government would not be in a position to take any action in the matter except at the request of and in collaboration with the duly qualified agents of the British bondholders. In the circumstances, the answer to the Hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending an Advisory Committee to assist the new Minister in Mexico to come to some arrangement for the benefit of British bondholders?

No, I do not think that point arises. At any rate, I shall have to consider it very carefully.

In the event of the right hon. Gentleman getting such a request will he—

The right hon. Gentleman has already answered that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that obtaining trade information as to conditions in Russia from other sources than the Soviet Government, and engaging in private trading in Russia involves capital punishment in that country, he will say whether on the issue of passports to British citizens they are warned of the various risks they incur?

No warning on the specific point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member is given to applicants for passports desiring to proceed to Russia, but, in the absence of diplomatic machinery, a general warning to the effect that they enter the territories of the Soviet Union entirely at their own risk is at present given to all intending travellers.

Is it not the fact that no British subject has been so treated, far less executed?

Is it not the case that we are resuming relations entirely at own risk?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain a report of the part played by the agents of the Third International in inciting hostile demonstrations during the disturbances in South Africa; and if he will bring the matter to the notice of the Soviet Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that the "Izvestia," the official organ of the Soviet Government, has declared that he has misinterpreted the effect of the protocol of 3rd October, 1929, and that the Soviet Government cannot undertake any responsibility for the Comintern's activity, he intends to make any representations to the Soviet Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from M. Dovgalevski any communication respecting his report to the Soviet Government that the British Government regard the Communist International as an organ of the Soviet Government, or has otherwise been made acquainted with the attitude of the Soviet Government towards his statement?

The views of His Majesty's Government on this subject have been repeatedly explained in answer to previous Parliamentary questions, and I do not propose to add anything to the answers already given.

May I ask for an answer to the first line of my question— if he will obtain a report of the part played by the agents of the Third International in the disturbances in South Africa?

I have already answered a question in the House this week, that that is a matter for the South African Government.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is laying up for himself an awful lot of trouble?

That does not arise out of the question the Paper.

On a point of Order. Questions Nos. 10 and 11 have little connection with one another, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with them separately.

The right hon. Gentleman has already answered them together.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any evidence of the connection between the Soviet Government and the Comintern of the Red International; if so, whether he has communicated it to M. Dovgalevski; and whether he will cause it to be laid upon the Table of the House?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Command Paper 2895 (Russia No. 3, 1927) issued by the late Government. There has been no material change in the position since the laying of that Paper. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.

As the Soviet Government obviously puts a different interpretation on the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman insist on a clear understanding before diplomatic relations are resumed?

I answered that question on Monday.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he anticipates that the exchange of diplomatic representatives with the Soviet Government will take place; and whether, previous to that occasion, he will ask for an explanation of the attitude of the Soviet Government towards propaganda by the Comintern as set forth in the "Izvestia," the official organ of the Soviet Government, on 5th November?

I am not yet in a position to state the exact date on which the Ambassadors who have been appointed will take up their duties. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on the 18th November in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain).

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is still his intention to proceed to the final ratification of an agreement to which one of the contracting parties has already declared its intention not to adhere?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is not a question of a breach of a pledge as to propaganda, but a question of a fundamental disagreement as to the meaning of a treaty?

We have already had a number of answers on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that His Majesty's Government have recognised the new Government at Kabul, they are sending there a Minister or an Ambassador, and when it is proposed to accredit one?

I hope that it will be possible to announce the name of a new Minister before long. Owing, however, to the necessity of extensive repairs to the Legation buildings, which cannot be carried out during the winter, it may not be possible for His Majesty's representative actually to return to Kabul for some time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it more advisable to have a Minister there than to have a Russian Ambassador in this country?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the numbers of men now employed in each of the Royal Dockyards, and the corresponding number of men employed on 1st November last year?

The total number of workpeople borne on the books of the Royal Dockyards at home was 36,326 on the 1st November, 1928, and 36,525 on the 1st November, 1929. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the particulars as regards each yard in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The particulars are as follow :

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of workpeople in Government Dockyards and in private yards and armaments respectively, as a result of the decision to stop work on certain war vessels?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1411) to the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske).

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any break clause in the main contracts for the construction of the naval base and dockyard at Singapore in order that the contracts can be altered or modified in certain eventualities?

There is no specific "break" clause in the main contract, but that is not to say that the Admiralty have not power to alter or modify the works under the contract.

Is it not usual, when the Admiralty are mating contracts of this character, to have a break clause?

Is it not a fact that there would be a very serious claim from the contractors, if this contract is suspended or considerably modified?

I would like to ask the House not to discuss this matter in detail at Question Time in view of any possible legal questions which might arise. With regard to the supplementary question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I cannot say as to that point. Of course, it depends on the character of the contract, and the Admiralty enter into a very large number of contracts.

But is it not a fact that this contract was made in sections by the late Government, and that they did not insert a break clause?

Do the Government consider that they would be liable for compensation?

Obviously, it would be improper for me to answer a question of that kind.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total estimated expenditure on the Singapore naval base; the total expenditure to date; and the proportions borne and to be borne by Dominion and British funds, respectively?

The total estimated cost of the truncated scheme for the Singapore Naval Base is £8,700,000, including the cost of the floating dock. The total expenditure to date is £2,033,000. This excludes the cost of the site which was presented by the Government of the Straits Settlements. The contribution actually received from Dominions and Colonies is £1,294,000, leaving £739,000 as the charge to Navy Votes to date. Further Dominion and Colonial contributions of £1,116,000 have been promised, making a total of £2,410,000, thus leaving an ultimate net charge to Navy Votes of £6,290,000. These figures relate to Navy funds only and do not cover expenditure from, or contributions appropriated in aid of, Army and Air funds.

Do the Government intend to repay the Dominions the amounts which they have already contributed, if the dock is not proceeded with?

That question is quite obviously premature.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to include in Dominion contributions the contribution of the Federated Malay States?

If I did not say so, I ought to have said "Dominion and Colonial contributions."

Is it not the case that the site was given and the contributions made on the distinct understanding that the scheme would be proceeded with in its entirety?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much of the Malayan contribution towards expediting the work on the Singapore base has already been accepted and spent?

Of the contribution of £2,000,000 offered by the Government of the Federated Malay States, the sum of £1,200,000 has been received to date. The whole of this amount has been spent.

Will His Majesty's Government consult with the Malay States Government before any change of policy is made in regard to the Singapore base?

I have nothing to add to what has already been said on that subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Dominion of New Zealand was consulted previous to the decision of the Government to suspend new work on the Singapore base; and what steps were taken to ascertain the view of other parts of the Empire which have made contributions to the cost of this work?

asked the Prime Minister whether any protest or criticism has been received from either the Dominion or Colonial Governments concerned following upon the Government's action in slowing down work on the Singapore Base?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the reply which I made to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) on the 18th of November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply does not cover my question; and may I ask him why it was that these different parts of the Empire, who contributed to this scheme so generously, were not in common courtesy consulted before the delay was decided upon?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look very carefully into that reply, he will find that the question is covered; I will refer to the subject again in the question which is about to be put.

Will the Prime Minister observe that all that he told us in that reply is that the Governments had been informed; we are asking why they have not been consulted?

If the Prime Minister will look at my question again, he will find that it is not at all covered by his reply on a previous occasion. I have asked him whether there has been any protest or criticism by the Dominion or Colonial Governments as to this policy of slowing down?

It was all covered in the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford.

No!

Will the Prime Minister state the ground on which the First Lord of the Admiralty stated the other day—

That does not arise out of this question.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that no change of policy as to the completion and establishment of the Singapore Base will be made without the consent and approval of the Dominion and Colonial Governments concerned and without the discussion of the matter in Parliament?

I would invite reference to the reply which I gave on the 18th of November to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), in so far as consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions is concerned. As regards the Colonial Governments which have contributed to the cost of the Singapore Base, the financial arrangements which would be necessitated by any change of policy affecting the base as a whole would necessarily be discussed with them. A decision would obviously be reported to Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be fair to these communities, who have given us money which has been accepted and spent, and whose security is much more nearly concerned with the Singapore Base than ours, to make any big change of policy without their full consent and approval?

That is exactly what I say in the latter part of the answer, but it is quite obvious to anybody in this House that a waste of public money should not be continued if it be proved to be a waste; and in any readjustment of a building programme, regarding which no final decision has been taken, I say, undoubtedly, that the subscribing communities must be consulted, not merely by way of being informed, but consulted in such a way that agreement will be come to.

When the right hon. Gentleman said that the matter will be brought into Parliament, I presume that he means that Parliament will be given an opportunity of discussing it, and, in that event, will he see that we have full information as to the views and opinions of the Dominions before that discussion?

I cannot answer a comprehensive question like that. All I say is that the House will have no reason whatever to complain of our pursuing in respect of this question any policy different from that which has been pursued under similar circumstances before.

Several HON. MEMBERS rose —

We cannot pursue this matter at Question Time.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Malay States were consulted about Singapore at the same time as the Dominions?

I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on Monday to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).

asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will publish any correspondence which has taken place with the Dominions on the subject of the proposed slowing down of the Singapore Base?

I would refer the hon. Member to the last part of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 18th of November to the question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).

Would it be in order for me now to ask whether the Government will state the grounds on which the announcement was made last week that they had no reason to suppose that the action they were taking was out of harmony with the immediate views of the Dominions?

I think the hon. Member will find, if he consults the records, that the Prime Minister has answered that question six times, and I have answered it twice.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any scheme, apart from ship breaking, has been considered for providing work within Rosyth Dockyard; and, in view of the hundreds of men who have been unemployed since the dockyard was reduced to a care-and-maintenance basis, is he prepared to offer facilities which will attract private speculators to set up works in that area?

Since it was announced in 1926 that the Admiralty were prepared to consider offers for the commercial use of the land at Rosyth, only two proposals, neither of which came to maturity, have been received. Any firms who desire to take advantage of the facilities available have only to put their proposals forward to receive full consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a feeling of uncertainty exists amongst officers and men of the Royal Navy in view of the possible reductions of armaments and personnel; will he state that, in the event of any such reduction of armaments and personnel being necessitated, the principle of full monetary compensation at State expense in lieu of services no longer required will be provided until such time as the recipients obtain suitable civil employment; and will he assure the House that he will take steps at the proper time to ensure that a scheme of employment of redundant officers and men is initiated?

I am not aware that such a feeling exists, nor that the acute situation which my hon. Friend visualises is going to arise, and I am sure that he will not expect me to bind myself beforehand as to the way in which the Government would, in such a contingency, safeguard the interests of the naval personnel.

Would the right hon. Gentleman mind asking the hon. Member who put that question, what promises he gave to naval and other voters?

And will the right hon. Gentleman ask the hon. Lady to prove herself a lady?

On a point of Order. Is it proper to use Question Time for the emission of common vulgarities?

The vulgarities all come from the other side.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the feeling that exists amongst officers and men that Section VI of Order No. 2813a/1924 of the Admiralty Fleet Orders is tantamount to the deprivation of political privilege which should be enjoyed by these ranks in their civil capacity as voters, and that the removal of this section would be in the interests of the ranks concerned; will he take steps for its removal; and, if he so decides that the rescinding of this section of the Order is inexpedient to the interests of the ranks in the Navy, will he state the grounds upon which this decision is based?

The restrictions in question upon speaking at party meetings or actively prosecuting the interests of a candidate for election to this House are common to all three Fighting Services and I am not prepared to recommend that any change is desirable in their application to the Naval Service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Order referred to in the question takes away certain privileges of the Fighting Services in regard to elections; and could not he see his way to reconsider the matter?

My examination of the papers dealing with the matter does not lead me to the same conclusion as the hon. Member.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that climate allowance has now been restored to officers in H.M.S. "Tamar," Hong Kong, and shore establishments, he can see his way to grant the same concession to the men as was formerly the case?

"Climate Allowance" is not payable either to officers or men in H.M.S. "Tamar" or shore establishments. The question probably has reference to Colonial allowance, which is granted to officers at Hong Kong at rates and under conditions which have recently been revised. Payment is, however, restricted to officers who are required to reside on shore or are not provided with service victualling. As regards ratings generally, it was decided in 1927 to abolish Colonial allowance as such in favour of a system under which, where necessary, an increased provision allowance is paid, or the actual cost of lodgings, or of board and lodgings, is defrayed. At the time this system was instituted no ratings at Hong Kong were in receipts of Colonial allowance, and it has not been reported that any ratings are now living at Hong Kong under conditions which require the application of the new rule.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. May I ask him, if these men are required in these circumstances, will they get the same allowances as officers?

The hon. Member must wait and see.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, owing to the refit arrangements of His Majesty's ship "Rodney," the crew, mainly Devonport manned, will have to be given Christmas leave from Portsmouth; and as this will mean additional travelling expenses to the Devonport men concerned, can be make some arrangement to relieve them of the cost of their railway fares on this occasion?

I am unable to accede to the hon. Member's request, which would involve a discrimination which could not be justified.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very hard luck on these Devonport men that their ship has to be re-fitted at Portsmouth, merely because it cannot be accommodated at Devonport; and, in these circumstances, why should they have to pay to go home, when they would not have had to incur this expense if the ship had been re-fitted at their home port?

I have pointed out in my answer that I cannot accede to the hon. Member's request. I have no doubt that Portsmouth men would have to pay their fares home if their ship was being re-fitted at Devonport, and men have to go all over the country in similar circumstances. We must not discriminate.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will issue instructions that, when dates are fixed for summer and Christmas leave to ratings in home ports, arrangements are to be made for the return date to be 48 hours after a bank holiday in order to avoid congested travelling?

The railway companies put on extra trains to meet the increased holiday traffic, and in doing so they take into consideration the demand due to naval ratings proceeding on leave. The grant of leave must be subject to Service requirements, and the introduction of such an agreement as that proposed would lead to many difficulties and cannot be entertained.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the return journeys to which I refer, and that, if a man is due to return on a Monday that is a bank holiday, he is forced to leave his homo on the Saturday?

That has been considered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now explain the scheme dealing with the making of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service a pensionable one; and whether the pension will be retrospective?

A scheme of retiring allowances and gratuities applicable to officers of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ser- vice has been approved by His Majesty The King in Council and is being promulgated in Fleet Orders. The scheme is non-contributory and has a measure of retrospective application for officers now serving.

Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy?

Yes, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the annual cost of maintaining the Royal Naval Engineering College at Keyham; what is the number of the staff at the college; and what is the number of cadets at present accommodated there?

The number of officers at present under training at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Key-ham, is 187, including eight Royal Australian Navy officers. The present net annual cost of the college is approximately £50,000, and the total numbers employed are 195.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no question of closing this college?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of cadets at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth; what is the number of the staff; what is the annual cost of maintaining the college; and what were the figures under these heads for the year before the outbreak of the War in 1914?

The present number of naval cadets at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, is 535. In November, 1913, when two cadet training colleges were maintained, there were 419 cadets at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and 451 at the Royal Naval College, Osborne, a total of 870. The net cost from Navy Votes of the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, after deducting contributions by parents, is £84,600 approximately; the total numbers employed are 444. The corresponding figures in 1913—in respect of the Royal Naval Colleges, Dartmouth and Osborne —were £103,000 and 711 respectively.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the number of entries for special training in engineering, it is proposed to continue the two establishments of the Royal Naval Engineering College at Keyham and the monitor "Erebus."

The hon. Member is evidently under a misapprehension as to the use made of His Majesty's Ship "Erebus." This vessel is not used simply as a training ship for naval cadets entered for engineering duties, but for the preliminary training together of all naval cadets, including paymaster cadets, entered otherwise than through the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth. The initial common training of executive and engineer officers is an essential feature of the common entry scheme, and it is impracticable for it to be carried out at Keyham, which is used only for training engineer officers. I may add that "Erebus" also carries out the duties of turret drill ship.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision that all pensioners shall be eligible for service as officers' stewards at Whale Island and His Majesty's Ship "Excellent," instructions will be given for the names of pensioners other than Royal Marines to be entered on the rosters for employment by these establishments?

The decision referred to in the reply of the 4th November to the hon. Baronet has been communicated to the authorities concerned, who are responsible for the detailed arrangements for putting it into effect.

Is the hon. Member aware that it has not been communicated?

It has been communicated now.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to abolish the hot cupboards at present fitted to chief and petty officers' messes in His Majesty's Ship "Centaur"; and, if so, whether this question can be reconsidered, in view of the great usefulness of these hot cupboards to the messes fitted with them?

The Admiralty are unaware of any such intention.

Will the hon. Member inquire?

Yes.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cases of breaches of the Fair Wages Clause have been reported in regard to contracts during the last three years and the action taken when such reports were justified?

Seven instances have been reported and subsequently proved to have been actual breaches of the Clause during the period in question, and with one exception the firms concerned agreed to comply with the provisions of the Clause. The remaining firm were not prepared to comply and have ceased to be eligible to tender for Admiralty work.

Was there any other penalty imposed upon those six firms, apart from their undertaking to comply with the Clause?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on the 27th August last at Jerusalem British subjects were dismissed from a public parade of duly enrolled special constables on the sole ground that they were Jews; what were the results of the investigation into this matter on the part of the Palestine Government and the Secretary of State; and whether he can give an assurance that any discrimination of this character is disapproved by His Majesty's Government?

I am aware that certain special constables of Jewish race, of whom some appear to be British subjects, were disarmed at Jerusalem on the 27th August. As it appears that evidence with regard to the action taken by the Palestine Government has been given before the Commission of Enquiry, my Noble Friend would prefer to await the report of the Commission before my general statement on the subject is made.

Could my hon. Friend tell me whether the Grand Mufti was present on the parade when these Jews were humiliated in this way?

The question has no relation either to the Grand Mufti or to the Arabs, but is concerned with the Jewish special constabulary.

But surely this was not the place to disarm them?

If my right hon. and gallant Friend will look in the "Times" to-day, he will see the evidence of the Acting High Commissioner, to the effect that in taking this step, which was a most painful duty, he had been solely concerned with the security of lives not feelings.

Why was this done at a public parade?

Was it not the case that it was to save the lives of other Jews?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what use was made of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force during the recent outrages and disorders in Palestine; whether it was used to protect Jewish colonies and communities from attack and murder; and, if not, whether he will state the reason, seeing that the force is available for duty both in Palestine and Trans-Jordania?

The Trans-Jordan Frontier Force rendered valuable service, particularly in maintaining control of the Jordan valley and in protecting the valley of Jezreel and the plain of Esdraelon, where there are numerous Jewish colonies.

Why in that case were they not called on earlier and used to prevent the massacre of Jews?

I think the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is one that is now being inquired into by the Commission.

Will my hon. Friend be so good as to look into the whole question of the organisation of this force when he gets the evidence?

Is it the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that the Trans-Jordan defence force could be trusted?

Yes. There is no doubt about that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the immediate enactment of the special law directed against seditious offences, recently published in the official gazette of Palestine, has been approved by His Majesty's Government; and for what reason was a special law deemed necessary?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, an explanatory note was published with the Ordinance in the Official Gazette of the Government of Palestine. A copy will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the copy :

"EXPLANATORY NOTE ON THE CRIMINAL LAW (SEDITIOUS OFFENCES) ORDINANCE.

"It has been recognised for some time that the Ottoman Penal Code is not suitable for the present circumstances of the country. A large part of it has already been amended by Ordinances of the Palestine Government, and it is proposed to replace it entirely by a new Code of which the draft is under consideration by the Secretary of State. It may be noted that the Ottoman Penal Code has been replaced in Turkey and also in Iraq.

"Pending the consideration of the larger measure it has become urgently necessary to substitute for the portion of the Penal Code dealing with offences against public order a law that is more scientifically arranged and more in accord with modern conditions. The provisions of the Ottoman Law with regard to seditious offences, illegal societies and riots are confused and unsatisfactory; and the present Ordinance which represents a part of the draft new Penal Code will put the law on a clearer basis. It follows the principles of law in force in countries under British Administration.

"The Secretary of State has approved of its immediate enactment. It will apply only to offences committed after its enactment."

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the persons now under arrest in Palestine are on hunger strike; if so, how many of the hunger strikers are women; what is the condition of health of the strikers; whether the lives of any of them are considered to be in danger; what are the requests of the prisoners in support of which the hunger strike has been declared; and whether any of the prisoners have been chained or flogged in the gaols; and, if so, for what reason?

The Secretary of State has received no report from the Palestine Government on this subject, but inquiry will be made.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the abridged extracts of reports of evidence before the Palestine Riots Inquiry Commission now appearing in the Press, he will give an undertaking that verbatim reports of all such public evidence will be published in Blue Book form available for Members before the issues raised by the outbreak of crime and disorder in Palestine are debated in Parliament?

The right hon. Member's suggestion will certainly receive sympathetic consideration as soon as the full verbatim reports are available.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the events that occurred on 28th October during an attack on a Jewish shopkeeper in the old city of Jerusalem, when a policeman present declined to intervene or protect life and property; whether this refusal to act on the part of the policeman was the result of superior orders or his own inaction; and whether he will call for a special report on this matter by cable?

I have received no report of any such incident. I see no reason to telegraph for a special report; but a copy of the hon. and gallant Member's question will be sent to the High Commissioner by mail.

Is it still the policy of His Majesty's Government to disarm the Jews forcibly, and to leave them more or less defenceless?

Since these murders are still going on, will not the hon. Gentleman inquire into this case, which is a very well-known case, as to the action of the policeman in not defending this man's life?

I will look into it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any Report on the conduct, in the discharge of his duties, of Mr. Cafferata, chief of the police at Hebron?

Yes, Sir. I am informed that Mr. Cafferata showed conspicuous gallantry at Hebron on the 24th August when he kept an armed mob at bay single-handed and thus prevented further attacks on the Jews. He has been awarded the King's Police Medal in recognition of these services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Cafferata is charged by the Jews with having waited for an hour and a half while the most horrible massacre of women and children went on[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] before he directed the police to fire, when the riot immediately subsided? May I have an answer to my question?

We must get on with other questions.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews were arrested for carrying arms during the Arab rising; how many were sentenced; and whether any are still in prison for this offence?

I regret that I am not in a position to give the information asked for. I have received no detailed statistics as to the particular offences for which arrests were made during the disturbances.

Will my hon. Friend make inquiries as to how many Jews were arrested for carrying arms in self-defence?

I have stated quite definitely that in my opinion it is hardly advisable to call for a report during the time when the Commission is inquiring into these occurrences.

Will the hon. Member say how they can find out whether a man is carrying arms in self-defence or for other purposes?

May I press that we should ask for a report on this one point: How many Jews were arrested for carrying arms in self-defence? We have a perfect right to know.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies the total number of persons killed and injured during the recent disorders in Palestine?

The casualties recorded up to 24th September were: Killed, 207; injured and treated in hospital, 379.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire into the complaints made by the Arab population as to the heavy sentences inflicted on Arabs as compared with the sentences inflicted on the Jews for similar crimes?

If the hon. and gallant Member will bring specific cases to the notice of the Secretary of State, he will consider whether they call for inquiry.

If I produce five or six cases which I have, will the hon. Member look into them?

Yes.

Is it to be the practice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to interfere with the sentences passed by Judges? It never has been done before.

I have given no promise. I said that, if these were submitted, we would consider them.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the present Government have issued any instructions to the High Commissioner of Palestine as to their policy in giving effect to the mandate for Palestine; and whether it has been made clear to all Government officials in Palestine thas His Majesty's Government have no intention of abandoning the mandate or seeking to vary its terms?

No general instructions have been specially issued to the High Commissioner by the present Government. As regards the second part of the question, the Government have publicly announced that they have no intention of abandoning the mandate.

Does not the evidence which is now appearing daily in the Press prove quite conclusively that up to date great confusion of mind has existed in the administration in Palestine with regard to this question; and, in view of that fact, will the hon. Gentleman not make it perfectly clear what is the intention of His Majesty's Government?

Is it not only by absolute impartiality of treatment between Arabs and Jews that we can secure peace there?

I do not know where the confusion arises or where the hon. Member gets his evidence that there is any confusion upon the point or that there will be confusion after my answer is known.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews and how many Arabs have been convicted of murder in Palestine since the year 1920, inclusive, up to the outbreak of the riots in August, 1929?

I regret that I could not furnish a return in the form asked for without reference to the High Commissioner. Its preparation would entail considerable labour upon the Palestine Government which the Secretary of State is reluctant, in present circumstances, to ask them to undertake.

Is the reason for that refusal not the fact that the number of Jews sentenced for murder is very, very small and the number of Arabs very large?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, seeing that he has recently received a, deputation of Members of Par- liament and others on the question of the demoralisation of the West African natives by the sale of intoxicating liquors, what steps he proposes for dealing with this traffic?

The Governors of the West African Colonies are now being consulted as to what steps can usefully be taken.