asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether that part of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations under which the members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes, and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes, has been fully carried out by all members; and, if not, what the position is?

His Majesty's Government, together with other Governments members of the League, are endeavouring to negotiate at Geneva a general convention for the reduction and limitation of armaments. The intention is that this convention shall provide for the completest possible publicity in regard to the armaments of each country. There is also in existence a draft convention on the manufacture of arms, which would cover a good deal of the ground. There are, however, difficulties in the way of acceptance of this latter, convention pending agreement on the general disarmament convention. As the hon. Member knows, every effort is being made to make progress with the general convention. In the meanwhile, the Armaments Year Book, issued at Geneva, affords relatively full information in regard to the armaments of all States.

Do I understand from that answer that up to the present time the obligations of different countries under that Article have not, as a matter of fact, been carried out?

I am afraid that that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a petition addressed to the League of Nations on behalf of the Bulgarian population resident in Macedonia has been forwarded to His Majesty's Government by the Secretary-General; whether he is aware that this petition was presented by two prominent citizens of Macedonia itself, and demands that the clauses for the protection of minorities included in the treaty of St. Germain-enLaye of 10th September, 1919, shall be applied within the framework of the Yugoslav State as at present constituted; and whether he will take steps to secure that consideration is given by the Council of the League thereto?

The Secretary-General has not as yet forwarded a copy of the petition in question to His Majesty's Government. Copies have, however, been received both from its authors and from His Majesty's Minister at Sofia. The petition will be dealt with in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the League, and I can express no opinion thereon unless and until it comes before me in my capacity as a member of the Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that previous petitions dealing with this matter have emanated from exiles outside the country itself, but that what gives this petition its special significance is that it is directly representative of the minority in the country?

I will bear that fact in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is prepared to use the good offices of the Government to endeavour to persuade the Government of Turkey to apply for membership of the League of Nations?

While His Majesty's Government would, of course, be glad to see Turkey make application for admission to membership of the League of Nations, the question whether, and if so when, such application should be made, is one which only the Turkish Government can decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has made any representation to the Government of the United States concerning the proposals of the British Government for a tariff truce?

The answer is in the negative.

Has not the reply of the United States reached the right hon. Gentleman through the League of Nations saying that they cannot usefully participate in these proposals or join a conference?

No, I have not seen such a reply.

What is the good of participating in this proposal in view of the fact that leading commercial nations of the world have decided to have nothing whatever to do with it?

I think that that question has already been answered by the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an undertaking that any provisional agreement relating to a tariff truce will not be ratified without the approval of both Houses of Parliament?

I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam).

Will the Prime Minister send me a note of it?

I shall be very pleased to send a copy of it to the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say "Yes" or "No" to the question?

Yes, but not to repeat it ad lib.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any information is available as to the monetary return upon, or other positive results of, the expenditure of the Empire Marketing Board on posters?

The Empire Marketing Board's publicity activities, including posters, are not of a character which makes it possible for any estimate to be made of their direct monetary returns or other positive results. The Board have, however, substantial evidence from the Press, the public and trade interests at home and overseas that their posters are an advantageous instrument of their policy of creating a background of interest in the subject of Empire buying.

Can the hon. Gentleman not do something, or use his influence in some way, to see that these posters are made comprehensible?

I will take the hon. Member's question into consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the proportions of Empire Marketing Board expenditure which have been directed to encourage British home and overseas Empire production, respectively, and the general character of the grants?

The larger part of the Board's expenditure on publicity is intended to be in the general interest of Empire production both at home and overseas. Similarly, in nearly all cases the research work has an important bearing on problems arising both at home and in one or more oversea parts of the Empire. The general character of the grants made is set out in the Board's last Annual Report, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Is the hon. Gentleman convinced that the home producer is getting a fair "how in the work of the Empire Marketing Board?

As far as I am informed, and as far as I have gone into the question, I think there is no reason for com-plaint by the home producer.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Dominions and Colonies are reciprocating in this matter, and whether there are posters on their hoardings asking that British goods should be bought there? Is it reciprocal?

I do not think there is any doubt, as far as the overseas parts of the Empire are concerned, that they are as much interested as we are.

But may I ask whether they spend money as we are spending money here—whether Government money is being spent by the Dominions to advertise British goods?

Answer !

I am not called upon to answer a question of that sort, which is one for the Dominion Governments.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs why the Empire Marketing Board exhibited at their free cinema a film of life on board the American liner "Leviathan"; why no application was made, in the first instance to the Great British Atlantic steamship companies; and whether he will draw the attention of the Empire Marketing Board to the fact that the statement shown on the screen that the "Leviathan" is the largest ship in the world is not accepted by the owners of the "Majestic "?

I am informed by the Director of the Imperial Institute, who manages the cinema in question on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board, that this film was only exhibited after application to the usual source of supply had failed to elicit a suitable film of British shipping available for free display. The publicity given to the subject has now indicated that British shipping films are obtainable, and the film in question will not be exhibited again at the Imperial Institute. I will draw the attention of the Empire Marketing Board to the point made in the concluding part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Soviet Government has presented a schedule of Russian counterclaims to the claims of His Majesty's Government;

(2) whether, in presenting British claims against the Soviet Government, he will see that the claims of British subjects for bonds and other Russian securities are separate from the schedule of Government claims; and whether, in preparing the schedule of the claims of British subjects, he will see that it is prepared in consultattion with the British Union of Russian Bondholders;

(3) whether the Government have prepared a schedule of British claims; whether this schedule has been presented to the Soviet Ambassador; and whether the schedule of British claims includes the bonds and other Russian securities held by British subjects?

No schedule of the counter-claims of the Soviet Government has been received during the current negotiations. In any statement of British claims those arising in respect of privately-held bonds and other securities will be classified separately from British Government claims, and an opportunity will be afforded for all interested parties to express thier views. All pecuniary claims of whatever nature against the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that have been notified to His Majesty's Government by British subjects since 1918 have been registered at the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade. The negotiations with the Soviet Ambassador have not yet advanced sufficiently far for these claims to he presented to His Excellency.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of seeing that the register of the Board of Trade is up-to-date, and, in doing that, will he take into consultation the British Union of Russian Bondholders who are registering these claims from day to day?

I think we have been in consultation with this organisation, but I will keep in mind the suggestions made by the hon. Member.

In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a differentiation between private and national claims, will he insist that the claims of the other side shall be put into two categories in the same way as our claims have been?

That is a matter which I shall have to look into.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to make from time to time a statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Soviet Ambassador?

I shall be prepared to consider this course if the circumstances call for it and provided any statement will not prejudice the course of the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause the intelligence branch of the Foreign Office to supply him with the references made in the official organs of the Russian Soviet Government to the training of natives of Eastern races, including Indians, in revolutionary propaganda; and whether he will direct the British Ambassador in Moscow to ascertain the facts in regard to the present position?

On two occasions I have asked the hon. and gallant Member to supply me with definite particulars. Unless I receive such particulars, I do not propose to take the action suggested.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman ask me to supply him with particulars, when, students who have been trained at these colleges have been convicted of conspiracy in India and the magistrates have made the strongest possible comments?

I asked the hon. and gallant Member on two occasions, because in his question he suggested the line upon which I had not information on which to act. It is quite a common thing in this House for Members when they put questions to be asked to supply particulars.

When Members are asked to supply information it it with regard to personal cases, but on a general question the Government collects it.

Is it not the case that the hon. and gallant Member is drawing attention to students in India, while we are dealing at the moment with Russia and not India at all?

Am I to understand that the Foreign Secretary has no longer an Intelligence Branch at the Foreign Office?

I never said so.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman easily inquire from the India Office, who will supply him with the facts?

I still feel I am entitled to ask the hon. and gallant Member to supply me with the particulars upon which he based his question.

The hon. and gallant Member has supplied particulars, when he states that the relevant facts are in the possession of the India Office?

No. He has not given me any particulars.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Roy, a British-Indian subject who is a fugitive from justice in India, is still in Soviet Russia; whether his attention has been called to this gentleman's revolutionary activities directed against the country of his origin for years past; and whether he will request the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to restrain Mr. Roy and other British-Indian subjects from transmitting money and literature from Russia to British-India in order to spread sedition and disaffection?

According to information published in Communist organs in December, 1929, Mr. Roy has been expelled both from the Comintern and from the Communist party, and I understand that he has not been resident in the Soviet Union for some considerable time. The last parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

Will the right, hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the middle part of the question, whether his attention has been called to this gentleman's revolutionary activities?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman has been recently appointed the Riga Correspondent of the "Daily Mail"?

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the middle part of the question, and can he give a denial of the question asked by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills)? Will he agree with me that this man is a most dangerous revolutionary?

I am afraid that I do not know anything about this man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !," and "Why not"?] I hope hon. Members on the other side accept my statement. If the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) is accurate, that perhaps is the reason why my attention has not been called to his activities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to consult his colleague the Secretary of State for India, and will he be good enough in his rare leisure to read the report of the trial at Meerut, and the speech of the Public Prosecutor?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give a complete list of the vessels which have been dropped, or are to be dropped, from our constructional programme as a result of the International Conference negotiations; and whether the list can be now regarded as complete from the point of view of our national safety?

His Majesty's Government have already intimated what changes they have decided to make in the programme of naval construction which they inherited from their predecessors. In the statement of the Prime Minister on the 24th July, 1929 (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1304–11), and my answers to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 29th January last (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–6 and 1019–20) will be found the complete list of vessels with whose construction the Government are not proceeding, as well as their reasons for so doing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?

I have already answered that in the reply to which I have referred.

Has the right hon. Gentleman accurately described those reductions as a result of the Naval Conference? Are they not rather the preliminaries to the Naval Conference?

That also was answered last week.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to scrap the four ships of the Hawkins class as part of the naval reductions?

I cannot, at this stage of negotiations between the five Powers, make any forecast of possible reductions that may result from them.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on how many warships of all classes work has been suspended since the present Government came into office; and how much money had been spent on these ships up to the time of the suspension of work?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 24th July last (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1304–1311), and to my reply of the 29th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–976), to the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha). As regards the second part, I regret that I am not in a position to add to the reply given on the 6th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1066) to the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), as the contractors' claims are still under investigation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me a reply to the first part of the question? As the two questions are entirely different, and six months apart, would it not be useful to give the information asked for?

As the information is already in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it is not too much to ask the hon. and gallant Member to look it up.

As the right hon. Gentleman's reply six months ago referred to an entirely different matter, would it not be possible in ordinary courtesy for the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer?

The answer is gathered together in the second answer to which I have referred.

Is the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of giving the figures?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the names of the five cruisers now in special commission; upon what duties they are employed; and how many are employed outside home waters?

As the answer is in tabular form I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names of the seven cruisers now paid off for repairs, etc.; and whether any of these ships are now in the sale list?

The seven cruisers referred to in my reply of the 5th February to the bon. and gallant Member [OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1879–80] are His Majesty's Ships "Danae," "Colombo," "Cardiff," "Coventry," "Ceres," "Diomede" and "Dauntless." Since-then His Majesty's Ship "Dauntless" has been commissioned for trials. The remaining six ships are all paid off for large repairs and none are on the sale list.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what basis the reduced number of 50 cruisers as needful for the British Empire is calculated?

The number 50 has been arrived at after full investigation and is that which will, it is considered, meet all requirements for the period of an agreement which it is hoped will be reached as a result of the London Naval Conference. The number is subject to the satisfactory outcome of that Conference.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the basis on which the calculation was made?

That has already been stated. The Admiralty in the past advanced the view that a different number of cruisers was required, namely, 70. It has been quite plainly stated that, in view of the developments that have since taken place—the signing of the Pact of Paris and the holding of the Naval Conference—50 cruisers would be sufficient for the period covered by any agreement reached by the Conference.

Is the signing of the Kellogg Pact the only new feature that has entered into the situation, or are there any other matters that have arisen since the minimum requirements were first stated as 70?

The signing of the Pact of Paris was the act of one day, but the result of that act we hope will be a very different thing.

Are these the only new factors that have entered into the situation?

Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman is banking on there being no war during that period, but, if war does break out, then our naval forces are insufficient?

I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.

Is it not the case that a return to the previous figure would involve a substantial increase in cruiser tonnage at the present moment?

If I understand the hon. Member to mean a return to the figure 70, most certainly it would.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn recently to the unhealthy condition, through dampness, of houses situated in Nelson Road, Gourock, which are the property of the Admiralty, and are inhabited by workers in the torpedo factory; if he is aware of the inadequate methods employed by his staff to remedy the evil; and what further action he contemplates in regard to this matter?

I am aware of the present unsatisfactory condition through dampness of the houses in question, and provision is made in the Navy Estimates Vote 10 for remedying the defects by re-roofing the houses. The work is proceeding as rapidly as funds and circumstances permit and every effort is being made to make the houses weatherproof.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to report on the result of the consideration given by his Department to the subject of promotions from the lower deck?

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 30th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1193) to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to reply?

I will read the reply to which I have referred:

"The matter continues to engage the attention of the Admiralty, but it is obviously impossible to proceed actively with this and kindred questions until the result of the Naval Conference and its effect on personnel is known."

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, see-that only five lower-deck ratings were promoted to the rank of mate in 1929 as against eight in 1928, seven in 1927, and nine in 1926, he can state any reasons for the falling off in the numbers qualifying for promotion to mate?

I am not aware of any reason which can definitely be given for the falling off, but with the small number of candidates, the number promoted from year to year may be expected to fluctuate. The numbers in 1929 were about the average for the five years previous to 1926.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of admirals of the Fleet, admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals on the active list of the Royal Navy; and whether he will give the number of these flag-officers, in each category, who are at present employed?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships it is proposed to scrap in 1930 and 1931?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to paragraph 4 of Part II of Command Paper 3485.

After that very elaborate answer can the right hon.

As the reply is in tabular form I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the annual cost of the upkeep of a first-class battleship, including the pay of the ship's complement, stores, firing practice, and everything necessary to maintain the vessel in a state of efficiency?

As the reply is in tabular form I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Certainly not. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the reference that I have given him, which is a paragraph taken out of the recent British memorandum on the conference, it will be quite plain.

May we understand that the Government have not yet considered the latest American proposals for scrapping battleships, which would give the American Navy, not parity, but a large superiority in gun power and speed?

asked the Prime Minister whether proposals have been made at the Naval Conference by any foreign delegation that would entail the scrapping of battleships of the "Queen Elizabeth" or "Royal Sovereign" classes?

The answer to this question is decidedly in the negative.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of lieutenant-commanders who have retired from the active list of the Navy since the War and have not received the customary advance in rank upon retirement; and the reasons for this differentiation?

Particulars of the number required are not available and could only be obtained after undue expenditure of time and trouble. The reasons why a step in rank is not given in certain cases are:—(1) That the officer has not rendered before his retirement the qualifying service necessary; or (2) that his record has not been satisfactory; or (3) that he was below the age of 40 on retirement. In the last case, however, the step in rank may be given on reaching the age of 40, subject to the first two conditions being fulfilled.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated saving likely to accrue, as a result of the decision to close the Royal Dockyard, Portsmouth, for the week's holiday with pay recently granted, as compared with the cost of allowing the personnel to take the week as and when convenient to all concerned?

It is not practicable to give a reliable estimate of the saving likely to accrue by adopting one scheme in preference to the other, but it is obvious that by closing for a week there will be considerable savings due to the reduction of standing charges for power, lighting, transport, etc. The interference with work consequent on a considerable number of men being absent at varying times will also be avoided.

Surely the hon. Member can give us some figure? I understand that the dockyard is to be closed for a week because it is going to save money. Surely the Admiralty have some figures to go upon?

This is a new concession. It is the first time for the dockyard to be closed for a week, and it is impossible to give any definite figure until the experiment has been tried.

The hon. Gentleman is closing the dockyard for a week on the ground of economy. Surely he can tell as what that economy is going to be, because he will have to justify this treatment of the dockyard in a manner different from that of any other Civil Service Department?

I think the statement that I have made is quite obvious.

Will the hon. Member say why it is impossible for the Admiralty to make this calculation? Any business undertaking in taking this course would make the necessary calculations as a matter of course.

I have nothing to add to the reply that I have given.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now considered the proposals made by the trades unions with regard to the provision of alternative work in the dockyards; if he will state the nature of these proposals; and what action he proposes to take?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now given consideration to the proposals from the trade unions concerned with regard to the provision of alternative work in the dockyards; and what reply he has made to such proposals?

The matter is still under consideration.

Are we to understand that there has been a change in the policy of providing alternative work, and that it is not now the policy of the Admiralty to provide alternative work?

I do not think the hon. Member has a right to make that suggestion.

I am asking whether it is so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what work has been given to the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham in substitution for the proposed submarine depot ship which was cancelled; and how many additional men, if any, would have been provided with work there had the construction of such submarine depot ship been proceeded with?

The principal items of work which have been given to Chatham in substitution for the proposed submarine depot ship are as follow:

(1) The construction of a sloop.

(2) The construction of a caisson.

(3) Additional naval repair work.

(4) The refits of certain oil carrying vessels.

In addition the building of a second sloop is to be undertaken shortly at that yard.

It was not the intention to enter additional men to progress the construction of the submarine depot ship.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between the cost of the work which he has just specified and the cost which would have been involved had the construction of the proposed submarine depot ship been proceeded with, particularly so far as labour is concerned.

It is quite obvious that I must have notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty tug "St. Genny," which was lost in the recent gales, and the "St. Cyrus," which went to her assistance, were supplied with Carley floats; and, if not, whether he will see, in order to prevent further calamities, that this type of craft is supplied with Carley floats in future?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part these tugs had sufficient life belts on board for everyone. Although it is improbable that Carley floats would be of much help in conditions such as prevailed in the recent gales, arrangements have already been made for the provision of them to all such vessels.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the comparable Washington standard tonnage of the cruisers of the "Hawkins" class which appear in the Navy List as being of 9,750 tons displacement?

The standard displacement corresponding to the Navy List displacement of 9,750 tons (which was the figure for these ships when designed in 1915) would be approximately 9,000 tons. Owing to modifications and additions during building and while on service, the standard displacements of the four vessels of the class are now:

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the comparable displacement tonnage, as calculated in the British Navy for ships built prior to the Washington Conference, of the 35,000-ton Washington standard battleship His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" and the 10,000-ton Washington standard cruiser His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk"?

The actual tonnage of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" under Washington standard is 33,500 tons. Her displacement tonnage as calculated in the British Navy prior to the Washington Conference is 34,600 tons. Corresponding figures for His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk" are 10,000 tons and 11,200 tons.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a reply has been received by the Admiralty from the railway companies to the in- quiry whether an extension of the present travelling concession to a single fare for the double journey can be made to Naval ratings?

The Railway Companies have replied that they regret they cannot see their way to accede to the Admiralty request.

Will the Admiralty press the railway companies to re-consider this concession, which is already granted to the general public?

The Admiralty quite recently wrote to the railway companies, and this is their reply to the letter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the introduction of compulsory general messing for petty officers and men in shore establishments, the sullage which is the property of the men can be sold for their benefit and the sum realised credited proportionately to each mess fund for disposal as messes consider desirable instead of being spent as at present by the executive officer '?

Under existing arrangements, the proceeds from the sale of sullage are expended generally for the recreation, amusement and well-being of the ratings as a whole, and it is not proposed to interfere with the local administration of these funds.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings invalided from the Royal Navy during the year let January to 31st December, 1929, and the number whose invaliding disability was considered to be attributable to service; the number of ratings invalided during the same period suffering from consumption; and the number of cases considered to be attributable to the Service?

The particulars required are as follow:

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any recognised definition of the term aircraft carrier; and whether a warship capable of flying off aircraft must always be so described?

The tern "aircraft carrier" is defined in the Washington Treaty (Command 2036/1924) as follows:

"An aircraft carrier is defined as a vessel of war with a displacement in excess of 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft. It must be so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon, and not designed, and constructed for carrying a more powerful armament than that allowed to it under Article IX or Article X as the case maybe."

Unless a warship is capable of flying on aircraft she does not come within this definition.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that cases have occurred in which the Attorney-General of Palestine has instituted proceedings in cases previously dealt with and dismissed by the courts in Palestine; will he give a list of the cases in which this power has been exercised and with what result; under what ordinance such action has been taken; and if he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the practice?

Under the Palestine Trial upon Information Ordinance, a person may be put upon his trial at the instance of the Attorney-General notwithstanding that a Magistrate has refused to commit him for trial. I am advised that the principle involved is not unknown to English law, and I see no reason to interfere with the administration of the law in Palestine. I am aware of one case of this nature that has occurred, but I am not in a position to furnish my hon. Friend with the list for which he asks.

I have not asked a question concerning cases that have been committed for trial, but as to cases which have been more than once dismissed and in one particular instance after a lapse of 12 months?

Yes, I remember the case which the hon. Member has in mind, and we have gone fully into the matter, but, as I have said, we are not prepared to interfere at the present time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that weakened confidence in the administration of justice in Palestine is a contributory factor to the unsettlement of that territory, and, if so, will he make inquiry in view of its importance?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's statement.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), whether the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance is still in force in Palestine; whether it is based upon special powers analogous to those which have been conferred upon the executive in British India from time to time; and if he will cause a copy of the ordinance to be placed in the Library;

(2), what is the number of persons who have been tried for offences arising out of the disturbances in Palestine in August last; and how many of that number have been tried under the ordinary law of the land and how many under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance, respectively?

The number of persons tried, as reported up to date, is 1,094, of whom 40 were dealt with by the Court of Criminal Assize, 200 by the District Courts and the remainder by summary jurisdiction. I cannot say how many were dealt with under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance, which is a part of the ordinary law of the land. The original ordinance was passed in 1920 prior to the assumption by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of responsibility for Palestine. It has been amended on various occasions, the last being December, 1929. I shall be happy to place a copy of this legislation in the Library of the House.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the second part of question 53?

As far as I know the real difference between similar ordinances in India and in Palestine is that in India they have a time limit and have to be renewed, whereas this ordinance is part of the permanent law of Palestine.

Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the ordinance in all other respects is similar to the Bengal ordinance for which Members of the present Government, the hon. Gentleman s own colleagues, so severely criticised the late Administration through me in the last Parliament?

No, Sir; I do not think it is the same as the Bengal ordinance. It is part of the permanent law of Palestine which is used when certain conditions arise from time to time.

I wish to give the hon. Gentleman notice that I shall put down another specific question on this point, so that we may know what is the real difference between these ordinances.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the continuation of this ordinance leads to very much unrest, in view of the fact that people can be arrested and brought to trial without having a solicitor or anyone to defend them.

I think I can get very good authority for the claim that the very opposite is the case.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of officers, petty officers and men in the Palestine police force at the time of the outbreak in August, 1929, and the composition thereof, showing the respective numbers of Christians, Arabs and Jews?

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the annual income and expenditure of the Palestine Government from 20th July, 1920, until the last year for which figures are available?

As the answer is in statistical form, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.